Grand Theft Investment Bank

J.P. Morgan's acquisition of Bear Stearns is starting to look more and more like a crime with the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department guilty of aiding and abetting. Government officials orchestrated grand theft investment bank.

As of yet, of course, there is no definitive deal. Yet Morgan almost got away with "buying" Bear for just $2 per share. The government, it seems, was desperate to close a deal and just as desperate to punish Bear's shareholders. Morgan was smart enough to realize they were the only bidder in the game. They could name any price they liked and that's exactly what they did.

But shares of Bear immediately started trading well above the offer price. And now, after only one week, Morgan decided it needed to allay some of the ill will it's initial offer created. So it decided to increase its offer--by five times! If this does not confirm that Morgan's initial offer amounted to highway robbery, I don't know what does.

With Morgan's new offer the government is still assuming most of the risk by guaranteeing Bear's toxic mortgages. But instead of doing this through Morgan, it could have done the same thing directly through Bear. Either way, the burden to taxpayers is the same. By working through Morgan, however, the government can be sure that Bear's employees and shareholders get absolutely pummeled.

One day a lot of hard questions will be asked about exactly what went on. Harvard professors are probably already working on a case study. Dozens of books will eventually be written on the subject. In the final analysis, it will become evident that, with the government's help, J.P. Morgan almost stole Bear Stearns.

On the Road in New Orleans and Austin

I was in New Orleans yesterday taking part in a market forecast panel discussion sponsored by the CFA Society of New Orleans. The event was held at the Bourbon House. Vinny Catalano, president and global investment strategist of Blue Marble Research, moderated the discussion. The audience included Don Chance, my financial derivatives professor at Virginia Tech, and Pat Mooney, a former student of mine from a CFA review course I used to teach in Boston. Both are now working in Louisiana.

The other panelists included Mark Freeman, an investment advisor, and Dek Terrell, an economist from Louisiana State University. Interestingly, Dek talked about Louisiana's strong economy. Louisiana, which is heavily dependent on the oil industry, is actually benefiting from the high oil prices that are haunting the rest of the nation. He pointed out that there are pockets of desperation in Louisiana, but for the most part, the state is doing well.

Mark warned the attendees that volatility in the stock market is likely to continue, but he had a favorable view overall.

I focused my discussion on the continuing acceleration in the drop in housing prices. Almost all of the problems we are seeing in the financial sector are related to housing. Until housing prices start falling at a decelerating rate, we will not be approaching bottom. I also warned that high energy prices are taking a big toll on consumers. We are already seeing a decline in gasoline demand due to these prices. However, I said oil prices are more likely to fall than rise. Current prices are more the result of the weak U.S. dollar and less a result of strong demand or limited supply. For more than a week I have been trying to short the USO, an oil ETF, to take advantage of the expected decline. But my brokerage firm claims they have no shares in inventory available to short.

Today I am in Austin and will take part in a similar discussion sponsored by the CFA Society of Austin. This event will take place at the Austin Club. I'm also hoping to visit Roux, a trendy restaurant owned by my cousin Dan Janjigian.

Is Bernanke's Job on the Line?

Over the weekend, the Federal Reserve orchestrated the takeover of Bear Stearns by J.P. Morgan for $2 per share. This is an almost unbelievable development. Bear Stearns, which started 2007 with a $22 billion market capitalization, is now valued at only $250 million! Some observers argue that this is better than the alternative--bankruptcy; but some Bear Stearns shareholders are wondering if that is really true.

There are two big problems leading to this latest crisis in financial markets. The first is falling housing prices. This is something that was easily foreseen. Many well known and respected economists, including Robert Shiller, Gary Shilling, and Nouriel Rubin, have been warning for years that housing prices could not possibly keep appreciating. Simple reversion to the mean dictated that prices had to fall considerably just to get back to long-term trends. Excessively easy access to mortgages created the housing bubble. Now that banks are tightening their lending standards, the air is coming out of the balloon.

The second problem is the Fed. It no longer has the confidence of investors. Instead of providing targeted liquidity to frozen credit markets, the Fed has destroyed the value of the dollar and created a tremendous amount of inflation in dollar-denominated commodities by aggressively cutting interest rates. Foreign tourists are having a ball vacationing and shopping in the U.S., and foreign investors are gobbling up our decimated assets, which are even cheaper than they appear when priced in euros and yens. Americans, however, are paying a steep price.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (jokingly known as Mr. Strong Dollar) is trying to assure investors that we're just going through a blip. He wants us to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Paulson, along with President Bush, will be out of work in 10 months. How much longer will Ben Bernanke have his job? To be fair, he can't be fully blamed for all of the ills in the economy. Some of the seeds of the current crisis were sown before he took office. Nonetheless, it is starting to look as if Mr. Bernanke's tenure at the Fed will not be setting any records.

Physician, Heal Thyself

Saying that Eliot Spitzer is a hypocrite is stating the obvious. Yet it is a little gratifying to see this "holier than thou" crusader get caught in his own ethical lapse. Spitzer made a career of ruining the reputations of numerous businessmen; not by convicting any of them of doing anything criminal, but by threatening to indict their companies if they didn't resign.

Richard Grasso, Ken Langone, and Hank Greenberg are still trying to get their reputations back. Take Grasso for instance. What was his big crime according to Spitzer? He was paid too much. That's undoubtedly true. Personally, I think anyone who gets paid more than me is paid too much, but that doesn't constitute a crime. Spitzer also went after a number of directors at the NYSE, but he decided to give former New York State comptroller H. Carl McCall a pass. Perhaps he felt he needed McCall's support in his ambitious quest to become governor.

Today's Wall Street Journal mentioned a speech Spitzer gave to the New York Society of Security Analysts in 2003. I was there. I remember being disappointed that the NYSSA chose to invite Spitzer to address our membership. I watched as investment professionals fell all over themselves to shake Spitzer's hand, as if doing so somehow certified their high ethical standards. When Spitzer delivered his speech, he joked about indicting people in our profession. It became very evident to me that this man was focused more on promoting his career than he was in protecting investors from criminals. What goes around, comes around.

SIFMA at Wharton

I just returned from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) is holding a one-week conference for its membership. They kicked off the event this morning with a panel discussion entitled "Wall Street Comes to Wharton." I was honored to take part in the discussion, which focused on the economy and the markets. Bob Stovall, Managing Director and Global Strategist at Wood Asset Management, hosted the panel. Other panelists included Sam Stovall, Chief Investment Strategist at Standard & Poor's; Randall Eley, President of the Edgar Lomax Company; and Michelle Girard, Managing Director and Senior Economist at RBS Greenwich Capital.

Housing prices got a lot of attention. All panelists agreed that prices will continue to fall for some time. However, Michelle pointed out that realtors are reporting a pick up in interest from buyers looking for bargains. Nonetheless, I said I was more concerned about the fact that the drop in prices is still accelerating. Although I am hopeful that prices will start falling at slower rates in the very near future, I expect overall housing prices to keep falling throughout 2008 and perhaps into 2009. I also warned that problems could spread in the commercial sector and banks could soon start announcing writeoffs of commercial mortgages.

Sam Stovall talked about historical trends and pointed out that it is rare for stocks to fall as much as they have without a meaningful recovery within a year while the Fed is aggressively cutting interest rates. Sam's point was that it is more risky to be out of the market right now than it is to be in it because stocks could rally strongly and unexpectedly. While I certainly believe stock prices could go lower in the short term, I am more confident that they will be at higher levels 3-5 years out. As a result, I would agree with Sam. Take advantage of strong sell-offs by doing some bargain hunting.

Randall Eley is a value manager who favors large-cap blue chip companies. He, too, has a bullish long-term outlook. Stocks he likes right now include Chevron (CVX), Bank of America (BCA) and Home Depot (HD).

In Defense of Peter Lynch

Peter Lynch is a legend in the investment world. If you ask investors to name America's all-time best money managers, Warren Buffett would no doubt come out on top. But chances are Peter Lynch would be close behind.

Lynch managed Fidelity's Magellan fund for 13 years. Under his watch, assets under management ballooned to $14 billion. He authored several books on investing and coined the term "ten-bagger," which describes a stock that goes up 10 times in value. He was famous for walking around shopping malls and paying attention to what people were buying. Today, he spends a great deal of time on philanthropy.

Yet the man who is so revered by investors, stands a little tarnished. You see, Lynch accepted gifts from brokerage firms that were seeking Fidelity's business. This is considered a big no-no in the mutual fund industry because gifts from brokers might be construed as bribes. A manager who accepts a gift might feel pressured to channel business in that broker's direction.

Because Lynch managed so much money, you might expect to find that it took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to buy his business. You would be wrong. What is the value of all the gifts Lynch received? A grand total of $15,948! The man who managed billions of dollars on behalf of investors all over the world got into trouble for accepting $15,948 worth of tickets to sporting events and a rock concert. He didn't even use many of the tickets he received.

I have no doubt that Peter Lynch is a man of integrity--an honest man of high ethical standards. Obviously, he would have been smarter not accepting any gifts whatsoever. But there is absolutely no evidence that Magellan shareholders were harmed in any way. On the contrary, Mr. Lynch delivered outstanding market-beating returns to his investors. In my view, if a man like Lynch can get into trouble for something like this, there is something wrong with the system. The government barked up the wrong tree in this case. My respect for Mr. Lynch has not been diminished in the least.

Oil Sets All-Time High

Oil prices set an all-time high today on both a nominal and inflation-adjusted basis. Yet gasoline prices are still below their May 2007 highs. Interestingly, oil prices were much lower last May. But gasoline prices surged anyway due to problems at refineries. Today, however, it is oil, the raw material for making gasoline, that is just starting to push gasoline prices higher.

But oil prices are not climbing because of a lack of supply. Instead, they are rising due to demand for oil futures contracts. Investors are pouring money into the commodity because the Fed is trashing the dollar. Because oil is a dollar denominated commodity, it provides a hedge for investors worried about a falling dollar. They are looking for ways to preserve the value of their dollar denominated assets. Eventually, these higher oil prices will drive up the price of gasoline, too.

In the past, higher gasoline prices had little effect on consumption. This is because it takes time for consumers to adjust their behavior. You don't immediately dump your SUV and buy a Civic just because gasoline prices spike. But if you are convinced that higher gasoline prices are here to stay, the next time you are in the market for a new vehicle, you will consider something more efficient. After several years of watching gasoline prices climb higher and higher, consumers are making the switch.

These days automobile manufacturers can't sell SUVs and pick-up trucks without making large concessions. In fact, GM just reported a 19% drop in light truck sales. Consumers are doing the math and they now want more efficient vehicles. At $3 per gallon, if you drive 12,000 miles per year and get 20 mpg, a 50% improvement in mileage saves you $600 per year. At $4 per gallon, you will save $800 per year. If there are three cars in your family and they rack up a total of 36,000 miles per year, at $4 per gallon, the total savings adds up to $2,400 per year.

The government can take steps to encourage conservation. CAFE standards, however, are not the way to go. A better approach is to put a floor on gasoline prices. While I'm no fan of higher taxes, it cannot be denied that taxes are a great way to affect behavior. If we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we should encourage people to consume less gasoline. The best way to do that is to make driving more expensive. However, any incremental revenue the government generates from a floor on gasoline prices should be used to offset other taxes or to fund research into alternative technologies. Using it for general funding purposes would be nothing but a big waste.

Fed Rate Cuts Are Near an End

While many investors are betting the Fed will continue cutting interest rates, I'm starting to believe we are very near the end of this rate-cutting cycle for several reasons.

First, the Fed has already been extremely aggressive with its recent rate cuts, slashing them 225 basis points since September. Because interest rate reductions spur economic activity with a lag, the rate cuts delivered so far are probably just starting to kick in. The Fed would prefer to wait and see if more monetary stimulus is really needed.

Second, the fiscal stimulus package recently signed into law by President Bush takes a lot of heat off the Fed. While tax rebates are not as effective as tax cuts, they do give the economy a bit of a boost. This makes it much easier for Ben Bernanke and the Fed to hold off on further cuts.

Third, the stock market appears to be stabilizing. This also makes it easier for the Fed to stand pat. Bernanke was strongly criticized for reacting more to the stock market than to economic data. He no doubt is hoping stable stock prices persist.

Fourth, recent economic weakness put inflation on the back burner. But inflation cannot be ignored anymore. Any further evidence that headline inflation is creeping into the core rate will make it very difficult for the Fed to keep cutting rates.

The FOMC's next meeting is almost a month away. A lot more economic data will be released between now and then. You can bet the Fed is hoping that more rate cuts will not be needed.

Baseball Takes Center Stage in Congress

CNBC has been airing the Congressional questioning of Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee all morning. This is about as interesting as Britney Spears' travails. I thought CNBC was a business channel.

This also explains why we are so turned off by our political leaders. After delivering a fiscal stimulus package, Congress has nothing better to worry about than steroid use in baseball? Is it just me, or does anybody else see a problem here?

Dow Becomes More Finance Heavy

Dow Jones & Co. announced changes to its prestigious Industrial Average today. Altria Group and Honeywell are being dropped. Bank of America and Chevron will be added.

Dropping Honeywell is a bit odd since the company has been doing well for a prolonged period. Honeywell's predecessor company, Allied Chemical, was added to the Dow average in 1925. Honeywell's comparatively small size was cited as the reason for removing it, yet there are three stocks that remain in the index that have even smaller market capitalizations. General Motors, a seriously troubled company, is one of them.

Chevron was previously in the Dow index. It was dropped in 1999 when both Microsoft and Intel were added, which marked the first time (and so far the only time) Nasdaq-listed stocks were added to the index. This raised expectations that more would follow. Some observers are disappointed that today's additions did not include a mega-cap technology company such as Google or Oracle.

Bank of America's inclusion increases the Dow's weighting in financials. The Dow also includes JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, American International Group, and American Express. Is this the committee's way of signaling a bottom in this beaten up sector?

Bearish on Economy; Bullish on Stocks

The following commentary was released last week to subscribers of the Forbes Growth Investor:

Regular readers know that I have been bearish on both the economy and stocks for quite some time. While I certainly enjoyed the ride, I could not understand why stocks were rallying so strongly during the first half of 2007. Although the sell-off that began in mid-July did not surprise me, I was perplexed by the full and rapid recovery that immediately followed. Unfortunately, as we all know, those gains did not last very long. The S&P currently stands about 12% below its October peak.

It was obvious that economic conditions were deteriorating. There was much discussion about the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis. Every rational investor had to be worried about the potential ramifications of these problems and the real possibility that they would spread to other sectors of our economy. Yet I found it incomprehensible how the eternal optimists kept downplaying these concerns. I don’t know how many times I was told that subprime mortgages represent just a tiny fraction of all mortgages, or that housing prices would never fall on a nationwide basis.

One prominent and perennial bull, who once chided the media for giving bears too much air time, recently argued there is “so little evidence of serious trouble” in the economy. Admittedly, this remark came before the 0.6% fourth-quarter Advance GDP figure was released, and before the Dept. of Labor said initial jobless claims jumped to 375,000, pushing up the four-week average by more than 10,000 to 325,750. Yet there has long been more than a little evidence that the economy was headed for trouble.

As for the argument that subprime mortgage problems would be contained, almost all financial institutions have already announced massive writedowns. This is no surprise. What is surprising, however, is a recent release from pharmaceuticals giant Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol said it took a $275 million impairment charge in the fourth quarter due to soured investments in auction rate securities (i.e., collateralized debt obligations backed by mortgages and credit card loans). Furthermore, Bristol no longer considers these investments liquid and has reclassified them from current to non-current assets. I suspect Bristol won’t be the only major non-financial company revealing these kinds of writedowns.

There is much debate about whether or not a recession is coming. In my view, it has already arrived. But whether or not it’s an “official” recession is largely irrelevant. The Federal Reserve is obviously so alarmed it has slashed interest rates at a record-breaking pace without regard to the inflationary consequences. Washington politicians are also alarmed. They are pushing through a fiscal stimulus package many observers thought would take months to reach the president’s desk. This combination of strong monetary and fiscal stimuli will prevent a recession from becoming too deep or prolonged. While I remain bearish on the economy for the time being, as I explained on my blog (http://janjigian.blogspot.com) on Jan. 21, I am turning more bullish on stocks. I believe stocks have fallen enough to be attractive to all investors except those with very short horizons. It’s time to allocate more money to this asset class. This month’s Citigroup recommendation conveys my conviction that some of the best opportunities for long-term gains will come from the oversold financial sector.

We Can Thank Buffett for the Microsoft/Yahoo Deal

Shares of Yahoo soared following today's announcement that Microsoft made a bid for the company. Microsoft is offering $31 per share for Yahoo, which represents a 62% premium over Yahoo's previous closing price.

Microsoft is obviously hoping a Yahoo acquisition will allow it to compete more effectively against Google. Analysts are already debating whether or not the deal makes sense. However, other than the timing, there is really nothing surprising about the deal. As I pointed out last June (Speculating on a Microsoft and Yahoo! Deal) Susan Decker's promotion to president of Yahoo made a deal between Microsoft and Yahoo all the more likely. This is because Decker had also been recently appointed to Berkshire Hathaway's board of directors. Not coincidentally, Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder, also sits on the Berkshire board.

When all is said and done, Yahoo sharesholders should thank Warren Buffett for today's offer from Microsoft. After all, Buffett was instrumental in bringing together the major players in this deal.

Only Tax Cuts Work in the Long Run

I was asked several times this past week about the presidential candidates and their plans to revive the economy. How the candidates would get us out of recession is largely irrelevant. After all, whoever wins the election will not actually enter the White House until a year from now. Hopefully, the recession will be over by then.

I know that not everyone believes we are actually in a recession, but whether we are or aren't is also largely irrelevant. The fact is that economic growth has slowed tremendously and some regions of the country are experiencing contraction. In any case, the situation is dire enough that something must be done to revive the economy.

I explained on MSNBC and on the Leon Charney Report, which airs in the New York City area, that an economic recession is a bit like a patient who is having a heart attack. First the doctor treats the heart attack--usually with surgery and medication--then once the patient has been stabilized, the doctor addresses the long-term health issues. He might prescribe a change in diet and an exercise program. The goal is to make the patient healthier in order to reduce the odds that he will suffer another heart attack in the future.

From what I've been hearing so far, the Democrats' proposals address the heart attack. They are looking for ways to immediately revive the economy. But they are ignoring the long-term health issues. I'm not seeing anything on their table that would keep the economy healthy over the long term and reduce the odds of another recession.

The Republican candidates, on the other hand, are focused on the long term. They all want to reduce tax rates on individuals and corporations. Mike Huckabee is even proposing to eliminate the income tax entirely and replace it with a national sales tax. Lower taxes will certainly go a long way to ensure the long-term health of the economy, but they don't do much to address the immediate problem.

Yesterday, government officials announced agreement on a $150 billion economic stimulus package. They plan to mail checks to about 117 million families. They even proposed allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to temporarily purchase mortgages well above the current $417,000 limit. These proposals are well and good, but they merely treat the heart attack. They don't do anything to ensure the economy's long-term health. Hopefully, the Senate will add such measures before a final bill reaches the president's desk.

Too Late to Turn Bearish

It's funny how stock market bulls often turn bearish after prices have already fallen. I've been a bear for quite a while and found myself debating a number of bulls over the past year. One well-known bull even argued that by giving bears like me an equal amount of air time, the media was falsely creating the impression that economists were split on the issue of future growth.

Today there are no serious economists left who are predicting strong growth. The most bullish among them, including Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, are predicting only weak growth. Many believe a recession is quite likely. Some, like myself, believe a recession has already arrived. Even non-farm payroll growth, perhaps the most encouraging economic measure all along, is starting to show serious signs of strain.

Today I had an interesting conversation with Professor Michael Goldstein of Babson College. He and I worked together over a decade ago when we were both on the faculty at Boston College. Michael was preparing for a television interview about the stock market. He reminded me that a year ago both of us were scratching our heads trying to understand why stocks were rising so rapidly. At that time, we were both concerned about falling house prices and their detrimental effects on consumer spending. Today we are just as concerned about rising credit card defaults.

Dow futures are currently indicating a very weak opening tomorrow morning. The Dow may immediately plunge 500 points or more. Michael and I think it could even dip below 11,000 soon--at least on an intra-day basis. However, we also agreed that significant declines below that level are unlikely.

Most long-term investors should take a contrarian view. At this time, they should be thinking more about buying than selling. It isn't yet time to jump in with both feet, but it is time to start thinking about taking advantage of serious dips. Some Special Situation stocks we continue to favor include SVU, RKT, and PERY. These also are stocks that I personally have been buying.

Bernanke Deserves Blame for Sell-Off in Stocks

Ben Bernanke testified in Congress today. Investors reacted by dumping stocks. Some insist that the sell-off had little to do with his remarks and more to do with other factors, such as Merrill Lynch's disappointing results. I doubt this is the case. After all, Merrill Lynch announced its results early this morning and the market was holding up well--at least until Bernanke's testimony got under way.

The Chairman's remarks made it clear that he is very worried about the economy. Although he said the Fed is still not forecasting recession, he clearly indicated that growth will be disappointing. He mentioned the troubled banks, mortgage-related problems in the residential market, signs of weakness extending into the commercial market, weakening employment figures, and an uptick in core inflation.

Bernanke strongly hinted that the Fed will cut interest rates once again. Some investors are disappointed that the Fed may not actually implement a cut until the Jan. 30 meeting. They want a cut right now.

Bernanke also asked Congress for fiscal stimulus. He apparently believes things are so bad that interest rate cuts alone are not enough to stimulate the economy. The mere fact that he was asking Congress for tax relief made investors nervous.

Cutting taxes is the best way to prevent recession. But Bernanke was not arguing for the kinds of tax cuts Republicans favor. Instead of cutting tax rates or making the Bush tax cuts permanent, he expressed a preference for something immediate but temporary. His comments were well-received by Democrats.

Alex Witt of MSNBC asked me about the political repercussions of all this. The bottom line is that things don't look good for the Republicans. Right or wrong, the party in power gets the credit if the economy does well. Likewise, voters blame the president and his party if a recession occurs. Voters demand change. At this point, an economic recession would improve the Democrats chances of taking the White House this fall. But with Democrats controlling both Congress and the White House, taxes are sure to go higher. Then we'll really know what a recession feels like.

Family-Owned Businesses Fear Higher Taxes

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) invited me last night to dine with the CFOs of a dozen privately owned family businesses. These companies ranged in size from about $20 million per year in revenues to $2 billion. Executives from publicly traded companies have plenty of opportunities to meet with one another, but those from privately held family businesses often do not. Last night's dinner was put together to address this situation.

Since my focus is primarily on publicly-traded equities, I welcomed the opportunity to meet executives from the other side. Although I work for a privately-held family business, I rarely get a chance to meet executives from other such companies. The evening was a wonderful learning experience. In particular, PwC had compiled an interesting survey of privately-owned family businesses. Many of the findings were surprising to me. One was not. It turns out these executives worry a great deal about government regulation and taxation. In fact, two-thirds of respondents felt that tax simplification and/or tax reduction should be a priority for government over the next three to five years.

I have written often about the tax burden in the Forbes Growth Investor and elsewhere and wondered why the stock market had been doing so well even when it became increasingly apparent that the Democrats stood a good chance of taking the White House. A Democratic president combined with a Democratic majority in Congress spells higher taxes. Even if the Republicans manage to hold onto the White House, the Bush tax cuts are likely to expire--another way to spell higher taxes. It is difficult to argue that stocks can thrive in a high-tax environment--at least not until they first sustain a sizable sell-off. Perhaps that is what we are going through right now.

By How Much Will Citi Cut the Dividend?

Citigroup is scheduled to announce fourth quarter financial results on Tuesday morning. Analysts are projecting a loss of almost a dollar per share. Investors are keen to hear how much more mortgage-related writedowns there will be. As for the dividend, they are no longer wondering if it will be cut. The only question left is by how much.

The board of directors is reportedly meeting on Monday. You can bet the dividend will be a high-priority topic of discussion. Although company officials have said a number of times that the dividend is safe, no one believes this anymore. Cutting the dividend is the surest way to preserve capital. And you can bet the new investors from Abu-Dhabi will insist upon it.

Citigroup has a long history of consistent dividend increases. Yet management knows that the company can save almost $11 billion in one year alone by eliminating the dividend entirely. It can save $1 billion simply by taking back the 10% increase implemented just one year ago. Management also knows that investors are expecting a dividend cut, so it's an easy thing for them to do. The consensus is calling for a 50% reduction. If that turns out to be the case, the stock may stage a bit of a rally. However, a cut of less than 50% should cause the stock to surge.

Bremmer Warns of U.S. Decline

Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, is one of the smartest guys I know. That's why I pay close attention to what he says. And what he is saying right now is not just surprising; it is scary.

He just released a report called the Top 9 Risks of 2008. Because the Eurasia Group is a political risk advisory and consulting firm, some of the items on the list are not at all surprising. What is surprising, however, is that he now considers the United States the #1 risk on his list. Bremmer argues that America's influence is on the wane. The risk is that the country will disengage from the world, erect barriers to trade, and make immigration more difficult. In short, the U.S. is losing both the political will and capital to lead the world. Go to Eurasia Group to learn more.

Oil Prices Likely to Drop as Recession Fears Grow

As shown in the graph above, both oil (blue line) and gasoline (red line) prices have surged over the past five years. However, oil prices have about tripled while gasoline prices have only done a little more than a double. The prices of these two commodities were tracking together quite closely until around June 2007. Since June, however, gasoline prices have remained relatively stable while oil prices have continued to rise.

Yesterday, oil broke above $100 per barrel. Speculators are getting much of the blame. The divergence between oil and gasoline prices gives some credence to this theory. After all, looking strictly at supply and demand considerations it is difficult to understand why oil prices have gone up so high. While it is certainly true that oil-producing regions of the world are not very stable, and that the world is consuming all it produces, there are no shortages.

As today's numbers show, the economy is no longer producing a sufficient number of jobs. The unemployment rate jumped to 5%. The U.S. economy is slowing and the probability of recession has risen significantly. While gasoline prices may go up in the short run, it is much more likely that an economic slowdown will cause oil prices to fall over the longer run. Look for oil to drop to $70 per barrel this year.

Stocks Will Struggle in 2008

Following is my commentary from the January 2008 issue of the Forbes Growth Investor, which was released earlier to subscribers:

The stock market ended 2007 with a whimper. The closely followed S&P 500 Index managed to post only a 3.5% gain for the full year. Investors could have done about as well simply by holding cash and avoiding risk entirely. Although the other major indexes did somewhat better than the S&P 500 (see page 6 of newsletter for their full year returns), 2007 was a lackluster year overall.

Troubles in the housing market are largely to blame for weak stock returns. In fact, shares of home builders and financial companies were particularly hard hit during the year. As of now, prospects for stocks in 2008 do not look all that promising as the housing bubble has yet to fully deflate. According to the most recent reports, problems in housing are likely to get worse before they finally bottom. New home sales were down 34% year-over-year in November. Existing home sales were down 20%. If home sales continue at current rates, it will take more than nine months to clear the inventory of new homes on the market and more than 10 months to deplete the inventory of existing homes.

But it’s not just sales that are falling. Housing prices are collapsing as well. In October, the S&P/Case-Shiller 10-City Composite Home Price Index posted its biggest decline ever, falling 6.7% from a year ago and 1.4% from the previous month. This index is down 7.3% from its June peak. More worrisome, however, is that the rate of decline is accelerating.

All along, the more optimistic economists had been telling us not to worry. They said the sub-prime market was relatively small and its troubles would not spread to the rest of the housing market. They were wrong about this. What’s worse, it now appears that housing problems are spreading into nonhousing areas as well. Evidence is mounting that credit card delinquencies and defaults are rising. According to one study conducted by the Associated Press, outstanding balances on credit card accounts that are at least 30 days late jumped 26% from a year ago. Those that are 90 days late jumped 50%. The same study found an 18% increase in defaults. With the holiday shopping season having just ended, it’s a sure bet that these numbers will get worse.

Investors are just starting to realize that credit card problems are related to the housing and mortgage debacles. Because lending standards have been tightened, even otherwise creditworthy borrowers cannot easily tap the shrinking equity in their homes to pay off their credit card bills. And the so-called sophisticated institutional investors are less willing now than they once were to purchase securitized credit card loans.

Prospects for stocks in 2008 do not look good indeed. Housing and consumer spending are not the only things to worry about. Economic growth is slowing, yet persistently high energy prices and rising core inflation give the Fed little room to cut interest rates. Even the jobs market, which had long remained a bright spot in the economy, is starting to make investors nervous. Many economists now expect reduced growth in non-farm payrolls and an increase in the unemployment rate. The Dec. payroll figure and unemployment rate will be announced on Jan. 4. Anything out of the ordinary for either measure could create tremendous volatility for stocks.