Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Crazy 08's Market Conditions Persist

Bernard Madoff - Madoff W/50 billion in Ponzi scheme
Despite credible allegations dating back to 1999, No one fully investigated Bernard Madoff. Also, one of the SEC regulators married Madoff's niece. All in the family may or may not turn out to be the link to heads at the SEC turning the other way for Madoff and his secretive investment firm. More at wsj.com. A victim of the Madoff scam committed suicide last week after unsuccessfully trying to regain some of the over 1.3 Billion that he had invested with Madoff.
-------------------------------------------------------

FROM CNBC/WSJ WEEKLY REPORT W/MARIA BARTIROMO:
Credit Markets remain chilly and LIBOR has gone down some, easing the pain. But the economy is still performing poorly.
Economic advisors know that something is floating in the proverbial pool, but can't be sure if it's just a BabyRuth or a doodie. The Dallas' Federal Reserve Gov. was overheard saying, "We're fairly certain it's going to be a doodie..".

Unemployment is already at 6.7% and growing.
Oil is still below $50 and dropping..
FOMC Meeting Rate Drops from 0 to .25% -------------------------------------------------------
FROM CNBC- RE:FED ACTIONS IN DEC 2008:
JACK BOGLE - "I DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT ALL IS NOW WELL.." "YOU CAN'T PUSH ON A STRING.."
-------------------------------------------------------
OIL CLOSES BELOW $42/BARREL------------------------------------------------------- Summary: 91% of the time, the first 5 days of January predict the restof the year. Jan as a whole is also considered the most bullish month of the year, therefore a down Jan is BEARISH. ------------------------------------------------------- Commodities in 2009:
According to the U.S. Farm Report, enthusiasm for growingcorn in 2009 has dropped dramatically. Soybeans look moreprofitable for 2009.
Fertilizer Prices in 2009
Unfortunately, many farmers and their suppiers are stuckwith various quantities of urea, and various other fertilizer products,at or near peak 2008 prices. These materials will effect operationsand costs in 2009 creating a lag in pricing, or losses for many farms and independant fertilizer dealers. EPA Fertilizer:
There is a consideration from the EPA to charge $87.50 per headof cattle based on the estimated number of farts that will beflatulated in the lifetime of this future steak w/legs. Based on this, shouldn't politicians pay a global warming fee for each word spoken to the public or while in office..
more at http://www.USFarmReport.com
More on these stories at http://www.nytimes.com http://www.cnbc.com http://www.wsj.com http://www.investors.com http://www.reuters.com http://www.USFarmReport.com http://www.agaryshilling.com/insight.html http://www.USFarmReport.com

Monday, November 03, 2008

Markets Monday Nov 3, 2008 September - October Scream Machine

All through September and October the markets went up and down enough to tire even the most enthusiastic roller coaster fanatic.The Dow did not break 10600 on Oct 31st, this is below a technical trend set in 1982 when the25 year bull market began. This is a very bearish signal to the U.S. markets. Also weighingin on Wall Street is the election, which will finally come to some ending on Tuesday or Wednesdaymorning. The banking system will remain in it's somewhat shaky place, but the creditors suchas Capital One and those like it will suffer an increase in defaults as the consumer pulls in the reins. Unemployment continues to rise and is expected to nearly double by this timenext year. We seem to be looking deflation right in the eye. This is different from anything we haveexperienced since the 1930's. I wasn't there, however. So now I try to figure out what happensto markets and companies when demand drops and so do prices and wages. As consumers put off purchases awaiting a lower price, how many companies can hold out as well. This says littleas to what will happen in export economies and countries dependant on natural resources ascommodities tumble to multi-year lows. Three interesting books on this subject are:
1. The Great Crash of 1929 John Kenneth Galbraith
2. Deflation A. Gary Shilling
3. New Paradigm for Financial Markets The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means - George Soros

Also Check Out Our BookShelves:

401k Investments Business and Finance Cramerica Bookshelf MutualFunds

Monday, October 13, 2008

ETFs May Be Best in Difficult Markets

ETFs, Funds And Shares: What Are They And What Are Their Benefits?
by: John McElborough


Exchange Traded Funds, better known by many investors as iShares, the brand owned by Barclays Global Investors ('BGI') have been around in the UK since April 2000, with the launch of the iFTSE100 on the London Stock Exchange. From a slow start, by the end of 2005 (the latest figures available), some 125 billion was held in assets under management. Generally, when you look for your share price information, you'll find them grouped in the extra MARK section, where you'll now find some 45 different ETFs on offer. Although they have been around for sometime, let's just remind ourselves how ETFs work. They are listed on the stock exchange, providing the flexibility and trade ability of a share, including the fact that the price is continuously quoted, but that one share can provide instant exposure to an entire Index, giving you the diversification benefits of a fund. ETFs are also a flexible way of achieving cost-effective market exposure. Because the funds are registered in Ireland, there is no stamp duty to be paid on purchases. Management costs are taken from dividends that are accrued by the fund, and any excess income is then distributed to shareholders: unlike unit trusts, there are no initial fees to pay on the original purchase. The price of the fund is always close to the 'Net Asset Value' (NAV) of the underlying investments and will usually have tight spreads, unlike some unit trusts and some investment trusts. Also ETFs will disclose their holdings everyday, whereas traditional funds usually disclose their holdings twice a year. What can I invest in? ETFs offer a wide range of opportunities for investment with varying levels of risk: as at mid-December there were 45 different markets/indices to invest in, ranging from corporate bonds to the Taiwanese market. Starting at the lower end of the risk spectrum there are several corporate bond ETFs, as well as some Gilt-based investments. Moving on to the medium risk level, you can choose from global funds to ones that are more specific to individual regions, such as the US or Asia. There's also the option of investing in individual indices: 'index trackers' are available for the UK's FTSE100 and 250 Indexes, the US S&P 500, or Europe's Euro first 100 & 80, spanning the top European companies. For those wanting a higher level of risk, there are also ETFs which will give you exposure to emerging markets, such as Turkey, Korea, Taiwan and Eastern Europe. ETFs don't offer the same wide variety as unit trusts, but for investing in the countries and sectors they do cover, their charging structure and trade ability make up for this. As such, they provide a good, low cost, easily-traded route into the market, with the flexibility to move up the risk ladder as your experience and capital grows. Finally, if you've an appetite for an even spicier approach, the London Stock Exchange also enables you to invest in commodities, through ETCs (Exchange Traded Commodities). Although like ETFs they are traded in the same way as shares, and are eligible to be held in a PEP or ISA, they do work in a completely different way. Whereas ETFs actually buy the underlying investments, ETC managers don't buy and store tons of wheat and copper, stack-up barrels of oil, or herd livestock into pens. Rather, they buy options on these commodities. As a result, ETCs are classed as more 'complex' investments by the FSA and you'll need to complete a special 'risk notice' confirming you understand the additional risks of investing in them. So take a fresh look at ETFs - you might just find they offer you more than you thought! Funds: take your pick of the best Unit Trusts and Open Ended Investment Companies (OEICs) are investments that let you pool your money with lots of other 'retail' investors. This money is invested on your behalf by a wide range of specialist fund managers, investing in, for example, Government gilts and bonds, commercial property and equities. Investing in funds gives you access to a highly-diversified range of investments at a reasonable cost. You will also have easy access to asset classes and international markets that would otherwise be difficult and expensive to invest in and benefit from the Fund Manager's contacts, knowledge, experience and expertise. Funds come in many shapes and sizes from 'trackers' to specialist or 'themed' funds. An index-tracking fund (often referred to as a 'passively managed fund') aims to match or 'track' the performance of a given market index, such as the FTSE All Share or the FTSE 100. They do this using computer programs to work out how much of each individual company they need to buy and sell to mimic the performance of the Index as a whole. But not all 'tracker funds' match the Index they are tracking that well - so be sure to check their record. An 'actively managed fund' on the other hand employs researchers to study and engage with companies in which they plan to invest, and to keep abreast of the prospects for companies in which they already invest. They'll compare their performance to a 'benchmark' index related to the investment objectives of their fund, with the expectation that the extra work they put into tracking down the 'best' investments will literally pay dividends through higher growth than that of their benchmark. Choosing your funds When you pick your funds, be sure to rate them against other funds that fish in the same waters. Don't expect a 'value' fund and a 'growth' fund to have similar track records. Only by comparing funds with their true peers will you make a good choice. Whilst past performance should not be seen as an indication of future performance, past performance does matter when comparing like with like. Chasing winners however, is as dangerous as day-trading. Not surprisingly, all five of the top-performing funds at the end of 1999 were technology sector funds. Sector funds have a place in many a portfolio, but for the majority of investors they belong at its edges, not at its heart. An individual fund will give you a wider spread of underlying investments: by investing across a number of funds you're better able to smooth out the ups and downs of the market overall. But that won't work if it turns out that your funds hold virtually the same investments. So have a look at each fund report to see their top holdings and make sure you've got a good spread overall. Individual Company shares When it comes to the individual shares part of the investment model, the lowest risk entry point has always been recognised as companies in the FTSE 100. However, you should always bear in mind that the Index evolves over a period of time, changing its overall make-up. Consider, for example, that over the last 6 years technology shares have fallen out of the Index, while mining companies, on the back of booming commodity prices, have dramatically increased their presence. Yet, because of the volatility and cyclical nature of the sector, individual mining groups can't be classed as low risk. Other 'big names' have gone from the Index due to take-over activity - companies like P&O, Abbey National & BAA - all of which have to be replaced. Today, some 80% of the make-up of the overall value of the FTSE100 comes from just 5 sectors - Banking, Mining, Oil & Gas, Pharmaceuticals, and Telecoms (fixed and mobile). So, if you're looking to the Footsie to form the bedrock of your investment in individual shares, where should you start? Companies involved in essential, everyday products and services, such as the water and electricity utilities and broad-based retailers often provide a solid backbone to any share portfolio. You could argue, however, that the classic 'defensive' nature of utilities has recently been undermined by the number of take-overs within the sector. The share prices of the remaining companies have climbed to all-time highs, potentially increasing the level of risk. There is without doubt an appetite for the assured cash flow that utilities provide, and it's fair to say that a growing number of analysts agree it's hard to justify the current prices. Despite this, get your timing right, buying at the right price, and these sectors should still provide a strong base on which to build your individual holdings. To extend your scope, whilst still staying within a lower risk profile, your next ports of call should be into the banks, pharmaceuticals, tobacco and beverages sectors. Move on up to the intermediate, 'medium risk' level, and you've an increasing choice, including the remaining FTSE100 companies, dominated by the mining sector. The majority of shares in the FTSE250 would also fit into this 'medium risk' category. Still relatively large companies, it is these shares that have seen some of the biggest gains over the last 3 years, helping push the 250 Index to record levels in 2006. One noticeable difference between the FTSE250 compared to the FTSE100, is that companies here generally have less international exposure. When it comes to the consideration of risk, you can play this one of two ways: some argue that having the majority of profits coming from the UK provides for less risk, while others (including us) favour having fingers in as many regions as possible. Finally, at the higher end of the risk scale you find smaller companies and AIM quoted shares. These tend to be more volatile and less liquid than their larger cousins, factors that generally lead to wider bid/offer spreads. The AIM market has seen considerable growth over the last 10 years, partly because companies don't have to comply with the same stringent requirements of the main market. Often, private investors don't get a look-in as part of the flotation, having to wait until the shares start trading, so do pick your time and use stop-loss limits - that early flush of success isn't always carried through. One of the fastest growing sub-sectors within AIM is small mining and exploration groups, many of which are based abroad but have chosen to list in the UK. Because their prospects include a significant amount of 'hope' value, such companies will represent the very highest level of risk. Equally classified as higher-risk, though as a result of different factors, are shares in overseas companies. Household names like Volvo, Coca Cola and Johnson & Johnson are big names and big companies. The additional risk they bring for investors comes from the fact that the majority of their earnings are from overseas. So you face the added risk of changes in exchange rates. Over recent months, for example, the fall in the US$ would have had a big impact on the sterling value of dividends from US shares And when the companies you invest in are smaller ones, it's often harder to find reliable research and analysis, harder to track and compare performance, and harder to follow the news that affects the share price. True, most big UK names also trade globally, but as 'home market' companies they are well-researched, much commented upon and regularly feature in the UK business finance pages. That's not to say you shouldn't venture outside these shores - far from it - but you need to do so with your eyes open. That's why we see overseas shares as being more appropriate for investors asthey move up the experience ladder and once they've built a balanced portfolio. And it's also why, in general, we'd advise investing in market trackers and funds before moving into individual overseas shares.
About The Author
The Share Centre http://www.share.com/ offer information and advice on shares and http://www.share.com/webp/share.htm share dealing. Learn about the stock market, research shares and deal shares online.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Mortgage Meltdown

Understanding the Mortgage Meltdown; What happened and Who's to Blame by: Richard Gandon


People are losing their homes and many more will lose their jobs before the mortgage meltdown works its way through the system. To paraphrase Alan Greenspan's remarks on March 17th, 2008, “The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the Second World War. The crisis will leave many casualties.” How many casualties? Experts are predicting that in the next few years, between 15 and 20 million homeowners could have homes worth less than what they owe. Walking away from a bad situation may actually make sense for people who mortgages that are 'upside down' considering the fact that refinancing is out of the question and home equity is nonexistent. It seems quite easy to point fingers at greedy Wall Street titans for causing the sub-prime mortgage crises. They after all, put together the deals that allowed banks to underwrite mortgages and then offload these liabilities to investors. What many fail to realize is that there is no shortage of blame to go around from homeowners buying more home than they could afford to real estate agents looking for more commission dollars. Mortgage brokers and bankers, the banks themselves, ratings agencies such as Moody's and Standard & Poor's, Wall Street, the Fed and last but certainly not least, the Federal Government. Let's start with the homeowners--the people who are now in the process or soon to enter the process, of losing their homes. Some of these people had never before owned a home and as such, may not have been prepared for the costs associated with homeownership. Basic financial literacy is sorely lacking in this country despite there being no shortage of budgeting and tracking programs readily available such as Quicken and Microsoft Money. The lack of financial literacy does not absolve these buyers of their responsibility. Every borrower receives a truth in lending disclosure statement. Here is a portion of what the act covers: The purpose of TILA (Truth In Lending Act) is to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost. TILA also gives consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling, regulates certain credit card practices, and provides a means for fair and timely resolution of credit billing disputes. With the exception of certain high-cost mortgage loans, TILA does not regulate the charges that may be imposed for consumer credit. Rather, it requires a maximum interest rate to be stated in variable-rate contracts secured by the consumer's dwelling. It also imposes limitations on home equity plans that are subject to the requirements of Sec. 226.5b and mortgages that are subject to the requirements of Sec. 226.32. The regulation prohibits certain acts or practices in connection with credit secured by a consumer's principal dwelling. Much of the subprime mortgage crisis can be traced directly back to variable-rate mortgages. As is clearly stated above, “TILA does not regulate the charge that may be imposed for consumer credit. Rather, it requires a maximum interest rate to be stated in variable-rate contracts secured by the consumers dwelling.” It also clearly states that TILA also gives consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling. One has to wonder whether or not these homeowners: 1. Bothered to read the truth in lending act disclosure at all. 2. Understood what the truth in lending act disclosure meant. 3. Chose to ignore the information printed clearly the truth in lending act disclosure. A number of months ago, just as the subprime mortgage crisis was beginning to unfold, The New York Daily News ran an article about a family in New York City, who had bought a home and were now faced with the prospect of foreclosure. The article was sympathetic to this family, highlighting the fact that they're living the American dream and that this dream was about to come to an end. What I found to be distressing was the fact that clearly visible in the photo that accompanied this sympathetic article was a very expensive flat screen television hanging on the wall. Perhaps I'm naïve, but I can assure you that if I were faced with the prospect of losing my home and having my family put out on the street, there is absolutely no way that I would still have that expensive television hanging on my wall. It would have been one of the first things to be sold and some financial relief would be found by jettisoning what I'm sure was the expensive cable bill. Clearly the public needs easy access to financial literacy courses. Too bad we don't see the need to make this a mandatory course of study in our educational system. Mortgage bankers and brokers have in the last four or five years been raking in cash by the bucket load in the form of commissions paid when mortgages they've originated, close. Many of these people have not needed to do much in the way of prospecting. Instead, their phones have run off the hook as people have jumped on the homeownership and refinancing and take out extra cash bandwagon, despite their ability to pay for their home. No-document loans were readily available without the borrower having to produce documentation that backed up their income. Clearly this practice can and indeed has, lead to substandard loan underwriting processes. Were some of these mortgage bankers and brokers dishonest? Sure. Were all of them dishonest? I think not. To have a massive nationwide conspiracy, where thousands and thousands of people involved in the mortgage banking and mortgage brokering profession got together to create this situation is simply not feasible. Yes, some of the blame does belong with those in the mortgage industry, but they were simply a small cog in the huge machine that created this mess. Let's discuss real estate agents. In 2007, we bought a home, and also sold a home. The agent we used to purchase our home was absolutely fantastic. In our opinion, she went above and beyond to make our deal happen. She answered every phone call, followed up on every concern and was the epitome of professionalism. We consider this individual to be a friend, and we have sent referrals her way that have resulted in her earning additional commissions. We will continue to recommend her to all who ask or mention that they'd like to buy or sell a home in our area. The real estate agent, we used to sell our home, could not have been more different. We got our old home ready to sell prior to closing on our new home. We decided to list it as “For Sale by Owner.” In the event that we didn't sell this home on our own, it was our intention to list it with an agent as soon as we had closed on the purchase our new home. Literally, from the day we put the sign in front of our home and listed it on a “For Sale by Owner” website we were inundated with phone calls from real estate agents. We were told many lies and were constantly harassed; although we had already made it quite clear to every agent who called, and there were more to 60 who did; that we were willing to pay half the commission-the same as they would have received had they sold another agent's listing. We also told every agent that called that we had already lined up an agent to sell our home in the event that we chose to no longer sell it ourselves. Our deadline was the closing date of our new home purchase. We did have an interested buyer who shortly after our closing date decided to keep looking so we listed our home with a local agent so that we could concentrate on getting our new home ready for our moving date at the end of the school year. This agent showed our home a maximum of two times and got an offer which we accepted. We ended up getting $1,000 less than we had wanted in a declining Real Estate market. The agents who had called many times to harass us called our listing agent on a number of occasions and he lied telling them that the house was under contract when in fact it wasn't at that time-clearly a breach of our agent's fiduciary duty. Quite frankly an ethical agent would have continued to show our home until closing in the event that the deal fell through. But wait, there's more. Our agent also acted as the buyer's mortgage broker. At the closing table, we learned that he had signed documents from the buyer stating that he (our agent) represented them and we had signed documents stating that he represented us. We also learned that the buyer had effectively put down approximately 2-3% of the purchase price when financed closing costs were factored into the equation. Their first mortgage had what we thought was a high fixed rate and their second mortgage came with a rate in excess of 8.5%. Because the closing happened in August, literally in the midst of the first wave of the meltdown, if they didn't close on the day they did (August 31st, 2007), Citibank wasn't going to extend their rate. When my wife & I have bought houses in the past, it had always been a very happy day. These people looked absolutely shell-shocked at the closing table. I'm not convinced that they knew just how much their monthly payment was going to be until closing day. We knew down to the penny well in advance having budgeted and planned everything on a spreadsheet. Were these people stupid or just inexperienced and mislead by a greedy combination of real estate agent & mortgage broker? I'm extremely confident that they are intelligent people but inexperienced and taken advantage of by an unscrupulous agent. The banks are also culpable. Prior to bank deregulation, Savings and Loans provided mortgages to home buyers and kept these loans on their books. Non-performing loans had a negative effect on the S&L's profitability which of course caused tighter lending guidelines such as job stability and decent down payments in order for prospective home buyers to be approved for a mortgage. Way back then, a home buyer had to actually save up enough money for a down payment 10 or even 20% before a bank would ever consider underwriting a mortgage. The checks & balances kept banks solvent and borrowers responsible. Although this approach worked, some cried foul stating that the regulated system was racist and discriminatory-and there certainly was some truth to this. Skipping forward to the present, banks made a bundle on mortgages over the past five or six years. For the most part, they allowed their underwriting criteria to be stretched so far out of alignment that almost anyone could and indeed did, qualify for a mortgage despite their ability to pay. Some folks even applied for and received mortgages for more than the property was worth. Sometimes for as much as 25% more than their property was worth! Under the prior system, 125% mortgages would not have been possible because of course these loans were held on the banks' books and could have led to losses that would have had to have been absorbed directly by the bank. So what went wrong? Under the current system, these loans were sold to the big Wall Street investment firms who repackaged them as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO's), Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS's) and other similar acronyms. These instruments were then sent to the ratings agencies for their blessing and more importantly a letter rating. Many of these structured finance deals receive AAA ratings-the highest ratings available meaning that in theory, these instruments were least likely to default. How does one create a 'triple A' or AAA rated financial instrument out of sub-prime mortgages? Herein lies the magic. These Asset Backed Securities (ABS) are made up of different tranches or slices, each carrying a different risk and reward level. The first dollar of principle and interest is applied to the securities with the highest rating, and the first dollar of loss is applied to the tranche with the lowest ratings. The lower slices are designed to provide a security blanket that in theory protects the higher-rated securities. The investment banks that package or 'structure' these securities in order to earn fat fees when they sell them to investors are the same entities that pay the ratings agencies to rate these instruments. Clearly the possibility for conflict of interest is present. If investors and not the investment banks that stand to rake in millions in fees were to pay for the rating, the potential for this conflict of interest would be negated. Furthermore, the investment banks have a vested interest in convincing the ratings agencies of the credit worthiness of these securities. So we've already pointed fingers at homeowners, some greedy, many more I suspect, naïve or uninformed, real estate agents-one out of more than 60 in my experience was a gem, mortgage brokers & bankers, banks, Wall Street and ratings agencies so who's left? The Federal Reserve and the Government of course. The Fed as its known is responsible of the country's monetary policy and for supervision and regulation of banks. This is the definition of the Fed's roles in their own words: Monetary Policy The Fed is best known for its role in making and carrying out the country's monetary policy-that is, for influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in order to promote the goals of high employment, sustainable growth, and stable prices. The long-term goal of the Fed's monetary policy is to ensure that money and credit grow sufficiently to encourage non-inflationary economic expansion. The Fed cannot guarantee that our economy will grow at a healthy pace, or that everyone will have a job. The attainment of these goals depends on the decisions of millions of people around the country. Decisions regarding how much to spend and how much to save, how much to invest in acquiring skills and education, how much to spend on new plant and equipment, or how many hours a week to work may be some of them. What the Fed can do, is create an environment that is conducive to healthy economic growth. It does so by pursuing a goal of price stability-that is, by trying to prevent inflation from becoming a problem. Inflation is defined as a sustained increase in prices over a period of time. A stable level of prices is most conducive to maximum sustained output and employment. Also, stable prices encourage saving and, indirectly, capital formation because it prevents the erosion of asset values by unanticipated inflation. Inflation causes many distortions in the market. Inflation: · hurts people with fixed income-when prices rise consumers cannot buy as much as they could previously · discourages savings · reduces economic growth because the economy needs a certain level of savings to finance investments that boost economic growth · makes it harder for businesses to plan-it is difficult to decide how much to produce, because businesses can't predict the demand for their product at the higher prices they will have to charge in order to cover their costs Bank Regulation & Supervision The Fed is one of the several Government agencies that share responsibility for ensuring the safety and soundness of our banking system. The Fed has primary responsibility for supervising bank holding companies, financial holding companies, state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, and the Edge Act and agreement corporations, through which U.S. banking organizations operate abroad. The Fed and other agencies share the responsibility of overseeing the operation of foreign banking organizations in the United States. To insure that the banking system remains competitive and operates in the public interest, the Fed considers applications by banks for mergers or to open new branches. The passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act in November 1999, was the culmination of a multi-decade effort to eliminate many of the restrictions on the activities of banking organizations. Some of the main provisions of the GLB are: · Repeals the existing limitations on the ability of banks to affiliate with securities and insurance firms · Creates a new organizational form that allows banking organizations to carry new powers. This new entity called a "financial holding company," (FHC) and its non-banking subsidiaries are allowed to engage in financial activities such as insurance and securities underwriting The Fed's enlarged role as an umbrella supervisor of FHCs is similar to its role in supervising bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve Banks will supervise and regulate the FHCs while each affiliate is still overseen by its traditional functional regulator. The Fed has to delineate the financial relationship between a bank and other FHC affiliates. Its primary goal is to establish barriers protecting depository institutions from the problems of a failing affiliate. To do this efficiently the Fed has to ensure increased communication, cooperation, and coordination with the many supervisors of the more diversified FHCs. The Fed has access to data on risks across the entire organization, as well as information on the firm's management of those risks. Regulators will be in a position to evaluate and presumably act on risks that threaten the safety and soundness of the insured banks. It would appear that the Fed has failed to curb housing inflation which played a role in this entire debacle then made matters worse and in their efforts or lack there of, to properly supervise banking institutions. Finally the government, a.k.a. Uncle Sam, the big Kahuna 10,000 pound elephant etc. Where do we begin? How about with: 'Where were they?' It now appears that after millions of horses are out of the barn (some horses ran, others were foreclosed upon) the government wants to step in with a bailout to save the rest. While nobody wants to see people lose their homes, the question that must be raised is this: What about all those of us who were responsible? Those of us, who scrimped and saved up a decent down payment, bought less-house than we could afford and who live below our means? Many of us drive older cars and keep them longer. We don't run out and buy the latest and greatest at inflated prices, we watch, wait and budget. When the World Trade Center was attacked, families who decided not to sue received government payouts and we certainly don't begrudge them as I'm sure that given the choice, they'd prefer to still have their loved-ones over the money. The problem, in typical government fashion is that those who were responsible and had insurance policies in place received less than those who were irresponsible and didn't plan ahead. I'm not talking about dishwashers at Windows on the World and blue collar workers; I'm talking about executives, traders and people who should have known better. Now our government, the same government that sat by idly watching as this bubble got bigger and bigger despite many warnings, wants to step in and bailout people who are in danger of losing their homes. There has been no talk about educating people, let's not teach people to fish, rather, let's give them a fish and bail them out once again at the expense of those who are responsible. Clearly, by keeping the majority of the population financially ignorant, there is a lot of money to be made by the poverty industry.
About The Author
Richard Gandon is the Managing Director of The Financial Learning Network, dedicated low-cost online to financial literacy seminars. His 'Understanding the Stock Market" course was made into a CD-ROM and is in use in more that 50,000 classrooms nationwide. Every year since 1998, Richard has teamed up with a fifth grade class in Georgia to teach them about the stock market online. Richard has more than 20 years of financial services industry experience including as a broker, trader, licensing trainer and managed both a sales group and Central Inquiry, a Historical Equity & Index Research group at Standard & Poor's. http://financiallearningnetwork.com/

Monday, May 19, 2008

Nice Bounce!

With oil trading above $125 a barrel, the stock markets have given us a nice bounce from the Winter '08 lows. Volume remains light and profit taking is becoming temping as the summer heat sets in.
Last week the markets toyed with the 200 day moving averages, watch for better trading volume if you wish to remain bullish. On Tuesday the Senate voted to stop buying oil for the strategic oil reserve until the price falls below $75 a barrel. The other good news came on Monday when RIM introduced the 'Bold', which is expected to compete in the iPhone market as well as now offering 3G, a first for the Blackberry.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Stock Markets - Skidding Along the Bottom..

Uncertainty, the markets' kryptonite, has left institutions and traders with little choice but to run for safety. Three events seem to be driving the fear. Trouble in Pakistan, Nigeria as well as rhetoric re: Iran, an upcoming election here in the U.S., and finally the Fed regarding interest rates and a reduction, if and when.
Unless the data begins to prove otherwise, most of this is just dark clouds over the market with a little help from the media. The only real damage, so far, is in housing and financials involved in subprime loans. "So Far.." is the issue here. Whenever there are dark clouds in the sky, it is unlikely that a weatherman would suggest that it will likely not rain. However, as you know, sometimes it doesn't.
Holding tight to equities and reducing margin debt seems prudent, as always. Why sell at the bottom only to kick yourself later on. The best values are currently apprearing in the areas of small cap value and large cap growth stocks. Cross your fingers and wait for the bell to ring!

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Markets Finally Hit a Bottom



After the EU injected 500Billion into the markets the markets appear to have settled on a bottom. Short sellers are attempting to break the market, but buyers are stepping in. Volume is thin.

The Fed is holding a meeting today to discuss mortgage regulations as a way to avoid more of this current debt crisis or similar from occuring in the future.

Goldman Sachs beat earnings but warned the November was it's worst month in their history as a firm.

Another Way to Play Precious Metals: Gold and Silver Coins


Do You Need A New Hobby? Start Collecting Rare Coins. by: Perry Corman
Rare coins are one of the remaining investments which can be accumulated with privacy and transported easily. Coins are classic appreciating assets with a history of long-term price increases. Old and rare coins are worth far more than face value (the value on their surface) - and more than just their metal composition - as collectibles. Rare coins are a hobby, as are they a good investment. Rare coins are the most liquid of all collecting hobbies. Silver and gold coins are fast becoming a new American icon because they give investors economic stability, profit potential AND privacy. You may shop 24/7 for rare coins, gold coins, silver coins, 2007 bullion gold coins, gold coins and more at http://www.coinsale.org/ among other places. If at any time our paper money is threatened, rare coins can protect wealth much like an investment in gold bullion. You can buy with confidence from several coin dealers. The heaviest coin to be minted is the 1000Mohur, a gold coin weighed almost 12 kilograms. Buying rare coins for own profit has been a good choice for investors for many years. Buying rare gold coins can be done from coin dealers, special auctions such as http://www.coinsale.org/ (http://www.coinsale.org/). By the year 2015, experts believe that there will be some 140,000,000 coin collectors/investors, an increase of over 3 times that of today's buyers. Some collectors have made a lot of money buying and selling rare coins, others have lost fortunes. For instance, there are no reporting requirements for the buying or selling coins, so your own privacy can be easily protected. Rare coins stand out as a great investment compared to other collectible items, especially for someone looking to diversify their investment portfolios into the world of collectibles for the first time. As for other collectible items, nothing performs as well as rare coins when it comes to pure investing: coins are virtually indestructible, they are easy to store, easy to insure, and rare coins are portable commodities that can be easily converted into liquid assets. Unlike paintings, sports memorabilia, or other forms of collectible items, the old coin market is characterized by well-established standards for deciding the quality of any given coin and a stock market like infrastructure for ensuring the liquidity of the investment. Rare coins are totally immune from bankruptcy and virtually immune from dilution. Coins are not only good investments, they can be fun too. Rare Coins are trading at half of their market highs of the late eighties. Rare coins are very interesting because their rarity makes them both precious and fascinating. Thousands of rare coins are regularly bought and sold sight-unseen on an electronic numismatic exchange and auctions, like http://www.coinsale.org/.
About The Author
Perry Corman is a curious soul, researcher and author. He has a wide range of interests, ranging from politics to astronomy. If you have an interest in rare coins, take a look at http://www.coinsale.org/ (http://www.coinsale/.