Are the markets being manipulated?

I'm partway through a 1990s American TV programme (htp: Jesse) about the lead-up to, and aftermath of the Great Crash of 1929. At that time, share price manipulation was legal, everyone knew it went on and even the losers came back for more, hoping they would get out in time the next time round. And in the 1920s, buying on margin became possible, so that provided a fatal extra impetus.

You know all this, of course.

My question (and pardon my ignorance) is about the interaction of derivatives and stock trading today. A takes a huge bet with B that the share price of Widgetco will go down - what stops B from borrowing more cash, purchasing Widgetco in time to boost the price before the date of the bet, collects the cash from A and then sells his firm's holding in Widgetco? Even if now illegal (and I'm not sure of that), are there not ways and means?

And are there other tricks to catch the operator who goes long on a share, instead?

Shares: why bother?

The Contrarian Investor raises an issue I've been pondering recently: in today's financial climate, are stocks and shares old hat? They're only a market in what companies are willing to let the public invest.

If I were a rich entrepreneur who'd been smart enough to get into cash a year or two ago, I'd be looking to take my company back into private ownership, or buy another for a suitcaseful. Who wants to be told what to do by shareholders with bees in their bonnets, institutional investors looking to maximise profits like, NOW, and other goons? It's like being in a three-legged race with the fat kid.

Venture capital - is that the place to be?

A turning point in the market?

Jesse has been doing some scrying, and perceives that a sudden market move is imminent.

"What's the McClellan Oscillator?" My understanding of this site's explanation is that movements in the share prices of a few large companies, heavily weighted in a stock market index, can mask what is going on in the market generally. And when those large companies quieten down, investors may notice an opposite trend has been developing, and they'll pile in after it.

For example, if shares in major banks have been crashing, but other companies have been rising, the market as a whole may drift down, but then...

Signs and portents, signs and portents.

The disenfranchised shareowner?

A startling picture of how share ownership has shrunk - pretty steadily, despite the Conservatives' pledge in the 1980s to widen it. Though I can't tell from this to what extent it's down to individuals' purchase of unit trusts, investment trusts and collective pension funds.

htp: Patrick Vessey

P.S. I Like the flowers. Man.

Financial experts "miserably bearish"

This report by Jim McTague from Barron's, reproduced on the Cumberland Advisors site, gives an indication of how the money experts were feeling this month, on their annual fishing trip in Maine:

[David] Kotok's diagnosis of the cause of the gloom that permeated the crowd was this: Most of them see more economic downside than upside; we don't have functioning credit markets; banks and big Wall Street credit intermediaries are either dead, wounded or on life-support; housing is a wreck; and the auto industry "is done."

Once the economy stabilizes, it will take many years to fully recover, he said, because no strong growth engines are evident. "That's why people are so gloomy! They see no upside!" He personally is investing client money in agricultural plays because, he says, the long-term price of food is trending up. He likes bio-companies whose products are geared to an aging population. And he likes Asia as an investment destination...and he doesn't like much else.

I conducted in-depth interviews with a dozen of the participants. They all perceive the economy in the early stages of a multiyear recession that will be the most painful downturn since the 1970s. The housing market, which experts once predicted would recover in 2008, may not recover even in 2009. Credit woes on Wall Street will begin to inflict real pain on Main Street.

We're already seeing the impact on housing, though the worst may not have happened yet; and I think stocks and bonds are still in something of a fool's paradise. I'm sticking with my guess that in retrospect, we will see that the upturn began in the Spring of 2010.

... which brings us back to gold.

A quote from the Economist article cited yesterday:

real returns from American shares were just 0.1% a year from 1966-81; they fell a dismal 1.3% a year from 1973 to 1981.

Although that performance was much better than the painfully negative returns suffered by holders of government bonds, it was a long way short of the 6-7% returns that shares have historically achieved. Gold was a much better inflation hedge, earning an annual 10.9% in real terms between 1966 and 1981.

Which is, I suppose, what Marc Faber means by recommending gold at this point.

Inflation bad for investors as well as depositors

I wondered recently what was the effect of inflation on shares - are they a hedge? Past history suggests not.

Now there is corroboration from a more distinguished source - the Economist.

And Nicola Horlick says don't buy shares for 2 - 3 years.

Well now, I've been leading the experts for a while. When I call the bottom correctly, it'll be time to start my own hedge fund. Usual terms: 2 and 20.

Avast behind!

Cut-throat Jake spies danger

Pearce Financial (Financial Sense, yesterday), like Marc Faber, believes that the East is dangerously overheated and deflation could hit commodities as well as shares; also, the dollar could rise again, and the Japanese yen might break free from its moorings.

I'd like some help with understanding this last, as tides of returning dollars and yen would seem to argue inflation in their home countries.

Karl Denninger (Market Ticker, yesterday) explains it as a relativistic effect:

Our problems are bad. The problems that will be faced overseas are FAR WORSE. Overseas economies are dependant on us, not the other way around. When this sinks in the other currencies against which the DX is measured will collapse; this will appear to raise the dollar, but in fact it is the sinking of other currencies.

"Tom the cabin boy smiled, and said nothing."

"Wall of Worry" poll results

It seems respondents are as much confused as I am, about which way to go. I quoted Benjamin Graham's advice for passive investors, which is to strike some balance between equities and high-quality bonds, anywhere from 25:75 to 75:25, with a default position of 50:50.

The results are almost exactly divided: 8 at the top end for equities, 8 at the bottom for bonds, 7 voting for a 50:50 split, and one for 65% equities/35% bonds.

Volume - shares and gold

(Picture source)

David Yu (Safe Haven, yesterday) comments on the unusually high volume of trade on the NASDAQ recently, and so expects a fallback sometime.

Peter Degraaf (GoldSeek, Friday) thinks gold can't be shorted or held down forever. He reminds us of the extraordinary volumes of bullion traded in 1967-68, and the explosive rise in the price when the containment attempt finally failed. Degraaf believes Frank Veneroso's theory that central banks are surreptitiously dumping gold again today, playing the same game - and expects the same result.

Dollars, gold and words

A couple of useful items from Financial Sense:

Gary Dorsch (October 18) explains that a falling dollar helps the S&P 500, "which earn roughly 44% of their revenue from overseas, mostly in Euros", and supports house prices in the US; but it also raises the price of oil, gold and agricultural commodities. While the US seems set to cut rates further, the Eurozone may raise theirs to control inflation. In five years, the Brazilian real has doubled against the dollar! Oh, to have been a currency trader.

Meanwhile, Doug Galland at Casey Research explains that gold was dipping together with shares, because institutional investors were scrambling for cash in the unfolding credit crisis. His view is that in the longer term, these sectors will diverge and gold will soar. He supplies an eloquently simple graph:

Speaking of eloquence, financial writers know their business but many need to hone their writing, so I propose a new prize: Sackerson's Prose Trophy. The first winner is Doug Galland, with the following simile:

Though admittedly impatient to see the gold show get on the road, we were largely unconcerned by gold’s behavior. That’s because our eyes remained firmly fixed on the perfect trap set over the years for Bernanke’s Fed.

Like hunters of antiquity watching large prey grazing toward a large covered pit, the bottom of which is decorated with sharpened sticks, we watched the handsomely attired and well-groomed Bernanke and friends shuffle ever closer to the edge, their attention no doubt occupied by pondering the flavor of champagne to be served with the evening’s second course.

One minute pondering bubbly, the very next standing, wide-eyed and hyperventilating, on thin cover with decades of fiscal abuse cracking precariously under their collective Italian leather loafers. We can’t entirely blame Bernanke for the dilemma he now finds himself in; it was more about showing up to work at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The second paragraph is splendid in its anticipation, and the phrasing conveys both the anguished expectation of the hunters and the relaxed, expansive mood of the prey. The denouement is a little disappointing: "pondering" is a repetition and the syntax is too florid; a short sentence would be better, contrasting the suddenness of the fall with the slowness of the approach.

Further nominations for Sackerson's Prose Trophy are welcomed.

Money supply, shares and property

Here's a 22 May article by Cliff d'Arcy in The Motley Fool, comparing house prices and the FTSE 100. From mid-1984 to December last year, the FTSE has outperformed by 7.4% compound per year versus 7.2% for houses. But as he points out, houses are "geared" by mortgages, whereas most of us don't borrow to buy shares.

From September 1984 to the end of 2006, the money supply as measured by M4 showed an annualised average increase of 11.64%. Looking at the growth of M4 as against that of two classes of asset, I wonder where the difference went? Do interest charges roughly account for this?

Safety first

Dan Denning comments on the recent rush for cash and safe bonds in The Daily Reckoning Australia today. He also repeats Marc Faber's point about an "earnings bubble" that skews p/e ratios:

Be careful about using low P/E ratios as a buying indicator. We read in this morning's paper that the average P/E on the ASX 200 is the lowest its been in 12 months. That doesn't automatically mean stocks are "good value." In fact, in the past, low P/E ratios have been a sign of the market top. Why?

At the height of an economic cycle, corporate earnings are high. When earnings rise faster than share prices, the P/E ratio will look low, flashing a "buy" signal. But this may be just the time that earnings themselves have peaked. That's definitely not the time to buy a stock.

And even commodity shares have to be chosen with care, when you factor-in rising costs.