Sunday, April 27, 2008

How often do you replace pillows?



Our bedpillows hadn't been washed in some time, so I cleaned them on Friday. After taking them out of the dryer, I was amazed to see what awful shape they were in. The shells were clean and pretty, but the filling was all wadded up and sideways (and I'd even dried them with tennis balls, like everyone recommends). A lot of punching and jumping on them has made them look a lot prettier but they're far from new, and when I fold them in half they don't spring back to their original shape. So should they be tossed or not? I'm sure a pillow salesman would tell me to replace them every two years or something, but what is the lifespan of a pillow?
I'm probably going to replace them in the summer, after they've gotten four years of use. Seems like a reasonable timeframe.

Friday, April 25, 2008

We're Back--It's Time To Think



Ok, back at it. House is going ok, son getting married, daughter loves her job, son going off to be an air liaison officer with the army (not real thrilled with that but he does what he wants) so grabbed a few minutes and back on the air.



First thought--to succeed you got to think in this world. Most people don't. A French, yes French, philosopher said "Those who feel, think life is a tragedy. Those who think, feel that life is a comedy." Or something like that. To be successful you have to think and think hard. One guy that does is Forbes columnist Ken Fisher. If you can't afford Forbes you can find him and his staff at MarketMinder.com.



Here is one column that requires you to think, not feel. I'm probably breaking some copyright law but, hey--





Veto Power



10/4/2007





Story Notes:




  • The third year of a US president’s term is usually very positive for stocks


  • So far, 2007 has been a classic presidential third year with no major legislation passing into law


  • With the 2008 election race revving up, congress is likely to accomplish even less in the next sixteen months


The third year of a US president’s term is simply stellar for stocks historically. Doesn’t matter who the president is, or what his agenda was—it’s great for just about all of ‘em. A president’s third year has historically been good for stocks because his party has typically lost seats in the midterm elections, leaving the country closer to legislative lock-up. A Congress split down the middle (or close to it) specializes in posturing and pontificating. But that’s about it. Stocks love when there’s little to note legislatively, preferring the status quo to government intervention in free enterprise.



MarketMinder has highlighted this theme over the last twelve months. See these past commentaries for more:




  • A Presidential Popularity Contest, 7/25/2007


  • A Political Punch, 5/31/2007


  • Hot Fuzz, 5/17/2007




MarketMinder is agnostic to political affiliation. Donkeys or elephants, it makes little difference to us. Why? In the Beltway everyone’s a politician first and foremost. This means politicians on both sides of the aisle are out to preserve and consolidate power and get reelected. That’s always job one. Seeing politics in this way allows investors to view the landscape in a clear, unbiased way and make accurate decisions about the potential market and economic consequences of new legislation.




Thus far, this presidential third year has been archetypal. Politicians were front and center across media outlets—ubiquitously promising to take action on issues like trade with China, new taxes on private equity firms, healthcare reforms, and so on. But for all the talk, they’ve got nothing to show for it! A promise broken is the modus operandi of politicos, and we think that’s a great thing.




The Democrats are too busy drafting resolutions denouncing a radio entertainer for practicing his right to free speech to pay much attention to other issues. And let’s not forget the GOP, recently spending valuable time in Congressional session spearheading a resolution condemning a newspaper ad. Strong work guys!




The only material legislation that’s passed through both Congressional chambers recently is a $35 billion increase in healthcare coverage (for folks mostly already covered by more efficient and better private insurance). 35 billion bucks is small change for a $13 trillion US economy, so it was nothing to get excited about in the first place. But the bill was DOA—Bush vetoed it as soon as it hit his desk.




With 2007 heading toward closure and the 2008 election machine revving up, the likelihood of any big new legislation in the next 16 months is extremely unlikely. The president’s third year is the sweetest, but the fourth is historically almost as good. That’s just another positive feature to today’s stupendously benign equity environment.




Let the politicians keep expending their hot air on advertising censures and inane grandstanding—stocks will appreciate it.


Think about it. Bill



Wednesday, April 23, 2008

It's over! For most of us, anyway



Here in the Central Time Zone, as well as for fliers east of us, Tax Day has come and gone.



Calendar_page_turningBut if you're like me and asked for an extension (see my reason for postponing here), our new deadline is Oct. 15.



To help us keep track, I've replaced the April 15 countdown clock with one monitoring the October deadline over there in the right column. Just so you know, we now have 182 days to fill out our 1040s.



Of course, we don't have to while away all of those extra days. As soon as we get our forms finalized, we can send them to the IRS. Given that we won't get any rebate money until we do that, I suspect the number of folks waiting until the last October minute will be quite small this year.



And to you folks out west where it's still April 16, good luck wrapping up your return by the original deadline.



Monday, April 21, 2008

Election effects on investments



You might have made up your mind about which presidential candidate you'll vote for this fall, but have you decided yet what to do about your investments in light of the coming election?



Every time we pick a president, lots of attention is paid to what the financial markets might do depending on which party moves into the White House.



Well, quit worrying. Historical data shows us that the bond between election results and the stock market's performance is, at best, a minor connection.



I got to thinking about this issue after receiving an investment newsletter (along with a statement showing that particular holding had taken a hit, dang it!) that featured a story entitled "The Election Connection." The article says:



Over the long haul, it may not matter which political party is governing the county. Long-term growth in the financial markets will always be determined by the ability of individual companies to increase earnings and the strength of our industries on the global stage. Economic policy is a responsive tool. That is, the President, Congress and the Federal Reserve (the Fed) all react to larger trends and events with the collective goal of avoiding recession and keeping the economy from getting too far off track.



Of course, this publication from CitiStreet was written well in advance of its mailing and is naturally very general in nature. Most importantly, one of its key goals is to keep recipients like me, who got bad news on a particular asset, from dumping our holdings that CitiStreet manages.



But, just as food for thought, the article threw in some interesting tidbits. Based on records from 1926 through 2000:



Democrat_donkey_icon_small
When Democrats were in office, stock returns were higher.



When Republicans were in office, bond returns were higher.



Republican_elephant_icon_small_2
When there was political gridlock, i.e., different parties controlled Congress and the White House, large cap stocks performed the same regardless, but small cap stocks performed much better without gridlock.







The article also cited an older study (released in 2004), but one also based on data accumulated through 2001, by the CFA Institute and the Northern Illinois University College of Business. The key finding of that report:



Contrary to previous research conclusions and "conventional wisdom," … the political party of the president does not, in fact, seem to significantly influence stock-market performance. Rather, Federal Reserve monetary policy -- whether expansive or restrictive -- is the dominant factor. Stocks and corporate bonds alike perform dramatically better in periods of expansive monetary policy (when interest rates are falling) than in periods of restrictive monetary policy (when interest rates are rising), suggesting that investors should focus their attention on Fed actions, rather than political outcomes.



You can read the complete CFA/NIU study, entitled "Don’t Worry About the Election, Just Watch the Fed," here.



Other studies, similar findings: I then went searching for more recent takes on politics and our money and found a couple of other analyses.



Barden Winstead, columnist for the Rocky Mountain Telegram, wrote back in February that the stock market shows no pattern in post-election years. "The post-election year from December to December has seen the market advance 17 times and decline 16 times," noted Winstead. "The market has not played favorites with political parties."



Stock_traders_almanac2008 Winstead cited Yale Hirsch's Stock Trader's Almanac, which uses data covering elections from 1864 to 2000. Again, the analysis cutoff date is similar to the CFA report; I guess number crunchers haven't finished sifting through info since the beginning of the decade.





And here's another piece, this one from Fidelity entitled, 2008 Elections: How Will the Stock Market Vote? , and written by chartered financial analyst Dirk Hofschire.



Hofschire says that party affiliation aside, presidential election years tend to bode well for shareholders:



Presidential election calendar years -- such as 2008 -- have historically experienced solid stock returns. Since 1948, the United States has conducted 15 presidential elections, and the stock market gained an average 13.1% during those years containing elections (see Exhibit 1, below). Conversely, the first calendar year after the election (such as 2009) has historically been the worst year of the four-year presidential administrations, averaging only 7.4%.





Fidelity_stocks_and_elections_graph



In for the long haul: In all of these articles, the consensus is to hang in there. I know it's tough. I hate seeing my holdings dip any time. But I also know that the assets the hubby and I have are designed for long-term results and in that regard they are for the most part doing OK.



In fact, the dividends and capital gain distributions they produced, particularly at the end of 2007, did a little too well when it came to accounting for their tax costs. But as one financial adviser once told me, I dream of the day my portfolio does so well that I have to pay $1 million in taxes on it.



And we never should totally ignore what all politicians, at every governmental level, have to say about fiscal and tax policy. The ballot results might not immediately affect our financial well-being, but as the CitiStreet piece noted, all politicians react to larger economic trends and events. And those reactions do eventually have some impact.



So in making your final choice, pay attention to what all the candidates have to say about tax revenue and their plans for how the government will spend it. I've previously posted on ways to check out candidates' tax and fiscal stances (here and here). Make sure you do so before November.



Saturday, April 19, 2008

Little-Known Special K-Tron Blows Away on Revenues, Earnings and Approaches All Time High



K-Tron International (KTII) once again blew away earnings yesterday, reporting a 40% increase in net earnings. It's revenues were $59 million from from $44 in the year ago period. Profits were $6.3 million compared to $4.5 million last year. Results were also helped by international sales benefiting from the ever-weakening dollar.


K-Tron is a virtual recession-proof stock, as it supplies recession resistant industries, including food, consumer products and pharmaceuticals. The stock has been a lone standout in an otherwise abysmal market of late. Reference the attached chart highlighting the stock's rise of 25% vs. a decline in the S&P500 of 10% over the past 6 months.


Reference a post here for more details on the company's background and buy recommendation.

Disclosure: Long KTII


Thursday, April 17, 2008

Tuesday News Round Up



I really have no good personal finance news to share on this drab, rainy spring day. It's kind of a cranky, "crap, I didn't know it was that bad," sort of a day. Did you see any positive stories today? If so, let me know. 'Cause all I saw today was this:

A British paper is claiming the U.S. is in "the Great Depression of 2008" and cites some alarming statistics about the use of food stamps as support. Read it here. OK, it's just one article, but these types of stories are becoming very prevalent.

The Wall Street Journal points out that the credit crunch is now affecting our savings accounts! What! That's a blow to this savvy saver! It makes me feel like there are no good decisions to be made. I think my Emigrant Direct account is no longer keeping up with inflation. Grrr...

The New York Times says the average consumer is carrying $9,000 in credit card debt from month to month. (That can't be right, can it?)

And Fortune is freaking out about the proposed new finance regulations and the mess on Wall Street. (Don't worry if it's over your head, nothing's likely to happen very soon.)

We're so grumpy-pants we're even hating on SATC today.

Will Summer please get here soon so we can return to sunshine and happiness?

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Yay!



TIAA-CREF found my thousand dollars. All is well again.

I'm more heavily thinking about sinking most of my salary into the retirement plan.. I am going to pay SO MUCH in taxes this year that I am trying to stick as much of it into tax-sheltered accounts as possible. (Still filling the Roth though, since I can't retroactively fill it five years from now when I am in a lower tax bracket.)

Life is just chugging along. I am really incredibly busy with CashDuck.. and of course I am not making it any easier for myself by advertising so much and getting lots of new users, and working on new site doodads. :)

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Cramer’s TheStreet.com Sneaky?



I start by giving a hat tip to Don Harrold from DonHarrold.net for providing the in-depth research and video highlighting the Cramer BS! And that’s what it is, BullSh*t!


The second hat tip goes to Adam from Daily Options Report who uploaded the YouTube video to his site, where I first viewed it.





Watch the video and understand what TheStreet.com is doing here. I mean, all credibility goes out the door if this is true and the image is not altered.


How many other lousy, losing stock picks does TheStreet.com erase from their website without anyone noticing? Do they really go back and toss out poor stock picks without telling the public? They should lose ALL journalistic credibility and ALL equity research credibility (if they had any to begin with).


I am glad people like Don Harrold keep an eye on the big guys because so many sheep do watch these shows and trade based off of what they say.


The second beef I have is the fact that Jim Cramer claims he was talking about Bear Stearns, the bank, and not the stock (BSC). Maybe he was because he does refer to the “liquidity” based on the caller’s question but I still have reservations.


I am wondering why a stock chart was uploaded on the screen if he was talking about Bear Stearns the bank and not the stock; they post these charts on the screen with every other stock analyzed.


Why too, did Jim forget to say the words “common stock” during the initial telecast? Let me guess: because he was talking about the stock just as he has been calling it a buy since last summer (the start of the big crash). The follow-up video of Cramer stresses the words “common stock” but he forgot to iterate this during the initial telecast. He has to be clearer considering he is speaking to an audience that takes his words at face value.


Anyway, I am wondering why the mainstream media or even competitors such as the Fox Business Network (or whatever it is called – I don’t watch these channels) isn’t calling out TheStreet.com and/ or Cramer.


I try not to be a Cramer basher but he’s such an easy target when he does stuff like this and his company does something so despicable. I leave the day-to-day nit-picking and bashing for others but I have to jump in and make it clear when something is very wrong (and involves a public company). I mean, I almost worked for TheStreet.com and Jim Cramer (I made it several rounds deep in the interviewing process to become a part of their equity research team). Fortunately for me, they went with the business school lad instead of the architecture grad.


(more...)



Monday, April 14, 2008

Opportunity for free financial education



A hot tip from Veteran Military Wife, the mastermind behind Life Lessons of a Military Wife. Dave Ramsey, the well-known financial program radio host and purveyor of the Debt Snowball method, is offering his Financial Peace University program FREE to all veterans. The promotion is running from now until the close of business on Wednesday. This program is a 13-week course, and normally costs $100, but due to this promotional offer, he is giving it away for free to eligible vets. For more information, see Veteran Wife's post about the offer. You will not find any mention of this offer on Ramsey's website, as he only mentioned it over the air. For the proper enrollment procedure and to find out if you are eligible, see the above-linked post for details.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

$115,000



leeiacocca.jpgThat’s how much money you and I and every household in the good old USA owe toward the National Debt (according to Leah Iacocca)..


Think of it like a credit card the government used for spending.? This is in addition to all the money we sent them let me mind you.


Here’s the best part:


All of the money you and I send in for taxes this year will pay the interest on our $115,000.00 share.


When we look for our next president this year.? Let’s look closely on how they plan to handle this problem.


It’s a big problem indeed!



Saturday, April 12, 2008

California--A Nice Place To Visit But I Wouldn't Want To Live There



Went out to the Bay Area for my niece's wedding. Great trip, had fun, glad to be home given the price of houses and a wee bit of overcrowding. Seems that I am not the only one glad to be out as outlined in this article at MarketMinder.com. Enjoy--if you can.



California Hates the Poor



10/5/2007 |



California hates the poor. At least the Golden State certainly seems to act that way, given the way it treats its lower-income residents.




But wait—isn’t California known as one of the most socially progressive states, spending billions of dollars on social programs and public assistance for low-income residents each year? Indeed! Yet Californian legislators uphold a policy choking off precious dollars that could go to residents needing it most. That wacky policy is the Golden State’s tax structure.




California boasts the most punitive state income tax system in the entire Union. (Not so fast New Jersey, Hawaii, Iowa, and Oregon! Though you’re all nearly as bad.) With so much wealth in the state, you might not feel much immediate sympathy for those paying the lion’s share of the state taxes. After all, California’s got Hollywood movie stars, celebutants, and Dot-Com-mega-billionaires! Make them pay! Folks tend to forget California has millions of souls—the vast majority are Average Joes.




Let’s examine the current tax structure. California income taxes kick in at a modest 1% rate for annual income up to $6,622. Not too bad—$6,622 seems a small amount to hit up for income tax, but 1% isn’t that much. But, California’s highest tax bracket of 9.3% (the highest in the nation) begins at the affluent, wallet-busting, Bentley-driving sum of $43,468.




I’ll repeat that. California imposes the nation’s highest state income tax level of 9.3% on residents earning more than $43,468. Some perspective: In 2004, the US Census reported California’s median income was $51,185—higher than America’s median income of $44,648. Translation: If you’re “middle class,” California wants 9.3% of your income. It’s a shakedown for your lunch money.




Meanwhile, nearby states Washington, Nevada, and Texas charge no state income tax at all. Arizona starts its highest tax bracket at $150,000 where residents pay 4.57%—less than half California’s top rate. It’s hardly surprising these states are some of America’s fastest growing states. In 2006, Arizona’s and Nevada’s populations swelled over 4 times faster than California’s.




If you’re a Californian with a nice retirement savings, where would you retire? California wants a hefty portion of your retirement income every year, whereas nearby Washington and Nevada want none. Add to the equation the far lower cost of living in those states, and relocating seems like a no brainer. So, folks leave and California ends up with none of their income, property, or sales tax revenue.




Those poor souls remaining in California end up with less money to fund public schools, build new roads, pay for social programs and so on. All thanks to politicians ignoring fundamental economic principles and placing too heavy a burden on its working residents and businesses.




When a state places too heavy a tax burden on its citizens or businesses, the government stifles consumer spending, business investment, and actually ends up collecting far less tax revenue. A government can maximize its tax revenue at an optimal point. Tax too much and folks don’t see much of a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Mrs. Entrepreneur fails to see the upside in launching her cutting-edge new business idea. Less business activity means less tax revenue. The Laffer Curve (shown here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Laffer_Curve.png) demonstrates the concept.




If prohibitive taxation makes a difference between US states, one could also apply the concept to countries. When a nation imposes high hurdles for new business development and wealth creation, the prospect of strong economic growth becomes increasingly remote. Conversely, if a country slashes corporate tax rates to spur economic activity, all other factors remaining constant, that’s bullish for growth.




Take Ireland for example. The Emerald Isle slashed its corporate tax rate to 12.5%—one of the lowest rates in the developed world.




Selected Corporate Tax Rates by Country




Ireland 12.5%
Netherlands 25.5%
United Kingdom 30.0%
China 33.0%
Belgium 33.9%
France 34.4%
Germany 38.6%
USA 39.5%
Japan 39.5%


Much to the chagrin of France and other EU heavyweights, economic growth in Ireland is soaring! After all, entrepreneurs and existing businesses only need two very simple elements to justify a venture: profit and human capital. Ireland has an educated, English-speaking work force and a corporate tax rate low enough to entice entrepreneurs from around the globe. Ireland will likely attract business activity, people, and tax revenue other countries will miss out on. It shouldn’t be much surprise, then, that Irish GDP growth is expected to more than double the EU’s average. Erin go bragh!




Eastern Bloc countries are also joining the low-tax party. Estonia, Latvia, Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Georgia, and Macedonia all successfully introduced low flat tax structures in recent years. These moves now pressure Western European countries to either become more competitive with their business climates or face a hemorrhaging economic growth towards their neighbors with cheap labor and more welcoming tax structures.




With one of the largest gross domestic products in the world, one could only dream of the economic boom resulting from slashed California tax rates (not to mention falling federal tax rates). With the Irelands and Nevadas out there, Uncle Sam and the Golden State better act fast. Their poor depend on it.




Friday, April 11, 2008

House Flipping In The Real World-Part 5-Doing Time In Texas



Note: This has turned into another mini-series, this time on the risks and rewards of real estate investing. To start at the beginning scroll down.



Pretty soon I was out of the picture. Cynthia took over and Alice receded into the background with Hepatitis C problems and liver ailments I really didn't want to know about. I did learn that Alice had a pretty rough life with incest, alcoholism, and some drug abuse that undoubtedly contributed to the Hepatitis C and liver issues.



One doesn't meet ex-cons every day and my curiousity got the better of me, again. "Pretty tough in prison, I bet." "Oh, you kinda get used to it." "Which prison?" "Waco." (My son went to Baylor University in Waco and I didn't know Waco even had a prison. Guess the Chamber of Commerce doesn't go out of its way to spotlight the prison.) How long? Nine years. (Wow) Finally I couldn't stand it any longer, "What did you do?" "Forgery."



Forgery? Nine years for forgery? I think the takeaway here is don't do crimes in Texas unless you want to spend a lot of time indoors.



Plunging ahead. "And Alice?" "Attempted murder...but she got framed." That's what they all say, I thought. "Who did she attempt to murder?" I asked like an idiot, I really don't know when to just shut up. "Her sister's boyfriend. The guy was beating up Alice's sister and well you know..." At that point I did decide to drop it but thought about sending Alice over to see Freddy and then dropped that thought as well.



Cynthia didn't go into a lot more detail except to offer that she was a college graduate and that forgery is one of those kind of 'classy' crimes so she got to be a trustee in prison and did a lot of repair and agricultural stuff where she discovered her love of fixing things other than signatures. And boy, could she fix things. The patched holes fit right in, she put up three light fixtures, found a new(er) backdoor, and filled, sanded and replaced the woodwork where necessary. New paint was next.



In the garage I found the realtor's "For Sale" sign, spray painted it and scrawled my phone number on it with a Sharpie. Sue saw it and wondered if I had had a stroke. Placed it in the front yard and got a call from Marion.



Wednesday, April 9, 2008

What a South African Mining Debacle Means to your Portfolio



South African miner Gold Fields announced today that due to a bleak outlook in the return of electric capacity in the region, it will be forced to mothball some of its mining operations and lay off up to 6,900 employees. Gold Fields is one of the largest miners in the world. They actually view their future production as coming in at 15-20% below current levels for the next several quarters.




Africa is the world's second largest producer of gold and the largest producer of platinum.

What is the best way to play the demise of South African miners?

Obviously, the ideal play is a straight commodities play absent the operational risk that comes with owning individual miners. For gold, that would be the gold bullion ETF, GLD. Granted, gold didn't rally today based on the report that the U.S. is backing IMF gold sales given the Bush administration's view that the plan to sell 12.9 million ounces of gold is "probably the most viable" option to ensure the long-term funding of the IMF, Dow Jones Newswires reported Monday.

No such ETF exists for platinum, so the next best thing is a miner in the U.S. insulated from the African power. As posted last night, Stillwater mining from Montana (SWC) derives a fair amount of their revenues from platinum and palladium. It is down 6% in after hours trading as of now following a mild beat, obviously not hitting the whisper number. This is good news in that the bad news is out of the way and margins are expected to be very strong moving forward as long as metals prices remain elevated. To put things in context, here's a YTD chart of SWC with GLD and the S&P500:




Disclosure: Long GLD and SWC.

Gotta Quit Singing The Blues



The market hits an all time high but most people think the world is coming to an end. In addition, lots of people say 'so what?' because the market is getting a bit ahead of where it was seven years ago. Number wise, yes but economically no. Seven years ago we had the dot.com nonsense with PEs so out of whack that the bottom had to fall out and it did.



Check out this MarketMinder.com article on the new high. It has one line that should be imprinted on your investing eyeballs so you see it every day which is---Pessimism and undue worry are the stuff of bull markets; euphoria is the bane.



Remember that and read on.





Happy Anniversary!



10/10/2007





Story Notes:


  • Yesterday the bull market celebrated its fifth anniversary, but you’d never know it by reading financial headlines over the same period


  • Fears about stocks gaining “too much too fast” and “too many years of an up market” aren’t based in reality or logic


  • Strong economic and market fundamentals supporting stocks’ climb are still in place—making the immediate future look bright


MarketMinder doesn’t like to dwell on the past because it can’t tell you much of anything about the future. But we feel it’s incumbent upon us to highlight a scarcely recognized fact: The bull market for global stocks is five years old. Here’s one of the few acknowledgements we found:



Happy Birthday, Bull
By David Landis, Kiplinger
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/2007/10/bullmarket.html




Five years ago yesterday, the S&P 500 closed at 776.76. Today, it sits around 1560…over a 100% recovery in five years. Good times!




According to Standard & Poor’s, in those five years Energy stocks were the winner, gaining over 236%. Other economically sensitive sectors also flourished, including Materials with 157%, Industrials with 124%, and Technology’s 144% gain. Traditionally defensive sectors like Consumer Staples and Health Care lagged, each with about 40% gains. An outlier was Utilities, which racked up a whopping 168% rise in the period. On balance, that’s very close to what you might expect from an economy experiencing sustained expansion and high demand. And these are merely US returns—foreign stocks fared even better.




Perversely, such a big recovery scares many—they proclaim it’s been “too much too fast.” But history tells us this recovery wasn’t all that big. The current bull is actually the second weakest of seven post-World War II bull markets that lasted five years or more, according to Standard & Poor's.




The “aging bull” argument doesn’t fly either. It’s a strange thing to believe stocks should go down just because they’ve been going up. This is a perversion of the mean reversion theory, which simply doesn’t pertain to stocks. There’s no mathematical, economic or financial law that says earnings, economic growth, or stock prices must revert back to any kind of average. Trends can last as long as underlying fundamentals support them. (See our past commentary “Vector Investing” 9/27/07 for more.)




To wit, the fundamental drivers propelling this bull remain intact: Better than expected corporate earnings and global GDP, high M&A and share buyback activity, and relatively dour sentiment (among many other positives out there) are all very much a reality today.




Yep, it’s been a good five years. We hope you enjoyed the ride, but we suspect most didn’t. Thinking back, folks fretted over everything from dollar doldrums, energy prices, terrorism, trade and budget deficits, carry trades, credit crunches, inflation, and consumer spending (to name a few). At one time or another each was hailed as the Apocalypse, yet NONE had the potency to slay the bull. We think that’s a great thing: Pessimism and undue worry are the stuff of bull markets; euphoria is the bane.




Today’s real risks (yes, there are always risks) are minimal and well contained. Deleterious government regulation, protectionism against free trade, and monetary or fiscal policy errors are remote. (For more, see yesterday’s commentary, “The Real Risks.”)




Looking back, it’s apparent stocks reflected reality—not media hype—over the past five years. And while it’s crucial to remain vigilant, don’t forget to step back once in awhile and appreciate the positives of this dynamic and wealth-creating global economy. More gains are just ahead.




Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Gonna be on the tee-vee



So about two weeks ago, I was contacted by a journalist who was looking for someone to be interviewed on camera about the new ING checking account. Apparently, I was the first person to say yes. A camera guy came to my house and filmed me talking about the account, at my computer using it, and then about 15 minutes of footage of me feeding the guinea pigs (including a couple minutes of extreme closeup, where his camera was almost touching the cage and they were eating a piece of celery right in front of the lens.) No idea how this will turn out, but I hope that gets in. :) This story is essentially going to be sold to a bunch of smaller networks, who will have their local news anchor read the copy and dub it over, so hopefully it will start appearing on the Web in late March. I'll post one if I find it.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

I’m Officially Retired Today…



... until I land my next job, that is.


Apparently my company has been struggling with ratcheting up their sales amid the US teetering on the official definition of a recession: 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. It also doesn’t help when a segment of our business relies on the US housing market, which as we all know, is in dire straight.


You guessed it. My pride is a little scuffed up right now, as I didn't escape the sudden and massive round of layoffs announced today. It was pretty much straight to the managers' office in the morning, but at least they were nice enough to not shout, “You’re fired!”


So right now, I'm sitting at home early, stunned, and wondering, “What went wrong?” Was my performance unsatisfactory? Was my pay scale too rich relative to peers? Was I not getting along with co-workers? For sure it's a tough decision for management to axe a selected group of individuals. I don't envy their position. We let go some pretty solid people. I also don’t envy the colleagues who have multiple mouths to feed. Finally, I don’t envy the colleagues who have enrolled and kept the company shares from the Employee Stock Purchase Plan.


The silver lining is that my severance package is 3-months pay + 2.5 weeks of accrued vacation, which presents an exciting opportunity for me to re-examine my career path. It's still too early to say, but a few random ideas have crossed my mind to dabble with:


* Find another job in the same field — Software Engineering.

* Go back to school to pursue a career in personal finance/investment.

* Go back to school to pursue a career in photography.

* Become a full-time blogger as Financial Jungle is carrying a little momentum.

* Become a full-time investor hunting for undervalued dividend paying stocks.

* ???


Well, I guess I'll have to sleep on it as I'm frazzled from this episode.



Saturday, April 5, 2008

Write-Offs: 04.04.08



$$$ A Bearish JPMorgan [DealZone]



$$$ "Just got one too many emails from weird weird weird people who mistakenly believe TIM is associated with The Timothy Plan. Let me set the record straight: hell no!" [Tim Sykes]



$$$ Who Killed the Economy? [TSC]



$$$ 1 million missing iPhones found in tourists' suitcases [YouTube]



Apparently, It Pays to Be Naughty - Vice Fund vs. Socially Responsible Fund





A comparison of Vice Fund vs. Socially Responsible Fund






I heard an anecdote contrasting these funds on Bloomberg on my nifty Sirius Satellite radio and thought I'd check out how the angel on the left shoulder fares against the devil on the right. Yes, there is actually a fund called the Vice Fund, ticker VICEX, that invests in none other than tobacco, casinos, military and alcohol companies. As you may have heard, "socially responsible" investments are all the rage now as well, with the most notable fund being the Neuberger Berman Socially Responsible Investment fund NBSRX.



Interestingly, in the year ago period, the Vice Fund beats both the Socially Responsible Fund AND the S&P500 at 3% up for Vice vs. a loss of 4-5% for the benchmarks.





Next, check out the 5 year view, as the Vice Fund completely trounces both benchmarks at 144% for Vice vs. less than 60% for the benchmarks:








Some notables:


  • Vice Fund gets a 5 star Morningstar rating vs. 4 for Socially Responsible
  • Vice Fund has a higher expense ratio at 1.75% vs. .9%

Vice Fund Top 10 Holdings:


Altria Group Inc. (MO)
9.07%

Carolina Group (CG)
7.15%

MGM Mirage, Inc. (MGM)
5.63%

International Game Tech. (IGT)
5.34%

Diageo PLC ADR (DEO)
5.26%

British American Tobacco PLC ADR (BTI)
4.95%

Boeing Company (BA)
4.81%

InBev (INB)
4.33%

Wynn Resorts, Ltd. (WYNN)
4.13%

Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT)
3.97%





Socially Responsible Fund Top 10 Holdings:


Comcast Corporation (CMCSK)
4.39%

E.W. Scripps Company (SSP)
4.39%

Anixter International (AXE)
4.13%

Altera Corp. (ALTR)
3.98%

Danaher Corporation (DHR)
3.76%

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. (WSH)
3.74%

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH)
3.60%

Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BK)
3.54%

American Express Company (AXP)
3.32%

BG Grp (BG.)
3.25%


I found the top holding of Comcast in a Socially Responsible Fund to be somewhat ironic, given that they are evil, anti-customer service monopolists (can you tell I have trouble with my cable and internet service?). However, I'm sure they've vetted all their holdings to ensure there are no dealings with the Sudan, profiting from blood diamond trade, etc. In conclusion, let your conscience be your guide at your portfolio's peril.

Friday, April 4, 2008

What Mark Everson can teach us about Ethics



Thanks to the taxwise Kay Bell at Don't Mess With Taxes, I've become aware of the firing of the CEO of the American Red Cross, Mark Everson. In case you didn't know, since the deaths of Washington Redskins Safety Sean Taylor and Gatorade inventor Dr. J. Robert Cade seemed to hog yesterday's spotlight, Mark Everson was forced to step down after having an affair with a subordinate. Everson, former commissioner of the IRS, had only taken his position with the Red Cross back in May, and lasted a mere six months as the CEO of the best-known not-for-profit organization in the country.

I found this article by Stephanie Strom, which seems to put more of a negative spin on the organization that fired him rather than Everson himself. Perhaps it is my military background, or my recent and ongoing ethics training, but I am quite in disagreement with this article. For those of you too busy to read it (or in case the link expires or becomes password-protected), the gist is that Everson shouldn't have been fired because it took the American Red Cross so long to hire him in the first place, and despite his actions, he should have only suffered a temporary suspension or a loss in pay. While I am not privy to the details in Everson's contract, I assume the author of this article is not either. I would safely assume there is a Code of Ethics that all paid employees are to follow and before accepting employment they must sign a contract agreeing to abide by this code. The CEO would, for sure, as he is the public face of the organization. People who work for any large company usually have to sign some conduct agreement, and members of the military have to abide by the UCMJ. That said, I don't exactly think the issue was unaddressed for Mr. Everson.

The reason for Everson's termination is that he had an affair with a subordinate, a woman who is the president of a Red Cross chapter on the gulf coast. Both Everson and his subordinate are married, and the latter is pregnant. Personal relationships with people with whom you hold a position of power are generally never allowed and certainly not between two married people. The American Red Cross may have acted quickly in firing Everson, though I don't believe they acted rashly. With great power comes great responsibility. All across the military you see commanders being relieved of their commands due to "a loss of confidence in their ability to govern." Off the top of my head the commanders of the Arleigh Burke, the Helena, the Higgins, the Hampton, the Halsey, VAQ-140, VFA-122, the Newport News, and the Minneapolis-St Paul have all been fired in 2007. I'm sure there are others I've forgotten, to say nothing of the rest of the military. My point is, while you'd certainly hope that the person you hand-picked to lead an organization possesses the skills, common sense, and good judgment necessary to get the job done, this is not always the case, and when someone shows their incompetence, they should be relieved of their command as quickly and quietly as possible. Simply having good business skills or leadership experience is not enough to head an organization as well-known as the American Red Cross. The Red Cross is funded by voluntary contributions from taxpayers. If they feel the organization is going to turn a blind eye to someone acting unethically or irresponsibly by abusing his power and betraying his wife, most people would donate their money elsewhere. Lord knows there are enough other charities begging for it.

Problems at the top have a funny way of filtering down through the entirety of an organization and can negatively affect its culture. While some people feel that ousting the head of a group is a harsh move, I believe it is the right one. Despite his "impeccable credentials," Everson proved he lacks the integrity and personal responsibility necessary to lead an organization that is more respected than the IRS.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

Need Job Fulfillment? Read this--



I love Ben Stein. Really like the first part of this, not too crazy about the middle part and back on track for the last part. Go, Ben, go.



Arm Yourself for Job Fulfillment and Retirement Bliss



by Ben Stein



Now for some decidedly non-PC thoughts.



I hear a lot of bragging from my pals about how their daughter got into Brown or their son is being courted by Goldman Sachs or their grandchild just got into a fancy prep school.



Worth Bragging About



What I never hear is bragging from parents who say, "My son just got into the Army Special Forces and is risking his life to keep your son and you alive." I never hear parents saying that their kids got into the 82nd Airborne and are now fighting in Afghanistan to give people there a decent life and keep Al-Qaeda tied down so they don't come here to attack us.



Now, you may say, "All well and good, and it's great that these military families are so modest. But what does this have to do with me?"



It has everything to do with you, my friend.



Why It Matters



First, the military people on the ground -- and those in the ground in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery -- are the ones who keep your family alive. They're the ones who comprise the wall around America so that we can play and make money for our retirement and enjoy our children. They, whether in training or in traction, are the ones who keep America humming and keep the noblest dream of freedom alive in our hearts.



Again, you may say, "I agree and honor them, but what does this have to do with a column about money, careers, and finance?" Again, everything.



Day after day I get letters from readers who complain about their jobs and their lives. They have dead-end careers. They have bosses who disrespect them. They have colleagues who are strangers. I know that world. I've been in it.



Real Job Satisfaction



But I also get letters aplenty from men and women in the military. They love their jobs. They do exciting work. Dangerous, of course, but exciting. They have immense responsibilities. They get challenged on a scale they would never have dreamed conceivable. They bring more out of themselves than they knew they had.



Yes, they don't get paid as much as they should. But their pay isn't terrible, and they get extraordinary benefits. More than that, they wake up each morning feeling that they matter. They never have to worry if they're making a difference in the world, because they know there would be no civilized world without them. Their colleagues on the battlefield not only treat them with respect, they would give up their lives for them. They have each other's backs in the real sense of the phrase. (Please, someone at a Wall Street firm, tell me if your colleagues feel the same way about you.)



In short, dear reader, you might want to consider a career in the military. The world needs you, and it just might make you feel like you're doing something very worthwhile with your life.



Light at the End of the Tunnel



Second, I want you to think about retirement in a serious, truthful way. This will tell you that while you're going to be fairly vigorous and sprightly for the first part of your golden years, you possibly won't be for all of them. You'll get a bit weak, often more than a bit confused, and generally not totally "there" for your duties and responsibilities.



This is one of the many reasons I love and recommend variable annuities, which you then convert into a lifetime annuity. Once you've set the annuity on autopilot and start adding to it (always with an eye on fees), it compounds month after month free from tax.



True, when you start withdrawing from it, you have to pay income tax on the amount of gains in the account. But for most Americans, that rate is now extremely low. And you get that check from the insurance company or financial house as regularly as clockwork. It mounts up and up during your contributing years, and then you get the money through the mail.



You don't have to study the market. You don't have to worry about ups and downs. The money just comes in every month or every quarter and you live on it. And it's guaranteed to be there until you die, or for some specified number of years thereafter.



Old age, especially the part of old age that involves loss of powers, is frightening enough for anyone. Old age that involves fear of financial insecurity is truly horrifying. Annuities are a safe, easily accessible, low-cost (if you keep an eye on fees) way out of that desolate valley. Keep them in mind, even if others mock them. They work.



Hardly Working



Finally, I have a correspondent who endlessly asks me if I know ways to get rich that don't involve much work so she won't miss her pedicures. She also wants to work only with nice people who are also smart.



I hate to break this to her and to everyone in her situation, but there's no such job. Making money takes hard work. The people who do it well make it look easy, but it isn't. It's hard work. Get used to it. And the people you work with aren't always nice, either.



There's no royal road to quick wealth. Hard work and disciplined, sensible savings will get you there. Not pedicures.











Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Death Of A Salesman



Why go to the work of thinking up stuff when you can steal it? Did I say steal it? Sorry, borrow it.



The job of salesman (salesperson?) has always fascinated me because I'm not very good at it. Wish I was because it is a job you can take anywhere. I was in international finance and the smart money said you had to live in New York, London, or at worst, Chicago to make a living. I proved that wrong but the career category is not very portable.



Sales is. If you're good you can live anywhere. The guy building the million dollar house next to ours is a salesman for IBM working out of his house. And he builds houses in his spare time. What a life.



So think about it but read this by Ben Stein first.



Ten Ways to Blow a Sale



by Ben Stein





Good (599 Ratings)
2.582644/5