Monday, March 8, 2010

Seth Klarman Lessons

Must Read: Seth Klarman On The True And False Lessons From The Financial Crisis, Blasts Government Market Intervention

By Tyler Durden

Created 03/04/2010 - 22:17

Via Value Investing Insight [1]. Absolute must read for a new investing generation which really does think that this time it is different (and will not end in tears). Pay special attention to the False Lessons, which blare at you daily as the one true gospel by the likes of CNBC.

In this excerpt from his annual letter, investing great Seth Klarman describes 20 lessons from the financial crisis which, he says, "were either never learned or else were immediately forgotten by most market participants."

One might have expected that the near-death experience of most investors in 2008 would generate valuable lessons for the future. We all know about the "depression mentality" of our parents and grandparents who lived through the Great Depression. Memories of tough times colored their behavior for more than a generation, leading to limited risk taking and a sustainable base for healthy growth. Yet one year after the 2008 collapse, investors have returned to shockingly speculative behavior. One state investment board recently adopted a plan to leverage its portfolio – specifically its government and high-grade bond holdings – in an amount that could grow to 20% of its assets over the next three years. No one who was paying attention in 2008 would possibly think this is a good idea.

Below, we highlight the lessons that we believe could and should have been learned from the turmoil of 2008. Some of them are unique to the 2008 melt- down; others, which could have been drawn from general market observation over the past several decades, were certainly reinforced last year. Shockingly, virtually all of these lessons were either never learned or else were immediately forgotten by most market participants.

Twenty Investment Lessons of 2008

1. Things that have never happened before are bound to occur with some regularity. You must always be prepared for the unexpected, including sudden, sharp downward swings in markets and the economy. Whatever adverse scenario you can contemplate, reality can be far worse.

2. When excesses such as lax lending standards become widespread and persist for some time, people are lulled into a false sense of security, creating an even more dangerous situation. In some cases, excesses migrate beyond regional or national borders, raising the ante for investors and governments. These excesses will eventually end, triggering a crisis at least in proportion to the degree of the excesses. Correlations between asset classes may be surprisingly high when leverage rapidly unwinds.

3. Nowhere does it say that investors should strive to make every last dollar of potential profit; consideration of risk must never take a backseat to return. Conservative positioning entering a crisis is crucial: it enables one to maintain long-term oriented, clear thinking, and to focus on new opportunities while others are distracted or even forced to sell. Portfolio hedges must be in place before a crisis hits. One cannot reliably or affordably increase or replace hedges that are rolling off during a financial crisis.

4. Risk is not inherent in an investment; it is always relative to the price paid. Uncertainty is not the same as risk. Indeed, when great uncertainty – such as in the fall of 2008 – drives securities prices to especially low levels, they often become less risky investments.

5. Do not trust financial market risk models. Reality is always too complex to be accurately modeled. Attention to risk must be a 24/7/365 obsession, with people – not computers – assessing and reassessing the risk environment in real time. Despite the predilection of some analysts to model the financial markets using sophisticated mathematics, the markets are governed by behavioral science, not physical science.

6. Do not accept principal risk while investing short-term cash: the greedy effort to earn a few extra basis points of yield inevitably leads to the incurrence of greater risk, which increases the likelihood of losses and severe illiquidity at precisely the moment when cash is needed to cover expenses, to meet commitments, or to make compelling long-term investments.

7. The latest trade of a security creates a dangerous illusion that its market price approximates its true value. This mirage is especially dangerous during periods of market exuberance. The concept of "private market value" as an anchor to the proper valuation of a business can also be greatly skewed during ebullient times and should always be considered with a healthy degree of skepticism.

8. A broad and flexible investment approach is essential during a crisis. Opportunities can be vast, ephemeral, and dispersed through various sectors and markets. Rigid silos can be an enormous disadvantage at such times.

9. You must buy on the way down. There is far more volume on the way down than on the way back up, and far less competition among buyers. It is almost always better to be too early than too late, but you must be prepared for price markdowns on what you buy.

10. Financial innovation can be highly dangerous, though almost no one will tell you this. New financial products are typically created for sunny days and are almost never stress-tested for stormy weather. Securitization is an area that almost perfectly fits this description; markets for securitized assets such as subprime mortgages completely collapsed in 2008 and have not fully recovered. Ironically, the government is eager to restore the securitization markets back to their pre-collapse stature.

11. Ratings agencies are highly conflicted, unimaginative dupes. They are blissfully unaware of adverse selection and moral hazard. Investors should never trust them.

12. Be sure that you are well compensated for illiquidity – especially illiquidity without control – because it can create particularly high opportunity costs.

13. At equal returns, public investments are generally superior to private investments not only because they are more liquid but also because amidst distress, public markets are more likely than private ones to offer attractive opportunities to average down.

14. Beware leverage in all its forms. Borrowers – individual, corporate, or government – should always match fund their liabilities against the duration of their assets. Borrowers must always remember that capital markets can be extremely fickle, and that it is never safe to assume a maturing loan can be rolled over. Even if you are unleveraged, the leverage employed by others can drive dramatic price and valuation swings; sudden unavailability of leverage in the economy may trigger an economic downturn.

15. Many LBOs are man-made disasters. When the price paid is excessive, the equity portion of an LBO is really an out-of-the-money call option. Many fiduciaries placed large amounts of the capital under their stewardship into such options in 2006 and 2007.

16. Financial stocks are particularly risky. Banking, in particular, is a highly leveraged, extremely competitive, and challenging business. A major European bank recently announced the goal of achieving a 20% return on equity (ROE) within several years. Unfortunately, ROE is highly dependent on absolute yields, yield spreads, maintaining adequate loan loss reserves, and the amount of leverage used. What is the bank's management to do if it cannot readily get to 20%? Leverage up? Hold riskier assets? Ignore the risk of loss? In some ways, for a major fin-ancial institution even to have a ROE goal is to court disaster.

17. Having clients with a long-term orientation is crucial. Nothing else is as important to the success of an investment firm.

18. When a government official says a problem has been "contained," pay no attention.

19. The government – the ultimate short- term-oriented player – cannot withstand much pain in the economy or the financial markets. Bailouts and rescues are likely to occur, though not with sufficient predictability for investors to comfortably take advantage. The government will take enormous risks in such interventions, especially if the expenses can be conveniently deferred to the future. Some of the price-tag is in the form of back- stops and guarantees, whose cost is almost impossible to determine.

20. Almost no one will accept responsibility for his or her role in precipitating a crisis: not leveraged speculators, not willfully blind leaders of financial institutions, and certainly not regulators, government officials, ratings agencies or politicians.

Below, we itemize some of the quite different lessons investors seem to have learned as of late 2009 – false lessons, we believe. To not only learn but also effectively implement investment lessons requires a disciplined, often contrary, and long-term-oriented investment approach. It requires a resolute focus on risk aversion rather than maximizing immediate returns, as well as an understanding of history, a sense of financial market cycles, and, at times, extraordinary patience.

False Lessons

1. There are no long-term lessons – ever.

2. Bad things happen, but really bad things do not. Do buy the dips, especially the lowest quality securities when they come under pressure, because declines will quickly be reversed.

3. There is no amount of bad news that the markets cannot see past.

4. If you've just stared into the abyss, quickly forget it: the lessons of history can only hold you back.

5. Excess capacity in people, machines, or property will be quickly absorbed.

6. Markets need not be in sync with one another. Simultaneously, the bond market can be priced for sustained tough times, the equity market for a strong recovery, and gold for high inflation. Such an apparent disconnect is indefinitely sustainable.

7. In a crisis, stocks of financial companies are great investments, because the tide is bound to turn. Massive losses on bad loans and soured investments are irrelevant to value; improving trends and future prospects are what matter, regardless of whether profits will have to be used to cover loan losses and equity shortfalls for years to come.

8. The government can reasonably rely on debt ratings when it forms programs to lend money to buyers of otherwise unattractive debt instruments.

9. The government can indefinitely control both short-term and long-term interest rates.

10. The government can always rescue the markets or interfere with contract law whenever it deems convenient with little or no apparent cost. (Investors believe this now and, worse still, the government believes it as well. We are probably doomed to a lasting legacy of government tampering with financial markets and the economy, which is likely to create the mother of all moral hazards. The government is blissfully unaware of the wisdom of Friedrich Hayek: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.")

v

Friday, January 22, 2010

Is the Government Manipulating Stock Prices?

 

Written by The Growth Stock Wire - 1/22/10

After a 20-year career trading S&P 500 futures contracts on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, my friend Charlie suddenly retired last November.

"There was no way to protect yourself," Charlie said to me over lunch a couple weeks ago when I asked him about his unexpected decision. "This guy would walk into the pits and just start buying. It was unconventional. He'd buy at times when it really didn't make any sense – at least not to those of us who'd been around for a while. And he'd buy HUGE."

"It got to the point," Charlie continued, "that we'd have a bunch of our interns just watching the guy when he was off the floor. We'd know if he took a phone call. We'd know if he'd gone outside for a smoke. And we'd know if he started walking in the direction of the pit. That was our cue to start buying futures contracts ourselves – just to get in front of the guy.

"I knew it was time to retire," Charlie sighed, "when I started planning my trading day around this guy's bathroom breaks."

For the past 20 years, conspiracy theorists have engaged in stories about the "Plunge Protection Team" – a group of traders funded by the Fed whose sole purpose is to prop up the stock market. I never really bought into the argument, though. After all, an awful lot of people "in the know" have to stay quiet in order to keep the conspiracy going. And it's unlikely any group of people can maintain that sort of silence for two decades.

But Charlie's story got me thinking.

Then, last week, Charles Biderman, CEO of TrimTabs – one of the most respected and widely read financial research organizations – published a report that raised the possibility that the Fed is actively involved in boosting stock prices.

In the article, Mr. Biderman suggests it would only take $5 billion to $15 billion each month to buy enough S&P 500 futures contracts to boost the market 70%. Surely, with all the hundreds of billions of dollars used to prop up the real estate, auto, and banking industries, it's reasonable to suspect the Fed might use a few bucks to prop up stock prices, too.

At least it's something to think about.

I'm still not sure if I can completely buy into the whole conspiracy theory just yet. There is, however, one thing I do know for sure…

If the Fed has been actively engaged in manipulating stock prices higher, then it can manipulate them lower as well. You won't want to be the one left holding the bag when that happens.

Best regards and good trading,

Jeff Clark

Monday, January 18, 2010

Create $4,000,000 in Wealth

How to amass over $4,000,000 of tax free 
retirement and legacy benefits for only
5 cents
on the dollar



$100,000 College Fund at $25,000 per year for 4 years

$1,250,000 Retirement Supplement at $50,000 until age 90

$2,694,836 Legacy Benefit to Family or Charity

For more details call our 24 hr. recorded line:

1-800-929-1349

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

“The Rarest Achievement”

"The Rarest Achievement"

 

It's pretty rare to get an Olympic Gold Medal, wouldn't you say? Only 1,210 Americans have received one. It's unusual to climb Mt. Everest, too: Just 2,300 people have done that. But there's an even rarer category: The number of billionaires. No more than 1,125 people in the world can claim that distinction.

 

My friend, Bill Bartmann, did just that. Now keep in mind that this group of 1,125 people includes people who had major help along the way: Many were born with it, inherited it, or had every advantage while growing up.

 

In the history of billionaires, Bill Bartmann stands alone. He's the ONLY former homeless person and gang member ever to have made a billion dollars. That's right, Bill went from eating out of dumpsters and living under a bridge viaduct, to having after-tax, take-home pay in a single year of more than $100 million and being listed as the 25th richest person in America.

 

Here's where it gets extremely interesting: Bill is willing to coach YOU on how to succeed in business.

 

After all, what can you learn from someone whose daddy died and left him a billion? But it's totally different with Bill Bartmann: He worked in a slaughterhouse. He was an alcoholic at age 17. And at one point Bill was paralyzed from the waist down. Yet Bill discovered a DIFFERENT way of thinking and acting that enabled him to overcome all of that, and become a self-made billionaire.

 

After scaling the highest peaks in the business world and getting his fill of toys like $25 million aircraft, what's Bill up to now? He has one current passion: Showing others his special techniques for overcoming any challenge and being as successful as they want to be.

 

Do you think Bill might know a few things YOU could use to overcome your own challenges? What if you could get his thoughts on dozens of business topics?

 

Now you can. Bill is launching a one-of-a-kind online service, called his "Billionaire Business System". This is not some one-size-fits-all deal. Instead, Bill has built a mentoring tool that provides you with laser-targeted advice on many individual topics.

 

Are you already running a business but not sure what's the best way to secure financing for your next stage of growth? Bill covers that topic. Not even sure if business is right for you? Bill has a video session just about that.

 

In fact, the Billionaire Business System currently has almost two dozen topics, and is constantly growing.

 

I strongly recommend that you take a look at Bill's system and see for yourself how it can remove whatever roadblocks are in your way to greater business success. You can find it by going to: http://www.BillionaireU.com/go.aspx?AID=15285

Name me anywhere else on the planet that you can get specific, useful, and comprehensive business-building advice from a self-made billionaire? That's OK, I can't think of any, either.

 

The sooner you have Bill Bartmann in your corner, advising you on business success, the sooner you can sit back and bask in your own dreams coming true.

 

To Your Success,

 

Andre

 

P.S. The chances are really good that whatever challenges you have, Bill's been there, and found a way to overcome them. Let Bill show you how, by taking the easy step of going to

http://www.BillionaireU.com/go.aspx?AID=15285

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Poor Obama. The man is in way over his head. And what can he do? Few people understand what is going on in the economy...and none of them work for the Obama administration, as near as we can tell. The only one who seemed to be on the ball was his advisor, Paul Volcker. But Volcker got edged out by Larry Summers, a man with a long history of bad ideas on economic matters.

 

Summers is a stalwart member of that very special club - modern economists. Never has an unarmed professional group done more damage to a society than Summers and his colleagues.

 

"We cannot and will not accept any speed limit on American growth," said Summers in a 1995 speech, rejecting the idea of higher interest rates to cool speculation. By 2000, the economy with no speed limit had smashed into an abutment. But Summers never figured out what the problem was. He was too busy wrecking a great university. He went on to apply the same 'no speed limit' philosophy to Harvard, where his building program was so costly the university years will probably never recover from it.

 

Ben Bernanke gives no hint that he has any idea of what is going on either. He maintains that modern central banking can't see when economies are getting into trouble. But when they do...he knows just what to do to fix it.

 

What kind of strange GPS system is this, dear reader? It failed to tell us where we were before we ran off the cliff... But now, we're going to use it to find our way home. Good luck!

 

But who worries now? We're rolling along...convinced that trouble is behind us. Recovery is on the way; that's what the signs say.

 

But wait...

 

Joblessness at a 26-year high, and rising....

 

Consumer credit just took the biggest monthly drop ever...it's fallen 10 months in a row.

 

Nearly half of Florida's mortgages are underwater...

 

Hey...what a recovery!

 

But the stock market doesn't seem to care. Or notice.

 

The Dow rose 45 points yesterday. Investors seem to think that businesses are going to make a lot of money in the years ahead. How? How much stuff can you sell to unemployed people? But why else would investors pay 100 times earnings for a share?

 

The current price/earnings ratio is a subject of much discussion. Earnings collapsed in the depression. Prices did not. So if you look just at current earnings you come to a P/E ratio in the 100+ range. That means investors pay $100 for every dollar's worth of earnings. If they intend to earn their money back - and nothing changes - they'll wait a century to break even.

 

But earnings are expected to go up. So Robert Shiller used a 10-year moving average to compute earnings...smoothing them out to a "normal" level. Still, he says, the S&P 500 is overvalued by about 27%.

 

The point is, stocks are expensive. So, you have to wonder: what is going on? Are stock market investors really such optimists?

 

Or, is the federal government manipulating stock prices? It is spending trillions of dollars to give people the impression that things are getting back to normal. Why not spend a few billion more to manipulate stock prices?

 

We don't know. The feds have shown themselves willing to do any fool thing...but rigging the stock market? Who knows?

 

We've got to reckon with what we've got. And what we've got is a stock market that is either manipulated...or delusional.

 

Stocks could only be worth current prices if this were a normal recession. But if this were a normal recession, it would be over by now. Stocks would be moving up in anticipation of the next boom phase. But this is not a normal recession. And it hasn't come to an end. New jobs aren't being created. Consumer credit is not expanding. And the only prices that are going up are the prices subject to speculation.

 

The real reason stocks are so expensive (assuming the market isn't rigged) is that this is the beginning of a depression, not the end of one. At the beginning, people don't quite believe it.

 

"We're climbing out of a nasty recession," said a financial expert interviewed on the radio this morning. "And we're all happy to put this thing behind us as soon as possible."

 

Stocks are high because people think they can 'put this thing behind them.' They can't imagine that the depression will last for 5...10...maybe 15 more years. Nor do they realize that the US economy is permanently impaired...that the companies traded on Wall Street will have a very hard time earning profits in the years ahead...nor that the average American family may have reached the height of its wealth in 1973!

 

The disappointment will come...then the disillusionment...then the disgust...then the despair. It will be like walking down a staircase...each step heavier...deeper...and more depressing the last. And with each step, stocks will fall. Investors will begin to see things in a new way. And at the bottom, a whole new outlook will be common:

 

"America is finished as an economic power," people will say. "Incomes are going down - forever; we can't compete with the Chinese. Stocks were dreadfully overpriced; now they are cheap...but who would want to buy them?"

 

It may not happen like that. But somehow, some day...stocks will once again trade at low P/E ratios... Below 10...maybe down to 5. Then, they will be bargains.

 

How will you know when it is time to buy again? When you no longer want to.Poor Obama. The man is in way over his head. And what can he do? Few people understand what is going on in the economy...and none of them work for the Obama administration, as near as we can tell. The only one who seemed to be on the ball was his advisor, Paul Volcker. But Volcker got edged out by Larry Summers, a man with a long history of bad ideas on economic matters.

 

Summers is a stalwart member of that very special club - modern economists. Never has an unarmed professional group done more damage to a society than Summers and his colleagues.

 

"We cannot and will not accept any speed limit on American growth," said Summers in a 1995 speech, rejecting the idea of higher interest rates to cool speculation. By 2000, the economy with no speed limit had smashed into an abutment. But Summers never figured out what the problem was. He was too busy wrecking a great university. He went on to apply the same 'no speed limit' philosophy to Harvard, where his building program was so costly the university years will probably never recover from it.

 

Ben Bernanke gives no hint that he has any idea of what is going on either. He maintains that modern central banking can't see when economies are getting into trouble. But when they do...he knows just what to do to fix it.

 

What kind of strange GPS system is this, dear reader? It failed to tell us where we were before we ran off the cliff... But now, we're going to use it to find our way home. Good luck!

 

But who worries now? We're rolling along...convinced that trouble is behind us. Recovery is on the way; that's what the signs say.

 

But wait...

 

Joblessness at a 26-year high, and rising....

 

Consumer credit just took the biggest monthly drop ever...it's fallen 10 months in a row.

 

Nearly half of Florida's mortgages are underwater...

 

Hey...what a recovery!

 

But the stock market doesn't seem to care. Or notice.

 

The Dow rose 45 points yesterday. Investors seem to think that businesses are going to make a lot of money in the years ahead. How? How much stuff can you sell to unemployed people? But why else would investors pay 100 times earnings for a share?

 

The current price/earnings ratio is a subject of much discussion. Earnings collapsed in the depression. Prices did not. So if you look just at current earnings you come to a P/E ratio in the 100+ range. That means investors pay $100 for every dollar's worth of earnings. If they intend to earn their money back - and nothing changes - they'll wait a century to break even.

 

But earnings are expected to go up. So Robert Shiller used a 10-year moving average to compute earnings...smoothing them out to a "normal" level. Still, he says, the S&P 500 is overvalued by about 27%.

 

The point is, stocks are expensive. So, you have to wonder: what is going on? Are stock market investors really such optimists?

 

Or, is the federal government manipulating stock prices? It is spending trillions of dollars to give people the impression that things are getting back to normal. Why not spend a few billion more to manipulate stock prices?

 

We don't know. The feds have shown themselves willing to do any fool thing...but rigging the stock market? Who knows?

 

We've got to reckon with what we've got. And what we've got is a stock market that is either manipulated...or delusional.

 

Stocks could only be worth current prices if this were a normal recession. But if this were a normal recession, it would be over by now. Stocks would be moving up in anticipation of the next boom phase. But this is not a normal recession. And it hasn't come to an end. New jobs aren't being created. Consumer credit is not expanding. And the only prices that are going up are the prices subject to speculation.

 

The real reason stocks are so expensive (assuming the market isn't rigged) is that this is the beginning of a depression, not the end of one. At the beginning, people don't quite believe it.

 

"We're climbing out of a nasty recession," said a financial expert interviewed on the radio this morning. "And we're all happy to put this thing behind us as soon as possible."

 

Stocks are high because people think they can 'put this thing behind them.' They can't imagine that the depression will last for 5...10...maybe 15 more years. Nor do they realize that the US economy is permanently impaired...that the companies traded on Wall Street will have a very hard time earning profits in the years ahead...nor that the average American family may have reached the height of its wealth in 1973!

 

The disappointment will come...then the disillusionment...then the disgust...then the despair. It will be like walking down a staircase...each step heavier...deeper...and more depressing the last. And with each step, stocks will fall. Investors will begin to see things in a new way. And at the bottom, a whole new outlook will be common:

 

"America is finished as an economic power," people will say. "Incomes are going down - forever; we can't compete with the Chinese. Stocks were dreadfully overpriced; now they are cheap...but who would want to buy them?"

 

It may not happen like that. But somehow, some day...stocks will once again trade at low P/E ratios... Below 10...maybe down to 5. Then, they will be bargains.

 

How will you know when it is time to buy again? When you no longer want to.

Bill Bonner

The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade

The Biggest Financial Deception of the Decade

By Jeff Clark

Stowe, Vermont

 

Enron? Bear Stearns? Bernie Madoff? They're all big stories about big losses and have hurt a lot of employees and investors. But none come close to getting my vote for the decade's most dastardly deception...

 

First came Enron, with $65.5 billion in assets, going belly-up and becoming the largest bankruptcy in US history at that time. The stock went from a high of $84.63 in December 2000 to a whopping 26¢ one year later. And what had we been told by the media? Fortune magazine dubbed Enron "America's Most Innovative Company" for six consecutive years.

 

Next came WorldCom filing for bankruptcy in 2002, their assets of $103.9 billion dwarfing Enron's. Tyco, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems...also made headlines for their acts of fraud and mismanagement.

 

A few years later, Bear Stearns set us all up for the Big Meltdown of 2008. It was B.S. (no, I mean Bear Stearns) that pioneered the asset- backed securities markets, and we all know how that turned out. Later we learned that as losses mounted in 2006 and 2007, the company was actually adding to its exposure of mortgage-backed assets. With net equity of $11.1 billion supporting $395 billion in assets, Bear leveraged itself up to an astonishing 35-to-1.

 

And during it all, Bear Stearns was recognized as the "Most Admired" securities firm in a survey by Fortune magazine (there's that Lower Manhattan tabloid darling again). Frequent sightings of company executives on country club fairways assured the public that all was well. And CEO Alan Schwartz told us there was "no liquidity crisis for the firm" and insisted he "had the numbers to back it up." His company was sold four days later to JPMorgan Chase at $10 per share, a 92% loss from its $133.20 high.

 

Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank, was next and still today holds the title as the largest bankruptcy in US history. L.B. succumbed to 2007's Word of the Year, "subprime," and its $600 billion in assets all went poof! In just the first half of 2008, before the meltdown, Lehman's stock slid 73%.

 

And what did CEO Dick Fuld tell us in April of that year? "I will hurt the shorts, and that is my goal." He must have been referring to the attire of his tennis club buddies, because the ones who actually got hurt were numerous other banks, money market funds, institutions, hedge funds, REITs, brokers, private and public trusts, foundations, government agencies, foreign governments, employees, and investors.

 

Moving on to the largest US government bailout recipient by far, AIG's troubles spawned my favorite placard of the decade: seen outside their Manhattan offices stood a sign that simply read, "Jump!" Maybe its creator heard what I did from AIG's financial products head Joseph Cassano: "It is hard for us, without being flippant, to even see a scenario within any kind of realm of reason that would see us losing one dollar in any of these [credit default swap] transactions."

 

Oops!

 

Topping off our list of the infamous debacles of the decade is Bernie Made-off (er, Madoff), who scammed $65 billion over 20 years from unsuspecting institutions and wealthy investors...

 

By now you are probably wondering... What's bigger than all these debacles? He's covered the major frauds and scams of the past decade - what could possibly be left?

 

To quote my favorite sleuth, Hercule Poirot, "When all the facts are laid before me, the solution becomes inevitable."

 

Here are a few clues...

 

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on July 16, 2008, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "adequately capitalized" and "in no danger of failing." Then-Secretary Treasurer Henry Paulson declared on August 10, 2008, "We have no plans to insert money into either of those two institutions."

 

- Both Fannie and Freddie were nationalized 28 days later, on September 8, 2008.

 

Ben Bernanke claimed on February 28, 2008, "Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don't expect any serious problems of that sort among the large, internationally active banks..." Henry Paulson added on July 20, 2008, that "It's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation."

 

- Since the recession started in December, 2008, 144 banks have failed.

 

Paulson informed us on April 20, 2007, that "All the signs I look at show the housing market is at or near the bottom."

 

- The number of foreclosures skyrocketed shortly thereafter and will now any day surpass those during the Great Depression.

 

Ben Bernanke announced on June 20, 2007, that "[The sub prime fallout] will not affect the economy overall."

 

- Less than one year later, the stock market crashed, losing 53% of its value, and is still down 25% despite one of the biggest bounces in history.

 

Those in charge of our country's finances not only failed to see the crises developing and then bungled the handling of the recovery, they've deliberately misled us about what they're doing to our currency. In spite of emphatic promises, flowery speeches, pat-on-the- back assurances, and continual reassurances, here's what they've actually done to the dollar:

 

 

Since September 1, 2008, the monetary base has ballooned from $908 billion to $2.0 trillion. The current monetary base is now equal to bailing out General Motors 23 times.

Bailout funds in 2008 and 2009 total $8.1 trillion. That's almost 78 WorldComs. It's over 123 Enrons.

US debt has risen sharply, from $6.2 trillion in 2002 to $12.1 trillion today. That's over $39,000 per citizen.

David Walker, the comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office from 1998-2008, warned that the US is on the hook for $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Independent analysts peg the figure at near twice that. Whatever the number, it is incomprehensibly large. The only way we will meet these liabilities is to print the money and inflate them away.

We're bailing out corporations that should fail, making financial promises we can't keep, and adding layers of debt we can't possibly repay. And the real killer is, if we don't have the cash, we just print it. It is, by any reasonable account, the "blunder that will plunder" the next several generations. It is changing America permanently, and the problems will persist long after you and I are laid to rest.

 

Bottom line: after all the bailout programs, housing initiatives, rescue efforts, stimulus schemes, bank takeovers, wars, unemployment benefit extensions, and numerous other promises, the biggest financial deception of the decade is what the US government is doing to the dollar. Nothing else even comes close.

 

This reckless activity has spooked our foreign creditors, weakened our global standing, diluted our currency, is punishing savers and retirees, and ultimately sets us up for a level of inflation this country has never seen before.

 

Yet, what is the guardian of our economy and money telling us now?

 

"Will the Federal Reserve's actions to combat the crisis lead to higher inflation down the road? The answer is no; the Federal Reserve is committed to keeping inflation low and will be able to do so. In the near term, elevated unemployment and stable inflation expectations should keep inflation subdued, and indeed, inflation could move lower from here." (Ben Bernanke, December 7, 2009).

 

This is pure rubbish. If inflation could be controlled by just thinking stable inflation thoughts, then Ben should be able to grow a full head of hair by just thinking scalp follicle thoughts. This is so ridiculous, it's insulting.

 

Government actions make a mockery of their words; what they say and what they do are diametrically opposed. It's clear that inflation is not a question of "if," but "when."

 

Any level-headed individual has to conclude that there will be a steady - and likely accelerating - decline in the dollar's purchasing power. It's inevitable.

 

The great masses don't quite understand it yet, but they will. There will be no escape from the cold, hard slap in the face citizens will receive when a high level of inflation arrives. And when it does, it will make a mockery of any opposing viewpoint.

 

So the question before you is simple: Will you be a prepared survivor for what lies ahead, despite what our government leaders tell us, or will you be a complacent victim of the biggest financial deception of the decade?

 

For me, there's only one solution. Don't kid yourself into thinking a man-made asset will protect your purchasing power. This is the time to be overweight gold and silver. I advise letting them serve their purpose for you.

 

Regards,

 

Jeff Clark

for The Daily Reckoning

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Foggy Crystal Balls

 

 

It's a good thing that advisors aren't paid to predict the future because, well, nobody

seems to be doing a very good job of it lately. I hope you'll remember this as all the

major financial magazines come out with their yearly "Here's what will happen in 2010"

cover stories.

Reading through some back issues, we find that at this time two years ago, nobody,

anywhere, was predicting a 4th quarter meltdown in the investment markets, or the

global economy tottering on the edge of disaster. In fact, not a one of the

prognosticators seems to have realized that the U.S. economy had already fallen into a

recession.

If you read the magazine issues in early September, right before the markets suddenly

went into a 400-point free-fall in two trading days (triggered, you probably remember, by

the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the AIG bailout and the federal rescue of Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac), you realize that nobody had a clue that a storm was brewing on the

horizon. The Wall Street Journal talked confidently about Lehman's efforts to secure a

line of credit or divest some assets, and the consensus seemed to be that the damage

from the burst housing bubble had been safely contained. Postmortem articles about

the crisis show that the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury

Secretary Hank Paulson, who both watch the economic numbers DAILY, were caught

totally flat-footed.

Closer to home, in January of 2009, economists and pundits were talking about the

possibility of a sustained market drop similar to the slow investment torture the

Japanese have experienced since 1989. Kiplinger's magazine identified the people

who had been most right in their 2008 predictions and asked them what they thought

was going to happen in 2009. Not a one of them predicted what actually happened: a

dramatic rise in stock prices (the S&P 500 touched bottom on March 6 with an intraday

price of 666.79 and rose to over 1,100 currently), a sharp (albeit temporary) rise in the

dollar and an end to the economic recession--what economists are now describing as a

jobless recovery.

Here's what they actually said. David Tice, chief equity strategist for Federated

Investors, told the magazine's readers that "The dollar will decline, and it's very possible

that inflation will pick up. The S&P 500 index could easily fall to 450 or so. This will be a

longer-term decline," he added, and gave the worst advice possible for investors over

the next three quarters, saying that "Investors should be selling equities and conserving

cash."

Bob Rodriguez and Tom Atteberry, of First Pacific Advisors, confidently predicted that:

"The upturn won't come until 2010, and when it does, it will look very sluggish and

lethargic."

Economist Nouriel Roubini told Kiplinger readers: "I expect that the recession will be

very severe and that it won't be over before the end of 2009. I think there is a further

15% to 20% downside risk for global and U.S. stocks, and a further 15% to 20%

downside risk for commodity prices. So 2009 will be a year of recession and deflation."

Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, missed the appreciation of the dollar, the

dramatically low interest rates and the economic recovery--all in a couple of sentences.

"The dollar is going to resume its fall," he said, "leading to a resurgence in the bull

market in commodities. That will pierce the bubble in the bond market, causing interest

rates to go up. So we're going to be in a depressionary environment, but with rising

prices and rising interest rates. Our economy will be a mess for years and years to

come."

The worst advice was being given right at the bottom in March, when global stock prices

were about to reward patient investors with an amazing rally. Consider this evaluation

from the March 5 issue of Business Week magazine:

All told, more than $10 trillion of stock market wealth has vanished, and with it the

confidence that springs from financial security. "We are looking at a 60% to 70%

chance that this bear market is not over," says Robert D. Arnott, chairman of Research

Affiliates, a Pasadena (Calif.) firm that manages $25 billion.

The article went on to predict "more debt busts and government trial and error until

things get set right again. That could mean two more years of bouncing around and

then another six or so before the Dow is back above 14,000. Not long ago, such an

outcome would have seemed unimaginably bleak. Given the other possibilities, it

doesn't seem so bad now."

The hardest part about investing is controlling the natural urge to sell when the market

has cratered, or to buy when the market is euphoric. But that's like going to the mall

and waiting to buy until all the sales are over and prices have gone up, and then, as

soon as the store has its next 25% off sale, going back and selling whatever you

bought. Nobody would even think of doing that with their holiday gift purchases, but it's

normal behavior in the investment markets.

The unhappy truth is that nobody can foresee the future, and the investment markets

tend to be far less predictable than other areas of our lives. Like it or not, we venture

blindly forth every day, control what we can control (investment costs, taxes and

savings rates), and generally make more money in the upturns than we lose in the

downturns. Years ago, a pundit threw up his hands and said: "I don't know what the

markets will do tomorrow, or next week, or next month. But I do know, with certainty,

which direction the next 100% movement in the markets will be."

There, finally, is a prediction I can endorse.

 

© Copyright 2009, Advisor Perspectives, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Government Sachs

Larry Levin to me

show details 7:16 AM (3 hours ago)

 

 

Larry Levin's Nightly Newsletter & Trading Signals

 

Government Sachs

 

There has been a great deal of talk in blogs and some media circles recently about Goldman Sachs. The discussions have mainly centered on a few issues; the AIG swindle and the GS role, all of the ex-executives working for the government, and more recently High-Frequency Trading (HFT).

 

I ran across this article today and decided to forward it to you all. It only mentions HFT in passing. Maybe I can find more on that at another time. The total story is 8-pages long in The New York Magazine and can be found here http://nymag.com/news/business/58094/

 

On the weekend of September 12, 2008, as the financial system shuddered and appeared to be on the verge of lurching to a halt, two Goldman Sachs men, former CEO Hank Paulson and current CEO Lloyd Blankfein, huddled with other banking heads at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to consider how to stave off disaster. Bear Stearns was dead. Merrill Lynch, run by another former Goldman man, John Thain, was in desperate need of a savior. And now Lehman Brothers was on the brink. As secretary of the Treasury, Paulson asked the banks to come up with a private-funding solution for Lehman before it imploded from lack of cash. But all the banks had been scrambling for cash reserves or strategic mergers to buffer against a rapid freeze in lending. No one was able, or willing, to help. And Paulson, a free-market purist, had made one thing clear up front: The government would not bail out the firm. Lehman Brothers, a longtime Goldman rival, prepared to declare bankruptcy, ending its 158-year run on Wall Street.

 

By Sunday night, Paulson realized he had an even bigger problem: the insurance giant AIG. AIG had sold billions in credit-default swaps to several major banks, what amounted to unregulated insurance on risky subprime-mortgage investments, the very ones that were bringing down the economy.

 

Hank Paulson and then-New York Fed chief Tim Geithner called an emergency meeting for the following Monday morning at the Federal Reserve Bank, ostensibly to discuss whether a private banking syndicate could be established to save AIG-one in which Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, two of the ailing insurance giant's clients, would play prominent roles.

 

At the meeting, it was hard to discern where concerns over AIG's collapse ended and concern for Goldman Sachs began: Among the 40 or so people in attendance, Goldman Sachs was on every side of the large conference table, with "triple" the number of representatives as other banks, says another person who was there. The entourage was led by the bank's top brass: CEO Blankfein, co-chief operating officer Jon Winkelried, investment-banking head David Solomon, and its top merchant-banking executive Richard Friedman-all of whom had worked closely with Hank Paulson two years prior. By contrast, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon did not attend.

 

The Goldman domination of the meetings might not have raised eyebrows if a private solution had been forthcoming. But on Tuesday, Paulson reversed course and announced that the government would step in and save AIG, spending $85 billion in government money to buy a majority stake.

 

Of the $52 billion paid to AIG's counterparties, Goldman Sachs was the biggest recipient: $13 billion, the entire balance of its claim. The amount was surprising: Banks like Merrill Lynch that had bought credit-default swaps from failed insurers other than AIG were paid 13 cents on the dollar in deals moderated by New York 's insurance regulator. Eric Dinallo, the former New York State insurance commissioner, who was at the AIG meetings, characterizes the decision this way: AIG's counterparties, Goldman being the most prominent, "got to collect on an insurance policy without having the loss."

 

Somehow not recognizing (or perhaps not caring about) the brewing backlash, Paulson continued to appoint Goldman Sachs alumni to positions of power after the AIG decision-he named Edward C. Forst, a former head of Goldman's investment-management division, to help draft the $700 billion Toxic Asset Relief Program (of which $10 billion went to Goldman Sachs), and then Neel Kashkari, a former Goldman V.P., as the TARP manager. And of course Edward Liddy, former Goldman board member, was already serving as the new CEO of AIG. Suddenly, everywhere you looked, men who had passed through the Goldman gauntlet of loyalty and rewards were now in key positions overseeing the rescue of the financial system. The company was earning its nickname: "Government Sachs."

 

Both Rogers and Paulson (who's publishing a book this fall that will presumably attempt to justify his decisions and save his damaged legacy) have argued that the AIG decision was about saving the system as a whole, not Goldman in particular.

 

Similarly, they say, when it came to AIG, the firm was "prudent" in hedging its bets, buying credit-default swaps from Bank of America, JPMorgan, Soci?t? G?n?rale and other banks in case AIG failed to pay the money it owed Goldman-in effect, hedging its hedge against the mortgage market. Goldman Sachs had no "material exposure" to AIG, they argue. One senior executive goes so far as to suggest the firm might even have benefited from AIG's demise. "We might have done very well," he says, "but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that. Who knows?"

 

Not a single Wall Street executive I spoke with, including several Goldman Sachs alumni, believe those hedges would have survived an overall collapse of the financial system. A large loss would have been inevitable as lending evaporated, and Goldman Sachs would have struggled to shrink the company to a fraction of its size overnight. But the most glaring argument against Goldman is Goldman's own: If AIG's biggest and most important bank customer was hedged against losses in AIG, as it claims, why did the government need to pay Goldman Sachs the full $13 billion?

 

Lost in the haze of Goldman's recent record profits is the fact that the firm nearly went under even after the AIG bailout last fall. As the market continued to plunge and Goldman's stock price nose-dived, people inside the firm "were freaking out," says a former Goldman executive who maintains close ties to the company.

 

Salvation came on November 25, a few days after Goldman's stock price plunged to $52 a share, down from the year's high of $200 and the lowest price the company had seen since it went public. Again, the white knight was the government. It turned out that Goldman's conversion to a garden-variety bank-holding company offered an amazing advantage: Goldman now had access to incredibly cheap money. Exploiting its new status, Goldman became the first financial institution to sell $5 billion in government-backed bonds through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which allowed Goldman to start doing deals when the markets were at a near standstill.

 

Those FDIC notes they got were lifesaving because they couldn't issue any debt. If it had gone on another week or two, Goldman would have failed, they would have gone the way of Lehman, and you'd be talking about Lloyd the way you talk about [Lehman CEO] Dick Fuld."

 

Even Goldman alumni were struck by the company's shameless posture in ramping up the leverage again so soon after the government bailouts. "It's a statement of arrogance," says one former executive.

 

Goldman claims that there is a Chinese Wall between the advisory business and the trading business. "There are rules and laws regarding information sharing, and we scrupulously follow them," says a company spokesman.

 

But two former clients told me they had observed firsthand how Goldman traded against their interests to improve its own bottom line-one who didn't like it, the other accepting it with a shrug and saying, admiringly, that Goldman's ability to convince the world that it is a "client-oriented" business was its most masterful PR coup.

 

Goldman's profiting from this ethical gray area was exemplified by the real-estate market and the subprime-mortgage collapse: Goldman Sachs sold subprime-mortgage investments to its clients for years, but then in 2006 began trading against subprime on its own balance sheet without informing its clients, a hedge that ultimately let it profit when the real-estate market cratered. For some, this was a prescient call; for others, a glaring conflict of interest and inherently dishonest, since the firm let its clients take the fall.

 

Earlier this month, Goldman had an ex-employee arrested for allegedly stealing computer codes that could be used, as the prosecutor noted, "to manipulate markets in unfair ways." Some hedge-fund traders and financial bloggers have speculated that Goldman itself could have been using the codes for the same purpose.

 

Now attention is turning to Goldman's dominance of trading on the New York Stock Exchange-as the exchange's biggest high-speed program trader as well as a provider of liquidity to other traders-and whether that ubiquity has afforded the firm undue advantage. If Goldman's database knows nearly every trade that is about to be made, sophisticated computer codes could, theoretically, instantly execute fail-safe trades on Goldman's behalf milliseconds beforehand. This, some are insisting, is where the company is manipulating the markets and making hundreds of millions of dollars a day.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Quote Now

Monday, August 24, 2009

Fleece the Public - Protect the Banks

Larry Levin's Nightly Newsletter & Trading Signals

 

Kleptocracy Examples

 

Dear Andre,

 

In today's missive, penned by Bill Jenkins, you will read some great examples of central bank and commercial bank fraud/theft. And since this is done with the approval of Congress, one could call it further examples of Kleptocracy.

 

 

 

SAME PLAY, DIFFERENT ACTS

 

One book I recommend reading is The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It is an excellent treatment of the origin and goals of the Federal Reserve. I am surprised at the number of people who have never even heard of this book. It ought to be required reading in all civics classes - if they even teach that stuff anymore. Actually, I was shocked when a friend who I highly respect in our industry recently commented to me that he was just reading this for the first time.

 

So if you've never read it, get a copy. It's available in plenty of places online. The book is a large one, and intimidating to those who are only occasional readers. But it is well worth the effort, and a real eye-opener as to why things have played out the way they have over the last year and a half.

 

Tracing the founding of the central bank in the United States, Griffin clearly demonstrates how and why it was formed, and how it is functioning EXACTLY as planned. The Federal Reserve is not America's first attempt at a central bank, but all others were eventually shut down because they were recognized for what they really are -- an attempt to create a cartel of bankers who, with Congressional support (even though they are not a federal agency), constantly overextend themselves in the pursuit of higher and higher profits. And when the game is up, it uses its Congressional "connection" to foist the losses onto the American taxpayer.

 

It always occurs with the same themes: "Too big to fail"... or "The first domino to fall in a nationwide/worldwide catastrophe."

 

Each successive failure became more massive than the previous one, and a strategy emerged - start discussing amounts of money so big that the average citizen was simply mind-boggled by the size of them. As generations of public dis-education came home to roost, people increasingly believed that economics was the realm of governments rather than markets. And with that fallacy came the ingrained idea that money comes from the government, so it is the only entity able to create the resources to "correct" gargantuan fiscal shortfalls.

 

Of course what "everyman" missed was that the government's creation of money out of nothing simply fleeced the citizenry in the form of the hidden tax of inflation.

 

Let's take a quick and closer look at this sordid history.

 

I catalogued for you recently one of the failures of the central bank. It was purportedly established to stop market crashes and end recessions. But we have seen recessions in '53, '57, '69, '75 and '81, the crashes of '21 and '29, the Great Depression I, Black Monday in 1987 and the current lollapalooza of 2008-?

 

But one of the Fed's other foundational reasons for existence was to reduce competition from outside banks, as previously mentioned. It also planned to foster an attitude of easy lending, perpetual indebtedness and constant loan rollovers and interest charges. Then when the jig is finally up, and the indebted families, corporations or nations can no longer even afford the interest payments, the debt burden will be passed to the unsuspecting taxpayer by way of inflation.

 

Since the inception of the Fed, the game has been managed very well. Smaller banks were allowed to fail, just as they are now. This gives the appearance of "letting the market work."

 

Let's look at some of the worst of the big bailouts, just so you can see get a grasp of what has happened, what will happen and how that affects your money.

 

SAVING BAD BUSINESSES BY STEALING YOUR MONEY

 

Penn Central was the nations' leading railroad prior to 1970. And it was a pretty egregious example of how far bankers were willing to go to bilk money out of a cash cow.

 

Penn starting getting deeply into debt. Its loans were rolled over, and more money was forwarded to keep operations going, which included servicing interest on their current debt. But as things got worse, the huge banks who were in on the play, which included Continental Illinois, Chase Manhattan, Chemical Bank, Manufacturer's Hanover and First National City, agreed to continue the loans only if the banks' officers were put on the railroad's operating board.

 

So essentially, the bankers lent themselves money and were in cahoots with the whole game. Also, they were privy to information about the railroad and its stock far ahead of the public. They used this information for their own private profit as the railroad bit the dust. Public records showed that the top executives saved themselves more than $1 million dollars by the sale of stock ahead of the public. A million saved is a million earned.

 

After all the banks who were called in to support the railroad with cash funds were given complete assurance that the Fed would guarantee the loans, the bailout was a done deal. Immediately all the unionized employees of the failing enterprise were given 13.5% raises. In the end, the Fed authorized loan guarantees of $125 million.

 

This was never really intended to solve the problem, and a year later the railroad was nationalized and its passenger service became Amtrak. It is a government-run enterprise to this day and continues to operate at a massive loss... only staying open with further governmental subsidies.

 

The freight side of Penn Central became Conrail, with the government owning 85% of its stock. Fortunately it was sold in a public offering in 1987, staged an impressive comeback and operates at a profit.

 

At the same time, defense giant Lockheed was also on the edge of bankruptcy. It was $400 million in debt, and Bank of America, along with several other smaller banks, were anxious to keep the milk flowing. Eventually, they marshaled an army of interested parties and went to Washington. They claimed that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, along with suppliers and subcontractors who would be forced into bankruptcy if Lockheed were allowed to fail. So the government gave them an additional $250 billion in guarantees. That increased their total indebtedness 60%.

 

Of course, the government had a not-so-secret desire to see Lockheed pay off these debts, and the only way it could do that would be to earn more money. So the company became the chief winner of no-bid contracts and recipients of other governmental work. In the meantime, other defense contractors suffered, since they were essentially pushed out of the whole process in the rush to save Lockheed.

 

In the mid-'70s, New York City was pursuing the same path. Waste and overspending abounded in this gigantic welfare experiment. By 1975, NYC had sold so many bonds, the market was flooded with them, and there were no more lenders. Well, almost no more. Chase Manhattan and Citicorp were the banks that were benefiting the most from interest paid on these debt, but when the day finally came that interest payments were halted, both bankers and city leaders put together a caravan to Washington, D.C.

 

Same game plan: Threats of halting essential services... no firemen... no police... no garbage pickup. Rioting and anarchy in the streets. Spreading disease. In New York City? This could have international repercussions.

 

Out came the federal checkbook and draft was made for $2.3 billion, double what the city already owed. Even though there were a number of conditions placed upon the loan to balance the NYC budget and get a surplus to pay off these debts, none of them were ever honored. The city remains in debt to this day.

 

Then there was Chrysler for $1.5 billion.

 

Unity Bank, which eventually cost taxpayers just under $4.5 million.

 

Commonwealth Bank of Detroit, which enjoyed a $1.5 billion fed bailout - then was eventually sold to First Arabian Corporation, a firm funded by Saudi princes.

 

First Pennsylvania Bank was carrying $328 million in questionable loans, $16 million more than the entire stock float of the company. They received a $325 million loan from the FDIC.

 

Continental Illinois was the nations' seventh-largest bank. It had assets of $42 billion, thousands of employees around the globe and an annual income of $254 million by 1981. Unfortunately, its stellar growth was based on shaky loans to risky businesses and foreign governments who could not obtain financing anywhere else.

 

Its stock was doing wonderfully, and it was named one of the five best-managed banks in the country. But as they began to reap the risk they had sown, the worlds' first electronic bank run began. Customers were blissfully unaware, but the biggest depositors began withdrawing their funds, and the business was rumored to be in trouble. Creditors raised their interest rates to the banks and began withdrawing funds. In just four days, Continental's withdrawals were so heavy, they were forced to go to the Fed for a $3.6 billion loan to cover them. Several banks extended a 30-day line of credit, but it was of no use. Within a week, the bank's outflow ballooned to over $6 billion.

 

In the end, Continental's liabilities (including those off-book) totaled $69 billion. Only about $3 billion of that was FDIC insured. The final bailout was more complicated than I can go into here. But just know that the bank was bailed out, and the taxpayers were stuck with the bill.

 

Then comes the subprime fiasco of 2008. Notice the fact beyond debate, that the Fed did not come to the rescue of the subprime borrowers. Nope -- it rescued the banks. It was for this purpose that it was designed, and it continues in its mission today.

 

All in the name of preventing catastrophe, protecting the public and providing "liquidity" to the markets.

 

The multibillion-dollar bailout engineered last year is only chump change to what it will eventually cost the taxpayer. Protect the banks -- fleece the public.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Momentum Trading: Good or Bad

Momentum: Good or Bad?

 

 

To be sure, momentum markets are exciting, and very profitable. But they have a limited lifespan and they always end up badly. One of the most dramatic momentum runs of all time was the last six months of the Internet bubble, the period from September 1999 to March 2000. The Nasdaq rose 86.4% during the period, and it seemed as if the market would never fall again. Of course it did, and the Nasdaq Composite, despite a nifty rally since March, is still off 65% from its March 2000 peak.

Momentum is a double edged sword. When it's going your way, it feels good. The problem is that it's not going to last forever. And the damage, not to mention the hangover could both be devastating and long lasting.

As traders and investors, it's foolish to fight a strong tape. Thus, we have increased our exposure to stocks over the last few weeks, and we have several positions that are acting well.

There are no signs, at this point, that the stock market will do anything other than have an occasional moderate day or two off here and there.

We see no technical divergences to worry about too much at this point. Volume, breadth, and momentum are all headed in the right direction. And sentiment is nowhere near the total euphoria that marks major market tops.

The S & P 500 looks on course for the 1000 area, where there will be some backing and filling. Even a pullback of several days is possible there, as well as a failure of the rally. But until the 1000 area is near, there is nothing to do but stay with the trend, which is up.

The caveats are always there, external events, especially political insanity, in Washington or elsewhere, as we have listed above.

For now, the best course is to stay with the trend, and to continue to monitor events with a very cautious eye.

Read Dr. Duarte's All NEW Books "Market Timing For Dummies." and "Trading Futures For Dummies." The Trading Manuals for All Seasons. Also Available As Kindle Books

Monday, July 20, 2009

Technical Tips from Dan Gramza

 

Hello everyone, this is Dan Gramza and welcome to Gramza Market

Studies Technical Tip.

 

Well today we're going to be talking about selling rallies. Now what

does it mean when people say, "sell the rally" when you want to

get into a trade? Or they sell a pull back? Or you hear things like,

"The Trend Is Your Friend?"

 

Well we're going to explore this here in just a minute. I want to show

you the technique and I want to show you some examples of how

these markets behave in those settings.

 

I want to show you an example, but before I can talk to you too much

about this example I need to define a few things for you. First candles...

the approach that I use with Japanese candle charts, and that is what

you're looking at here, is not the standard approach. So from my

perspective,

I don't focus on patterns, I focus on behavior. If we see a green candle

that represents buying, that means that the closing price is higher than

the open. If you see a red box that represents selling it means that the

closing price is below that opening price. If you see a white line on top

that's called a shadow, I think that represents selling. If you see a

white

line on the bottom that represents buying. Now with that in mind, the

sizes

of the bodies and the shadows tell us about the degree of buying or

selling.

 

Now let's talk about this set-up here...

 

To get the rest of the tips, please visit the link below and WATCH me!

http://www.ino.com/info/36/CD3616/&dp=0&l=0&campaignid=9

MarcFaber – Great Article

Faber: Next Stimulus Will Be Worse 

 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:46 PM

By: Julie Crawshaw

Article Font Size  

 

 

Some economists think that another bubble is what's needed to get the economy moving again.

Gloom, Boom and Doom publisher Marc Faber said this is ridiculous, and that the Federal Reserve — which he holds responsible for creating the housing bubble — wants to do it all over again.

The central bank should not encourage excessive credit growth, Faber tells Moneynews.com's Dan Mangru in an exclusive interview.

Between 2000 and 2007 the total U.S. credit market debt increased at five times the rate of nominal gross domestic product.

Unfortunately, Faber said, the next bubble is already here. This time it's government spending and fiscal deficits that Faber thinks will double the government's debt during the next six years or less.

"The U.S. government is largely deranged," he said. "The private sector is the dynamic one, and that's why I object tremendously against building up fiscal deficits because (they) shift economic activity into unproductive government instead of leaving it in the private sector."

Another stimulus package would only make matters worse.

"In the Depression, they had one stimulus after another and it didn't help," Faber said. "What helped was World War II."

The problem with bubbles, Faber said, is that they only temporarily stimulate the economy.

"The whole economic expansion driven by a bubble in America has been a total disaster and has shifted wealth from the ordinary people who work … to the Wall Street elite," he said.

Nor does the government score any higher when it comes to managing inflation, which Faber thinks will reach Zimbabwe-like levels in the U.S. courtesy of the Fed's policy of keeping interest rates too low.

"The Fed, in my opinion, has zilch idea about monetary policy," Faber said.

"What they focus upon is basically core inflation, which does not include energy and food prices and the way the Fed measures inflation is highly questionable in the first place because when you measure inflation it's a basket of goods and services."

When the economy recovers, interest rates should go up because of inflationary pressures, something Faber expects the Fed won't let happen because it could cause interest payments on the government's debt to double. Those payments today are slightly below $500 billion annually.

If the global economy collapses in a deflationary spiral, those government deficits actually expand, leading to more central bank-driven monetization, Faber said. And keeping interest rates artificially low will lead to more and more inflation.

Add to all of this the expectation that health care costs will soar and jobless rates will probably continue to be high, and the economic picture becomes even gloomier.

"I think we've just gone … to the beginning of the realization that the economy may be bottoming out but not much recovery is forthcoming," Faber said.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved. 

 

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Bad Banks?

Special Report from The Daily Reckoning:

Do You Own Stock in Any of These Banks?

And what to do if the answer is YES…

The Crisis

It all started as Wall Street crumbled around him, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson claimed a $700 billion bailout was necessary to prevent financial meltdown.

When that didn't work — the Dow and S&P were each down over 18% just a week after the bailout emerged from Congress — Paulson suggested the federal government step in and prop up the banks.

Since it all began, the Feds have been pumping out billions in phantom money to shore up banks across the country. There seems to be no limit to the amount of money the government is willing print up and dump into this crisis. If this seems reasonable to you, you probably work in Washington, D.C.

The "Solution"

But will this drastic "solution" make the banks solvent again and avert a total meltdown? It's doubtful. Problems and pitfalls lurk everywhere.

Right now the banks are simply hoarding the injections of cash, in a desperate attempt to maintain liquidity. The banks are terrified of becoming insolvent.

Worst still, a wide-array of extreme oversight and regulation is right now in the works. How strong the restrictions will become is yet to be determined. The only thing that seems cut and dry is where the final accountability will rest. The answer? With taxpayers like you! Are you willing to help foot the bill?

As new details come to light each day, it becomes increasingly clear that we're staring at the very real possibility of a depression in this century. If you expected good news from the bailouts by now you should be thoroughly disappointed.

The Depression

Home sales are poised to continue plummeting, even as prices fall around the country. The U.S. unemployment rate at 8.1 percent in February is already the highest in more than 25 years.

The Dow could easily shed another 30% from its current level, as investors ditch any further effort to beat inflation and flee to the comfort of cash under the mattress.

Your first step in preparation of this potentially dire situation is to analyze what you own and why you own it.

For example, if you hold stock in any of the following five banks, you may want to reconsider your exposure. There may be another very big leg down in this continuing financial fallout. This year is shaping up to be bumpy and to require some belt-tightening, so it pays to be prepared.

Citigroup (C:NYSE)

Billions of the government bailouts have been handed out with Citigroup's name on it. Bailout after bailout, three in total, and Citigroup is still at risk of returning to a $1 stock.

The share price currently has been cut down to a tenth of its 52-week high, and much less at times. If you can believe it, since the February 27 round of government life support, taxpayers already own about 36 percent of Citigroup's common shares. That's not saying much — it may become much worse.

J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM:NYSE)

J.P. Morgan Chase has taken $25 billion from the government's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) assistance — this when over 50 million Americans own JPM shares, many through 401ks and other retirement accounts.

So, is J.P. Morgan solvent? Some estimates indicate it might have potential current derivatives losses of over $240 billion, which would far exceed its $144 billion in reserves. Could it get better? The potential future exposure looks even worse, with staggering exposure of up to $300 billion.

The Rest of the Fallout:

Goldman Sachs (GS: NYSE)

Morgan Stanley (MS: NYSE)

Bank of America (BAC:NYSE)

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America each also require a hard look if any one of those banks is a part of your portfolio. Although they have sometimes claimed to not need them, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are eating up bailout dollars without remorse — and both sit on billions of dollars in rotten debt.

Bank of America, after taking over collapsed firms such as Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch, also deserves a much closer look. The investigations into exactly how much worthless paper it holds (and who's on the hook for it) are just getting started…

It doesn't look good so far! Bank of America has over $80 billion in potential current derivatives exposure. That's below its $122 billion reserve, but it's really its total exposure is the terrifying part… greater than $200 billion!

If you own any of these stocks, you need to do some hard thinking. Do you own these banks for what they are right now — risky stocks with dubious assets and significant bad debt? Or, do you continue to hold them based on what they were once, and will likely never be again — the titans of Wall Street?

Likewise, if you own Wells Fargo (WFC:NYSE) — which recently stepped in and gobbled up struggling bank Wachovia— you owe it to yourself to pay close attention to just how bad the situation at the combined banks has really had become, It has combined reserves of over $100 billion, but its total future risks also exceed $100 billion.

The big story here is simply this: If you own banking stocks right now, you need to seriously reevaluate why you own them. Do you honestly think the fate of each may improve in the long haul? Perhaps now is the time to sell and move on? An obvious first step is to speak with your investment professional in order to begin weighing your options.

How We Can Help

The Daily Reckoning has been following the entire mess very closely, and we've been warning about the impending banking meltdown for years — long before the mainstream financial press woke up to the trouble.

Not only can you avoid the worst of the fallout starting right now, but you can also begin to gain consistent and relatively effortless profits, too. We know a simple, yet lucrative way for you to pad your portfolio against what is bound to be a trying time for our economy now and for some time into the horizon.

To uncover this great nonbanking portfolio — which actually pays you to own it — check out this extra exclusive report reserved only for Daily Reckoning readers like you.

Introducing the Single Best Way to Make Sure You'll Never Run Out of Money…

The Endless "PAYCHECK PORTFOLIO"In three simple steps, unleash a steady flow of work-free income… starting with up to 75 automatic "paychecks" deposited directly into your account. Act now or risk missing the next "payday". To access your report please CLICK HERE.

Copyright © 2009
Agora Financial, LLC and Daily Reckoning,
808 St. Paul St., Baltimore, MD 21201
All rights reserved. Information contained herein is obtained from
sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Crude Oil

Crude Oil & Energy Update - Interview with the CME Group's Joseph Ria When you hear the news reporters talk about the price of crude oil in the marketplace, they're generally talking about WTI, which is West Texas Intermediate crude oil. It's a very light, sweet crude oil and the highest grade that's out there. Crude oil is based on and priced on the amount of sulfur that's in the oil. It makes it easier or harder to refine base on the amount of sulfur. WTI being the lightest and sweetest, is the highest priced crude oil in the marketplace. It is a benchmark delivered in Cushing, Oklahoma. In benchmarks for crude oil and global pricing of crude oil, WTI probably prices about 50% of the global pricing of crude oil. Brent being basically the other pricing benchmark. There's two out there, Brent being a little of a mixture of three different grades of crude oil; BF&O, Brent 40 and Ossenberg. They're all produced in the North Sea. Please visit the link below to stream live the rest of the complimentary article from Joseph Ria. The link below will also give you exclusive access to three more video seminars and articles! http://www.ino.com/info/36/CD3616/&dp=0&l=0&campaignid=9

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Dump Your 401k

Dump Your 401k
Common Sense VS. Conventional Wisdom

 

Denver, CO - July 1, 2009 -

Americans are trapped by an economic model that treats conventional wisdom as common sense.
 
I define conventional wisdom (CW) as doing what everyone else is does and thinking what everyone else is thinks just because that is what they are doing and thinking.
 
I define common sense as simply being awake.  Common sense is paying attention to obvious realities and allowing yourself to be aware of what options and alternatives best serve you based on that reality.
 
Tax deductibility is an aspect of reality where we Americans have forsaken common sense to follow CW.  I'll explain what I mean, and then I'll give you an example.
 
CW tells us that we should contribute as much as we can to our 401(k) or its equivalent.  CW convinces us that we should at least take advantage of our employer matches in order to get the free money.
 
However, CW isn't concerned with how much we can afford.  CW doesn't provide guidelines that allow us to make informed decisions based on the common sense reality of our own lives.  Here's the case of Bob and Sally...
 
Bob and Sally have good jobs. Sally is a schoolteacher in a public system and Bob is a sales representative for a copier company.  Between them, they earn about $120,000.00 per year.
 
Sally and Bob believe they are doing the right thing by putting $10,000.00 each year into the mutual fund type investments in Bob's and Sally's defined contribution retirement plans (that includes the employer's matching contributions).
 
Since 1999, the amount in their retirement plans grew, shrank, grew again and shrank again.  They contributed $100,000.00 over the past decade and it is only worth about $98,000.00 today.
 
Their advisor wants to convince them that they should stay the course because in the long-term they will see the gains.
 
Here are other realities facing Bob and Sally that aren't apparent from the facts we've seen so far.

  • Bob drives a new SUV and Sally drive a relatively new sedan.  Both are financed.  They owe about $50,000.00 on the two cars and have payments of over $1,200.00 per month and much of that is interest.  The insurance on the cars amounts to $250.00 per month.
  • Bob and Sally each have their own credit card.  They use them to pay for vacations, purchases such as TV's and appliances, and entertainment.  They owe a balance on both credit cards.  The balance is just over $20,000.00.  The interest rate on the cards averages about 18%.  Each month they pay more than the minimum, but they tend to spend more than they pay and the balance they owe is increasing slightly each month.
  • Bob and Sally have a $400,000.00 home with a conventional thirty-year mortgage for $320,000.00 at 6% interest.  Their payment of $2,500.00 includes taxes and insurance.
  • Sally and Bob owe $32,000.00 on an equity line of credit also.  They used it to build a home-theater and finish their basement.
  • Bob and Sally also follow CW and have an emergency fund of $40,000.00 in a savings account.

From the perspective of CW, Bob and Sally look pretty normal.  However, if we deconstruct their personal economy with the sledgehammer of common sense we'll discover another way of looking at their condition that makes more sense.
 
On the first venture into awareness, we can see that Bob and Sally's total debt is $102,000.00, excluding their mortgage.  Amazingly, their debt exceeds their total investment in their retirement accounts over the past decade.  We can also recognize that it is greater than the assets that remain in their retirement accounts.  One does not have to have a degree in logic to realize that the money they borrowed ended up funding those retirement accounts.
 
Moreover, their retirement accounts earned a negative rate of return over the past decade.  Worse, the interest on the money they borrowed averaged more than ten percent each and every year.  What does that mean?  It means that the retirement accounts would have to earn much more than ten percent in the future just to catch up to and to break even with the cost of the debt that Bob and Sally used to fund the retirement accounts in the first place.
 
If common sense considers the cost of borrowed money over that same decade, the picture becomes bleaker.  Bob and Sally shelled out almost $72,000.00 in interest payments in addition to creating more debt and experiencing a negative return on their invested money.
 
When you calculate the total, Bob and Sally used $174,000.00 to build an emergency fund of $40,000.00 and put $98,000.00 in their retirement accounts.  Even though the contributions to their retirement accounts allowed them about $25,000.00 in tax savings over the same period, they still end up in a negative position.
 
How about an alternative common sense approach?

Bob and Sally could have paid $10,000.00 each year as participating whole life insurance premiums[i] instead of opting for employer matches and tax deductions.  At the end of the period, the cash value of the policies would have been about $128,000.00 - $30,000.00 more than the retirement accounts...so much for the tax deduction.
 
Here's more.  Remember the $72,000.00 Sally and Bob paid in interest to banks?  By borrowing against the cash value of their life insurance policies and repaying those loans on the same terms they would have had to repay any other lender, Bob and Sally would have redirected interest back to their own policy and reduced and/or eliminated interest payments to others.  That would have saved tens of thousands of dollars.
 
In addition, Bob and Sally put $40,000.00 aside in an emergency fund.  If they added that money to the participating whole life insurance premium, the cash value of the policy would increase to about $180,000.00.
 
Consider also that Bob and Sally do not need permission to access the money in their policies.
 
Then again, Bob and Sally pay no penalties or taxes when they borrow money from their policies.
 
Here's another coup - growth of the money in Bob and Sally's policies is tax deferred, the same as in retirement accounts.  We know that the IRS taxes the income from retirement accounts.  However, Sally and Bob, with the help of their insurance and financial advisor/guide, can receive tax-free income from their policies for life.
 
There's a whole lot more, but that's all for today...except...
 
If Bob and Sally put their money into participating whole life policies...
 

  • Both Bob and Sally would continue to drive new cars financed for about $50,000.00.  However, they would redirect the monthly payments of $1,200.00 back to their life insurance policies and would replenish the equity in those policies for use again in the future.
  • Bob and Sally would continue to have credit cards for vacations, major purchases, and entertainment.  However, the balance on the credit cards would revert to $0.00 at the end of each month, and the 18% interest rate on each card would be irrelevant. 
  • Bob and Sally's $400,000.00 home would still have a $320,000.00 conventional thirty-year mortgage at 6% with a payment of $2,500.00 including taxes and insurance.  However, in another few years, Bob and Sally would have enough money in their whole life policies to repay the mortgage and begin repaying themselves by redirecting the interest to their policies.
  • Bob and Sally would not owe $32,000.00 on an equity line of credit that they used to remodel their basement.
  • Bob and Sally would still keep about $100,000.00 cash in their policies as an emergency fund.

Conventional wisdom is not wisdom at all.
Investing in retirement plans (or anywhere else) is not saving.
 
Tax deductibility is a trap.  Don't fall in.

 

By Jeffrey Reeves MA