Adventures in Money Making

Fed + Treasury = Inflation

2009-12-15T21:09:00.000-08:00

I read an interesting article today from a commodities trader:

The following comments come from a Merrill Lynch publication today.
“To repeat our Mantra:
1) Whatever MUST happen, WILL happen.
2) In a debt crisis, inflation is the ONLY solution.
3) The FED + US Treasury can create inflation.
4) As such, there WILL be Inflation.
In this light, we will remind you that whenever you hear someone whisper to you that “It is different this time,” we urge you to grab your wallet and run. It is never truly different, only the flavor and the timing have been altered. Concurrently, we will note that “Pigs can fly, when shot out of a large enough cannon”.
As such, the ability of the FED+US Government to simultaneously print money and lower interest rates can only end in tears. If this were NOT the case, then Zimbabwe would be a paradise and the Weimar Republic would still exist.”

Commodities like gold and silver have been historic stores of wealth. Rich people understand this and use them protect themselves against inflation. You may not get rich buying gold and silver, but you will definitely retain your buying power. Investments in real estate should also do well - eventually, although its likely to do poorly in the short term.

Is Gold Too Expensive?

2009-11-29T14:41:00.001-08:00

Last week, gold prices hit nearly $1,200/oz. Most people think that this is a bubble and that gold prices are due to drop. I'm really not sure what to make of this, but I feel that in the long run (3-5 years), gold prices will keep going higher. But let me quote someone who's credibility and investing prowess far exceeds my own, Richard Russell, 85-year-old author of the Dow Theory Letters. He said:

There’s still loads of scepticism about the rising price of gold and the bull market in gold. It’s been so long since the US public (since 1971) realized gold was real Constitutional money that they don’t know what to make of the gold action. They think gold near $1,200 an ounce is expensive and they’d rather have dollar bills.

I’ve coined the phrase, ‘dollar-bugs’ for these ignorant Americans. I guess they’ll have to get educated the hard way, which means holding on to their fading Federal Reserve Notes, no matter what. As far as I’m concerned, it’s an amazing example of mass brainwashing. ‘Hey, I’d rather have junk paper turned out by the Fed than the real thing - gold.’ Pathetic. And the happy thought is that you can (legally) still swap your junk fiat paper for gold.

What do you guys think?

If I had to make a recommendation today, I'd rather buy silver than gold - but I'm still holding on to my gold coins right now.

What Grows Faster Than Than Inflation?

2009-09-12T20:58:00.000-07:00

If we knew what would grow faster than inflation, we all could just plonk our retirement money in it and be assured of safe leisurely life in our old age. So what has been proven to grow faster than inflation over the past century without fail?

Government Spending! According to the Privateer, "In 1909, the US federal government had an annual budget of $US 0.8 Billion. With this it governed a population of just over 90 million people. The cost of government was about $9 per capita. In 2009, the US federal government has an annual budget of $US 3,550 Billion. With this it governs a population of just over 300 million people. That's a cost of about $11,675 per capita."

Now if there was only some way to invest in government spending, we'd all be rich!

Another fact is that you could buy an ounce of silver for a dollar. Now it'll cost you over $17! Are you going to wait until its over $50/ounce before you start buying? For an interesting read check out Why $1,000 Gold is Now Significant

Hiring Mercenaries To Run Public Companies

2009-08-20T00:08:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting article about how CEOs today don't have a stake in the companies they manage. Since they don't have a stake and are only focused on their take-home salary their interests are not aligned with those of the shareholders.

Over the past few decades the spread between the salaries of the lowest paid employees and the C-level employees has been growing further and further apart. It's as if we're just hiring mercenaries to run the companies.

Follow the Scent
By Chris Mayer

I often think of good investing as the accumulation of small advantages. You want as many of these advantages working for you as possible. So here is one that a lot of investors don't pay any attention to -- insider ownership -- and it turns out that it has a big effect on returns over time.

A new paper by Ulf von Lilienfeld-Toal and Stefan Ruenzi states: "Firms in which the CEO voluntarily holds a nontrivial fraction of the company's stock outperform the market significantly…. The effect is most pronounced among firms that are characterized by large managerial discretion of the CEO."

They go on to conclude:

"We find that value-weighted portfolios consisting of S&P 500 stocks in which the CEO holds more than 5% or 10% of the firm's outstanding shares generate statistically and economically significant abnormal returns of 9.2% p.a. and 13.0 percent per annum, respectively. For S&P 1500 firms, the effect is only slightly smaller, with abnormal returns of 8.5% per annum and 12.1% per annum, for a 5% and 10% cutoff for managerial ownership, respectively."

One of the many problems with today's market is the fact that the people running companies are not owners. A typical American CEO owns hardly any of the company he runs. Whatever shares he has he gets through stock options, which he does not pay for. In addition, he gets paid an enormous sum of money in salary and bonus.

I read proxy statements. Very few do. Most investors probably don't even know what one looks like, which is a shame. And it explains why corporate execs lavish so freely on themselves. The owners aren't paying attention.

Anyway, proxy statements reveal to you the compensation of the management team and directors. It also shows you how many shares each of them owns. I'm always amazed at what some of these guys make. And I always get a little annoyed when I see how little they have at risk in their own firms.

There was a time when this situation would not have been tolerated. There is a quote from Frederick Lewis Allen that I like, which I reprinted in my book Invest Like a Dealmaker:

"In 1900, capitalism was capitalism indeed. Businesses were run by their owners, the people who had put or had acquired capital with which to finance them… It would seem wildly irrational that a man should manage the destinies of a corporation while owning only a minute fraction of the stock, as so frequently happens today."

After I listen to some presentation by a CEO telling me how great his stock is, I always wonder to myself: "Then why don't you buy shares?" I never come up with a good answer. If a guy is gonna get all gung-ho on his stock, yet he doesn't own any, then I’ve got a beef with him.

It is true that in our aging modern industrial society, it is hard for a CEO to own a large percentage of some of our multibillion- dollar corporations. But he should own enough relative to his own salary and net worth that it makes him sweat. And he should buy shares out of pocket, and not have shares handed to him for free.

Intuitively, I've long believed that companies with insider ownership do better. I agree with the old money manager Martin Sosnoff, who once observed, “My experience as a money manager suggests that entrepreneurial instinct equates with sizable equity ownership."

Often, the most creative and value-creating moves are made by management teams who own shares. Conversely, the stupid and value- destroying moves are often made by managers who don't own shares.

Thoughts like this are what led me to include "owner-operators" among what I look for when investing in a stock. Most of the stocks I have recommended over the years have had significant insider ownership. The people running the companies have their money at risk just like us.

It doesn't mean that every stock with high insider ownership outperforms. It means that as a group, these stocks have done better than those with little insider ownership.

This trait is something to look for when investing in stocks.

Can't Find A Job? Sue Your College!

2009-08-02T23:05:00.000-07:00

It had to happen sooner or later. Well, it finally happened!

Jobless graduate sues her college

A New York woman who says she cannot find a job is suing the college where she obtained a bachelor's degree, the New York Post reports.

Trina Thompson, 27, filed a lawsuit last week against Monroe College in Bronx Supreme Court.

She is seeking to recover $70,000 (£42,000) she spent on tuition to get her information technology degree.

The ex-student, who received her degree in April, says the college's Office of Career Advancement did not provide her with the leads and career advice it had promised.

What about all those guys who got liberal arts degrees and haven't been able to find jobs for years? Maybe they start a class action lawsuit!

Maybe Trina will sue her student loan lender next.

The Little Old Lady School Of Applied Economics

2009-06-22T00:36:00.000-07:00

Someone sent me a very interesting letter from Bedlam Asset Management, quite an apt name given the economic situation over the past 2 years. Read it and you'll want to go out and buy gold coins!

Depending on where you live and how much you earn, so in the last five weeks you have seen a significant seasonal event, un-remarked as usual. This was the day when employees and employers alike have been allowed to earn some money. For until that day, everything you have earned this year has gone to the government by way of taxes. Now, and for the rest of the year, what you earn you can keep. It is odd that in modern times even the poorest members of society must, for at least the first 20 weeks of each year, work whilst all the income from their labour is appropriated by their rulers. Delightfully it’s even more backwards than the feudal Middle Ages, because then at least the serfs were fed and housed for free - but apparently, this is progress.

Today’s modern feudal treasurers have different problems. For in the small hours of the night, tucked up in their silk covered beds and away from the prying eyes of subservient apparatchiks, chancellors and central bankers writhe in their sleep with recurring night terrors. Occasionally murmuring of forbidden love, their ecstasy is crushed by more frequent groans of utter despair. For their subconscious reminds them that what they most crave they can never have and they are doomed to failure.

The history of money

Pre-history, when homo cave-potato decided he’d rather buy a club than make one, he needed a medium of exchange, and thus experimented with various forms of money including furs, cowrie shells, very large stones with holes in the middle, iron bars and blocks of salt. Each was unsuccessful; so early society soon settled on gold as the most practical medium of exchange, substituting it where supplies were limited, or when paying junior staff, with cheaper metals such as silver and copper. Although paper money has a long history, it was always explicitly understood that banknotes could be exchanged for something more tangible.

Since 1855 the Bank of England has been writing a now historically ironic promise “to pay the bearer on demand….. [in gold]”, even though any payment ceased in 1931. (This confusion is compounded by the fact that the ‘pound sterling’ refers to a weight in silver.)

Almost all countries produce coins which look as if they are made from silver and copper to give them credibility. Early bankers soon worked out that not everyone would want to cash in these IOUs at the same time, so began issuing more notes than were actually backed by physical gold.

Occasionally these ruses were found out, hence bank crashes; but as a global system it worked pretty well until 1913, when restrictions were imposed. Rather than cause a savings panic amongst the newly-monied middle classes, the system was replaced with a “let’s pretend” gold standard, which allowed for intra-government transfers of gold between debtor and creditor nations. This scheme limped along between major nations until July 1944 when, as a result of record wartime paper money printing, it too collapsed, to be replaced by the Bretton Woods Agreement. Now all currencies would be fixed, forever, at an agreed exchange rate to the dollar, which in turn was initially backed by physical gold held in Fort Knox, Kentucky and valued at $35 an ounce.

There is an excess of turgid financial books on this. The facts are really pretty simple.

This scheme survived for an even shorter period, collapsing in 1971 when France’s Général de Gaulle, again in wartime (Vietnam) decided to cash in the excess dollars France had accumulated, in return for America’s gold. This did not run at all well in Washington.

America decided to renege on the agreement (in practice a form of sovereign default).
The next permanent solution was ‘fiat money’, i.e. paper backed by nothing at all. At the core of this structure were the beliefs that (largely elected) politicians would be prudent economic stewards and if necessary could pay any financial obligations through taxing their local populations. The immutable fact about fiat money is that, over time, all paper currencies become worthless. Hence the mighty dollar today buys the same as 3.8 cents in 1900. Sterling is worse, the Swiss franc best, losing only four-fifths of its value in the same period.

The history of gold

Up until 1913, gold could be owned by anyone. Credit availability then was far more limited than now and inflation was self-correcting. So there were few reasons why its price should have varied much, and it didn’t, even when supply surged from new gold fields in the Americas, South Africa and Australia. It was a true store of value – a key purpose of money.

From 1913 onwards, private ownership became more and more difficult. The price was increasingly controlled by various arrangements fixed by a handful of central banks. The collapse of Bretton Woods removed the old $35 per oz. price cap which was then largely set by the free market. As a consequence, central bankers suffered a decade of near panic; for their populations immediately and very rudely showed an utter contempt for their politicians and financial authorities by increasingly referring to own gold rather than the local funny money. Naked emperors do not like being figures of fun, so quietly agreed to regain control of the price. These various changes included taxing gold purchases, making its ownership illegal and, most important of all, prolonged and increasingly co-ordinated attempts to force the price down.

Thus, leaving aside ancient history, unlike all other commodities and currencies gold has only had one full cycle. Once freed in 1971, the price soared to a peak of $832 in 1980 and was then slowly brought back under central control at the turn of the century. A return to suppressing the price worked in part because of unprecedented international co-operation, and more because “new” forms of credit creation seemingly made gold’s monetary role as irrelevant. The collapse of this new credit paradigm in 2008 means it too has become history. Funny money has joined the cowrie shell and large rock with a hole in the middle as socially interesting but failed experiments.

A new cycle begins

May 7th 1999 is a day that Britain’s current “Prime Minister” (the real power is a recent appointee to the House of Lords) would choose to forget. As a truly awful market trader, he widely broadcast his intentions to sell over half Britain’s gold reserves. In the next three years, 400 tonnes were sold between $256 and $296, leaving a mere 315 tonnes. The money raised was about $3.5 billion; its value today would be $12 billion.

Less-widely publicized than his astonishing naivety is that heavy selling of gold by central banks was also a fashionable, pan-European phenomenon. They have dumped nearly 4,000 tonnes in the last decade. Countries as diverse as France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal and Italy also bought into a novel theory that central banks could be great currency traders and investors. This new idea was not led by Mr Brown at all but surprisingly, the Swiss National Bank. Since 1999 it has sold 1,550 tonnes. In each case it is impossible to prove whether the proceeds of gold
sales actually produced a better return than continuing to hold its reserves against a crisis. In the case of the Swiss, the difference between sales proceeds and today’s price is about $22bn (a ‘loss’ of over $3,000 per yodeller); or to put it into another context, the amount received is about half the direct cash injections, write downs and capital raised by the single Swiss Bank UBS in the last 18 months. So empirically the money has not been well used.

The implication is that, in Switzerland and across Europe, there has been a very high opportunity cost. Slowly realising in 2004 how dumb they were all looking, fourteen of Europe’s central banks agreed a structure to limit how much of their gold reserves each could sell annually (the Central Bank Gold Agreement). With the usual clarity of hindsight, these sales signalled the last hurrah and the failure of a prolonged period of deliberately trying to distort the gold market.

Do as I say, not as I do

Even so, gold still accounts for 60% of Europe’s reserves. Yet the developing world -
suffering a post colonial inferiority complex - saw what their one-time masters were doing, so also eschewed gold. Thus it accounts for only 11% of their reserves. Meanwhile America (which years earlier had already given a strong hint of what it really believed about gold, by reneging on its IOUs to Général de Gaulle), still has 8,133 tonnes. This accounts for 79% of its reserves. For all the central bank learned papers and propaganda¹ that gold should play no meaningful part in national reserves policy, most developed western countries have steadfastly maintained gold at the core of their reserve systems, but the absolute and relative size of these reserves has shrunk considerably. In contrast, the size of reserves in Asian countries has grown like smoke, to the extent that just six ‘countries’² – China, Japan, Taiwan,
South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore - now account for over half of the world’s estimated $7 trillion of reserves. Of these, 66% is held in dollars, about three times greater than that held in euros; the yen and sterling each account for less than 1.5%.

Given that the US remains by far the world’s largest economy and trading partner, and as most commodities are priced in dollars, there is logic to this. Yet there are two flaws to a fiat money, dollar-based reserve system. The first is that, whatever American leaders may occasionally say to placate their allies, both the government and population have almost no interest in the dollar exchange rate against any other currency. As an economy which at a pinch could (apart from oil) be almost entirely self-contained, this too is logical. The second flaw is that, also at a pinch, America could longer term be entirely self funding.

The recent implosion of the international banking system has led to all governments printing money at a record rate. The balance sheet of America’s Federal Reserve has increased by over a trillion dollars since the end of 2007. The target for this year’s budget deficit is $1.2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a return to a budget surplus in 2019 (one underlying assumption is there will be no further recessions) and that by then, Federal debt will have increased from the current $11 trillion to $21 trillion. This excludes worrisome state (i.e. California) and local (such as school boards) budget deficits. The money printing is by any standard off the scale; one way to put this in context perhaps is that in ten years time, on official - thus optimistic - forecasts, America’s Federal debt will be $3,000 for every person
alive in the world today. Not that America is the worst, it’s just the biggest. That whacky Silvio in Italy has a far greater problem, as does the UK.

Central bankers know of course that all currencies eventually become worthless – it is one of their night terrors - but they prefer it does not happen too visibly or quickly on their watch. Moreover, as most had bought into the mantra of Europe’s industrialised countries that “gold is for girls and wimps” (despite ensuring most of their own reserves remain in that metal), they are embarrassingly naked. Of China’s vast, nearly $2 trillion, foreign exchange reserves, a mere 2% is in gold. China is now in a dollar trap of its own making.

If it seeks to reduce its estimated $1.5 trillion of reserves in dollars (mostly in government bonds) the price will collapse. Worse still, unless it picks up its ‘share’ of newly minted American bonds the price will also collapse.

This explains China’s sudden interest in, and many pronouncements on the international financial system, as well as the lifting of the veil of secrecy over its own reserves. Until this year, it had not commented on these in detail for the previous six. Now its Premier and central bank Governor have become almost garrulous; suggestions have included that the world should establish a new financial order, including perhaps the use of SDRs, lecturing US administration on fiscal prudence and curiously, threatening America that it might diversify and thus collapse the American bond market. (The equivalent of trying to mug someone with a stick of damp spaghetti). This threat included the sudden announcement that its gold reserves – last reported at 600 tonnes in 2003 - have since increased to 1,054 tonnes making it
no. 5 in the world after Italy, and showing it could diversify if America refuses to listen. (There may also be a sub-plot; as the new kid on the block, it could be expected that China wants to be close to the US over time in the absolute level of its gold reserves.)

The dollar dummies

Yet for all the current uncertainty and noise, China and the other large, and largely Asian, holders of foreign currency reserves (or ‘dollar suckers’) have already worked out that they must diversify away from their giant dollar holdings, although they remain uncertain as to how. Their problem is size. Supposing China was to buy all this year’s new mine supply, estimated at 2,500 tonnes. Leaving aside that such action would cause the price to soar, one tonne is worth approximately $30 million at $950 per ounce - so this would ‘only’ cost $75 billion, less than 5% of China’s reserves. It could buy all its oil requirements for the next six months. That would only absorb 8% of reserves. Other Asian countries suffering a similar squeeze have tried other routes: South Korea attempted to buy an area of farm land in Madagascar larger than Wales, until international political and ecological shrieks forced it to withdraw; Singapore’s Temasek (not officially part of the country’s reserve system) made such disastrous forays into buying large blocks of shares, that last year the value of its funds fell by 47% (although it has since clawed some back).

On a much smaller scale, China has also been trying foreign investment and larger political/infrastructure development in Africa, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. For all the lack of success with these various experiments, the diversification urge will not stop. Moreover, some new policies are becoming clearer. It appears China will look to buy almost all its domestically produced gold production, a pattern which others may follow. From recently being a minnow in the sector, China is now the world’s largest gold producer, outstripping South Africa, Australia or Brazil.

Last year, the world’s central banks sold a mere 246 tonnes of gold, the smallest quantity in over a decade. These sellers were mostly Europeans, for the rest of the world’s central banks were net buyers of gold for the first time in 15 years. Under the various central selling agreements, the latest of which will probably commence in September this year, it is becoming clear that, as these banks watch their own paper money being printed at a breakneck speed and observe their neighbours doing the same, they have become keener to hang onto what gold they still have. Given that, since 1977, Europe’s central banks have been eager to hold the gold price down, their absence as the price fixer is a major change.

An absence of sellers?

There are an estimated 30,000 tonnes of gold above the ground in reserves. No-one has any serious notion of how much else there is elsewhere, on fingers, in teeth, in jewellery or coins and bars. Estimates for the total amount of gold ever mined vary between 250,000 to 350,000 tonnes, of which a significant portion will have been lost (buried hoards, at sea etc.). More recently, individuals have been the net accumulators, central banks the sellers. What exists above the ground is far more important than mine supply, which is likely to remain in a gradual downtrend. Current annual production of around 2,500 tonnes is down by over a third on peak levels of the 1970s and unlikely to rise much. Perhaps new giant deposits will one
day be found but meanwhile, gold mining is becoming more expensive, deeper and more difficult. Thus the only realistic sources of new supply can be America, the IMF or the ECB.

For the US, policy has long been blindingly clear: do nothing. Hence reserves (America has the largest gold backed reserves in the world, albeit small in relation to the size of the economy) have remained unchanged. It is unlikely Congress will allow any change. The IMF has notional control of 3,412 tonnes, of which 400 tonnes is due to be sold this year. Of all major international bodies, the IMF has the greatest, almost visceral loathing of gold, preferring its own whacky SDRs instead. These are the ultimate funny money, being a fiat currency based on a basket of other fiat currencies.

Yet the IMF too may be chary of significant official sales because of its earlier failure.
Between 1976 and 1980 “in a bid to reduce the role of gold in the international monetary system” it sold 1,600 tonnes. About half of this was at the official SDR35 price (about $58) back to underlying central bank owners. (This is so dumb: the ‘Brownian notion’ of prudent finances to an absurd extreme; the market price varied between two and 24 times greater).

The other half was sold through a series of public auctions, initially 150,000 ounces per month rising to a peak of over 850,000. The policy of turning up supply was a poker game, trying to scare the market into believing that demand would be crushed. Yet as supply increased arithmetically, the amount bid for increased geometrically. It actually created a fire storm in the gold market, moving the price from $103 to $832. As abject failures in market interventions go, the IMF was the clear winner. Thus it would be loath to do so again; and it has another problem. The IMF does not own all the gold it holds; it belongs to its member states, which have pledged it to the IMF and could unpledge or replace with paper money. As already mentioned, most members are developing a marked propensity not to sell any more gold. The third potential source is the ECB or its member countries; many are the same nations with egg all over their faces which have been the vanguard of selling a substantial proportion of their reserves at much lower prices. That leaves only Germany (No. 2 gold owner in the world with 3,412 tonnes, 72% of reserves), noticeable only for the government’s inability to agree how much to sell, or what to do with the proceeds. As important, the Bundesbank has always been a reluctant seller of significant quantities of the nation’s gold because of its Weimar hyperinflation history.

Conclusions

Four decades on from a financial experiment with fiat money, the evidence suggests it is failing. Although governments will continue with the current system, relying on their ability to tax future generations, poor demographics alone in all advanced nations mean the odds that the current fiat money regime will survive unchanged for long are worsening. As suggested in previous reports, change may be driven by this recession, followed by years of stop-go economic activity and a series of sovereign defaults – which are normal. The largest central banks have doubled or tripled their balance sheets in the last 15 months. This is an explosion in fiat money. Giant budget deficits and rising unemployment ensure that government money creation will remain explosive for the foreseeable future. These problems are exacerbated by a variety of new events, for instance Asia’s reserve diversification programmes and the marked reluctance of historic sellers to reduce their holdings further. It is simple school economics that a very finite supply of one form of money will respond to an
almost fission-like increase in the supply of other forms of money, such as the amount of dollars, yen or euros in circulation.

It is very easy to make a case that the gold price could enjoy or suffer (depending on your point of view) an explosive run. Given all economies (and businesses) are cyclical, then it is axiomatic that over time they will also revert to the mean. Therefore it can be expected that not just central banks, but also commercial banks and other financial institutions will revert to earlier policies of the 1970s and ‘80s – of holding a proportion of their ‘core’ capital in gold. (Bedlam has 10% of its balance sheet there already, and 10% -12% of all client portfolios are in gold shares.) Governments could try to prevent wider gold ownership as before, but new
forms of ownership - such as gold ETFs - make it difficult to do so unless all leading nations agree simultaneously.

We have commenced only the second gold cycle under fiat money. Whether it has actually peaked already, or will shortly double, we can only divine by looking at chickens’ entrails or throwing our rune-sticks. We use an average price of $850 per ounce in 2010 when valuing gold shares, as that is prudent, yet our damp rabbit’s foot hints at a much higher price before the end of 2010 because the triggers are already in place: the absence of meaningful new mine supply, the cessation of central bank sales, explosive growth in money supply and of course, rising political uncertainty, which is the Siamese twin of recessions. Top economic schools used to train their pupils to sneer at little old ladies who kept their savings in gold coins in a
sock rather than trusting national banks. Today it is clear which group are the financial dimwits; perhaps an inherent understanding of cycles can only be learned through longevity. We subscribe to the little old lady school of applied economics. We are therefore certain that central bankers’ nightmares will worsen as their paper currencies devalue against the most trusted store of value, and in bed, the thing they secretly lust after.

Regards
Bedlam Asset Management plc

This is buy far one of the most interesting emails I've received in a long time. Please keep them coming!

The Biggest Crashes In History

2009-06-13T19:28:00.000-07:00

According Bill Bonner:

We've seen the biggest stock crash in history...
..the biggest property crash in history...
..the biggest deficits in history (four times the previous record!)...
..the biggest bailouts in history (we can't even count that high)...
..the biggest bankruptcies in history...
..the auto industry and the finance industry have been largely nationalized...
..the president of the United States of America is now making financial decisions for formerly private industries...
What's left to see?
Oh yes...the depression...and hyperinflation.

Hope you guys are protecting yourself by buying real assets, shorting long-term bonds and buy gold coins.

Bond Prices Spike

2009-05-29T14:51:00.000-07:00

I entered a paired trade in February where I went long short-term corporate bonds and shorted long-term government bonds. This has been doing pretty well so far. Over the past two days however, Treasuries have spiked. Ouch! Check out this interesting article about treasury prices in the latest issue of Barrons.

Treasury Yields Leap to Fair Value
By RANDALL W. FORSYTH

THIS HAS BEEN THE WORST TREASURY bond market ever, at least by some measures. Yet, the reasons aren't what you hear from the Howard Beale-style rants from Chicago futures pits.

While there are legitimate reasons for concern about the Treasury's trillion-dollar borrowing needs, the reluctance of creditor nations to accommodate them and the Federal Reserve's money printing, the recent back-up in yields largely reflects other, less fundamental reasons.

From a hair over 2% at the beginning of the year, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield surged to a high of 3.70% Wednesday. And the 30-year long bond vaulted more than two full percentage points from their December lows to 4.63% Wednesday.

That doesn't sound like much except to bond geeks, but in price terms, the iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond exchange-traded fund (ticker: TLT) lost 25% of its value over that time. That was nearly as big as the plunge in Dow Jones Industrial Average from the turn of the year to its early March lows.

What's extraordinary is that this jump in long-term bond yields came as the Fed pinned its federal-funds rate target at close to zero. Other back-ups in bond yields came when the market anticipated future hikes in the overnight rate, but the Fed has made it clear it will hold its funds rate target at virtually nil for as long as it takes to jump-start the economy.

Moreover, on March 18, the central bank said it would buy an additional $1 trillion of U.S. agency debt, agency mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries to push longer-term rates down to lower borrowing costs, in particular on mortgages.

That clearly hasn't happened; just the opposite. The Treasury yield curve (typically described as the difference between the two- and 10-year note) steepened to a record 2.77 percentage points Wednesday, according to Stone & McCarthy Research Associates.

Part of the back-up reflects the low absolute level of rates earlier this year. Indeed, 10-year Treasury notes yielding only 2% -- as they were around the turn of the year—were attractive only relative to other assets that were collapsing under fear of an economic apocalypse.

With disaster averted and the sighting of the so-called green shoots of growth, stocks had a bungee-jump rebound from their previous nosedive. And low-yielding Treasury notes, which were clutched as life preservers in the storm, were cast off.

But, contends Lacy Hunt, chief economist of Hoisington Investment Management, an Austin, Texas, manager of $4 billion in assets, "The sharp rise in Treasury yields is not a result of an economic recovery. That occurs when income, production, employment and sales, simultaneously, turn higher. Presently, these indicators merely show a lessened rate of decline."

Nor can the burgeoning Treasury borrowing needs fully account for the rise in yield. The ratio of government debt to gross domestic product showed massive increases in the U.S. during the 1930s and 1940s and in Japan since the 1990s, yet yields continued to decline. Indeed, Hunt argues, the shift in productive resources to the government sector from the private sector doesn't stimulate but stymies economic growth.

Finally, the Fed's expansion of its balance sheet doesn't translate into monetary stimulus if the liquidity merely increases excess reserves in the banking system or increases sterile holdings of money balances. Bank credit continues to contract sharply, Hunt points out.

So, what's to account for the sharp rise in Treasury bond yields? Blame it on the intricacies of the mortgage market.

There's a reason that Wall Street hired "rocket scientists" with math PhDs to analyze mortgages. The ability of homeowners to pay off home loans with little or no penalty makes them devilishly difficult to figure out, unlike bonds that commit the borrower to a fixed repayment schedule. Obviously, homeowners will repay or refinance when it's most advantageous for them, which is the worst time for investors in mortgages.

To offset this problem, they hedge with noncallable Treasuries -- buying when they brace for a wave of refinancings and selling when rates rise. Refinancings leave investors with short-term securities when rates fall—exactly what they don't want. Conversely, rising rates encourage homeowners to hang onto their low-cost loans, resulting in the lengthening of the maturity for investors -- again, the last thing they want..

While mortgage investors previously had bought non-callable Treasuries to offset the risk of their mortgages, mortgage investors have unwound that hedge, selling their Treasuries.

This sounds like so much inside baseball but it amounts to huge sums. According to an estimate by mortgage-securities-market veteran Alan Boyce, writing for Drobny Global Advisors, these hedge sales are equivalent to issuance of $1.1 trillion (with a "T") of 10-year Treasury notes, compared to expected sales of $250 billion of that maturity this year.

Clearly, Treasuries were in a bubble when they yielded just 2% for 10 years. Technical factors have nearly doubled that yield from the lows, but not fundamentals -- which still reflect a recessionary economy and debt deflation. As a result, Treasuries are back to fair value for these conditions.

Must Read: You Should Be Petrified

2009-05-15T12:18:00.000-07:00

Great video from Howard Davidowitz. He doesn't hold back any punches. If you can't check out the video, which I highly recommend, then here's a brief summary:

The green shoots story took a bit of hit this week between data on April retail sales, weekly jobless claims and foreclosures. But the whole concept of the economy finding its footing was "preposterous" to begin with, says Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates.

"We're in a complete mess and the consumer is smart enough to know it," says Davidowitz, whose firm does consulting for the retail industry. "If the consumer isn't petrified, he or she is a damn fool."

Davidowitz, who is nothing if not opinionated (and colorful), paints a very grim picture: "The worst is yet to come with consumers and banks," he says. "This country is going into a 10-year decline. Living standards will never be the same."

This outlook is based on the following main points:

With the unemployment rate rising into double digits - and that's not counting the millions of "underemployed" Americans - consumers are hitting the breaks, which is having a huge impact, given consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.
Rising unemployment and the $8 trillion negative wealth effect of housing mean more Americans will default on not just mortgages but student loans and auto loans and credit card debt.
More consumer loan defaults will hit banks, which are also threatened by what Davidowitz calls a "depression" in commercial real estate, noting the recent bankruptcy of General Growth Properties and distressed sales by Developers Diversified and other REITs.

As for all the hullabaloo about the stress tests, he says they were a sham and part of a "con game to get private money to finance these institutions because [Treasury] can't get more money from Congress. It's the ‘greater fool' theory."

"We're now in Barack Obama's world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy and we're bailing everyone out," says Daviowitz, who opposes bailouts for financials and automakers alike. "The bailout money is in the sewer and gone."

The Story of TARP Wife

2009-04-25T16:20:00.000-07:00

In sharp contrast to the post of on Toxic Wives, is a story about a TARP wife.

Confessions of a TARP Wife

Forget the opera. Cancel dinner at Bouley. How life has changed since my CEO husband went on the government dole.

I am a TARP wife.

In keeping with the unwritten code of this new sisterhood, I have taken a vow of financial abstinence. I returned the presents my husband gave me for Christmas (but didn't tell him, since he's already awash in gloom) and am using my credit balances at all the major department stores for important gifts and other necessities.

I haven't even looked at spring clothes; God forbid someone catches me out in something new. Keeping up with fashion seems somehow decadent in this new era, like getting Botox injections or catered dinners. Like so many others, I'm shopping in my closet. I've bought exactly two things this year -- makeup and panty hose. If I buy a present for someone, I have the package sent to their home. I don't want to be spotted climbing into a taxi, laden with Bergdorf Goodman shopping bags.

As you can see, being a TARP wife means, in short, making decisions according to a complex algorithm: balancing the need to look like your world hasn't crumbled beneath you -- let's not alarm the investors! -- with the need to appear duly repentant for your subprime sins. It also means we're part of the community of more than 400 companies that have received government bailout funds, whose fall from grace has been swifter and harsher than any since Mao frog-marched intellectuals into China's countryside.

Hitting the perfect note isn't always easy. For instance, for the past 15 years or so, I have thrown my husband a birthday party. We traditionally celebrate with about 30 friends, mostly New York pals we've known for decades. We're not talking an end-of-an-era Stephen Schwarzman-type $10 million blowout. Ours is a pretty sedate affair.

This year, of course, entertaining our crowd at our usual multi-star Michelin hotspots would simply not do. Extravagant is out; conservative is in. But not hosting a birthday dinner would have spurred rumors that we were broke, not a welcome thought either. Juggling these conflicting impulses, I decided on a slimmed-down party. Choosing Versailles to host World War I peace negotiations could not have been more complicated than my attempt to select the perfect spot for our annual dinner. Naturally, every restaurant I contacted was willing to meet my reduced budget; now that Wall Street firms are no longer entertaining clients or hosting events, New York eateries are struggling.

At the end of the day, it came down to a choice between an especially accommodating (and well-known) high-end restaurant and a less expensive, clubbier spot. We ultimately picked the cozier restaurant -- even though it ended up costing us more, so eager was the more chic outfit to host the party. Why spend the extra bucks? Because our chosen place is distinctly low-profile and rarely mentioned in the press. We did not need a snarky story about a "Wall Street bigwig living it up while taxpayers wonder where their money went." Really, not even President Obama spends this much time looking after his image.

It wasn't long ago that America celebrated successful companies and the people who run them. My husband, CEO of one of the biggest TARP recipients, has received more than his share of accolades (in my opinion, well deserved). But because of a few tin-eared nitwits who failed to notice that their industry was under siege, the entire country now thinks that TARP bankers are greedy incompetents dedicated to ripping off taxpayers. Fancy wastebaskets, under-the-rug bonuses, lavish junkets -- these are Exhibits A, B, and C in the people's case against Wall Street. Even the Octomom gets better press.

Here is the reality: TARP managers are scared to death. The executives of these companies are desperately trying to hold their businesses together while complying with a slew of damaging bills flooding out of Congress. My husband has battled the shutdown of the credit markets and a deteriorating business environment for two endless years without respite. He's exhausted, terrified of losing the company, and beaten down by the constant criticism hurled at him.

I'm trying to buck him up and not complicate his life. The last thing he needs is unpleasant publicity, so I'm learning to fly so far below the radar that I have perpetually skinned knees. We've picked up new habits, like making donations anonymously and sneaking in late to black-tie galas after society photographer Patrick McMullan has packed up his camera and gone home. We now regularly turn down the invitations we receive from museums and arts organizations that will inevitably be followed by a request for funds. No point in getting their hopes up.

I get it that I may not win much sympathy. Why should I? I'm not pleading poverty. We still live in relative luxury, we can afford almost everything we need, and we aren't facing the prospect of losing our home or having to turn to our families to support us. But we are getting squeezed.

Like most Americans, we are worried about money. Our net worth is tied up in stock that is down 95 percent. Last year, before it became fashionable to do so, my husband refused a bonus. Because of the new restrictions, his pay this year will be a fraction of what it was. The combined swoon in our income has caused us to cut spending drastically, in hopes that we can hang on to some remnant of our former lifestyle.

In an effort to conserve cash, we are eating out less frequently, meaning that I've been turning out some pretty dreadful lasagna. Actually, staying home and watching Law & Order reruns has become our new guilty pleasure. It's a far cry from opening night at the Metropolitan Opera, but it's not bad. I drive the family crazy by switching off the lights every time we leave a room. Needless to say, we fly commercial. Using the company plane is now out of bounds; we've heard there are reporters staking out the private airports.

I have become oddly superstitious. On some level, I feel I'm being punished for too many thoughtless years of assuming that the trappings of success were earned and not given. I'm constantly knocking on wood or offering little good-citizen sacrifices, like manically recycling or chatting with telemarketers.

I'm struggling with how to communicate all this to our children. We're thankful that they're intent on making their own way in the world, but at the same time, they confidently rely on us for help. One daughter recently mused about going back to business school. I hope she didn't notice my instantly negative reaction, stemming completely from concern about the cost. I cannot bring myself to shake her foundation. The collapse of the world economy has already crushed the confidence of young people just starting out. Meanwhile, retirement is like a rainbow, a beautiful mirage that we'll probably never reach. To some people, these may seem like luxury problems, but to us they are painful.

I've watched the skin under my husband's eyes take on a yellowish hue, and his hair turn from gray to grayer, as he tries to lead his company through this mess. He's up every night for hours at a stretch, and for the first time, he has health issues. For a person whose life has been punctuated mainly by success -- from perennial class president and high-school sports star to Ivy League MBA -- failure is the worst of all nightmares. He seems off balance, as though self-confidence were a physical ballast that he is slowly losing. It's heartbreaking how often he apologizes to me for losing so much of our money, for making so many mistakes.

I know people are angry at those they view as responsible for the subprime crisis and the subsequent economic meltdown. I don't blame them. I'm angry too. But my fury extends to any number of culprits: to Alan Greenspan, who encouraged the loose-money policies that undermined the pricing of risk; to Barney Frank, who cudgeled Fannie Mae into supporting loans to unfit homebuyers; to the rating agencies that were ethically compromised; to the subprime-mortgage brokers who chased fees and ignored any accountability; to the investors who didn't do their homework and absurdly leveraged up their balance sheets. I'm an equal-opportunity blamer.

And yes, I blame those who were in charge of the big banks -- including my husband -- for not seeing the default tsunami coming. But almost no one did. Everyone knows this, yet financial CEOs have replaced the Mob as the most despised group in the country.

The good news is that Americans have short attention spans. Before long, some other group will come along to absorb all the frustration and anger.

Meanwhile, I'm off to the tailors to get some clothes altered. Shopping your closet is great unless you've put on a few pounds over the years. I've been holding out hope that fewer nights out could shrink me to fit back into some of the past warhorses of my wardrobe. Unfortunately, our appetite for comfort food has risen in proportion to the Dow's decline; the selloff this past month has upped our mac-and-cheese intake and created a sinecure for my seamstress.

What Determines Your Credit Score?

2009-02-06T00:30:00.001-08:00

The New York Times had a recent article about credit scoring. Your credit score is a score that is determined by a company called Fair Issacs. The exact algorithm is a closely guarded secret but its a good indicator of your credit worthiness.

¶ 35 percent is determined by your payment history. Do you regularly pay your bills or fines on time to any creditor that submits your information to the credit bureau? Even unpaid library fines, medical bills or parking tickets may appear here.

¶ 30 percent is based on the amounts you owe each of your creditors, and how that compares with the total credit available to you or the total loan amount you took out. If you’re maxing out your credit cards, your score may suffer.

¶ 15 percent is based on the length of your credit history, both how long you’ve had each account and how long it’s been since you had any activity on those accounts. The fewer and older the accounts, the better (assuming you’ve made timely payments).

¶ 10 percent is based on how many accounts you’ve recently opened compared with the total number of your accounts, as well as the number of recent inquiries on your report made by lenders to whom you’ve applied for credit. Your score can drop if it looks as if you’re seeking several new sources of credit — a sign that you may be in financial trouble. (If a lender initiates an inquiry about your credit report without your knowledge, though, it should not affect your score.) Shopping around for an auto loan or mortgage shouldn’t hurt, if you keep your search to six weeks or less. But every inquiry you trigger when you apply for a credit card can affect your score, says Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac. So be selective.

¶ The final 10 percent is determined by the types of credit used. Having installment debt — like a mortgage, in which you pay a fixed amount each month — demonstrates that you can manage a large loan. But how you handle revolving debt, like credit cards, tends to carry more weight since it’s seen as more predictive of future behavior. (You can pay off the balance each month or just the minimum, for example, charge to the limit of your cards or rarely use them.)

For the best rates on a loan or credit card, you want a score that’s above 700, at least. To achieve that, make sure to pay all your bills on time. It’s also a good idea to have at least one credit card you plan to use for a long time, but not too many. Keep a low balance — generally less than one-third of your total credit limit. Of course, it’s best to pay off your balance entirely each month. And stay on top of the information in your reports.

From what I've heard over the years, you should ideally have 4 lines of credit (credit cards, store cards or other loans) with less than 50% utilization for a better score. Also if you've had a credit card for years that you don't use and doesn't have a balance on it, don't close it. It just might lower your score. (Of course if you signed up for a gazillion cards in college and can't keep track of them, by all means close a few).

Will World Trade Come To A Halt?

2009-01-30T12:52:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting email I received today. It's from Chris Mayer, a newsletter editor. He thinks that the Buy American Mantra might cause global trade to stop as countries everywhere erect trade barriers. Not a pleasant thought.

I’ve come to calling what we’re going through the “The Great Suppression.” It reflects the efforts of nearly every government everywhere to stem the unfolding depression -- even if it means nationalizing the banking system and destroying the currency in the process.

(A short digression on the word “depression”: Time was people called every economic bust a depression. The word “recession” came along later as a euphemism for “depression.” Politicians didn’t want to scare people, you know. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the word “recession” in this sense first appeared in an edition of The Economist in 1929. I like the old term better. Forget the technical jargon of today’s stuffed shirts.)

The most insidious effort of the Great Suppression is the clampdown on trade, which I’ve noted as a possible risk in prior alerts. It seems a natural turn of events. Economy gets bad. People lose their jobs. Workers clamor for help. Government blocks foreign competitors. Trade wars ensue.

The stimulus plan includes a “Buy American” provision. This means that any money toward infrastructure spending must use American-made iron and steel, equipment, etc. Sound good?

Well, funny thing is the companies that would benefit the most oppose the idea. Here is a quote from a Caterpillar spokesman:

“There is no company that is going to benefit more from the stimulus package than Caterpillar, but I am telling you that by embracing Buy American, you are undermining our ability to export U.S.-produced products overseas. Any student of history will tell you that one of the most significant mistakes of the 1930s is when the U.S. embraced protectionism. It had a cascading effect that ground world trade almost to a halt, and turned a one-year recession into the Great Depression.”

He overstates his case when he says the Great Depression would’ve been a one-year recession otherwise. Who is to say what might’ve happened? But it is clear that trade did grind to a halt. It is clear on the historical record that countries raised tariffs everywhere. It is clear that this did not help, and it took decades to unwind the damage to world trade.

As you know, I’ve been spending some time studying the Great Depression and the markets of the time. It’s like reading a realistic horror story. I am chilled by the spooky similarities between then and now. In fact, America in 1933 did implement a “Buy American” provision.

Whatever your political leanings on this question, you better think clearly when you invest your money. This provision is a big potential negative for investors. We own several American companies that have significant export businesses.

These are things I will watch carefully. A freeze in global trade will definitely have an impact on how we invest, should such a freeze materialize.

One thing I learned in Economics class was that trade tariffs have a net loss effect on the consumer. Of course, politicians never learn anything about economics. They're just interested in power and being relected!

Time To Short US Treasuries?

2009-01-28T01:36:00.000-08:00

Barrons thinks that the yields US Treasuries are too low and are due to bounce this year, causing a major correction in the bond prices.

Amongst the reasons cited are strong gold prices:

One sign of trouble for Treasuries is the resilient price of gold, which has risen $150 an ounce since late October, to $880 an ounce, despite weakness in most commodity prices. Investors rightly see gold as an appealing alternative to low-yielding Treasuries and virtually nonexistent yields on short-term debt as the government cranks up its printing presses. Gold was up $45 an ounce last year, while oil was down 50%. Another worrisome indicator: The dollar has weakened recently, losing 10% of its value against the euro in the past month.

Chief investment officer at PIMPCO advised to get out of treasuries, stating that they're very expensive and offer no margin of safety.

Check out this post to see a way to profit from a potential decline in Treasuries.

When Will China Be The World's Largest Economy

2009-01-16T12:41:00.000-08:00

Very recently there was a news article that China officially passed Germany as the third largest economy in the world, behind the U.S. and Japan. Most people shrugged, it was inevitable.

But it shows that China’s role in the global economy is bigger than ever. Even amid a global depression, China’s potential is mind-bogglingly vast. What follows are some thoughts on China’s potential:

China Will Be No. 1 When?

If China’s economy continues to grow at its current rate, it will pass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy in 18 years. Of course, it won’t grow at its current rate for 18 years -- not continuously, anyway. It will grow somewhat slower in spots and sometimes faster. What growth rate comes out in the end is anybody’s guess, but the 18-year guess will probably be off.

Then again, the guess also assumes the U.S. stays where it is. And that is also unlikely. The U.S. economy shrank last year and looks to shrink again in 2009. Meanwhile, China is one of the few big economies still growing, though at a slower pace. The result is that China will actually make up ground faster in 2009. As Ting Lu, a Merrill Lynch economist based in Hong Kong, notes: “In 2007, the gap between the growth rates of China and other big countries was huge. Actually, in 2009, the gap between will be even bigger.”

As the Great Depression II continues to lay siege to the world’s economies, China remains a coiled spring of growth. Even though China is now the world’s second- or third-largest economy, it still is a relatively poor country. And its resources are barely tapped.

The vast potential of China is hard to grapple with. Already, China has built the world’s largest building (Beijing’s airport terminal) and its longest transoceanic bridge. It has the world’s fastest train and the biggest dam. As John Pomfret, former bureau chief for The Washington Post in Beijing, observes: “It is a nation of builders, of grand schemes, of gigantism.” He calls China’s engineers “some of the world’s biggest risk-takers. Geeks with guts.”

Don't underestimate China's potential!

How To Spot A Toxic Wife

2008-12-17T18:35:00.001-08:00

The UK Telegraph had an interesting article on a new breed of Toxic Wives. Their sole aim in life is to find a rich husband, had a kid and then get a divorce and milk him for half of his wealth.

According to Susie Ambrose, who runs a ''gold-digger-vetting'' agency there are

increasing amounts of women who are desperately materialistic and who have learnt the art of ''faking love''. They don't want to marry for emotional support, intimacy or companionship; they are driven by monetary rewards.

Unfortunately, with the global financial meltdown, TWs are having a rough time with their rich husbands suddenly going broke overnight. The result is to try and take 100% of whatever is left.

Well, in order to save yourself the heartbreak and financial ruin, here's some tips on How to spot a Toxic Wife:

1 Women who are secure in themselves and have a more developed emotional intelligence and personal depth do not feel the need to show off. Check whether or not she is festooned with 'designer' accessories. Listen carefully to what she says. How often does she name-drop?

2 On first acquaintance, she will want to find out if you're rich or not. If you find yourself discussing your assets within the first 10 minutes you know her agenda. She is not going to waste time on you if you don't have serious money.

3 She will flirt without first finding out if you're married or involved with someone else. She has no scruples about stealing another woman's man.

4 Even though she may have an impressive job, her main asset is sex. She will come on in a highly provocative manner, be wearing lots of make-up and revealing clothes. Potential toxic wives are extremely clever. Do not equate intelligence with emotional values and worth.

5 Often she will use the FSFM tactic (feel sorry for me). This will manifest itself on the second or third date. She wants to assess how generous you can be and will tell you how ''naïve" she is and how "misled'' by some nasty people she owes money to. As a chivalrous male, you get out your chequebook.

6 You must find out how motivated she is. Ask her what her future goals, dreams and aspirations are.

7 Toxic gold-diggers tend to target older men. And your level of physical attractiveness makes no difference. Do you genuinely wildly arouse her or is this all an act?

8 She will choose the most expensive item on the menu or the most expensive drink.

9 Men, who have been recently widowed or divorced are great prey. You are at your most vulnerable.

10 Before you marry, go on holiday together or spend at least some time co-habiting. Remember, if you make a mistake you will pay for it for the rest of your life.

Here's a funny email from Bill Bonner author of Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets: Surviving the Public Spectacle in Finance and Politics, a wildly entertaining book on history of manias, investing and finance that I'm currently reading right now.

“Don’t you know there’s a worldwide financial meltdown?” we asked Elizabeth last night. “This is no time to be buying new furniture.”

“Well, I needed a new desk. But I’m not buying anything else.”

“Aren’t you picking up a new horse trailer tomorrow?”

“Yes, but I ordered that before the crisis hit. When I thought you had some money...before you started worrying about going broke.”

The phone rang.

“Who was that?” we asked a few minutes later.

“That was the curtain man. I need to get new drapes for the living room.”

“What’s wrong with the old drapes?”

“They’re just not right.”

“They’ve been okay for the last 13 years...what’s suddenly not right about them?”

“They’ve never been right...and I’ve finally realized what it is...so I’m going to change them.”

“Don’t you realize that there’s a global financial crisis? This is no time to be spending money.”

“Yes, but the crisis is likely to go on for 10 years...and I don’t want to live with drapes that aren’t right for a whole decade...and then buy them after we’re too old to enjoy them.”

“You’re not one of those ‘toxic wives,’ are you? You know, those women who leave their husbands after they lose their money.”

“Don’t be silly. You didn’t have any money when I married you. And I’ll stick with you even if you go broke. We may not have any money. But at least we’ll have nice curtains to look at. That’s why I’m getting them now...while you’ve still got some money left.”

Government Guaranteed Depression

2008-11-16T14:30:00.000-08:00

Here's a very interesting article by Dan Amoss:

The American people voted for change…and now they’re going to get it. But the change they get may not be the change they expect Obama to deliver. Something more sinister may be coming our way.

After an historic election and inauguration, president-elect Obama will enter office with a huge list of challenges. These challenges — from a contracting economy to large-scale corporate bankruptcies to soaring national indebtedness — will undoubtedly restrict his agenda.

Let’s hope Obama recognizes the need for incentives, profits, and capital investments in the economy. The economy cannot be taxed and regulated without potentially severe consequences. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker (and the last Fed chairman to provide adult supervision for the banking community) is an Obama adviser. So Obama should be apprised of the consequences of Carter-era deficit spending and money printing.

At the very least, Obama must act as a check on the potential for a Democrat-dominated Congress to turn a recession into a depression.

For example, some in Congress are floating a proposal to steal your 401(k), sell the proceeds, and invest in “government-guaranteed” retirement accounts. The only thing this Marxist idea would guarantee is a depression. Call or write your congressman if you feel that your 401(k) is in danger. We shouldn’t allow them to steal more from prudent savers than they already have.

Keep in mind that presidencies rarely resemble campaigns. President Bush campaigned on limited government and a humble foreign policy, and we got the opposite. To top it off, we had the illusion of real growth, with credit and housing bubbles that led to the greatest misallocation of resources in history.

The free market has been falsely accused for this financial crisis. But the free market didn’t get us here; a combination of government spending and crony capitalism did. Much ink is wasted on how we need to re-regulate Wall Street, but the fact is that the problem would never have grown so large without agency conflicts.

The agency conflict on Wall Street is the mentality of “heads I win, tails you lose.” CEOs, traders, and mortgage-backed security factories were paid more for taking more risk. So it shouldn’t surprise us that they overdosed on leverage to magnify returns, without considering risk.

Performance pay should be based on creating long-term shareholder value, not on meeting next quarter’s earnings estimate. A good place to start would be bonuses in the form of restricted stock that does not vest for 10 years. I doubt Lehman would have blown up if employees were paid modest salaries with the potential for sizeable ownership stakes in the future.

Much of our current mess resulted from totally complacent, incompetent boards of directors. Carl Icahn has good ideas for how this can be addressed without excessive regulation. Icahn explains how most corporate boards behave like government bureaucrats in this post . In my view, we need an economy in which everyone acts like owners, rather than CEO-pillagers.

A banking system built upon on a foundation of paper money also contributed to this crisis. The Treasury and Fed allowed institutions to grow “too big to fail.” Without taxpayer subsidies (i.e., Fannie and Freddie — two of the worst crony capitalist institutions in history) and the subsidy of Fed rate cuts, housing prices would have kept growing in step with household income. Instead, house prices went to the moon. Precious capital was thrown into a black hole when mortgage-underwriting discipline went out the window and homebuyers deluded themselves with bubble psychology.

When the current deflation fears are finally slain by widespread recognition that paper money is limitless, we’ll probably see a return to inflation and higher long-term interest rates.

For now, though, demand for bonds remains strong (rates remain low). So the government will likely keep issuing record amounts of new Treasuries and use the proceeds for bailout after bailout, instead of for productive uses. In other words, the government will toss billions of dollars at walking corpses like AIG – a company that produces nothing but spectacular losses and embarrassing headlines – instead of tossing billions of dollars at companies that produce essential items like barrels of oil or bushels of wheat. When governments toss easy credit toward non-productive industries, the supply of currency soars relative to the supply of goods and services. We call this phenomenon, “Inflation.”

The U.S. government’s massive borrowing requirements over the next several months will absorb a lot of the private capital that would otherwise fund various productive enterprises. So that means that farmers and miners and manufacturers will struggle to secure the credit and investment they need to finance their production. And if farmers can’t get credit, they can’t plant crops, which means that grain supplies are likely to fall…and prices to rise.

As Albert Einstein observed, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.” If the federal government proposes “solutions” to this crisis with the same type of thinking that got us here, we could be in for a very long period of economic pain. America’s status as a destination for foreign capital is at stake.

If the new government fails to act wisely and understand how we got here, the only “government guarantee” we’ll have is depression.

I think this scenario will play out. The only question is when it will happen. When it eventually does, real assets like gold and real estate will soar. Right now you can buy both of these assets relatively cheaply.

Who's To Blame For AIG's Failure?

2008-10-25T17:51:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting synopsis about why AIG failed so quickly.

When Lehman Brothers still existed, the bank had around $150 billion in debt. And the Securities and Exchange Commission let hedge funds and other investment vehicles take $365 billion of insurance out on that debt through the use of credit default swaps. It was like buying life insurance on someone you knew was going to die soon.

Now the sellers of these swaps are on the hook for $365 billion. And guess who sold most of the Lehman swaps? AIG.

When the history of this debacle is finally written, AIG will be at the center of the story. AIG sold insurance on hundreds of billions of dollars of assets, with almost no collateral. It, along with Fannie and Freddie, was the primary reason so much credit was created and the primary reason so much credit has been destroyed.

So where was AIG's risk management? Isn't that insurance companies do, manage risk?

Super Rare Ferrari For Sale

2008-10-14T15:12:00.000-07:00

One of the world’s fastest modified sportscars is on sale at Trader – an 800bhp Ferrari F50 supercar.

The incredibly rare Ferrari F50 was made in the mid 1990s and came standard with a 520bhp 4.7-litre engine.

But this Ferrari F50 has been boosted to produce a whopping 800bhp – making it one of the fastest cars in the world.

The convertible F50’s trademark V12 engine has had two turbochargers with adjustable boost pressures bolted on, and is fitted with an upgraded exhaust, electrics and inter-coolers to stop it from melting.

And this engine work has meant the drop-top Ferrari – widely considered to be the finest driver’s Ferrari ever built – can accelerate from 0-60mph in just 3 seconds.

This makes it nearly a second faster than the standard F50 and half a second faster than the Ferrari Enzo.

And the car’s 800bhp makes it more powerful than Paris Hilton's Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren and Porsche Carrera GT, and puts it on a par with the 806bhp Koenigsegg CCX.

The Ferrari F50 was built to celebrate the company’s 50th anniversary, and just 349 models were built between 1995 and 1997. Apparently the company just announced that in order to maintain the ferrari brand's exclusivity, it will produce one less car this year! Or maybe they're just using that as an excuse to cover up the drop in sales due to a recession!

If you're wealthy enough, you can pick up this sweet Ferrari for a whopping $800,000. But if you're like rest of us poor people, you'll have to make do with cheap Ferrari Clothing!

The Gold/Oil Ratio

2008-10-12T10:25:00.001-07:00

I subscribe to a lot of investment newsletters. One of them had a reader who asked an interesting question:

You have previously shown us charts indicating that gold was cheap compared to oil. With gold now moving inversely to oil, will you make the comparison again for us?
The key to the gold/oil ratio is the number 10. An ounce of gold ought to cost more than 10 barrels of oil. When gold is less than 10 barrels of oil, something is badly wrong. Either oil is too expensive or gold is too cheap... or both.

When oil was at $140 and gold was below $800, the ratio was absurdly low – 5.7. Extremes like this are rare and they never last. Today the gold/oil ratio, at $900/$90, is back to around 10. We expect it will continue to trend higher. It typically peaks above 20. Assuming oil remains around $90, that gives you a $1,800 target for gold.

Not sure how accurate this is, but its pretty interesting nonetheless. And if you've read the latest Forbes magazine, there's an article predicting $500 oil by 2015! Would that mean gold would hit $10,000/oz?

Regardless of what happens, I'm sure golad I bought gold coins at $500/oz.

Shortage of American Gold Buffalo Coins

2008-09-29T17:40:00.000-07:00

The market dropped a stunning 777 points today, the worst drop in years. Not surprisingly, gold held it's ground today.In fact, it even popped $20 this morning as the market plummeted. The same way oil is reverting to a thought process of old, gold seems to be regaining its role as a “flight to safety.” It's currently selling for just over $900/oz.

But gold is still down 10% from it's highs this year of $1030/oz. Funnily enough,as the market for gold ramps up, the U.S. government has suspended sales of its most popular 24-karat gold coin.

The 24-karat American Buffalo is in such high demand that the US Mint has simply run out. The U.S. Mint sang the same tune for the 1-ounce American Eagle coins back in August. After running out of Eagles, the Mint suspended sales and later reopened the market to only “designated dealers.”

As of last week, the Mint had sold over 164,000 American Buffalo coins in 2008, up 54% from the same time last year.

Isn't it odd that there is a shortage of physical gold and yet the prices are lower than they were several months ago? Am I the only one wondering about this supply-demand anomaly? Or maybe it's a new economy, just like the stock market in 1999 when revenue and profits didn't matter, but esoteric new criteria like "number of eyeballs" were developed.

If you want to buy gold coins and are having a tough time finding them, check out this store which aggregates my favorite set of gold coin collectibles.

Are Hedge Funds Worth It?

2008-08-23T20:46:00.000-07:00

Hedge funds have been receiving a bad rep over the past few years. Funds like those of Bear Sterns lost Billions in investor capital by making bad, overleveraged bets. And they charge a whopping 2% front-end load and 20% of the profits. Compared to many other well performing funds, this is outrageously high.

Is this enormous fee worth it? Here's a very interesting email I received today:

This could be the worst hedge fund in the world... Jonathan Wood, a former UBS trader, founded hedge fund SRM Global Master Fund two years ago. Now he's bust. Wood took positions in Bear Stearns, the defunct investment bank; Countrywide Financial, the posterboy of the mortgage debacle; and Northern Rock, the U.K. bank that experienced a run on its assets.
SRM Global Master Fund raised $3 billion in 2006 and is down 85% through July. Investors agreed to a five-year lockup, so they haven't been able to redeem. See what you get for "2 and 20"?

Makes the -15% year to date return of the US stock market look pretty stellar in comparison! I guess sometimes simpler investments are better!

Getting Out Of Medical Debt

2008-08-11T23:09:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of people who file bankruptcy each year due to huge medical bills that they just cannot pay.

The Wall Street Journal recently had a good article on getting out of Medical Debt. It seems that there are 77 million Americans struggling with medical debt, despite the fact that 62% carry health insurance.

Anyone who's financially struggling with medical debt should do the following:

1. Check for errors
By some estimates, 90% of hospital bills contain errors.

2. Stay on Top of the Insurance Company
If there is some dispute between the hospital and the insurance company, the easiest route is to just kick the bill to the patient. Make sure that the insurance company pays their fair share.

3. Negotiate
Everything in life is negotiable! However, its easier for patients without insurance to negotiate.

4. Ask For Help
Many hospitals have a financial aid center with access to government programs that can help pay for your treatment.

5. Ask for a Payment Plan
With treatment running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, all hospitals offer some sort of payment plan.

6. Don't Ignore The Collection Agencies

Ignoring letters from collection agencies will only ruin your credit. Instead try and settle for 25 or 50 cents on the dollar.

Which Would You Choose Life Experience or "Stuff"?

2008-07-29T21:38:00.000-07:00

by Steve Sjuggerud.

This month is my 10th wedding anniversary. So I thought I'd share a story of one of the many "little-but-big" things I learned from my wife. I am lucky to share my life with her...

I couldn't believe it...

A friend of my wife's wanted yet another purse... that cost thousands of dollars. She already has a closet full of them! What's the point of another?

My wife asked her a simple question: "Which would you prefer... Life experience or stuff like another purse?"

The friend thought about it, and she actually said she preferred the stuff. Hey, to each her own.

My wife and I try to focus on the experience over the stuff... For example, our kids (ages seven and five) are probably the only kids they know that don't have a PlayStation, or an Xbox, or a Nintendo Wii. They don't have a ton of stuff. But they're oozing with life experience...

Our kids have seen the world... They've been as far north as Iceland, and we toured much of it. And they've been as far south as New Zealand, traveling much of the North and South Islands by car as well.

Yet we don't have big flat-screen TVs in our living room or den. I can understand why big movie fans and big sports fans want 'em. They're just not important to us. (Are we the last Americans to actually have regular TVs?)

The great thing is, life experiences don't have to cost much at all (particularly if you can use some frequent flyer miles)... Our family just went to visit my folks for a week in Wisconsin, and I came back with most of the money in my wallet. Playing in the lake, riding ponies at the State Fair, and unbeatable home-cooked breakfasts from Mom. Everyone had a great time. And it sure didn't cost much.

If you're caught up in "stuff" if you "need" another thousand-dollar handbag then you've got to realize, the acquisition of stuff never ends. That flat screen won't be worth more than you paid for it. And neither will that handbag. You'll never get ahead. You'll never really "have money."

I define living well as 1) having time with friends and family, 2) pursuing my passions, and 3) well, not worrying about money. The nice thing is, you don't need a fortune to live well by that definition.

So which is it for you? Do you value life experiences or "stuff?" Which do you put a premium on? Remember, you can't take the stuff with you and you'll be busy working for the rest of your life to pay for the stuff.

By the way, my wife's friend thought about it, and later she called and said, "You know, I thought about what you said... I think you're right. It really is about the experiences, not the stuff."

New Passive Income Stream: RevResponse

2008-07-14T11:59:00.000-07:00

June was a record breaking month for me. I made $3,354.41 last month from various different sources, of which $2254.93 was online revenues. You can read about the compelete breakdown at Living Off Dividends & Passive Income.

Last month I introduced yet another source of online income, a company called RevResponse. I only made $17.50, but I didn't do anything to promote it either so I can't really complain. Making an extra $200-250 a year for an hour's worth of work isn't too bad! Plus when you combine it with the other sources of income, they all add up to a significant amount.

RevResponse gives away free magazines and white papers on a slew of topics ranging from Global Finance and Banking, to Autmobiles and Internet Marketing.

They also offer free trials to popular magazines like free trial to the the Economist. Old School programmers might remember Dr. Dobb’s Journal. Well, it’s available for free too.

RevResponse co-brands your site so your readers are taken to a site that replicates the look and feel of your own website or blog. This picture replicates the Living Off Dividends & Passive Income site.

For every qualified subscription request your site generates, you get minimum of $1.50. You can run this in conjunction with adsense and other affiliate programs. They make their payments via paypal. They also pay for referrals. And best of all, its free content!

If that wasn't enough, they’re also giving away $50 for a plug to their site in July. So if you’d like to make an easy $50 for 10 minutes worth of work, plus have an on going passive revenue stream, all you need to do is sign up with them and write a brief post on their services. So what are you waiting for? Join RevResponse Now.

Jim Rogers: The American Dollar Is A Flawed Currency

2008-06-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

Legendary investor Jim Rogers thinks the US economy & dollar is on sever decline. Check out this great article in the UK's Guardian newspaper:

Indiana Jones and the China crusade
by Nils Pratley

Jim Rogers, investment guru; co-founder of Quantum Fund with George Soros

The American dollar is a flawed currency and will collapse in value before the end of the decade, taking with it the prosperity of the American nation. Investors should be buying commodities - platinum, lead, wheat, sugar, oil, the sort of assets that haven't been fashionable for a quarter of a century or more. While you're at it, teach your children to speak Mandarin, the coming language of the 21st century. And don't encourage them to do an MBA: "Tell them to be a farmer and do a real job."

Such advice, if given by your regular financial adviser, would probably provoke a complaint to the ombudsman. The speaker, though, is Jim Rogers, a legendary Wall Street name. The Indiana Jones of finance - a nickname earned by virtue of two round the world trips in the name of grass-roots investment research - has become a multimillionaire by backing such views with hard cash.

In 1973, Rogers and George Soros founded Quantum, one of the first and most successful hedge funds. In Britain, the Quantum Fund is best known for making £1bn by selling sterling ahead of Britain's exit from the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992, but Rogers' contribution came before then. He helped Quantum to return a 4,000% gain in its first 10 years and departed in 1980, staying a year longer than he had intended only because 1979 had been so profitable - he predicted the stock market crash of that year.

The "poor boy from Alabama" whose first job was picking up bottles at baseball games at the age of five, retired at the age of 37 a very wealthy man. He set about managing his own fortune and travelling the world, projects that have become virtually indistinguishable over the years. In the early 90s, Rogers travelled 65,000 miles roving the world by motorbike and related the tale in his first book, Investment Biker. Last year, he completed a second, Adventure Capitalist, which was the result of an even more ambitious journey: a three-year, 150,000 mile journey by custom- built Mercedes across 116 countries with his girlfriend, who became his wife along the way - in Henley-on-Thames, of all places.

Snake burger

Like the earlier book, it is part anecdote - what it's like to eat snake; what happened when he forgot about the bottle of vodka in the boot when trying to enter Saudi Arabia - but the heart is commonsense investment analysis built on firsthand observations. His philosophy is that you learn about a country from talking to brothel owners and black marketeers rather than government ministers.

In conversation, Rogers rattles along in similar style. He punctuates everything with American-style full disclosure of his personal holdings - "I'm short Citibank, incidentally," he will interject into a dissection of the rotten heart of the American stock market - and delights in challenging received wisdom. His central argument is that a new bull market has started that will match the fireworks seen in the dotcom-fuelled stock markets of the late 90s. This time, though, the bull market will be in commodities not shares. Rogers' reasoning is straightforward: raw materials are running out.

"There has been no great oil discovery in the past 35 years," he argues. "The North Sea has peaked. Alaska is in decline. Mexico is in decline. All these great oilfields are in decline. To anybody who thinks I am lying about this, I would ask: where is the oil going to come from?

China bull

"Mines deplete. Wells deplete. It's supply. In the 1970s, we had horrible economies around the world, but commodities skyrocketed despite those horrible economies because there was no supply. That is happening again."

How high is high? The nature of all bull markets, he argues, is that prices go higher than anybody would have imagined possible. "Nobody could ever have thought that Cisco could go to $75 [it had been $5 a few years earlier]. Who would have thought in the 1970s that oil could go to $40 a barrel - it was $2 a barrel in the 1960s," he says.

"Sugar in 1966 was 1.4 cents per pound. In 1972 - six years later - sugar was 66 cents. Who could have conceived that? For decades, it had done between one and five cents. If you had said in 1966 that it would go up 47 times they would have made you certifiably insane. But it happened."

Hand in hand with this faith in the value of commodities is a long-term confidence in China, whose appetite for raw materials has already fuelled a strong rise in commodity prices in the past 18 months. All the best capitalists live in communist China, he argues, and overseas Chinese are returning with their capital and expertise. He has employed a Chinese nanny for his one-year-old daughter. Mandarin will be the most important language in his child's lifetime, he thinks.

But even this China bull predicts a major economic slowdown there, with accompanying political unrest, very soon. In this, he is not wholly out of the line with the consensus thinking - City economists are currently debating whether China's landing, after a decade of extraordinary growth, will be hard or soft. Rogers' view is that it will be very hard, but will also represent a golden investment opportunity.

"I remind you of the last two times that China had to cut back an overheated economy," he says. "In the late 80s, it led to Tiananmen Square when things got out of control and the second time was in the mid-90s, when they had to devalue their currency. Sometime this year or next you will see headlines in the Guardian, 'Turmoil in China'. At that point, you buy all the China you can and all the commodities you can because that will be bottom of the consolidation in commodities and consolidation in China."

Buying in the face of prevailing hysteria is a principle that has served Rogers well over the years. Crisis in China - however serious it looks at the time - will merely mark the end of the first leg of this new bull market, he thinks.

"Remember," he enthuses, "that the second leg is wonderful, and the third leg is spectacular. In the fourth leg, there is dancing in the streets and in the fifth leg people are hysterical and everything is skyrocketing every day. We are nowhere near the second leg, much less the third, fourth and fifth legs."

His bearishness on the US dollar is predicated on economic fundamentals, notably the balance of payments. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and Rogers' bogeyman-in-chief, has been printing money on an unprecedented scale and President George Bush has been spending it just as rapidly.

"The US owes the world $8 trillion," he argues. "We are the world's largest debtor nation by a factor of many times and our foreign debts are increasing by $1 trillion every 21 months. That's terrifying.

Dollar demise

"People need to understand about this major change in the world and about the demise of the US dollar. The US dollar is going the way that sterling went as it lost its place as the world's reserve currency. I suspect there will be exchange controls in the US in the foreseeable future. It will be a complicated and difficult currency."

Not that Rogers is a fan of many currencies. He says he has stakes in a dozen but has "no confidence in any of them". He expects the euro to fail eventually but holds some anyway because he judges it to be less flawed than the dollar. For the record, his daughter's assets are held in Swiss francs and gold, silver and platinum coins.

Unlike his old partner, Soros, who has devoted part of his vast fortune to opposing Bush's election campaign, Rogers stands wholly outside the political fray. He calls the US-led invasion of Iraq a "horrible, horrendous, unbelievable mistake", but thinks the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, would make his own mistakes. "They wouldn't be politicians if they knew what they were doing," he says, far from flippantly.

The balance of payments, and the looming dollar crisis, make the election result irrelevant, he argues: "Whoever is elected president is going to have serious problems in 2005-06. We Americans are going to suffer."

The CV

Born 1942, Alabama

Education Yale; Balliol College, Oxford

Career US army; co-founder, Quantum Fund; professor of finance, Columbia University Graduate School of Business

Family Married to Parker Paige with a daughter

Interests Henley royal regatta