Dow 36,000 Is Nothing But A Book Title Now

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is currently at about the same level it was in early 1998. This means that, ignoring dividends, investors have earned nothing in 10 years.

In March 1999, immediately after the Dow broke above 10,000 for the first time, James Glassman and Kevin Hassett published their now infamous op-ed in the Wall Street Journal called Stock Prices Are Still Far Too Low. They argued that investors were overestimating the risks associated with investing in stocks. They argued that stocks were no more risky than a government bond.

Perhaps to demonstrate just how bullish they were on stocks, they also published a book that same year titled, Dow 36,000. They weren't trying to imply that the Dow should reach 36,000 some day. No, they were insisting that the Dow should be at 36,000 right now (i.e., in 1999).

Their point was that investors were wrong to think that stocks were risky simply because stocks were volatile. Because history showed that stocks outperformed bonds over the long term, the authors argued that stocks were really no more risky than bonds. In fact, they argued that the appropriate risk premium for stocks is zero.

This reminded me of a debate I had many years earlier about mortgages. My opponent at the time was arguing that the best mortgage is always the one with the lower interest rate. My point, however, is that cash flow must also be considered. A one-year interest free mortgage is clearly cheaper than a 30-year mortgage at 6%, yet there aren't many borrowers who have the kind of cash flow needed to service that one-year mortgage.

Likewise, stocks have outperformed bonds over the long term and may continue to do so in the future. But not all investors can stomach the volatility. Investors have cash flow needs. They can foresee some of those needs, but they can't foresee them all. This is why investment advisors never tell their clients to put all their money in stocks even though they believe stocks will do well over the long run.

Stocks are not risk free, but from a long-term perspective, they are probably less risky today than they were when the Dow was at 14,000. Yet at 14,000, investors were happy to buy stocks--many using lots of margin. But now, most investors are simply too scared to buy. Who knows when (if ever) the Dow will hit 36,000, but it's a good bet that it will hit 10,000 again--perhaps sooner than we think.

Beware the U.S. Congress

There are plenty of conflicts and problems going on around the world, each vying for the attention of global investors. The war between Israel and the Palestinians is currently on the front burner. It's a conflict that threatens to pull in Iran, which continues in its race toward a nuclear weapon. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still going on. Terror attacks in Mumbai threaten to break the shaky peace between Pakistan and India. And Russia is flexing its muscles by threatening former Soviet republics and restricting the flow of natural gas to Ukraine and Western Europe.

Given all these seemingly intractable problems, which poses the biggest risk for investors? According to Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group, the top risk of 2009 is financial regulation in the United States and the rising power of Congress.

Bremmer reminds us that following our last financial crisis, Congress gave us the Sarbanes-Oxley act. We are likely to get something much more onerous this time. The bottom line is that there will be considerably more regulation. Congress will try to regulate everything from the rating agencies to complex financial securities. It will also reform the regulatory agencies. The risk is that Congress may make things worse by delivering bad regulation or simply going overboard in a manner that prevents innovation.

Bremmer also worries that government is getting involved in the actual management of private enterprises. It already holds large stakes in publicly-traded companies, and there is talk of a car czar to oversee the automobile industry.

Finally, Bremmer is concerned that fiscal policies meant to spur the economy may fail. Infrastructure spending, for example, may end up doling dollars to favored pork barrel projects instead of targeting the most worthy programs.

The Eurasia Group is perhaps the best political risk consultancy in the world. It certainly is an ominous sign that this highly-respected firm thinks the U.S. Congress poses the greatest risk to investors in 2009.

Cut Property Taxes Now

According to the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city Home Price Index, housing prices peaked in July 2006. They have fallen 23% through October 2008. With employment falling, housing prices will no doubt go lower in coming months.

If there is any good news in this, it is that the affordability index is improving. This index tries to give us some sense of how affordable the median priced house is for the median income family. In addition to housing prices, the affordability index considers mortgage rates, which have also come down largely due to government intervention.

Unfortunately, the affordability index ignores an increasingly important cost of home ownership: property taxes. Prospective home buyers in many parts of this country, especially the Northeast and Midwest, must pay close attention to this cost before signing on the bottom line. For many homeowners the monthly outlay for property taxes now rivals their monthly payment toward principal and interest.

This economic recession we are currently struggling through was largely brought on by the collapse of housing prices. The recession won't end until housing prices stabilize. Lower mortgage rates are certainly helpful, but reducing property taxes would go a long way to provide a much needed boost to the housing market. Obviously, the federal government has no role here. It is up to local municipalities to cut property taxes. Like the rest of us, they need to trim their budgets and live within their means. Otherwise, more neighborhoods will be plagued with vacant and foreclosed homes.

Class A Sleuth

A dozen years ago, when I was on the faculty at Boston College, I was teaching in the Master of Science in Finance program. One of my students was a quantitative analyst at a hedge fund. This guy was an excellent student who instinctively understood derivatives and their pricing models. He was an active member of the Boston Security Analysts Society and provided great encouragement as I toiled with the CFA exams.

I joined Forbes in 1997. Every now and then I spoke with this former student of mine. Eventually, he quit his job. He told me he had become disillusioned with the whole Wall Street game and was convinced there was a lot of fraud going on in the industry. He said he was going into business for himself investigating fraud in the securities industry. Without being specific, he said he was on to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes ever. He also told me about his frustrations dealing with the SEC.

Sounds kind of paranoid, doesn't it? I knew this guy wasn't crazy, but I had to wonder if he wasn't exaggerating a bit. Well, imagine my surprise when I read about him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on Thursday morning. His name is Harry Markopolos and he has been mentioned on my blog before. It turns out the Ponzi scheme Harry was looking into was the one run by Bernie Madoff.

Thanks Harry for doing such a great service to your country. I wish the powers that be had paid more attention to what you had to say long ago.

Facebook Friend

One of the best things about Facebook is that it allows you to track down long lost friends. That's how I found Mark Stivers, the kid who lived three houses down from me when we were growing up. Mark is a multi-talented individual. It turns out he is also an excellent cartoonist. I suggested he draw this cartoon of Ron Gettelfinger, which fits in nicely with my Dec. 12 post. I hope to feature Mark's work from time to time in the Forbes Growth Investor.

The UAW has Priced Itself Out of the Auto Market

When the $14 billion bailout for the auto industry fell through last night, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said, "I dread looking at Wall Street tomorrow. It's not going to be a pleasant sight."

Stocks opened lower as Reid predicted, but not nearly as much as his words suggested. And soon after the open, stocks began to rally. Some will say investors grew hopeful that the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson would step in and use TARP money to save the auto industry. However, I believe investors are simply pleased that Congress is taking a hard stand against bailout seekers. Bad companies should be allowed to fail. At least some of our politicians have finally gotten that message.

Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Automobile Workers, gave a press conference this morning blaming Republicans for the failure of the bailout, but the conference only proved how defensive Gettelfinger has become. The U.S. auto industry is dying, yet the UAW refused to allow any wage concessions in 2009. The UAW doesn't seem to understand that it has priced its membership out of the market. While this union tries to "protect" its members, foreign manufacturers are grabbing market share and putting Americans to work throughout the South. It won't be long before out-of-work union members begin migrating south seeking employment at these non-union shops.

Initial Jobless Claims Get Worse

The Department of Labor reported today that initial jobless claims for the week ending December 6 hit 573,000 on a seasonally-adjusted basis. The news is certainly unsettling. Nonetheless, even though the number exceeded the consensus estimate by almost 50,000, the stock market gave the report a rather ho-hum reception.

Because the week-to-week initial claims figures can be volatile, economists prefer to focus on the four-week moving average. This average climbed to 540,500. It has risen six weeks in a row. During the previous recession (March to November 2001), the 4-week average climbed five weeks in a row before peaking at 489,250. I suspect, however, that this time we haven't yet hit the peak. The graph above plots the 4-week moving average ever since the 2001 recession began. As you can see, it has been rising sharply since late 2007, and so far shows no sign of leveling off. I really don't think it is alarmist to suggest that the unemployment rate could hit 8-9% by mid-2009.

Dismal Employment Numbers May Mark Bottom in Stocks

Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the employment figures for November. They weren't pretty. Nonfarm payrolls fell by a much bigger-than-expected 533,000. Even worse, the September and October figures were revised. October's job losses went from 240,000 to 320,000. September's went from 284,000 to 403,000.

The service sector alone lost 370,000 jobs in November. Losses were widespread from retail to automobile dealerships to leisure and hospitality. Health care was the only bright spot, gaining 34,000 jobs.

Surprisingly, the unemployment rate ticked up to just 6.7%. No doubt, this measure will rise considerably in coming months. I was criticized for suggesting it could surpass 8% by mid 2009. I sincerely hope I am wrong about that.

So far in 2008, the economy has lost an astounding 1.9 million jobs. It won't be easy to put all these people back to work on short notice. But that is exactly what President-elect Barack Obama hopes to do. Part of his economic stimulus plan is to increase infrastructure spending by $60 billion over 10 years. He estimates this will create about two million jobs--about the same number of jobs lost so far this year.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed just to bring all U.S. public works to good condition, so increasing spending on infrastructure is certainly a good idea. It is also inevitable. But $60 billion over 10 years is just a drop in the bucket. Despite so many other priorities right now, such as bailing out the the finance and auto industries, this figure is likely to rise.

The market initially responded to the employment figures just as one might expect. It sold off. Yet by the end of the day, stocks were up. The Dow finished higher by 259 points. I don't think investors are wrong to bid up stocks right now. The recession, which started a year ago, is already growing long in the tooth; and when employment numbers get this bad, it often marks a bottom in stocks. I continue to expect a strong rally in 2009.

How Low Can It Go?

No, I'm not talking about the stock market. I'm talking about crude oil and gasoline.

Back when oil prices were still well over $100 per barrel, I wrote in Forbes magazine that they were likely to fall. I thought the global slowdown and the rapid change in driving habits would bring oil down to about $70. Of course, we've already fallen well below that mark. Crude is now selling for less than $50. Gasoline prices have also plunged. According to the AAA Fuel Gauge Report, the national average retail price for regular unleaded gasoline is currently $1.93 per gallon.

It would be nice if prices were falling because the world had discovered a lot more oil. Unfortunately, prices are falling because demand is being destroyed. Much of the demand destruction is due to the global economic slowdown. In particular, people are driving less in the U.S. They are also driving more efficient cars. U.S. auto manufacturers are struggling in part because no one wants to buy a gas guzzler anymore. The Honda Civic is suddenly chic.

Other countries are being impacted as well. Europe and much of Asia are in recession. Although demand is still growing in China, it is growing at lower-than-expected rates.

So how low can oil go? It all depends on the severity of the global recession. It also depends on how serious we remain about alternative energy. Plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles seemed to make economic sense when oil was at $140 per barrel and $5 gasoline was within sight. But how many drivers would be willing to give up their internal combustion engines if gasoline is expected to remain below $2 per gallon?

Not long ago, no one seriously thought we'd see $40 crude oil again. However, now it appears that we'll see $30 very soon.

This Recession Will Last Longer Than Average

Most sensible economists agree the U.S. economy is in recession. Yet the fact remains that no recession has been officially declared.

The textbook definition of recession is two successive quarters of contraction. After posting very strong growth during the second and third quarters of 2007, GDP fell 0.2% during the fourth quarter of that year. However, it rebounded to 0.9% growth in the first quarter of 2008. The tax rebate checks, billed as an economic stimulus plan, boosted second quarter 2008 GDP to 2.8%. GDP fell 0.3% in the third quarter. So if the economy contracts during the fourth quarter, which it certainly will, we will have satisfied the textbook definition of recession.

The more relevant definition, however, is the one stated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This is the entity that has the authority to declare official recessions in the U.S. According to the NBER, "a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." By this definition, it appears that a case could be made that we have been in recession for almost a year.

The NBER takes its time in declaring recessions. According to the NBER, the last recession began in March 2001 and ended in November of that year. But the NBER did not declare the start of the recession until November, when the recession was already over. Furthermore, it did not declare the end of the recession until July 2003. That's almost two years after the recession had already ended.

Employment is one of the many factors the NBER studies when trying to determine if the economy is in recession. In December 2006, the unemployment rate stood at 4.6%. One year later, it had climbed to 5.0%. After dipping a bit in January and February of 2008, it resumed its upward drift. The unemployment rate for October hit 6.5%, 150 basis points higher than it was just 10 months earlier. The last time the unemployment rate visited this level was in April 1994.

Given layoffs like the one announced yesterday by Citigroup, there is no doubt unemployment will jump to much higher levels. Some economists hope the unemployment rate will peak around 7%. I think this forecast is much too optimistic. In June 1992, the unemployment rate hit 7.8%. In November and December of 1982 it peaked at 10.8%. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the unemployment rate to continue rising for some time even after a recession has ended. This is because employers are wary about hiring until they are convinced that better times lie ahead. At this time, I am expecting the unemployment rate to rise to somewhere between 8-9% by June 2009.

I believe the current (undeclared) recession began in January 2008. I am optimistic that it will end around June 2009. If I have the starting and ending points right, this recession will have lasted 18 months in duration. That is about the average length of all recessions recorded in the U.S. since 1854, but it is 10 months longer than the average since 1945. In fact, 18 months would set a post-WWII recession record.

Of course, if businesses become more aggressive with layoffs, retail sales continue to fall, and housing prices fail to stabilize by next spring, this recession could last considerably longer than 18 months. That would be a dire outcome indeed.

Tax-Related Selling Will Keep Market Volatile Until 2009

The following is from a Special Report sent to subscribers of the Forbes Special Situation Survey.

In our Oct. 7 Special Report we discussed the unprecedented level of volatility plaguing the markets. Things have gotten much worse since. Both the intra-day and inter-day swings on the Dow and other major indexes are simply mind boggling. There have been a number of days when the Dow opened up or down several hundred points only to finish in the opposite direction.

We believe this volatility will continue through the end of the year. We believe much of it is due to tax-related trading. Earlier this year, many investors sold stocks for hefty capital gains. They then invested that money back into the market. Now they are sitting on large capital losses. These investors will sell shares in order to realize those losses to offset their earlier gains in order to minimize their tax bill. This activity puts downward pressure on stocks.

Other investors have already realized large capital losses. Because the IRS limits investors to only $3,000 per year in net capital losses, these investors have an incentive to sell into rallies in order to realize whatever gains they can to offset their large losses. This activity keeps the market from going higher than it otherwise would.

Of course, on top of all this, hedge funds and mutual funds are selling in order to meet redemptions. Investors who want their money back from hedge funds by yearend must notify them by Nov. 15. If large numbers of investors do so, selling pressure could increase between now and the end of the year. Mutual funds are also selling heavily. Many investors who have seen the value of their mutual fund holdings collapse will be doubly shocked when they realize they will owe capital gains taxes on shares the mutual fund managers sold at a profit.

Given the extreme sell-off in stocks this year, subscribers should keep a watchful eye on their tax situation. Make sure you realize net losses of $3,000 ($1,500 if married and filing separately). If you realize more than that, you will have to carry forward the losses into the next tax year. That’s not a bad thing, but it is not as valuable as taking them now.

Once all this tax-loss selling is completed, the market will stabilize. We expect volatility to subside once January rolls around. Furthermore, even though the economy will exhibit tremendous weakness for at least another six months or so, the stock market is likely to rally long before the economy improves. A strong rally after a bad year is not unusual. A 50% rally in the Dow from current levels would bring us back to only about 12,750. A 25% rally translates into a 10,625 Dow. This is a level that looks quite achievable by the end of 2009.

Give (Small) Businesses a Chance to Flourish

I gave a talk yesterday at William Paterson University in Wayne, NJ about the economy and stock markets. Many of the participants were small business owners and were very concerned about how the dismal economic climate will affect small businesses in particular.

Small business is the backbone of the U.S. economy. It accounts for about half of all private sector employment, but it also accounts for most of the job growth. At least it did during the last decade. These days, of course, there is no job growth. The economy has shed almost 1.2 million jobs over the past 10 months--more than half a million in the last two months alone.

While the failure rate for new businesses is high, the fact is that owning your own business is one of the best ways to achieve economic prosperity. The new Obama administration should consider ways to make it easier for individuals to start and run businesses. One good idea is to exempt all new businesses from taxes for the first five years. Let them build up some steam before you slow them down. Besides, they will employ more people as they grow and the government will get its due from payroll taxes.

Everyone Should Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes, But Not a Penny More

I just returned from the Fourteenth Forbes Cruise for Investors. We left New York City on Oct. 29 and toured the Caribbean. I got off in Angtigua on Nov. 4, but the cruise is still in progress. I arrived at JFK airport around 11 p.m. on the 4th and entered the baggage claim area just as CNN declared Barack Obama the winner of our presidential election. The place erupted in cheers.

Most participants on the investment cruise were resigned to an Obama victory, but they worried about what this would mean for the economy. Of course, Obama has threatened to raise taxes on the so-called rich. Depending on the day, his definition of rich seems to include anyone who makes $200,000 per year or so. I know in some parts of this country this sounds like a good sum of money, but I do not know anyone in the New York City area who makes this amount of money who considers himself rich--especially if he is supporting a family. With the top 1% of income earners already paying 40% of all the federal income taxes, it seems the "rich" already pay way too much tax.

More than one-third of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. Some are honest hard-working people who simply do not make enough money to pay taxes. But others either refuse to work or work in the underground economy. Many grocers, landscapers, painters, waiters, musicians, etc. deal only in cash. Are all these cash-based businesses declaring their income and paying their fair share of taxes? Some experts estimate that the illegal drug trade alone has a global value of $400 billion--all of it tax free. Instead of trying to squeeze more money out of the rich, Obama should first make sure that everyone pays his fair share.

Lower Gasoline Prices Won't Pay the Mortgage

In my previous post I said, "Lower oil prices and more efficient cars will leave consumers with more cash to spend on other things." While this is certainly a move in the right direction, I don't want to leave the impression that we're talking about a lot of money here.

Assuming the average driver rolled up about 12,000 miles per year and got 20 miles per gallon, he would need to purchase 600 gallons of gasoline per year. At $3.50 per gallon, he would spend $2,100 per year for gasoline.

But now gasoline costs about $1 per gallon less than it did a month ago. Furthermore, drivers are also driving less and more of them are shifting to fuel efficient cars. So let's assume our average driver now drives only 10,800 per year and gets 28 miles per gallon. At $2.50 per gallon, he spends $964 per year for gasoline.

While that might look like a big saving, it comes out to less than $100 per month. Yes, it does leave consumers with more cash, but not enough to make a mortgage payment.

Lower Oil Prices and Tax Cuts Will Boost the Economy

The financial crisis, economic turmoil, and the stock market sell-off have investors in the doldrums. One bright spot, however, is the recent plunge in oil prices. While this is a welcome development, it is not entirely unexpected. In recent years, easy monetary policy brought us the tech stock bubble, the housing bubble, and the commodities bubble.

High oil prices were largely the result of a weak dollar. They had less to do with strong demand or too little supply. Perhaps it took longer than it should have, but high oil prices finally caused the demand destruction we have been expecting. In reality, this destruction has been going on for months, but it become noticeable only recently. For example, the Department of Transportation just documented a decline of 15 billion fewer miles driven in August 2008 than in August 2007. But it's already late October. No doubt, demand has continued to fall during the last two months as well. Furthermore, as I explained more than a month ago in Forbes magazine, "with global economies slowing, the dollar strengthening and U.S. demand declining, even the threat of hurricanes can't keep oil's price up."

OPEC has long been saying there is plenty of supply. Now it is worried there is too much. Cooler heads at OPEC never wanted to see prices go as high as they did because they feared high prices would cause a global recession—something that is clearly bad for their business. Now they are just as worried that prices will plunge to levels not seen in years. This is why OPEC just announced a 1.5 million barrel per day production cut.

But just as OPEC was unable to keep prices from spiking, it is likely to find that it can't prevent prices from falling. Some OPEC nations with weak economies were already exceeding their quotas, trying to sell as much oil as they could at ridiculously high prices. On paper, these nations are entirely in favor of a production cut. However, in practice, they will find it much harder to stick to their promises.

Some economists fear that lower oil prices will cause Americans to return to their profligate ways—putting conservation aside and buying up SUVs and pick-up trucks once again. This won't happen. Every automobile company has invested millions—if not billions—retooling their factories to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. No one is in favor of going back to old ways.

Lower oil prices and more efficient cars will leave consumers with more cash to spend on other things. This could do as much good as a meaningful tax cut, helping to revive the economy. Combine lower oil prices with a real tax cut and the economy is likely to boom. But if OPEC manages to push oil prices back up to recent highs, the U.S. and the entire world will have an extremely difficult time shaking off this recession.

Nouriel Roubini is a Star

I've been out of the office for several days. I spent a couple of enjoyable days in Blacksburg, VA, home of VA Tech University and one of my all-time favorite places. The view of the mountains as I flew into Roanoke airport was phenomenal. I went to Blackburg to give a talk about my book, Even Buffett Isn't Perfect. I was hoping to attract 100 people. About 300 showed up. In times like these, everyone is seeking Buffett's wisdom.

The Blue Ridge mountains provided much needed relief from these troubled markets. Readers of my blog know I had been bearish for quite some time. In fact, in June 2007, I even wrote a piece in Forbes magazine called Here Comes the Bear arguing that stocks were likely to sell off. Yet in all honesty, what we've seen has far exceeded my expectations. I never thought we would have this kind of selling.

One man who did is Nouriel Roubini. More than a year ago, when most economists were still very bullish on the economy, Roubini was calmly and clearly explaining why we were about to have a serious recession. When he warned about subprime mortgages and collapsing home prices and how this would cause systemic problems, he was often ridiculed. I'm sure his critics wish they could take back their words.

Roubini remains very bearish. In fact, he has been warning about widespread financial panic, arguing that fundamentals don't matter because everyone is selling. Take a look at his blog RGE Monitor. It is definitely worth a close read.

On Wednesday, Oct. 29, we are hosting the Forbes Family Business Forum. We were hoping to sign up Roubini as a speaker. Unfortunately, he wasn't available saying he had to teach class. No doubt his students at New York University appreciate his dedication.

Roubini may be right about his views. It is extremely difficult to predict when the economy, let alone the markets, will turn. I have long believed this mess would end when housing prices stabilized, which I still expect to happen by spring 2009. However, I'm now beginning to wonder if stable housing prices are enough. Despite my concerns, I have been buying stocks anyway. I know stock prices could go much lower in the short term, yet I am comfortable buying at these levels. I feel confident that the world will avoid a great depression and that the investments I make today will appreciate over time.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Today's market action was extremely disappointing. On Monday, Oct. 13, the S&P 500 rallied 11.6%. That had many investors hoping the sell-off was finally over. Unfortunately, the market wasn't able to sustain Monday's gains. It gave up 0.5% yesterday. Today it plunged 9%.

Monday's rally and today's sell-off are indicative of the kind of volatility we've been experiencing lately. To measure volatility, market traders often focus on the VIX, which is hovering near all-time highs. A simpler way to measure volatility is to look at the daily percentage changes in a major index like the S&P 500. For example, during the first six months of 2008, there were 17 days on which the S&P 500 Index changed in value by more than 2%. The biggest change during that period occurred on March 18 when the S&P 500 rallied 4.24%.

Since then, however, volatility has skyrocketed. From July 1 to Oct. 15, there were 22 days when the change in the S&P 500 exceeded 2%. In the last month alone, the change in the Index exceeded 4% on 11 days.

Monday's almost 1,000 point rally in the Dow was nice, but it would have been better to see the Dow rally 100 points a day for 10 days. Investors have no confidence in stocks right now. They need to be convinced that rallies can be sustained.

While it is true that Even Buffett Isn't Perfect, he is clearly one of the greatest, and it is encouraging to see him putting money to work at this time. Buffett has complained for several years that he couldn't find anything worth buying. By pouring $8 billion into Goldman Sachs and General Electric, and making a couple of other key investments, he has obviously changed his tune.

The Smartest CEO

It is said that the stock market is a forecasting mechanism. Let's pray it is a bad one. Otherwise, we may be in for a deep depression. The sell-off we have been witnessing is simply unbelievable. Investors, especially institutional investors, are selling everything—the good, the bad, and they ugly.

In December 2007, when I still held a bearish view of the economy and stock market, a colleague and I met with the CEO of a small biotechnology company. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss his finances and a proper asset allocation. Because of my bearish outlook, I made what I thought was an extremely conservative recommendation, suggesting he keep much of his money in cash (i.e., short-term Treasuries, CDs, and municipals) for the time being and put only about 50% in stocks.

He thanked me for my advice, but said he had an even more bearish view. He said he was convinced that leverage was going to come back to haunt us. He said he was worried about counter-party risk and did not trust the investment banks. He said he was using some cash to buy gold coins and he was shorting as many financial stocks as he could-the investment banks in particular.

When we left his office, I was in shock. I was bearish myself and had spoken with a number of bearish investors, but I had never met anyone who was so full of doom and gloom. I knew this CEO was a smart man, but I hoped he was wrong. Unfortunately, he wasn't.

If he maintained his short positions, he is no doubt a very wealthy man today. For the sake of the economy and all long-term investors, let's hope the selling is finally done. At this point, it's hard to imagine stocks going any lower.

A $700 Billion Investment, Not Bailout

The following commentary is from the October issue of the Forbes Growth Investor.

The biggest stock market sell-off occurred on October 17, 1987. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 508 points or 22.6% on what has come to be known as Black Monday. Yet, on average, stocks have shown a tendency to do worse in September than in any other month and what happened this past September was nothing less than ugly. Despite a strong rally on the last day, all major market indexes took a nosedive.

September’s sell-off came in reaction to the expanding economic crisis, which has seen one major financial institution after another either go out of business or get gobbled up at fire-sale prices. Lehman Brothers, for example, filed for bankruptcy protection. One of the oldest investment banks on Wall Street was selling for $85 per share less than two years ago, but could find no buyers in its time of need. The remaining investment banks on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have since decided to move to Bank Street.

While investment and commercial banks went under, our elected officials twiddled their thumbs. Eventually, they raised investors’ hopes by finally agreeing to vote on Secretary Hank Paulson’s unpopular $700 billion rescue package. Then they quickly dashed those hopes by voting it down. Ironically, more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the bill, which was being pushed by the Bush administration. It remains to be seen if Republicans will pay a political price for refusing to go along. No doubt their constituents are extremely angry about the so-called bailout, yet they will be even angrier when they lose their jobs and watch their retirement savings shrink.

Those who voted against the bill say they are protecting taxpayers. How much truth is there to this statement? After all, one-third of Americans do not pay any federal income tax at all. The bulk of the taxes are actually paid by a rather small portion of the population. Most of the ones I know are in favor of the bill. Are the politicians listening to what real taxpayers have to say?

Furthermore, it is completely wrong to assume that the rescue plan will cost the quoted $700 billion. In fact, the government stands to make money on the deal. Because of mark-to-market accounting rules, financial institutions must pretend there is little if any value to these “toxic” securities. Yet once housing prices stabilize, a market for these securities will reemerge. The government is in an enviable position. It can borrow money at low Treasury rates and use that cheap money to purchase securities it will later sell—perhaps at higher prices. Even if it ends up losing money on the deal, those losses will be nowhere near $700 billion.

Warren Buffett, widely acknowledged as the world’s greatest investor, thinks Mr. Paulson’s rescue plan is a good idea. Buffett decided to take advantage of the current financial turmoil by purchasing $5 billion worth of Goldman Sachs preferred stock. He also got warrants to buy $5 billion of common stock at $115 per share. He cut a similar deal with General Electric. This kind of private investment in public equity (PIPE) is Buffett’s modus operandi. He said his decisions to invest in Goldman and GE were predicated on the assumption that the government would approve the rescue package.

There is still hope that government officials will overcome political gridlock and get their act together by week’s end. Expect a big rally once they do—or at least a smaller sell-off than we would otherwise see.

Blame the Feds, Not Wall Street

Given the unprecedented financial crisis and the government's proposed $700 billion so-called bailout, I have to say I am a little sick of hearing how greedy Wall Street bankers are to blame for getting us into this mess. I agree some of them do bear some responsibility. I also agree that many CEOs are grossly overpaid. (So are many professional athletes for that matter.) Yet the fact is that the government bears at least some of the blame for the current crisis.

Many years ago (circa 1993), I listened to a lecture delivered by a then prominent Federal Reserve governor. He argued that banks had to be pressured to lend money to those who were otherwise not creditworthy. The government in its wisdom had decided that home ownership was a good thing and wanted to see more of it. It is often argued that neighborhoods are safer, cleaner, and better kept when a large number of people own (rather than rent) the homes in which they live. The government wanted to promote home ownership so it pressured lenders to make mortgages available to those who did not qualify under traditional standards.

The New York Times (not known for espousing a conservative point of view) published a prescient article in 1999 (that's before George W. took office) exposing all this. Steven Holmes wrote, "Fannie Mae...has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people..." The article then went on to predict the current crisis. It warned, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mas is taking on significantly more risk, wihch may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

I thank Cesar Chekijian for bringing this article to my attention. Click below to read the article's full content.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending