The Age of Inflation

In this age of inflation, we are all forced to do many tasks that others could do better for us. The fact is that inflation impedes the process of civilization, which is brought about by the division of labor. While, without the central bank's continual monetary infusions, prices would gently fall as technology made all things and all people more efficient, we don't enjoy that luxury. Instead we're mowing our own grass, fixing the flappers in our toilet tanks, and managing our own retirement funds.

Now, pushing a mower requires little skill, is no more than an annoyance, and provides the benefits of fresh air and sunshine. But managing one's retirement funds is a different matter entirely. It is an especially cruel result of inflation that instead of simply being able to hoard money, people must "invest their money into the financial markets, lest its purchasing power evaporate under their noses," explains Jörg Guido Hülsmann in The Ethics of Money Production. "Thus they become dependent on intermediaries and on the vagaries of stock and bond pricing." And unfortunately most of us aren't neurologically wired well for the job.
But we can't just throw up our hands and trust the state to take care of us in our golden years. Saving money isn't enough. The state is continually making what you have saved worth less. And unless you're a government employee, most likely you're left with the assignment of making sure you have enough for when emergencies occur or you're unable to work.

The typical stockbroker went from selling shoes or cars to hustling stocks after passing the Series 7 exam. Your financial future is not his or her concern; generating sales commissions is. Of course there is plenty of free advice out there, from Jim Cramer to Suze Orman. But, you will likely get what you pay for. Finding good investments is very hard work. Buying them at the right price is even harder work. Having the patience to buy at the right time and sell at the right time is nearly impossible.

Austrian business-cycle theory can give investors ideas on when to invest and what to invest in, but the Austrian School provides little in the way of analyzing specific companies and stock prices. What Hayek and Mises are to the business cycle, Benjamin Graham and David Dodd are to value investing. In their famous treatise, Security Analysis, Graham and Dodd painstakingly lay out their method for valuing stocks, looking for deeply depressed prices.

"Saving money isn't enough. The state is continually making what you have saved worth less."

While the average amateur investor may be excellent in their own career field, it doesn't mean they know what to invest in, or how to pick stocks. In fact being very good at your field can give you the false sense that whatever stocks you pick or your broker picks for you must be good, because after all, you picked them and you picked your broker — and you're smart. So, no doubt those stock prices will go up.

But the smart and talented stock-picking neophyte is not investing at all but speculating. "An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return," Ben Graham wrote. "Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." The vast majority of people just don't have the time or possess the patience to thoroughly analyze an investment opportunity. In The Millionaire Next Door, authors Thomas Stanley and William Danko point out that the average person tends to spend more time on purchasing a car than on looking at potential appreciating investments.

So for those who are interested in accumulating wealth and willing to put the time and hard work toward that end, Joseph Calandro, Jr. has masterfully melded the work of Graham and Dodd with Austrian business-cycle theory. The result is a very readable how-to guide for value investing, aptly named Applied Value Investing: The Practical Application of Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffet's Valuation Principles to Acquisitions, Catastrophe Pricing and Business Execution.

One can see by the title that the book is not for someone looking to take the next step after Stock Investing For Dummies, but it's not the handful that the title implies. The beauty of Calandro's work is that he teaches value investing through case studies. The reader can follow along while the author does his own valuations of Sears, GEICO, and General Re. These of course are not made-up theoretical cases, but real-life deals made by value investors Eddie Lambert and Warren Buffett.

Calandro first provides the reader with the basics of Graham and Dodd valuation in order to be "approximately right rather than precisely wrong." The author does this by valuing Delta Apparel, Inc., as a potential investment in 2002. When his analysis indicated that Delta was undervalued, Calandro bought Delta stocks and immediately offered to resell them at a fairer, higher price. This exercise is all about making money, not falling in love with stocks and their stories.

Much of Graham and Dodd's analysis is in assigning different valuations to balance-sheet items to determine what the real value of a company is beyond the accounting. This requires much more art than science.

"Finding good investments is very hard work. Buying them at the right price is even harder work. Having the patience to buy at the right time and sell at the right time is nearly impossible."

A couple of reviewers of Applied Value Investing have taken Calandro to task for the assumptions he makes in his case studies. Although the author doesn't provide much explanation of many of his assumptions, readers should understand that the talent of investing comes through experience and training. Reading one book will not provide all the answers, but Calandro does give us a roadmap. Investors must still make their own judgments.

These reviewers may not have made it to the book's conclusion, where the author reminds us that applied value investing is all about "identifying what you know and what you do not know, and then taking steps to quantify what you do know in a conservative yet rigorous manner so that a disciplined valuation can be formulated."
In chapter 5, the author draws upon an article he wrote for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics to give the reader/investor insights into the best times to buy and sell from a macro perspective. He breaks the business cycle into eight stages by "synthesizing [George] Soros's boom–bust model, Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), and behavioral characteristics."

In an interesting appendix to the chapter, Calandro writes of Warren Buffett's criticism of the efficient-markets hypothesis (EMH), which is the Rational Expectations School of the investing world. EMH posits that prices on assets traded in the market already reflect all available information. The Oracle of Omaha refuses to donate money to his alma mater, Columbia, because of the school's research in the area of EMH.

After applying Graham and Dodd valuation to make a catastrophe valuation, the author applies his tools to firms' business strategies. Next he circles back and discusses the important aspects of each layer of value-investing analysis, emphasizing that the key to long-term success is "research, checking, rechecking and cross-checking of assumptions."


To conclude, the author tells the reader to ignore economists shilling for newspapers, TV shows, political parties, the government, or financial institutions. Calandro quotes renowned Fidelity Fund manager Peter Lynch, who said, "If you spend 13 minutes a year on economics, you've wasted 10 minutes." However, Calandro recommends, in addition to a number of other books, Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression, Roger Garrison's Time and Money, Ludwig von Mises's The Theory of Money and Credit, and other Austrian titles. With all due respect to Peter Lynch, Mises — a real economist — wrote that economics "concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen."

And while the practice of value investing the Graham and Dodd way is more prudent than throwing money at that stock tip you overheard at the bar the other night, always remember what Mises wrote in Human Action: "There is no such thing as a nonspeculative investment.… In a changing economy action always involves speculation. Investments may be good or bad, but they are always speculative."

Views of a Contrary Investor

I see discussions of short term percentage gain or loss in investing all the time. I rarely see similar long term discussions. Important? Maybe not. But is the fact that there is simple asymmetry between percentage gains and losses actually considered? If it really was, I think a fair number of investors would change their thinking, at least a bit.

If you invest for two years, one up 10% and one down 10% (either order) you end up losing 1%. If you had twice the variability (up 20%, down 20%), you end up losing 4%. If you have a real rollercoaster ride like we’ve had recently and have a +40% and -40% year, you end up losing 16%. And that’s just in a two year time frame. Over a couple decades or so, this is no small matter.

Here’s a different example. Suppose you had five and a half years in which you had an annual return of +24%. But you also had 4 years of -30% performance. 5.5 years compared to 4 years is a bigger ratio than 30% to 24%, so it could look close to a wash on first blush. Actually you’d end up with a loss of 36%. I didn’t pick these numbers randomly. They’re the combined rates of return for the two cyclical bull and two cyclical bear cycles for the S&P 500 in the current secular bear market (counting the last 4+ months as the second bull cycle) since March 2000. For retirees the loss is even worse because nearly a decade has been lost too, and there’s much less time to make it up.

It’s been noted that there’s a fine line between investing and gambling. It’s also been noted that gamblers as a whole notoriously inaccurately report their betting results. This is true even though they know the games are all rigged and casinos very consistently report gaming profits. I’m only suggesting that there’s a psychological driver that can keep us from being objective when it comes to some numbers.

Focus on the short term is the name of the game for TA. It can work well, until it doesn’t. The trends and indicators traders use can be useful for the well informed, and there are people making a lot of money using it. But it’s a combination of skill and getting more right calls than wrong ones, because technicals simply change at some point and go in another direction. They always do that at some point whenever they have been going in a direction for some time that the fundamentals aren’t going in. Ironically, the longer term you use in TA the better the predictive power. I recall seeing a discipline using the 20 and 50 week moving avg. which would only involve trading every few years. It actually resulted in very few bad signals.

But if you go out to the very long term, you can find very durable trends that you can use to guide you. The problem of course is that all of this takes a lot of patience. I suspect, more than anything else, the gambling/investing crossover has some merit here. Gambling is done to make money quickly or at least to have fun. The most successful long term investors tell us success comes with patience and discipline. Now there’s a conflict.

The most useful long term trend I know about is the two century pattern of secular market oscillation. The characteristics of the trend are that the length is fairly uniform, and the investment results over for the opposing cycles are hugely different. In other words you could reliably make money for years during one phase of the cycle and avoid most of the loss in the other phase of the cycle. But very few people have any interest in this phenomenon and it basically gets ignored.

The other very useful long term trend I know of is the fact that the variance in performance of a given security is due much more to the variance of its asset class than its individual characteristics. And the variance in performance of a given asset class is much more due to the variance in the economic fundaments than characteristic differences from other classes. So the greatest bang for the DD buck in the long run is to learn about the big things. This too is pretty unappealing. None of this is any fun. And it takes too long to get any results.

A knowledge of secular market history and characteristics would put a lot of beliefs and myths into a better perspective IMO. We live and work in a shorter time frame, and get our expectations conditioned accordingly. In the last secular bull market (1982-2000), the only cyclical bear market was the very brief one because of the 1987 crash. 17 plus years of bull market and a few months of bear market. Everybody was making money, especially the risk takers. But to a lesser extent, the same thing was true of the prior secular bull market (1949 – 1966) – 15 years of bull market and only 2 yrs. of bear market.

But the secular bear markets are a long tough grind, which have the added characteristic of being cruel because there is actually more bull market time in them than bear market time. In the intervening secular bear market (1966 – 1982), there was 6.7 yrs. of cyclical bear market but 9.7 years of cyclical bull market.

Maybe surprisingly, the compound annual growth rate for the bear years was almost the mirror image of the bull years (-21% vs. +20%). But as you might guess the result wasn’t a real gain because of how percentages work against you. Actually the overall CAGR was about +0.6%. But there’s nothing positive about 17 years of almost no nominal gain in the face of rapidly rising inflation. Real gain was distinctly negative.

Even in the current secular bear market (2000- present), there has been the 5.5 years I mentioned of cyclical bull market and “only” a bit under 4 years of cyclical bear market. Small consolation, and again cruel, as cyclical thinking still has investors with a shorter term outlook anticipating a fairly timely recovery of the lost ground.

A few years ago I posted in other places a number of times about my deep concern with the long term investing environment we were in. I took some real criticism for being so conservative and being satisfied with trying to earn no more than an 8% return while the domestic equity market was turning out a 14% gain.

I have nothing that isn’t obvious to suggest as a way to achieve good long term results.. But here goes. It really does take more to make up a loss than it took to make it the first time, so don’t lose it. The best investment advisors are the ones with the longest experience. Pay attention to the big picture, even study it. Of course the real world consists of an overwhelming number of market participants with a short term outlook, people trying to make money quickly, and most of the attention focused on bottom up thinking. This is after all a post from a contrarian investor.

joatmon

Equality of Outcome vs Equality of Opportunity

May 6, 2009
Nothing New Under the Sun
by Victor Davis Hanson
Pajamas Media

The Same Old Equality of Result

Rather than nitpick about Obama’s envisioned brave new world, I think it wiser to see it in the larger context of age-old divides over the nature of Western democratic and liberal society. Nothing that we have seen proposed since January 20 is novel; everything is merely the promise of the past outfitted with a new snazzier veneer of hope and change.

Take his domestic policies. What overarching philosophy seems reflected in raising taxes, borrowing trillions to spend trillions more on new entitlements, creating a new health care bureaucracy, cap-and-trade, allotting trillions more for education, and the expectation of the appointment of more liberal judges?

It’s old…

In a word, it is adherence to the idea of equality of result rather than an equality of opportunity, the age-old debate that goes back to the Greeks. From Aristotle’s Politics and Plato Laws, we learn of the original dilemma: a stable city-state of roughly similar property owners, who vote as equals, and fight as comrades in the phalanx, tragically, but inevitably, soon becomes tragically unequal.

Divide the land up equally to found the polis; give everyone an similarly-size plot (klêros); and then health, luck, brains, accident, strength, ambition, character, and a myriad of other factors, some understandable, some capricious, conspire to create inequality. I agree with Aristotle; I have seen it with families and communities in which equal inheritances soon led to radically different outcomes, as one sibling on rocky ground thrives, while another in deep loam starves; one town with abundant resources goes broke, while another without natural advantages thrives.
As Aristotle saw, some lose, some expand their original homesteads, and suddenly we have Hoi beltistoi and Hoi polloi — and the rallying cry that someone’s liberty to do as he pleases means that egalitarianism of the lowest common denominator becomes impossible.

American vs. French

The notion of freedom then butts up against equality, as if they are as often antithetical as symbiotic. (N.B.: note the French Revolutionary sloganeering of “fraternity” and “egalitarianism” versus the American Revolutionary emphasis on “Give me liberty, or give me death”, “Don’t Tread on Me!”, “All men are created equal” [by opportunity rather than by result]. And note Obama’s references to the French ideal.)

In response, the state has two choices to preserve its original ideal of equality (and we see elements of this further debate voiced in the Old Oligarch, Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Hume, etc, as well as in histories of the middle and late Roman Republic).

The Therapeutic

1. The state and culture at large can be coercive to ensure an equality of result — in the modern liberal world by high redistributive taxes, generous means-tested entitlements, inflationary monetary policies to diminish the power of capital (in the ancient world by forbidding the alienability of land, mandating the maximum size of estates, coining cheap bronze/silver coated money in vast amounts, redistribution of property, cancellation of debt, etc.).

Such efforts at commonality are what we are now witnessing with income tax hikes, $1.7 trillion dollar deficits, inflationary federal spending and borrowing, along with huge new entitlements. Its extreme form is the European Union, its extreme, extreme manifestations are the failed -isms and -ologies of the bloody 20th century where authoritarian elites broke the requisite eggs for the omelet of “for the people” and in service to “equality.”

The Tragic

2. Or instead of the therapeutic mode, we get the tragic acceptance of innate inequality combined with the notion of personal responsibility to care for one’s fellow citizen.

That is, in the American version of equality of opportunity, we accept some will always end up poor, some rich, some in-between due to factors both in, and beyond, our control. But rather than sacrifice liberty to use the coercive powers of the state to enforce equality, we set a foundation at the bottom, a safety net to ensure a minimum level of support for the poor, and laws at the top to prevent buccaneering and piratical behavior — in theory.

Then the tragic view accepts that some will be very wealthy, but assumes that the race for individual riches will, first, create greater prosperity for society at large (the much caricatured “trickle down”). And, two, a host of private mechanisms exists to channel individual bounty back for the general welfare: the status; and/or sense of right of giving to non-profits, charities, etc; the shame of living it up to an excessive degree; the patriotic call upon one to invest their riches in the public good; the informal practice of lending and giving to family and friends, etc. In other words, millions risk dying to leave temperate, naturally rich equality of result Mexico to enter the once equality of opportunity United States.

Been There, Done That

It seems to me that on three occasions during the last seventy-five years we have someone who really did believe in the therapeutic, equality of result — FDR, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter (Truman, JFK and Clinton proved to be centrists in comparison).
FDR had the rhetorical gifts and personal genius to implement such an agenda; LBJ and Carter tried, but were inept and poor messengers. And now we have a fourth avatar, who, given the current alignment of the planets, has a real chance to complete the FDR mandate — not in the dark days of the Great Depression replete with real want and starvation, but in a recession during the greatest age of affluence in the history of civilization — making both success and failure obsolete, and turning us into a sort of egalitarian polis much like Sweden or France.

I Don’t Owe You Any More

Turn on the radio: ads blare out how to renounce mortgage debt; get out of maxed out credit-cards; short the IRS; be eligible for a subsidized government loan, or new entitlement. Other ‘buy gold’ ads warn: plenty of danger, but no money in passbook accounts, stocks, real estate, as the debtor gains on the creditor, and capital earns little in comparison to protected salaries. To match a $100,000 government salary (as an upper-level bureaucrat), the despised capitalist, at a 2% interest payout on his stash, would need $5 million in accumulated cash: advantage bureaucrat.

Ironies Galore

Obama rather brilliantly counts on two great constituencies (other than the professional Ivy League technocracy whose responsibility is to figure out how to borrow and tax the money, lavish it on constituencies, and do rather well themselves as government overseers). One is the hyper-rich, the Kerrys, the Soroses, the Gateses, and their appendages in universities, government, foundations, and the media. These power players either make enough to be unconcerned with high taxation, or are so well connected politically (cf. the machinations of a Daschle, Dodd, Geithner, Rangel) that the coercive state rules simply do not apply.

Instead the hyper-wealthy receive a sort of psychic gratification in helping the ‘poor’, and romanticizing the underprivileged, thereby alleviating the guilt of being blessed, and at relatively small cost — and so they quite enthusiastically support the equality of result state.

Again, the poor present no challenge, offer no threat to the hyper — wealthy, but are thankful client recipients of ensured government largess. In contrast, the fellow elites have the necessary taste and education to satisfy the demands of aristocratic society.

And The Upper Middle Class?

But those in between, and especially those of the upper-middle class — the hardware store owner, the dentist, the paving contractor, the successful restaurateur, the real estate agent? These grasping who wish and aspire and may reach a mythical $250,000 salary some day (again, the threshold where one becomes the hated “they”), well now, they are not poor, need no government or private help, and offer no psychological alleviation of guilt to the elite. Romanticize a gardener or farm worker, or even clerk or teacher, but how does one mythologize a successful optometrist or insurance agent?

And yet they are not usually sophisticated in the snobbish sense, not opera-goers, not familiar with museums, not symphony buffs. Their children don’t necessarily attend Stanford or Harvard. In other words, they are near-to-wells, wannabes, without requisite culture, deserving of neither cultural awe and acceptance nor noblesse oblige.

A leftist elitist would always prefer the dubious (and now upscale, tax avoiding) huckster Al Sharpton, Tawana Brawley and all, to Sarah Palin, former mayor of Wasilla and Idaho University graduate. Joe the Plumber, the Cuban upper-middle class of Miami, the local talk show host, anyone who wants to get ahead, but shows so visibly the scars of the struggle to do so, lacks the refinement and taste of the more affluent, yet is in the crosshairs of the Obama revolution.

The only impediment to our new polis? There are not simply enough of these entrepreneurial dinosaurs to pay the taxes to feed the new $3.6 trillion annual beast. One can take all the income of the $250,000 “them”, and there won’t be enough to pay down the $9 trillion in new debt.

In short, Bush = lower taxes, more spending, and more debt; Clinton = higher taxes, more spending, and less debt; Obama = more taxes, more spending, and a lot more debt — and the same old dream that we can make everyone equal in the end — or else!

©2009 Victor Davis Hanson

The Key to Personal Freedom

Due to rising unemployment and the sharp contraction in the economy, personal bankruptcies are hitting record levels, up more than 50% from a year ago.
There is another factor here too, of course. Millions overreached.

In some ways, this is understandable. It's natural to want to improve our circumstances, enjoy the best life has to offer and "go for the gusto."
Without moderation, however, our wants have no natural limits.

True, some of us have fewer desires than others. Yet conservative spenders don't necessarily lack ambition, imagination or even money. More often than not, they have spent years cultivating an attitude of restraint.

Freedom, after all, is not the absence of responsibility. It is the absence of restraints imposed by others. To be truly free, however, we must generally impose severe restraints on ourselves.

That often means delayed gratification... or settling for less... or simply doing without.

This is bitter medicine to the thousands of consumers who hang on to their material desires like caterpillars to a cabbage leaf. Especially when the media glamorizes the materialistic lifestyle, their neighbors - who may be two payments from the edge - are living high, and advertisers bombard them daily with subtle - and not-so-subtle - messages meant to stir their cravings.

There is a reliable defense, however. And it begins with your frame of mind.
If you or someone in your family suffers from the "urge to splurge," here are four steps to help reclaim your personal freedom - and, perhaps, your credit rating:

1. Recognize that we are wired to feel dissatisfied with our circumstances. It's in our genes. An early human who was content with what he had - who spent his days lazing on the African savannah admiring the clouds and thinking "ahh, life is good" - was far less likely to survive and reproduce than his neighbor who spent every waking moment trying to gain some advantage.

2. Understand the psychology of desire. We all tend to "miswant" - to want things we don't really need and won't appreciate once we acquire them. Remember how your last major purchase failed to "do it for you" and you're less likely to believe that this time will be any different.

3. Stop regarding life as an ongoing competition for social status. Opt out of the game - even if everyone else seems to be playing it - and you can't be controlled or disappointed by the opinions of others. Do work you enjoy, even if it's lower paying. Spend your time and money collecting great memories rather than more stuff.

4. Instead of focusing on what you want, try appreciating what you already have. Nothing cures your craving for the next bauble like the thought of losing your partner, your children, your health, or the things you already own.

In "On Desire: Why We Want What We Want," William B. Irvine argues that many of us lack "a sense that we are lucky to be living whatever life we happen to be living - that despite our circumstances, no key ingredient of happiness is missing. With this sense comes a diminished level of anxiety; we no longer need to obsess over the things - a new car, a bigger house, a firmer abdomen - that we mistakenly believe will bring lasting happiness if only we can obtain them. Most importantly, if we master desire, to the extent possible to do so, we will no longer daydream about living the life someone else is living; instead, we will embrace our own life and live it to the fullest."

Sounds simple enough. Yet we face a powerful headwind.
Modern culture and our own heritage have programmed us to want ceaselessly, spend liberally and compete for resources in order to keep up with the Joneses. Millions today suffer from so-called "status anxiety."

Their prison, however, is entirely self-imposed. Unbeknownst to most of them, the key is right between their ears.

Any of us can make the conscious choice to turn our backs on the consumptive lifestyle and live simply, happily and with dignity.
Idealistic? Perhaps. But then freedom often is.

Ten Surprises for 2009

These are my Ten Surprises for 2009

1) Oil Trades above $140 per Barrell
2) Oil Trades below $30 per Barrell
3) GM merges with Chrysler
4) Italy leaves the Euro and returns to the Lira
5) British Pound trades Below $1 US
6) Natural Gas Price trades below $4 per MMBTU
7) Iran's government Falls
8) Cuba elects its first President as a democracy
9) The Canadian Dollar reaches parity with the US$
10)All major stock Indexes in North America break the 2008 lows

Don Coxe Indicators

Don Coxe Indicators

In the November Basic Points, Don Coxe had four indicators to gauge when "Mama bear is done her worst".

1) TED Spread: "We suspect if it breaks 150 and stays there for at least a week, the financial crisis part of this drama, while not humdrum, will no longer command center stage".

The TED Spread is currently at 132 and has been under 150 for pretty close to a week (if not already a week).

2) The bank stock index continues to outperform the S&P.

1 Month: S&P -3%, BKX -13%

3)The VIX Index Retreats

Currently at 43.
Month Ago: 60

4) The YEN and the U.S Dollar Decline

US Dollar index currently at: 80.5
Month Ago US Dollar Index: 83.5

JPYUSD currently at: 90.5 (Yen has strengthened)
JPYUSD Month Ago: 93

The End of the Finance Economy - I Hope

For what is ‘normal’? Were the decades of the 1990’s and 2000’s, which witnessed unprecedented prosperity in the financial sector, normal? Logic dictates that the answer is no. There was “too much finance”. So much so that the financial system was a farce.

The financial sector became far too large in relation to the real economy. The compensation of those who worked in the financial sector became increasingly disproportionate, and abhorrently so, relative to the wages being earned in the real economy making real things. Too many financial instruments were being derived on other financial instruments, becoming too far removed from anything that even remotely resembled real assets or real economic activity.

These were abnormal times, and were therefore unsustainable times. The heyday of finance was nothing more than a pyramid scheme, only viable until it was unable to reel in the last sucker.

The world has finally come to the realization that pushing paper to other paper pushers for the sake of paper pushing doesn’t, in fact, constitute real value-added economic activity. The myth of the financial system as an unbridled source of wealth has been exposed.

Now is the Time to get Into Stocks

He's usually not known for mincing his words, nor for fear of raising his head above the cornfield others know as the global financial sector, but when Dennis Gartman called for a decisive change in the outlook for global equities last week his call will have caught the attention of many.

Is this the same Dennis Gartman who produced one bearish note after another bearish comment since mid last year -at times in strong and defiant opposition to raging market bulls who believed that temporarily rising share prices was a vindication of their own views? It surely is the same one. And to spice it all up a bit more, he was happily pointing out the call came with strong conviction.

Many more market analysts and commentators have -mostly cautiously- expressed a view that the worst could now be over for global equity markets. Few, however, have dared to go as far as Dennis Gartman (at FNArena, we don't know anyone ourselves and we certainly haven't seen anyone anywhere thus far).

The man himself has tried to explain it in the last two editions of his daily newsletter, the Gartman Letter:

"We are asked, "If you are so bearish still of the economy, how can you be bullish of equities?" The answer is very simple: It is called a capital market for a reason. Capital, created by the central banks, floods into the system as the economy wanes, but not being needed as inventories are worn down, as employees are laid off, and as business conditions deteriorate, that capital finds its way into equities.

"Therefore, equities rise even in the midst of recession. It is for this reason that the stock market is one of the "leading economic indicators." Conversely, as business conditions heat up; as inventories are accumulated and as employees are added to payrolls, capital is demanded by the economy itself, and that capital flows from the equity market at the margin.

"Therefore, equities begin to weaken long before the economy makes its top and turns to recession. If one keeps this simple, but elegant, notion in mind, it makes the game of investing in the midst of recession a great deal easier."

Gartman happily concedes more difficult economic times lay ahead. The bottom line remains, however, that stocks are heading higher.

Doom and Gloom

After the dismal US jobs report was announced the doom and gloom in the main stream media was deafening.

I learned over the years that what ever the mainstream reports today is the "top" or in this case the "bottom" of an investment cycle then we are near the end of the cycle.

The same dismal US Jobs report five years ago marked the beginning of the US bull market of 2003-2007, rising more than 60% in the next five years. Furthermore, US unemployment remains low by historical standards.

I am still fully invested in income producing assets and if I am right we could have a decent market rise over the the course of the year.

Real Estate is no Longer a Sure Thing

I think residential real estate booms in most Western Countries are over. Real Estate is going to be experiencing its own kind of implosion.

The fundamental statistic that nobody can change, is that each new generation across the OECD is roughly 60% of the size of the previous generation. The thing that made real estate the investment that you couldn't lose on in the long term simply because there'd be more people out there to move into the buildings or the homes. We've gone into reverse on this.

So places like the coast of Spain will continue to benefit from people who get second homes or decide to move there. The number of Brits who move to Spain to escape the British climate and so forth. You get home buyers that way. Similarily in palces loke the coast of Florida, Mexico and Panama. But on a total basis, what you have is a failure to reproduce (or even replace) the population. So that real estate has moved from being a growth asset over the longer term to one that over the longer term can only go into contraction.

Many people I know plan on selling their home and use the proceeds to fund their retirement. As time marches on and the Baby Boomers retire and try to cash out of their homes we will experience a long term secular decline in real estate.

This is a new theme that has not been considered by most of us.

This is why we must invest in income producing assets today to fund our retirements tomorrow.

S&P 500 and TSX extremely cheap in relation to bonds

S&P 500 and TSX extremely cheap in relation to bonds

Nick Majendie

What a week in global equity markets! For the short term, we believe that a significant rally is likely over the next few weeks/months. For the long term, in relation to bonds, we believe the S&P 500 has recently been as cheap as it has ever been since 1979, while the TSX last week was as cheaply valued as it has ever been back to the late 1950s.

As longer-term investors start to allocate assets over the next few week/months, we believe there is a decent chance that they will conclude that it makes sense to increase equity allocations against competition from Government bond yields.

The interest rate reduction announcement in the US this week was in all the headlines and the buzz on the investment boards.

What was lost amidst all the panicky selling and then panicky buying, is that real yields, almost everywhere, are negative.

And when you have negative real yields almost everywhere, then you have the beginnings of a chance for things to recover.

Most recessions come at a time when there’s been a huge run-up in interest rates as central banks have been tightening and you already have high real yields and those real yields grow as prices fall during the recession phase because of inventory liquidations.

Well, this is going to be so different from past cycles. First of all, we start a recession with a record low inventory-to-sales ratio in the US. Now that’s contrary to past recessions where the crucial factor was a big build-up in inventories.

Well, the real answer is that real interest rates are below zero. Far below zero on the ten year note, which is what we price mortgages off. We’ve got a 3.66 ten year US nominal yield, which means it’s negative forty-one basis points. In past recessions the real interest rates were very high.

Therefore, we should get a bounce in the equity markets but in the short term logic does not matter. I am raising a little cash for now and will be buying back in when I feel safer. I still feel that income producing assets will suffer least.

Finacial Sense Newshour Transcript on Investing for Income

Investing for Income

Partial Transcript of Finacial Sense Newshour with Jim Puplava and John Loeffler on January 12, 2008

JOHN: Maybe the hallmark of the next few years is actually going to be the word “uncertainty” like we've been using here on the program today. A lot of people, baby boomers, a huge block of population moving into retirement, and if they are moving into retirement in a time of uncertainty, especially given the fact that the Social Security trust fund is bust, there is nothing in it, nor can it be sustained at these levels except by devaluating the currency (which means everybody will get their Social Security check, but it's not going to be worth very much), what does that mean for people who are trying to plan economically in these times?

JIM: Well, you know, we used to have these standard formulas. I started out as a certified financial planner –and you know, you retire, you put 50, 60% of your portfolio in fixed income because now you need income to live on because you no longer have a paycheck or money coming in from a business. But, John, that assumes that you're in a period where you have low inflation as we did throughout much of the 80s and 90s.

But what do you do in a period where you have high inflation? You know, it's very tempting, right now, to say, “okay, I'm going to retire, I'm going to turn my portfolio into fixed income, I'll get 4 or 5% income.” The problem that investors have today is if you look at where the yields are, you've got less than 2.6% on a two year Treasury note, a 10 year treasury note is less than 4% (it's actually less than 3.8) and it's probably going lower here in the short term. I sure in heck would not want to be investing long term given the levels of inflation that we see today. And so, you know, that's why we've always stressed about, you know, about blue chip dividend-paying stocks.

And over the long run, the rate of return is going to be much, much higher to an investor or somebody that is retiring today than, let's say, somebody who is going to be in a fixed income. I mean if I go out and buy a 10 year Treasury note today, let's say I invest $10,000. I can get right now 3.8%.

And every six months I'm going to get my check. I'll make $380 dollars a year every single year. The question is what is going to be the cost of living in the year 2018or 10 years from now, you know, because 10 years from now, I will get my $10,000 back, and I will have gotten $380 dollars a year. But that $380 dollars a year that I'm getting from that Treasury note is not going to buy the same goods and services 10 years from now that it will buy today.

And for that matter, the $10,000 that will mature 10 years from now is not going to have the same purchasing power. And if you just think about anything you're buying today, what does it cost to buy a house today compared to 10 years ago? My kids can only afford to buy a condo for the price that I bought a large house 10 years ago. And that's what's happened. I mean think of what a car costs today compared to 10 years ago.

Think of what it costs to send your kid to a four year college to get a degree compared to 10 years ago. Compare that to what you're paying to visit your doctor, compare that to what you're paying to just go out and take a vacation. It's just absolutely remarkable in terms of what we've seen and the cost of living in basic goods.

JOHN: Well, does that mean, then, that some people aren't going to retire? The day of Sun City Arizona and retirement places like that may be over, per se. People are going to have to work.

JIM: Yeah. I think that is probably more in the retirement formula today for a lot of boomers, which is going to be that you're going to retire, but during retirement, you'll be doing some sort of part-time work. And actually, you can look at it quite positively, John. They find people that keep themselves active in retirement, actually live longer, their minds are more alert.

And, you know, maybe you don't do what you did for a living during your working career. Maybe you do something that you enjoy doing. I had a client that retired many years ago who was in the publishing industry and he ended up being a tour guide at the Hearst Castle. Just absolutely loved it. I have another client that retired six, seven years ago and because he was a history professor he serves as a tour guide for one of the travel companies.

So let's say you're, I don't know, you're taking a trip to Europe, Italy or something like that, he's sort of a tour guide. So I mean he's having the time of his life. And actually, he gets to go free. So working during retirement is going to be part of the retirement picture for a lot of boomers, but I think more importantly investors or retirees are going to have to think differently about their portfolio in an age of low interest rates and higher rates of inflation.

I mean if you take a look at the yield on a two year Treasury note or one year Treasury bill or 10 year Treasury note, the yield on a 10 year Treasury note is less than the headline inflation number, and even though we know that headline inflation number is actually basically a sort of a fictitious number.

JOHN: Okay. Every year you put together, usually around this time of the year, a portfolio of 10 stocks. And say you had bought these stocks, what, 10 years ago?

JIM: Yeah.

JOHN: What would your income have been?

JIM: Well, what we do, and I use this as an exercise and I don't -- anybody listening to this, this is not an endorsement or recommendation. It is done for illustration purposes.

But mainly we take a look at the Dow 30 stocks. And we pick sort of a wide variety of stocks, some financial stocks, consumer stocks, industrial stocks, medical stocks, energy stocks. And we've been using this formula for these stocks mainly over the last couple of years to illustrate this point. But what we assume is you had a portfolio.

You had $100,000 and you put $10,000 into each one of these stocks and then you just held on to them for 10 years. And just once again, I'm going to mention the companies and this is not an endorsement. This is done strictly for illustration. But we had a financial stock, an insurance company AIG, a consumer retail McDonalds, Disney Entertainment, Johnson & Johnson (on the medical side), Honeywell, Exxon, American Express (financial company), 3M (manufacturing), GE (manufacturing) and Coca Cola (consumer products company). And so in 1998, had you invested in these stocks – remember, we were going through a stock market boom during that period of time, and stocks were expensive –but let's say you put $10,000 into each one of these stocks, you would have received in dividends at the end of 1998 holding them for a whole year roughly about $1700 in dividends.

Five years later in 2003, the 1700 in dividends grew to 2400 in dividends. So basically, we saw a 700 dollar increase in the value of those dividends. And finally 10 years later in the year 2007, dividends would have grown to a little over $4100. But what's really remarkable about this, assuming that you spent all of the dividend income, your $100,000 would have grown – and remember, that would have meant buying stock in 1998, and remember the terrible bear market that we went through for three years in 2000, 2001 and 2002 – during that period of time, you would have gotten over $81,000 of capital appreciation; you would have gotten almost $33,000 in income.

And so basically, without dividends, your return was 181,000. Final investment with dividends was 214,000. If you want to take a look at that, it was a simple return of 81% or 8.1% a year. If you want to look at total return, which was income –the dividends – plus capital appreciation, it was 114% return, or an annualized return of 11.4%, easily increasing what you would have gotten in fixed income.

What was even more remarkable, the top performing stocks, Exxon, McDonalds, 3M and J&J had the highest total dividend payments. So companies that had good business models, that had good cash flow and consistent earnings are able to increase their dividends at a much higher rate than companies that don't.

So the top performing of the 10 stocks were the stocks that had the highest total dividends payment. The worse performing stocks, AIG and Disney had the lowest dividend payments. And here's something that's even more remarkable. The average total return for the top two dividend players was 219%, an annualized return of 21.9% a year, while the total return for the two lowest paying dividend stocks was only 33.5%, or a return of a little over 3%.

The highest dividend paying stock out of the group was Exxon Mobil that had a total return of 282%; and even if Exxon stock price went nowhere, the dividend alone would have given you a return of 76%, an annualized return of 7.6% just on the dividends. And Jeremy Siegel in his book The Future For Investors did a comparison. I'm not going to repeat it here because we talked about it last year on the show where he took, from 1950 to the year, I think -- I think it was 2004, he took two stocks: and if one would have thought of the ideal growth stock in the year 1950, it would have been IBM (the computer industry was coming into itself and changing the way we work today with computers); and then Exxon, which is basically an oil stock. And the total returns from Exxon versus IBM were far superior. And here, John, is just the study that we do each year confirms this very same thing because the best performing out of those 10 stocks were the stocks that produced a consistent higher stream of dividends.

JOHN: And that would seem, you know, in this environment we're in right now of really high inflation, which threatens to stay that way for some time to have things in your portfolio that are going up which offset that, so you're keeping pace with it.

JIM: Absolutely. I mean if you look at Exxon in the last five years, Exxon has increased its dividends at an annual rate of 8.3% a year. Imagine getting an 8.3% pay raise every single year. If you look at Johnson & Johnson, another one of the top four performing dividend stocks, Johnson & Johnson has increased its dividends 15.3% a year over the last five years. Here's one that will blow your mind: McDonald’s. I mean we're talking about basically hamburgers here. McDonald’s has increased its dividend roughly 45% a year.

Think of that number. 45% a year over the last five years. How many of us would love to get a 45% pay increase every single year with the kind of inflation rates. And even 3M, a manufacturing company has increased its dividend roughly about 9.2% a year over the last five years. And this is why, John, I think that as you get into retirement, having blue chip companies, and that's why I like to look at the Dow stocks. They are the biggest, the most stable, sound financially. And you don't get to be a blue chip in the Dow without having a successful business model and being a very stable company. I mean Johnson & Johnson (medical), 3M (manufacturing), Exxon (oil), McDonald’s (food franchises and now they are getting into adding coffee bars to compete with Starbucks).

And whether you're looking at a book written by three authors Dimson and Marsh wrote a book called Triumph of the Optimists. They talked about dividend studies going back over the last 100 years. Not only just in the US but 16 other markets. Study after study after study, it's confirmed dividend investing is a far superior approach and a more stable approach. And especially for somebody entering into retirement that wants to be a little bit more conservative in thinking about what they are going to be doing when they retire: maybe they have 401(k) program or a pension that they are going to have to rely on. That's why I think in an age of inflation, you've got to think about the dividend approach for income with high stable companies because that's what's going to keep you even with inflation. A Treasury bond today, yes, it may allow you to sleep at night the first six months of the first year.

But with the levels of inflation that we're seeing today, it's not going to keep you even with inflation five years from now and you're going to be struggling 10 years from now if you're on a fixed income because what are you going to have that's going to increase and compensate you and allow you to buy the same goods and services that you buy today. It's absolutely amazing, but year after year, the study continue to improve itself.

2008 Investment Recommendations

BASIC POINTS INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS with my comments in italics at the end of each point.

1. Remain heavily underweight banks, particularly investment banks that have displayed monumental stupidity. Do not assume that a change at the top will automatically convert them into temples of wisdom, (unless it is accompanied by demands for the departing to repay bonuses based on bets that turned out disastrously). Better to assume that, like subprime-based CDOs, there are layers of rot that can make the entire product dangerous to your financial health.

Stay away from Canadian Banks for now. Especially the CIBC.

2. Remain overweight Emerging Markets, emphasizing those that are oil, gas,and/or food exporters.

I do not like investing in emerging markets.

3. Soaring food costs threaten stability for some Third World economies. We have been ardently endorsing India since we returned from our leave of absence a year ago. We are now more cautious, because a weak monsoon could be politically and economically destabilizing at a time of $4 corn and $10 wheat.

Stay away from Indian stocks or ETFs for now.

4. Remain heavily overweight gold—both stocks and the ETF. Gold is almost as good a protection against banking problems as SKF—the UltraShort Financials ETF—a security which may not be a suitable investment in some portfolios.

SKF-N is interesting or you can try HFD-T in Canada.

5. We continue to believe that the Agricultural stocks are the pre-eminent investment class of our time. Farm incomes are rising rapidly, and, in the US, farms and farm land are the real estate assets that are rising in value and are virtually immune to foreclosures. That means the leading Ag companies have great pricing power and minimal credit problems. We now hear suggestions that because food inflation has finally made it to the cover of The Economist, it is time to start moving toward the exits. Not so: We think that fine cover story could be the atonement—At Last!—for
the magazine’s famous 1999 cover: $5 Oil.

Look at CVL.UN-X

6. Remain overweight oil and gas producers, including the Alberta oil sands producing companies. As disappointed as we are with the new royalty schemes in that province, Alberta certainly remains more attractive than Nigeria or Angola—and much more attractive than Russia, Kazakhstan, or Venezuela.

Recommend COS.UN or how about HTE.UN?

7. We think it is time to begin accumulating the refiners that are equipped to handle heavy high-sulfur crude. The collapse of the crack spread has savaged refiners’ earnings, but that will eventually rebound. The Saudis have virtually turned out the Light, and less and less of the oil that the Gulf states will be lifting will be of the most desirable grades.

This makes Harvest Energy HTE.UN very interesting

8. Retain the base metals stocks that have long-life unhedged reserves in secure areas. Even if there is a global recession caused by global collapses of subprime paper and LBO loans, it will not be deep enough to drive base metal prices back to 2004 levels—but would be worrisome enough to push further mine development even farther into the future.

Take a look at MMP.UN-T

9. When borrowing, borrow where possible in dollars. When investing, invest where possible in other currencies.

Good idea.

10. Stagflation is a bad backdrop for bonds—and for non-commodity stocks. The central bankers could have headed it off had Wall Street behaved with a modicum of morality, but the Fed and its brethren are forced into sustained reflation because of the global solvency crisis. Corporate earnings for most sectors will not meet current optimistic Street forecasts, and rising inflation will reduce the market’s P/E.

Stay away from market index funds for now.

Agricultural Stocks Are The Pre-eminent Investment Class Of Our Time

Don Coxe continues to believe that the Agricultural stocks are the pre-eminent investment class of our time. Farm incomes are rising rapidly, and, in the US, farms and farm land are the real estate assets that are rising in value and are virtually immune to foreclosures.

That means the leading Agricultural companies have great pricing power and minimal credit problems. We now hear suggestions that because food inflation has finally made it to the cover of The Economist, it is time to start moving toward the exits.

Not so fast.

In Don's December 19, 2007 Basic Points newsletter he makes an elegant argument of where we have been and where we are going. Don has been recommending Agricultural stocks for the last year and those that have listened to his advice have all-ready made some nice gains.

I will be emailing a copy of Don's December 19, 2007 Basic Points newsletter (this is only issued to Clients of Nesbitt Burns) on December 29, 2007. So if you haven't signed up for our free service then please do as soon as possible.

Income Generating Securities Do Well In An Interest Rate Cutting Environment

Tha Bank of Canada reduced interest rates by 25 basis points today and the US Federal Reserve is expected to do the same next week.

The US Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada are expected to continue to lower interest rates in an effort to prevent a recession.

When that happens, investors generally turn to dividend-paying stocks to boost their return.

If history is any guide than stocks in the utilities sector, dividend paying stocks and income trusts will trend higher over the coming months.

Inflation or Deflation? - Canada Will Begin to Experience Deflation

Although inflation concerns are proving to be a concern due to rising commodity prices, other sectors of the economy such as retail prices and imported goods rasises the possiblity of a deflation scare are climbing in Canada.

Goods prices are already firmly in deflationary territory. Service sector inflation (outside of housing) failed to overly inflate during the boom, and is likely to lower in eastern Canada with the economy growing at a sub-par pace. Retailers are in price discounting mode. Inflation is not going to be a constraint on the Bank of Canada, and I expect rate cuts ahead, especially with the credit crunch continuing to roll on in the US.

As a matter of fact the bifurcating economy will result in the deflationary pressue of the non-commodity producing sector to overtake the inflationary pressure from the commodity sector resulting in a defaltionary bias.

This should provide a lift to interest sensitive securities over the coming months. I especially feel that Canadian REITS will be one of the first beneficiaries of this trend.

Transcript of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's Address to US Congress on November 7, 2007

This posting is a little different than most of my postings. However, there is a major political and economic re-alignment taking place in the world today which is under the radar of most media. This has long term implications for our investments which I feel are very positive.

In a nutshell, the entire Eurozone (Eastern and Western Europe) is re-aligning themselves with the USA. Most of the media carries stories of world wide hatred of the USA and the latest American credit mess will be the downfall of the USA.

However, the exact opposite is true. I have written that we should never underestimate the Americans and they will get themselves out of this econmic credit mess and the US$ will eventualy recover.

To prove my point I am publishing the transcript of French President Nicolas Sarkozy's address to US Congress on November 7, 2007. France, under Chirac led the Eurozone and worldwide anti-american crusade. This speech is so pro-american that it shows the French have made a 180 degree turn on their foreign policy.

Please take a moment to read this transcript...you will be surpsised.

-----------------------------------------------------------
November 07, 2007
Renewing the French-American Alliance
By Nicolas Sarkozy

Madam Speaker, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The state of our friendship and our alliance is strong.

Friendship, first and foremost, means being true to one's friends. Since the United States first appeared on the world scene, the loyalty between the French and American people has never failed. And far from being weakened by the vicissitudes of History, it has never ceased growing stronger.

Friends may have differences; they may have disagreements; they may have disputes.

But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, friends stand together, side by side; they support each other; and help one another.

In times of difficulty, in times of hardship, America and France have always stood side by side, supported one another, helped one another, fought for each other's freedom.

The United States and France remain true to the memory of their common history, true to the blood spilled by their children in common battles. But they are not true merely to the memory of what they accomplished together in the past. They remain true, first and foremost, to the same ideal, the same principles, the same values that have always united them.

The deliberations of your Congress are conducted under the double gaze of Washington and Lafayette. Lafayette, whose 250th birthday we are celebrating this year and who was the first foreign dignitary, in 1824, to address a joint session of Congress. What was it that brought these two men--so far apart in age and background--together, if not their faith in common values, the heritage of the Enlightenment, the same love for freedom and justice?

Upon first meeting Washington, Lafayette told him: "I have come here to learn, not to teach." It was this new spirit and youth of the Old World seeking out the wisdom of the New World that opened a new era for all of humanity.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant putting into practice the dreams of the Old World.

From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who--with their hands, their intelligence and their heart--built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.

What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France's eternal gratitude.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The men and women of my generation remember the Marshall Plan that allowed their fathers to rebuild a devastated Europe. They remember the Cold War, during which America again stood as the bulwark of the Free World against the threat of new tyranny.

I remember the Berlin crisis and Kennedy who unhesitatingly risked engaging the United States in the most destructive of wars so that Europe could preserve the freedom for which the American people had already sacrificed so much. No one has the right to forget. Forgetting, for a person of my generation, would be tantamount to self-denial.

But my generation did not love America only because she had defended freedom. We also loved her because for us, she embodied what was most audacious about the human adventure; for us, she embodied the spirit of conquest. We loved America because for us, America was a new frontier that was continuously pushed back--a constantly renewed challenge to the inventiveness of the human spirit.

My generation shared all the American dreams. Our imaginations were fueled by the winning of the West and Hollywood. By Elvis Presley, Duke Ellington, Hemingway. By John Wayne, Charlton Heston, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth. And by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, fulfilling mankind's oldest dream.

What was so extraordinary for us was that through her literature, her cinema and her music, America always seemed to emerge from adversity even greater and stronger; that instead of causing America to doubt herself, such ordeals only strengthened her belief in her values.

What makes America strong is the strength of this ideal that is shared by all Americans and by all those who love her because they love freedom.

America's strength is not only a material strength, it is first and foremost a spiritual and moral strength. No one expressed this better than a black pastor who asked just one thing of America: that she be true to the ideal in whose name he--the grandson of a slave--felt so deeply American. His name was Martin Luther King. He made America a universal role model.

The world still remembers his words--words of love, dignity and justice. America heard those words and America changed. And the men and women who had doubted America because they no longer recognized her began loving her again.

Fundamentally, what are those who love America asking of her, if not to remain forever true to her founding values?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today as in the past, as we stand at the beginning of the 21st century, it is together that we must fight to defend and promote the values and ideals of freedom and democracy that men such as Washington and Lafayette invented together.

Together we must fight against terrorism. On September 11, 2001, all of France--petrified with horror--rallied to the side of the American people. The front-page headline of one of our major dailies read: "We are all American." And on that day, when you were mourning for so many dead, never had America appeared to us as so great, so dignified, so strong. The terrorists had thought they would weaken you. They made you greater. The entire world felt admiration for the courage of the American people. And from day one, France decided to participate shoulder to shoulder with you in the war in Afghanistan. Let me tell you solemnly today: France will remain engaged in Afghanistan as long as it takes, because what's at stake in that country is the future of our values and that of the Atlantic Alliance. For me, failure is not an option. Terrorism will not win because democracies are not weak, because we are not afraid of this barbarism. America can count on France.

Together we must fight against proliferation. Success in Libya and progress under way in North Korea shows that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. Let me say it here before all of you: The prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. The Iranian people is a great people. It deserves better than the increased sanctions and growing isolation to which its leaders condemn it. Iran must be convinced to choose cooperation, dialogue and openness. No one must doubt our determination.

Together we must help the people of the Middle East find the path of peace and security. To the Israeli and Palestinian leaders I say this: Don't hesitate! Risk peace! And do it now! The status quo hides even greater dangers: that of delivering Palestinian society as a whole to the extremists that contest Israel's existence; that of playing into the hands of radical regimes that are exploiting the deadlock in the conflict to destabilize the region; that of fueling the propaganda of terrorists who want to set Islam against the West. France wants security for Israel and a State for the Palestinians.

Together we must help the Lebanese people affirm their independence, their sovereignty, their freedom, their democracy. What Lebanon needs today is a broad-based president elected according to the established schedule and in strict respect of the Constitution. France stands engaged alongside all the Lebanese. It will not accept attempts to subjugate the Lebanese people.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

America feels it has the vocation to inspire the world. Because she is the most powerful country in the world. Because, for more than two centuries, she has striven to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom. But this stated responsibility comes with duties, the first of which is setting an example.

Those who love this nation which, more than any other, has demonstrated the virtues of free enterprise expect America to be the first to denounce the abuses and excesses of a financial capitalism that sets too great a store on speculation. They expect her to commit fully to the establishment of the necessary rules and safeguards. The America I love is the one that encourages entrepreneurs, not speculators.

Those who admire the nation that has built the world's greatest economy and has never ceased trying to persuade the world of the advantages of free trade expect her to be the first to promote fair exchange rates. The yuan is already everyone's problem. The dollar cannot remain solely the problem of others. If we're not careful, monetary disarray could morph into economic war. We would all be its victims.

Those who love the country of wide open spaces, national parks and nature reserves expect America to stand alongside Europe in leading the fight against global warming that threatens the destruction of our planet. I know that each day, in their cities and states, the American people are more aware of the stakes and determined to act. This essential fight for the future of humanity must be all of America's fight.

Those who have not forgotten that it was the United States that, at the end of the Second World War, raised hopes for a new world order are asking America to take the lead in the necessary reforms of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the G8. Our globalized world must be organized for the 21st century, not for the last century. The emerging countries we need for global equilibrium must be given their rightful place.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to express one last conviction: Trust Europe.

In this unstable, dangerous world, the United States of America needs a strong, determined Europe. With the simplified treaty I proposed to our partners, the European Union is about to emerge from 10 years of discussions on its institutions and 10 years of paralysis. Soon it will have a stable president and a more powerful High Representative for foreign and security policy, and it must now reactivate the construction of its military capacities.

The ambition I am proposing to our partners is based on a simple observation: There are more crises than there are capacities to face them. NATO cannot be everywhere. The EU must be able to act, as it did in the Balkans and in the Congo, and as it will tomorrow on the border of Sudan and Chad. For that the Europeans must step up their efforts.

My approach is purely pragmatic. Having learned from history, I want the Europeans, in the years to come, to have the means to shoulder a growing share of their defense. Who could blame the United States for ensuring its own security? No one. Who could blame me for wanting Europe to ensure more of its own security? No one. All of our Allies, beginning with the United States, with whom we most often share the same interests and the same adversaries, have a strategic interest in a Europe that can assert itself as a strong, credible security partner.

At the same time, I want to affirm my attachment to NATO. I say it here before this Congress: The more successful we are in the establishment of a European Defense, the more France will be resolved to resume its full role in NATO.

I would like France, a founding member of our Alliance and already one of its largest contributors, to assume its full role in the effort to renew NATO's instruments and means of action and, in this context, to allow its relations with the Alliance to evolve.

This is no time for theological quarrels but for pragmatic responses to make our security tools more effective and operational in the face of crises. The EU and NATO must march hand in hand.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to be your friend, your ally and your partner. But a friend who stands on his own two feet. An independent ally. A free partner.

France must be stronger. I am determined to carry through with the reforms that my country has put off for all too long. I will not turn back, because France has turned back for all too long. My country has enormous assets. While respecting its unique identity, I want to put it into a position to win all the battles of globalization. I passionately love France. I am lucid about the work that remains to be accomplished.

It is this ambitious France that I have come to present to you today. A France that comes out to meet America to renew the pact of friendship and the alliance that Washington and Lafayette sealed in Yorktown.

Together let us be worthy of their example, let us be equal to their ambition, let us be true to their memories!

Long live the United States of America!

Vive la France!
Long live French-American friendship!

Nicolas Sarkozy is the President of France.

Is It Time to Get Out of the Market? Not Yet!

Once in awhile I like to republish an article that I have read that seems very relevant. This past year has been troubling as my income from investments has been eaten up by capital losses. I have been seriously rethinking my strategy because of all the uncertainty in the market.

I subscribe to Max Whitmores newsletters. I just received this news letter and its not yet published on his web site. I am watching his key line chart. If the markets violate his chart I think we may have to move into cash.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Whitmore: It’s A Confidence Thing

I have been through a lot of ups and downs in my 40 years as a broker-money-manager-analyst-columnist and they are always the same in one crucial respect. There comes a moment when one side or the other — the bulls or the bears — blink.

Call it what you will, this business is a business of backbone and beliefs. The beliefs that one carries down deep in his heart of hearts about anything is the true summing up of an individual’s outlook on life and selection of values and ethics to live by. But the even greater part of that heart is the backbone. Call it courage, guts, or what have you, to brace against the storms that seek to shake one’s deeply held convictions.

Now, hang with me on this. This is not a philosophical discussion I am embarking on today. It is a look at what I believe is one of those pivotal moments of our current market cycle where somebody’s about to blink. Yes, I have written on this subject before, alerting you to this coming event, but at that time we weren’t upon the threshold of the event.

In my estimation, the next three to four weeks will determine the direction this market takes for the next six to 12 months. And it will all come down to the same “one moment” I have seen so often before, where one side or the other blinks.
What is it that causes the blink? It is the oldest of old human qualities — CONFIDENCE. In this case, it will be the confidence in one’s studied evaluation of the economic facts against the huge supply of rumors that have filled many pages and talk shows during the last six months or so.

Will this deluge be bad enough that the bulls will blink or will the stubborn refusal of the market to tank finally sap the bears determination to drive the market lower? Clearly, it will be a confidence thing for either side.

Again, hang with me as I would like to digress for just a moment. Early in my career in this business, I was fortunate enough to have met a guy that, as I look back on it now, was one of the most savvy market analysts that I have ever met. His name was Roy Klopper.

He was a contrary son-of-a-gun, he was. Short on talk, unless it was to say something that counted and yet, one of the nicest guys I have ever met. For reasons I still don’t understand, he took me under his wing in those days because I was really struggling to try and understand this business and frankly not doing too well at it.

Roy took me to lunch one day after a particularly tough morning and after a sandwich and coffee (I had to pay — he never gave anything away, he said) he proceeded to spend three hours telling me what it was all about.

The bottom line was, he said, I needed to forget all about studying that huge number of reports I got every week on all of those companies. He told me even the best fundamentalist can’t remember all those facts and figures. He said, “Go to the one place where nobody can fool you. Go to the charts.”

I listened to him and embarked on what turned out to be a four-year study course from Professor Roy. What did I learn? I learned the basics of how to build what I now call my Super Chart. In it is included all the world’s real-time evaluation of what the future holds for investors. He said that it was far more important to listen to what people do versus what they say they might do.

OK, back to business. Just below is my current Weekly Super Chart for the S&P 500, as of the close on Nov. 14.

Can I ask you for one final hang in there? I have been asked quite often why I use the S&P 500 instead of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to call the market moves. The answer is really quite simple.

The 500 stocks are much more difficult to distort with concentrated trading by big traders than the Dow. Often in tough markets, the big money will concentrate on the Dow (comfort food for big money) and avoid the S&P stocks.

The result is a false picture of the market. Let me illustrate. Below is my Dow Jones Industrial Average Super Chart for the same period as the above S&P 500. Note especially the period from 2000 to mid-2003.

The S&P gave a solid sell signal during the week of Nov. 17, 2000, but not the Dow. The S&P never gave another signal until the week of June 20, 2003, while the Dow gave no less than five and, depending on the interpretation, as many as seven false signals. Hope that helps you better understand why I use the S&P.


But now, back to the guts of this column. After a huge 3000-point Dow point from July 2006 to July 2007, the market has seemingly chosen to work a 1,000 point range between Dow 13,000 and 14,000. Such trading ranges are not unusual, but occur more often at the bottom of a decline, not the top of a move.

A trading range at the top of a move is, 75 percent of the time, a “cooling off” move, “a correction in time” Roy use to called it.

The length of this correction period is usually best timed by counting the number of times the correction touches the bottom and top of the trading range without breaking through it to the upside or downside.

This current correction has touched top and bottom four times (including the new high as touch No. 1. And count the last touch No. 4 as last Friday, even though it did not close right on the trading range low at S&P 1432.

I have seen trading ranges go as many times as seven touches before they break — usually BIG! So, yes, we could still see as many as three touches before one side or the other blinks.

But I think that this trading range, being at the top of the move, leans more to the fewer touches (say four to five) before the breakaway. That puts us very, very near a possible break-away move.

So, what does my deep-down confidence say will happen? Well, both of the bottom touches in this trading range occurred above my Super Chart Keyline, 35 points for the first touch and 55 points on the fourth touch last Friday, but both were clearly above.

Experience tells me when this happens the move has a probability of better than 70 percent to 75 percent to break to the upside when all is said and done.

But, we are close enough to the Keyline to have to keep a close eye on it the next several weeks. We had a very similar situation in July 2006 and in that one the bears blinked first. Then, what a beautiful rally!

Bottom line is that despite all the fears, rumors, ups and downs of the market, scandals, and potential (notice I said potential) disasters looming in the background, the majority of traders still see a good future in the market — at least up until the close on Tuesday. For now, that is the real news of the day.

As I get ready to close this week’s column, it is interesting that some sage words of my mentor come to mind. As I neared the finish of his four years of training, Roy said to me, “Max, above all I have taught you, remember this first rule.

Never, never get married to a price target or the direction in which you think the market should go. Let it tell you what is happening. Put your confidence in the chart, and then put your money where its mouth is.”

I have never forgotten that sublime, quietly spoken sentence. It has saves me many times when I was just so sure that the chart must be wrong!

My advice to you is the same. Until we see different, use sell-offs to be a buyer. Look for bargains in stocks you like and know something about. And buy long-term call LEAPS on the S&P or Dow and cash in even more. As long as the Super Chart says buy, let it tell us what to do. And above all, don’t blink!!

Hedging Our Bets on Investing for Income Between Credit and Inflation Risk

Condensed Version of
HEDGING OUR BETS
by Roger Conrad
Editor, Utility & Income
October 9, 2007

Income investments come in all shapes and sizes. But all have one thing in common as far as we’re concerned: We’ve got to buy and hold ‘em to get the most out of them.

Part of that is axiomatic. You can’t collect the distributions unless you stick around for them to be paid. Individual bonds are the exception because they accrue interest as long as you hold them. But as far as stocks, Canadian trusts, limited partnerships, income-paying funds, preferred stocks or anything else goes, you’ve got be in there on the ex-dividend dates or you won’t get paid.

Ironically, the most important reason income investors need to buy and hold is capital appreciation. A healthy, growing company will increase its dividend over time, and its share price will follow. If you’re trading, you won’t get that gain unless you’re very, very lucky.

Buying and holding, of course, isn’t without risks. For income investors, there are basically two: credit risk and inflation risk.

The former has been on investors’ minds this year. And virtually anything perceived as having too much debt—or too unorthodox a capital structure—has taken hits.

There are two ways to protect your portfolio against credit risk. One is by sticking only to high-quality, growing companies and shedding anything where the business fundamentals are weakening. The other is to diversify broadly, both in terms of individual stocks you hold and across market sectors.

When the markets are universally panicked about recession or a credit crunch, big institutional money will pretty much sell off anything that doesn’t have the word “Treasury” in it. And that’s exactly what happened on the worst days over the summer.

The key in a market like that is to avoid the real blowups, i.e., the companies that are really in trouble. This time around, that was basically financial companies that had gotten in really deep in the mortgage market and/or collateralized debt obligations. As JP MORGAN CHASE’S $5.5 billion writeoff announced today illustrates, there are still some landmines in this area, though that stock is actually up today.

In contrast, damage to most other income investments in recent months was largely because of guilt by association. Limited partnerships (LPs), for example, were walloped by concerns about their debt structures and whether or not they’d be able to access capital markets. Both fears have proven largely groundless, at least for the best quality LPs. As a result, money is starting to flow back in and shares are recovering.

The lesson: If you avoid the blowups in an environment of elevated credit risk, your losses will be short-lived. In fact, such times are golden opportunities to buy high-quality income stocks cheaply.

THE GREATER RISK NOW IS INFLATION - ESPECIALLY IN THE USA

The bottom line is, if you pick your stocks carefully, diversify well, shed holdings that weaken business-wise and are willing to be patient in downturns, you can make your income portfolio pretty much foolproof against credit risk.

Guarding against inflation risk, however, is a whole other matter. Income-oriented investments are especially vulnerable to inflation because they’re valued to a large extent on the basis of yield. Rising inflation pushes market interest rates higher, which makes those yields worth relatively less. As a result, income-oriented investments sell off to a point where yields are again attractive.

During the 1970s, Treasury bonds were among the absolute worst investments to own. Credit risk was zero.

But every incremental increase in inflation made investors demand a higher yield to compensate for the erosion of principal. And by the time inflation peaked in the late ’70s and early ’80s, bonds issued at the lower rates of the ’60s had lost most of their real value.

We haven’t had a real inflation problem in the US since those bad old days. We have, however, had occasional flare-ups that have wreaked havoc on everything from REITs to utilities.

In each of the past five years, we’ve had a spring or summer spike in interest rates, as investors have anticipated faster growth and higher inflation. The benchmark 10-year Treasury note yield spiked, and income investments across the board sold off. Each time—including this year—rising rates sowed the seeds of their own reversal, sparking worries about the economy and ultimately sending them lower.


As we move into the fourth quarter, rates are down and credit worries are receding. As a result, income investments are starting to recover their summer losses. That rally should continue throughout the fourth quarter. Utility stocks, for example, have had a positive fourth quarter in 35 of the last 40 years.

After that, however, the future gets considerably cloudier. With the Federal Reserve apparently willing to do whatever it takes to avoid recession, credit risk is no longer the primary concern. Rather, it’s inflation. And the more money the Fed and other world central banks pour into the system now to bail out the likes of JP Morgan, the greater the risk.

One way income investors can protect themselves against inflation is healthy growth. Not even companies that can grow dividends reliably and robustly have historically been able to hold their share value in the face of rapid inflation. But they do a credible job with moderate inflation, if for no other reason than investors need to get their income from somewhere.

How bad can inflation get this time is the $1 million question. And as is always the case with market economics, that’s impossible to forecast.

What we do know, however, is there are investments that pay moderate income and actually do very well in inflationary environments. By adding them to already diversified portfolios, we can cut the inflation risk to our overall portfolios.

What I’m talking about are metals and other vital resources. Over the past five years or so, many of the raw commodities—from copper to zinc—have doubled and tripled in value. The primary reason is global growth.

Not since the ’70s has the world seen such robust, synchronized economic growth. And unlike then, the US isn’t the only driver of growth this time around.

We’re still the most important economy. But China, Japan, Europe, India and the Middle East are also driving things. That makes this growth wave a lot more durable than the last one. In other words, a US recession would no doubt slow things down, but it wouldn’t derail global growth as it did in the early ’80s.

Metals and other raw commodities are the essential fuel for global growth. And the faster and more universal growth is, the greater the strain on supplies. Already, we’ve seen Russia plant its flag on the North Pole, while China and Europe are snuggling up to African dictators and the regime in Iran. And that’s only the beginning, as competition for scarce resources grows.

Eventually, every commodity cycle ends. Ever-rising prices induce consumers to change their habits and develop alternatives, even as they incentivize new discoveries. The process, however, can take years and even decades before the supply/demand balance shifts back in favor of consumers, and it’s never entirely painless.

One of the hallmarks of a top in a commodity cycle is breathless speculation that supplies are truly running out. I’m not hearing any of that now in the financial media.

In fact, the buzz is largely about how the commodity bull has reached unsustainable levels and that its days are numbered. This is in stark contrast to what’s happening in the market place, and the disconnect likely points to a lot more ahead.

Commodities and vital resources are good inflation hedges for one major reason: They represent hard value. Gold, for example, has been a global store of value for millennia. When US inflation undermines the value of paper money, gold holds its own—mainly by surging in US dollar terms.

The best way to play a boom in commodities and vital resources is to buy stocks of the companies that produce them. For one thing, gains are leveraged. For example, a company producing copper at a total cost of $1 a pound will see its earnings double if the metal moves from $2 a pound to $3 a pound—a 50 percent gain in the metal itself. And good companies are always growing, providing a rising base of earnings.

I’ve already been talking about high-yielding energy bets like Canadian trusts, Super Oils and combination utility/producers for some time. We’ve seen some staggering profits in these over the past five years or so. And until we see the factors that ended the ’70s energy bull market in abundance—greater conservation, switching to alternatives (not biofuels), new conventional reserve discoveries (not from oil sands or extreme deepwater drilling) and a global recession—we’re going to see a lot more gains.

The takeover offer for Canadian trust PRIMEWEST ENERGY TRUST by the ABU DHABI NATIONAL ENERGY CO—which was at nearly a 40 percent premium to the pre-deal price—is a pretty clear value alert for that sector. And whether it means takeover for the likes of other strong trusts like Enerplus Resources or Penn West Energy Trust or not, it does add up to big gains ahead for the best trusts, in addition to their high distributions.

Energy is only one resource that offers income investors an inflation hedge.