Archive for September, 2011

It’s really is all about Europe

Just in case there is any doubt left that the market is 100% about what is/will happen in Europe, take a look at today’s action in SPY, the SPDR’s S&P 500 index ETF. The market initially followed through on yesterday’s positive note with a nice gap open of about 2%. The news over the weekend was that Geitner had convinced the powers that be in Europe, that the only solution was the “bazooka solution” – a one time massive stimulus in the 2.5 – 4 trillion Euro range.

Yesterday, (Tuesday) in mid afternoon, the Financial Times reported that an agreement had not only NOT been reached, but there were major areas of disagreement. The markets gave up most of the day’s gain in about a two hours, before posting a slight rebound before close.

Chart from freestockcharts.com

That is two 2%+ moves in one trading day. And only on bits and pieces of rumored news! This market will either blast off, or fall like a lead balloon once we have real news on what, if anything the EU plans on doing with their members’ sovereign and unpayable debts.

I just want to caution, strong bets in this market are truly 50/50 propositions. No one knows what the outcome will be at this point – don’t be fooled by those pretending they do. Be careful, there really will be better times to make money.

Too pessimistic?

I received quite a bit of feedback on my September 9th blog. So for those of you who think I am way too pessimistic, you may want to view this video for a refreshing take on the European crisis as expressed by a trader in an interview on the BBC.

Now is Not the Time for Risk

Yesterday I received a “query” from a writer for the Wall Street Journal’s online edition for information on a story. A “query” is typically sent out by a writer looking for an expert opinion. For this query the writer was asking for suggestions on ways that a near-retiree could add risk to their portfolio, in an effort to boost returns. The idea is that so many retirees have suffered such poor investment performance for years that soon to be retirees need to play a little “catch up.” My response was basically that that was one of the stupidest ideas I had ever heard! So assuming I won’t be quoted in that piece, and there is no reason to wait for the article to be published, let me share some thoughts on this subject.

Investors (and apparently financial writers at wsj.com) have been misled on what risk is, and how it affects portfolios, for years by the mutual fund industry and the financial planning community. The theory goes that by increasing the risk of a portfolio, the investor also increases their return. As if this is a foregone conclusion. But if that is the case than where is the risk? If by definition you change investments and you, by definition increase return, than there is no “risk.” So everyone would be stupid not to have “high risk” portfolios. Heck the more the better, let’s dial up a little more “risk.” Just turn up the heat on the oven and the bread will be done sooner. Right?

Last night I was watching Extreme Pawn Stars. If you haven’t seen the show, it’s about a pawn shop in Detroit. It offers entertainment on two levels, first it’s interesting to see the stuff that gets brought in, and second the characters that bring in the stuff! Last night, this guy brings in a Cabbage Patch® doll and wants $100 for it. The pawn shop owner asks him simply, “How did you come up with that number?” His answer, now pay attention here, was, “Because I’m being evicted and need $100.” The store owner offered him $10. The moral of the story is that neither the pawn shop owner, nor future buyers for the Cabbage Patch doll, really care that this guy needs $100. The just want to pay what the thing is actually worth. $10.

This made me think about the whole premise behind the query from the WSJ writer. Investors, for whatever reason, think there is a correlation between needing a higher return on their investments and actually getting a higher return on their investments. The fact is the “market” doesn’t really care that you, or any other investor actually needs anything. And just because an investor needs a high return does not mean that there is some dial that can be turned to turn up the returns as well. The sad truth is, neither owner of the pawn shop nor the market, really cares what anyone needs for their Cabbage Patch doll, or from their portfolio. Each is worth exactly what someone else is willing to pay for them. No more, no less. Personal circumstances just don’t matter.

I will go a step further and explain that this is the difference between the professional investor and the amateur. The amateur is always “long” or fully invested, expecting high returns, because they need those high returns. They typically take risks, at the wrong time. The professional understands that just because he or his clients need return, it is not always possible to get them.

I’ll close with a sad but true example. Almost exactly a year ago, my partner and I went out and made a proposal to manage a company’s pension plan. They had lost a lot of money in the plan and had to add $1 million from the company account to the pension plan. I recommended using our dividend value strategy. In a shaky economy dividends would add stability and provide cash flow to pay out benefits down the road. The owners were noticeably upset that they had lost a significant amount of money and had to now fund the losses. I thought this was a prudent strategy. Instead, the owners went another direction. Determined to “make up” their losses they went with a rather high risk/high return strategy (in their minds) choosing a “specialist” in small company stocks for their existing balance, and self-directing $1.4 million equally divided between Wells Fargo, Citi, and Bank of America. In their attempt to catch up, because they needed the return, they have lost probably another million dollars in 12 months. Instead of catching up, they will need to somehow find another $1 million from company coffers, in this economy, to fund their pension plan or risk penalties from the Department of Labor.

Turning up the heat on the oven is more likely to result in burned bread, instead of simply finishing it sooner. Similarly turning up portfolio risk is a good recipe for being burned as well. In baking and investing, patience is truly a virtue.

Nice Speech, But Don’t Expect Much in Terms of New Jobs

I just looked over the President’s Jobs Speech, and have to say I was spot on in my pre-game, I mean pre speech analysis. To recap, there really wasn’t much he could propose that really would make a meaningful difference.

Let me explain with a little lesson in micro economics (yes that was the econ class that turned virtually everyone off from economics). Let’s assume we have a little economy that produces 1,000 widgets a month. And, on average, our little economy consumes 1,000 widgets a month. (For those who chose to sleep through their micro class, a widget is a unit of production; it could be a product or represent a service, like a month’s worth of landscaping). Now let’s further assume that our little economy consists of 100 workers. So each worker, on average, produces ten widgets a month. However there are 11 people that want to be workers and currently only ten are employed. So our government says to our businesses that they will pay the entire salary of the 11th worker, if we just hire him. We oblige, and now our little economy is making 1010 widgets a month! This is great! Except, we are still only consuming 1000 widgets a month. After 10 months we have now created an inventory of 100 extra widgets which is a month’s production for one of our workers. Inventory is not a good thing because it costs our companies money to transport and store our inventory. Our “free” employee is not really free. So even though the government asked our businesses to hire an extra worker, they have to lay him off. In fact, since they don’t want any excess inventory, they layoff one of their original 100 workers until their inventory gets back down to zero. This is called a “recession.” This is also called “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” The government intended to increase employment, but unintentionally caused a reduction in employment by causing a recession.

Unrealistic?  Too simple?  Not really. Let’s look at my little world. If the President said, “Bill if you hire an extra assistant, I will pay their salary.” Would I hire someone? No. Why? Because I don’t need someone sitting around my office doing nothing while my paid assistant does all the work. Even worse, they share the work load, and then when the government stops paying my extra assistant, and I lay them off, my original assistant is used to doing half the work she does now! Why don’t I find more work for my new assistant? Because to find new work I need new customers that require more work. And this is the crux of the problem with the President’s job proposal.

Employers don’t need new employees, they need new customers.
So while all the business incentives are great, they may even keep businesses from closing their doors. They may even help boost profits. But they will do nearly nothing in terms of boosting employment. An employer (other than the Government) is only going to hire someone if they expect to have more customers tomorrow than they have today (or same number of customers, but they spend more.) Period. So what is in this job plan to create consumers that will make employers need to hire workers?

Below I highlight and comment on the major components of the plan. A complete copy of the White House’s Fact Sheet from his speech can be found here.

1.Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow.
Cutting Payroll Taxes. If costs go down, maybe some businesses will spend money on things like capital improvements that have been put off. But it will be e very indirect affect. And only if the economy stays in a recovery mode and doesn’t slip into a recession.

Payroll Tax Holiday for New Hires. I think I made my point on this one.

Extending 100% expensing deduction. This is an extension, doesn’t offer anything new.

Reforms to provide access to capital. Right. Ask your banker about this one. It sounds good, but banks are in no position to take on risk, unless they can pass through the risk. And the government can’t afford anymore bad loans. Political speak only.

2. Putting Workers Back on the Job
I’m all for all of this. I’d rather pay people to build/rebuild something than collect unemployment. Trouble is, when the money is gone so are the jobs. Just as we are seeing now as States are laying off workers hired with the last stimulus money. Infrastructure bank is much needed and has proven successful in other countries. Customers? Yes. $140 billion worth? Not so sure.

3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.
You can train ‘em, you can subsidize ‘em, but without new customers no one is going to hire ‘em.

4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family
Cutting payroll taxes in half – how is this really any different than the Bush Tax Cuts that ruined our country (allegedly)? Studies have shown that one time tax relief is a waste of government money. One time tax relief is more likely to be used to pay down debt, replete savings, or buying something really frivolous, like groceries.

Allowing American’s to refinance at mortgages at 4%. Sounds good, but more campaign speak.  Here’s the deal, the banks will write the rules as they do now. We already have a refinance program for homeowners that are in “imminent” risk of default. Try to prove “imminent” to a bank. I rent to a credit repair, budgeting and financial planning firm. It’s taken them over a year to get people refinanced, if at all.

5.Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.
LOL.

Bottom Line.
Typical Keynesian backwards economics. If you build it (hire people) they (consumers) will come. It’s the other way around. Businesses don’t hire more workers unless they expect more business. To the extent that that tax benefits lower costs in 2012, any benefits are lost in 2013 and 2014 when Obama Care taxes, penalties, and higher premiums all kick in. Businesses aren’t going to take on multi-year costs for a onetime cost reduction.

We had zero job growth last month. The $35 billion allocated to teacher rehiring should be enough to hire 450,000 teachers, for one year. That is about enough new jobs to keep the unemployment rate from rising for five months. OK, I’m happy for the teachers and the students, but to call this a “jobs” speech? Sorry, way too little and a lot too late.

Pre Speech Blog

Just thought I’d get a thought or two in before Ben Bernanke and President Obama give their much anticipated speeches on the economy and specifically “job creation’ tomorrow evening.

I’ll follow up this weekend with some thoughts after all the real pundits have their fun over the speeches.

Let me just say this, “It doesn’t matter what either of them say. Period.” Do not make any investment decisions, life decisions, job decisions, etc. based on how eloquently either of them layout their brilliant plans for economic recovery. There are two reasons for this, one minor but closer to home, literally. And the other is really THE major issue.

Reason minor: No matter what the Fed Chairman or the President says it quite simply will not be enough. It will take a decade, at least for employment to reach the levels we saw in 2007. See below for a Table and explanation from John Mauldin’s Thoughts from the Frontline newsletter.

 

 Let me explain. Currently only 58% of the population is working. This is down from 64% in 2007. That means that 6% of 2007 working population has either retired or given up, and they have not been replaced. To re-employ that 6%, meaning bringing  them back into the job market requires the creation of 93,000 jobs a month over the next two years. This keeps unemployment at 9%. To understand this, remember that you have to consider yourself as part of the workforce, even if you don’t have a job, to be unemployed. If hiring picks up, many that have given up, will actually start looking for a job, and between the time they start looking and actually find a job, they actually add to the unemployment number. So long story short, to get back to the 6% unemployment of 2007, pre-crisis period AND back to 64% of the population considering themselves “in the workforce” we need to add 287,000 jobs per month for 24 consecutive months. What are the odds? Well based on history, nada. Zero. It has never happened for a 24 month period in U S history.

 Reason Major: Europe. I am not an expert on international banking systems or the European Union’s economy. What I do know is that there just is not enough money to bail out Italy’s economy. Let alone the dominoes that will fall along the way – Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, maybe Belgium and France. If Greece leaves the European Union, as in “Don’t let the door hit you in the — on the way out” then it becomes very likely that the Euro dissolves. And if that should happen? Love him or hate him, he generally knows what he is talking about, here is George Soros, “ If the euro were to break up, it would cause a banking crisis that would be totally outside the control of the financial authorities. So it would push not only Germany, not only Europe, but also the whole world into conditions very reminiscent of the Great Depression in the 1930s, which was also caused by a banking crisis that was out of control.”

So how close is Greece, the lead domino to default? See the Chart below. As of July 2011 a two year government bond, issued by the Greek government was paying 26.65%.

 

 But don’t stop there. The yield has risen to 46% on September 7, 2011. Nobody, individual, business, or country stays solvent paying out 46% in interest. Greece is dead man walking.

Bottom Line: It doesn’t matter what the Fed, Congress or the President can come up with to jump start our economy, if Europe breaks apart. And since that seems like a true possibility, if not probability, we are staying minimally invested, short with ETF’s, or hedged with short ETF’s and dividend paying stocks in all of our portfolios, until we have some clarity from the other side of the pond. Not only can’t Europe survive a Greek default, I’m not sure we can either, as weak as our economy is today.


bill@401advisor.com • 937.434.1790

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 504 other subscribers

Go to webpage:

Go to webpage:

Follow me on Twitter

on Amazon

Link to my weekly column.

Charles H. Dow Award Winner 2008. The papers honored with this award have represented the richness and depth of technical analysis.

Archives