Effor.com

Back in January, I posted a short article basically saying that it was way too early to call a bottom in financial stocks.  I had been reading an article on TheStreet.com by Doug Kass where he made the case that it was time to buy the financial sector, via XLF.  

While I agreed with much of his analysis, I didn’t think the financials were anywhere near a bottom - most banks and brokerages simply hadn’t taken into account the full impact of the sub-prime mortgage debacle.  Those relatively few bad mortgages were so highly leveraged that just a few percent failure rate is enough to make the whole house come tumbling down.

Despite the best efforts of the Fed, Bear Stearns has disappeared.  It took a $30 billion taxpayer backed guarantee to do it, and I think the buyout simply swept the underlying problems under the rug and out of sight - for a few months.

The last few months are looking more and more like a rehash of the Internet bubble and the resulting bear market from 2001 through 2003.  during that time, I lost count of how many times I heard things like “buy and hold”, “stay the course”, “this is a great buying opportunity”, etc. 

The people who listened “to the experts” back then STILL aren’t back to even on their investments, while those who got out and waited for the smoke to clear are way ahead.  Those of us who are conservative investors, who follow broad trends and don’t move in and out of the market very often know that this isn’t the time to buy back in.

Could this be the bottom?  Sure - but I don’t think so.   I move in and out of the market in my 401K based on the crossover of the 75 day EMA and the 200 day EMA.  I usually go with an S&P 500 index fund, and here’s what the chart looks like today.

The 75 and 200 day EMA’s are nowhere near signaling the start of another bull market, so my retirement money is 80% in cash and 20% in overseas funds.  I’m down about 4% for the year - how’s your 401K YTD? 

If you’re still fully invested (like the “pro’s” tell you to be) you’re down over 12% YTD, and you’re right back where you where in July of 2006.  If you’re retired and you’ve been fully invested for the last decade, you’re right back where you were in March of 1999. 

9 plus years and zero return - how’s that “buy and hold” strategy working for you?

Anyway, it’s time for a check on Mr. Kass’s buy call on XLF.  I normally don’t make a big deal about stuff like this - after all, analysts make bad calls everyday - but he titled his original analysis “Buy the Financials. Yes, Buy” to emphasize what a great opportunity it was.  So, let’s see how XLF is doing since Jan 14th.

XLF closed at $27.88 on Jan 14th.  It closed today at $20.57.  That’s down $7.31 - or about 26% in about 6 months. 

Great timing on the “Buy the Financials.  Yes, Buy” call Mr. Kass!  I hope you haven’t screwed over too many investors with your advice.

In my original post, I made this prediction: “In my humble opinion, we’re heading into a very rough period for almost all asset classes, but “soft” things like made up financial assets and corporate profits (measured in the dollar) will fare much worse than “hard” assets, such as commodities.”

Since I recomended investing in commodities instead of stocks, let’s see how my pick (gold) is doing.  Gold closed at $903.40 on Jan 14th, and it closed today at $931.30.  That’s up $27.90 - or about 3% in 6 months.

Yup, gold is up just a tad, and it’s actually off the highs of a few months ago.  It’s also just come back up over $900 after being stuck in the $860 to $890 range for a while - I mention that because it just came back up this week, and I don’t want to appear to be trying to hide that it’s been lower.

But as long as the Fed keeps printing extra money (inflating the supply) the dollar will keep falling, so gold will continue to hold its’ value for now. 

Only if Bernanke gets serious about fighting inflation and ensuring a stable dollar (which is the Fed’s primary purpose - read the Fed website if you don’t believe me) will the dollar rebound and gold fall.  And “Helicopter Ben” isn’t Paul Volker, so it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

For you too young to remember the late 70’s, inflation was high and the economy was stagnant - the term “stagflation” was coined to describe it.   We’re in the early stages of it now, and unless we get the Fed to grow a pair of brass balls, it’ll be 1980 all over again.

Raising rates and restricting money supply killed the stagflation, but it also caused a deep recession.  But that recession led to one of the greatest bursts of prosperity this country has ever seen.   We can do it again - if the Fed would administer the medicine.

As is stands, Bernanke is simply trying to keep a sinking ship afloat.  He doesn’t want a deep recession (or worse) to mar his tenure.  After all, he is an “expert” on the Great Depression, and he know’s what he’s doing.  Just like the experts calling repeated bottoms in the stock market.

I didn’t come up with any of this on my own.  Read  Warren Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders.  Read Phil Town’s “Rule #1″.  Read damn near anything by anyone who isn’t a Wall Street “expert”.  Their jobs are going away as the companies they work for are revealed to be a highly leveraged house of cards.  They’re running scared and are trying anything to keep up the pretense of the 80’s and dot com years.

What about the next 6 months?  I don’t see the financials (banks and brokerage houses) coming clean with their books yet - many are still pretending that their “level 3″ securities are still worth a lot of money.  Until they ‘fess up and take the losses they’ll just be on a long slow bleedout. 

This part is simply a guess, but I think Goldman Sachs is priced way too high.   At some point I think they’ll come down to earth just like the rest of the investment banks.  This might sound “out there” but I would not be suprised to see GS lose 50% (or more) of their value over the next 2 years.   Maybe sooner.  Something is fishy in their financial statements, but I can’t put my finger on what.  Just doesn’t smell right….

Back to the “hard vs soft stuff” that started this.  Don’t take my word for it - read and look at the situation for yourself.  Decide where to put your money because YOU want to put it there - not because some so-called “expert” on TV or the Internet said “Buy the Financials.  Yes, Buy”.

gk

It was interesting watching the stock market go into a steep sell-off today after the Fed meeting minutes were released.  For some reason, most people are still underestimating the severity of the problems in the economy, and they’re stunned when they see something that doesn’t fit into the Goldilocks scenario they’re anticipating.

Here’s how CNN phrased the dilemma facing the Fed: The Fed lowered its economic growth forecast for the year. At the same time, it raised its projections for inflation and unemployment. The combination of slowing growth and rising prices [emphasis mine] created a difficult situation that made the Fed’s latest decision to cut rates on April 30 a “close call.”

Webster defines “stagflation” as persistent inflation combined with stagnant consumer demand and relatively high unemployment

Notice the similarity between the two preceding paragraphs?  Everyone remembers the stagflation we had in the Carter years.  Carter was a disaster for this country, and it took Reagan to turn things around, but Carter was an economic genius compared to Bush!

At least Carter took steps in the right direction by deregulating the oil and natural gas industries - Bush ain’t done squat except to print more money to try to inflate his way out of the mess he caused by creating cheap credit after 9/11.  

The problem wasn’t so much the easy money policy, it was that they kept the easy money policy in place for far too long.  This created the housing bubble, which led to our current credit crunch as all the mortgage backed security instruments lose value as home owners can’t make payments on houses that are worth less than the mortgage balance.

The “close call” CNN refers to is that the Fed is stuck now.  They want to lower rates to stimulate the economy, but that will just exacerbate the inflation problem which is caused by too many dollars in circulation.   That’s what happens when the Fed tries to manipulate the economy instead of following their mandate to ensure a stable monetary system.

From the website of the Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.

The Fed has become too political to do its’ job - which is to provide for a stable currency.  The same easy money policy (which leads to inflation) has caused the value of the dollar to drop by about 50% since Bush took office.  Like it or not, a dollar today will only purchase about half of the “stuff” that it would 7 years ago.  Thanks GW…  NOT!

When you see the price of commodities such as oil, wheat, soybeans, corn, etc. (the “stuff” we use) double and you wonder why, that’s why.  Global demand plays a part, but the major reason is that we are paying for the “stuff” in a global marketplace with inflated dollars that people don’t want.

That concludes your economics lesson for today.  Any questions?

gk

This is something I’ve said would happen eventually.  Well, I haven’t said it here, but I’ve said it on a family email list where we discuss lots of weird subjects.  :-)  From todays’ Daily Reckoning Australia newsletter: “Treasuries tumbled after the government’s $9 billion auction of 30-year bonds at the lowest yields ever chased away investors,” reports Sandra Hernandez at Bloomberg. You reap what you sow, Chairman Bernanke. Prepare to reap the whirlwind.

It looks like we’ve reached the point where the Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place.  They are being forced to lower rates to fight off a recession (which is probably already here) but no one wants our money at these ridiculously low rates.  The dollar isn’t worth much these days, but (although some are calling for the dollar to rebound) I don’t think we’ll see a meaningful correction in exchange rates as long as the fundamental factors which drove it down don’t change.

By fundamental factors, I mean stuff like Americans spending more than they make - personally, in business, and in government - which forces us (collectively) to borrow money from foreigners to keep things running.  What happens when foreigners no longer want to invest in the dollar (via US Treasuries)?  Rates have to rise to entice them to invest.  Although this is the first evidence I’ve seen of it, I think this will become more widespread.  Rates will rise while we go through a recession - or worse.

Play it through to see the end game….  The cost of borrowing goes up so businesses and individuals have to pay more to borrow the same amount.  Mortages cost more, auto loans cost more, credit card rates cost more - and perhaps most importantly - the government has to pay more to pay interest on our huge (thank you Mr Bush!) national debt.   All while the economy is slowing down.  That drives up unemployment, the dollar keeps falling (because we’re still spending more than we earn) and inflation starts to skyrocket. 

Does anyone remember 1979 and 1980?  I think we’re in for a repeat of that at the minimum - and we could potentially be looking at the 1930’s again.  I recommend paying off your debts, piling up cash, and keeping your powder dry.  Picking up some gold or silver on price dips like we’ve seen the past few days wouldn’t hurt either.  That’s good advice at anytime, but especially now with Bernanke dropping cash from helicopters….

That’s right, Bernanke has said he’d do anything to prevent deflation.  Here’s his speech from November 21st, 2002.

In the same speech he said “If the Treasury issued debt to purchase private assets and the Fed then purchased an equal amount of Treasury debt with newly created money, the whole operation would be the economic equivalent of direct open-market operations in private assets.”

Huh?  Basically Bernanke said that if the government (via the Treasury Dept) printed more money, then the same government (via the Federal Reserve) bought the same amount of treasury bonds, it’s the same thing as the private sector producing something.  To translate this into your personal life, Bernanke is saying that you’re better off if you take out a second mortgage, then use that money to pay yourself to cut the grass.  What the hell is he smoking?

Sorry for the side track rant, the main point of this post is to let people know that today the US Government tried to get anyone to loan them money at 4.41% but no one would give them money at that rate.  The rate on those bonds at the end of the day was 4.51%.  There’s a good story with all the details at Bloomberg.com.  Here’s part of it:

The auction yield on the new long bond was the lowest since regular sales of the security began in 1977, according to Steve Meyerhardt, an official in the Bureau of the Public Debt in Washington.

In today’s auction, indirect bidders, the class of investors that includes foreign central banks, bought 10.7 percent, the lowest on a new 30-year bond since the Treasury resumed sales of the maturity in February 2006 after an almost five-year hiatus. The 20 primary dealers bought 89 percent of the sale, the most since sales resumed.

“Most of it was a dealer auction which meant that customers themselves didn’t put their money where there mouths were,” said James Collins, an interest-rate strategist in Chicago at Citigroup Global Markets Inc., a primary dealer. “The market knows dealers are going to have to sell the issue at a steep discount.”

Regardless of what the Fed does with short term rates, real rates are going up as we become less credit worthy as a nation.  Who will we borrow from in order to keep spending more than we earn tomorrow?

gk