Investment Pornography, Part 1

Caught your attention, didn’t I?  Please don’t be offended by the title of this post, and please don’t snigger over it.  This is serious business, after all. Also called “Financial Pornography,” investment pornography consists of (1) alluring magazine cover headlines promising juicy riches, (2) articles featuring exciting ways to capitalize on supposed opportunities and (3) outlandish claims and predictions that may, in fact, be bad for your financial health. Finally, it has no redeeming value whatsoever (except that it is good for a laugh).

When I go to conferences held by Dimensional Fund Advisors, one of the best run and most respected mutual fund companies, the lecture known affectionately as “Investment Pornography” generally gets the most attention and the most nodding heads of recognition. The presentation consists of articles from popular finance magazines followed by a quick analysis of what actually happened. Punchline: They were spectacularly wrong, time and time again.

Future posts will cover articles that are way too optimistic and were written simply to get you riled up enough to buy a magazine, newspaper or investment newsletter. Today’s topic is of the other kind of Investment Pornography, the alarming article that promotes fear. This is the other side of the outlandish approach to getting your attention.

Sympathy and Recognition

I feel sorry for a journalist who covers the stock markets. A writer typically takes the financial news of the day (which is, more often than not, pretty muddled), and tries to make some sense of it by quoting various people who at least sound as though they know what they’re talking about.

The fact is that sometimes stock prices go up and sometimes they go down, and sometimes they don’t do anything. And no one can predict what is going to happen next. That’s why it’s best to be a buy and hold type investor. But, really, who would read that story over and over? Would you?

So although writers try to be accurate, relevant and interesting, they frequently stray into making predictions. In my opinion, trying to predict the future is futile, and can be downright dangerous. Sometimes a writer will positively mislead you and convince you to do something you will regret.

Fear Mongering

A year ago, on March 6, 2009, I took the New York Times to task for fear mongering at (possibly) just the wrong time. By coincidence the stock market hit its actual bottom a year ago on March 9th, the next business day. Read that post for an egregious article that, if followed, would have cost you dearly.

While, in general, I love the New York Times’ reporting, here is a recent example of fear mongering from the January 25th article, Volatility and Politics Spark Fears of Market Correction, by Javier C. Hernandez.

Here are some questionable quotes with my comments:

“Brace yourself for another wild ride on Wall Street.” (Sounds scary, doesn’t it?)

“Worries about the strength of the global recovery and proposals from Washington to clamp down on banks have sent fresh jitters through financial markets, prompting chatter among traders that stocks could be poised for that rare but alarming phenomenon: a correction.” (Rare and alarming? Not really; it happens more often than you’d think.)

“Over three tense days last week, stocks tumbled nearly 5 percent; the Dow posted triple-digit losses on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, ending the week at its lowest level since November.” (So? Five percent declines are quite common and mean nothing. Three days should definitely not make anyone “tense.”)

“Some analysts believe the downward momentum may continue.” (True, but other analysts don’t.)

“A confluence of all those headwinds creates a perfect storm of uncertainty on a market that had already been a bit vulnerable to a pullback,” said Quincy M. Krosby, a market strategist at Prudential Financial. (“Perfect storm”- nice phrasing; I sure hope that it didn’t convince you to abandon a well-thought out plan, though.)

“A severe decline in the market is far from assured. There are no certainties on Wall Street, and stocks have been known to bounce back after similarly turbulent periods.” (Thank you, thank you, thank you! I couldn’t have said it better myself.)

“In the near term, an unusual degree of uncertainty may bring more losses to the stock market.” (Yes, and then again it may not.)

Fast Forward Five Weeks

By contrast, after the market had gone up, the New York Times had this March 5th article: Markets Find the Upside of the Jobs Report also by Mr. Hernandez.

What a difference five weeks makes! Now, after the stock market has gone back up, we read “better-than-expected snapshot of unemployment in the United States lifted Wall Street on Friday, reinforcing hopes that the job market — and the broader economy — might be gaining strength.”

Here are more quotes with my comments.

“The fact that unemployment is not getting worse is great news for the market.” (First of all, it is possible that statistically the recession has already ended. Second, the unemployment news tells us only what has already happened, not necessarily what the stock market will do.)
…

“In light of that uncertainty, the question for Wall Street is whether the upward push can endure.” (You are free to guess what the stock market will do short-term, but no one knows.)

…

“The major indexes have recovered from their losses in January, and they are in positive territory for the year. Last week brought strong gains, with all three indexes ending the week more than 2 percent higher.” (Good thing we didn’t bail out and sell after reading that January 25th article, hmm?)

Enough

I am not picking on the New York Times. It is a must read for me every day, for its reporting and also for its opinion columnists. In truth, if I had to give up either reading the New York Times or watching TV, it would be a difficult choice.

And the New York Times is certainly not alone in its fear-mongering role; almost without trying, you can easily find dozens of predictive articles in most, if not all, national publications.   Money magazine has had many silly articles that would have cost you big bucks.  SmartMoney is frequently not-so-smart.   Business Week and Forbes should be ashamed. Time magazine is well known for its lurid front covers of Depression-like photos.

My advice is to ignore such articles, because they are in fact “Financial Pornography.” They attempt to, and often succeed in, getting people riled up, by either pandering to fear or greed. More likely than not, they are heavily influenced by what has already happened.

If they correctly predict what the markets subsequently do, it is merely a coincidence, in my opinion. Save your time and your money. Pay no attention to sensational articles with worrying predictions, or ones that identify sure-fire investments for that matter. By the time you read the story, any relevant facts are already reflected in today’s prices. It is too late to consider what you read to be useful, actionable information.

Do not be influenced by short term fluctuations or worrying articles. It is much better to have a plan and to stick with it.

Wisdom Worth Sharing

As 2009 winds down, I would like to share some wisdom with you from another writer. Frank Sonnenberg is not only a friend, but a marketing maven and strategic thinker. In my opinion, his post on “25 Thoughts for the New Year” has the rare quality of being pithy without being glib, and expresses insights that are wise and helpful, without being too sentimental.

• If you don’t pass your values onto your kids, someone else will.
• You’d think we’d learn something from watching a hamster run around on its wheel.
• Practice doesn’t make perfect if you’re doing it wrong.
• Paradise is not a place; it’s a state of mind.
• Fun shouldn’t be confused with happiness.
• A homeless person wasn’t at one time.
• If work isn’t fun, you’re not playing on the right team.
• Trying to be excellent at everything leads to mediocrity.
• Some people don’t communicate. They just take turns talking.
• Everyone was put on this earth for a good reason . . . what’s yours?
• When it comes to charity, some people stop at nothing.
• Trust takes a long times to develop, but can be destroyed in seconds.
• Anger is a loaded weapon . . . be careful where you point it.
• Lessons in life will be repeated until they are learned.
• Marrying for money is a high price to pay.
• A great start doesn’t always guarantee a great finish.
• It’s better to get called out swinging than called out on strikes.
• Just because it say’s “URGENT” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s important.
• People often count their pennies yet squander their dollars.
• Half a sandwich shared with a hungry person is more nourishing than the whole.
• Helping people too much only makes them helpless.
• Those who serve arrogance as their main course will eat humble pie for dessert.
• Always give 110%. It’s the extra 10% that everyone remembers.
• We teach children to color inside the lines, and then expect adults to think outside the box.
• Live every day as if it were your last. One day it will be.

My plan for early 2010 is to begin a series of posts on lessons we all should have learned from the “Great Recession” and one of the biggest and sharpest stock market declines any of us have ever experienced. I hope to present these lessons in plain English, and with “real life” stories that you’ll be able to identify with. Ultimately, my goal is to help you to avoid the same mistakes again.

Oh, and if you’re wondering, my favorite thought on Frank Sonnenberg’s list is “Lessons in life will be repeated until they are learned.”

When Our Brains Short-Circuit

“We have met the enemy… and he is us.” – Pogo.

Have we (i.e. mankind and womankind) developed in such a way that we are prone to making bad long-term decisions?  Is it a matter of evolution?  Is there any hope?

Last week, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column with the eye-catching title, When Our Brains Short-Circuit, that I read with interest.  I believe that the article provides lessons for all of us, as citizens and as investors.

A quick summary of Kristof’s thesis is that, because of the way we perceive risks, our brains are not suited to solving long-term problems.  His column addresses the issue of carbon emissions, global warming and how we are reacting to this threat.  It is not my place to assess the degree of the threat or the comparative advantages and disadvantages of suggested solutions such as a cap-and-trade system versus a tax on carbon, so I won’t even try.

What I would like to do, however, is to point out that our brains can sabotage our individual financial decisions, so the concepts are quite relevant for us as investors.

First, I’d like to recommend Nicholas Kristof’s columns, which are, for me at least, required reading, because he frequently writes about topics that are generally ignored by other columnists.  Sometimes the subjects are quite disturbing – the tragedy in Darfur, human trafficking, and the immense suffering caused by poverty in the developing world.  While it is upsetting to read about such things, he is not just about just gloom and doom.  He also writes inspiring stories about courageous and innovative people who are making significant improvements in the lives of others.  Overall, I find Kristof’s writing riveting.

Here are some quotes from his column.

Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks.  In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.

“What’s important is the threats that were dominant in our evolutionary history,” notes Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University.  In contrast, he says, the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar.

Professor Gilbert argues that the threats that get our attention tend to have four features.  First, they are personalized and intentional.  The human brain is highly evolved for social behavior (“that’s why we see faces in clouds, not clouds in faces,” says Mr. Gilbert), and, like gazelles, we are instinctively and obsessively on the lookout for predators and enemies.

Second, we respond to threats that we deem disgusting or immoral — characteristics more associated with sex, betrayal or spoiled food than with atmospheric chemistry.

Third, threats get our attention when they are imminent, while our brain circuitry is often cavalier about the future.  That’s why we are so bad at saving for retirement.

Fourth, we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual. We yawn at a slow melting of the glaciers, while if they shrank overnight we might take to the streets.

In short, we’re brilliantly programmed to act on the risks that confronted us in the Pleistocene Age.  We’re less adept with 21st-century challenges.

This short-circuitry in our brains explains many of our policy priorities.  We Americans spend nearly $700 billion a year on the military and less than $3 billion on the F.D.A., even though food-poisoning kills more Americans than foreign armies and terrorists.

Risk Perceptions

All four of Gilbert’s “features” affect people’s perceptions of many aspects of finance, but let’s focus on this one – “we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual.”  How does this affect a comparison of risk perception regarding stocks versus bonds?  Remember that all investments have risk. 

Consider the word “bond.”  It sounds substantial, even reassuring; “My word is my bond.”  We believe bonds to be something sturdy and steadfast. Stocks prices, on the other hand, we know to be variable, fluctuating for no apparent reason.

Encouraged by the media, we are all riveted by substantial stock market declines, especially if they occur over a short period of time.  From all media accounts, it seems as though the sky must be falling; certainly the adjectives bandied about by TV broadcasters don’t help: meltdown, disaster, crash. 

Even something as simple as the phrase, “stocks are declining today” is misleading.  It would be more accurate to say “stocks have declined.”  To say they “are declining” implies that they will continue to go down, which may or may not be true.

Market volatility can be sharp, sudden and terrifying.  And yet we know that the long-term trend of stock market prices is up.  In fact, on a yearly basis, stock market returns are positive in seven out of ten years.  Of course, we cannot know which years will be positive and which will be negative, but we do know that investors expect to be rewarded for taking risks, and they are rewarded, over the long term.

The Real Risk

Consider, on the other hand, what I think is the real risk for investors – the long-term erosion of the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar. You never see a large increase in prices on any given day, but over time, inflation has been slow, constant and nearly invisible.

In truth, we vastly overestimate the probability that a stock market decline will cause us to suffer catastrophic losses, but we also vastly underestimate the probability that, over the decades of retirement, erosion of purchasing power will grind down our lifestyle.

Wise investors will constantly remember that markets can and do go down suddenly and significantly, but they have never stayed down.  For the long-term investor, the effect of declines has been negligible.

By the same token, prices very rarely go up much in any one year, but they virtually never stop going up. You can observe the cumulative effect by comparing a 15-cent first-class U.S. postage stamp issued to celebrate the 1980 summer Olympics with a brand new 44-cent stamp today.

And yes, I know that currently inflation is not a concern.  But my prediction is that it will be; I just do not know when.

Conclusion

I believe that investors should have both stocks and bonds in their long-term portfolio, and for reasons discussed in earlier posts, I favor mutual funds, not individual securities.  My advice is don’t be so concerned with short-term fluctuations in stock prices.  Remember, the real long-term risk is the erosion of your purchasing power.

For a longer discussion of the real risk of the loss of purchasing power over time, read Nick Murray’s book Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth, which also provided the postage stamp example.

60 Minutes – The 401(k) Recession

Sunday’s 60 Minutes piece on 401(k) retirement plans was rather shallow, and not at all what you would hope (and expect) from CBS’s popular, long-running show. The template for this type of exposé is generally that there is a problem/scandal and some party has been physically hurt or financially injured, and some other party has to bear the blame.

According to the 60 Minutes portrayal (sadly, all true, by the way), people have lost jobs, their portfolios were destroyed and retirement dreams must now be deferred. Steve Kroft interviewed discouraged job seekers at a job fair, which, if nothing else, provided sympathy and some activity to televise. It’s curious (and quite a coincidence!) how the interviewees just happened to have their 401(k) statements with them.

Naturally, he only interviewed older people, and that’s fine; after all, it’s the older folk who are more severely impacted. In my opinion, younger investors will be fine, as long as they continue to contribute to their own 401(k) plans and invest in stocks. In fairness to 60 Minutes, they did spend about a dozen words on this distinction.

According to my analysis of the 60 Minutes template, we must find victims and we must identify villains. Indeed, they found a very sympathetic woman who not only lost a lot of money in her retirement account, but lost her job as well. She cried on camera. And 60 Minutes made a veteran industry spokesman appear unabashedly unsympathetic, though that may have been the result of heavy editing of his comments.

Actually, the 13 minute piece combined two things: (1) people have lost money, and (2) fees are hidden in 401(k) plans and may be excessive. What they downplayed is that more consumer education is needed. Surely, they could have spared a few more sentences than the paltry few they uttered on that particular, very important, issue.

What can we actually learn from the 60 Minutes segment?

People Lost Money

Well, yes. But, what wasn’t said is that that has been true of other investment accounts as well, not just 401(k) plans. Small business owners have also suffered, as have people who have lost their jobs. Why only claim that 401(k)s have let down participants?

Fees

Yes, high fees can hurt investment performance, so 60 Minutes got it right that high (and hidden) fees can be a big problem in retirement plans. But they chose merely to list the types of fees, not quantify them or put them in a useful context. In my experience, some 401(k) plans are quite good. Some are too expensive. On the other hand, many 403(b) plans have very high fees, yet no one is examining them.

Risk

Defined Benefit Plans (pensions) have been in decline for some time. The old pensions were much better for average Americans, because loyal employees knew (more or less) what they would get, and they didn’t have to worry about making investment decisions. But employers were happy to get rid of traditional pensions to help reduce future costs and to reduce the business risk of achieving adequate market returns. Accordingly, employers have emphasized Defined Contribution Plans and largely dropped pensions.

In essence, investment management and investment risk were transferred to employees, and they were not prepared to make wise choices. In a bull market this was not so noticeable.

The Solution

The nature of defined contribution retirement accounts, such as a 401(k) or 403(b) plan, is that, while they provide a tax-deferred avenue to save for retirement, they need to be managed. Someone has to determine an appropriate asset allocation, based on a number of factors. Moreover, if you have other investments, it is ideal to treat all of your investments as one portfolio. And your allocations should probably change over time. As you get closer to retirement age, you generally will need to be somewhat more conservative in your investments.

The fundamental problem is that people thought that they could simply invest in the 401(k) plan without putting too much consideration into the asset allocation. Or it could be that they chose hot funds based entirely on past performance. The show did not go into any details as to why the participants had done so poorly, only that they had.

Clearly, more consumer education is needed. Fortunately, there are efforts currently under way to provide independent, unbiased support that will assist more employees to make informed decisions about their retirement plans.

Suggestion for 60 Minutes

The producers could have done a much better job. Next time, they should compare and contrast two people. One individual who had read a couple of personal finance/investment books or had consulted a financial planner who explained risk and return, asset allocation and the need to become more conservative as one approached retirement. The second individual would be one who did not understand any of these issues and pretty much just winged it with what amounts to a large part of her net worth.

While this comparison would have been useful and very telling, it would, of course, have made for pretty boring TV.

Rolling over to an IRA account

If you have a defined contribution account – 401(k) or 403(b) – from a former employer you can do a tax-deferred transfer to an IRA account. This would give you more control and more choices, but it should be done carefully. To that end, I recommend that you consult a fee-only financial planner. Otherwise, you may end up paying even higher fees than what you are now paying! You might even, heaven forbid, be sold a variable annuity to put in your new IRA.

To be continued.

Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser

An article in the April 13, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled Seven Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser largely misses the boat. Granted, it is a challenge to find a “reliable” financial advisor; however, the article did a poor job of advising you on how to go about it. Reading it may leave you with the conclusion that it is impossible to find a financial planner you can trust. There can be nothing further from the truth.

I take exception with the emphasis of the article and several of its points.

How does the adviser get paid?

Mentioning that there are different methods of compensation, as the article does, is not sufficient.

As I’ve said in previous posts, the key issue in choosing a financial advisor is finding one who will act in your interests. To determine that, you must know exactly how and who compensates your chosen advisor. If an advisor is fee-only, you’re off to a good start.

Remember that a stockbroker must act in the employer’s best interests, and that you are not his employer. A Registered Investment Advisor, on the other hand, must act in a fiduciary capacity, i.e. in the clients’ best interests.

Stockbrokers are subject only to a “suitability” standard. They are regulated by FINRA, which (despite their rhetoric) is dedicated to protecting stockbrokers and their employers, not necessarily investors.

What do the adviser’s clients say?

This may or may not be relevant or helpful.

Registered Investment Advisors are governed by the 1940 Investment Advisor Act, which expressly prohibits providing “testimonials,” which client references would fall under. Of course, a client recommendation or testimonial could easily be concocted anyway.

What’s the adviser’s track record?

The WSJ article didn’t even come close to getting this issue right. Choosing an advisor based on his/her supposed investing track record is the wrong approach on several counts!

Even if you did find an advisor with a “superior” track record, we know that it is meaningless, because, as has been stated before, “Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results.” If you’ll recall, Bernard Madoff had a superior track record, many testimonials and lots of personal references and endorsements. And we all know what he did.

Key Financial Solutions does not try to “beat the market.” We are not active managers, because studies show that the added costs offset any possible gains of active trading.  Market timing and stock selection do not work.

Since we are not mutual fund managers, we do not have one uniform documented track record. Real financial planners take into account their client’s needs, financial objectives and tax situation before investing their money.

Because our clients have different risk tolerances and time horizons, they naturally have different portfolios and, therefore, different investment performance.

Financial Planning versus Investment Performance

Understand that beating an index is not a financial plan. What a good financial planner will do is give clients the best chance to achieve their goals.  Because the financial plan sets the parameters of the portfolio, a portfolio is simply a tool to realize clients’ goals.

Don’t get me wrong, we are quite proud of our portfolio design, because we use low cost, tax-efficient mutual funds to build globally diversified portfolios.  I am personally fascinated by asset allocation and portfolio strategy.  I use automated reports and individual spreadsheets to monitor a portfolio and to make changes, when appropriate.  Certainly all of these necessary tasks contribute something to investment performance, but not as much as having a plan and sticking to it.

Real Life Returns

Since investor behavior is a very large component of investment returns, we act as coaches so that clients do not make big mistakes.  For example, we manage how clients respond to the euphoria near market tops and to the panic and despair around market bottoms.

Behavioral advice – coaching clients to continue to do the right thing and to avoid doing wrong things – will have a greater impact on investment returns than attempting to choose next year’s hot sector or mutual fund.

Believing in full disclosure and transparency, we report results quarterly so that a client can see exactly how well his or her portfolio is doing. This report is net of all fees, which are clearly stated, rather than being hidden. But I do not recommend giving quarterly results much importance.

Conclusion

When considering whether to retain an adviser for a long-term relationship, avoiding conflicts of interest should be the first consideration. A strict fee-only method of compensation is the best approach for most people. Members of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors are strictly fee-only planners who sign a Fiduciary Oath.

NAPFA has always maintained that an advisor who is compensated solely through commissions faces immense conflicts of interest. This type of advisor is not paid unless a client buys (or sells) a financial product. A commission-based advisor earns money on each transaction—and thus has a great incentive to encourage transactions that might not be in the interest of the client. Indeed, many commission-based advisors are well-trained and well-intentioned. But the inherent potential conflict is great.

Greed and Stupidity

Last week, I had lunch with an old friend who told me that he was very upset because he had lost so much money on his investments. He said that he was of two minds about the people who caused his pain. On the one hand, he wanted to forgive them, but on the other hand, he wanted to get even. Both, perfectly natural feelings. Of course, the problem with the revenge approach is the he did not know exactly whom to blame. Like many people, he really didn’t understand how we got into this economic mess in the first place.

Well, as previous posts have discussed, it’s a complicated tale in that there are a lot of culprits and more than enough blame to go around, including lax government regulation, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders, overoptimistic rating agencies and everyone who thought real estate prices could only go up. But focusing on the banking system tells a large part of the story.

Recently, David Brooks wrote a column, Greed and Stupidity, which references some very good articles and contrasts the two theories of why and how bankers screwed up. Here are some relevant quotes regarding the two explanations – greed and stupidity.

What happened to the global economy? We seemed to be chugging along, enjoying moderate business cycles and unprecedented global growth. All of a sudden, all hell broke loose.

There are many theories about what happened, but two general narratives seem to be gaining prominence, which we will call the greed narrative and the stupidity narrative. The two overlap, but they lead to different ways of thinking about where we go from here.

The best single encapsulation of the greed narrative is an essay called “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson in The Atlantic.

Johnson begins with a trend. Between 1973 and 1985, the U.S. financial sector accounted for about 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In the 1990s, it ranged from 21 percent to 30 percent. This decade, it soared to 41 percent.

In other words, Wall Street got huge. As it got huge, its prestige grew. Its compensation packages grew. Its political power grew as well. Wall Street and Washington merged as a flow of investment bankers went down to the White House and the Treasury Department.

The result was a string of legislation designed to further enhance the freedom and power of finance. Regulations separating commercial and investment banking were repealed. There were major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks.

The second and, to me, more persuasive theory revolves around ignorance and uncertainty. The primary problem is not the greed of a giant oligarchy. It’s that overconfident bankers didn’t know what they were doing.

Many writers have described elements of this intellectual hubris. Amar Bhidé has described the fallacy of diversification. Bankers thought that if they bundled slices of many assets into giant packages then they didn’t have to perform due diligence on each one.

Benoit Mandelbrot and Nassim Taleb have explained why extreme events are much more likely to disrupt financial markets than most bankers understood.

To me, the most interesting factor is the way instant communications lead to unconscious conformity. …Global communications seem to have led people in the financial subculture to adopt homogenous viewpoints. They made the same one-way bets at the same time.

Jerry Z. Muller wrote an indispensable version of the stupidity narrative in an essay called “Our Epistemological Depression” in The American magazine. … Banks got too big to manage. Instruments got too complex to understand. Too many people were good at math but ignorant of history.

The Remedies

The greed narrative leads to the conclusion that government should aggressively restructure the financial sector. The stupidity narrative is suspicious of that sort of radicalism. We’d just be trading the hubris of Wall Street for the hubris of Washington. The stupidity narrative suggests we should preserve the essential market structures, but make them more transparent, straightforward and comprehensible. Instead of rushing off to nationalize the banks, we should nurture and recapitalize what’s left of functioning markets.

Both schools agree on one thing, however. Both believe that banks are too big. Both narratives suggest we should return to the day when banks were focused institutions — when savings banks, insurance companies, brokerages and investment banks lived separate lives.

We can agree on that reform. Still, one has to choose a guiding theory. To my mind, we didn’t get into this crisis because inbred oligarchs grabbed power. We got into it because arrogant traders around the world were playing a high-stakes game they didn’t understand.

Conclusion

I agree with Brooks’ belief that the main cause of our economic meltdown was stupidity – not understanding the real risks in using “outsized” leverage to buy risky assets. On the other hand, investment bank managers were receiving “outsized” bonuses based on short-term results, and the long term risks and ramifications was someone else’s problem.

Who says we have to choose between greed and stupidity?

Brawl Street: Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M – Th 11p / 10c
Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

I’m not a fan of the financial advice dispensed by CNBC’s talking heads. The “advice” is contradictory, often based on someone’s guess, and certainly not geared to your individual situation.

I find Jim Cramer, of Mad Money, particularly difficult to watch, and it’s not just the bombast. I believe that none of his recommendations make any sense. He is telling viewers which stocks will do well and which will do poorly, which is impossible to do.

Guessing which stocks to buy is not investing; it’s speculating. The public needs to understand that. So I was pleased that Jon Stewart of the Daily Show took Cramer to task. Since I believe that Jim Cramer’s infotainment gives viewers the absolutely wrong framework for successful investing, I think he got off easy.

ABC This Week with George Stephanopoulos had a roundtable discussing, among other things, whether CNBC fell down on the job covering the financial and business world.

Right at the end of the session, George Will nailed the real issue with his general rules in life.

• Don’t play poker with a man named Slim.
• Don’t buy a Rolex from someone who is out of breath.
• Don’t take financial advice from people who are shouting.

Amen.

CNBC Financial Advice

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
CNBC Financial Advice
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Last week Jon Stewart of the Daily Show ridiculed the usefulness of financial predictions made on some CNBC shows.  Stewart exposed the theatrics and general silliness of many CNBC commentaries, not to mention the shameful sucking up to CEOs.

Remember that the Daily Show is on Comedy Central, so have a good laugh. This is not meant to be fair and balanced.

Yes, CNBC has had some very good interviews with the likes of investor Warren Buffet, author John Bogle and PIMCO executive and author Mohamed El-Erian. But remember that many CNBC shows are essentially infotainment; they are meant to keep you watching so that CNBC can sell ads.

By the way, keep watching the show to see a humorous but also enlightening interview with New York Times columnist Joe Nocera.

Nobody is Buying Stocks?

“One of the funny things about the stock market is that every time one person buys, another sells, and both think they are astute.” – William Feather.

As stock prices have declined this week, I have noticed some sloppy journalism. According to newspapers and TV programs, there is so much pessimism about the economy that no one is buying stocks. Clearly if everyone else is selling, you would be foolish to be a buyer.

To get a sense of this interpretation, take a look at today’s New York Times article Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, Once Dow’s Pride by Jack Healy.

Here are some relevant quotes with my comments:

“With so much uncertainty, investors are parachuting out of companies like banks, retailers and utilities, and abandoning stock markets everywhere from Asia to Europe to Wall Street.” (Parachuting? Nice metaphor.)

“No one is taking a back-seat approach. Everyone is just selling.” – Peter I. Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners.  (Everyone?)

“Nobody wants to be invested, that’s the problem. I don’t believe we’re at the bottom yet.” – Eric Ross, director of research at the brokerage firm Canaccord Adams. (Nobody?)

A similar story was portrayed in an article in the Wall Street Journal, Stocks Hit ‘97 Level, Signaling Long Slump, on March 3, 2009 by Tom Lauricella and Annelena Lobb.

Here are a few quotes with my comments.

“It’s like an unending nightmare” – Kent Engelke, managing director at Capital Securities Management . (This is an exaggeration and seems to suggest prices will continue to drop.)

“The relentless decline is pushing investors to the sidelines.” (Not really. See explanation below.)

“I want to wait for a firm turnaround, and be as safe as possible,” Bijon Mishras, a financial-services consultant in New York. (Whoa, Nelly. Remember this quote and see how it turns out.)

“Nobody wants to buy a market today that they think is going to be down 2 or 3% tomorrow,” says Michael O’Rourke, chief market strategist at brokerage firm BTIG LLC. (Nobody?)

A Reality Check

Yes, the economic news coming out of everywhere is very bad, and yes, stock prices have had steep declines. But guess what? Every single time that someone sells a stock position, someone is on the other side of that transaction. Every single time. What do we call such a person? Insane? No. How about “buyer.” Sellers and buyers must be equal!

For every person who sells because he or she doesn’t like the prospects for the future (a.k.a a “pessimist”), there is someone who is buying (a.k.a. an “optimist”). That person thinks the investment is at a great price. Those two groups of investors or participants in the market have to be in equilibrium at all times.

When you look at it from that perspective, you don’t get the overwhelming sense of doom that the media creates — that there’s only one way for prices to go, and that is down. If that really is the case, then there are a lot of crazy people who are buying now.  I don’t think so.

The fact that prices have been going down does not mean that they will continue to go down. Just as in 1999, the fact that prices had been going up did not mean that it was a good time to buy stocks.

Risk/Reward

No one knows what tomorrow will bring, but unless capitalism ceases to function, stockholders will be rewarded in the long term for owning stocks and for taking risks. Yes, there is risk in owning stocks, as we have recently experienced. Since we’ve already seen the risk, how about staying around for the reward?

An old Wall Street proverb is that “Nobody rings a bell at the top or the bottom of a market.”

Are you waiting for that bell to ring? Don’t.

Financial Crisis for Beginners

I recently had dinner with my cousin who said, “I don’t understand how the economy was fine for so many years and now it isn’t fine. How did this happen? I don’t understand.”

Well, this is much too complicated a subject to discuss over just dinner, but I would imagine that many people feel the same way and are asking the same question as my cousin. “Why?”

Besides this blog, which has quite a few posts on this topic, I recommend checking out The Baseline Scenario, a web site whose tagline is “What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it.”
The founder of The Baseline Scenario is Simon Johnson, 46, currently a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. Previously, he was chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. Peter Boone and James Kwak also contribute to the site’s articles and posts.

Johnson is interviewed and quoted frequently, both in the mainstream media and on the internet. He has published many, many opinion pieces and articles on the global economic situation and possible solutions. He also writes for the New Republic and has been interviewed on NPR radio and the Charlie Rose program. Whew! It’s exhausting just following him around on the Internet!

In my opinion, The Baseline Scenario web site is so much more than just a simple blog. Rather, it’s a free online lesson on macro, monetary, and global economics.

The section, Financial Crisis for Beginners, quite effectively lessens the confusion. It covers pretty much everything, from old-fashioned bank runs to new-fangled credit default swaps. There are also very informative and helpful articles such as The Federal Reserve for Beginners and Interest Rates for Beginners. You’ll also find links to a thought-provoking article and radio interview, National Debt For Beginners.

Worth noting is the Japan’s Lost Decade article. While many economists, analysts and financial writers compare our current economic situation to the Great Depression, The Baseline Scenario suggests that “in many ways, a more relevant comparison may be the Japanese ‘lost decade’ of the 1990s, when the collapse of a bubble in real estate and stock prices led to over a decade of deflation and slow growth.”

It’s quite amazing that a single web site, and one ubiquitous observer, can have such an impact on the national debate. I highly recommend that you follow the articles and posts at The Baseline Scenario.

P.S. This is my 100th post. For some reason, this is supposed to be significant.

Next Page »