stock-market

May 13 (Bloomberg) — Scott Minerd, chief investment officer of Guggenheim Partners LLC, talks about the U.S. stock market, Federal Reserve monetary policy and inflation. He speaks with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

See the article here:
Video: Minerd Expects Fed to Give U.S. Economy `Time to Heal’

{ 0 comments }

menafn.com…

FOREX TREND MONITOR: Dollar Anchored to Stock Market Performance

Read the original here:
FOREX TREND MONITOR: Dollar Anchored to Stock Market Performance

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

{ 0 comments }

Video: Gayle Likes B/E Aerospace, Whirlpool, Southwest Airlines

April 21, 2011

April 21 (Bloomberg) — Alan Gayle, senior investment strategist at RidgeWorth Capital Management, talks about the outlook for the U.S. stock market and his investment strategy. He speaks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: McCaughan Says Corporate Earnings Show U.S. Expansion

April 21, 2011

April 21 (Bloomberg) — James McCaughan, chief executive officer of Principal Global Investors LLC, talks about the outlook for the U.S. stock market and fiscal policy. McCaughan speaks with Matt Miller, Carol Massar and Sheila Dharmarajan on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Groenewegen Says Gold Rises on Inflation Anticipation

March 31, 2011

March 31 (Bloomberg) — Gijsbert Groenewegen, founder of Silver Arrow Capital Management, talks about the performance of the U.S. stock market and outlook for gold and silver prices. Groenewegen speaks with Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Levkovich Says `Biggest Concern’ Is U.S. Fiscal Position

March 30, 2011

March 30 (Bloomberg) — Tobias Levkovich, chief U.S. equity strategist at Citigroup Inc., and Michael Palmer, a trader at Group One Trading LP, talk about U.S. economy, stock market and fiscal policy. They speak with Carol Massar, Matt Miller and Sheila Dharmarajan on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Vanguard’s Sauter Urges Diversification to Reduce Risk

March 30, 2011

March 30 (Bloomberg) — George “Gus” Sauter, chief investment officer at Vanguard Group Inc., talks about the U.S. stock market, index funds versus active fund management, portfolio diversification and the outlook for the U.S. and global economies. Sauter speaks with Lisa Murphy on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Moffett Says Stock Market `Desensitized’ by World Events

March 24, 2011

March 24 (Bloomberg) — James Moffett, a fund manager at Scout Investment Advisors, talks about the performance of the U.S. stock market and his investment strategy for global stocks. Moffett speaks with Pimm Fox and Julie Hyman on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Greenspan On Financial Crisis: ‘Not Bad’

February 18, 2011

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan oversaw policies that contributed to the worst economic catastrophe since the Depression. But the morning after the stock market crashed, he reportedly didn’t feel too bad. Speaking publicly at New York University, Greenspan recounted what was going through his mind one morning in September 2008, after the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped nearly 7 percent. According to Washington Square News : “The morning after we learned of the news,” he said, “I was able to look myself in the mirror and say, ‘Hey, not bad.’” Greenspan kept interest rates low in the decades leading up to the crisis, helping promote first a bubble in technology stocks and then a bubble in real estate assets. With money flowing cheaply, investors scrambled to buy products that later proved dangerously risky. Even when other Federal Reserve officials expressed concern over the fast-moving economy, Greenspan held firm. The former Fed chairman has also been a strong supporter of derivatives , the financial instruments that worsened the financial meltdown. In testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission last year, Greenspan said he was “right 70 percent of the time, but I was wrong 30 percent of the time and there are an awful lot of mistakes in 21 years.” On that morning in September, the full extent of the crisis hadn’t yet unfolded. Few people predicted just how severe the economic fallout would be.

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: The Next Bubble May Be Bonds, Stocks, Commodities, China

February 16, 2011

The prime example of a bubble that really hurt was the parabolic ascent of the NASDAQ Composite Index from a rational level of 2200 in early 1999 to the ridiculously irrational 5000 15 months later. That was vertical mania by investors out of their mind. By the end of 2002 the value of these mostly technology issues had collapsed in panic selling that was more extreme than the buying. That was a bubble worth trillions popping. So, too, was the mania in housing, where all reasonable expectations were obliterated by leverage upon leverage in mortgage-backed securities and derivative contracts. This bubble was a systematic and dangerous departure from economic fundamentals into the chaos of evaporating home prices.. We are still suffering four years later from that extinguishment of household wealth — a massive damaging loss for ordinary Americans quite soon after the Nasdaq stock market bubble. Get the idea? Bubbles are serious when they are massive. The rule for spotting bubbles before they destroy you, says Harvard economist Ken Rogoff, is to “look for large rapid surges in leverage and asset prices, surges that can suddenly implode if confidence fades.” By this measure, then, the deterioration in Treasury bond prices, in tax-free muni bond prices and fright from the anxiety about some European sovereign bonds, like Greece and Portugal, are more signs of a rationally-proceeding bear market than a panicky bubble. At least so far. Orderly retreats are not bubbles by my standard. Same with gold, where speculation in futures contracts have been substantially reduced (lots of leverage in futures contracts) while bullion prices are trading in a fairly boring range, since confidence in the gold bubble has eased. If gold were a bubble, it wouldn’t matter what the dollar was doing. Investors would just be blown away with the urge to buy gold. Long-term gold investors believe this mania will be triggered by a sudden aversion to dollars, a plunge in their value — and a corresponding spike to unrealistic levels for gold. They will all be trying to get out at the same time. Good luck. Commodities are a better candidate for a bubble, as we had one in the summer of 2008 when oil popped at $147 and fell unmercifully, taking with it some food and metals prices. Since then oil has rebounded by 21 percent, food by 35 percent, copper by 108 percent, gold by 73 percent and silver a pretty bubbly 222 percent. It was, of course, George Soros who called gold the ” ultimate bubble ” when it was selling for about $1,000 an ounce. Since then, we have had plenty of volatility in commodity prices and a generally accepted opinion that the demand from emerging market nations would push prices ever higher. What could pop the bubble would be China’s failure to restrain inflation and its subsequent hard landing. The China bubble clan is watching to see if the People’s Bank of China fails to prevent the bubble, in the same manner as the Federal Reserve failed to restrain the housing bubble in the US by its too massive monetary easing and low interest rates. Ignoring asset bubbles “is a very painful way to show your disdain for macro concepts and a blind devotion to your central skill for stock picking,” says Jeremy Grantham, founder of GMO, the highly reputed Boston investment manager. Grantham “unabashedly” worships bubbles, reckoning it is absolutely mandatory to identify “hugely mispriced major sectors or asset classes among equities.” He suggests that short-term interest rates should remain low for 8 more months, until say August or September, in his Quarterly Letter of January 2011. The signal for an equity bubble would be the S&P 500 index rising to 1500 and rising short term interest rates. “I still don’t understand how the U.S. could have massive numbers of unused labor and industrial capacity yet still have peak profit margins. This has never happened before.” The real quandry, my friends is: When does an overpriced market become a bubble? After all the investors shifting out of Treasuries into common stocks finally rebalance their portfolios, only to get killed again?

Read the full article →

Martin T. Sosnoff: Trade in Your Bonds for Equities

February 15, 2011

Every time I hire an outstanding Egyptologist to guide me through the ruins I end up canceling my trip — for good reasons. Now it’s the 81-year-old despot, still black-haired, going on 85 and how many face lifts? Last year, a group of German tourists were savaged by terrorists. Recently, a busload of foreign visitors crashed on a winding road with multiple fatalities. More and more, I sense the world is busy, maybe too busy and prone to accidents. The financial world is so interconnected that when China’s monetary authorities notch up interest rates to fight inflationary excesses our Big Board shudders. Turmoil in Egypt triggered a $6 spike in oil futures over 2 days. Talk about butterflies flapping their wings on distant continents! When markets roil in pain, missing geopolitical upsets in the Mideast, I force myself to press trading desk buttons and buy reciprocal beneficiaries. Egypt’s pain is oil’s gain. In case you missed it, both Schlumberger and Halliburton spiked 10 percent. Oil reserves outside the Mideast just turned more strategically valuable. Drilling is bound to accelerate elsewhere. I hate this daily noise level, but I’ve learned not to overreact and go on with my life, tuned into the mighty flow of Ole Man River, the long term trends lurking beneath the surface of choppy waters. Some fifty years ago, Sidney Homer, Solomon’s research partner, published his annual supply and demand for funds study that dealt with the bond market. It couldn’t encompass wars and financial panics but was a good indicator of where the bond market was headed. Later on, Henry Kaufman took on this responsibility. Traders at Solly ignored these term papers as too academic, but this document was distributed to the Street and eagerly awaited by all of us. Everyone today dissects each mumble of Federal Reserve Board members and makes decisions based on the course of the dollar, interest rates, inflation and emerging markets dynamics. I don’t see much work done on the supply and demand for funds available to our stock market. The Street tracks volatility and the correlation of specific stock market groups to broader indices like the S&P 500, but this is pure noise level stuff. Stats I look at suggest huge money streaming into equities from institutional and individual investors. Forget foreign money which is volatile and invariably comes in late, thereby accentuating bull markets but is not a significant variable. Changes in flows mount into trillions of dollars, enough to move Big Board valuations higher. Margin credit is insignificant, maybe $500 billion in a market valued near $15 trillion. This even with interest charges relatively insignificant for well heeled investors, no more than 1 percent. The quarterly net flow into financial assets during the bear market turned from a $200 billion positive to a negative number. Individuals, at least, handled themselves conservatively, raised cash, didn’t tap margin credit and plowed money into bond funds, municipals, and even paid down outstanding debt. Meanwhile, state and local debt rose inexorably this past decade as did Federal debt and Fanny and Freddy’s mortgage pools. But, the cost of debt service for the government is half what it was 10 years ago and debt service as a percentage of GDP rose only 2 percentage points to 18 percent from 16 percent. Politicians rarely dig down into such pivotal numbers. Even though real short term interest rates turned negative the past few years, individuals raised cash holdings to 40 percent of financial assets from 30 percent. Only in the mid-seventies and early 1980′s was cash as much of 60 percent of assets. Then, short term interest rates ranged as high as 15 percent under Paul Volcker’s reign as Federal Reserve Board chairman. Those days gone, but not forgotten. Currently, there’s a sea charge in asset deployment under way by individuals and institutions. Money is coming out of bond funds and municipals and flowing into equities. The only fixed income sector holding up is the junk bond category, where yields to maturity of 7 percent or better are available on single B credits. Even BB credits with yields of 5.5 percent are holding firm despite the treasury market’s decline. Unless 10-year Treasuries spike to the 4.5 percent level shortly (not my call) the high yield market could be almost as attractive a sector as it was over the past 24 months and give stock market indices a run for best asset class, again. Over the past six years, private pension funds took bond holdings up by $1 trillion, but this move is played out and capital is moving back into stocks. Equities dropped from 60 percent of assets to below 40 percent at the market bottom. Fixed income investments had risen to as high as 30 percent of assets from a normalized 20 percent. Equities at the top of the market in 2007 reached about $19 trillion and bottomed at $10 trillion. Cash for all institutional investors and individuals over the past decade rose form $5 trillion to $9 trillion, a huge amount needing reinvestment into higher yielding paper. Even the Big Board yields over 2 percent and is seeing serious payouts from tech houses like Intel and Microsoft to be followed by Cisco and perhaps even Apple, presently sitting on its $70 billion boodle. Equities, normally 70 percent of private pension fund assets, even after the monstrous market rally now stand at 60 percent of assets. Fixed income investments remain at 40 percent of assets, normally closer to 20 percent. Financial assets held by individuals have rebounded to $25 trillion from approximately $20 billion at the market’s low point. I see at least $5 trillion in pension fund and individual assets reallocating to equities over the next 24 months from cash holdings and bonds. Unless short rates rise markedly over the next 12 months, the reallocation from cash alone could reach as much as $4 trillion. Fixed income investments seem too high at $9 trillion vs. a normalized level of $5 trillion so my $5 trillion asset reallocation number could be conservative. Obviously, inertia is a powerful force and what is sensible and logical doesn’t always happen. Consumer confidence is rising so this is a plus factor, but home prices need to perk up, too. After all, half of all family wealth resides in home ownership. A weak dollar is good for the stock market up to a point, but negative for fixed income investments. The world is witnessing serious commodity inflation in oil, copper, iron ore and grains. All this could lead to tightening by central banks, worldwide. A reversal in Federal Reserve Board policy emphasis could happen sooner than the bond crowd anticipates. Nobody expects Fed Funds above 1 percent well into 2012. Money may stay in short term holdings longer than I expect. If 10-year Treasuries pierce through the 4 percent yield level it could inhibit capital flows into equities. Market pundits would take down their projection of a mid-teens price earnings ratio by a couple of notches. There could be a reverse flow out of equities into bonds, but I rate this as a low probability. Net, net of this supply and demand funds analysis for the stock market, we should see at least a couple of trillion flowing into stocks, maybe more. This sum is a big number for a market valued around $15 trillion. I wasn’t smart enough to buy gold which thrives on geopolitical unrest, but I did put new money into commodities, namely oil, and coal, copper and iron ore. If anything, growth stocks turn marginally more attractive, even richly priced properties like Amazon and Baidu whose top lines mushroom for years to come. Both Apple and Google posted way above consensus numbers. Somebody besides me must care, sooner or later. Apple now trades above its price point when the Steve Jobs bomb shell hit the tape.

Read the full article →

Felix Salmon: Wall Street’s Dead End

February 14, 2011

THE stock market has been big news in recent days. Last week’s report that Deutsche Börse, a giant German exchange, intends to buy the New York Stock Exchange, creating a company worth some $24 billion, arrived shortly after the Dow broke the 12,000-point barrier for the first time since before the financial crisis.

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Worrisome Words From Jordan

February 12, 2011

As an independent trader of stocks, bonds and commodities who tells me he was up more than 100% last year and is humming again in 2011, Caise Hassan’s thoughts on the financial markets would seem to be worth a lot more than his views on the Mideast turmoil. Maybe not. Chicago-born Hassan, the 38-year-old son of Palestinian-born parents, makes a point of keeping close tabs on what’s happening throughout the Persian Gulf. And he doesn’t have to travel too far to do it since he and his family live in Amman, Jordan. The ouster of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak may be good news for the country’s 80-million populace, but is it good news for the U.S. stock market? Or bad news? And what about the Mideast, in general? While there are some worriers, it all seems to be an irrelevant issue for now as far as most of Wall Street goes. Except for a one-day drop of 166 points on January 28 in response to the Egyptian riots, the market has pretty much been on an upswing throughout the revolution. In other words, the Egyptian uprising was a ho-hum and most Wall Streeters seem to think it will likely to remain that way despite the unknowns of what’s ahead. In particular, no one knows what the country’s new leadership will look like, whether it may be infiltrated by Islamic radicals and the Israeli-hating Muslim Brotherhood and if Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel will remain intact. Hassan thinks it would be foolhardy for Wall Street to assume that all is now okay in Egypt since he believes it will likely take a year to form a stabilized government. Like many Mideast watchers, he sees aftershocks and a good deal more turmoil ahead in the region, given the economic plight of many of its residents. One down, more to come! That’s basically his view of the change in Egypt’s leadership. His outlook calls for more Mideast strife from uprisings in a number of other countries, notably Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and Algeria. He believes this cleansing process — as some call it — of the region’s dictators could seriously impact the U.S. market on a number of counts. In particular, Hassan points to possible interruptions in the steady flow of oil from the Mideast and the ability of the U.S. to sell its products, such as military hardware and consulting services, to Gulf countries whose monarchs may be overthrown and provide us with about 18% of our oil. For starters, he sees the prospects that Jordan — beset by poverty, lack of jobs and a vicious secret police — is highly vulnerable to deep social unrest, and, in fact, thinks we could see the same kind of riots that plagued Egypt in a matter of months. In this case, he believes, they would be bloodier since there are a lot of unhappy armed groups there. “Moderate” Jordan, observes Hassan, is receiving more than $400 million in aid that ostensibly is going toward the development and democratization of a country that is, more realistically, he contends, is being used to tame its people and shield from accountability a heinous monarch (King Abdullah, the 11) whose most notable achievements are blowing tens of millions in Vegas casinos and adding luxury cars to the billion-dollar collection begun by his equally reckless father. He also notes that if the popular forces in Egypt (unions. professional associations and the Muslim Brotherhood) form a government, it is unlikely the new regime will keep buying $2 billion in military goods and services from the U.S. and that could cause a tinge on arms contractors’ balance sheets. An even greater profit danger, he points out, looms if revolutions spread. That is, if governments from Morocco to the Gulf stop buying planes and bullets, the tech sector will be reeling. What about the assorted financial markets? Hassan thinks the U.S. stock market has more to go, especially with Bernanke hinting he will print more money. The commodity markets, he believes, are nowhere near oversold in the long term, and that certain commodities, like gold and silver, have a lot of room to run over the next few years no matter what happens. He notes that if governments in the Middle East get overthrown, oil will go up. And if they don’t, the Chinese will buy it at $80 a barrel. So what’s the bottom line on the Mideast. Maybe Samuel Morse of Morse code fame sums it up best with his observation “What hath God wrought?” What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Goldman’s Cynical Assurances Notwithstanding, The Decade is Lost Already

February 2, 2011

Step back from the ledge, America. Scotch the gloomy talk of a Japan-style Lost Decade in which we sink into decline and marinate morosely there for years. We’re back, baby! So says a cheery depiction of these times from the wizards at Goldman Sachs (a firm that, come to think of it, played a starring role in trashing our economic security). The report from Goldman’s Investment Strategy Group, and served up here as evidence of happy times by the credulous folks at Politico’s Morning Money, dismisses suggestions that the American economy might yet confront substantial problems. “The U.S. Will Not Face a ‘Lost Decade,’” declares a subheading in the report, which later calls the odds of that prospect “very remote indeed.” Instead, “America’s structural resilience, fortitude and ingenuity will carry the economy and financial markets in 2011 — and beyond.” Lest this hyperventilating prose fail to provoke the intended response, that last clause sits beneath a picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware. (Hats off to the creative geniuses inside Goldman’s public relations machine, who apparently aim to redefine doubts about the economy — and Goldman’s lucrative cheerleading — as downright un-American.) But one problem with all this soothing talk: As millions of ordinary people can readily attest, we are already deep into a Lost Decade and then some. Rescuing ourselves from this era of diminished expectations is going to require far more than disseminating rosy projections about this year’s stock market while touting the innate power of American business. It demands a serious-minded plan to get people back to work so we can wean ourselves off the investment fantasies propagated by Goldman and its Wall Street cohorts. A brief consideration of reality comes in handy here. The U.S. economy slipped officially into recession in December 2007 and remained there until June of 2009, not for nothing earning the moniker “the Great Recession.” During those 19 brutal months, the economy lost a net 7.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the year and a half since, the economy has gained back a grand total of 72,000 jobs — not even half what most economists say we need in a single month just to absorb new entrants to the labor force. And that concentrated period of pain landed on top of a so-called economic expansion that was as weak as any on record. In 2000, at the tail end of the last so-called boom, the median American family claimed annual earnings of about $61,000, according to federal data. By late 2007, as the Great Recession began, that same median family had seen its earnings dip to $60,500. Never before in the half-century during which the government has tracked such figures had the data offered up such clear evidence of declining fortunes: An expansion had run its course with the typical American family rolling backward. Add this up: Seven years of times so lean that lowered incomes became the American norm, followed by a year and a half of terrifying decline — with millions of foreclosures and trillions of dollars in lost wealth — followed by a similar interim of tepid economic growth leaving the unemployment rate above 9 percent. That’s a Lost Decade right there. Set aside the fluctuations that have made the economy manic in recent time — a technology bubble propelled by Wall Street financiers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists; the real estate bubble, pumped up by banks that turned mortgages into casino chips — and focus instead on what matters most to ordinary people: What do we bring home from work? In that context, “Lost Decade” seems like a mild description of the American experience. The data offers up the Lost Three Decades. At the end of 2010, the average weekly earnings for American rank-and-file workers sat at roughly the same level as at the end of 1979 in inflation-adjusted terms. (Have a look at the raw Labor Department data here .) A lot of caveats go into absorbing that number. Large numbers of women and immigrants entered the labor force in those years, which has tended to pull down average wages. But a central truth cannot be dismissed: More than a quarter-century has gone past — a sweep of history that has seen the personal computing revolution, two wars in the Persian Gulf, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the integration of China into the global economy — and yet the average American worker has gotten nowhere. This while the costs of health care, education and housing have skyrocketed. You won’t encounter any of this sort of analysis in Goldman’s delightful report, which is aimed not at people who work for a living, but people who are inclined to conflate the stock market and the real economy. And the stock market, according to Goldman, is poised for a boffo 2011. Who can argue with that? Savvy U.S. corporations are making enormous sums of money by boosting their sales abroad and keeping a lid on their costs — which is to say, by not hiring people. Companies like General Electric, whose chief executive Jeffrey Immelt was just named to head a task force that is supposed to encourage job growth, have netted record profits by selling product overseas and laying off workers at home. This formula pretty much describes how the economy has grown robustly for most of the last three decades, while opportunities for working people have withered. Its perpetuation fairly ensures no need to worry about a Lost Decade if you are an executive at a multinational corporation, a shareholder seeking hefty dividends, or a Wall Street chieftain counting on a bonus. But the words at the top of Goldman’s report — “Stay the Course” — amount to a threat for the rest of the nation. The course is untenable. For most people, it leads to credit card debt, ulcer medication and, perhaps, bankruptcy. Japan imploded and then stagnated at the messy end of the real-estate speculation that filled out the 1980s by dithering about the needed fix. Tokyo tried modest stimulus spending packages, then austerity, then public works spending and then export-led growth — always too late, always inadequately and usually amid political discord over how to proceed. Here in the United States, the most striking similarity with Japan’s years of decline is the way in which political dysfunction continues to be a powerful barrier to needed action, rendering impossible the muscular investments required to pull us out of the ditch — investments in renewable energy, education and infrastructure. Goldman’s dismissal of Lost Decade fears is brazenly self-serving. When people are afraid, they tend not to hand their money to Wall Street gamblers to manage. Worse, its words heap fresh disinformation and a false dose of reassurance into a conversation that ought to be centered on an honest reckoning about where we are and how to claw our way back. We are very much lost, and have been for decades. And we will remain so for as long as influential people pay attention to the cynical assurances of Goldman, which has mastered the art of digging us deeper into a hole, all the while selling us the shovels.

Read the full article →

Pamela Rosenau: Winter of Content?

February 2, 2011

Although we are in the middle of winter, I am already seeing signs of the first thaw… in equity markets that is. I believe that we are headed for a melt-up in the US stock market through 2011. The ‘Winter of Discontent’ in England in 1978-79 was characterized by widespread strikes over the government’s attempt to curb inflation via pay freezes. Today the US is experiencing the opposite inflation scenario. Fed Chairman Bernanke is charging full steam ahead with quantitative easing policies because of the belief that inflation is “below optimal levels.” Could this lead to the ‘Winter of Content’ for US equity investors? A loose monetary policy environment is always a good backdrop for a rally in equities. But even though we have already seen major moves up, I think there is more to come. The market has been very fickle over the last year, which has led to under-performance by professional managers across the board. About 75% of managers underperformed their benchmarks in 2010, with close to 90% of core managers under-performing. Even some of the top dogs have been struggling, with the Wall Street Journal pointing out that there are more than a dozen mutual funds that have been in the top 20% of their Morningstar category over the last 5-10 years that were in the bottom 10% of peers for 2010. This means that a lot of people are going to be chasing alpha this year. Considering how under-invested the typical retail or high net worth individual is, I think there is the potential for the market to extend 2010′s rally in 2011. In 1999 and 2000, investors poured over $400bn into domestic equity mutual funds. In contrast, in 2009 and 2010, we saw over $100bn of domestic equity outflows. How exactly does that translate into an overbought market today? Data from Swiss private banks has confirmed that investors are still sitting on record high cash levels. Even if the typical investor is showing up late to the equity party, isn’t it likely that they are going to bring enough booze (ie investable cash) to keep things going for another while? There are some attractive fundamentals in the US to support a continued move higher. The S&P is trading at 15x earnings vs a historic average multiple of around 16.4x. People say that a low growth environment is not conducive to multiple expansion. However, GDP growth and stock returns are typically not correlated. Equity performance depends more on earnings growth, which is a function of margins and the cost of/return on capital. In the current low inflation/high unemployment environment employees have lost their negotiating power, so corporates will benefit from stable labor costs. (Incidentally, this is not the case in emerging markets where the combination of rising inflation and labor shortages means costs are likely to be on the rise, making investing in those markets less attractive than investing domestically). One sector that looks poised to generate earnings upside and impressive market returns is energy. While people seem to be underweight domestic equities in general, this is even more apparent in energy. The short interest (number of people who are betting on prices going down) is at a one-year-high. The sector currently comprises about 12% of the total S&P market cap, whereas it has reached almost 30% at its peak. At the same time, fundamentals look positive. We are seeing signs of increasing demand for energy, evidenced by the oil market recently moving into “backwardation” — where current oil contracts are priced higher than future ones. This means that current demand is outstripping current supply to such an extent that people are willing to pay a premium to secure the oil now. Take note of this structure, because I think it could translate into the equity market as a whole. As money comes off the sidelines, people are going to start paying up for exposure. Rosenau/Paul is a team of investment professionals registered with HighTower Securities, LLC, member FINRA, MSRB and SIPC & HighTower Advisors, LLC, a registered investment adviser with the SEC. All securities are offered through HighTower Securities, LLC and advisory services are offered through HighTower Advisors, LLC. This document was created for informational purposes only; the opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of HighTower Advisors, LLC or any of its affiliates. In preparing these materials, we have relied upon and assumed without independent verifications, the accuracy and completeness of all information available from public and internal sources. HighTower shall not in any way be liable for claims and make no expressed or implied representations or warranties as to their accuracy or completeness or for statements or errors contained in or omissions from them. This is not an offer to buy or sell securities. No investment process is free of risk and there is no guarantee that the investment process described herein will be profitable. Investors may lose all of their investments. Past performance is not indicative of current or future performance and is not a guarantee. Carefully consider investment objectives, risk factors and charges and expenses before investing.

Read the full article →

Microsoft Earnings Edge Down On Slow PC Sales

January 27, 2011

SEATTLE — Microsoft Corp. said Thursday that its net income for the latest quarter fell slightly from a year ago, and it beat Wall Street’s expectations despite the weak personal computer market. Sales of Office 2010 to consumers and businesses buoyed the results, as did the popularity of Kinect, Microsoft’s new motion-sensing controller for the Xbox 360 video game system. Microsoft’s net income for the October-December quarter was $6.63 billion, compared with $6.66 billion in the same period last year. Thanks to stock buybacks, its net income rose to 77 cents per share, from 74 cents. Analysts surveyed by FactSet were expecting net income of 69 cents per share for the fiscal second quarter. Much of Microsoft’s business depends on selling copies of the Windows operating system and Office desktop software, products that usually rise and fall with fluctuations in the personal computer market. Microsoft launched Windows 7 in the same quarter of 2009, making for a tough comparison. Revenue plunged 30 percent in the Windows division to $5.1 billion. Worldwide personal computer shipments only grew about 3 percent in the latest quarter, as Apple Inc.’s iPad and the promise of more tablet devices to come made consumers think twice about what kind of device to buy. However, the division that sells Office software and other programs saw revenue rise 24 percent to $6 billion. Big companies that put off buying new technology during the worst of the recession are more willing now to upgrade their systems. Microsoft said the division’s revenue from businesses rose 18 percent while revenue from consumers jumped 49 percent, both because of sales of Office 2010. Strength in the entertainment and devices division, which is responsible for Xbox 360, also helped make up for weak Windows sales. Microsoft says it sold 8 million Kinect controllers, helping push revenue for the segment up 55 percent to $3.7 billion. In all, Microsoft’s revenue edged up 5 percent to $20 billion, topping analysts’ expectations for $19.2 billion in revenue. The software maker rushed out its earnings report a few minutes early, just before the markets closed for the day. Shares spiked to more than $29 per share in heavy trading about 15 minutes before the closing bell, before dropping back to $28.87, a 9 cent gain for the day. They slipped 16 cents to $28.71 in extended trading. “A preproduction draft of our earnings release was discovered by one or more media sources who then published our results to the Web before market close,” Bill Koefoed, Microsoft’s general manager of investor relations, said in a statement. Microsoft posted its official numbers after consulting with the Nasdaq stock market, he said. The company is reviewing its procedures to avoid a repeat of the earnings leak. This has happened before to other companies, including The Walt Disney Co. last year. A reporter accessed the quarterly report by guessing the Web address Disney would use before the information was made public, based on the pattern used in past quarters. Microsoft did not immediately say whether the media used a similar tactic to obtain the early results. Despite a successful holiday season for Kinect, Microsoft still needs to prove it is heading in the right direction in areas where it currently lags behind market leaders. Thursday’s report included a wider loss in the online division, which is mostly made up of online advertising. Google Inc., which makes almost all of its money from online advertising, saw its earnings in the same period rise 29 percent to $2.5 billion. Devices running a new smart phone system, Windows Phone 7, went on sale during the quarter, but in its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Microsoft did not mention its contribution to the entertainment and devices division, which also houses Xbox.

Read the full article →

Yahoo To Lay Off ANOTHER 100 To 150 Employees

January 25, 2011

SUNNYVALE, Calif. — Yahoo Inc. is laying off 100 to 150 workers in the latest sign of the pressures facing the Internet company as it begins the fifth year of a financial funk. The job cuts made Tuesday represent about 1 percent of Yahoo’s work force of roughly 13,500 employees. It marks the second round of payroll trimming in two months. Yahoo jettisoned 600 workers just before Christmas. Yahoo, based in Sunnyvale, Calif., provided few details about the latest layoffs except they affected office around the world. The company said it still planned to hire people in key areas that it didn’t identify in a statement. The reasons for Yahoo’s cutbacks may become clearer when the company releases its fourth-quarter quarter earnings after the stock market closes Tuesday. Most analysts expect the results to show meager revenue growth at a time other Internet companies such as Google Inc. and Facebook are thriving. Google, which reigns as the Internet’s biggest moneymaker, is doing so well that it intends to hire more than 6,200 employees this year, increasing its work force by at least 25 percent. It will be the biggest hiring spree in Google’s 12-year history. Yahoo’s malaise has intensified the pressure on CEO Carol Bartz to lower expenses in an effort to boost earnings and lift the company’s stock price, which dipped slightly last year while most of the market climbed. Yahoo shares fell 20 cents to $15.89 in afternoon trading. Bartz’s cost-cutting strategy has provided the desired lift to Yahoo’s bottom line even as revenue growth has consistently disappointed investors. Analysts expect Yahoo’s fourth-quarter earnings to more than double.

Read the full article →

Max Fraad Wolff: Squeezed

January 24, 2011

As the holiday season slips into memory the public sector squeeze is on. We are into the shorter, colder days of winter. The American public sector is struggling through a long, cold season. Yes, the economy has made up some of the ground lost in 2008 and 2009. Yes, the recession has been declared officially over. The stock market has rallied and corporate profits have rebounded. State, local and federal government finances remain mired in pain. Cuts in services and employment are occurring and proposed across the country. Last year, total state and local employment declined by more than 400,000 jobs. An unusual number of Americans are dependent on state and local services and employees. Many millions are in poverty, seeking food assistance and qualified for emergency state and local aid. Government jobs are essential supports in many area economies. These jobs employ many victims of past labor market discrimination, offer a way up and out. State and local services are one of the few lines of defense that remain in our thoroughly tattered social safety net. The discussion of public sector workers lately focuses on the cost. This is vital and should be open to discussion. However, we tend to forget all that we rely on these millions to do. We have also developed a dangerous inclination to discuss state and local workers as an undifferentiated mass with new specific attributes or history. This is a serious mistake as so much is now at stake and so many services and contracts are on the line. Our 20 million state and local workers provide many vital services. These folks provide education, fire, police, clerical, court/legal and social services. Major coming battles are to be fought over which state and local jobs to cut. Who will be fired? What pensions/benefits will be cut? How many services will be cut? Who will go without? This will likely reach a fever pitch as the federal debt ceiling is reached in March/April and the state and local fiscal year ends in June. Sometimes pictures are worth 1,000 words. This also goes for graphs. Below is a sketch of state and local workers. Few of the recent discussion really ask how many state and local workers there are. What do these people do? What are the pay levels? Who are these people? Conversation is usually dominated by ideologically and politically inflected diatribe. How many state and local workers are out there? Figure 1. State and Local Employment Bureau of Labor Statistics CES Figure 1 makes clear that there are about 20 million state and local workers in America. There were 14.3 million local workers at the start of 2011 and 5.2 million state employees. There has been a steady rise in state and local employment over the last half century. Growth has not been particularly rapid over the last decade. Figure 2 speaks to relatively flat employment levels at the state and local levels in the new millennium. Growth in state and local employment has occurred as population has increased and past social movements have won expanded benefits. The very high cost of medical care and social problems associated with crime, drugs, lack of affordable housing have added to costs. Public education — at all levels — has also grown as a cost to state and local governments. Our massive networks of jails, parole officers, probation officers and prisons have grown rapidly. The relative strength of state and local employee unions in some areas has also contributed to employment growth. Most American communities rely on a host of state and local services as well as employments and incomes that flow directly and indirectly from state employment. In some communities these jobs and services produce and support much of the local middle class. Figure 2. BLS Data State and Local Government Employment 2000-2010 (Thousands) In 2009, the latest available data, the average state employee earned $23.67 per hour, $49,240 per year. The average local government employee earned $21.68 per hour or $45,090 per year. These averages hide large differences in pay by location, age and job type. The national average earning per hour for all employed Americans in December of 2009 was $22.38, $44,760 for a 2,000 hour year. State and local government employees earned about the national average per hour in 2009 and 2010. State and local workers, particularly in the six states with the highest levels of unionization, received better benefits than the average private sector worker in a similar job. Public sector workers are more likely to receive benefits than those in the private sector. Benefits have been negotiated up by these workers as an alternative to higher wages in many localities and cases. The value of benefit packages adjusts with the costs of health care, prescription drugs and returns on pension investments. Benefits in public sector work continue to be in line with historical middle class benefit levels. However, there has been significant erosion in benefits for many private sector workers since the 1980s. Thus, public sector workers often have more generous benefit packages than their private sector counterparts. What services do state and local workers provide? The jobs most commonly performed by state and local employees include education/teaching, law enforcement/public safety, fire protection, transportation, social, legal/court and medical services, clerical services. Figure 3 below lists the most common jobs and salaries for state and local employees according to the BLS Career Guide to Industries, 2010-2011 Edition. State and local government employee earnings were close to the national averages in most occupations. The annual earnings of most state and local workers track and move fairly closely with average earnings in the private sector. There are some exceptions and these usually have resulted from particular local political struggles and circumstances. Figure 3. Most Common State and Local Government Occupations and Mean Hourly Compensation Demographic Features and Context State and local workers are heavily unionized. Cuts in employment, wages and benefits at all levels of government will dramatically decrease the proportion of union employment in the US. As this goes to press 12.3% of Americans are represented by unions, 14.7 million people. This number declined by 612,000 across 2010. The rate of unionization has been falling since 1983, when these numbers began being tracked by the BLS. 2010 marked a new low with 11.9% of workers represented by unions, down from 20% in 1983. 36% of public sector workers were unionized in 2010 and 6.9% of private sector workers were in a union. More than half of all unionized workers are in the public sector. In 2010 7.6 million public sector workers were unionized and 7.1 million private sector workers were unionized. Six states: New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey contain more than half of all union members. Rates of union membership are lowest in the Southeastern US where many states have less than 5% of their labor force in unions. Given the dramatic overrepresentation of unions in the state and local public sector, any major shift in employment in this sector will immediately and profoundly shift the role and size of unions in America. Figure 4. BLS Data % of Workers Unionized by Employer Type State and local employees have several demographic attributes that are not seen universally in the working public. African Americans have higher rates of government and union employment because of their concentration in regions and occupations covered by state and local unions. African Americans have a higher rate of state and local employment and a higher rate of unionized employment than the population average. Equal Opportunity Employment Committee data from 2007 suggests that 18% of full time state employees are black. At the city level, the same EEOC data suggest that 19% of full time employees are black. Major shifts in employment at the state and local level are likely to disproportionally impact communities of color- particularly African American communities. There is a unique history behind high levels of African American employment in many states and locales. This history emerged out of civil rights struggles and past patterns of severe employment discrimination against African Americans in hiring. Ethnic demographics of state and local employees display this pattern among historically abused ethnicities and women. Veterans are significantly overrepresented in public sector employment, including at the state and local level. In 2009, nearly 13% of all employed veterans worked for state and local government. Public sector employees tend to stay at jobs longer and tend to be older than private sector workers. Public sector workers are statistically more likely to be older, to be veterans, to be from communities of color and to be concentrated in urban areas of the Mid-Atlantic, West Coast or upper Midwest. These groups will be uniquely hurt by significant cuts in employment, pay, benefits to the public sector. I know some of the above information is dry. However, it is essential to have a realistic conversation about who, what and where we are cutting. Needless to say, lower income and special needs populations are likely to suffer most acutely from reductions in state and local services. Restrictions and reductions on hiring and compensation will further erode the middle class and are likely to increase inequalities of wealth and income.

Read the full article →

Sam Pizzigati: Life at the Top: An Endless Bowl of Bonuses

January 24, 2011

Back in the Great Depression, even at the height of America’s misery, some people made quite a bit of money. Chase National Bank chair Albert Wiggin, for instance, netted a windfall worth over $4 million after the 1929 stock market crash — the equivalent of over $52 million today — trading his own bank short. But most of America’s rich actually saw their fortunes sink, and significantly so, during the Great Depression. The average incomes of the nation’s richest tenth of 1 percent, calculates economist Emmanuel Saez, fell from $1,242,237 in 1928, the last full year before the Great Depression, to $737,861 in 1931, as measured in today’s dollars. Our current Great Recession is most definitely not repeating this sinking-at-the-top history. Our rich today are more than holding their own. On Wall Street, business has hardly ever been better, with profits this past year projected to settle at the fourth-highest all-time total. Wall Street bonuses, new data show, are enriching bankers and traders at levels not far off the records set in the go-go years right before the 2008 financial industry meltdown. At JPMorgan Chase, news reports last week detailed , $9.33 billion in 2010 compensation will be divvied up among 26,314 employees, for a $369,651 per employee average, about the same as the $378,600 average in 2009. But few “average” JPMorgan employees will make anywhere near that $369,651 figure. Bonuses at JPMorgan — and every other Wall Street giant — go disproportionately to top bankers and traders. At Goldman Sachs , 35,700 employees will “share” $15.4 billion in compensation for 2010, a $430,700 average, down somewhat from 2009′s $498,246 average. For Goldman execs, not to worry. The $15.4 billion 2010 pay total doesn’t include any of the stock trading windfalls that Goldman’s top executives — the bank’s 475 managing “partners” — will soon be reaping. Back in December 2008, with Wall Street reeling and Goldman shares selling at a bargain-basement $78 each, Goldman’s power suits awarded themselves options to buy 36 million shares of Goldman stock at that bargain price, ten times more options than Goldman granted the year before. Goldman shares have lately been selling around $175 each, creating a potential $100 per share personal profit for Goldman’s elite. Overall, analysts reported last week, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and his family are now sitting on a stash of Goldman shares worth $355 million. All these dollars cascading onto Wall Street, says JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, signal “the foundation of a broad-based economic recovery.” That signal, outside Wall Street, remains exceedingly weak. Unemployment rates in the United States are running substantially above jobless rates in Germany, Japan, and other peer nations. And U.S. wages, the Wall Street Journal noted earlier this month, “have taken a sharp and swift fall” all across the nation. One consequence: America’s “doubled-up” population — families that have lost their homes and moved in with friends or relatives — has hit the 6 million mark. These hard times everywhere but at the top, New York Times analyst David Leonhardt suggested last week, most likely at root reflect contemporary America’s deep-seated power imbalance “between employers and employees.” U.S. employers , notes Leonhardt, now “operate with few restraints.” With labor protection laws loophole-ridden and courts tilting aggressively the corporate way, companies can dictate outright labor relations terms with their employees. To maintain profit rates, these companies can downsize, outsource, and replace full-timers with temps. Or shove down wages and slash benefits. Or hoard cash and speculate on financial markets — and never have to worry that anyone in government will intervene. We historically, here in the United States, have had a word for power imbalances this striking and stark: plutocracy, or rule by the rich. The plutocratic rule we experience today can seem all-encompassing. The rich and powerful appear to slide endlessly and effortlessly from the summit of one sphere of American economic and political power to another . Some of these moves make national headlines. Peter Orszag, after running the federal budget office for the Obama White House, moves to a plush senior global banking slot at Citigroup. Former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley becomes the new White House chief of staff. Other moves go more under the radar. Former U.S. senator Mel Martinez, a Florida Republican, moves to JPMorgan Chase. Theo Lubke, the lead derivatives expert at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, hops in bed with Goldman Sachs. The top exec in the New York City public school system, Joel Klein, joins the Rupert Murdoch media empire as an executive vice-president. In this clubby atmosphere , backs get scratched at the power summits — and everyday people get shafted. New York City’s richest 1 percent, as one new report details, now average more income per day — about $10,000 — than New York’s poorest 1 million residents average in a year. How long can this state of affairs continue? History can be a guide — and an inspiration, too. In the Great Depression, over five years passed before Congress felt enough grassroots heat to start passing the landmark bills — like the Wagner labor rights legislation — that truly upended America’s power dynamics. We’re still only three years into the Great Recession. Wall Street’s bonus boys may not be as home-free as they think. Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much , the online weekly on excess and inequality published by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Policy Studies. Read the current issue or sign up to receive Too Much in your email inbox.

Read the full article →

Jim Worth: Hiding America’s Real Economy

January 21, 2011

America’s economy seems to be recovering, but is that the ‘real’ story? Some fourth quarter economic indicators — retail sales, manufacturing, stock market, corporate profits — portend a rising economy significant enough to avoid another slide to the bottom. The optimism on Wall Street is palpable as the stock market continues to rise, or melt up as they now say, a result of the positive indicators over recent months. And the heightened exuberance the consumers showed this holiday season was also a positive sign. Manufacturing has been rising for the last several months, which is seen as paramount to an improving economy. The stock market is on its way back to its peak, due, in part, to record corporate profits. The market is considered a forward looking indicator, and the private sector seems poised to stand on its own and no longer require the extreme measures it needed from the federal government. So what could possibly go wrong and who would even whisper that things weren’t getting better? Though the number of people questioning the recovery is declinin,g there are still some that do not accept the premise that all of America’s economic problems are behind us and the recovery is completely sustainable. Realists, unlike the over-optimistic beneficiaries of a rising market, look at all aspects of the economy and not just the positive headlines. Despite the promising numbers coming out of the government and corporations, repeated by CNBC and numerous analysts, there are negatives that could have a significant impact on the economy. And a few of them are large enough to warrant examination. A realistic view of the economy would include the problems in the housing market and high unemployment, either of which could derail the recovering economy. It would also include the increasing deficit and the recent extension of the tax cuts and the unrealistic change in the estate tax — all negatively impacting a healthy recovery. Another undiscussed element is government stimulus — in many forms. The government is still the biggest contributor to the recovery through a multitude of stimulative and protective programs, some that are conveniently hidden from public scrutiny. Aside from the stimulus package of nearly $900 billion, the Federal Reserve has shored up the economy with possibly $3 trillion or more — stimulation and rescue of the financial institutions and corporations — assistance unavailable to the general public and masking the extreme risks in the economy. These veiled economic programs will have a negative affect on the economy if they fail. The failure of any one of them could not only stall, but reverse the recovery. The Fed is holding over $1.3 trillion in toxic assets of the big banks; assets that were supposed to be rescued with TARP. The Toxic Asset Relief Program was used for another purpose — bailing out the banks — so The Fed covertly bought the assets, most likely above their market value. They also loan to banks at zero percent and the banks buy U.S. debt with a two or three percent return; debt that they had a part in creating. Banks are hiding potential losses on foreclosed homes by not having to mark them to market. Robo-signing repercussions could be incredibly high. The housing market had over a million foreclosures in 2010, and 2011 could be even worse. Corporations are holding toxic assets off-balance-sheet, listed as footnotes in reports. States and municipalities are under fiscal stress and threat of default. The FDIC is a partner in hundreds-of-billions in loss-share agreements for seized banks and their tenuous assets. Treasury has guarantees in place with banks and corporations which may exceed a trillion dollars. They also own billions of dollars in stock in banks, corporations and financial entities. The Fed balance sheet could be a more serious problem than is being discussed, and the lack of transparency is problematic. These hidden programs have benefitted corporations and Wall Street, but, only marginally helped Main Street which continues to struggle, bouncing along the bottom destined to remain there until the next crisis; a crisis that will surely wipe Main Street out. At some point the shadowy structures of The Fed and Treasury may be forced into the light and it could be ugly. As long as secrecy exists throughout the financial world the U.S. and global economies are at extreme risk. This risk is bad for markets. The world, on such dubious ground, cannot afford the huge loss the markets’ will sustain. Transparency is a must –the world deserves the truth. But, maybe, the world can’t handle the truth.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Fools Rush in…

January 12, 2011

Many market trends are “obvious” to readers of my books and blogs. Here are some of them: The U.S. will become a third world country; The dollar is doomed; Inflation is inevitable; Interest rates will rise dramatically; Municipal bond defaults will rise at an alarming rate. Now is the time to dump municipal bonds. The stock market will continue its recovery well into 2011, and probably longer. I don’t understand why anyone is interested in my opinion on any of these issues. They could be right or wrong on any or all of them. I don’t have a clue. I believe the markets have taken all of the facts that underlie these beliefs into consideration and have priced the dollar, stocks and bonds accordingly. I also know that most investors make terrible investing decisions based on whatever their beliefs may be. Here’s my take on a prudent course of action. If you believe the U.S. is doomed (and even if you don’t), your portfolio should have exposure to international stocks. Most experts recommend a range of 30%-50%. If you believe the dollar is doomed (or not doomed), consider a globally diversified bond portfolio for that portion of your assets allocated to bonds. The SPDR Barclays Capital International Treasury Bond ETF (BWX) is a good place to start. As for inflation and interest rates, whether or not you believe these are risks, your bond portfolio should consist of short or intermediate term bonds (with maturities five years or less) in an index fund or an ETF. As those bonds mature, they will be replaced by new ones that will reflect current interest rates. It’s your personal hedge against inflation. What about the municipal bond issue? If the market perceives municipal bonds as risky, issuers will have to offer more interest to compensate for the higher risk of default. Historically, riskier assets have higher returns over time than less risky assets. If you can afford the increased risk, and are prepared to hold on for the long-term, maybe this is the right time to buy a low cost municipal bond ETF, like the iShares National Municipal Bond ETF (MUB). Many investors are fleeing bonds and going back to stocks, now that the pundits are predicting a continuation of the stock market recovery. The fact that they failed to call the recovery when the markets bottomed out in March, 2009 does not stop them from making more predictions. It also doesn’t deter investors from believing they have the ability to predict random events. Net inflows to bond funds (and out of stocks) peaked in October, 2009 at $231 billion. Think of all those hapless souls, relying on the financial media and their brokers and advisers, who “fled to safety” and missed out on the dramatic market recovery which continues to this day. Your asset allocation shouldn’t change with the latest survey of self-styled experts, economists or others. Endless talk and conflicting opinions fuel fear and uncertainty. Fear compels investors to make trading decisions. Trading decisions benefit brokers and their firms. It’s a crazy cycle, which repeats endlessly. Only advice based on long-term data qualifies as investment advice. If you’re paying for any other kind of advice, understand the price may far exceed the fees you are paying. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: The GOP and the Banks: Cutting the Garlic Budget as the Vampires Attack

December 22, 2010

Van Helsing: “The strength of the vampire is that nobody will believe in him.” America’s debt to Wall Street has soared since 1945 — and although the banks were rescued at the public’s expense, the public’s been left holding the bag for the recent drop in housing prices: Hmm… How many times has the word “vampire” appeared in books during the same period [1]? What does this mean? Does it reflect the public’s subconscious response to predatory banking? Or is it just some guy having nerdy fun with data sets by juxtaposing two trend lines that have nothing to do with one another? We report, you decide. Here’s what we do know: Like their fictional counterparts, America’s banks are revenants, re-animated creatures who were brought back from the dead through the public’s generosity. Now they’re feasting on the rest of us again, while politicians in Washington work to rob us of the few tools we can use to defend ourselves. With some Democratic complicity, Republicans are fulfilling the promise of Rep. Spencer Bachus, who said that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks .” And what they’re serving them is you . The Count: “Listen to them! The creatures of the night. What music they make… ” The rap sheet against America’s banks grows longer and longer. They keep stringing people along with phony foreclosure negotiations, and then foreclose anyway. And we’re hearing more and more stories about bank agents who, as they’re invading and padlocking illegally foreclosed homes, also steal the private property inside them. In

Read the full article →

Richard (RJ) Eskow: The GOP and the Banks: Cutting the Garlic Budget as the Vampires Attack

December 22, 2010

Van Helsing: “The strength of the vampire is that nobody will believe in him.” America’s debt to Wall Street has soared since 1945 — and although the banks were rescued at the public’s expense, the public’s been left holding the bag for the recent drop in housing prices: Hmm… How many times has the word “vampire” appeared in books during the same period [1]? What does this mean? Does it reflect the public’s subconscious response to predatory banking? Or is it just some guy having nerdy fun with data sets by juxtaposing two trend lines that have nothing to do with one another? We report, you decide. Here’s what we do know: Like their fictional counterparts, America’s banks are revenants, re-animated creatures who were brought back from the dead through the public’s generosity. Now they’re feasting on the rest of us again, while politicians in Washington work to rob us of the few tools we can use to defend ourselves. With some Democratic complicity, Republicans are fulfilling the promise of Rep. Spencer Bachus, who said that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks .” And what they’re serving them is you . The Count: “Listen to them! The creatures of the night. What music they make… ” The rap sheet against America’s banks grows longer and longer. They keep stringing people along with phony foreclosure negotiations, and then foreclose anyway. And we’re hearing more and more stories about bank agents who, as they’re invading and padlocking illegally foreclosed homes, also steal the private property inside them. In

Read the full article →

Video: Hayes Says U.S. Stock Rally May Continue Well Into 2011

December 21, 2010

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — Timothy Hayes, chief investment strategist at Ned Davis Research, talks about the outlook for the U.S. stock market in 2011. Hayes also discusses Federal Reserve monetary policy. He talks with Matt Miller and Emily Chang on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Stocks Are Surging Since Announcement Of Fed’s Plan

December 17, 2010

Is the Fed’s latest gamble working? The stock market’s 17% rise since Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announced his plans for a second round of quantitative easing in late August has sparked further speculation that the economy may be on its way to recovery. Bernanke’s push to reinvigorate the economy through a massive, $600 billion series of government debt purchases has been met with mixed responses. Though the move (dubbed QE2, for quantitative easing) is meant to boost employment and lower interest rates, others fear the possibility that it will instead fuel inflation. As its doubled its pre-crisis balance sheet to more than $2.3 trillion , the Fed’s low interest rates and debt-buying programs have done much to enrich corporate coffers. But the program’s effect on the larger economy is less clear. Still, the stock market has surged. This week, the S&P rose to its highest level since September 2008, hitting 1,242.87, which has prompted optimism in some analysts. “The market has positive momentum and it really has been a momentum story since late August,” said Katie Stockton, the chief market technician at MKM Partners , an institutional equity research, sales and trading firm. Stockton noted that her estimate for the S&P’s next high was 1315, if momentum continued. However, the rise in interest rates since QE2 was unveiled has others less convinced. It’s not clear, for one, whether or not the stock market’s rise is due to merely to sentiment — or an economy that’s actually on the mend. “It provides some support to growth,” said Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , of quantitative easing. “The recent runup has been slightly more positive news.” But Baker did not take the recent stock market climb to be a major positive indicator for the economy. “There’s always a fair degree of indeterminacy of where the market should be,” he said. “The market is relatively low level in the scheme of things.” Holiday spending, however, is up, a sign that consumers may be ready to spend again. A spokesperson for the National Retail Federation predicted that there will be a 3.3% growth in retail sector this November and December. Further, a survey of leading economic indicators by the Conference Board , a private industry group, rose by 1.1 percent, its highest rate in eight months. “The U.S. economy is showing some sparks of life in late 2010,” said Ken Goldstein, an economist at The Conference Board. Yet despite positive trends in the stock market and spending, unemployment numbers remain high. The nationwide unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent from 9.6 percent in November, according to the Department of Labor .

Read the full article →

Stocks Are Surging Since Announcement Of Fed’s Plan

December 17, 2010

Is the Fed’s latest gamble working? The stock market’s 17% rise since Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke announced his plans for a second round of quantitative easing in late August has sparked further speculation that the economy may be on its way to recovery. Bernanke’s push to reinvigorate the economy through a massive, $600 billion series of government debt purchases has been met with mixed responses. Though the move (dubbed QE2, for quantitative easing) is meant to boost employment and lower interest rates, others fear the possibility that it will instead fuel inflation. As its doubled its pre-crisis balance sheet to more than $2.3 trillion , the Fed’s low interest rates and debt-buying programs have done much to enrich corporate coffers. But the program’s effect on the larger economy is less clear. Still, the stock market has surged. This week, the S&P rose to its highest level since September 2008, hitting 1,242.87, which has prompted optimism in some analysts. “The market has positive momentum and it really has been a momentum story since late August,” said Katie Stockton, the chief market technician at MKM Partners , an institutional equity research, sales and trading firm. Stockton noted that her estimate for the S&P’s next high was 1315, if momentum continued. However, the rise in interest rates since QE2 was unveiled has others less convinced. It’s not clear, for one, whether or not the stock market’s rise is due to merely to sentiment — or an economy that’s actually on the mend. “It provides some support to growth,” said Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , of quantitative easing. “The recent runup has been slightly more positive news.” But Baker did not take the recent stock market climb to be a major positive indicator for the economy. “There’s always a fair degree of indeterminacy of where the market should be,” he said. “The market is relatively low level in the scheme of things.” Holiday spending, however, is up, a sign that consumers may be ready to spend again. A spokesperson for the National Retail Federation predicted that there will be a 3.3% growth in retail sector this November and December. Further, a survey of leading economic indicators by the Conference Board , a private industry group, rose by 1.1 percent, its highest rate in eight months. “The U.S. economy is showing some sparks of life in late 2010,” said Ken Goldstein, an economist at The Conference Board. Yet despite positive trends in the stock market and spending, unemployment numbers remain high. The nationwide unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent from 9.6 percent in November, according to the Department of Labor .

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: 2011 Battleground: UBS Versus the Dorfman Indicator

December 12, 2010

One of Yogi Berra’s more famous Yogi-isms: “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” That’s worth keeping in mind since Wall Street’s bulls, bears and buffoons will soon be blitzing us with their traditional year-end bombardment of forecasts on what’s ahead for the stock market in 2011. In fact, the blitz is already under way. The problem is the overwhelming number of forecasters are notoriously inept. Just check the year-end market predictions of your favorite TV business shows and financial publications at any time over the past 10 years, look a year out and you’ll see how consistently wrong the supposed experts have been. In most cases, the self-proclaimed Wall Street and media experts would have probably fared a lot better simply tossing a coin. As far as 2011 goes, one thing seems certain. Clearly, a tug of war lies ahead, what with many hedge fund managers I talk to solidly downbeat for all the reasons everybody knows, while Wall Street is predominantly bullish, again for all the reasons everybody knows. So who and what are we supposed to believe? And is it time to get excited about stocks again? UBS Financial Securities, just out with its new year’s outlook for its wealth management clients, offers what strikes me as a sane look-head. First though, it’s worth your knowing about the Dorfman indicator, one of my favorite market barometers, which has proven infallible as far back as I can remember. A creation of mine, it’s a contrarian view based on the repeated forecasts of a veteran Wall Street trader, who has an incredible knack of consistently being wrong whenever he tries to predict the direction of the market. In this respect, in fact, I can’t ever recall him being right. So whatever he thinks, just do the opposite. The last time I caught up with our trader was in early August with the Dow at around 10,000. He was very bearish, and, in fact, told me he was shorting stocks (a bet they would fall in price). What a mistake! True to form, the market went higher, with the Dow, now at around 11,400, turning in a nifty 14% gain. What does he think now? Bad news, I’m sorry to say. Unequivocally, he tells me, 2011 will be a winning year for investors. “The economic recovery is for real,” he says. “The evidence is all around us. The unemployment and housing problems are not about to be resolved in the next 12 minutes, but we should see some progress in both areas next year, and the stock market should respond positively.” An essentially similar view is held by UBS Financial Services, Looking a year out, Stephen Freedman, the head of investment strategy is convinced being moderately bullish is the way to go. His reasoning: The global economic recovery is on track and equities are set to outperform while fiscal risks remain at the forefront. One key plus, as he sees it, is that global stocks are sporting below-average price-earnings multiples of 12 to 13, versus an average 16.5 over the past 20 years. In terms of better than average 2011 returns, say on the order of 15% to 20%, he favors four fast growing emerging markets, notably Brazil, Russia, China and Taiwan. As far as the U.S. goes, Freedman sees a 2011 combo of a modest economic recovery (2.7% GDP growth), a tailing off in the jobless rate to 9%, continuing earnings gains of 8% to 10%, versus an estimated 35%-40% this year, paltry bond yields, making equities more attractive, and those below-average P/Es producing general 2011 stock returns of about 10% to 12%. Over the near term, though, he feels the recent sharp runup in equity markets, concerns over European sovereign debt and election uncertainties associated with a new Congress could spur a temporary pullback. He also worries about geopolitical risks, namely flare ups between the U.S. and China, new challenges from nuclear-minded Iran, heightened tensions between North and South Korea and renewed debt problems in Europe. Where should U.S. equity investors put their money to work here? Freedman favors information technology, consumer staples, energy, gold and industrials, mainly transportation. At the same time, he would shun the telecom, consumer discretionary, materials and health care sectors. His wrapup: “Economically, it’s going to take the U.S. longer to catch up, but nonetheless “it’s a good time to buy stocks.” Costa Rican money manager Felix Heligmann disagrees. There are lots of cheap U.S. stocks out there, he says, but notes “I’m not a buyer.” His reasoning: “I expect 2011 to be a very difficult year for the U.S market.” In particular, Heligmann sees growing friction between China and the U.S., increasing Washington gridlock, meaning little if anything will be done legislatively to beef up the ailing economy and appreciably lower the high unemployment rate, and a worsening European debt crisis. What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com.

Read the full article →

Investors Need To Adjust Strategies In Sideway Markets

December 11, 2010

For the us stock market the past ten years have earned the title the lost decade The next ten years probably will not be much different The market will likely set record highs and multiyear lows but index investors and buyandhold stock collectors will find themselves not far from where they started We are in a Cowardly Lion market whose occasional bursts of bravery are ultimately overrun by fear that leads to a subsequent decline

Read the full article →

Video: Deming Says `Good Time’ to Add Risk Protection Strategy: Video

December 10, 2010

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — Dan Deming, managing director at Stutland Equities LLC, talks about volatility in U.S. stock market and investment strategy. The benchmark index for U.S. equity options fell to the lowest since April as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose for a third day and traded in a narrower-than-average range. Deming talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Deming Says `Good Time’ to Add Risk Protection Strategy: Video

December 10, 2010

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — Dan Deming, managing director at Stutland Equities LLC, talks about volatility in U.S. stock market and investment strategy. The benchmark index for U.S. equity options fell to the lowest since April as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose for a third day and traded in a narrower-than-average range. Deming talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Deming Says `Good Time’ to Add Risk Protection Strategy: Video

December 10, 2010

Dec. 10 (Bloomberg) — Dan Deming, managing director at Stutland Equities LLC, talks about volatility in U.S. stock market and investment strategy. The benchmark index for U.S. equity options fell to the lowest since April as the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose for a third day and traded in a narrower-than-average range. Deming talks with Carol Massar and Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Vale to trade shares on HK stock market

December 6, 2010

Vale to trade shares on HK stock market

Read the full article →

Insider Trading Probe Leads Investors To Wonder: Is The Market Rigged?

November 24, 2010

NEW YORK — The Wall Street insider trading investigation may lead everyday investors – already rattled by a stock market meltdown, a one-day “flash crash” and the Madoff scandal – to finally conclude that the game is rigged. “A large part of trading has to do with trust, and I don’t have it,” says Mark Swenson, a 43-year-old plumber from New Hampshire who refuses to buy individual stocks. “When a stock moves up 10 percent, you don’t know why,” he added. “We can pretend that everyone has access to the same information, but they don’t.” Even before news broke that federal investigators were looking into whether hedge funds traded on inside information, small-time investors were pulling their money out of stocks – despite a remarkable run for the market since the spring of 2009. Americans have pulled $60 billion out of U.S. stock funds this year, according to the Investment Company Institute, a trade group. Meanwhile, investors have piled money into Treasuries and bond funds that are considered safer investments, even if they don’t return as much money. And at the same time, banks like Wells Fargo have reported that money is moving into checking and savings accounts. To be sure, it’s natural for people worried about their jobs or the falling value of their homes to sock cash into more conservative investments. But this has been no garden-variety recession. It has coincided with turmoil in the stock market that goes back a decade, to the collapse of the Internet bubble and portfolio-draining scandals involving high-flying companies such as Enron and WorldCom. More recently, investors have lived through the housing bubble, the collapse of Wall Street firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and stomach-churning days when it wasn’t clear whether capitalism would survive. On top of that came news that financier Bernard Madoff had bilked investors out of billions. “Virtually everyone on the Street believes there are significant improprieties, and I think there is an even more important point for the massive number of investors who are not Wall Street players,” says former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, once known as the “sheriff of Wall Street” for aggressively prosecuting white-collar crime as state attorney general. “And that is for most of us, you can’t beat these guys at their own game.” People are nervous about the state of their assets in part because their homes are worth so much less these days, not to mention job insecurity and slow economic growth overall. Some pros on Wall Street say hesitation by small investors is good news. It means that there’s plenty of “dry powder” to propel the market higher in the next few months when and if the little guy finally relents and joins in the rally. The insider-trading probe could test that theory. The FBI this week searched the offices of three hedge funds, and some of Wall Street’s most influential firms, including Janus Capital Group, have been subpoenaed in the probe. On Wednesday, an employee of a firm that supplied market intelligence to hedge funds was arrested and charged, among other things, with conspiracy to commit securities fraud. It was not yet known whether the man dealt with the funds raided this week. For Swenson, the allegations of insider trading are unnerving, particularly on top of the “flash crash” in May, when a computerized selling program set off a chain reaction that drove the Dow Jones industrials down nearly 1,000 points in mere minutes. The sell-off was a reminder to some individual investors that hedge funds and other powerful traders use computer programs to make rapid-fire stock trades, giving them an advantage over the slower smaller investor. “The hedge funds are resorting to more questionable tactics. It’s mind-boggling,” says Swenson, who invests largely in exchange-traded funds, which track market indexes and can be traded throughout the day, unlike mutual funds. Spitzer says the new insider trading probes illustrate how the game is tilted against small investors. “If you are sitting there in front of a screen, thinking your information is going to be good enough to make smart judgments that will permit you to outperform the hundreds of thousands of people on Wall Street who have access to better information and more timely information than you, you’re mistaken,” Spitzer says. It’s not the first time small investors have been scared out of stocks. Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College who has written 18 books on the history of markets, says investors balked at buying for years after the Crash of 1929 and Black Monday in 1987. The view both times: The odds are stacked against the little guy. To combat such an impression, the Securities and Exchange Commission was established in 1934, and “circuit breakers” were instituted after the 1987 crash to stop massive selling. But all of the safeguards don’t seem to be helping lately. “If the stock markets had any reputation for integrity, they lost it in the past year,” Geisst says. Restoring small investors’ confidence may depend on whether they see ample evidence that federal regulators are successfully cracking down on bad behavior, says Ross B. Intelisano, a securities fraud attorney with the firm Rich & Intelisano. The market needs them back. Most of the stock in U.S. companies, both public and private, is held by individuals, not institutions, according to Federal Reserve data. Small investors may be comforted to know that professional investors don’t always fare better, even with the edge they have over the masses. Numerous studies have shown that mutual funds overseen by professional stock pickers often are outperformed by computer-driven index funds. The record for hedge funds hasn’t been so impressive, either. Since 2008, when the number of those funds hit 10,000, nearly 3,000 have gone out of business, according to Hedge Fund Research in Chicago. “The edge is hugely exaggerated,” says Richard Ferri, founder of the investment advisory firm Portfolio Solutions and an advocate of low-cost index funds. “If the small investor does the right thing, he can do better than 99 percent of anyone else.” ___ Associated Press writer Michael Gormley contributed to this report from Albany, N.Y.

Read the full article →

Robert E. Prasch: Join a World-Wide Bank Run in December — Move Your Money

November 24, 2010

“A spectre is haunting Europe.” Its not the revolution that Karl Marx supposed would come about. Nor is it Parisian students and workers taking to the streets as in May 1968. It is the vision of hordes of Europeans striking back at those who caused the 2008 financial crash. This time, organizers are calling for the use of a new weapon, one available to any of us with a bank account. It is the simple act of removing all of our money from the banks, and doing so en masse on the same day — December 7th. While it is hard to know who first thought of this marvelous act of political theater, it has begun to take serious traction in France and is now spreading across Europe. It has especially taken off since a ringing endorsement of the idea began making the rounds on YouTube and Facebook by the always amusing, and surprisingly thoughtful, ex-soccer star Eric Cantona. Cantona, already famous for his performances with Leeds United, Manchester United, and the French National Team, has remained in the public eye while developing new interests in photography, film, and live theater (Happily for the discerning taste of the French public, he is an excellent photographer, and in the latter endeavors he has the advantage of being mentored by a well-established and highly-talented young actress — his wife, Rachida Brakni). Of late, the famously mercurial temper that Cantona exhibited on and off the soccer pitch has been redirected from rivals and unruly fans. A prominent target is French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s proposal to create a ministry, museum, and mass public debate on “national identity,” all of which Cantona publically ridiculed as “idiotic.” His sights are now trained on the banking and financial system that he — correctly — holds responsible for France’s current economic problems. This is important because Sarkozy and the EU leadership is using this crisis to erode welfare state protections even as ostensibly scarce public monies are deployed to shore up the banks most responsible for the problem. Which brings us to the economics of a mass withdrawal of deposits from the banks. Will it bring about an actual bank run or financial crash? Certainly not. For one thing, an organized and deliberate action such as Cantona proposes lacks the element of panic so characteristic of bank runs. Additionally, the banks and the central banks overseeing them will have time to prepare for the event, and should be able to reallocate their holdings of cash, reserves, and other assets in advance. If necessary, banks can always borrow short-term funds on the inter-bank market or even directly from the central bank. A mass withdrawal should, however, shrink the profitability of banks, as retail deposits are normally considered cheap and stable sources of funds with which to finance loans. Large European banks, relative to their American peers, are more dependent on retail deposits, so they will especially miss these funds when the time comes to calculate profits and bonuses. But what of the politics? Here in the United States it is now overwhelmingly clear that a dozen or so of the largest financial institutions responsible for the crash and ensuing recession have gained, not lost, by their irresponsible decisions. They repeatedly tell us that they have “learned lessons.” This is true, they have: Learned that their past decisions have enriched senior management beyond belief. Learned that their market share is now substantially larger than before the crash. And learned that the government has deemed them Too Big To Fail (this latter designation lowers their cost of funds and enhances their profitability). Showing admirable “bi-partisanship,” Republican and Democratic administrations have worked hard and seamlessly to bring about these “lessons.” This summer, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act enshrined the perspective of financial elites that reform should be primarily symbolic. In a sentence, over $12,000,000,000 of stock market, real estate, and other asset values disappeared, while rates of home foreclosures and unemployment soared, with virtually NO political or legal consequences. I might be a cynic, but I hope to never be as cynical as those who engineered these outcomes. Bringing Cantona’s symbolic protest here to the United States could mark the beginning of a new politics, one marked by actions taken outside of the normal party process where “hope and change” are now effectively stifled by the duplicity of our elected officials. Moreover we, the people, need a victory. We need to do something that simultaneously creates a spectacle and an unmistakable political message. So let us join with Cantona and the good people of Europe by withdrawing our money from the four largest American banks on December 7th (Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo). They deserve our contempt several times over, so lets present them with their just rewards! Sadly, the next largest two in size, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, do not have many retail accounts. But perhaps we could gesture at them with a middle finger on our merry way to withdraw money from the others! In preparation, open an account at a credit union or a community bank over the next few weeks so you will have somewhere to put your money when the protest ends. If you are worried about the security of your funds on the day of the protest, withdraw all but a token sum beforehand and then close your account on December 7th. Perhaps happiest of all, this protest has no downside. You don’t even need a permit — after all, you are just going to the bank! Your actions will tie up their bank operations all day, and their back offices for some time afterwards. While waiting in line, you will have a chance to meet friends, neighbors, and like-minded fellow citizens who care deeply about the future of this nation. You will hurt the profits and the public image of several irresponsible and predatory financial institutions. You will embarrass the political leadership of the nation. And finally, your money will almost certainly end up in a more service-oriented and socially responsible institution. You will be glad that you turned out on December 7th. Robert E. Prasch is a professor of economics at Middlebury College where he teaches courses on Monetary Theory and Policy, Macroeconomics, American Economic History, and the History of Economic Thought. His latest book is How Markets Work: Supply, Demand and the ‘Real World’ (Edward Elgar, 2008).

Read the full article →

Video: Hammond Expects `Long, Slow Slog’ for Stocks, Investors

November 18, 2010

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Brett Hammond, chief investment strategist for TIAA-CREF, talks about the outlook for the U.S. stock market, General Motors Co.’s initial public offering and the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. Hammond talks with Julie Hyman on Bloomberg Television’s “Fast Forward.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Obama: GM IPO Proves Government Made The Right ‘Tough Decisions’ On Rescue

November 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday celebrated the return of a reborn General Motors to the U.S. stock market, saying it shows some of the “tough decisions that we made” during the financial crisis were beginning to pay off. “American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM, and that’s a good thing,” Obama said. The government’s $50 billion taxpayer-backed rescue of the venerable automaker includes more than $36 billion injected by the Obama administration and more than $13 billion approved by Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush. Trading the new stock is a milestone for both the corporation and for the Obama administration. The stock rose sharply at first, rising to nearly $36 per share from the $33 price GM set for the initial public offering before pulling back and closing at $34.19. The trading – more than 400 million GM shares traded hands during its debut on the Big Board – helped reduce the federal government’s stake in the company from 61 percent to about 36 percent. For the U.S. to break even on its investment, it must sell its remaining stake for about $50 a share. Obama said estimates indicate that actions by his administration helped save more than 1 million jobs across 50 states. The Center for Automotive Research estimated that aid to GM and Chrysler saved more than 1.1 million jobs in 2009 and 314,000 jobs this year. The third Big Three automaker, Ford Motor Co., did not accept federal assistance and stayed out of bankruptcy. With it’s first day of trading, the once near-death automaker “took another big step toward becoming a success story,” Obama said. Obama said the revitalized GM proved that “doubters and naysayers” were wrong. “We are finally beginning to see some of these tough decisions that we made in the midst of the crisis pay off,” the president said. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, in line to become the House speaker in January, avoided a direct answer when he was asked whether the government’s treatment of General Motors had saved any jobs. He said he had favored allowing GM to go through bankruptcy, and said the episode “could have been handled without the heavy hand of the federal government in the midst of it.” He said tens of thousands of people were punished as a result of the process that was used. Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Mich., co-chairman of the Congressional Automotive Caucus, said the company’s strong IPO performance shows that government loans were “a smart investment of taxpayer money” that saved jobs and that GM was well on its way back to productivity and profitability. Those who held old GM stock were essentially wiped out when the company filed for bankruptcy.

Read the full article →

Douglas M. Branson: Women CEOs in the Fortune 500 — A Single Step Forward, Four Steps Back

November 18, 2010

My book, The Last Male Bastion – Gender and the CEO Suite at America’s Public Companies (Routledge 2010), appeared just last March. The book featured profiles of the 21 women who actually have reached the corner officer at large U.S. public companies, including references to the 22nd (Ursula Burns at Xerox). Ms. Burns took office after the manuscript had gone to print. There have been several twists and turns since that time, with the overall effect being a distinct setback. The total number of women CEOs has fallen, from 15, or 3% of the Fortune 500, which represented the high point, to 12, then in September back up to 13, then most recently back to 12, or 2.4%, where it now rests. When in 2009 Ursula Burns took office it was a historic moment, not because the number of women in office had reached a new high. It hadn’t: Burns replaced another woman, Anne Mulcahy, who had been Xerox’s CEO since 2002. The female CEO number stayed at 15. What was historic was that Ms. Burns became our first African American woman CEO. Very rapidly, though, three women CEOs resigned their positions. Mary Sammons, CEO of Rite Aid, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, resigned, perhaps be she was tired. Once a high flier in the 1990s stock market, Rite Aid has fallen further and further behind the industry leaders, CVS and Walgreens. For a time the stock has flirted with a price under $1.00, which could mean delisting from the New York Stock Exchange. Sammons and her team seemed never able to pull the company out of its tail spin. Christina Gold, CEO of Western Union, re-located to outside Denver, stepped down later this spring. She simply retired. Then, in early summer came word that Brenda Barnes, CEO of Sara Lee, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, herself a widely publicized corporate CEO, had a severe stroke in her mid-50s. In June she took a leave of absence, followed in August by her resignation. Kohlberg Kravis & Roberts (KKR), the buyout firm has expressed interest in acquiring Sara Lee and taking the company private but, initially at least, Sara Lee’s management rejected the overtures. So, quite rapidly, the number of women CEOs had dropped from 15 to 12. The number rebounded slightly in late September when Campbell’s Soup, of Camden, New Jersey, announced the selection of Denise Morrison as CEO, succeeding Douglas R. Conant. Ms. Morrison is a food industry veteran, who rose through jobs at Proctor & Gamble, Pepsico, Nestle S.A., Nabisco, and Kraft Foods, before joining Campbell’s. She also evidences a common pattern of women who have made it to the top. They side stepped from one company to another, often several times in their careers, before they reached senior management. Only Anne Mulcahy at Xerox and Susan Ivey at Reynolds America are female CEOs who spent most all of their careers with a single company. The number of women on corporate boards of directors in the U.S. has been basically flat for 5 years now, according to Catalyst, the leading women’s advocacy organization. Catalyst, too, inflates the number, counting the number of directorships which are held by women as the number of female directors. The latter number is significantly less, as numbers of women, many of them prominent, allow themselves to be token, or corporate governance ornaments, serving on 4, 5, 6 or 7 corporate boards. The number of women trophy directors has rapidly increased as of late whereas the species has all but disappeared among men. Then, most recently, in late October, 2010, Susan Ivey at Reynolds America announced her retirement from the CEO position. Her stepping down is quite confounding, as she is only 51 and her leadership at RAI has been unparalleled. She led the company into smokeless tobacco, where future growth will be. She resurrected defunct premium brands, marketing them with premium panache but non-premium prices. The stock’s price hovers near an all-time high and the dividends are robust, to say the least. So, in the immediate year almost past, we have had one new appointment (Morrison) and four resignations (Sammons, Gold, Barnes and Ivey); one step forward, four steps back.

Read the full article →

Video: Federated’s Tice Says Fed QE Is Likely to `End Badly’

November 11, 2010

Nov. 11 (Bloomberg) — David Tice, chief portfolio strategist for bear markets at Federated Investors Inc, talks about the Federal Reserve’s plan to buy more Treasury securities, the outlook for the U.S. stock market and investment strategy for the Federated Prudent Bear Fund. Tice speaks with Matt Miller and Carol Massar on Bloomberg’s Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: New Global Currency Is Gold Sell Signal

November 11, 2010

QE2 will be followed by QE3 until we see “the end of the U.S. dollar standard,” a leading gold enthusiast and emerging markets expert, declared yesterday. No one can predict the timing, but the signal to sell all your gold will be an emergency economic meeting to create a new global currency, says Asia-based investment analyst Christopher Wood, who has been recommending gold as an investment since 2002. Wood is on record as predicting that gold will sell over $3,000 an ounce some day. His portfolio allocation for U.S. pension funds includes 25% gold bullion and 15% gold mining shares. Another signal that gold is in danger of big price slippage is when Ben Bernanke raises interest rates by 1/4 of 1%, but he sees no reasonable chance that would happen anytime in the near future- and certainly not unless there is inflationary growth in the U.S. economy. “The biggest beneficiary of QE2 will be the Asian emerging markets,” says Christopher Wood, emerging markets analyst at CLSA. “Investors must be overweight these Asian markets,” because that’s where Bernanke’s buying of Treasuries will end up. Or investors can buy U.S. multinationals with major operations in the emerging markets.” Wood says the stock market in China sells at the same market multiple as the U.S., and he believes Chinese banks and insurance stocks are especially cheap right now and due for a move. His biggest weighting is in India. Wood’s Asian portfolio of 25 stocks has gained 671% in value since late 2002, compared to the MSCI index, which has risen 217%. Wood’s portfolio picks have turned in an annual return rate of 28.9%. Wood told a small group of journalists he did not believe that QE2 would work and that it will lead on to QE3, just as QE1 led to QE2. Because of expected weakness in the dollar, Wood recommended buying strong Asian currencies like the Singapore dollar, his favorite. He flatly predicted the Singapore dollar would rise in relationship to the dollar. One way to play Singapore is to own high dividend yielding stocks there, or to get a slice via the iShares MSCI Singapore ETF that trades under “EWS.” He believes the economy will continue to be soft because of the foreclosure troubles facing the housing industry. Housing can’t recover until there is a clearing of all the homes in trouble, and this possibility is being held up by all the legal snafus and litigation. He also predicted that Portugal “would blow up” and believes the French banking industry faces an enormous problem in the $495 billion of loans they have outstanding with Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.

Read the full article →

Robert Reich: Obama’s First Stand

November 10, 2010

The president says a Republican proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone for two years is a “basis for conversation.” I hope this doesn’t mean another Obama cave-in. Yes, the president needs to acknowledge the Republican sweep on Election Day. But he can do that by offering his own version of a compromise that’s both economically sensible and politically smart. Instead of limiting the extension to $250,000 of income (the bottom 98 percent of Americans), he should offer to extend it to all incomes under $500,000 (essentially the bottom 99 percent), for two years. The economics are clear: First, the top 1 percent spends a much smaller proportion of their income than everyone else, so there’s very little economic stimulus at these lofty heights. On the other hand, giving the top 1 percent a two-year extension would cost the Treasury $130 billion over two years, thereby blowing a giant hole in efforts to get the deficit under control. Alternatively, $130 billion would be enough to rehire every teacher, firefighter, and police officer laid off over the last two years and save the jobs of all of them now on the chopping block. Not only are these people critical to our security and the future of our children but, unlike the top 1 percent, they could be expected to spend all of their earnings and thereby stimulate the economy. Conservative supply-siders who argue the top 1 percent will stop working as hard if they have to return to the 39 percent marginal rate of the Clinton years must be smoking something (probably an expensive grade). Their incomes of the top are already soaring (Wall Street is reading a 5% boost in bonuses, executive salaries and perks are back on the trajectory they were on before the collapse, and the stock market is booming), so it’s hard to argue much hardship. Besides, only earnings over $500,000 would be affected because — remember — we’re talking about the marginal tax rate. In addition, the Clinton years weren’t exactly bad years, economically, for the top 1 percent. Finally, the Bush tax cuts didn’t trickle down anyway. To the contrary, between 2001 and 2007, the median wage dropped. And Bush’s record on jobs was pitiful. The politics are even clearer. Over the next two years, Obama must clarify for the nation whose side he’s on and whose side his Republican opponents are on. What better issue to begin with than this one? The top 1 percent now takes in almost a quarter of all national income (up from 9 percent in the late 1970s), and its political power is evident in everything from hedge-fund and private-equity fund managers who can treat their incomes as capital gains (subject to a 15 percent tax) to multi-million dollar home interest deductions on executive mansions. If the President can’t or won’t take a stand now — when he still has a chance to prevail in the upcoming lame-duck Congress — when will he ever? Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future , now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org .

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Gobs of New Jobs, but Gobs of Questions

November 6, 2010

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the stock market Friday that mystified many an investor. Maybe you, too. In the face of an early morning positive disclosure of a surprisingly strong October employment report, namely the creation of 151,000 jobs, more than double the general expectation, the market acted like it had been hit by a bulldozer. Stocks should have soared on that kind of news — a credible sign that the jobs market was finally rebounding. Instead, they snored as the Dow, frequently in negative territory, rose a mere 9 points on the day, What alarmed some market watchers was that the jobs news came on the heels of happy tidings for Wall Street earlier in the week that drove up the Dow nearly 220 points on Thursday. So the market was clearly set to run higher on the jobs news. Those earlier stock-boosting tidings: — Strong G.O.P. gains in the mid-term elections, a repudiation of Obama’s policies, which, in turn, flashed a signal that maybe one of the elephant herd now has a legitimate shot at relocating to the White House in 2012. — A $600 billion economic-boosting QE2 (quantative easing) package from the Federal Reserve. So why a disappointing Friday? Aside from Thursday’s big gain which trumped the employment news, add some doubts about the potency of both the jobs report and QE2. Peter Morici, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, doesn’t mince any words as he raises questions about both. “We’re not over the hump,” he says. “We’re on a plateau. Yes, we’re creating jobs, but not enough to materially improve the economy.” As for QE2, Morici doesn’t give it a passing grade, “It won’t lower interest rates or fire up the depressed housing market,” he says. “Maybe we’ll see a temporary benefit, say a 5% rise in stock prices.” As for economic growth, here again, a bum grade from our professor. He sees mediocre 2.6% GDP growth in the current quarter, and less, 2.4%, for all of 2011. At best, he says, “we’ll slog along at a mediocre pace.” In a commentary to clients Friday, David Rosenberg, the well-regarded chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Scheff & Associates, a leading Canadian wealth management firm, raised a number of questions about the overall vigor of the jobs report, noting it was not universally strong. For example, he notes the Household Survey in the report (which includes agricultural employees and self employed) showed a decline of 330,000 jobs. This survey, he also points out, served up evidence that the problem of excess labor supply has not gone away. Moreover, a barometer that many labor experts regard as the most accurate indicator of the health of the jobs market turned in a poor showing. That is the employment-to-population rate — the share of the population that is working — which fell to 58.3 from 58.5%, a 10-month low. Further, he observes, many industries still reported job declines last month, including manufacturing, commercial and residential construction, transportation, information, financial and government. As for QE2, Rosenberg says we may have well seen the last of QE. Why? Because in 2011, he notes, there will be three new voting Federal Reserve bank presidents who vocally oppose more easing initiatives, Relating his thinking to the market, Rosenberg says it’s difficult to see how equities can rally on the Fed move alone, or on the election results for that matter, seeing as both a G.O.P. victory in the House and QE2 had been widely discounted in recent months. Madeline Schnapp, economics skipper at West Coast liquidity tracker TrimTabs Research, partially owned by Goldman Sachs, also raises some questions about QE2. It may stimulate economic activity short term, she says, but it has negative long-term consequences, notably higher inflation and higher interest rates. She also cites a couple of other economic risks, namely the threat of higher taxes from expiring tax cuts and the end-of-the-month expiration of extended and emergency unemployment benefits affecting 6.2 million current enrollees. Without an extension, she points out, by the time all those enrollees fall off the unemployment insurance bandwagon, it may yank $59-$60 billion out of the unemployed pocketbooks, a potentially big negative on consumption. Given his admitted “shellacking” in the recent elections, President Obama has made it clear he’s open to a negotiating process with the Republicans. Could that open the door to more getting done in Washington? Schnapp has her doubts, noting the problem is you have a new ball game in the House next year with a decidedly left group of Democrats sitting across from a new crop of decidedly right Republicans. “Seems like a recipe of gridlock to me,” she says. I hear similar talk from Hong Kong trader Selwyn Ortz who attributes at least part of Friday’s listless market showing to what he believes is “common sense recognition that it will be gridlock and more gridlock in Washington over the next two years, with little if anything of a concrete nature getting done to create more jobs and invigorate the economy.” That means, Ortz believes, that headway in remedying the two biggest economic headaches — jobs and housing — will likely be disappointing. That’s also the thinking of Mideast trader Caise Hassan, who manages family money and is up 110% this year. A HuffPost reader in Amman, Jordan, Chicago-born Hassan tells me: “I don’t hear any great ideas from the Republicans. Maybe they’ll push big tax breaks for companies and lighten up on their criticism of Bernanke’s money printing. But what’s really needed,” he says, “is something that can benefit poor and middle America and neither party is providing that.” As far as the economic recovery goes, Hassan is somewhat skeptical, noting “I see no catalysts for job growth, no legislative catalysts and not enough being done to stimulate growth and demand.” Further, he sees mediocre economic progress for the U.S. in 2011, observing “every time it takes two steps forward, it seems to take one step back,” His view of Congress’ progress over the next two years: “I don’t think it will achieve anything.” Still, he thinks the stock market is likely is likely to trend higher over the next few months, reflecting good relative strength, solid earnings growth, an overvalued bond market, very low interest rates, the advent of QE2 and strengthening global markets. It’s worth noting that Hassan, in conversations I’ve had with him in recent months, shows he’s a brainy guy when it comes to the investment arena. He has made a number of excellent calls on the direction of the market, as well as on some solid specific investment recommendations. Chief among his current favorites are selected stocks and some commodities, which both recently climbed to a two-year high following the QE2 announcement. On the equities side, Hassan favors Joy Global, Apple, Amazon and Sina Corp., a Chinese internet company. In commodities, he likes cocoa, sugar and rice. He says he would avoid gold and silver for the next few months, believing that both are currently overbought. Interestingly, he’s short oil, currently a strong performing commodity that he notes usually declines at the end of the year. What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com .

Read the full article →

Eric J. Weiner: Why We Should Fear A China Crash

October 27, 2010

The stock market’s been on quite a roll lately, today’s decline notwithstanding. In October alone the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gained more than 300 points, or around three percent. The other major stock market indices are up similar amounts as well. On Wall Street, the performance has been a powerful elixir to a dolorous summer. Look at a chart of the market’s performance over the past month and you’ll see a fairly steady upward climb. The only real hiccup was a single significant down day, October 19, last Tuesday. Of course, that was just one fluky trading day out of 252 in a year. But as is so often the case in the financial markets, it’s the one-day anomaly that people really should be paying close attention to. On October 19, the Dow fell 165 points, or 1.48 percent. The Nasdaq composite index and S&P 500 both lost more than 1.5 percent. The price of oil plummeted four percent and the value of numerous other commodities sank along with it. And the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note tanked as well. What happened to spook the financial markets? Simple. China’s central bank said it was planning to raise interest rates. Slightly. And the mere prospect of this act triggered fears that China’s government was ratcheting down its country’s economic growth. So traders and investors freaked out. Since then, the markets have resumed their rally and many Wall Streeters describe the episode as an overreaction to Beijing’s statement. And in a sense they’re right. The reality is the effects of any long range fiscal tightening in China wouldn’t be felt over here for a while. So knee-jerk investors who automatically dumped their holdings out of fear that China’ central bank was about to wreck the global financial markets might want to rethink that strategy. However, from a long-term financial perspective it would be unwise for Americans to dismiss this episode. Instead, the U.S. should pay careful attention to what happened on that day because it spotlights a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s relationship with China. The primary metaphor used to describe the tangled web of financial and economic connections between China and the U.S. is codependency . Traditionally, Americans have viewed this codependency as a levee holding back the full weight of China’s economic heft. The idea being that China owns so much U.S. debt and so many dollars that it only would be hurting itself if harmed the U.S. However, it turns out this codependency cuts both ways. As last Tuesday showed, the U.S. economy has become so reliant on China’s meteoric growth that any slowdown would have dire effects over here. Clearly America’s financial markets believe that the U.S. economy needs an aggressive China with companies and consumers ready to step in and fill the gaps in demand left by the battered West. And what’s more, Chinese officials know this as well. All of which helps explain why China has become so belligerent lately on a host of economic issues that American leaders are trying to press. For instance, U.S. officials have persistently accused China of manipulating the value of its currency, the renminbi, to keep the prices of its exports low. To head off a full-scale trade war the G20 over the weekend quickly put together a deal to avoid “competitive currency devaluations.” Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that China has started secretly embargoing shipments of rare earth minerals to the U.S., Europe, and Japan. So far Beijing’s response has been to deny all allegations and allow the value of the renminbi to rise slightly . It also has turned the currency manipulation accusations back on the U.S. by accusing Washington of unfairly using monetary policy to stimulate the American economy. And when the White House accused China of illegally subsidizing its clean energy industry a senior Chinese official sternly warned the U.S. that it “cannot win this trade fight.” Clearly China’s economic stances and rhetoric indicate that it’s no longer prepared to just go along with what the U.S. wants. Not surprisingly, China also is working the inside financial channels to make sure that America has a hard time putting together diplomatic coalitions to block its activities. For example, in July Chinese officials visited Greece and signed 14 business deals worth several billion dollars . And since then China also has offered to create a $5 billion fund to upgrade the Greek merchant shipping fleet. China also bought $558 million worth of bonds issued by Spain , and is in talks to make similar investments in troubled countries like Ireland and Portugal . In the “what have you done for me lately” global economy, China’s willingness to spread its cash around is creating goodwill where it never existed before. And it’s undercutting the West’s unity on crucial economic issues. But perhaps most importantly, Chinese central bankers now know that they hold an economic bomb that they can detonate whenever they want. All they have to do is temporarily slam the breaks on growth and watch financial markets in the U.S. and around the world grind to a standstill. That’s a very powerful position. So if codependency is going to remain the overarching metaphor for the entangled relationship between China and the U.S., America probably should reexamine the fine print in the arrangement. Because from here it looks like one side of the partnership is far more dependent than the other.

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: The Ten Most Serious Problems Facing The Stock Market and Economy

October 27, 2010

The Ten Most Serious Problems Facing The Stock Market and Economy Oct. 26 2010 – 1:19 pm | 609 views | 1 recommendation | 2 comments By ROBERT LENZNER Investor Alert; Here are the major problems you will face in the next ten years of ticklish transition from crisis to attempted normalcy. Call it the WALL OF WORRIES! Excerpted from The Economist Conference on Fixing Finance. And remember; not all problems have quick solutions, like all of the ones below. 1. Economic growth in the US unlikely to pass 2% for the next 3 to 5 years- and maybe even up to 10 years. There can be no stimulus program in light of the expected Republican victory in November. “This is going to be a period of pain,” said Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University professor. The bottom line: unemployment will plague as because there is a 1% annual growth in labor force- but only 2% economic growth. 2. QE2 or Quantitative Easing, the expectation of pouring another trillion dollars into the banking system is seen likely to only trigger inflation, but create no new jobs. Proof positive; yesterday, the Treasury sold inflation protection bonds at negative interest rates- a major sign that investors expect treasuries to drop in price as inflation rises. 3. Expect a new bubble in sovereign debt. The sign; Mexico is ready to sell a 100 year duration bond at 6%. A very risky investment in a nation rent by a civil war with the drug lords, in the opinion of Wilbur Ross, Jr., chairman of W L Ross & Co., one of the nation’s most successful investors. 4. Large corporations are only part of private sector benefiting from cutting overhead(reducing employee count) and bringing more revenues to bottom line. 5. The Fed will be sitting on its $2 trillion in cash for a long time without any practical use for it. There is very little demand for bank loans from the private sector. Adding reserves to the banks wont accomplish any more economic activity. 6. The economics profession let the world down because it had the tools that were politically acceptable. 7. No solution in sight for the housing market. Wilbur Ross suggested a plan to reduce the amount of principal owed on homes to below the mortgage debt still owed, and then let the parties share in whatever upside can be earned on the homes. But, no plausible mechanism to get this accomplished. 8. The shadow banking system trying to escape from the regulators. Hedge fund industry official pleaded with Deputy Treasury Secretary Neil Wolin to allow hedge funds to regulate themselves. Wolin was far too polite and non-0commital. Since hedge funds gobbling up all the proprietary traders from big Wall St. investment banks. 9. China and India are graduating 7 times more engineers a year than the U.S. 10. We are papering over the structural problems in finance with bubbles. There is still great uncertainty about the efficacy of regulation by Dodd-Frank and Basel 3. Final note; at yesterday’s session, Vikram Pandit, CEO of Citigroup, gave what many believe was a most bizarre performance. For several minutes he went on at length about how worried Citi was about the ability of poor Americans to be able to borrow money in light of Dodd-Frank, the finance reform bill. Yet, he went overboard in his adamant support of the Consumer Finance part of the bill, seeming to separate himself and Citi from the opposition to the bill from other large banks, namely JP Morgan.

Read the full article →

Rep. Carolyn Maloney: Privatizing Social Security: Haven’t We Seen This Movie Before?

October 22, 2010

Privatizing Social Security was a bad idea in 2005 when it was proposed by President Bush and rejected by the American people. It’s still a bad idea, despite recent Republican attempts to revive it. Three new analyses out this week make clear that GOP proposals would cut benefits for middle-income Americans, jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund and weaken the program’s ability to keep millions of Americans out of poverty. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the Chief Actuary of Social Security, and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC), which I chair, have each weighed in on the Social Security proposal introduced by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. While Republicans have sought to recast their proposals as modest changes to the current system, they are anything but that. The new CBPP report finds that Rep. Ryan’s proposal would reduce benefits for the top 70 percent of earners by linking Social Security benefits to change in prices, rather than changes in wages, as is now the case. Additionally, increasing Social Security’s full retirement age, as called for in Ryan’s plan, would reduce benefits for everyone regardless of when they retire. According to the Chief Actuary of Social Security , the “progressive price indexing” proposal would reduce benefits by 17 percent compared to current law for a new retiree in 2050 with medium earnings ($43,000 today). The cuts get deeper over time and are steeper for higher income workers. By 2080, benefits converge at a much lower level, with little difference in benefits for high earners and medium earners. At that point, Social Security would bear little resemblance to today’s program, where benefits are based on a worker’s lifetime earnings. The JEC report , prepared by the committee’s Majority Staff, looks at privatization, where future retirees are able to divert a portion of their payroll taxes to private investment accounts. Privatization would allow all retirement savings accumulated by retirees to be subject to fluctuations in the performance of asset markets, including the stock market, where significant swings in returns and account accumulations are possible from year to year and even month to month. A worker with a private account could purchase an annuity with a fixed monthly payment at the end of his or her working life. However, the size of that monthly payment depends on the timing of retirement relative to the performance of the different asset markets that the retiree had invested in. For example, a retiree who invested solely in the stock market over a 40-year work history and was expecting an annuity of $867 per month in 2006 would have received only $399 per month if he had retired in 2008. Republicans claim that the Social Security Trust Fund would ensure that individuals who invest in private accounts will get back as much as they put in, plus indexing for inflation, even if the stock market craters. But such a guarantee – where private account holders win when the stock market is up, and don’t lose when the stock market falls – must have another source of funds during bear markets. Without additional funds to pay for this one-sided bet, the solvency of the General Fund will be at risk. While Social Security benefits are modest, they have a major impact. Without Social Security, nearly half (46 percent) of senior citizens would live in poverty, but with Social Security the poverty rate for elderly Americans falls to 10 percent. Indeed, Social Security accounts for more than 76 percent of income for middle-class seniors. The Republicans ignore these facts and plan to radically change a program that provides economic security and peace of mind to millions of Americans. Their proposals are either a misguided belief in the stock market’s ability to miraculously “save” Social Security or a cynical attempt to gut a successful program that has kept generations of Americans economically secure. The more we learn about privatization and progressive price indexing, the worse — and riskier — the ideas look. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney represents parts of Queens and Manhattan in the House of Representatives, where she chairs the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee.

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Jim Cramer’s Shame Meter Is Broken

October 13, 2010

I don’t watch Jim Cramer’s aptly titled Mad Money . A reader sent me CNBC’s summary of his October 6, 2010, show, which he thought would be of interest. He was right! Cramer outlined a recommended trading strategy. It was quite simple. You should sell stocks that had “flown too high,” “let them cool off” and then buy them back at lower prices. According to Cramer, this is a “tested strategy” that had served him well for 30 years. Here’s the part that really got my attention: “And if there were proof that buy-and-hold — or simply buying an index fund, for that matter — generated the kinds of returns earned from actively managing your money,” Cramer would “offer a mea culpa immediately.” Hold on to your hats. Cramer offers no data indicating his trading strategy is “tested.” All of the available data indicates it is nonsense. Cramer doesn’t tell investors how to implement this strategy. How is an investor to know when a stock is “too high” or when to buy back in? The movement of stock prices is random, often driven by tomorrow’s news, which no one knows. Cramer’s dismal stock-picking record illustrates this problem. An article in Barron’s found that Cramer’s stock picks underperformed the DJIA, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq over the two year period studied. A website that tracks the performance of investment gurus found that Cramer’s stock picks were right 47% of the time, which is slightly less than you would expect from the toss of a coin. Cramer conveniently ignores this data, and offers “proof that he is correct.” He brags that he called the market lows, when the Dow was “flirting with 6,000,” and advised his viewers to buy stocks. Cramer fails to note that, on March 21, 2008, he wrote an article for New York Magazine stating that the market had reached a bottom: “[N]ot just for the stock itself, which happens to the venerable Bear Stearns, but for the whole stock market, and for the long-suffering housing market too.” Viewers who followed this advice, saw their portfolios plunge by 39.7% over the ensuing 254 days. His observation about the “long-suffering housing market” hitting bottom was simply dead wrong. Sometimes stock pickers are right and sometimes they are wrong. When they are right, it is due to luck and not skill. This was precisely the finding of an independent study , which concluded that 99.4% of the 2,076 active fund managers studied over a 32-year period demonstrated no genuine stock picking ability. Another study , published in the prestigious Journal of Finance , looked at the performance of 819 actively managed funds over a 45-year period. The study found that actively managed funds underperformed their passive benchmarks by approximately 1% a year, due to their trading costs and high management fees. The import of this study is stark. Investors pay more than $10 billion in fees to actively managed funds. Yet the fund managers do not have the skill to equal their benchmarks. Investors would be better off buying funds that simply tracked the index. Still not convinced? Another study discussed here looked at hiring and firing decisions of active managers made by more than 3,700 retirement plan sponsors over a nine-year period. These managers were responsible for managing $737 billion of assets. Generally, the managers were hired based on their past performance, much the way investors are told to pick mutual funds. So how was the performance of these “skilled” active managers after they were hired? On average they were close to or below their benchmarks. “Hot hands” are a function of luck. Luck does not persist. There is a wealth of additional data indicating that index-based investing consistently beats active management over the long term. It is summarized here. There is a method to Cramer’s “madness.” He wants you to trade. Trading increases the revenues of his corporate sponsors. It also decreases your returns. Here’s my challenge to Cramer: Show me any peer review study demonstrating your trading strategy has merit. Since you represented your strategy has “served you well for 30 years,” provide me with a list of your trades over that time period. I will crunch the numbers and publish the results. Otherwise, I look forward to your promised mea culpa. It’s not spelled “boo-ya.” The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog. Here is the trailer for my new book, Timeless Investment Advice .

Read the full article →

Video: BlackRock’s Doll Sees `Muddle Through’ Growth in U.S.: Video

October 8, 2010

Oct. 8 (Bloomberg) — BlackRock Inc. Vice Chairman Robert Doll talks with Bloomberg’s Julie Hyman and Mark Crumpton about the outlook for additional purchases of Treasury bonds by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. stock market and economic growth. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Dan Dorfman: Funeral For a European Myth

October 8, 2010

Here we go again — the death of another myth, namely the one that Europe’s worrisome sovereign debt crisis has run its course. Far more likely, the evidence shows, we’re in for a rerun. To put it in perspective, let’s turn the clock back about six months when the U.S. stock market was repeatedly getting battered on a daily basis in response to news of swelling debt woes in Europe. Adding to the market’s shellacking at the time were riots in Greece over proposed austerity measures. Then came Superman to the rescue, the European Union, with a promise of a $1 trillion bailout package to stabilize Europe and drive away the bond vigilantes who were selling the debt of the weakest European countries, causing interest rates to rise. In response, the euro, aided by Chinese purchases, proceeded to strengthen, and fears of a debt crisis in Europe greatly diminished, so much so that many market pros have eliminated this risk from their radar screens. Judging though from the recent downgrade of Ireland’s credit by the Fitch rating agency, which came on the heels of earlier downgrades of Spain’s and Portugal’s debt, it’s pretty clear that only Rip Van Winkle would dismiss the danger of a fresh outbreak of European debt problems, which has ominous implications for the world’s financial markets. That’s also the thinking of currency tracker Bryan Rich, editor of the World Currency Alert newsletter in Jupiter, Fla., who says “a higher euro may have instilled some investor confidence, but nothing has changed. Not only does a debt problem exist,” he says, “but it’s getting progressively worse and a default by a European country is only a matter of time.” Addressing the trillion-dollar rescue package, Rich describes it as “nothing more than bold shock and awe, a promise that’s a figment of someone’s imagination.” He notes that a number of the more financially muscular European countries, among them Germany, are already balking at the idea of anteing up funds to help bail out their weaker brethren. London money manager Raymond Stahler of Stahler Dearborn, Ltd., concurs. He describes the $1 trillion promise of aid to the struggling European nations, such as Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain, as a farce. “Handouts are wonderful,” he says, “but not if nobody is handing out.” Rich views the European financial situation as especially scary in Ireland, which he views as most vulnerable to a default. The European Union’s guidelines prohibit its member nations from having their budget deficits, as a percentage of GDP, exceeding 3%. That’s a meaningless number, though, since no one is paying any heed to it. For example, the 2010 estimates call for Ireland to top the limit by more than 10-fold at 32%, followed by Spain at 9.3%, Portugal at 8.8%, Greece at 8.1%, and Italy at 5%. The EU’s limit on total debt, as a percentage of GDP, is 60%. Here again, Ireland strikes out badly. Its 2010 projection had called for 65%; it’s now projected at 110%. Against this background, a massive amount of debt in the European nations has to be rolled over. A dilemma here is that the governments and the banks will be competing for capital, which will drive interest rates higher. That, in turn, will make it difficult for the governments to raise money at rates they can afford, which, in turn, could cripple the ailing economies. At the same time, Rich notes that the European Central Bank, which has been snapping up government debt of struggling countries to keep them solvent, has acquired a lot of crappy debt. A related problem, as he sees it, is the threat of another major wave of risk aversion. That is when capital flees riskier investments and assets. The chief implications, as Rich sees them: Stocks will go lower, the same for commodities, except gold, and it all bodes well for the dollar. What does all of this mean? Rich’s view: “We’re in a crisis period, a deleveraging phase for the world’s economy, so look for more shocks, such as government defaults, bank failures, currency devaluations and rising protectionism.” He doesn’t say it in so many words, but the word from Rich is clear: Watch out — you could get poor! What do you think? E-mail me at Dandordan@aol.com

Read the full article →

Aaron Patzer: Three Reasons Why I Started Mint.com

October 8, 2010

Mint.com was born in early 2006 out of my frustration with existing personal finance tools. Since age 15, I had used tools like Microsoft Money and Quicken, diligently entering, categorizing, and analyzing my spending and investments for an hour every week. One day, I realized that the software was not working for me. I was working for the software, and there had to be a better way. Mint.com is the solution: online, to provide access from home, work, or on the go through a mobile device; and highly automated, categorizing all your transactions (and I spent four months locked in a room to come up with a system that now categorizes over 90 percent of all credit and debit card transactions). And it’s free. If Mint understands each unique financial situation, it can tell people when to refinance a mortgage, or which bank account might give five times the interest over the old one lying around. Today, just over three years after launch, Mint has more than four million registered users, because we focused on three principles for any entrepreneur: 1. Solve a real problem Solve a problem that will still exist in five years, 10 years, maybe even 50 years. For Mint, that problem is the complexity of personal finance: mortgages, insurance, choice of investments, taxes, budgeting, credit scores, and savings accounts vs. money market vs. CDs to name a few. Pulling all this information together is tough, and understanding it even harder. Be careful not to start a company that really belongs as a feature of another company, like the 25 Twitter URL shortener companies out there. Pick a real problem that’s here to stay. 2. Find a Big Market Carefully calculate the potential size of your market to make sure you can grow. Before starting Mint, I knew that there were about 20 million people who had purchased Quicken or Microsoft Money over the years, and 80 million people using online banking in the U.S. alone. By contrast, I once worked with an entrepreneur developing a marketplace for college students to resell all their dorm furniture each year. If you multiply the number of college students who are in resident in dorms, that you can make $1-2 per transaction, and at best you have 5-6 purchases each year, the entire market was no more than $50m per year, too small to be worth pursuing. 3. Have a Sustainable Advantage Develop technology, business or supplier relationships, or expertise that are not easily replicated. At Mint, we developed five pending patents on our technology, ranging from categorization to the Ways to Save system that calculates how much a new financial product would save a user given their present financial situation. We also connect to over 12,000 banks, brokerages, and credit unions; and get data feeds from partners like Kelley Blue Book and Zillow, along with stock market data. In addition to developing a world-class expertise in user experience design, these technological feats are difficult to duplicate. The net result from each of these principles is a business that continues to grow rapidly, outpacing competitors, and winning literally tens of thousands of new customers each week.

Read the full article →

Video: SEC’s Schapiro Sees `Work to Do’ After Report on Crash: Video

October 5, 2010

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro talks with Bloomberg’s Peter Cook about the SEC’s joint report with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on the May 6 stock market crash. The report found that the automated sale of stock futures without regard to price and “hot potato” trading by computer-driven firms that briefly created an illusion of liquidity helped trigger the crash, turning an orderly selloff into an $862 billion rout as buy orders evaporated. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →