5 People needed to start making cash today

Follow Traderlinkup on Twitter

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Which Is America's Best City?

By

(This story has been corrected. A reference to a former pedestrian mall has been removed. )

Ask most people which city they would most want to live in and usually their answers would be shaped by such realities as proximity to their jobs and what they can afford. But suppose you could choose to live anywhere you wanted regardless of cost? What if you could live in a city that offered a wealth of culture, entertainment, good schools, low crime, and plenty of green space? Many people might opt for obvious choices such as New York or San Francisco, but great as they are, data reveal other cities are even better.

Businessweek.com spent months working with data that would help us to identify the best cities in the U.S. We looked at a range of positive metrics around quality of life, counted up restaurants, evaluated school scores, and considered the number of colleges and pro sports teams. All these factors and more add up to a city that would seem to offer it all. When we began the process we had no idea which cities would come out on top. The winner? Raleigh, N.C.

To most residents of Raleigh, it may not come as a surprise that their city earned the title of America’s Best City. Raleigh shows the cultural graces that go along with anchoring the so-called Research Triangle, home to North Carolina State University, Duke University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Among its many attributes the city sports 867 restaurants, 110 bars, and 51 museums, according to Onboard Informatics, as well as a thriving social scene, good schools, and 12,512 park acres, equal to several times the green space per capita in cities like New York and Los Angeles, according to the Trust for Public Land. It also offers a great deal on nights and weekends—from concerts and opera, to the NHL’s Carolina Hurricanes and college sports, to the 30,000-square-foot State Farmers Market.

Raleigh may have a population of only about 400,000 and span about 144 square miles, yet data show it still offers a lot, if only in a smaller package. True, Raleigh may not be the center of the tech universe like San Francisco, a hub of higher education on the same scale as Boston, or a vibrant 24-hour metropolis like New York, but all those cities also offered higher unemployment, a dearth of parks, worse public education, and other negative factors that weighed against them.

“We’ve always said, you can find about every amenity that you want, even in a city of our size,” says James Sauls, director of Raleigh Economic Development, a partnership between the City of Raleigh and the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce.

The city has been home to an array of celebs including Olympic champion Kristi Yamaguchi, Dexter star Michael C. Hall, and singer Clay Aiken (whose dog was even named Raleigh).

With help from Bloomberg Rankings, Businessweek.com evaluated 100 of the country’s largest cities based on 16 criteria including: the number of restaurants, bars, and museums per capita; the number of colleges, libraries, and professional sports teams; the income, poverty, unemployment, crime, and foreclosure rates; percentage of population with bachelor’s degrees or higher; public school performance; park acres per 1,000 residents; and air quality. Greater weighting was placed on recreational amenities such as parks, bars, restaurants, and museums per capita, educational attainment, school performance, poverty, and air quality. As living in great cities can be expensive, affordability was not taken into account.

The data for this ranking came from the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sperling’s BestPlaces, GreatSchools, Onboard Informatics, RealtyTrac, Bloomberg, and the Trust for Public Land.


View the original article here

Friday, September 23, 2011

Berkshire Prepares for Life After Buffett

Buffett has said he was searching for a fund manager "genetically programmed" to avoid big risks

Buffett has said he was searching for a fund manager "genetically programmed" to avoid big risks Scott Eells/Bloomberg

By , and

Ted Weschler is an ace stock picker, a value-investing enthusiast, and a pretty accomplished, middle-aged marathon runner. (He finished the 2007 New York City Marathon in 3:30:02.) Those qualities and a solid track record delivering returns as founder and managing partner at Charlottesville (Va.)-based Peninsula Capital Advisors convinced billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett, 81, that Weschler should be part of the new generation of leaders who will run Berkshire Hathaway in the post-Oracle era.

Buffett’s recruitment of Weschler, 50, as an investment manager overseeing a portion of Berkshire’s equity holdings follows the arrival of Todd Combs, who joined late last year from Castle Point Capital Management, a Greenwich (Conn.) hedge fund. When Buffett eventually steps down as chief executive officer, Weschler and Combs, and possibly a third money pro, will oversee the company’s entire $100 billion equity and debt portfolio, according to its Sept. 12 statement announcing Weschler’s hiring.

Weschler won big when he bought 2 million shares of Bank of America in the first quarter of 2009 as the financial crisis hammered bank stocks. The shares had more than doubled to $16.23 on a quarterly average basis by the time he sold them a year later. Buffett, who accumulated the biggest shareholdings in Coca-Cola and Wells Fargo, invested $5 billion last month in Bank of America’s preferred stock.

Weschler is winding down his $2 billion Peninsula fund and will start his new job early next year. “This is a brilliant move for Berkshire,” Michael Bills, founder and chief investment officer at Charlottesville-based Bluestem Asset Management, said in an e-mail. Under Weschler, Peninsula also held positions in Cincinnati Bell, Cogent Communications, and DirecTV. It was the biggest investor in bankrupt chemicals company W.R. Grace, with 10.8 million shares. Peninsula disclosed a stake of more than 10 percent of the company in 2001, and the shares have surged more than 20-fold since then. Weschler worked at Columbia (Md.)-based Grace from 1983 to 1989.

Buffett is clearly a fan, and the admiration is mutual. And pricey. Weschler twice won the privilege of sharing a meal with Buffett in charity auctions in 2010 and 2011 at a cost of $5.3 million. Buffett has said he was searching for money managers who are “genetically programmed” to avoid big risks. Both Weschler and Buffett are fanatical about rigorous bottom-up financial analysis, and Weschler has long been a student of Buffett’s annual letters on the state of Berkshire’s holdings and the financial markets.

In 2005, Peninsula helped finance and recruit investors for the merger of US Airways and America West, according to Derek Kerr, finance chief at US Airways. “He impressed us as a good long-term-oriented investor,” says Kerr. “You could tell, from the people that came in and asked questions after he had committed, that he knew a lot of people and was well connected in the investment community.”

The bottom line: Fund manager Weschler, summoned to join Berkshire Hathaway, made a big score when shares of Bank of America more than doubled.

Frye is a reporter for Bloomberg News. Bit is a reporter for Bloomberg News. Buhayar is a reporter for Bloomberg News.


View the original article here

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Attack of the Superweed

Justin Cariker is battling a pigweed invasion on his Dundee (Miss.) farm

Justin Cariker is battling a pigweed invasion on his Dundee (Miss.) farm Maude Clay for Bloomberg Businessweek

By

Justin Cariker grabs a 7-foot-tall Palmer pigweed at his farm, bending the wrist-thick stem to reveal how it has overwhelmed the cotton plant beneath it. This is no ordinary weed: Over time it has developed resistance to Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide, Roundup. Hundreds of such “superweeds” are rising defiantly across this corner of the Mississippi Delta. “We’re not winning the battle,” Cariker, owner of Maud Farms in Dundee, Miss., says as he looks at weeds that tower over his infested cotton field like spindly green scarecrows.

Cariker’s superweeds represent a growing problem for Monsanto, whose $11 billion of annual sales are anchored in crops genetically engineered to tolerate Roundup, the world’s best-selling weedkiller. The use of Roundup Ready seeds has transformed farming in the 15 years since their debut, allowing growers to easily dispatch hundreds of types of weeds with a single herbicide while leaving crops unscathed. “When the Roundup system first came out, to a farmer this was the best thing that ever happened,” says Cariker, who used the labor-saving technology to double his planted acreage, to 5,000. “Farmers thought we had died and gone to heaven.”

Not exactly: It turns out the widespread use of Roundup has led to the evolution of far-tougher-to-eradicate strains of weeds. As a result, rivals such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer see an opportunity. They hope to revive sales of older herbicides still able to kill many Roundup-resistant weeds, allowing them to challenge Monsanto’s dominance in genetically modified crops. Still, the substitutes could eventually create weeds that survive multiple chemicals, just as increased use of antibiotics in pigs and chickens has led to the evolution of bacteria that resist multiple drugs, says Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center in Troy, Ore. “It’s akin to putting gasoline on a fire to put it out,” he says. “It’s a very high-risk gamble for the U.S. biotechnology and pesticide industry to go down this road.”

Crops created to survive Roundup or generic glyphosate (its active ingredient) now comprise 94 percent of soybeans, 73 percent of cotton, and 72 percent of corn grown in the U.S. Glyphosate is applied at seven times the rate of all other herbicides combined in U.S. soybean fields and 1.6 times the rate of all others in cotton fields, according to agriculture consultant Cropnosis.

Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer are engineering crops to withstand alternative herbicides that can kill the weeds Roundup no longer can. Dow expects to begin collecting $1.5 billion in additional profit in 2013 by selling seeds for crops that tolerate a reformulated version of 2,4-D, a herbicide the U.S. first registered for sale in 1948 and one of the chemicals used in the Vietnam War-era defoliant Agent Orange.

Unrelenting Roundup use has caused 11 weed species to evolve glyphosate resistance in 26 U.S. states, with Palmer pigweed and horseweed the most widespread, according to the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. They have invaded 14 million U.S. acres of cotton, soybean, and corn, and that will double by 2015, says Chuck Foresman, Syngenta’s head of corn crop protection. A Dow study this year found as many as 20 million acres of corn and soybeans may already be infested.

Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant says competitors’ efforts to develop their own herbicide-tolerant crops isn’t a threat to the company’s flagship business. Seed companies will cross-license each others’ genetics to create crops able to withstand multiple weedkillers, he says, and spraying fields with a mix of herbicides will kill the superweeds and give Roundup Ready crops new life. Monsanto itself is adding resistance to dicamba, an older weedkiller, to Roundup Ready crops for sale by 2015. “The cavalry is coming,” Grant says.


View the original article here

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Options for the Beginner and Beyond: Unlock the Opportunities and Minimize the Risks

Options for the Beginner and Beyond: Unlock the Opportunities and Minimize the Risks

Brief, carefully paced lessons on options and trading strategies using verbal definitions and many trading examples for clarification. Each lesson builds on the one preceding it and explains options in plain English, from start to finish. Step-by-step coverage of controlling risk, protecting your investments -- even advanced strategies other introductory books ignore! Authored by Dr. W. Edward Olmstead, contributing editor to The Spear Report and editor of The Options Professor newsletter.

Price: $29.99


Click here to buy from Amazon

The Russians Are Buying—and Buying

The Russians have bid for the cargo business of Poland's state railway

The Russians have bid for the cargo business of Poland's state railway Kahnert/Caro

By

Flush with profits, Russian companies are now zoning in on a new target: Eastern Europe. The real surprise is that the region’s governments, saddled with debt and deficits, are helping them do so.

Russian companies were shut out of Eastern European markets after the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Bitter feelings toward the former occupiers lingered, and Russia’s battered corporations were in no shape to acquire. Besides, German, Austrian, and other Western European companies were eager to invest in the newly liberated East.

That’s changed. The value of Russian acquisitions in Eastern Europe over the past three years totaled $2.8 billion, compared with $2.4 billion in the previous 17 years, says the United Nations. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest bank, agreed to buy nine Eastern European units of Austria’s Oesterreichische Volksbanken in July for as much as €645 million ($881 million) in the Moscow-based lender’s first foray outside the former Soviet Union. Russian Railways, the operator of the world’s longest train network, has bid for a controlling stake in the cargo unit of Poland’s state railway. In late August, Russian Railways also expressed interest in the cargo business of Slovakia’s railway. VTB Group, Russia’s second-largest bank, bought a majority stake in Bulgaria’s state tobacco company for €100 million on Aug. 29.

The hunger for capital is changing attitudes in Poland, which has resisted Russian investments since breaking from communist rule in 1989. In the port of Gdansk, birthplace of the anti-Soviet Solidarity movement, the Grupa Lotos refinery’s majority stake has been put up for sale by the government. TNK-BP, the Russian oil venture half owned by BP, is among the bidders and is one of four to be short-listed, Polish news service PAP reported. The sale is part of Poland’s plan to raise 15 billion zloty ($5.3 billion) to finance its deficit. “The most important thing for us is for Polish refineries to be more competitive,” says Jerzy Borowczak, who fought alongside former President Lech Walesa in Solidarity. “Historical grudges mean nothing to me.”

The share of Russian acquisitions in Poland, the EU’s largest eastern economy, may rise in part because of the changing attitude of politicians. There should be “no ideological reasons” to reject Russian investments even as a “certain amount of caution and restraint” is warranted, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said last spring. Some of Tusk’s opponents remain firmly anti-Russian, however. Dawid Jackiewicz, a member of Law & Justice, the largest opposition party, said he would make Treasury Minister Aleksander Grad stand trial if the Russians buy Lotos, according to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, a local paper, in April.

One concern Eastern Europeans have about the Russian presence is that they are already almost totally dependent on Russian gas for their energy needs. Hungary in May spent part of its recent International Monetary Fund bailout loan to buy a 21 percent stake in MOL Nyrt., the nation’s largest refiner, from Surgutneftegas, a Russian oil producer. “A country can’t be strong if it’s completely dependent for its energy needs,” Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, an anticommunist student leader in the 1980s, said in a TV address.

Despite the opposition, the Russians’ fat checkbooks are proving powerful. VTB and Sberbank reported record net income last quarter as lending expanded and the share of overdue loans shrank. TNK-BP said in July that it expected record annual profits. Russia’s combined corporate profits, excluding financial companies and small businesses, surged 43 percent in the first half of 2011 from a year earlier, to 4.1 trillion rubles ($136 billion), the Federal State Statistics Service said on Aug. 26.

The Russians’ purchases may eventually bolster ties between Russia and Eastern Europe, says Simon Quijano-Evans, chief economist for Europe, Middle East, and Africa at ING in London. “The more cross-border activity you have in the region, the lower the political noise is going to be,” he says.

The bottom line: Russian companies made $136 billion in the first half of 2011. That money is helping bankroll a string of deals in Eastern Europe.

Simon is Budapest bureau chief for Bloomberg News.


View the original article here

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Has John Paulson Lost His Touch?

By

Illustration by Andy Friedman

John Paulson is famous for betting against subprime mortgages at a time when most Americans thought real estate was a sure thing. He made billions. Lately, his contrarian streak hasn’t served him as well. Since 2009, he’s placed bets on a U.S. recovery, and his recent results are as dismal as the economy itself. Paulson’s largest hedge fund, Advantage Plus, lost 34 percent this year through August, according to two people familiar with the firm, who asked not to be identified because the fund is private.

A good chunk of that decline came in August, when the fund fell 15 percent, these people say. Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 5.7 percent in August, ending the month down 3.1 percent for the year. “John Paulson is considered one of the top hedge fund managers in the industry—a 30 percent drawdown will cause a number of investors to watch his performance very closely going forward,” says Donald A. Steinbrugge, managing partner of Agecroft Partners, a Richmond (Va.)-based firm that advises hedge funds and investors.

Paulson, 55, had positioned his Advantage and Recovery funds to benefit from a U.S. economic upturn, in part by buying big stakes in banks and other financial-services companies. “We’re in the middle of a sustained recovery in the U.S.,” he said at a conference in London in June 2010. “The risk of a double dip is less than 10 percent.” He cited the housing market as a sign of good news to come. “It’s the best time to buy a house in America,” he said. “California has been a leading indicator of the housing market, and it turned positive seven months ago. I think we’re about to turn a corner.” Since then, home prices have dropped 4.5 percent according to the S&P/Case Shiller 20-city index, and economic growth slipped to 1 percent in the last quarter.

Paulson, who manages $35 billion through New York-based Paulson & Co., has scaled back some of his bets. In the second quarter he cut his stake in Bank of America by more than half and sliced about 19 percent from his holdings in Citigroup. He also sold shares in SunTrust Banks, Hartford Financial Services Group, JPMorgan Chase, and asset manager BlackRock, according to his most recent regulatory filing.

Paulson suffered losses this year on a Chinese timber company that became the target of short-sellers. Sino-Forest has plunged about 74 percent from its closing price on June 1, the day before Muddy Waters Research, an investment firm run by Carson Block, issued a report accusing the Hong Kong- and Ontario-based company of overstating timberland holdings and production in Yunnan province. Paulson told clients in June that his fund lost $489 million that month on the investment, which it sold off as of June 17. Armel Leslie, a spokesman for Paulson & Co., declined to comment on the firm’s returns.

Making matters more stark: Some of Paulson’s hedge fun peers are having great years. Bridgewater Associates, the $122 billion firm run by Ray Dalio, posted a 7.4 percent gain in its largest fund, Pure Alpha II, in August, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. The fund has risen 25.3 percent in 2011. Brevan Howard’s $25 billion Master Fund rose 6.2 percent last month and is up 11 percent for the year, according to an investor.

Investors may see Paulson’s losses this year as a sign he’s strayed from what he knows best, according to Larry Chiarello, a former Paulson & Co. investor and partner at SkyView Investment Advisors, which places money with hedge funds. “He was successful at betting on the subprime mortgage situation, and now he’s buying specific stocks—is he still in his best area of expertise?” asks Chiarello, who adds that some investors “have said he wasn’t equipped to handle the Sino-Forest deal.”


View the original article here

Monday, September 19, 2011

Bailout Rebellion in Germany Heats Up

For the first time ever, a clear majority (60%) of Germans no longer sees any benefits to being part of the Eurozone, given all the risks, according to a poll published September 16 (FAZ, article in German). In the age group 45 to 54, it jumps to 67%. And 66% reject aiding Greece and other heavily indebted countries. Ominously for Chancellor Angela Merkel, 82% believe that her government's crisis management is bad, and 83% complain that they're kept in the dark about the politics of the euro crisis.

"There cannot be any prohibition to think" just so that the euro can be stabilized, wrote Philipp Rösler, Minister of Economics and Technology, in a commentary published on September 9 (Welt, article in German). "And the orderly default of Greece is part of that," he added. Instantly, all hell broke loose, and Denkverbot (prohibition to think) became a rallying cry against the onslaught of criticism that his remarks engendered.

Even Timothy Geithner, who attended the meeting of European finance ministers in Poland, fired off a broadside in Rösler's direction. In the same breath, he proposed the expansion—through leverage, of all things—of the European bailout mechanism, the EFSF. According to Austrian Finance Minister, Maria Fekter, who witnessed the scene, he warned of "catastrophic" economic risks due to the disputes among the countries of the Eurozone and due to the conflicts between these countries and the ECB. Then he demanded in dramatic terms, she said, that "we grab money with our hands to stabilize the banks and expand the EFSF unconditionally."

The smack-down was immediate. German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, took Geithner to task and explained to him in no uncertain terms, according to Fekter, that it was not possible to burden the taxpayers to that extent, particularly not if only the taxpayers of Triple-A countries were to be burdened. A bailout "with tax money alone in the quantity that the USA imagines will not be feasible," Schäuble said. (Wiener Zeitung, article in German).

Vocal support for Rösler came today from a group of 16 prominent German economists. If the government in its efforts to stabilize the euro didn't consider the insolvency of a member country, they warned, Germany would become subject to endless extortion (FAZ, article in German). And to impose a Denkverbot concerning it would be a step back into "top-down state thinking." They further lamented that these policies would turn the Eurozone into a transfer union. If the government wanted to establish a transfer union, it should discuss that with the German voters, they demanded, because it would be a fundamental change in the E.U. constitution and should be legitimized by vote. Otherwise, Germany would be "threatened by a populist movement to exit the E.U."

Meanwhile, on his visit to Rome, Rösler had to face down Italian Finance Minister, Giulio Tremonti, who'd "vehemently" demanded the creation of Eurobonds, sources of the German delegation said (Zeit, article in German). President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, supported Tremonti's demands. But Rösler, like Merkel and others, rejected the idea. Transferring liabilities to other countries would remove pressure from debtor nations to reform, he said, differences in yields being a market-driven incentive to get the budget in order. Eurobonds are also legally impossible, he added, based on a recent decision by the German Federal Constitutional Court.

Eurozone must be honest: Big haircuts for bond holders, debt limits for all, says Die Zeit (article in German). The drama of saving European banks that hold Greek debt, and the debt of other tottering Eurozone nations, has been going on for a year and a half. Each effort to keep Greece on track follows the familiar script. Politicians promise spending cuts. Greeks demonstrate. E.U. inspectors check things out and leave angry. Germans declare that Greece will not get any relief until it fixes its problems. Then Greece notices that it needs yet more money and threatens to default. Germany nods. And the next installment gets paid.

By now, all hope for a happy ending has dissipated. Greece is suffering from a multitude of problems that defy quick fixes, among them a huge pile of debt, an inept and corrupt fiscal system where taxes are simply not collected, dysfunctional institutions, and a government-dominated economy. Even unlimited amounts of money can only defer the end game.

But there are already victims. The most recent one: The concept of an independent, apolitical central bank whose primary purpose is guarding the value of the currency, rather than monetizing the debt of countries that have spent beyond their means.

To see how it all started, read my first post on the Bailout Rebellion in Germany
Wolf Richter - www.testosteronepit.com

Average: Your rating: None Average: 5 (12 votes)

View the original article here

Marx to Market

By

Illustration by Andy Martin

Society generally moves on from its mistakes. Doctors no longer drain blood from patients. Aviators don’t try to fly by strapping wings to their arms. Nobody still thinks that slavery is a good idea. Karl Marx, though, appears to be an exception to the rule of live and learn. Marx’s most famous predictions failed; there has been no dictatorship of the proletariat, nor has the state withered away. His followers included some of the 20th century’s worst mass murderers: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Yet the gloomy, combative philosopher seems to find adherents in each new generation of tyrants and dreamers.

You might even say the Bearded One has rarely looked better. The current global financial crisis has given rise to a new contingent of unlikely admirers. In 2009 the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published an article praising Marx’s diagnosis of income inequality, which is quite an endorsement considering that Marx declared religion to be “the opium of the people.” In Shanghai, the turbo-capitalist hub of Communist-in-name-alone China, audiences flocked to a 2010 musical based on Capital, Marx’s most famous work. In Japan, Capital is now out in a manga version. Brazilians elected a former Marxist guerrilla, Dilma Rousseff, as President last year.

The vogue for Marx should be expected at a time when European banks stand on the precipice of collapse and poverty levels in the U.S. have reached levels not seen in nearly two decades. Politicians know they can score points with their constituents by kicking job-creating capitalists like mangy curs.

Here’s the surprising thing, though: You don’t have to sleep in a Che Guevara T-shirt or throw rocks at McDonald’s to acknowledge that Marx’s thought is worth studying, grappling with, and possibly even applying to our current challenges. Many of the great capitalist thinkers did so, after all. Joseph Schumpeter, the guru of “creative destruction” who is a hero to many free-marketeers, devoted the first four chapters of his 1942 book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, to explorations of Marx the Prophet, Marx the Sociologist, Marx the Economist, and Marx the Teacher. He went on to say Marx was wrong, but he couldn’t ignore the man.

As misguided as Marx was about many things, and as pernicious as his influence was in places like the U.S.S.R. and China, there are pieces of his (voluminous) writings that are shockingly perceptive. One of Marx’s most important contentions was that capitalism was inherently unstable. One only has to look at the headlines out of Europe—which is haunted by the specter of a possible Greek default, a banking disaster, and the collapse of the single-currency euro zone—to see that he was right. Marx diagnosed capitalism’s instability at a time when his contemporaries and predecessors, such as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, were mostly enthralled by its ability to serve human wants.

Marx has gotten an attentive reading recently from the likes of New York University economist Nouriel Roubini and George Magnus, the London-based senior economic adviser to UBS Investment Bank. Magnus’s employer, Switzerland-based UBS, is a pillar of the financial establishment, with offices in more than 50 countries and over $2 trillion in assets. Yet in an Aug. 28 essay for Bloomberg View, Magnus wrote that “today’s global economy bears some uncanny resemblances” to what Marx foresaw. (Personal opinion only, he noted.)

Consider the particulars. As Magnus notes, Marx predicted that companies would need fewer workers as they improved productivity, creating an “industrial reserve army” of the unemployed whose existence would keep downward pressure on wages for the employed. It’s hard to argue with that these days, given that the U.S. unemployment rate is still more than 9 percent. On Sept. 13 the U.S. Census Bureau released data showing that median income fell from 1973 through 2010 for full-time, year-round male workers aged 15 and up, adjusted for inflation. The condition of blue-collar workers in the U.S. is still a far cry from the subsistence wage and “accumulation of misery” that Marx conjured. But it’s not morning in America, either.


View the original article here

Sunday, September 18, 2011

10 Minute Trading

Finally, a Low-Risk Trading Method With a Huge Return On Investment, In Only 10-20 Minutes Per Month!


Check it out!

Can Brian Moynihan Save Bank of America?

By and

Brendan Hoffman/Bloomberg

On the afternoon of Aug. 23, Gary G. Lynch, the global chief of legal, compliance, and regulatory relations for Bank of America, was attending a meeting in Washington when the floor heaved. Although Lynch, a lanky 61-year-old attorney with swept-back white hair, had never experienced an earthquake, he possessed the good sense to get beneath a sturdy conference table, along with several other people. “If the ceiling came down,” he recalls, “I thought we were dead.”

The ceiling held, despite the magnitude 5.8 quake rippling from its epicenter in Virginia. Minutes later, Lynch pulled out his BlackBerry and discovered another startling development: a rumor rattling Wall Street that Bank of America might get swept into an involuntary, government-orchestrated rescue by its smaller rival JPMorgan Chase. “This is really getting nuts,” he thought.

Lynch, who as the head of enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the late 1980s brought Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken to heel, knew he’d come under heavy fire when he parachuted into BofA this July. His assignment: Defend against a seemingly endless barrage of multibillion-dollar lawsuits and government investigations concerning defective mortgage-backed bonds manufactured at the height of the real estate bubble. No sooner did one liability bomb explode than it was followed by another. Now Lynch was doing duck-and-cover for real, while the bank’s share price was pounded to within a whisker of $6, down more than 50 percent since Jan. 1. The wild speculation about a forced merger combined ominously with financial analyst chatter that the mortgage onslaught would drain BofA’s capital, requiring it to sell more stock in desperation. Would Bank of America, which just weeks earlier had reported a record second-quarter loss of $8.8 billion, go the way of Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers?

It was starting to smell like 2008. Hotshot BofA investment bankers gaped at $14 restricted stock units, granted in 2010 and early 2011, which on paper had lost half of their value. They began thumbing smartphones for contact info of potential alternative employers. Managers interrupted vacations to rush into the office and calm valuable dealmakers.

Calm of a temporary sort returned two days later, thanks to a theatrical Buffett-ex-machina intervention. Three years ago, Bear was sold for scrap, while Lehman was allowed to collapse into bankruptcy, setting off a global financial crisis and recession. Announced on Aug. 25, Buffett’s purchase of $5 billion in BofA preferred stock—on typical only-for-Warren terms, including a $300 million annual dividend—allowed the bank to edge back from the abyss, much as Buffett’s $5 billion vote of confidence arrested a run on Goldman Sachs stock in 2008. On Sept. 6, only hours after he sat for an exclusive interview with Bloomberg Businessweek, BofA Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan grabbed attention again by reshuffling his management ranks, elevating a pair of new co-chief operating officers and ousting Sallie Krawcheck, the high-profile head of wealth management. After all the excitement, the bank’s shares were up 19 percent from their nadir.

For now, Bank of America will not go the way of Lehman or Bear. It has $400 billion in cash and liquid investments and, more important, with $2.3 trillion in assets, it exemplifies the sorry concept of “too big to fail.” No matter what anyone says to the contrary, the U.S. government cannot afford to allow a financial institution of that size to go down and drag the rest of the country with it. BofA’s difficulties are too complex, however, to be solved by Buffett swashbuckling, executive replacements, or the retention of a really sharp lawyer. America’s biggest bank is inextricably intertwined with a still-debilitated U.S. housing market and an unemployment rate stuck painfully above 9 percent.


View the original article here

Saturday, September 17, 2011

From Arab Spring To Greek Autumn To European Winter

Yesterday in Tunis:

Today in Greece - A man pours a flammable liquid on his body to set himself on fire outside a Piraeus bank branch in Thessaloniki in northern Greece September 16, 2011. The 55-year old man had entered the bank and asked for a renegotiation of his overdue loan payments on his home and business, according to police, which he could not pay, but was refused by the bank (Reuters).

Tomorrow in Europe:

              ?

h/t Lizzie363

Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (18 votes)

View the original article here

Here Comes Apple's Real TV

By

(Corrects 10th paragraph to show the Wii is from Nintendo, not Sony.)

Get ready, America, because by Christmas 2012 you will have an Apple TV in your living room. I don’t mean the cute little box now called “Apple TV” that plugs into your set to stream Netflix, but the real deal—a flat-panel Apple television set tied to the company’s online ecosystem and designed as only Apple can do it.

There’s a $14 billion rationale for this prediction but first, let’s explore the rumors. This summer Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster dug through component suppliers and found evidence that Apple is gearing up to produce a real TV set by late 2012. Venture capitalist Stewart Alsop, a former board member at TiVo, has published rumors that Apple has a television coming. And Steve Jobs himself hinted last year that Apple might build a real television unit.

“The television industry … pretty much undermines innovation in the sector,” Jobs said at the All Things Digital Conference in July 2010. “The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign, and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it.”

Jobs’s quote is good advice for his successor as chief executive officer, Tim Cook, who needs a hit. The TV industry is changing more than at any time in the past 50 years, and billions of dollars are going into play for the winners. As Apple crests in the phone and tablet markets, its investors will want a new frontier.

TV is the future because it remains king of all media. While handsets get hyped, the typical U.S. consumer watches 5 hours and 9 minutes of TV a day, according to Nielsen, and even younger adults 18 to 24 years old—the supposed digital generation—view 3 hours and 30 minutes on televisions daily, vs. only 49 minutes on the Web and 20 minutes on mobile. We all love to lean back. With so much of the consumer’s time, TV has become bloated with waste. The average U.S. home receives 130 cable channels but “tunes to”—or punches in the exact channel number on the remote—just 18 channels a year. Channel surfing has died. A whopping 86% of available channels are never used by an individual viewer.

Consumers pay a lot for all this video waste and they don’t like it. The average cable bill is $75 per month, which means that each year 83 million households pay $74 billion to the top eight TV-subscription services. This is why so-called “cord cutting,” by which consumers drop cable to watch videos on Roku, Hulu, or the Xbox 360 from Microsoft is accelerating; Comcast, the leading U.S. cable system, lost 238,000 subscribers in the second quarter. If Apple were to offer a better service, people might pay up for it.

A second lure for Apple is TV advertising. Unlike U.S. mobile-ad spending, which EMarketer says will barely break $1 billion in 2010 despite years of hype, the TV ad spend in the U.S. totaled $70 billion in 2010 and is forecast by Forrester Research to reach $84 billion by 2015. If Apple could gain just 10% of the $74 billion in current video subscription fees and $70 billion in television ad media, it would take in more than $14 billion in additional annual, recurring revenue.

Apple faces plenty of hurdles. For one thing, TV sets are an infrequent purchase. Apple likes to sell products with built-in obsolescence that you “need” to replace every 18 months—iPhone 5, anyone?—and a flashy TV set doesn’t call for an aluminum upgrade next year. Apple also has struggled to get content providers to embrace its current Apple TV box. In August, Apple stopped renting TV shows for 99¢ on the gadget, claiming that consumers overwhelmingly prefer to buy TV shows. But it could be that Apple’s media partners considered 99¢ far too cheap. With billions of dollars at stake, media producers and cable giants will fiercely defend their video-distribution modes.


View the original article here

Friday, September 16, 2011

FINRA Drowning In Complaints About Market Manipulation

Whether it is due to the general investing public finally realizing that the market is neither fair nor efficient, that the scales are tipped against the common man from the moment the 'Buy' (or, more rarely, 'Short') button is pressed, or that as the past two years have shown the market is dominated by insider trading, "expert networks" and big legacy investors surviving only due to the government's intervention on their behalf at critical times, is unknown, but Finra is now officially and finally drowning in a barrage of complaints about market manipulation. And to be sure such glaring reminders as 30 year-old UBS traders being singlehandedly responsible (of course, nobody noticed anything over the months and months of creeping illegal trades) for massive cumulative losses that amount to more than the entire net income for the bank (an odd and convenient scapegoat that), will surely not make Finra's life any easier. As Reuters reports: "A Wall Street regulator said industry complaints about market manipulation and trade reporting have spiked this year, raising questions about the adequacy of banks' internal controls over their traders. FINRA has received complaints this year about banks' audit systems, canceled orders, and brokers misrepresenting whether orders were on behalf of customers. "These are areas that for a long time we were not receiving complaints in, and all of a sudden this past year it's really spiked up," DeMaio, senior vice president in FINRA's market regulation unit, told a FIA options industry conference." That's great: so US investors can sleep soundly knowing full well fiascoes such as UBS' Delta One implosion will be confined to the UK (where, incidentally, the director of market at the local regulator, FSA, just resigned - it is unclear if he will follow a recent previous FSA departure straight into the willing clutches of such a non-market manipulative entity as JP Morgan), and that manipulation is being rooted out in the US at its core at a brisk pace.

Right? Maybe not:

The UBS rogue trading case could intensify pressure on regulators to ferret out wrongdoing. In the United States, it will also put more pressure on rulemakers to craft tough regulations as they implement the Volcker rule, a part of the 2010 Dodd Frank financial oversight law that limits banks from betting their own money in financial markets.

FINRA has made stopping manipulation a priority the last couple of years. The regulator, funded by the financial services industry, monitors trading and reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

"We're seeing a large number of order misrepresentations, we're seeing problems with our audit trail," DeMaio said, adding some brokerages have identified orders as customer orders when in fact they originated from the firm itself.

FINRA has asked firms if they have seen some of the problems internally, and whether they've taken steps to address them, DeMaio added.

And while, rhetoric aside, everyone knows that Finra is completely incapable and actively dissuaded from handling anything that could potentially harm any of the real market "manipulators", because after all Finra is a self-regulating organization which in a market that depends on manipulation means it can't really do much if anything, concerns about record plunge in market confidence are pushing regulators to extend the Volcker Rule to overseas banks with US operations to make sure the Kweku Adoboli incident does not spread to the US courtesy of lax internal risk controls such as that exhibited by UBS, and present the optics they are doing at least something:

Regulators writing a rule limiting proprietary trading by U.S. banks are considering extending the restrictions to overseas firms with operations in the country, according to four people familiar with the proposal.

“There is no question that we would lose jobs,” said Wayne Abernathy, vice president of the American Bankers Association in Washington. “A lot of what the banks have been doing in recent years to diversify their services are activities that can easily be done by foreign competitors.”

The rule, named for the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, includes exemptions for government-guaranteed investments, hedging, market-making and insurance-company transactions. It also exempts proprietary trading conducted “solely” outside of the U.S.

The language of the bill is subject to interpretation by regulators at agencies including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Dodd-Frank, signed into law by President Barack Obama last year, requires regulators to adopt rules to carry out the provision by Oct. 18.

Regulators are considering how to define operations conducted “solely” outside of the country. Trading managed in the U.S. or involving U.S.-based advisers may be subject to the rule even if it takes place overseas and has no U.S. investors, the people said.

Well, courtesy of the staged UBS scandal, that will not be the case any longer.

What also won't be the case, is the plan to promote Delta One in replacing and recycling the correlation-cum-prop trading revenue generator that was implicitly eliminated with the Volcker Rule, but was merely morphed over to a new form of correlation desk trade only this time with a fancier name.

The WSJ reports on the imminent demise of yet another form of pseudo-hedged prop trading:

Delta trading has gained momentum in a markets environment in which the mortgage-bond trading business is on the skids and global regulations require banks to set aside expensive capital for loans.

Wall Street is counting on trading large volumes of stocks and derivatives to bolster revenue.

There is nothing inherently improper about such Delta trading. And many large financial institutions employ this strategy, including Société Générale SA, BNP Paribas SA and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Europe and Goldman and Morgan Stanley in the U.S., according to a J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. report.

The trading requires state-of-the-art technology systems and can produce as much as $1 billion in annual revenue at top banks, J.P. Morgan said, which noted, "Delta One products in one area of growth in our view, with strong growth in client volumes, resilient margins and untapped potential in emerging markets."

But it earlier gained notoriety in 2008, when French bank Société Générale said that Jérôme Kerviel had worked on a Delta One desk while trying to hide $7.2 billion in losses in another rogue trading scandal. Last year, Mr. Kerviel was sentenced to three years in prison.

It is safe to say that in an attempt to scapegoat their stupidity and to cover up for internal bank risk control lapses, regulators will once again lash out at banks (which they themselves saved and in doing so encouraged them to take any and all risk knowing too well they can never fail again), making "Delta One" a thing of the past. In the meantime, we are confident that Wall Street is already hatching plans of "financial innovation" for the next big "revenue" thing: probably called Vega 100 or Gamma 69. In the same time, we also expect the following chart showing the relentless outflows from US domestic equity mutual funds - the truest indication of what the US investor thinks about the stock market - to continue bleeding mutual funds dry until there is nothing left.

Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

View the original article here

Friday, September 9, 2011

Guest post: Inner Freedom Comes First

From Brandon Smith of Alt-Market

Inner Freedom Comes First

Is freedom a place, or an idea? A state of society, or a state of mind? Does it begin around us, or within us? In today’s world of the all-you-can-eat sensory buffet, where every facet of life is a bit and a byte and a radio wave and a laser beam, most of humanity looks for all of its answers to such questions in the grand ether of the tumbling data stream. We see changes in the tapestry of cultural interaction as the final measure of national progression, or regression. We confuse forward sounding language with forward moving political transformation. We are mesmerized by the illusion of environmental appearance, and forget that the indelible root of all things outward is nurtured by that which lay within.

In America, in the midst of economic crisis and government driven moral hazard, millions of people are scrambling for “solutions”. The term is used rather haphazardly and often without proper context. There are, indeed, very evil men out there in the dark precipices of global infrastructure, and, these men often instigate very bad events. However, “doing away with them” is NOT a solution. It is NOT a plan. It is merely a goal. A solution requires more than an end result; it also involves the steps necessary to achieve said result. The Liberty Movement, as it is commonly called, tends to run into so much frustration and angst, I believe, because it consistently attempts to skip to the end of the story without traveling the rest of the very necessary journey.

End the Fed! Sue the Fed! March on Washington! Vote the bums out! Take up arms! These are not actions, but reactions triggered by the confusion of the moment. Not only are they single minded responses that lack the strategy and logistics inherent in a successful counter-offensive, but such cries ignore the other devious culprit responsible for our national heartache; ourselves.

Yes, the world must change, and soon, if our principles are to survive. But, for this to happen, we must change first. Instead of looking up, down, and all around us for some magical all encompassing answer, we have to question our very assumptions and world views. No weapon of steel or of law will ever undo the tragedy we live in day to day while we lack the conviction to confront our own biases and failings. We have always been the greatest obstacle to a truly freedom based society, not the elites, who are nothing but parasites feeding off our willfully perpetuated inadequacies.

Working methodologies for combating globalization and centralization do exist. State nullification, for instance, is a significant tool for defusing obtrusive federal authority, but without the organizational willpower and perseverance to take back the now thoroughly corrupt election process county by county, state by state, while producing viable liberty minded candidates and grassroots activist groups, nullification is impossible. Survival preparation is essential for anyone who wishes to decouple from the collapsing mainstream system, but without the determination to make prepping a reality, we are left with nothing but a bunch of hungry, desperate nobodies huddled on the sidelines of the war for truth. Barter networking and alternative markets require extensive patience and unerring dedication, along with constant self education on the processes of sound money and private trade. Safe Haven and Free State Projects push us even harder, requiring us to uproot from everything we have been conditioned to accept as normal and comfortable, and travel, perhaps long distances, to begin anew in a place likely unfamiliar. All of these things involve an internal finality of purpose, a clear and unwavering path unhindered by regret. Those who undertake the above initiatives do so not because they were “told to”, but because they know, above all else, that what they are doing is right. They no longer stand in their own way, and thus, the possibilities become infinite.

For others, the endless circular battle between action and apathy continues. Below, are some of the most frequent excuses uttered by those aware of the burgeoning dangers of a disintegrating culture but who are incapable of taking the first steps of inward freedom needed to do anything about their predicament…

1) I know things are getting bad in this country, but I only have time to focus on my own problems right now…

Your immediate problems are certainly yours to solve, but they are also very likely an aftereffect of the wider problems of the world around you. Ironically, only by taking personal responsibility for the problems of the world can we alleviate the incredible pressures of our microcosmic existence. That is to say, by taking action against the trespasses of global economic and socio-political despotism, you are doing yourself and your private life a big favor.

2) I believe that a collapse (social and economic) is possible, but just can’t imagine things ever going that far…

What you can’t “imagine” is generally pretty irrelevant when considering the FACTS of any given situation. Educating one’s self on the history of modern economic and political instability is a step that many seem to overlook before drawing conclusions on the state of America today. Without a point of reference to refer to, these people are left completely in the mire as to the very real threats that lay ahead. Many of them actually avoid learning the background details of similar crises like those in Weimar Germany, Soviet Russia, Argentina, Zimbabwe, etc., because doing so would mean room for denial would disappear. Yes, our country will see darker days ahead, perhaps pitch black. Refusing to prepare for the worst will not stop the worst from happening. Never, ever, assume a disaster will “blow over”.

3) I just don’t have the money to get into survival prepping right now. Maybe I will start when I get some savings in order…

In some cases (very few) this excuse is acceptable. But, in many others it is complete nonsense. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve run into that make this claim while continuing to spend money on non-essential luxuries. Do you still have cable T.V.? Get rid of it! It stinks anyway. Do you buy a new computer every six months? Well stop! The gigs and ram you have now are probably more than adequate. Do you pour money into personal vices like drugs, cigarettes, or beer? Quit! There will be no room for them post collapse anyway. There is always money for prepping, even if it’s a little every month. The obstacle is not funding. The obstacle is your unwillingness to sacrifice certain comforts for more important investments.

4) I would delve into sound money, but it all seems too complicated…

I’ll make this simple; buying gold and silver is NOT complicated. In fact, it is very easy. If something feels “complicated”, then simply uncomplicated it by educating yourself using the numerous resources still available on the internet or your local library. Knowledge is (at this time) everyone’s prerogative. Liberty starts not with the words in an article or a book, but the decision to actually sit down and read that article or book with an open mind. Make that decision now!

5) I feel isolated, and would like to move to a safe haven with more like-minded people, but am afraid of not finding work, or leaving behind that which is familiar…

Safe Haven relocation is not for everyone, but many can at least admit that they probably live in an unstable and violence prone environment sensitive to economic unrest. Many can also admit that they do not have the support network required to survive such an event. This choice ultimately comes down to priorities. When the survival of yourself and your family is on the line, does it really matter if you are “familiar” (i.e. comfortable) with your current location? In a crumbling marketplace, is it better to take your chances with a job that you know will soon no longer exist, or to take your chances in an alternative market with increasing growth? Is it better to wait until doom is ringing the doorbell? Or, is it more practical to take measures now to insulate yourself from the storm? Learning to prioritize means learning to set aside what we want in the face of what we need.

6) I would like to become more of an activist, but isn’t it better to “keep a low profile”, and avoid retribution from the power elite…?

Fear is the most repressive internal obstacle of all. Tyrants do not conquer countries; fear conquers countries. As I have said before, when the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, they did not sign it “Anonymous”. It is every free man’s duty to stand behind his own convictions. Holding them quietly in the corner of the room gets us nowhere. This is not to say that all our thoughts and activities should be made public, but if you can’t build up the gumption to speak the truth in the wake of a lie then you aren’t of much use to anyone, especially yourself. There is nothing illegal about organizing against corruption, and even if there was, it wouldn’t matter. Fighting for freedom means being audacious, and sometimes unconcerned about the supposed “consequences”. While we speak often of safety and preparedness, these things at bottom are also only important so far as they support our ability to put ourselves on the line for the future of our ideals. There is no room for apprehension here…

The purpose of the above is not to “shame” those in the movement who remain inactive, but to clear the fog that tends to surround any new and powerful movement against the rush of the totalitarian wildfire. We continue to look for white-knight leaders, short cut slapdash solutions, and even miracles to somehow save us from doing what we dread most; facing the fact that we are the greatest prognosticators of our own fates. We are the ones who choose freedom, or slavery. In the soft light of fading glory, only those who blaze their own trails will see the road ahead. To each man awaits a multitude of perils and rewards, all of which depend upon his inner resolve; a quality which stands upon the summit of the soul, against the wind, and the unrelenting cold.

Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (19 votes)

View the original article here

When Credit Ratings Lose Their Meaning

Illustration by Topos Graphics; Hands: Corbis

By and

Which is a safer investment: (A) Treasury bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, or (B) securities backed by subprime loans, the same type of investments that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? For ratings company Standard & Poor’s, the answer is B.

S&P stripped the U.S. of its top grade, AAA, on Aug. 5, saying Washington politics was making the country less creditworthy. Meanwhile, the company has stamped AAA on more than $36 billion of U.S. securitized debt this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Overall, some 14,000 securitized bonds, backed by everything from houses and malls to auto-dealer loans, carry the AAA rating from S&P. They are created by bankers who gather thousands of loans, package them into bonds, slice them into pieces of varying risk, and pay ratings firms a fee to evaluate them. S&P is not paid for rating U.S. government debt.

S&P justified its downgrading of the U.S., which, unlike corporations, has the authority to set tax rates and print money, by saying politicians are becoming “less stable, less effective, and less predictable.’’ That logic puzzles some investors. “I’m trying to sort out why debt backed by the ability to tax in the United States is rated lower than securities that are backed by no particular ability to have additional revenue,” says John Milne, who oversees about $1.8 billion as chief executive officer of JKMilne Asset Management in Fort Myers, Fla.

In addition, the ratings discrepancy implies that some securitized debt could survive a default by the U.S. government. That’s hard to believe, says Satyajit Das, author of Extreme Money: Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk. “If the sovereign goes down the tubes,” says Das, “it’s very difficult to see how these structures will be unaffected.’’

S&P, a subsidiary of educational publisher and financial data company McGraw-Hill, hasn’t stopped handing out AAAs. It’s giving its top rating to 59 percent of Springleaf Mortgage Loan Trust 2011-1, a set of bonds tied to $497 million lent to homeowners with below-average credit scores and almost no equity in their properties, according to potential investors who declined to be identified because the deal is private. Granting top grades to securitized debt can be appropriate as long as the AAA-rated portion is small enough that the collateral is sure to be worth enough to pay it off even in extreme circumstances, says Ron D’Vari, the chief executive officer of the NewOak Capital. He used the example of $100 of bonds backed by $500 million of car loans—a far different ratio than in the Springleaf offering. “We didn’t even start to look at the deal,” says Paul Norris, a senior money manager at Dwight Asset Management in Burlington, Vt. “For the funds we would buy this in, we need an AAA rating, and we don’t have any confidence S&P would hold this rating for any period of time.”

The Senate’s permanent subcommittee on investigations said in April that S&P, Moody’s Investors Service, and Fitch Ratings helped inflate the mortgage bubble by engaging in a “race to the bottom’’ to assign top ratings to risky securities. Even since the crisis, S&P has admitted to a string of mistakes in rating structured-finance products, including misunderstanding cash flows and using conflicting methods to analyze the securities. “These are errors that could cause airplanes to crash if this was aerospace engineering,” said Sylvain Raynes, a principal at R&R Consulting in New York and a former Moody’s analyst.

In July, S&P said that it allowed a discrepancy to develop between how it rated commercial-mortgage securities before and after they were issued. The problem came to light in connection with $1.5 billion in bonds that Goldman Sachs and Citigroup were planning to offer, when investors objected to the amount of the deal getting an AAA rating. After S&P discovered the problem, it withdrew its ratings on the bonds, and Goldman Sachs and Citigroup had to withdraw the deal. “Our pursuit of quality and comparability means that when we discover a material error in our ratings, we promptly review it and address the matter transparently,” says Ed Sweeney, a spokesman for S&P.

S&P President Deven Sharma, who’s stepping down this month, has defended the company’s credit analysis since taking over in 2007. “Clearly, there were many lessons we learned out of the U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities,” Sharma told Congress in July. S&P reviewed its methodologies and added checks to make sure ratings are “completely comparable” across asset classes and regions, he said. S&P said on Aug. 22 that Sharma will be replaced by Citibank COO Douglas Peterson.

Investors still don’t trust that S&P’s sovereign and structured-finance ratings are consistent. Normally, bond buyers demand higher yields as compensation for holding riskier debt. Yet the yield on Treasuries has plunged since the downgrade. Now, top-rated portions of recently issued commercial-mortgage-backed securities pay yields of 3.66 percent, or almost three times as much as U.S. government debt rated one step lower by S&P, according to Barclays Capital index data. “Everybody has been led to believe over the years that AAA means AAA means AAA across the board,” says Gregory W. Smith, the general counsel for the $41 billion Public Employees’ Retirement Association of Colorado. Money managers who still believe that, he says, “should find another line of work.”

The bottom line: While the U.S. no longer has an AAA rating from S&P, more than 14,000 securitized bonds backed by homes, malls, and auto loans do.

Faux is a reporter for Bloomberg News. Shenn is a reporter for Bloomberg News.


View the original article here

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

When Patents Attack: Could Facebook Be Next?

Illustration by Serge Bloch

By

Paul Maritz has witnessed a number of patent skirmishes. The chief executive officer of VMware spent 14 years at Microsoft, much of it during the 1990s when the company was quickly extending its dominance and threatening older technology powerhouses. He remembers visiting Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment Corp., and other behemoths to essentially pay obeisance, ponying up for licensing deals that gave Microsoft access to key intellectual property—and kept the Redmond (Wash.) company from prolonged legal battles. “We had to do that,” says Maritz. “We were the new kids on the block.”

He sees a similar dynamic playing out in the tech industry today. So far, Silicon Valley’s rising stars—companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, LinkedIn, and other social media darlings—have mostly avoided becoming casualties in the ongoing patent wars, which have centered on the world of mobile devices. Yet as Maritz puts it, “When the continents shift and new players come into a space, it results in an unstable situation.” According to legal experts and technology executives, plenty more patent confrontations loom. Older technology companies such as Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft maintain rich patent portfolios covering essential technologies used by the Web set, especially database and file-management applications. “The new-generation companies like Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn will eventually run afoul of the established companies,” says Timothy D. Casey, a former patent lawyer at Apple and co-founder of the SilverSky Group, an intellectual property and business strategy consultancy. “It’s a familiar pattern in the technology industry.”

Part of the risk for the new generation of Web companies comes from their weak patent portfolios. Facebook has only 12 patents to its name, while the totals for Twitter, Zynga, LinkedIn, and Groupon range from zero to two each, according to filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That puts them in a position similar to where Google was earlier this year, when it had far fewer mobile-related patents than its competitors. According to one study by the investment bank MDB Capital Group, Google had applied for or received a total of 307 mobile-related patents as of early August, compared with 3,134 for Research In Motion, 2,655 for Nokia, and 2,594 for Microsoft. That relative weakness spurred the search giant to pay $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility and its 17,000 patents on Aug. 15, its biggest acquisition ever. Newer Web companies may ultimately have to take similar steps to bolster their position. “If you want to be a permanent fixture of the landscape, you better get some defense,” says Maritz.

One possible battleground is in the data center. Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft, in particular, have spent decades patenting technology for managing files and storing information. Rather than pay for products offered by these companies, the trend among Facebook, Twitter, and others has been to use free, open-source software that borrows, at least conceptually, from this past work. These companies make heavy use of programs such as the MySQL and Cassandra databases, for instance, and the Hadoop file-management system. Quite often, the Web companies even build new open-source applications and release them to the public, undercutting some of the Old Guard’s most lucrative franchises.

To date, database patent holders such as Oracle and IBM have had little motivation to target the open-source products with lawsuits. Most of their largest customers, which include major Wall Street firms and retailers, also use open-source software, and patent battles would just create unease among them. The same rules of engagement, however, may not apply to their relationship with the Web giants. This new generation prides itself on not buying technology from established Silicon Valley players, says Jonathan Schwartz, the former CEO at Sun Microsystems, which was acquired by Oracle in 2009. “To the extent that is true, they are very attractive targets,” he says. (IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft declined to comment.) And the open-source label did little to keep Google’s Android software out of trouble. That mobile operating system is at the heart of the recent tech-world patent battle that has attracted lawsuits from Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle.


View the original article here

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The Imminent Failure Of The Eurozone

This article originally appeared on the Daily Capitalist.

You know those movies with the bomb set to a timer ticking down to øø.øø where the sweaty hero nervously cuts one wire at a time while holding his breath and then at øø.ø1 he stops the bomb? Well Europe is like that except that the bomb goes off and kills everyone.

Our planet has a problem. Its leading economies, the U.S., Japan, and the E.U. are declining. That is, about one-sixth of the world's population is losing ground. These big economies are the ones that lead the rest of the world, including China. Countries like China, India, and Brazil, depend on the health of the big economies to keep buying their products and commodities so they can grow and generate wealth for their citizens. 

What is especially concerning is the blow-up that is about to happen in Europe. It is not something that is happening "over there." In a world that is so interconnected financially and by trade, a sinking Europe is everyone's concern.

Their problems are much the same as ours with a twist. Their governments and central banks have also pursued reckless monetary and fiscal policies and now, effect is following cause. They have more or less followed the same policies as has the U.S., much to the same end. They spent large, engaged in Keynesian fiscal stimulus in a bailout attempt, ran up huge debts and deficits, and their economies are in decline.

The twist is the European Monetary Union (EMU), known as the eurozone. It is as if here in the U.S. there was no federal government and each state was truly sovereign, but there was a Federal Reserve Bank. Some states spend more than others, funding deficits by borrowing huge sums to support programs their citizens wanted. The profligate states want the Fed to buy their debt and float them loans created out of thin air, or otherwise they will go belly up and they will take down many states' banks. The responsible states know they will be stuck with the bill.

The EMU started on the idea that it would bind the EU closer. In essence it was a political decision rather than an economic decision. They passed a stern rule that said no state could run of deficits of more than 3% of their GDP. Except for Estonia, Finland, and Luxembourg, all countries, including Germany, now exceed the limit. Thus their politicians sacrificed fiscal probity for political gains.

They have hit the wall: Greece will soon default on their sovereign debt. On Tuesday, yields on one year Greek bills  reached 60%.  It is a sign that investors have no faith in the Greek government's ability to repay their debt. 

The EU, ECB, and the IMF are trying to establish a European Financial Stability Facility (EFSB) in order to further bail Greece out. They have already pledged €110 billion and they are trying to put another package together of €109 billion. But Finland insists that Greece puts up additional collateral, which is not possible. Since the collateral would be part of the bailout money, it would be, in essence, Germany and France guaranteeing Finland's contribution.

Greece has missed every fiscal target it or its saviors has had. They are trying to get their deficit down to 7.6% of GDP through more austerity measures, but it looks like they will miss again (est. 8.5+%). Basically they are asking the Greeks to do something they don't want to do, and they will no doubt take to the streets again in protest.

If they default, then that opens a can of worms. European banks, other than Greek banks, hold €46 billion of Greek sovereign debt. Belgium's Dexia hold Greek sovereign debt equal to 39% of its equity; for Germany's Commerzbank, it's about 27%. On top of that, EU banks are into private Greek companies for about €94B (France, €40B; Germany €24B). According to the Wall Street Journal, the total market cap of all EU banks was just €240. The same article also points out additional unknown liabilities to insurers and investment banks. 

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has warned banks they need to write down, or mark-to-market, the Greek debt they hold. Whether they do or don't doesn't matter. The fact is that these banks are undercapitalized and in trouble. Their "stress tests" are a fiction. Liquidity is starting to shrink in their banking system because of these jitters. Rabobank, for example, said it is growing cautious about interbank lending – now limited to overnight loans. More banks are stepping up to the ECB window for funds. Overall, credit is starting to tighten. Nervous Greek depositors are withdrawing funds from their banks. Rich Greeks never trusted their banks.

In other words the Europeans have created a problem that they can't solve, easily at least.

Here are their alternatives:

1. Keep bailing out Greece, with the specter of Italy and Spain being the next target of market forces as EU economies cool off. This is not appealing to Germany and France who know their taxpayers will have to put up most of the money.

2. Have the ECB buy as much Greek debt as necessary to keep Greece afloat. The problem with that is inflation and the prospect that they may be setting a bad precedent for other countries. 

3. Have the EU issue bonds guaranteed by individual countries, which again is mainly Germany and France. Same problem as No. 1. As Sarkozy said they don't wish to guarantee debt they don't control – the spenders have no incentive to curtail spending.

4. Opt for a fiscal union whereby Brussels controls spending and taxation. Or, at least, as Sarkozy and Merkel propose, coordinate their fiscal and tax policies and pass a balanced budget amendment in each country. Good luck with that. Chances: zero.

Which one of those policies will best satisfy these three necessary goals required to ameliorate the worst damage:

Remove the need for the ECB to buy bonds continually on secondary markets;Ensure that troubled countries have access to financing;Prevent the strong countries from being dragged down by the weak.

Which one of the above policies will prevent Greece from defaulting, will let the rich countries off the hook, will create enormous liquidity in the eurozone, and will bail out the banks?

The answer is the obvious one, the one that won't hit the taxpayers of the EU's powerful economies, that reduces the net effect of debt to sovereigns, that bolsters the reserves of nearly insolvent banks (at least on paper), and puts the problem off for another day. That would be solution No. 2— quantitative easing, or monetization of Greek debt.

It also lets the taxpayers of Germany, France, and Belgium, whose banks hold lots of Greek public and private debt, off the hook because Greece will be able to repay their obligations in devalued euros. That is, the taxpayers in those countries won't have to pay the tab to refloat their banks. Or, at least as big of a tab as if Greece defaulted.

This plan solves nothing except in the very short-term. The day after tomorrow, inflation will melt away much of the eurozone's sovereign debt as well as private debt, and savers will be robbed of their capital. Capital will be destroyed and consumed by price inflation. Their economies will continue to stagnate, unemployment will remain high, tax revenues will eventually decline in real terms, and they will again be facing the same problems they face today. There is no way to avoid it. 

The EU faces an insolvable problem, but it is one they created. You can't have a monetary union without a fiscal union. At least when no nation is obligated to play fair. They either terminate the EMU or paper it over. There is no other practical fix, at least when economies of member states are declining. They are the poster child for the failure of Keynesian-Monetarist economics.

Average: Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (20 votes)

View the original article here

Which Is the Best Tablet for You?

By

partner-logo

Looking back in time, there effectively were no consumer tablets in the beginning of 2010. Sure, Microsoft had Tablet PCs for nearly a decade prior, but these were heavy, had relatively short battery life, and suffered from a desktop operating system that wasn’t optimized for mobile use. It was Apple’s original iPad, making its debut on store shelves in April 2010, that kicked off the current tablet frenzy. Since then, companies have jumped into this hot market, hoping to score some of the estimated 53.5 million tablet sales that research firm IDC expects this year alone.

It took time for iPad competitors to appear, however, as Research In Motion, HP, Samsung, and many others scrambled to create or use new mobile operating system for such devices. At the Consumer Electronics Show this past January, a full eight months after the first iPad arrived, a slew of Google Android tablets were shown, and I had my first hands-on experiences with RIM’s BlackBerry Playbook. And just last week HP launched its TouchPad with the webOS system. Of course, while all this tablet activity happened in the first half of 2011, Apple improved the iPad with a successor device that’s even faster than the original, has two cameras, and can stream media to HDTVs.

Fast-forward to the present day, and there are now a number of tablet choices that simply didn’t exist 14 months ago. It can be overwhelming to pick and choose, because each tablet platform and device has certain pros and cons, even as most have $499 starting prices. I’m in the unique position of having at least one tablet from each platform in hand right now. After using them all in the past few weeks and months, I can’t tell you which tablet is the best for you, mainly because everyone has different needs. But my hands-on use of these devices can offer insights into which have standout features and which still face challenges that might not be acceptable to you.

The iPad has the advantage of successful "first mover" status, so when many consumers think tablet, they think iPad. And why not? Apple prepared users for the iPad by honing the iOS operating system since 2007. Put another way: If you know how to use an iPhone or iPod touch, you already know how to use an iPad; there’s no learning curve involved. Aside from the ease of use, the iPad has not only the most apps available, but it has all of what I’d call "top-tier" titles. I’d be hard-pressed to think of a killer app from another platform that doesn’t already exist for the iPad.

Apple’s iPad has also provided the widest array of media options for the longest time. ITunes natively has support for major music labels as well as many movie studios and TV content providers. Where it falls short in these areas, it makes up for in the apps: Netflix and Hulu Plus, for example, add content Apple has no license to provide, and these types of apps have been slow to appear on other mobile platforms. Add in simple media streaming to an AppleTV through the AirPlay function, and the iPad makes for a great media solution over competitors.

While there’s much to like—and the iPad is a known commodity with great application support—it’s not for everyone, nor for every situation. Earlier this year, I found I preferred to carry a smaller tablet outside the home, and I dumped my iPad for that reason. I later picked up an iPad 2, but my uses for it are limited to around the house: in bed, on the couch, or at the kitchen table. Many consumers tote their iPad all the time, and while you can take it anywhere, it’s not as easy to use everywhere as a smaller device is. People looking for more portability might consider a 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab, BlackBerry Playbook, or HTC Flyer, for example.


View the original article here

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Options Made Easy: Your Guide to Profitable Trading (2nd Edition)

Options Made Easy: Your Guide to Profitable Trading (2nd Edition)

“Guy Cohen cuts through the fog and helps all levels of investors grasp the most intricate concepts. He does so with great clarity and brevity despite covering such a broad set of  topics. His is an invaluable guide for the interested beginner and the most advanced trader.”

—Ned Bennett, CEO, optionsXpress, Inc. 

"The best book on options I have ever come across."
—Alpesh B. Patel, bestselling author of Trading Online and Mind of a Trader

"Guy Cohen really does make options easy. Each options strategy has both a visual diagram of the risk and reward, as well as a logical explanation of how the strategy works. Combined with primers on fundamental and technical analysis, Guy shows you how to put the odds in your favor in today's options markets."
—Price Headley, Founder, BigTrends.com and author of Big Trends in Trading

"Guy Cohen has put together a comprehensive, easy to understand, must-read on options for investors of all levels. Practical in its approach, the graphics bring clarity to what beginning investors might consider complicated strategies."
—Joseph Sellitto, Director Retail Derivatives, E*TRADE Securities LLC

"This is one of the best books on option strategies I have ever read."
—Daniel J. Zanger, President, Chartpattern.com

"Guy Cohen builds a foundation for the reader with simple definitions and clear mechanics on what can be a complicated topic. He then approaches each strategy with a context of fundamental and technical analysis and sets the stage for a solid understanding of risk, reward and probability."
—Dave Whitmore, Managing Director, Products & Services, Ameritrade, Inc.


In Options Made Easy, Second Edition, Guy Cohen clearly explains everything you need to know about options in plain English so that you can start trading fast and make consistent profits in any market, bull or bear!

Simply and clearly, the author reveals secrets of options trading that were formerly limited to elite professionals—and exposes the dangerous myths that keep investors from profiting.

As you set out on your options journey, you'll learn interactively through real-life examples, anecdotes, case studies, and pictures. Guy Cohen is your friendly expert guide, helping you pick the right stocks, learn the right strategies, create the trading plans that work, and master the psychology of the winning trader.

  • Master all the essentials—and put them to work

    Options demystified so that you can get past the fear and start profiting!

  • Learn the safest ways to trade options

    Identify high-probability trades that lead to consistent profits

  • Design a winning Trading Plan—and stick to it

    Understand your risk profile and discover exactly when to enter and exit your trades

  • Choose the right stocks for maximum profit

    Screen for your best opportunities—stocks that are moving—or are about to move

  • Discover the optimum strategies for you

    Match your trading strategies to your personal investment goals

  • No bull! The realities and myths of the markets

    What you must know about fundamental and technical analysis

The easy, plain-English guide to making consistent profits with options!

Teaches all the essentials with real-life examples and crystal-clear explanations

No complicated math or confusing jargon: Learn visually with easy-to-understand pictures!

Identify high-probability trades, and design a Trading Plan that works

Master practical, easy strategies for succeeding in any environment—even bear markets

Updated for today's markets with even more dynamic graphics, intuitive explanations, and valuable information!

For every investor interested in trading options

When you read this book, you'll be amazed how quickly you understand options—and how quickly you can start profiting from them!


© Copyright Pearson Education. All rights reserved.

Price: $29.99


Click here to buy from Amazon

Systemic Risk is Higher Than in 2008

Here are a few zingers for the “recovery” crowd.

§  The US economy added no new jobs last month. That’s the first time this has happened in the post-WW II period.

§  Productivity in the US has declined in back to back quarters (despite QE 2). If we get another decline in 3Q11 it will be the first time this has happened since the depths of the 1979 recession.

§  Today, the US employs less people in manufacturing than it did in 1942. By the way, the US population has doubled since then.

§  The mean duration of unemployment is at an 80-year high.

These are not simply “things are bad” numbers. These are “economic disaster” numbers. The fact they’re coming after the Government and US Federal Reserve have spent TRILLIONS in stimulus should give you an idea of just how dire the situation is in the US economy.

I’ve seen countless arguments for why we’re about to see a new bull market. They are:

1)   Cash on the sidelines

2)   Companies announcing buybacks

3)   Banks are better capitalized

#1 is outright wrong. Mutual fund cash levels are at all time lows. Consumers are broke. So where is all that cash that investors are going to pile in?

#2 doesn’t mean anything either. Corporate insiders are dumping their shares by the truckload. If they really believed their stocks were cheap, why are they sell their personal shares while having their companies buy them back?

Two other aspects to the buybacks arguments: a company only buys back its stock when it doesn’t see any point in reinvesting it in the business. So the fact companies are announcing buybacks is actually a bad thing in that it reveals they are neither hiring nor investing in research or new programs.

#3 The banks are insolvent. End of story. They’re sitting on tens of TRILLIONS in crappy derivatives that are marked to fantasy accounting. Look at Bank of “well capitalized” America. If their balance sheet is so solid why do they need emergency injections from Buffett? Why are they selling off ownership in assets to raise capital?

And on and on.

I will be blunt here. Systemic risk is higher today than it was in 2008. Anyone who claims that the financial system is stable can look at either Treasuries or the credit markets. Look at Europe where the entire banking system is collapsing.

In plain terms, we’re on the even of the Great Crisis: the Crisis to which 2008 was just a warm up. We’re going to see bank holidays, civil unrest, food shortages, market crashes, and more.

If you have yet to prepare yourself for what’s coming, my Surviving a Crisis Four Times Worse Than 2008 report can show you how to turn the unfolding disaster into a time of gains and profits for any investor.

Within its nine pages I explain precisely how the Second Round of the Crisis will unfold, where it will hit hardest, and the best means of profiting from it (the very investments my clients used to make triple digit returns in 2008).

Best of all, this report is 100% FREE. To pick up your copy today simply go to: http://www.gainspainscapital.com and click on the OUR FREE REPORTS tab.

Good Investing!

Graham Summers

PS. We also feature four other reports ALL devoted to helping you protect yourself, your portfolio, and your loved ones from the Second Round of the Great Crisis. Whether it’s my proprietary Crash Indicator which has caught every crash in the last 25 years or the best most profitable strategy for individual investors looking to profit from the upcoming US Debt Default, my reports covers it.

And ALL of this is available for FREE under the OUR FREE REPORTS tab at: http://www.gainspainscapital.com.

Average: Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

View the original article here

Why the Gun Industry Secretly Loves Obama

Data: Bloomberg; Gun: Tim McCreary/AP Photo; Gold: Corbis

By

Rick Perry’s emergence as the frontrunner for the Republican Presidential nomination would seem like a coup for the gun industry. The Texas governor’s enthusiasm for firearms rivals Yosemite Sam’s. He has an A+ rating from the Texas State Rifle Assn. and packs a laser-sighted Ruger pistol when he jogs. Last year, he famously shot a coyote that threatened his dog during a run. To commemorate his act of valor, the manufacturer, Sturm Ruger, produced a lightweight, limited-edition “Coyote Special” with the words “A True Texan” emblazoned on the barrel. Collectors snapped them up. Perry would be as ardent a champion of gun rights as has ever occupied the White House.

And yet he still may not do as much for the industry as Barack Obama already has. In the time since he took office, gun sales have soared. The government doesn’t track individual sales. But the FBI criminal background check required to purchase a gun is considered a reasonable proxy, and these have hit record numbers each year Obama has been in office. This year, they’re on track to surpass 15 million for the first time.

Ruger has done especially well. Since Obama’s inauguration the company’s stock price has risen more than 400 percent, making it a better investment than gold, which is up 113 percent. “They’ve been outstanding in offering new products, especially in the concealable handgun segment,” says Jim Barrett, an analyst at CL King who tracks the gun industry and rates the company a “strong buy.”

Analysts anticipated a brief jump in firearm sales after the election as many gun owners, fearful that a new Democratic President would move to ban assault weapons, fortified their home arsenals. “Initially, what spiked were the tactical rifles, the stuff Rambo might use,” says Barrett. As a result, 2009 was “a blockbuster year.”

So was 2010. And so is 2011. The strong numbers go beyond Rambo-type firepower to include the compact pistols that Perry prefers, although joggers and fans of the governor won’t have an easy time finding his signature model. “We were almost sold out before the press ever caught wind of it, and now that he’s running for President the calls have intensified,” says Brent Samperi, sales manager at Hill Country Wholesale, a distributor in Pflugerville, Tex. No one is entirely certain why sales are still surging. “Gun owners don’t like to be surveyed,” Barrett notes.

Dealers and analysts have several theories. One is that hardcore gun enthusiasts fear the lousy economy will set off a crime wave. Another is that political upheaval over the federal debt may lead to riots like those in Greece and London. Still another popular, if paranoid, belief that’s taken hold among gun-rights advocates: that Obama is waiting until he is reelected to separate Americans from their firearms, prompting worried gun owners to stock up in anticipation.

Even as the industry pumps money into the National Rifle Assn., which is intent upon defeating Obama, some gunmakers wonder if these fears—and the sales they generate—will dry up if a gun-friendly Republican like Perry wins the White House. Sturm Ruger CEO Michael O. Fifer alluded to this concern in a July sales call. “I think half of the people in the firearms industry, if asked, would hope [Obama] is not President, but then will secretly go out and vote for him again,” Fifer said. Talk like that won’t win Fifer any plaudits from the NRA. But it does capture the industry’s strange predicament: If gunmakers work too hard to defeat Obama, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.

The bottom line: Since Obama took office, Ruger’s stock has climbed more than 400 percent, outperforming gold.

Green is senior national correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek in Washington.


View the original article here