Saturday, November 27, 2010

Reasons to be fearful: a warning about the stock market

Previously published on Seeking Alpha - the business site with 3m readers monthly:
_______________________________

This is the time that tests bearish investors.

Interest rates on deposits are lower than inflation, if you look at food and energy costs. Since the 1990s, I have been more cautious than most of my investors and have been careful to suggest that they might like to keep their powder dry. Some listened and switched to cash in 1998 and 1999, and so avoided the fall out of the 2000-2003 decline.

Just when I was beginning to feel that things were getting sensibly priced, interest rates were pushed down and the already-existing house price bubble superinflated from 2003 on, along with much else. And then...

But now there is talk of investors being "forced" into the market by negative real returns on cash - and fears that inflation may rise significantly. I recently displayed a graph from the Now and Futures site, showing how German shareholders survived the Weimar hyperinflation of 1923, after a severe interim drop. "Financial Armageddon" author Michael Panzner justly pointed out that there was a danger that investors in a similar situation might lose their nerve, sell out and miss the market recovery.

It is also very hard to stay out of the market when it has risen dramatically. I was batting away queries from clients in the latter stages of the tech stock boom with warnings of what I strongly suspected was a bubble ready to burst. But there is pressure to get in, not merely because of greed but in the case of fund managers, fear: the fear that your boss will use peer benchmarks to judge you negatively and appoint someone else to take over the portfolio. So you need nerve at more than one level in the organization.

Invesco Perpetual's Neil Woodford has that kind of nerve. During the dot com craze, he stayed out and stuck to his guns despite the stellar tech-invested performances of others' funds - and fortunately the management backed him.

Woodford was very bullish - selectively - in January this year, according to the Daily Telegraph. So how does he feel now? Well, bearish about China this week, according to Investment Week. This, at a time when others are coming late to the emerging-markets party, looking for something to get exciting returns. Surely, we tell ourselves, someone's making money somewhere, and we want a piece. This, I think, is the dangerous time.

It's caught out geniuses before now. During the South Sea Bubble of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton bought in, sold out and made £7000 profit - about £1 million in today's money. Then, seeing the market soaring further, he bought in again. And the scam crashed, costing him £20,000 - the equivalent of nearly £3 million.

Some say the market now has been climbing a "wall of worry", so that really we're not in a mania and reasonable concern has already been factored into valuations. Personally, I fear that this is like a lunatic certifying his own sanity and discharging himself from the hospital - "I'm all right now."

I'm not alone in this fear. In a Financial Sense article by Tim Wood yesterday, he says:

"I continue to believe, based on the evidence at hand, that the rally out the March 2009 low is a large scale bear market rally that should ultimately prove to separate Phase I from Phase II of the much larger and ongoing secular bear market. But, just as I told my subscribers before that low was even made, the longer this rally holds up, the more dangerous it becomes. Reason being, it becomes more and more convincing."

We have interest rates lower than ever, debts higher than ever and a financial sector borrowing cash at giveaway rates and playing games in the market. We now have an interdependent world economy, which is like lashing all the lifeboats together - extra security in a small storm and complete disaster in a big one.

Granted that the situation is such that there is no completely valid basis of comparison - and remembering that the Dow now lists companies that garner much more from foreign earnings than they used to - let's take a look at the Dow adjusted for CPI inflation since the peak before last - the one in January of 1966:


Remember, too, that everyone agrees that we've just had a recession, and many say we're not out of it. Where would you pin the tail on this donkey? Mr Market appears to have stuck it on the back of his neck.

If we are climbing the Wall of Worry, we're starting from very high up. Don't look down.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

The God of small things

Eyelashes growing out of human skin - one of many wonderful electron microscope pictures here.

Should rich people be asking us to think that money isn't everything?

It's a debate here at the moment. I'm only asking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5003314.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/20/economics-wealth-gdp-happiness

Protect your cash savings (UK customers)

The following is an extract from a just-published article by Nadeem Walayat on securing your bank deposits in the UK:

UK Savers Emergency Plan:

a. Ensure that you have at least 2 current accounts across banking groups.

b. That you have procedures in place to ensure that you can act fast to initiate transfer of funds from instant access savings accounts, especially if your total funds with a particular banking group exceeds £50k / £83k (1st Jan 2011).The best strategy is to limit exposure per banking group to the limit.

c. Do not have ANY savings are fixed deposit exposure to banks that do not fall under the UK Financials Services Compensation Scheme.

d. Limit exposure to PIIGS banks, that is Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy as these are at the most risk of going bust thus triggering a lengthy process of Savers having to wait for compensation.

The following list represents Britians' largest deposit taking banking groups and the banks that fall under each.

Note whilst banking groups may have multiple licences as a consequence of mergers and takeovers, however they also may be in the process of merging licences so for ultimate safety one should remain focused on banking groups.

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP
Lloyds TSB Bank
AA Savings
Bank of Scotland / HBOS
Birmingham Midshires
Capital Bank
Cheltenham & Gloucester Savings
Halifax
Intelligent Finance
Saga


SANTANDER GROUP
Santander bank
Abbey National
Asda Savings
Alliance and Leicester
Bradford and Bingley
Cahoot
Moneyback
Honycomb
Nationwide Building Society
Nationwide Building Society
Cheshire Building Society
Derbyshire Building Society
Dunfermline Building Society


BARCLAYS GROUP
Barclays Bank
Standardlife Bank


HSBC GROUP
HSBC Bank
First Direct
Marks and Spencer Financial


ALLIED IRISH GROUP
Allied Irish Bank
First Trust


CITI GROUP
Citibank
Egg


CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
Co-operative Bank
Britannia
Smile
Unity Trust Bank
RBS Group
Royal Bank of Scotland
Nat West Bank
Direct Line Savings
Lombard
The One Account
Drummonds
Ulster Bank


Additional comments

Foreign Banks under UK FSCS Scheme - ICICI (India), First Save (Nigeria)

Small business are covered by the FSCS on the basis of 2 of following 3 conditions - upto a turnover of 6.5 million, less than 50 employees, balance sheet total not more than £3.26 million

Banks not under the UK FSCS.

Post Office - Currently Guaranteed by the Irish Government, pending coming under the UK FSCS.
ING Direct, Tridos - Dutch
Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland - Ireland


Don't delay! Act today to form a quick personal savings protection contingency plan, otherwise you may wake up one day to find yourselves locked out of your funds Iceland style!

For more on how to protect your wealth from debt default bankruptcy see the Inflation Mega-trend Ebook (FREE DOWNLOAD)

Comments and Source: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24572.html

By Nadeem Walayat

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk

Copyright © 2005-10 Marketoracle.co.uk (Market Oracle Ltd). All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Using our brains

It is common wisdom that the Soviet Union and associated states collapsed because of the failures of centralized planning. Then why do we allow and encourage the same kinds of structures in large corporations and government in the West?

The ostensible reason given is easy to defend: large entities can be much more efficient. As a secondary reason (not usually stated), large entities also mean a concentration of power and wealth.

The problem with efficiency is that it comes at a price. This is not only the loss of jobs and transfer of wealth, but more disturbingly the catastrophic nature of any breakdown. We saw it in 2003 with the power grid in the US, in 2008 with the collapse of the banking system, and in new cars, which are much more reliable and efficient than those from the 1970’s, but harder and more expensive to repair.

The key to preventing or mitigating future disasters in finance, oil, energy and water appears to be the opposite of our past practices. Rather than make everything bigger, we should take a hint from the designers of the World Wide Web, and decentralize as much as possible. This will take planning and cooperation, and a thought process unlike anything since World War II. Just consider: how many large purchases for homes, business or government consider the long-term costs of maintenance?

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Doing the same idiot thing ...

What makes the scientific community different from most groups of humans is the willingness of the group (but not necessarily individual scientists) to let go of emotionally-satisfying hypotheses when they are not supported by the data.

By contrast, consider education and government.

For at least two decades, we have been warned by business and government leaders that we need more graduates in the technical fields, just to sustain our infrastructure. Even in these tough economic times, the graduates in Engineering, Mathematics and Geology are finding good jobs. These disciplines require a great deal of Mathematics training to succeed, and our Education College experts hold to the philosophy that the key to that teaching is pedagogy. To that end, they have tried to make it easier to learn, to reduce the speed at which the students learn the material, or to dispense with material altogether. These huge experiments have not made a significant difference in the graduation rates in these subjects.

To my experimental mind, this suggests that the difference is one of innate ability, which is anathema to the John Dewey philosophy of education as a social equalizer. Instead, we just try to pump even more money into failing ideas.

In the case of government, we can look at tax policies. Since the 1950’s, the tax burden has shifted from corporations to individual taxpayers. Within that latter group, the past 30 years have seen a shift, where the lowest 50% or so pay very little in taxes, and the marginal tax rates for the wealthy have gone steadily down. All of these changes were supposed to make our economy strong, and have utterly failed. Yet, what is the current mantra? Cut taxes for business and keep the tax cuts for the wealthy (including preferential rates on capital gains and no estate tax).

While I can readily understand that the rich and powerful would have this view, what is it that makes middle-income and poor Americans support this idea?