|
|
February 05 第三者有很多说法,比如这一两年开始流行的“小三”。但是“小三”也有好多种状态(心态),有一种只做“小三”的人,无意扶正,让三者之间保持一种和谐状态,此状态为“三不管”;还有一种小三经过艰苦卓绝的努力,终于我花开后百花杀,加冕登基,应该叫“三进山城”(钱钟书先生“围城”之意);还一种“小三”地位确立后,心态也随之发生变化,想篡党夺权,他日加冕登基。但鉴于障碍重重或夹在其中的人左右为难,一时无法让小三扶正,此种状态的“小三”可称之为“等离子”(等待人家离婚的男子或女子)。
February 03 好的金融交易员是天生的原文:by Linda Geddes 想成为金融交易员,先看看你的无名指是否够长吧? 去年,剑桥大学John Coates等的研究表明,那些胎儿时期在母体的子宫中受到更多的睾酮(男性荷尔蒙的一种)刺激的交易员能够制造更多的财富,并且职业生涯也更长久。而无名指相对于其它手指的长度比被看作是产前睾酮多少的一个标志。无名指长度比大,说明产前睾酮多,这意味着交易员将更易获得成功。 此外,无名指长度比还有可能表明其它方面特长,比如数学。但Coates担心有可能无名指长度比成为雇用人才的条件。 January 16 Expect to get dirty when a name is mud作者:英国《金融时报》专栏作家露西•凯拉韦(Lucy Kellaway) In England at around the time of Edward the Confessor people started to call themselves after the sort of work they did. If you made bread you were Mr Baker; if you made things from wood you took the name Mr Carpenter; if you made barrels you were called Mr Cooper. I was reminded of this fine tradition last week by the story of Bernie Madoff (pronounced Made-off). If one's occupation involves making off with $50bn of investors' money, then it is quite proper that one's name should reflect that. Mr Madoff is not alone among disgraced businessmen in having a name that gives the game away. Take the case of Anurag Dikshit, co-founder of PartyGaming, who last week agreed to plead guilty to an internet betting charge. Think too of the Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat. His name suggests that blagging is something that came naturally to him. Could there be a trend here? Last week I spent a day researching financiers and business people that had got into trouble and decided there definitely could. According to my findings, what unites them is not a troubled childhood, alcohol abuse or a narcissistic personality disorder but having a name that hints at trouble. Writers of fiction understand this well. Charles Dickens appreciated the importance of people living up to their names, and so called his goodies Little Nell or Florence or Amy, while he gave his baddies names such as Ebenezer Scrooge and Uriah Heep. Even less subtly in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz L. Frank Baum calls his villains The Wicked Witch of the West and The Wicked Witch of the East. Real life turns out to be closer to Wizard of Oz than A Christmas Carol in the prosaic way it links dark deeds and dark names. Consider Conrad Black, who is now serving out a prison sentence in Florida. It is no coincidence that it wasn't Conrad White or Conrad Scarlett who defrauded Hollinger shareholders out of millions of dollars. At Enron the names should also have been a clue to hapless investors and staff that something was amiss. There was Kenneth Lay, whose moniker should have warned any innocents that climbing into bed with him was going to be a mistake. And then there was Andrew Fastow, who pulled a fast-o with his off-balance sheet deals and is now behind bars. And Jeffrey Skilling – whose name was surely a double bluff. Skill was something he had plenty of, he just happened not to put it to terribly good use. In the more distant past there was Michael Milken who, as Junk Bond King, milked 'em for all they were worth. And Asil Nadir, now a fugitive from justice in Cyprus, whose fraudulent antics at Polly Peck represented a nadir for shareholders, the Serious Fraud Office, a government minister who resigned and the entire British political establishment. Some business crooks signalled their badness more through their first names than their surnames: Dennis Kozlowski, greedy bully at Tyco who blew $15,000 of shareholders' money on an umbrella stand and $8,000 on a shower curtain, shared a first name with the British cartoon character Dennis the Menace who used to go around bashing up softies until his dad attacked him with a slipper. Aha, you may be thinking, this is all very well, but what about Robert Maxwell? He was utterly crooked, but his name was utterly straight. At first sight, my theory does appear to collapse with the crooked Czech. However, Robert Maxwell was not born Robert Maxwell; his real name was Jan Ludvig Hoch – which is an entirely appropriate name for one who became so deeply in hock not only to his bankers but to thousands of luckless Maxwell pensioners. Though this link between name and misdemeanour is irrefutable, it does not tell us which way the causality runs. Is it that babies with wicked genes are somehow a magnet for wicked names? Or is that sweet children, born innocent, are somehow turned bad by the names they are given? If you have to tell people over and again that your name is Made-Off, or Dikshit, maybe you start getting ideas and behaving accordingly. Either way, my research has important implications for all investors and fine upstanding citizens. If, say, a nice looking Dutch financier should ever come along promising you that his fund will reliably pay out 15 per cent, look first at his name. If, let us say, it is Hans In Der Til, then just say no. ....................... This year I have only received one corporate Christmas card, and as I had never heard of the company it was from nor the 12 different people who signed it, it didn't lift my spirits much. I've also received fewer e-cards than last year, which is no great loss either – as they cost no effort to send, they give no joy to receive. However, one e-card has given me a great deal of pleasure and I would like you to enjoy it too. It is from the Frankfurt school of Finance and Management and is a video of the faculty and support staff swaying as they sing tunelessly “We Wish You a Merry Christmas” in broken English. I could not recommend it more highly: www.frankfurt-school.de/content/de/xmas. In the meantime, I would like to wish you a merry Christmas too, only my wishes come unsung, non-electronic and on pink paper. January 14 On a warm summers evenin on a train bound for nowhere, I met up with the gambler; we were both too tired to sleep. So we took turns a starin out the window at the darkness til boredom overtook us, and he began to speak.
He said, son, Ive made a life out of readin peoples faces, And knowin what their cards were by the way they held their eyes. So if you dont mind my sayin, I can see youre out of aces. For a taste of your whiskey Ill give you some advice.
So I handed him my bottle and he drank down my last swallow. Then he bummed a cigarette and asked me for a light. And the night got deathly quiet, and his face lost all expression. Said, if youre gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right.
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run. You never count your money when youre sittin at the table. Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.
Now evry gambler knows that the secret to survivin Is knowin what to throw away and knowing what to keep. cause evry hands a winner and evry hands a loser, And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.
So when hed finished speakin, he turned back towards the window, Crushed out his cigarette and faded off to sleep. And somewhere in the darkness the gambler, he broke even. But in his final words I found an ace that I could keep.
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run. You never count your money when youre sittin at the table. Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, Know when to walk away and know when to run. You never count you r money when youre sittin at the table. Therell be time enough for countin when the dealins done.
http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo
January 09 2008 was the year when the United States led the
charge of bailout nations, lending and literally guaranteeing trillions of
dollars of private liabilities in an effort to avoid the advent of another
Great Depression. Nothing, with the possible exception of George Bush’s IQ was
the subject of greater debate. To begin with, the rescue plan itself was
controversial even amongst its implementers: Congress voted against it, then a
week later voted for it; Treasury Secretary Paulson designated it “TARP” (short
for “Troubled Asset Relief Program”), then a month later did a 180°, refusing
to buy subprime mortgages and asserting his right to change his mind because
the facts themselves had changed. But the broader question reached beyond
politics and into the realm of the dismal science itself. Was it necessary and
productive to mutate 21st century
American-style capitalism into a thinly disguised knock-off of the New Deal?
Better, some thought, to have followed the
advice of early 1930s Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon: “Liquidate labor,
liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers – purge the rottenness from the
system.” The Mellons of the world argued that bailouts were akin to pouring
gasoline on a fire, adding trillions of dollars of new debt to a domestic and
global economy that had broken down because of, because of, well, because of –
too much debt.
Wall Street, the Fed, and Newport Beach took the other side. Those steeped in
economic history felt that the Great Depression and more recently the “lost
decade” in Japan had both experienced a “liquidity trap,” a monetary black hole
where lenders, savers, and ultimately consumers were frightened into stuffing
their money into a mattress rather than circulating it in classic capitalistic
fashion. Sensing a freezing of credit markets following the default of Lehman
Brothers, policymakers decided it was better to become a bailout nation than a
sunken ship.
The debate, of course, can never be resolved.
You can’t prove a negative nor recreate history to show what might have been.
What we do know, however, is that even with U.S. and indeed global bailouts,
almost every major economy entered recessionary territory in 2008 and that the
“D” word, while unmentionable in official policy circles, was nevertheless on
the tip of their tongues and at the forefront of their contingency plans. As we
closed the year, “quantitative easing” was the publically acknowledged future
policy of the Federal Reserve, which in short meant “buy assets, support Wall
Street, and in the process, hope that some of it might trickle down to labor
and the farmers.” Ben Bernanke is no Andrew Mellon. There may be rottenness in
the system, but our Chairman surely doesn’t believe in starving a cold, or
pneumonia for that matter. The Fed’s willing accomplice was the United States
Treasury and the FDIC, extending not only $350 billion of TARP money but
literally guaranteeing three quarters of the liabilities of U.S. banks. For
those who fear nationalization of our financial system, the destination seemed
just over the horizon.
Still, while such a transformation is, to put it
mildly, undesirable, the policies are necessary. As outlined in these pages,
the U.S. and many of its G-7 counterparts over the past 25 years have become
more and more dependent on asset appreciation. Under the policy-endorsed cover
of technology and somewhat faux increases in financial productivity, we became
a nation that specialized in the making of paper instead of things, and it fell
to Wall Street to invent ever more clever ways to securitize assets, and the
job of Main Street to “equitize” or, in reality, to borrow more and more money
off of them. What was not well recognized was that these policies were
hollowing, self-destructive, and ultimately destined to be exposed for what
they always were: Ponzi schemes, whose ultimate payoffs were dependent on the
inclusion of more and more players and the production of more and more paper.
Bernie Madoff?
As with every financial and economic crisis, he will probably go down as this
generation’s fall guy – the Samuel Insull, the Jeffrey Skilling, of 2008.
But Madoff’s scheme has a host of culpable
look-alikes and one has only to begin with the mortgage market to understand
the similarities. Option ARMs or Pick-A-Pay home loans allowed homeowners to make
monthly payments that were so small they did not even cover their interest
charges. Two million mortgagees either chose or were sold this Ponzi/Madoff
form of skullduggery, believing that home prices never go down and that
shoppers never drop. One can add to this the trillions in home equity/second
mortgage loans that extracted “savings” in order to promote current instead of future consumption, and one begins to realize
that Bernie Madoff and our cartoon’s Wimpy had company all these years.
What about the shabby performance of the rating
agencies? Were they not equally at fault for perpetrating a giant charade that
was bound to end in tears? Of course: Aaa subprimes structured like a house of
straw; Aaa monoline insurers built like a house of sticks; Aaa credits like
AIG, FNMA, and FHLMC where only a huff and a puff could expose them for what
they were – levered structures dependent upon asset price appreciation for
their survival. Ponzi finance.
I will go on. Municipalities with begging bowls
now extended for over a trillion of Federal taxpayer dollars, based their
budgets and their own handouts on the perpetual rise in home prices, the
inevitable upward slope of sales taxes, and the never-ending increase in
employment and personal income taxes. To add injury to insult, they
conveniently “balanced” their books with a host of accounting tricks that
Bernie Madoff could never have come up with in his wildest imagination. Now,
with cash flow insufficient to meet current outflows, they are proving my point
that we have met Mr. Ponzi and he is us – all of us: auto companies that
siphoned sales dollars to make labor peace instead of research and design
expenditures; hedge funds that preposterously billed investors for 2% and 20%
of nothing; a President and politicians who thought they could fight a phony
war for free and distract the nation’s attention from $40 trillion of future
social security and health care liabilities. Ponzi, Ponzi, Ponzi.
Still, future policymakers must confront the
reality that is, not the one that should have been. And investors must do
likewise, casting aside personal philosophies for a clear-headed view of the
future horizon. PIMCO’s view is simple: shake
hands with the government; make
them your partner by acknowledging that their checkbook represents the largest
and most potent source of buying power in 2009 and beyond. Anticipate, then buy
what they buy, only do it first: agency-backed mortgages, bank preferred
stocks, and senior bank debt; Aaa asset-backed securities such as credit card,
student loan, and auto receivables. These have been well-advertised PIMCO
strategies over the past 6 months but there are others in clear sight. An Obama
administration will quickly be confronted by the need to provide those hundreds
of billions of dollars to states and large municipalities. Their requests total
nearly a trillion dollars and to think California or NYC would be allowed to
fail is, well – unthinkable. Municipal bonds then, selling at historically high
ratios relative to U.S. Treasuries, offer attractive price appreciation
potential, or at the very least a defensiveness with high carry that a 2½%
10-year Treasury cannot.
Here’s another thought. While TIPS or
inflation-protected securities cannot logically be a recipient of Uncle Sam’s
checkbook over the next 12 months, they can benefit if and when the
government’s efforts to reflate begin to take hold. 2½% real yields cannot
possibly be maintained unless deflation as opposed to inflation becomes the
odds-on favorite. What bond investors know as “breakeven inflation rates” are
currently signaling a future where the U.S. CPI averages -1% for the next 10
years. Possible, but not likely. As an additional strategy, global bond
investors should recognize the value in high-quality investment-grade corporate
bonds in many markets. Yields of 6%+ for intermediate maturities are still
common and readily available.
There is legitimate concern as to the ultimate
destination and outcome of our “bailout nation.” Realistically, quantitative
easing, a two-trillion-dollar expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet, and the
near certainty of future budget deficits approaching 6-7% of GDP should alert
bond investors to once again become vigilant as was the case in the 1980s and
90s. Vigilantes we should be, but that is a battle to be fought
in the Treasury market where low yields offer little reward and increasing
risk. For now, our Ponzi-style economy and its policy remedies encourage bond
investors to mimic Uncle Sam and its global compatriots. Buy what they buy, but
get there first. Andrew Mellon would surely have disapproved. Liquidation was
his game. Wimpy? Well, he’s gonna have to start paying for those burgers on
Monday, even in a bailout nation.
January 07 情怨
每一次无眠,你都浮现. 你驾你的小船,云里雾间.
每一次危难,你都相援. 你无私的体贴,暖我心田.
多少年情不断, 多么想抱你怀间.
过眼的红颜风吹云散, 唯有你的双眼映我心间. 相爱人最怕有情无缘, 常相思却不能常相依恋.
放眼环天水蓝 你就在天水之间. 这绵绵情怨竟又重现. January 06 Dow 4,000. Food shortages. A bubble in Treasury notes. Fortune spoke to eight of the market's sharpest thinkers and what they had to say about the future is frightening. http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/fortune/0812/gallery.market_gurus.fortune/index.html 1. Nouriel Roubini 
Known as Dr. Doom, the NYU economics professor saw the mortgage-related meltdown coming.
We are in the middle of a very severe recession that's going to continue through all of 2009 - the worst U.S. recession in the past 50 years. It's the bursting of a huge leveraged-up credit bubble. There's no going back, and there is no bottom to it. It was excessive in everything from subprime to prime, from credit cards to student loans, from corporate bonds to muni bonds. You name it. And it's all reversing right now in a very, very massive way. At this point it's not just a U.S. recession. All of the advanced economies are at the beginning of a hard landing. And emerging markets, beginning with China, are in a severe slowdown. So we're having a global recession and it's becoming worse.
Things are going to be awful for everyday people. U.S. GDP growth is going to be negative through the end of 2009. And the recovery in 2010 and 2011, if there is one, is going to be so weak - with a growth rate of 1% to 1.5% - that it's going to feel like a recession. I see the unemployment rate peaking at around 9% by 2010. The value of homes has already fallen 25%. In my view, home prices are going to fall by another 15% before bottoming out in 2010.
For the next 12 months I would stay away from risky assets. I would stay away from the stock market. I would stay away from commodities. I would stay away from credit, both high-yield and high-grade. I would stay in cash or cashlike instruments such as short-term or longer-term government bonds. It's better to stay in things with low returns rather than to lose 50% of your wealth. You should preserve capital. It'll be hard and challenging enough. I wish I could be more cheerful, but I was right a year ago, and I think I'll be right this year too. By Beth Kowitt, Jon Birger and Brian O'Keefe 2.Bill Gross 
The founder of bond giant Pimco warned of a subprime contagion back in July 2007.
While 2008 will probably be best known as the year that global stock markets had their values cut in half, it was really much, much more. It was a year in which every major asset class - stocks, real estate, commodities, even high-yield bonds - suffered significant double-digit percentage losses, resulting in the destruction of over $30 trillion of paper wealth. To blame this on subprime mortgages alone would be to dismiss an era of leveraging that encompassed derivative structures of all types, embodying a belief that economic growth was always and everywhere a certainty and that asset prices never go down. As 2008 nears its conclusion, we as an investor nation have been forced to face a new reality. Wall Street and Main Street are fearful that a recession may be replaced by a near depression.
The outcome essentially depends on the ability of the Obama administration to rejuvenate capitalism's "animal spirits" by substituting the benevolent fist of government for the now invisible hand of Adam Smith. Federal spending and guarantees in the trillions of dollars will be required to fill the gap created by the deleveraging of private balance sheets. In turn, lenders and investors alike must begin to assume risk as opposed to stuffing money in modern-day investment mattresses. The process will take time. Twelve months of the Obama Nation will not be sufficient to heal the damage of a half-century's excessive leverage. The downsizing of private risk positions - replaced by government credit - will also result in reduced profit margins and a slower rate of earnings growth after the bottom is reached.
Investors need to recognize these titanic shifts in market and public policies and be content with single-digit returns in future years. Perhaps the most lucrative pockets of value are in high-quality corporate bonds and preferred stocks of banks and financial institutions that have partnered with the government in programs such as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). While their profitability may be restricted, their ability to pay interest and preferred dividends should be unhampered. Above all, stick to high-quality companies and asset classes. The road to recovery will be treacherous. 3.Robert Shiller 
The Yale professor and co-founder of MacroMarkets called both the dot-com and housing bubbles.
We don't currently have anywhere near the level of unemployment that we had in the 1930s, but otherwise there are many similarities between today's environment and the Great Depression, with things happening today that we haven't seen since then. First of all, there's the magnitude of the stock market's move up and down. The real (inflation-corrected) value of the S&P 500 nearly tripled from 1995 to 2000, and by November 2008 was down nearly 60% from its 2000 peak. The only other comparable event was the one in the 1920s where real stock prices more than tripled from 1924 to 1929 and then fell 80% from 1929 to 1932. Second, we've had the biggest housing bust since the Depression. Third, we've seen 0% interest rates. We've actually seen briefly negative short-term interest rates. That hasn't happened since 1941. There was a period from 1938 to 1941 when we were bouncing around at zero and sometimes negative, but that hasn't happened since.
And the list goes on: Our numbers don't go back as far as the Depression, but consumer confidence is plausibly at the lowest level since then. Volatility of the stock market in terms of percentage changes day-to-day is the highest since the Depression. In October 2008 we saw the biggest drop in consumer prices in one month since April 1938. Another thing is that it's a worldwide event, as it was in the Depression.
I'm optimistic that we'll do better this time, but I'm worried that we're vulnerable. One of the lessons from the Depression is that things can smolder for a long time. What I'm worried about right now is that our confidence has been hurt, and that's difficult to restore. No matter what we do, we're trying to deal with a psychological phenomenon. So the Fed can cut interest rates and purchase asset-backed securities, but that only works in really restoring full prosperity if people believe that we're back again. That's a little hard to manage.
In terms of the stock market, the price/earnings ratio is no longer high. I use a P/E ratio in which the price is divided by ten-year average earnings. It's a really conservative way of looking at it. That P/E ratio got up to 44 in the year 2000, which was a record high. Recently it was down to less than 13, which is below the average of around 15. But after the stock market crash of 1929, the price/earnings ratio got down to about six, which is less than half of where it is now. So that's the worry. Some people who are so inclined might go more into the market here because there's a real chance it will go up a lot. But that's very risky. It could easily fall by half again. 4.Sheila Bair 
The FDIC chairman has been pushing to get mortgage relief for borrowers.
My 87-year-old mother is a native Kansan who grew up in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. She is a classic "buy and hold" investor who would make Warren Buffett proud. Her investment returns always exceeded those of my father, to his eternal consternation. He actively traded his stocks and produced decent returns, but nothing like those my mother achieved by simply buying stocks of companies she understood and liked, and then holding onto them.
So I have become a strong advocate of the "basics" when it comes to investing: Do your homework, invest in securities you understand, and then hold on. As a government policymaker, I advocate informed investment decisions - not only to protect investors from losses but also because the efficient functioning of our capital markets relies on investors' doing their homework.
The private-label mortgage-backed securitization markets are a prime example. Trillions of dollars of investor money funded millions of mortgages that borrowers had little chance of repaying. Investors relied heavily on ratings agencies, which in turn relied too heavily on mathematical models instead of analyzing the underlying loans. To be sure, borrowers, brokers, lenders, securitizers, as well as state and federal regulators, all bear responsibility for the widespread deterioration in lending standards. But the problem was compounded by the fact that those ultimately holding the risk - the investors - did not look behind their investments at the quality of the mortgages themselves. If they had, they would have seen high loan-to-value ratios, little income documentation, burdensome fees, and steep payment resets. They would have seen mortgages unaffordable from the beginning, originated based on the assumption that home prices would continue to rise and borrowers would refinance. Of course, we now know that as home prices began to depreciate, borrowers were unable to refinance, leading to massive foreclosures and further price declines. This self-reinforcing downward spiral is at the core of the economic problems we face today.
We will dig out of this. And when we do, I hope for a back-to-basics society - where banks and other lending institutions promote real growth and long-term value for the economy, and where American families have rediscovered the peace of mind of financial security achieved through saving and investing wisely. We need to return to the culture of thrift that my mother and her generation learned the hard way through years of hardship and deprivation. Those are lessons learned that the current crisis is teaching us again. 5.Jim Rogers 
The commodities guru predicted two years ago that the credit bubble would devastate Wall Street.
We are in a period of forced liquidation, which has happened only eight or nine times in the past 150 years. The fact that it's historic doesn't make it any more fun, of course. But it is a pretty interesting time when there is forced selling of everything with no regard for facts or fundamentals at all. Historically, the way you make money in times like these is that you find things where the fundamentals are unimpaired. The fundamentals of GM are impaired. The fundamentals of Citigroup are impaired.
Virtually the only asset class I know where the fundamentals are not impaired - in fact, where they are actually improving - is commodities. Farmers cannot get a loan to buy fertilizer right now. Nobody's going to get a loan to open a zinc or a lead mine. Meanwhile, every day the supply of commodities shrinks more and more. Nobody can invest in productive capacity, even if he wants to. You're going to see gigantic shortages developing over the next few years. The inventories of food worldwide are already at the lowest levels they've been in 50 years. This may turn into the Great Depression II. But if and when we come out of this, commodities are going to lead the way, just as they did in the 1970s when everything was a disaster and commodities went through the roof.
What I've been buying recently is agricultural commodities. I've also been buying more Chinese stocks. And I'm buying stocks in Taiwan for the first time in my life. It looks as if there's finally going to be peace in Taiwan after 60 years, and Taiwanese companies are going to benefit from the long-term growth of China.
I have covered most of my short positions in U.S. stocks, and I'm now selling long-term U.S. government bonds short. That's the last bubble I can find in the U.S. I cannot imagine why anybody would give money to the U.S. government for 30 years for less than a 4% yield. I certainly wouldn't. There are going to be gigantic amounts of bonds coming to the market, and inflation will be coming back.
In my view, U.S. stocks are still not attractive. Historically, you buy stocks when they're yielding 6% and selling at eight times earnings. You sell them when they're at 22 times earnings and yielding 2%. Right now U.S. stocks are down a lot, but they're still very expensive by that historical valuation method. The U.S. market is yielding 3% today. For stocks to go to a 6% yield without big dividend increases, the Dow will need to go below 4000. I'm not saying it will fall that far, but it could very well happen. And if it gets that low and I'm still solvent, I hope I'm smart enough to buy a lot. The key in times like these is to stay solvent so you can load up when opportunity comes. 6. John Train 
The author and chairman of Montrose Advisors has 50 years of Wall Street experience.
I presume that although we are in a severe recession it will not decompose into a full-scale depression, because that is what everyone is afraid of and desperate to avoid. Wall Street likes to say that the market has anticipated five of the last three recessions - the point being that a market crash frightens the authorities into taking necessary action.
Keynes observed that pragmatic businessmen often could not imagine that they were the slaves of defunct economists, but ironically, never is this more true than today of Keynes himself. So we run a huge deficit to postpone the worst. That means inflation, so bonds are unsatisfactory.
Investment opportunity is the difference between the reality and the perception. And since many equities are priced as though a depression might be on the way, many of them are attractively priced. One approach I am comfortable with is owning shares in wonderful businesses that do well in all circumstances - Johnson & Johnson and the like. They rarely fly out of the park, but provide long, steady gains that will get you where you want to go. They often have huge cash hoards, e.g., Cisco, Apple, Microsoft, and Berkshire Hathaway, whose war chests exceed $20 billion. Or Hewlett-Packard, Google, Intel, or IBM, all in the $10 billion league. Such companies can take advantage of a weak market just as private investors would, with the difference that they know very well how much to pay for what fits their product line.
In the present environment I favor companies that can prosper in the lean years ahead. So, not Saks, but Wal-Mart; not Neiman Marcus, but Dollar General. Or specialists, such as Fastenal, Monsanto, or Schlumberger.
And when should you buy? In or near what I call the Time of Deepest Gloom, if you can spot it. 7. Meredith Whitney 
The Oppenheimer & Co. analyst was among the first to warn that the big banks had big problems.
What the federal government has done so far- with TARP, bailing out Citigroup, etc. - has stemmed the bleeding, but what it hasn't done is fundamentally alter the landscape. Yes, there's been a tremendous amount of capital thrown into the system, but my concern is that it's just going to plug the holes. It's not going to create new liquidity, which is what the system so desperately needs.
When the government announces these plans, investors get excited and hopeful. But details have been slim, and while I appreciate the government saying, "We've been wrong here. Let's try something different," the strategy changes have not solved anything. So far we've had TARP 1.0, TARP 2.0, and TARP 3.0, and I'm certain there will be a 4.0, a 5.0, and a 6.0. There has to be, because the companies cannot raise the capital they need, which means that the default provider of capital has to be the federal government.
What happens in 2009? Frankly, it's hard for me to predict what's going to happen next week, never mind next year. What I will say is that I expect all these banks to be back in the market looking for more capital. We'll also have a wholesale restructuring of our banking system, probably toward the end of 2009. There will be banks getting smaller, banks going away, and banks consolidating. At the same time, though, I think you'll see more new banks created. We've already seen more applications. And it's a great idea: You start with a clean balance sheet and make loans today with today's information. Plus, right now you've got a yield curve that's good for lending.
I think the overall economy will be worse than people expect. The biggest issue will be consumer spending. If 2008 was characterized by the market impacting the economy, then 2009 will be about the economy impacting the market. It's already started. 8.Wilbur Ross 
The billionaire chairman of W.L. Ross & Co. specializes in turning around troubled companies.
We are clearly in a serious recession, and more aggressive action is needed to turn things around. The federal government initially underestimated the scale of the mortgage and housing crises and later panicked into an ever-changing series of ad hoc measures that at best dealt with some of the effects of the original crises. But homeowners have now lost $5 trillion, and 12 million families have mortgages in excess of the value of their homes. Therefore the economy will not stabilize until mortgages are adjusted down to the value of homes, with affordable payment schedules, and until new mortgages become available across the home-price spectrum. Till then, the poverty effect of falling house prices and unemployment moving up toward 7% will hold consumer spending back from its former 70% contribution to our economy.
I'm optimistic about the choices that President-elect Obama has made for his economic team, and I've got some suggestions for what they should do. Hopefully the new Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will incentivize lenders to restructure mortgages by guaranteeing half of the reduced principal amount and sharing among the government, homeowners, and lenders any subsequent appreciation. Lenders would gain liquidity by selling the Treasury-guaranteed portion of the loan, and government would receive annual insurance premiums to further protect it against loss. That would cost taxpayers nothing now and probably little or nothing in the future.
Addressing unemployment is paramount. Detroit needs government support in order to implement independently verified concessions from all stakeholders - not just labor - which are sufficiently large to permit profitable operations even if auto sales remain as low as 11 million cars per year. A pre-negotiated bankruptcy may be necessary in order to implement the restructuring, but both the industry and the economy are too fragile to withstand the domino effect that a free-fall bankruptcy would have on a car company, its dealers, and its suppliers.
In addition, to avoid reversal of the 242,000 jobs created by state and local governments in the past 12 months, Washington should provide or guarantee funding for sorely needed infrastructure projects that would create immediate construction jobs and meaningful amounts of permanent jobs.
If President Obama promptly and decisively resolves these problems, whether or not he adopts my recommendations, and restores public confidence, he can end the recession by early 2010. If not, the economy will languish for a long time. Given the economic uncertainty, investors who are too worried to buy equities might consider tax-exempt bonds with yields around 6%, equivalent to almost 10% before federal, state, and local taxes. Investors who want to hedge the risk that federal deficits might lead to longer-term inflation and drive up interest rates, causing these bonds to decline, might buy some TIPS, or Treasury inflation-protected securities, as well. TIPS are U.S. Treasury bonds whose principal amount varies with consumer price indexes to provide holders with a rate of return in constant dollars. TIPS prices currently imply near-term deflation, and that means that they would appreciate in value if inflation comes back.
At my firm, we've been starting to invest in some distressed financial companies. That seems as if it will work out reasonably well, because they're very, very cheap. The financial services sector is kind of where the problems started, and it's probably going to need to be fixed in order for the problems to be resolved. We see opportunities there.
|
|
|
|