The Forging of a Skeptic (Buffett/Schroeder Interview); Investigative Journalism

Dino

A Great Interview: The Forging of a Skeptic_Buffett

Snippets:

Learn about investigative journalism to become better at investing

Alice: Yes, I will give away some of my secrets. People would do well to study investigative journalism. Read something like Den of Thieves or A Civil Action and try to reverse engineer how it was reported.

Here are three other great books on conversing with people, understanding their real motives, and just generally understanding how the human mind works.

The Work of a Securities Analyst at a Wire House

You may wonder why analysts at banks hedge themselves so much – on the one hand this, on the other hand that. Partly it can be lack of courage. But someone is always trying to lawsuit-proof your opinion. Decisive statements are lawyered into “may, can, could, might, potentially, appears” instead of “is, does, should, will,” much less “look out below.”

The time pressures that work against quality research are also well-known. You write-up a lot of inconsequential things, especially what I call “elevator notes” (this quarter “X was up and Y was down”). Instead of writing original or probing views, you are really incentivized to spend as much time as possible marketing.

Also, if you adhere to consensus, it does protect your career. There’s an old saying that no one ever got fired for buying from IBM. Nobody ever got fired for making a wrong estimate that was within sell-side consensus.

Whereas, if you break from consensus, you really can’t afford to be wrong very often. That phenomenon really drives the sell-side. It can be overt, such as when we were judged on how “commercial” our work was. This is a veiled threat, because, of course, our work has to be marketable in order for us to have a job. The firms essentially want two things that are incompatible.

Focus on the Essentials

Miguel: It’s funny and I hope one day you can meet my boss. But you can tell him anything in the world (about an investment) but he always circles back to two questions

  1. Is it a good company, and
  2. Is it cheap?

Alice: Sure.

Miguel: I think that I am a little bit like you in that I love thinking about things. But I also find it very easy to get lost in details while forgetting to ask, “Is this something I even want to own in the first place?”

Alice: One trap is not probing deep enough to really answer whether a particular investment opportunity is a good business. It’s easy to make a facile judgment about that based on a summary description of a business. The sheer breadth of different business and investment opportunities in a modern capital market creates an overflow of information that leads many investors to have short attention spans in thinking about companies comparatively.

Curiosity is an inherent kind of arbitrage that no amount of computer technology can overcome. Warren makes it sound so simple to know what is and is not a truly good business – and great business do resonate very clearly when you understand why they are great and especially when they’ve been identified as successful investments by an investor like Warren Buffett and proven so with hindsight – but like many things in investing, Buffett makes it sound easier than it is. When it comes to appreciating something that is special about a business that others do not, I’ve learned that the devil really is in the details.

Miguel: How is Warren different from other value investors?

Alice: He’s more interested in money, for one thing (laughs).

In terms of how that affects his investing behavior, number one, in his classic investments he expends a lot of energy checking out details and ferreting out nuggets of information, way beyond the balance sheet. He would go back and look at the company’s history in-depth for decades. He used to pay people to attend shareholder meetings and ask questions for him. He checked out the personal lives of people who ran companies he invested in. He wanted to know about their financial status, their personal habits, what motivated them. He behaves like an investigative journalist. All this stuff about flipping through Moody’s Manual’s picking stocks … it was a screen for him, but he didn’t stop there.

Number two, his knowledge of business history, politics, and macroeconomics is both encyclopedic and detailed, which informs everything he does. If candy sales are up in a particular zip code in California, he knows what it means because he knows the demographics of that zip code and what’s going on in the California economy. When cotton prices fluctuate, he knows how that affects all sorts of businesses. And so on.

The third aspect is the way he looks at business models. The best way I can describe this is that it’s as if you and I see an animal, and he sees its DNA. He isn’t interested in whether the animal is furry; all he sees is whether it can run and how well it will reproduce, which are the two key elements that determine whether its species will thrive.

I remember when his daughter opened her knitting shop. Many parents would say, I’m so proud of Susie, she’s so creative, this is something of her own, maybe she can make a living at it. Warren’s version is, I’m so proud of Susie, I think a knitting shop can produce half a million a year in sales, they’re paying whatever a square foot for the storefront, and labor is cheap in Omaha.

It was similar when Peter was producing his multimedia show, The Seventh Fire. Many parents would say, wow, my son has pulled off a critically acclaimed show. Warren obviously thought that, but what he articulated was, they’re charging $40 a ticket, I think the Omaha market is too small for that price point, whereas in St. Louis they may cover the overhead, and I think he paid too much for the tent because the audience doesn’t really care what kind of tent it’s sitting in and it hurts margins, etc.

Read the entire interview: 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/235292-behind-the-scenes-with-buffett-s-biographer-alice-schroeder

 Investigative Journalism and Brookfield Asset Management

Brookfield

Repetitive Advantage: Broad Run Investment Management:Broad-Run-VII-Profile-Nov-2013

Buying Jan 2015 $15 call option at $3.00 in ABX 

A special situation since there is a change in Board. If ABX can survive its balance sheet by improving its low cost assets, then there could be 100% to 200% upside with gold prices above $1,250. Right now we are in tax selling as well as a weak gold environment.  ABX’s management says they will pare down/sell off their high cost mines. If gold goes sub- $1,000, then ABX could really struggle.

ABX

Look familiar?

Despair

Experts Opining on Markets; Lessons in Entrepreneurship

Where are the Customer’s Yachts? (1940)

For one thing thing, customers have an unfortunate habit of asking about the financial future. Now if you do someone the signal honor of asking him a difficult question, you may be assured that you will get a detailed answer. Rarely will it be the most difficult of all answers–“I don’t know.”

Today (Dec. 01, 2013) “As measured by the weekly Investors Intelligence survey of newsletter writers, the bullish boat is standing room only while the bear boat has the least amount of passengers dating back to the 1980’s. In today’s numbers, Bulls rose to 55.7 from 53.6 while the Bears fell to 14.4 from 15.5, an historic low in the history of this survey according to II. Combined with another record high in margin debt in October that puts its ratio to GDP at about 2.4%, near the high of 2.6% in July ’07 and 2.8% in March ’00 and it’s worth noting the historical limits in these two figures that we are pushing up against. That said, this says nothing about where markets go in the short term from here. This Fed hosted party can still have life left but I feel it’s always important to have perspective and these two data points should provide reason for an investing gut check in early 2014 in terms of how to be positioned.”   www.hussmanfunds.com

“Being wrong on your own, as Keynes described so eloquently in Chapter 12 of the General Theory, is the cardinal crime of an investment manager. The management of career risk results in very destructive herding. Investors should be aware that the U.S. market is already badly overpriced – indeed, we believe it is priced to deliver negative real returns over seven years [GMO estimates fair value for the S&P 500 at 1100]. Be prudent and you’ll probably forego gains. Be risky and you’ll probably make some more money, but you may be bushwhacked and if you are, your excuses will look thin. My personal view is that the path of least resistance for the market will be up.”

– Value investor Jeremy Grantham, GMO, November 18, 2013

“I cannot look at myself in the mirror; everything I have believed in I have had to reject. This environment only makes sense through the prism of trends. You have got to be in things that are trending. Crashing is the least of my concerns. I can deal with that, but I cannot risk my reputation because we are in this virtuous loop where the market is trending. I may be providing a public utility here, as the last bear to capitulate.”

– Hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry, Eclectica, November 22, 2013

“I am out of justification to fight the uptrend. Up until now, I have had what I thought was compelling evidence to believe in the bearish case, but it has now been revealed to have been insufficient for the task. I am without ammunition to bet on the bears. I don’t like it, because I see the market as overly dependent upon the Fed’s largesse for its upward continuation. I see this as a bubble, but a bubble that is continuing higher even though it should not. I plan to ride the bubble for a while, and will hope to be able to succeed in reading the right [exit] signs.”

– Market technician Tom McClellan, November 26, 2013

In a classic case of not only locking the barn door after the horse is loose, but removing its best opportunity to return home, we’re seeing a capitulation by investment managers across every discipline, from technical, to value-conscious, to global macro. Historically extreme overvalued, overbought, overbullish conditions were in place even ten months ago, and my impression is that every further extension worsens the payback will inexorably follow.

Lesson: Don’t listen to gurus or “experts”.  They are more apt to be wrong. Follow your own common-sense thinking. Right now RISKS ARE HIGH. BE CAREFUL.

Lessons in Entrepreneurship (Gary Hoover) http://www.today.mccombs.utexas.edu/gary-hoover-video-library/

My break

I have been so busy buying gold and miners that I haven’t had much chance to post, but I do plan to resume once things settle down (I hope).

I like this: buying bullion (gold/silver) at a 10% discount. Last time was 2001.

CEF Premium

While being wary of this (in general).  Go here: www.hussmanfunds.com

SP 500 Horror

Note the early warnings signs—not all is well in Europe. 

European Equities

Jean-Marie Eveillard:  “I just returned from Europe, where I was mostly in France, and the mood was not good there because the economy is not doing well.  And since the economy is not doing well, there are political developments on the far-right and on the far-left….

“Some people, and I cannot blame them, believe that the establishment has failed them in the sense that the economy continues to do poorly.”

Eric King:  “Jean-Marie, it sounds like there is a polarization happening in Europe where people are jumping on both sides and the middle-ground is being lost.”

Eveillard:  “Yes, and usually it’s the middle-ground that governs.  That has been the case in France where both the socialist party, which is currently in power, and the center-right party, both of them have historically been close to the center.  That’s not the case any more.

They both have their own extreme wings, but it has been the center that has always governed.  Now people believe that the ‘center’ has governed poorly enough that you have more people who are being seduced by the far-right, and the far-left.”

Eric King:  “Does that worry you?”

Eveillard:  “Yes, but, again, it’s a result of the establishment and it’s happening in the US as well.  You have the center disappearing in the US, which means that both extremes on the left and the right will keep gaining additional audiences.”

Eric King:  “This trend obviously has you worried.”

Eveillard:  “It worries me particularly because in the US, France, and elsewhere, it’s Neo-Keynesian policies that are being followed because it’s the fashion of the day.  Even though the Neo-Keynesians didn’t see the financial crisis coming, nevertheless they are still in power in academia, the political world, and in the world of corporate economists.

I ask myself, ‘If Keynes were alive today, would he be a Neo-Keynesian?’  I don’t think so.  But the Neo-Keynesians believe, as Keynes did, that every now and then private sector demand is weak and has to be supplemented by public sector demand.

What we’ve had in the US over the past 5 years , both from a monetary and from a fiscal point of view, is the most stimulative economic policies ever — completely unprecedented.  The printing of money, QE, etc, the budget deficit, the tremendous increase in government debt, and yet the economic recovery continues to be weak.

Now, the stock market is up sharply because some of the excess liquidity being created by the Fed is going into stocks.  Some of it has also gone into things such as the real estate and fine art markets.  But the money goes particularly into the stock market.

And the stock market is strong not just because of the excess liquidity, but because the vast majority of investors seem to believe, they are wrong, but they believe that, ‘Yes, we had a financial crisis 5 years ago, but that’s all over.  We are going back to normal, and within a few months the economy in the US will grow at more than an annual rate of 2%.’  

It hasn’t happened yet.  How come it hasn’t happened yet?  Nobody seems to be asking the question.  It hasn’t happened yet because the medicine being prescribed by the Neo-Keynesians is not working.  Incidentally, I don’t think anything will work because there no steps which can be taken by the politicians that would, almost overnight, result in a non-inflationary economy growing at 3% or 4% a year.

The reality is the steps which have been taken over the past 5 years will cause tremendous chaos and problems in the future, but we haven’t seen that yet.”

Eveillard also spoke about gold:  “I believe that if I’m right, and the Neo-Keynesian medicine continues not to work, although they can continue with their QE, even at the Fed they know that quantitative easing cannot go on forever.  So at some point something will have to give.  That’s the point where investors will change their attitudes and move to gold.  But it isn’t happening right now in the West because investors continue to believe the Neo-Keynesian medicine will succeed any day now.”

Eric King:  “If there is this move you just described back to gold in the West, Jean-Marie, do you see new all-time highs in gold?”

Eveillard:  “Yes, because gold will become the substitute currency.  People will say, ‘I don’t want the yen, dollar, or the euro because they are all engaged in a race to the bottom.’  Yes, then gold will become the substitute currency.  Gold will be money again.  In a sense it never stopped, but 40 years ago the politicians decided that we were going to operate on the basis of a pure paper money system.  But I can assure you that the history of pure paper money systems is not inspiring.” (www.kingworldnews.com)

CSInvesting: I don’t agree with everything said. Will gold become a substitute “currency?”  Perhaps, more people will understand that Gold is the best money in the world (despite the raving over bitcoin or “token” money).

Happy Thanksgiving!

Turkey

From a reader (Thanks Brian)

Warren Buffet and other Buffets were recently at the NY Public Library.  Here is a link to the talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BsTHnpq9M 
Some Esoteric Research on Liquidity/Gold and Collateral
I hope to be back with my third chapter in my investing book: Does Value Investing Work? ….or what does NOT work in investing.
Be well and say a prayer for the Turkey and the Dakota Sioux from Wounded Knee.
10031292_burial

Dakota Sioux being buried in a mass grave (Wounded Knee Massacre)

100314214_NEWounded Knee Battlefield

 

Ding, Ding, Ding, The Bells Are Ringing; Search

Corp profits as pct of GDP

 Buy them when they are up, and sell them when the margin clerk insists on it. It is obviously impossible for the thinking Wall Streeter to avoid acting on that principle. He certainly can’t buy them when they are down, because when the are down “conditions” are terrible. You can ask an experienced Wall Street man to buy stocks when carloadings have just hit a new low and unemployment is at a peak and steel capacity is less than half of normal and a very big man (“of course I can’t tell you his name”) has just informed him in confidence that one of the big underwriting houses in the Middle West is in really serious trouble.

Unfortunately for everyone concerned, these are the only times when stocks are down. When “conditions” are good, the forward-looking investor buys. But when “conditions” are good, stocks are high. Then, without anyone having the courtesy to ring a warning bell, “conditions” get bad. Stocks go down, and the margin clerk sends the forward-looking investor a telegram containing the only piece of financial advice he will ever get from Wall Street which has no ifs or buts in it. (Source: Where Are The Customers’ Yachts? by Fred Schwed, Jr.)

John Hussman (www.hussmanfunds.com)

The fact that profits as a share of GDP are more than 70% above their historical norm should immediately raise a question as to whether current year earnings or next year’s projected “forward earnings” should be used as a sufficient statistic for long-term cash flows and equity market valuation without any further reflection. Then again, more work is required to demonstrate that such an approach would be misleading. We’re just getting warmed up.

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc131125.htm

GMO_QtlyLetter_ALL_3Q2013  Be Careful!  Future returns expected to be negative over the next seven years.

Csinvesting: Stocks are probably fairly valued IF long-term bonds were normalized.  4% to 5% is a far cry from 3% in the Ten-year Treasury.

For Whom the Bell Tolls Bob Moriarty Archives  Nov 25, 2013

I’ve heard it said that they don’t ring a bell at the top. That’s bullshit, of course. In March of 2000 I read that inmates in a jail in Baltimore were holding stock picking contests. If you wanted to pick the very last group who would ever be likely to participate in a stock market bubble, it would probably have to be inmates in a jail in Baltimore. Ding, ding, ding.

Luckily for the poor prisoners in Baltimore, they can go back to doing drugs, extortion and getting correctional officers pregnant, they don’t have to waste any more time on the stock market. They did ring a bell at that top on March 10, 2000.

They just rang another bell. Only time will tell if it’s a top but I can clearly hear the clanging of a bell.

There are times that you know intuitively that some people have way too many dollars and way too little ‘cents.’ Ten days or so ago, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook offered $3 billion in cash for an application named Snapchat. Snapchat was co-founded by a 23-year-old named Evan Spiegel.

Snapchat is an interesting app that provides a 14-year-old young lady the opportunity to send her 15-year-old boyfriend a nice picture of her budding boobs. She can be secure in knowing that the competitive advantage of Snapchat is that the picture disappears in 1-10 seconds depending on the option of the person using it. Luckily for her boyfriend, he can do an instant save and pass the “sext” around to all his friends. This is known as “sexting” and is a lot more fun than anything I ever did in high school.

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel promptly rejected the $3 billion offer despite having no revenues and no business plan but runs a handy application for every 14-year-old.

Somebody is being really flipping stupid. It’s a tossup as to whether it’s Zuckerberg for offering to overpay for an application that anyone could duplicate in a month, or Spiegel for not taking the cash and running for the nearest French beach where all the women will show you their boobs and you don’t need a cellphone to look at them.

You don’t have to be the mayor of Toronto to smoke crack and do really stupid things. Applications come and go. Computers come and go. I can remember when the Trash 80 from Tandy Radio Shack was the hottest computer in the market. Then the IBM PC and AT and PCJr and now Apple. All things change.

Actually I think they are both being dumber than a brick.

Any investor that hasn’t learned about what happens to markets when they go curvilinear will soon find out.

Ding, ding, ding, ding.

How to Generate Stock Ideas

24 Nov 2013 08:55 pm | Vishal Khandelwal

In an interview with Warren Buffett in 1993, Adam Smith, author of Supermoney, asked how the small investor can find good investment ideas.

Warren Buffett: I’d tell him to do exactly what I did 40-odd years ago, which is to learn about every company in the United States that has publicly traded securities, and that bank of knowledge will do him or her terrific good over time.

Adam Smith: But there are 27,000 public companies.

Warren Buffett: Well, start with the A’s.

Everybody knows that Warren Buffett gets his investment ideas largely from annual reports.

Of course, now he has become so influential that companies call him to share their own ideas. But, fifty years ago, Buffett was not the go-to guy if you wanted to sell your company or raise capital for your failing bank.

He was a small investor who was clawing his way up the investing street by reading whatever annual report came his way, and then finding his investment ideas that worked wonders in the subsequent years.

You are probably at the same stage Buffett was fifty years ago. But there’s a big advantage you have over the early day Buffett.

That advantage is – technology.

With annual reports now available at the press of a few buttons (on company websites and BSE), you can look through hundreds of companies in lesser time than it took Buffett to access ten companies.

You may ask, “But how do I select companies whose annual reports I should read?”

Well, one quick suggestion is what Buffett told Adam Smith – “…start with the A’s.”

I would simplify this for you…

  1. Take, for instance, the BSE-200 list of companies
  2. Remove all companies that you “know” are outside your circle of competence (Don’t worry if you remove lot of companies…because the size of the circle is not important, knowing its boundary is)
  3. For companies that remain, start reading annual reports of companies whose names start with A, then B, and so on. :-)

If you find this difficult to implement (and it is), here are a few other ways you can create a list of companies you would like to do a deeper research on to generate stock ideas…

Remember, good ideas rarely come from…

 

  • TV, newspaper analysis and breaking news
  • Brokers and research analysts
  • Friends, colleagues, and people you meet at social gatherings

…so you may rather do your own homework than relying on free tips, however enticing they may sound.
Screening Your Way to Stock-dom!
While I am not anymore a big fan of using readymade screeners to generate stock ideas – because you tend to substitute thinking with a lot of data – simple screeners still help me in doing the initial groundwork.

Also, while there are a few paid (and expensive) screeners available in the market – like Ace Equity, Prowess, Capital Line – I find a few free screeners to be very effective when it comes to the value I can derive from using them.

Here are three steps you can use while using three free screeners I use to do a basic analysis on companies…

Step 1: Use a Google Screener
Visit this Google Finance Stock Screener page and select “India” from the drop down list of countries, and then BSE or NSE from the stock exchange list.

Remove all entries like “Market Cap”, “P/E Ratio” etc, so that you can set your own criteria for screening. Then, screen for companies using these key numbers (you may add more screening criteria from those available)…

  • 5-year sales growth – Between 10% to 50% – Neither too low nor too high to avoid extremes or cases with sharp rise and sharp falls that may revert to the mean
  • 5-year EPS growth – Between 10% and 50% – Neither too low nor too high to avoid extremes or cases with sharp rise and sharp falls that may revert to the mean
  • Latest Net Profit Margin – Between 5% and 75%
  • 5-year Avg. Return on Equity – Between 15% and 100%
  • Latest Debt/Equity Ratio – Less than 1x
  • Latest Market Capitalization – At least Rs 2.5 billion (Rs 250 crore) to exclude extremely small companies
  • Latest P/E ratio – Between 5x and 25x
  • Volume – At least 100 shares traded daily

Here is how the screening and its output look like…

Note: Another good screener that a tribesmen has directed me to is from Financial Times – FT Equity Screener. It has greater number of criteria than Google’s screener, but does not display the results in INR. You must however try it out for sure.

 

Step 2: From the list of companies you get, exclude those outside your circle of competence – businesses you “know” you don’t understand (like I would exclude commodity businesses like metals and mining, or oil & gas businesses).

Step 3: Glance at the last 5/10 years’ financial performance on sites likeScreener or Morningstar. Look for trends in:

  • Sales growth – Check for rising and stable growth
  • Net margin – Stable / rising margin. Be wary of margins that are falling
  • Return on equity – Stable or rising. Be wary of falling ROE
  • D/E – Nil or small debt is fine. Be wary of companies where D/E > 1x
  • FCF change – Morningstar gives the free cash flow calculation, which instantly tells you if the company is generating cash or burning it. Look for businesses that have generated positive FCF over the past few years
  • Apart from the ratios given, calculate ones like FCF yield – FCF per Sharedivided by Stock Price, which tells you if the stock is cheap or expensive. An FCF yield of 5% or more is a good number to look at.

The best part about these two screeners – Screener and Morningstar – is that you can download companies’s financial performance in excel and then do you own analyses.

Better Alternative to Step 3
While you may use Screener or Morningstar to study the past 5/10 years’s performance of companies that you get from Step 1 and Step 2 above, a far better way is to pick up the annual reports of the resultant companies and then read them one by one.

After having used ready-made screens for the past few years, I have realized that you should not use numbers prepared by others, but rather generate them yourself. This way you get into the habit of actually reading annual reports and also get to learn what numbers you need to focus on.

Here are two videos that will tell you what you must focus on in an annual report…

     

If you can’t see the videos above, see here – Video 1 | Video 2

 

Ultimately, as you would realize, just a few numbers / facts / variables will help you understand what drives a given business.

I have seen analysts and investors trying to get perfect in their analysis by accumulating as many data points as possible.

But then, my experience suggests that trying to increase your confidence by gathering information that is supposedly unknown to most others really only makes you more comfortable with your investment decisions, not better at them, and is generally an unproductive use of your limited time.

Thus, I would suggest that after you arrive at your list of companies using any or a combination of methods suggested above, use a “Less is More Checklist” while reading the annual reports of the companies in your list.

Use the “Less is More” Checklist
Rather than obsessing with the bewildering fusion of news and noise, concentrate on a few key elements in stock selection, i.e., what are the 5-10 most important things you should know about any business you are about to invest in?

Of course, if I knew the exact answer I would have retired long ago! :-)

Even if I could know all the facts about an investment, I would not necessarily profit. This is not to say that fundamental analysis is not useful. It certainly is.

But information generally follows the well-known 80/20 rule: the first 80% of the available information is gathered in the first 20% of the time spent.

So if I were to list down eight questions that, I believe, would help me do an 80% analysis of a business, they would be…

  1. Is the business simple to understand and run? (Complex businesses often face complexities difficult for its managers to get over)
  2. Has the company grown its sales and EPS consistently over the past 5-10 years? (Consistency is more important than speed of growth)
  3. Will the company be around and profitably better in 10 years? (Suggests continuity in demand for the company’s products/services)
  4. How has the company performed on Buffett’s earnings retention test?(Suggests how a company has used retained earnings in the past – a very important question to answer)
  5. Does the company have a sustainable competitive moat? (Pricing power, gross margins, lead over competitors, entry barriers for new players)
  6. How good is the management given the hand it has been dealt? (Capital allocation, return on equity, corporate governance, performance against competition)
  7. Does the company require consistent capex and working capital expenditure to grow its business? (Companies that have to spend continuously on such areas are like running on treadmills, which is not a good situation to have)
  8. Does the company generate more cash than it consumes? (Cash generators have a higher probability of surviving and prospering during bad economic situations)

These questions would help you answer whether the business you are looking into is greatgood or gruesome as Warren Buffett has defined each one of them to be.

Ultimately, successful investing is all about doing your own research carefully and buying good businesses.

If you know a company well and you’ve done your homework, you can take advantage of situations when Mr. Market offers them on a platter, which he occasionally does.

Stock and Bond Perspective

US Treasury Interest Rates

 

A. Gary Shilling from Forbes Magazine
October 22, 2013
When the Fed started talking about reducing its $85 billion monthly purchases of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities in May, Treasury bonds started to fall (chart 1) and yields jumped (chart 2).
Although Fed officials have vigorously denied that tapering signals an impending rise in interest rates, investors obviously didn’t believe the central bankers.
Many interest rate forecasters shout that the three-decade-long decline in Treasury bond yields is over, and they may be right-finally. These same pundits have been saying so repeatedly ever since rates started down in 1981.
As I discussed in my recent book, The Age of Deleveraging, and in many Insights before and since, back in 1981, few agreed with me that serious inflation was unwinding and interest rates would fall. Indeed, the consensus called for rates to remain high or even rise indefinitely.
Yet when 30-year Treasury yields peaked at 15.21% in October of that year, I stated that inflation was on the way out and “we’re entering the bond rally of a lifetime.” Later, I forecast a drop to a 3% yield. Again, most other forecasters thought I was crazy.
Most investors have a distinct anti-Treasury bond bias, and not just because they fervently believe that serious inflation and leaping yields are inevitable. Stockholders inherently hate them. They say they don’t understand Treasury bonds. But their quality has been unquestioned, at least until recently, and their prices rose promptly in 2011 after S&P downgraded them.
Treasurys and the forces that move yields are well-defined-Fed policy and inflation or deflation are among the few important factors.
Stock prices, by contrast, are much more difficult to fathom. They depend on the business cycle, conditions in that particular industry, Congressional legislation, the quality of company management, merger and acquisition possibilities, corporate accounting, company pricing power, new and old product potentials, and myriad other variables.
Stockholders do understand that Treasurys normally rally during weak economic conditions, which are negative for stock prices, so they consider declining Treasury yields to be a bad omen. Brokers also don’t want to recommend Treasurys since commissions on them are low, and investors can avoid commissions altogether by buying them directly from the Treasury.
Wall Street denizens also disdain Treasurys, as I learned firsthand while at Merrill Lynch and then White, Weld years ago. Investment bankers didn’t want me along on client visits when I was forecasting lower interest rates. They wanted projections of higher rates that would encourage corporate clients to issue bonds immediately, not wait for lower rates and cheaper financing costs. That’s what’s happening today in anticipation of Fed tightening and higher interest rates-more financing to pay for mergers and acquisitions as well as other needs.
Professional managers of bond funds are a sober bunch who perennially fret about inflation, higher yields, and subsequent losses of principal in their portfolio. But if yields fall, they don’t rejoice over bond appreciation but worry about reinvesting their interest coupons and maturing bonds at lower yields.
This disdain for bonds, especially Treasurys, persists despite their vastly superior performance vs. stocks since the early 1980s. Starting then, a 25-year zero-coupon Treasury, rolled into another 25-year annually to maintain the maturity, beat the S&P 500, on a total return basis, by 6.1 times (chart 3), even after the recent substantial bond sell-off.
This is one of our very favorite charts since we have actually participated in this marvelous Treasury bond rally as forecasters, portfolio managers and investors. And please note that we’ve never, never, never bought Treasurys for their yield. We couldn’t care less what the yield is-as long as it’s going down! We want Treasurys for the same reason that most of today’s stockholders want equities-appreciation.
It is true the Fed usually starts to raise the federal funds rate it controls before economic expansions are very old. This time, however, any move towards higher rates is likely to be some time off, not until the Age of Deleveraging and the related slow growth are over. Normally, deleveraging after major financial crises takes a decade to complete. Since deleveraging this time started in 2008, there’s about another five years to go.
Meanwhile, I believe Treasury yields are more likely to go down than up for a number of reasons. First, with slow economic growth persisting, gridlock in Washington, business uncertainty and ample supplies of capacity and labor on a global scale, the U.S. employment situation will likely remain weak.
The Fed has said it wouldn’t raise its federal funds rate until the unemployment rate broke 6.5%. Nevertheless, that target is fading because it’s decline in primarily the result of the falling labor participation rate, not rising employment. As investors more and more understand the Fed’s falling unemployment rate target, Treasury yields, which have anticipated a rise in rates, will probably decline as they have recently.
Inflation is close to zero and deflation is probably only being forestalled by the earlier massive fiscal and continuing monetary stimuli. But fiscal drag has replaced stimuli, resulting in the falling federal deficit. Also, the impending Fed tapering won’t tighten credit by reducing excess bank reserves through central bank sales of securities, but it will reduce the monthly additions to that $2.2 trillion horde.
For some time, I’ve believed that the Grand Disconnect between investors’ focus on Fed largess and their lack of interest in limping economic performance was unsustainable. Notice (chart 4) the close correlation between the rising S&P 500 index and the expanding balance sheet of the Fed since it started flooding the economy with money in August 2008.
I’ve e also been looking for a shock to close that Grand Disconnect. The negative effects of the federal government shutdown on consumer and business confidence and, even more so, the devastating fallout from a failure to raise the debt limit this month may serve that purpose. The recent decline in stock prices may be a prelude.
A substantial drop in stock prices will benefit Treasurys, not because of the economic weakness and likely deflation generated by the bear market-generating shock but also due to the resulting investor rush to Treasurys as the ultimate safe haven.
Furthermore, stocks are vulnerable. The S&P 500 index recently reached an all-time high but corrected for inflation, it remains in a secular bear market that started in 2000 (chart 5). This reflects the slow economic growth since then and the falling price-earnings ratio, and fits in with the long-term pattern of secular bull and bear markets.
Furthermore, from a long-term perspective, the P/E on the S&P 500 is 44% above its long run average of 16.5 (chart 6), and I’m a strong believers in reversion to well-established trends, this one going back to 1881. Also, since the P/E in the last two decades has been consistently above trend, it probably will be below 16.5 for a number of years to come.
Finally, stocks are vulnerable because of the elevated level of profit margins. As a share of national income, profits recently reached a record high as American business in recent years reacted to the lack of pricing power with falling inflation and to the meager sales volume growth by slashing labor and other costs as the route to bottom line growth.
But productivity growth engendered by cost-cutting and other means is no longer easy to come by. Also, neither capital nor labor gets the upper hand indefinitely in a democracy, and compensation’s share of national income has been compressed as profit’s share leaped.
In addition, corporate earnings are vulnerable to the likely strengthening of the dollar, which reduces the value of exports and foreign earnings by U.S. multinationals as foreign currency receipts are translated to greenbacks.
In our Jan. 2013 Insight, I predicted a further decline in the 30-year Treasury bond yield from 2.9% at that time to 2.0%. I also expected the 10-year Treasury note yield to drop from the then-1.73% level to 1.0%. Rates did fall until April, but then rose sharply until recently. The 30-year bond yield jumped to 3.92% before receding to the current 3.70% while the 10-year note yield reached 2.99% but is now 2.62%.
My earlier targets are probably too optimistic for this year but I do expect further declines in Treasury yields in future quarters. The “bond rally of a lifetime” will end some day, but it probably isn’t over yet.
Excerpted from October issue of Gary Shilling’s Insight. Gary Shilling is president of A. Gary Shilling & Co. and author of The Age of Deleveraging: Investment Strategies For A Decade Of Slow Growth And Deflation (John Wiley & Sons, 2011). He is also the editor of Gary Shilling’s Insights newsletter. (source: www.shortsideoflong.blogspot.com)
S&P 500 Performance
Have a good weekend. I hope to be back posting as life returns to normal.

John Law and the Mississippi Bubble; Other Bubbles; Value?

John Law and the Mississippi Bubble by Richard Condie, National Film Board of Canada   A video worth the view.

BASE_Max_630_378

BITCOINS

bitcoin-1-year

GOLD DURING 1980

gold-70-80

Margin Debt

Margin-debt

Yes, we must be careful but there are–perhaps–pockets of value?

XOM_Nov 2013   You can see why Buffett recently bought XOM. Note the dotted line on the Value-Line. XOM has “underperformed” the general market for the past five years. But XOM is a better than average company trading far below the market multiple. You won’t get rich quick but you won’t lose it all either.  He probably sees XOM as an inflation pass-through.

ESRX_Nov 2013 Note the decline on ROA. Since this is in an oligopolistic industry perhaps a reversion to higher margins can occur.  I do not own either one.

Are bitcoins money? Bitcoin-CMRE

Why, if gold demand from Asia is so high and with inventories draining from GLD and the Comex, are gold prices soft? Stress in the collateral markets?

comexstockpileaurnoor03.php

Gold_Collateral-Thunder-Road-Report-August

Myrmikan_Research_Report_Liquidity

RICHARD RUSSELL:

When the problem presents itself, turn away from it, put it out of your mind completely and think of something that pertains to God, such as God is love or God is truth, but you must keep the problem completely out of mind.  This is the simple Golden Key which the great Emmet Fox recommends.  It may sound too absurdly simple, it may sound like voodoo, but before you sneer at it and ignore it, first try it.  I’ve used it many times and I can tell you that it works.  The concept of the Golden Key is probably worth years of subscriptions to Dow Theory Letters.  Use the Golden Key.

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/KWN_DailyWeb/Entries/2013/11/19_Historic_Climax_Will_Take_Place_Over_The_Coming_12_Months.html

Prof. Bruce Greenwald on the Market Today

Confessions of a Quantitative Easer

We went on a bond-buying spree that was supposed to help Main Street. Instead, it was a feast for Wall Street.
By Andrew Huszar Nov. 11, 2013 7:00 p.m. ET

I can only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.

Five years ago this month, on Black Friday, the Fed launched an unprecedented shopping spree. By that point in the financial crisis, Congress had already passed legislation, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to halt the U.S. banking system’s free fall. Beyond Wall Street, though, the economic pain was still soaring. In the last three months of 2008 alone, almost two million Americans would lose their jobs.

The Fed said it wanted to help—through a new program of massive bond purchases. There were secondary goals, but Chairman Ben Bernanke made clear that the Fed’s central motivation was to “affect credit conditions for households and businesses”: to drive down the cost of credit so that more Americans hurting from the tanking economy could use it to weather the downturn. For this reason, he originally called the initiative “credit easing.”

My part of the story began a few months later. Having been at the Fed for seven years, until early 2008, I was working on Wall Street in spring 2009 when I got an unexpected phone call. Would I come back to work on the Fed’s trading floor? The job: managing what was at the heart of QE’s bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months. Incredibly, the Fed was calling to ask if I wanted to quarterback the largest economic stimulus in U.S. history.

This was a dream job, but I hesitated. And it wasn’t just nervousness about taking on such responsibility. I had left the Fed out of frustration, having witnessed the institution deferring more and more to Wall Street. Independence is at the heart of any central bank’s credibility, and I had come to believe that the Fed’s independence was eroding. Senior Fed officials, though, were publicly acknowledging mistakes and several of those officials emphasized to me how committed they were to a major Wall Street revamp. I could also see that they desperately needed reinforcements. I took a leap of faith.

In its almost 100-year history, the Fed had never bought one mortgage bond. Now my program was buying so many each day through active, unscripted trading that we constantly risked driving bond prices too high and crashing global confidence in key financial markets. We were working feverishly to preserve the impression that the Fed knew what it was doing.

It wasn’t long before my old doubts resurfaced. Despite the Fed’s rhetoric, my program wasn’t helping to make credit any more accessible for the average American. The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn’t getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash.

From the trenches, several other Fed managers also began voicing the concern that QE wasn’t working as planned. Our warnings fell on deaf ears. In the past, Fed leaders—even if they ultimately erred—would have worried obsessively about the costs versus the benefits of any major initiative. Now the only obsession seemed to be with the newest survey of financial-market expectations or the latest in-person feedback from Wall Street’s leading bankers and hedge-fund managers. Sorry, U.S. taxpayer.

Trading for the first round of QE ended on March 31, 2010. The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank’s bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn’t just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They’d also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed’s QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009, and 2010 was starting off in much the same way.

You’d think the Fed would have finally stopped to question the wisdom of QE. Think again. Only a few months later—after a 14% drop in the U.S. stock market and renewed weakening in the banking sector—the Fed announced a new round of bond buying: QE2. Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, immediately called the decision “clueless.”

That was when I realized the Fed had lost any remaining ability to think independently from Wall Street. Demoralized, I returned to the private sector.

Where are we today? The Fed keeps buying roughly $85 billion in bonds a month, chronically delaying so much as a minor QE taper. Over five years, its bond purchases have come to more than $4 trillion. Amazingly, in a supposedly free-market nation, QE has become the largest financial-markets intervention by any government in world history.

And the impact? Even by the Fed’s sunniest calculations, aggressive QE over five years has generated only a few percentage points of U.S. growth. By contrast, experts outside the Fed, such as Mohammed El Erian at the Pimco investment firm, suggest that the Fed may have created and spent over $4 trillion for a total return of as little as 0.25% of GDP (i.e., a mere $40 billion bump in U.S. economic output). Both of those estimates indicate that QE isn’t really working.

Unless you’re Wall Street. Having racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in opaque Fed subsidies, U.S. banks have seen their collective stock price triple since March 2009. The biggest ones have only become more of a cartel: 0.2% of them now control more than 70% of the U.S. bank assets.

As for the rest of America, good luck. Because QE was relentlessly pumping money into the financial markets during the past five years, it killed the urgency for Washington to confront a real crisis: that of a structurally unsound U.S. economy. Yes, those financial markets have rallied spectacularly, breathing much-needed life back into 401(k)s, but for how long? Experts like Larry Fink at the BlackRock investment firm are suggesting that conditions are again “bubble-like.” Meanwhile, the country remains overly dependent on Wall Street to drive economic growth.

Even when acknowledging QE’s shortcomings, Chairman Bernanke argues that some action by the Fed is better than none (a position that his likely successor, Fed Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen, also embraces). The implication is that the Fed is dutifully compensating for the rest of Washington’s dysfunction. But the Fed is at the center of that dysfunction. Case in point: It has allowed QE to become Wall Street’s new “too big to fail” policy.

Mr. Huszar, a senior fellow at Rutgers Business School, is a former Morgan Stanley managing director. In 2009-10, he managed the Federal Reserve’s $1.25 trillion agency mortgage-backed security purchase program.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND!

Recent Investment Update

spy vs gold ten year

Account Report November 12 2013   (Brutal!)

longtermAUBasket1718

 

Pump and Dump — Being Dumped Now (OMEX)

Big Chart OMEX

 

Read the financials: SEC-OMEX-1193125-13-326785  Who in their right mind would own this? Next, a detailed research report on the company (worth a read) omexreport.  Also, thanks to www.classicvalueinvestors.com

small omex

 

The company’s typical response:

November 1, 2013

Odyssey Marine Responds to Meson Capital “Short & Distort” Piece

TAMPA, Fla., Nov. 1, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Yesterday afternoon, a commentary about Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX) was distributed by Ryan Morris of Meson Capital Partners LLC. The author never contacted the company for clarifications or answers to his questions. Had he done so, Odyssey would have pointed out factual errors, incomplete information and erroneous conclusions which are rebutted by Odyssey’s public filings and other publicly available information. Odyssey is confident its existing public disclosures are accurate in all material respects, and that the company has provided a clear and concise explanation of all material information about the company and its relationships with associated companies and individuals.

Odyssey’s management believes that it is in the best interest of our shareholders to remain focused on business rather than debating or responding to rumor and innuendo. However, due to the number of inquiries to the company, management felt it important to reaffirm and stand by the accuracy of all information which has been released by the company. It is also important for interested parties to carefully consider the statement the author made on the first page of his editorial attacking the company (emphasis added):

“You should assume that as of the publication date of our reports and research, Meson Capital Partners, LLC (possibly along with or through our members, partners, affiliates, employees, and/or consultants) along with our clients and/or investors has a short position in all stocks (and/or options, swaps, and other derivatives related to the stock) and bonds covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of either declines.”

The company believes this statement by the author, and the likelihood that this is part of an attempt to profit from a “short and distort” strategy, calls into question the motivation and intent behind the allegations as well as the timing of its release. Accordingly market authorities have been notified.  (CSInvesting: So any bullish research report from an author who owns stock should also be questioned.)

Next week Odyssey management plans to host a conference call to discuss corporate developments and to address the false and misleading statements and innuendo in the Meson Capital piece. The call date and dial-in instructions will be issued in a press release early next week.   (This might be FUN to listen to–see website address below)

About Odyssey Marine Exploration

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX) is engaged in deep-ocean exploration using innovative methods and state of-the-art technology for shipwreck projects and mineral exploration. For additional details, please visit www.odysseymarine.com. The company also maintains a Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/OdysseyMarine and a Twitter feed @OdysseyMarine.For additional details on Odyssey Marine Exploration, please visit www.odysseymarine.com.

CONTACT: MEDIA CONTACT:

It is always good to refresh yourself on WHAT NOT to invest in.

The Fed in Concert

Never have so few plundered so much from so many (Winston Churchill on the Federal Reserve System)


“I have 100% confidence in being able to control things.” Ben Bernanke


“My models didn’t work!” Alan Greenspan

When a country wants to create some currency, the government sells a bond to their central bank. The central bank writes a check against a zero balance in their checking account for however many dollars, euros, yen, or whatever the government wants, and it buys the bond. The currency has now sprung into existence, and later can be used to redeem the bond. Therefore, the bond is an IOU for the currency. But since the currency is also a claim check to redeem the bond when it matures, the currency is an IOU for the bond. Get it? No, me neither. If YOU did that, you would be accused of fraud. Welcome to the rabbit hole, welcome to our fiat-based, debt soaked monetary system.

http://www.hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4

What has the Government Done to our Money_Rothbard
Gold Dollar by Rothbard

“This will not end well,” Chicago Slim.