A former chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. does not mingle with boat dealers; he mingles with investment bankers; and the first rule, before handing out taxpayer money, is to have mingled with the people you want to hand it to.(That way they know whom they owe). I admire your ability to recognize your “circle of competence” and live within it.
Still, I do feel that in me, and my little literary business, there is opportunity for you, and your $700 billion. Allow me to explain why.
Be Fair
1) By giving the money to me, instead of someone less deserving, you will make the world a fairer place.
As much as I admire all of your decisions I can’t help but notice that the main qualification of the bankers to whom you have been giving money, so that they might make smart loans, is that they have gone almost bankrupt by making stupid loans.
As your mind is subtle, I can only assume that you secretly believe that the American economy right now needs not smart loans, but more stupid ones -- and thus that you have targeted the bankers who have proven they can make them.
I, unfortunately, have not flirted with bankruptcy, or made any stupid loans. But here’s my point: I haven’t been given the chance! Allow me to prove my financial ineptitude to you. I swear to you that when I return for my second round of assistance I will have proven myself fully qualified to receive it.
To this day, the willingness of a Wall Street investment bank to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to dispense investment advice to grownups remains a mystery to me. I was 24 years old, with no experience of, or particular interest in, guessing which stocks and bonds would rise and which would fall. The essential function of Wall Street is to allocate capital--to decide who should get it and who should not. Believe me when I tell you that I hadn't the first clue.I'd never taken an accounting course, never run a business, never even had savings of my own to manage. I stumbled into a job at Salomon Brothers in 1985 and stumbled out much richer three years later, and even though I wrote a book about the experience, the whole thing still strikes me as preposterous--which is one of the reasons the money was so easy to walk away from. I figured the situation was unsustainable. Sooner rather than later, someone was going to identify me, along with a lot of people more or less like me, as a fraud. Sooner rather than later, there would come a Great Reckoning when Wall Street would wake up and hundreds if not thousands of young people like me, who had no business making huge bets with other people's money, would be expelled from finance.
When I sat down to write my account of the experience in 1989--Liar's Poker, it was called--it was in the spirit of a young man who thought he was getting out while the getting was good. I was merely scribbling down a message on my way out and stuffing it into a bottle for those who would pass through these parts in the far distant future.
Nissan’s announcement last week that it would offer a stripped-down version of its Versa model for under $10,000 -– a Sub-Versa, if you will -– occasioned a lot of media attention and interest, as if there was something to celebrate. To me it sounds like 1.6 liters of boredom, a mouthful of sand to thirsty car-buyers. Please. Ten grand? I can put you in automotive paradise for $10,000. Walk this way.
Go to www.motors.ebay.com and follow the link to “Cars & Trucks.” Don’t specify a make or model but simply order the 50,000 or so listings by price, and use the advanced search function to specify items with a “Buy It Now” price. What you’ll discover is an Elysian field of depreciation as the awesome rides of yesteryear -– in some cases cars that dominated automotive buff book covers just a couple of years ago –- are dispensed with for a fraction of their original sticker. With the recent spike in gas prices and the downturn in the economy, people are eating their cars -– “literally!” as Joe Biden would say.
Yes, these cars are a little older, but if you were to compare, wheel-to-wheel, the new Versa with, say, a 1991 BMW 850i –- a 12-cylinder supercoupe on 18-inch Hamann wheels and with only 47,120 miles on the clock –- well, your head would explode. The Bimmer has more technology in its ashtray.
For writers who seek to influence public affairs, timing plays a paramount role. And few writers have had better timing than Adolf Augustus Berle.Fascinating.
In the summer of 1932, with America trapped in the greatest financial crisis in its history, Berle published “The Modern Corporation and Private Property,” a scholarly yet readable analysis of America’s largest companies and their managers. Berle is largely forgotten today, yet with that book he succeeded in persuading Americans to see their economic system in a new way — and helped set the stage for the most fundamental realignment of power since abolition.
The stock market had plunged vertiginously three years earlier, and by 1932 Americans were desperate to reverse the much wider collapse that had ensued — and to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. The New Republic was soon hailing “The Modern Corporation” as the book of the year, while The New York Herald Tribune pronounced it “the most important work bearing on American statecraft” since the Federalist Papers. Louis Brandeis would cite its arguments in a major Supreme Court ruling on corporate power. Running for president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt recruited Berle — a Republican Wall Street lawyer who had supported Hoover — to join his “brain trust,” and that fall entrusted him with drafting what became the most important speech of the campaign. After the election, Berle remained in New York, yet his connection to the president he audaciously addressed as “Dear Caesar” was such that Time would characterize “The Modern Corporation” as “the economic bible of the Roosevelt administration.”
A few years ago, senior officials at the Bank for International Settlements started ringing alarm bells about the scale of leverage that was quietly building up in the financial system. Back then, though, it was fantastically hard to get American policymakers - let alone bankers - to listen.In the go-go days of the credit bubble, Washington policymakers blithely assumed that the Western financial system had plenty of capital to cope with any potential risks. Consequently, as one former BIS official admits: "Worrying about leverage wasn't fashionable at all - no one wanted to hear."
Fast-forward a couple of years and, my, how those Western financiers are having to eat humble pie (even to the point of accepting a helping hand from the once-ailing Japanese). After all, the events of the past year have now made it patently - horrifically - obvious that the Western banking system has become dangerously undercapitalised in recent years, to the point where even the Federal Reserve is having to shore up its defences.
Moreover, it is now also clear that Western policymakers are belatedly trying to correct this state of affairs. The days when high leverage, mega bonuses and wacky instruments were equated with financial virility have gone; instead a more humble, back-to-basics and slim-line approach is what investors are demanding. Thus, deleveraging is now all the rage - in whatever form it might take.
Why did banks become so overexposed in the run-up to the credit crunch? A risk manager at a large global bank--someone whose job it was to make sure that the firm did not take unnecessary risks -- explains in his own wordsIN JANUARY 2007 the world looked almost riskless. At the beginning of that year I gathered my team for an off-site meeting to identify our top five risks for the coming 12 months. We were paid to think about the downsides but it was hard to see where the problems would come from. Four years of falling credit spreads, low interest rates, virtually no defaults in our loan portfolio and historically low volatility levels: it was the most benign risk environment we had seen in 20 years.
As risk managers we were responsible for approving credit requests and transactions submitted to us by the bankers and traders in the front-line. We also monitored and reported the level of risk across the bank's portfolio and set limits for overall credit and market-risk positions.
"You have to worry about things you can do something about. I worry about people not being there and I want to make them aware." We should be mistrustful of knowledge. It is bad for us. Give a bookie 10 pieces of information about a race and he’ll pick his horses. Give him 50 and his picks will be no better, but he will, fatally, be more confident.We should be ecologically conservative – global warming may or may not be happening but why pollute the planet? – and probablistically conservative. The latter, however, has its limits. Nobody, not even Taleb, can live the sceptical life all the time – “It’s an art, it’s hard work.” So he doesn’t worry about crossing the road and doesn’t lock his front door – “I can’t start getting paranoid about that stuff.” His wife locks it, however.
He believes in aristocratic – though not, he insists, elitist – values: elegance of manner and mind, grace under pressure, which is why you must shave before being executed. He believes in the Mediterranean way of talking and listening. One piece of advice he gives everybody is: go to lots of parties and listen, you might learn something by exposing yourself to black swans.
I ask him what he thinks are the primary human virtues, and eventually he comes up with magnanimity – punish your enemies but don’t bear grudges; compassion – fairness always trumps efficiency; courage – very few people have this; and tenacity – tinker until it works for you.
Apparently, Britney has some shaky assets on her balance sheets. Well, don’t worry Britney. You’re not the only one.A Bailout, for Everyone by Steven Pearlstein:In an announcement that has sent produced a large and varied reaction, the FED has announced that they will attempt to bail out banks by letting them use mortgage-backed securities as collateral for loans. This move is unprecedented in the Fed’s history. For the first time, they are entering the mortgage business. Since its inception, the Fed has used open market operations (the buying and selling of treasury bonds) to expand or contract the monetary policy. A good detailed discussion is here, at interfluidity. Simplistically, the Fed’s balance sheet looks like:
Last week, it was a $200 billion cash-for-bond swap for the banks.This week, it was a $200 billion bond-for-bond swap for the big investment houses.
If they keep this up, pretty soon you'll be able to walk into any Federal Reserve bank and hock that diamond brooch you inherited from Aunt Mildred.
Forget all that nonsense about the Bernanke Fed being too timid or behind the curve. In the face of what is turning into the most serious financial market crisis since the Great Depression, the Fed has been more aggressive and more creative in using its limitless balance sheet -- in effect, its ability to print money -- than at any time in history.
We can argue till the cows come home about whether this is a bailout for Wall Street. It is -- but only to the extent that it is also a bailout for all of us, meant to prevent a financial and economic meltdown that drags everyone down with it. In broad strokes, we're going through a massive "de-leveraging" of the economy, wringing out trillions of dollars of debt that had artificially driven up the price of real estate and financial assets, and, more generally, allowed Americans to live beyond their means. The Fed's goal has not been to impede that process, simply to make sure that it proceeds in an orderly fashion. But even that has required central bank intervention that is unprecedented in scale and scope. And despite yesterday's huge rally in the stock market, Fed officials warn that this de-leveraging is nowhere near finished.
First off, I’m not excusing auto dealers. Or lenders.From the LA Times article:They have a moral and business responsibility to try to stop their customers from doing something stupid, such as buying a vehicle with a sticker price that will stick them with an oppressive debt.
But customers have responsibilities, too. It is their purchase, their money and their car payments. It is up to them, more than anyone else, to know their financial limitations and not cross them.
Yet, so many consumers today buy too much vehicle. Then, when the financial squeeze becomes eye-popping, they look for someone to blame. The dealership and lender make nice targets. Seldom do the debt-ridden blame themselves.
I pondered that while reading a Los Angeles Times article headlined, “New Cars That Are Fully Loaded – With Debt.”
The story tells how some Americans of average means roll over an existing loan on an expensive vehicle in order to get another expensive vehicle. They end up with two loans in one, when they couldn’t afford one.
Americans haven't just been taking out risky mortgages for homes in the last few years; they've also been signing larger automobile loans for significantly longer terms than they used to.As a result, people are slipping into a perpetual cycle of automobile debt that experts think could lead to a new credit crunch extending from dealerships to driveways and all the way to Wall Street.
At most holiday feasts, the second helping is more filling than the first.That should be the case in my annual buffet of fund buffoonery, the 12th annual Lump of Coal Awards, recognizing managers, executives, firms, watchdogs and other fund-industry types for action, attitude, behavior or performance that is misguided, bumbling, offensive, disingenuous, reprehensible or just plain stupid.
Last week, I highlighted 10 award winners who deserved nothing more than coal in their holiday stocking this year. Here are the rest:
Failing to get out the vote: Managers of the Blue funds. The tiny Blue funds allow Democrats to invest in companies that "act blue" and "give blue." Beyond that, management claims to be "actively engaging in shareholder resolutions and proxy voting in an effort to promote increased transparency in corporate political giving."
THE 1946 MOVIE IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has become a holiday favorite for many Americans. The heart-rending story of George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart), who in his hour of despair is vouchsafed a glimpse of what the world would be like if he'd never been born, holds great meaning for many Americans. So does the drama played out between George and his father, Peter, and their professional nemesis, rich old banker Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), which provides a vivid look at the dramatic changes that had taken place in American finance in the years leading up to the time the movie was made.The recent problems in the mortgage market bring the story and its characters to life once again. The Baileys and Old Man Potter disagreed about a number of things, but principally about the credit-worthiness of what Potter calls "the riff-raff," the average citizens in their home town of Bedford Falls. The Baileys believe they are credit-worthy, and Potter generally does not.
Potter remembers the recent past, when lenders made the rules, insisting on repayment in gold coin or its equivalent, on big down payments and short terms. Most important for middle-class folks, Potter sees residential real estate as illiquid, mediocre collateral. George and Peter Bailey and their Building & Loan envision a future of suburban development, of small down payments and decades to pay. When George looks at the world had he never been born -- and sees a vacant field instead of the Bailey Park housing development financed by the Bailey Building & Loan -- he is looking at what would have been Pottersville.
Put yourself at Bernanke's shoes; better yet, get Paulson's shoes too and combine them: wear Ben's shoe on the left and Hank's on the right. The goal is to try and walk a straight and narrow a line for the economy, without embarrassing yourself. I submit that this is, in fact, impossible.On the one foot, the Fed is getting screamed at to lower interest rates by at least another 200-250 basis points: PIMCO, Greenspan, The Conference Board, every bank and broker in town and abroad - they all demand and expect cheaper money for a variety of reasons, all immediately and extremely mercenary. The bond fund managers are salivating at the potential of capital gains from short and medium treasurys, the banks and brokers need the massive cash bailout to stanch the bloodletting from their toxic paper and real estate portfolios, the businessmen need the consumer to keep spending and Greenspan wishes above all to remain relevant - even in retirement.
It is a pleasure to be here this evening. I am under strict instructions from the rector of Grace Church, Brooklyn, not to let down the Episcopal side. Uphold the highest standards of the Episcopalian intellectual tradition, he told me. What that tradition might be, he couldn't say, and neither can I. But I'll do my level best.My subject is Benjamin Graham: his life, his investment philosophy, his writings and his Jewishness. About his love life, I will say little, as my time this evening is limited—just three hours, I believe. Some years ago, Fortune Magazine, in a squib it published on the occasion of Graham's induction into the U.S. Business Hall of Fame, said that the thrice-married father of value investing "leaped from blonde to blonde like an Alpine goat springing from peak to peak."
I am a frankly worshipful admirer of Graham's. I love him for his heart as much as for his head. Between 1929 and 1932, his investment partnership lost 70% of its value. Not until 1936 did it recoup all it relinquished since the Crash. Yet Graham persevered and, along with his partner, Jerry Newman, went on to achieve a brilliant long-term investment record—not excluding those three disastrous years. We have all heard the platitude, "The first rule of investing is not to lose money and the second rule is not to forget the first." Very helpful. Well, Graham shows that a debilitating loss is no reason to give up. . . . Never quit.
Occam's Rule: Sometimes the truth is so simple that even as it stares us in the face we are blind to it.The Federal Reserve cut its Fed Funds benchmark rate by 50 bp to 4.75%, more than most analysts' expectations. Already there have been trillions of pixels written to explain why, but none that I have seen follow the time-honored Occam or KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Here is a chart that explains the FRB's move; for the non-professional there is an explanation after it.
THE subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 is, in fact, a credit crisis — a worldwide disruption in lending and borrowing. It is only the latest in a long succession of such disturbances. Who’s to blame? The human race, first and foremost. Well-intended public policy, second. And Wall Street, third — if only for taking what generations of policy makers have so unwisely handed it.Grant writes the excellent "Grant's Interest Rate Observer".Possibly, one lender and one borrower could do business together without harm to themselves or to the economy around them. But masses of lenders and borrowers invariably seem to come to grief, as they have today — not only in mortgages but also in a variety of other debt instruments. First, they overdo it until the signs of excess become too obvious to ignore. Then, with contrite and fearful hearts, they proceed to underdo it. Such is the “credit cycle,” the eternal migration of lenders and borrowers between the extreme points of accommodation and stringency.
Significantly, such cycles have occurred in every institutional, monetary and regulatory setting. No need for a central bank, or for newfangled mortgage securities, or for the proliferation of hedge funds to foment a panic — there have been plenty of dislocations without any of the modern-day improvements.
Late in the 1880s, long before the institution of the Federal Reserve, Eastern savers and Western borrowers teamed up to inflate the value of cropland in the Great Plains. Gimmicky mortgages — pay interest and only interest for the first two years! — and loose talk of a new era in rainfall beguiled the borrowers. High yields on Western mortgages enticed the lenders. But the climate of Kansas and Nebraska reverted to parched, and the drought-stricken debtors trudged back East or to the West Coast in wagons emblazoned, “In God we trusted, in Kansas we busted.” To the creditors went the farms.
Back in 1998, that now infamous quant fund really did melt down, not only liquidating, but shaking the entire global financial system. Long-Term used complex computer models that failed to anticipate some severe once-in-a-lifetime market events, and it was shockingly leveraged — it was using $100 of borrowed money for every dollar of its own capital — which magnified its losses. It was also run by some of the smartest people on Wall Street. “When Geniuses Fail” was the apt title to Roger Lowenstein’s fine book about that fiasco.Ritholtz has more here and here.
Ever since, whenever quant funds stumble, it’s “When Geniuses Fail Redux.” Wall Street wags begin to wonder if those losses will lead to something truly cataclysmic, while newspaper reporters take a certain undisguised glee in reporting on really smart people losing money. Even now, there’s enough Luddite schadenfreude in the air that rumors continue to circulate that AQR is continuing to absorb substantial losses — which is the exact opposite of the truth, Mr. Asness says.
don't know whether this is a "correction in a bull market" or the "start of a bear market," but I am far more persuaded by the latter case. After ten years on Wall Street, however, I can promise you this: No one else knows either. Go ahead and listen to the parade of smart guests on Bubblevision--their reasoning ranges from impeccable to hilarious--but just don't let yourself get seduced into betting big one way or the other. Because no one knows. (We have 50/50 odds, though, so half of us will be "right").One thing we do know: Based on correctly calculated long-term valuation trends (cyclically adjusted P/E), the stock market is still extremely expensive (close to the peak levels of 1929, 1966, and 1987, and only below the all-time peak of 2000). I expect that this will eventually revert to the mean, and that one of these days we will see the "start of a bear market" that could take us below the 7700 trough on the DOW in 2002. This could be it (and if it is, this is just what it will look like). And given the housing market, credit crunch, oil prices, etc., it's not hard to see how we would get there. But anything is possible, and long-term valuation trends are nearly useless for near-term timing calls.
This bit of humor has been circulating around Wall Street the past few days:Investment Dealers are excited to announce the newest structured finance product - Constant Obligation Leveraged Originated Structured Oscillating Money Bridged Asset Guarantees, or COLOSTOMY BAGS.
There are now an estimated 137 million internet users in China, second in number only to the United States, where estimates of the current internet population range from 165 million to 210 million. The growth rate of China's internet user population has been outpacing that of the U.S., and China is projected to overtake the U.S. in the total number of users within a few years.The influx of tens of millions of new online participants each year can be expected to have far-reaching consequences for the Chinese population, for China itself and for the larger world. At the very least, the internet will offer ever greater numbers of Chinese a much more sophisticated information and communications world than the one they currently inhabit. And because the Chinese share a single written language, despite the multiplicity of spoken tongues, it could have a unifying effect on the country's widely dispersed citizenry. An expanding internet population might also increase domestic tensions that could spill over into China's relations with the U.S. and other countries while the difference between Chinese and Western approaches to the internet could create additional sore points over human rights and problems with restrictions on non-Chinese companies.
Stocks have been a great investment in the last 80 years, with an average return of about 10 percent a year. But have investors in the stock market done as well as stocks? Surprisingly, the answer is no. The average dollar invested in the stock market in those years has earned only about 8.6 percent a year.The discrepancy between stock market return and investor return is examined by Ilia D. Dichev, a University of Michigan accounting professor, in a paper published in the March 2007 edition of The American Economic Review, “What Are Stock Investors’ Actual Historical Returns? Evidence From Dollar-Weighted Returns.”
To understand the difference between a stock’s return and an investor’s return, consider someone who buys 100 shares of a company at a price of $10 a share. A year later, the share price is up to $20, and the investor buys 100 more shares.
Alas, the investor’s luck has run out. By the end of the next year, the price has fallen back to $10 and the investor sells his 200 shares.
A buy-and-hold investor who bought at $10, held the stock for two years, and then sold at $10 would have had a zero return.
Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $16.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 18.4%. Over the last 42 years (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown from $19 to $70,281, a rate of 21.4% compounded annually.*
We believe that $16.9 billion is a record for a one-year gain in net worth – more than has ever been booked by any American business, leaving aside boosts that have occurred because of mergers (e.g., AOL’s purchase of Time Warner). Of course, Exxon Mobil and other companies earn far more than Berkshire, but their earnings largely go to dividends and/or repurchases, rather than to building net worth.
All that said, a confession about our 2006 gain is in order. Our most important business, insurance, benefited from a large dose of luck: Mother Nature, bless her heart, went on vacation. After hammering us with hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 – storms that caused us to lose a bundle on super-cat insurance – she just vanished. Last year, the red ink from this activity turned black – very black.
In addition, the great majority of our 73 businesses did outstandingly well in 2006. Let me focus for a moment on one of our largest operations, GEICO. What management accomplished there was simply extraordinary.
Well in 1962 I learned from Ben Graham how to assess businesses. He also had the cigar butt analogy for buying businesses...you can usually get one good puff out of it and it’s free. Berkshire made a lot of money after WWII (more than Pfizer and Merck) and then it steadily went downhill. Between 1955 and 1965 Berkshire went from 12 mills to 2 mills and they bought their own stock as mills closed. We bought 100,000 shares out of 1 million in 1962 at $7 3/8 and the company had $10-11/share in working capital...I knew I wouldn’t lose money because of the working capital. It was losing money but it was also liquefying assets by closing mills. Seabury Stanton was running Berkshire at the time and I went to go visit him. We had an agreement that Berkshire would tender $11-1/2 for my shares of the company. At this point, I could not buy any stock as I had inside information. A few weeks later I received a letter from Old Colony Trust containing a tender offer of $11-3/8. Early the following week, Seabury tendered the stock at 11 3/8. As result, I began buying more Berkshire. Other family members of Seabury Stanton sold their shares to me and I gained controlling interest in the company. The family members weren’t very happy with Seabury either really. We ran the mills until 1985. .
A PROPOS the Sarajevo moment, which might bring to an end this latest of age of globalisation.
It wouldn't be a political killing, I imagine, since there is no one figure whose death at the hands of a deranged assassin would turn the great powers against one another. But a terrorist strike against a cluster of essential Saudi oil installations might have the necessary economic and geopolitical repercussions.
Whatever the Sarajevo moment might be, everyone seems to be talking about it. As if we know in our hearts that these asset prices are too good.
When will the Chinese middle class push for greater political freedom to match growing economic freedom?The Wall Street Journal posted an email interview with Friedman which included a few words on China.
The $64,000 question. The extent of the ideological bankruptcy of the Chinese Communist Party is not widely understood in the U.S. It claims single party rule because it is the trustee of the 1949 Communist revolution governing democratically for China's workers and peasants. Its problem is that communism is in reverse worldwide, and under the doctrine of the "Three Represents" invented by Jiang Zemin, the party now accepts that class war is over and that it must represent all Chinese society. In which case: Why no accountability? Change came in the Soviet Union with the fifth generation of leaders; the fifth generation of leaders succeeds Hu Jintao in 2012. I don't expect any change until after then, but my guess is that sometime in the mid-to-late 2010s, the growing Chinese middle class will want to hold the Chinese official and political class to account for how they spend their taxes and for their political choices.
BP readers correctly pointed out to the change in the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI) (Here, here and of course, here). Tim Iacono did a nice job on the details the following month.
That mid-year halving of the gasoline weighting caught quite a few people by surprise. The timing -- slashing energy futures weightings 2 months before the mid-term elections -- was stunning to say the least. The GSCI changes had wide ranging impacts, leading (indirectly at the very least) to: Amaranth's implosion, a drop in CPI / inflation rates, the market rally since the July lows, and of course, GS's record setting Q3/Q4 profits (Hey, its nice to be the House).
Suppose that, at the start of some year since the beginning of the twentieth century, you had taken $1,000,000 that you had invested in bonds and believed you would not want to touch for twenty years, and invested it insteade in a diversified portfolio of equities. (Or suppose you had been able to borrow $1,000,000 at the long-term government bond rate). And suppose you had then let both legs of that investment ride for twenty years. What would have been the results in dollars (adjusted for inflation) twenty years later?
We polled 80 strategists for their 2007 predictions, and many think tech stocks will be on top. Call it a 7% year. That's the return the 80 strategists we polled expect in 2007 for the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Our prognosticators overwhelmingly think technology will be the best-performing sector next year, but still come up with a forecast of only a 9% gain in the tech-heavy NASDAQ Composite. They expect the Russell 2000, an index of small-cap stocks, to lag, with just a 6% return. Strategists are listed according to their yearend Dow forecasts, from the most bullish to the most bearish
I'm pleased to offer this latest revision of the Web Video Cheat Sheet, a quick and dirty guide to sharing videos online. I'm in the process of compiling another report that examines a specific facet of the video sharing experience (more on that later). Meanwhile, I couldn't wait to get this 61-site overview out there so folks can figure out the best place to host their most memorable (drunken) holiday moments.
So Washington is full of rumours that 2007 will bring a Grand Bargain on social security reform (see Mark Thoma's take here and Vox Baby here). The Bush team's plan is to sound sufficiently conciliatory and open-minded that it becomes impossible for the Democrats not to sit down and talk. That strategy just might succeed. Stonewalling is a plausible political tactic when you are in opposition (though still shamefully shortsighted). It doesn't work so well if you are actually in charge on Capitol Hill, particularly when you announce that retirement security is one of your top legislative priorities.
Last year, we lamented the passing of M3 reporting. This broadest of money supply measures had shown a discomforting increase in liquidity, far greater than what M2 was revealing.
At the time of the M3 announcement, we suspected the Fed was attempting to cover their tracks, disguising an ongoing increase in money supply and an unstated "easing" in Fed bias. Since that time, we have learned: the Treasury Department was also adding liquidity -- a duty they have assumed, in part, in addition to the same performed by the Fed. Indeed, based on the credit growth data Doug Noland published last month (October Credit Review), it appears that the Fed has - despite increasing interest rates - actually eased over the last two years.
We are currently witnessing a phenomenon that I have not seen in my nearly 30 years in real estate brokerage. For the first time in anyone’s memory, we are seeing a noticeable slowdown in sales despite continuing record low interest rates. I’ve experienced many soft markets before; most (1980 – 1982 particularly) were far more severe than this. But all of those were precipitated by rapidly rising interest rates. This one seems to be occurring even though rates have actually fallen (that’s right, fallen) over the past 60 to 90 days by nearly two thirds of a percentage point, remaining near all time lows. At this writing, 30 year rates are around 6.375%. What’s going on?
I’ve heard many explanations offered, and many have some validity. For starters, the Federal Reserve has raised short term interest rates steadily over the last two years. This has probably led many consumers to assume that mortgage rates were rising too. They did rise a little, but not much… they’re still within a percentage point or so of their lows. It’s also true, as you see below and on the following pages, that inventories have continued to rise, leading many to assume that the market is “slow,” since they see more for sale signs than they’re used to. Perhaps most importantly, the media has been relentlessly predicting a “bursting real estate bubble” for two years now, and they’ve seized on any evidence of a slowdown to fuel the gloomy predictions. While fears of a bursting bubble are utterly unfounded, especially here (see page 2), we’re hearing that many buyers are afraid to buy, thinking that real estate has become a bad investment on which they’ll lose money. A self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. Add in the fact that the fall is normally the slowest time of year anyway, and the market appears just plain tired after a sizzling 5 year run.
Bogle believes investors should simply buy the lowest-cost index funds available and hold them forever. His rule of thumb is to take your age minus 10 and hold that percentage of your assets in a total bond market index fund and the rest in a total stock market index fund. For example, a 30-year old would put 20 percent in bonds and 80 percent in stocks.Bogle wrote the excellent "Battle for the Soul of Capitalism".
This strategy nearly eliminates "the two greatest enemies of equity investing -- expenses and emotions," Bogle said.
Bogle's attitudes have barely changed since he started the first index fund in August 1976.
That fund, now called Vanguard Index 500, has about $112 billion in retail assets and is the second-largest fund after American Funds' Growth Fund of America, according to Morningstar.
ON GLOBAL FINANCIAL IMBALANCES
Milken: A number of countries around the world -- the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Norway, Taiwan -- have built up tremendous reserves relative to the size of their country. Most of them have not made the mistake of Japan, where deploying that surplus within the country through, for example superfluous road or bridge construction, caused massive increases in prices in the 1980s.
All in all, there is at least $25 trillion worth of surpluses in the world today that is invested short-term. It is pretty hard to find anything to put a trillion dollars into except U.S. government and private bonds or mortgage-backed securities.
Where do you see this capital being deployed? Do you see it just compounding away, or do you see them following the mode maybe of Singapore where the government is creating its own industrial companies?
Okay, Google gamblers. This one's going to be interesting.
On the one hand, Google's modest deceleration last quarter suggests that the company is going to once again deliver (relatively) ho-hum results and disappoint investors conditioned to expect the astounding. It takes a long time for a supertanker to change speeds or course, and, last quarter, anyway, it did seem that the Google supertanker was finally beginning to slow down. This diagnosis seemed confirmed by possible canary-in-the-coalmine announcements from advertisers who were cutting back on search spending because prices had gotten out of hand. And then there was CFO George Reyes' lucid mid-quarter explanation of why growth had slowed in Q4--because previous growth had been accelerated by a monetization program that had now run its course. This convincing explanation kneecapped the stock for the eight hours it took for the company to issue a press release that said, effectively, George was wrong.
There is a terrific PDF (warning -- its 105 pages) on the Seven Sins of Fund Management. It is a behavioural critique by James Montier, the Global Equity Strategist of Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, and its full of all sorts of smart observations, backed up with data and charts.
I haven't read prior work of Mr. Montier -- but this PDF made me interested in his book, "Behavioural Finance: A User's Guide."
I may be referencing parts of the PDF in the future, but if you want an overview, here are the 7 Deadly Sins:
Sin 1 Forecasting
The folly of forecasting: Ignore all economists, strategists & analysts
Do analysts understand value: who is the greater fool?Posted by James Zellmer at 9:01 AM
Dan Drezner writes:
Given the fact that foreigners currently have a net claim on $2.5 trillion in U.S. assets, one would expect the U.S. to be paying out a lot more in interest, dividends, and profits to foreigners than Americans would receive from their investments.
The weird thing is that, so far, this hasn't been true. Last year the U.S. earned $36 billion more on their foreign investments than foreigners earned in the United States. The question is, why?
It turns out Americans both (seem to) make riskier investments and earn a higher return on investment. One extreme view (not Dan's) suggests the following:
No one else is writing this piece, so it will have to be me. I should say upfront that I'm not predicting that this will happen (yet), and I'm certainly not making a recommendation. I'm just laying out a scenario that could kneecap Google and take its stock back to, say, $100 a share.Rather ironic - and refreshing, coming from Blodget.
Google's major weakness is that it is almost entirely dependent on one, high-margin revenue stream. The company has dozens of cool products, but with the exception of AdWords, none of them generate meaningful revenue. From an intermediate-term financial perspective, therefore, they are irrelevant.
So, the question is, what could happen to AdWords, and what will happen to the company (and stock) if it does?
The Commerce Department reports a surprisingly low American savings average of under 2% and for those who are dutifully socking away 10% of their pretax income it may not be enough.
Just when folks ought to be saving more, they are saving less. Trouble ahead? You'd better believe it.Yes, I have heard all the arguments about how the true savings rate is higher than the 1.3% calculated for 2004 by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, or BEA. But don't let that distract you from the bigger issue.
In a world of disappearing company pensions, skimpy bond yields, rich stock valuations and rising life expectancies, anybody interested in a comfortable retirement should be saving a truckload of money every year -- and yet most folks aren't.
Rate debate. Among pundits, belittling the official savings rate has become something of a national pastime. Some of the arguments seem a little suspect, like the suggestion that buying televisions, cars and other consumer durables ought to be considered saving rather than spending.
and stock-market gains don't count:
Other criticisms are more valid. For instance, stock-market gains don't count toward the official savings rate, which strikes me as the right way to do it. Problem is, under the BEA's methodology, if a winning stock is sold and capital-gains taxes are paid, that tax payment reduces the savings rate.Still, the impact isn't huge. Even in a big year for capital-gains taxes, like 2000, removing the tax impact would boost the savings rate by a mere 1.7 percentage points, calculates BEA research economist Marshall Reinsdorf.
1. There is only one long term investment objective, maximum total after tax return. More here.
Q: What is your favorite part of the stock market today?Sauter: I think you should have some international investments. I think we are going to see foreign economies start to pick up. International funds have risks that U.S. investments don't have. I wouldn't throw caution to the wind. I would use them as a diversifier. I would include emerging markets.
Q: If you could buy only one fund, what would it be?
Sauter: Vanguard Total Stock Market Index.
For first-time investors who want one complete investment, we've got our Balanced Index fund, which is 60 percent Total Stock Market Index and 40 percent Total Bond Market Index.