On Tuesday the United States Treasury department purchased $125 billion of bank stocks becoming one of the largest stockholders in the world instantly.
$25 billion was invested in Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.
$15 billion was invested in Bank of America and $10 billion in Merrill Lynch (which is being acquired by Bank of America).
$10 billion was invested in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. And the treasury department invested $3 billion in Bank of New York Mellon $2 billion in State Street.
Related: Goldman Sachs Rakes In Profit in Credit Crisis (Nov 2007) – Warren Buffett Webcast on the Credit Crisis – Rodgers on the US and Chinese Economies (Feb 2008) – Credit Crisis
‘Armageddon’ Prices Fail to Lure Buyers Amid Selling
…
The selling is being compounded by hedge funds and mutual funds dumping holdings to meet redemptions, which may push prices even lower, according to analysts at UBS AG.
…
Corporate debt has been pressured by “incessant selling by hedge funds and leveraged institutions as they unwind,” Bill Gross, manager of the world’s biggest bond fund at Newport Beach, California-based Pacific Investment Management Co.
…
Corporate bond prices plunged to 79.9 cents on the dollar on average from 94 cents at the end of August and 99 cents at the end of 2007, according to index data compiled by New York-based Merrill Lynch & Co.
…
“The de-leveraging that we’re witnessing will probably continue,” said Paul Scanlon, team leader for U.S. high yield and bank loans at Boston-based Putnam Investments LLC, which manages $55 billion in fixed income. “My sense is that’s not turning around in the very near term.”
I am not very familiar with the bond market but it does seem like the panic is in full swing but calling the bottom is always hard. I would guess the de-leveraging (and investors pulling money out of bond funds) could well lead things lower over the short term.
Related: Corporate and Government Bond Rates Graph – Municipal Bonds After Tax Return
Buy American. I Am. by Warren Buffett:
…
A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense.
…
Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up.
…
Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.
Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree.
Yet more great advice from Warren Buffett. I must admit I think buying stocks from the USA and elsewhere is wise, but there isn’t any reason to listen to me instead of him.
Related: Financial Markets Continue Panicky Behavior – Great Advice from Warren Buffett – Stock Market Decline – Warren Buffett’s 2004 Annual Report – Does a Declining Stock Market Worry You?
| Jim Rogers webcast: Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac should not have been bailed out. Jim Rogers is one of the most successful investors in the last 50 years. He and George Soros (together with the Quantum Fund) and then separately along with Warren Buffett have made the most as investors (that I know of – I could easily be wrong).
How you want to accept their opinions on the current crisis is up to you. I believe they are worth listening to – more than anyone else. That does not mean I believe they are totally right. To me the long term track record of each is very impressive. Especially Jim Rodgers and George Soros have been making big investment gains largely on macro economic predictions in the last 20 years. |
In The Dollar is Doomed (July 2008) Jim Rogers predicts the United States Federal Reserve is so badly run it will be gone in a decade or two. I disagree with that sentiment. He certainly has much more expertise than I do but in evaluating such a comment you need to look at what really matters to him. He doesn’t need the Federal Reserve to actually cease to exist to make profitable trades based on his prediction that the Federal Reserves policies are dooming the dollar.
Another thing to note with Rogers and Soros is they will make strong statements and take huge positions but will change their mind when conditions change (often quickly). So you can’t assume what they said awhile back is still their belief today.
Related: Jim Rogers: Why would anybody listen to Bernanke? – investment books – Rodgers on the US and Chinese Economies – A Bull on China
401(k)s are a great way to save. Yes, today those that have been saving money have the disappointment of bad recent results. But that is a minor factor compared to the major problem: Americans not saving what they need to for retirement in 401(k)s, IRAs, even just emergency funds… Do not use the scary financial market performance recently as an excuse to avoid retirement savings (if you have actually been doing well).
The importance of saving enough for retirement is actually increased by the recent results. You might have to re-evaluate your expectations and see whether you have been saving enough. I am actually considering increasing my contributions, mainly to take advantage of lower prices. But another benefit of doing so would be to add more to retirement savings, given me more safety in case long term results are not what I was hoping for.
Now there can be some 401(k) plans that are less ideal. Limited investing options can make them less valuable. Those limited options could include the lack of good diverse choices, index funds, international, money market, real estate, short term bond funds… My real estate fund is down about 2% in the last year (unlike what some might think based on the media coverage of declining housing prices). And poor investing options could include diverse but not good options (options with high expenses… [ the article, see blow, mentions some with a 2% expense rate - that is horrible]).
But those poor implementations of 401(K)s are not equivalent to making 401(k)s un-viable for saving. It might reduce the value of 401(k)s to some people (those will less good 401(k) plans). Or it might even make it so for people with bad 401(k) options that they should not save using it (or that they limit the amount in their 401k). I don’t know of such poor options, but it is theoretically possible.
The tax deferral is a huge benefit. That benefit will only increase as tax rates rise (given the huge debt we have built up it is logical to believe taxes will go up to pay off spending today with the tax increases passed to the future to pay for our current spending).
And if you get matching of 410(k) contributions that can often more than make up for other less than ideal aspects of a particular 401(k) option.
Also once you leave a job you can roll the 401(k) assets into an IRA and invest in a huge variety of assets. So even if the 401k options are not great, it is normally wise to add to them and then just roll them into an IRA when you leave. If the plan is bad, also you can use an IRA for your first $5,000 in annual retirement savings and then add additional amounts in the 401k (if they are matching funds normally adding enough to get the matching is best).
401(k)s, 403(b), IRAs… are still great tools for saving. The performance of financial markets recently have been poor. Accepting periods of poor performance is hard psychologically. But retirement accounts are still a excellent tool for saving for retirement. Using them correctly is important: allocating resources correctly, moving into safer asset allocations as one approaches and reaches retirement…
Read more
Anyone involved in finance should understand mania in the markets. It is not a shock that financial markets do irrational things. They do so very frequently. Anyone who has not read, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, should do so. Leverage often is a catalyst that turns bad investments into panics that damage the economy. A previous post on this topic: Misuse of Statistics – Mania in Financial Markets.
Enron was the pit canary, but its death went unheeded
As for the lessons we’ve forgotten, how about this one: financial statements aren’t supposed to be fairytales.
…
when all was booming, Wall Streeters said they deserved their pay because the market said they were worth it. But now things are falling apart, they say the market doesn’t work, and we need to stop short-selling, and taxpayers need to pony up. If there is a tiny bit of good in all this, it’s that Wall Street, although it was complicit in the Enron mess, managed to walk away relatively unscathed. This time, Wall Street has brought itself down.
I think the odds that Wall Street has brought itself down is very low. Even that the ludicrous excesses of Wall Street are at risk is very unlikely. Perhaps for a few years their might be some restraints put on excesses. But most likely politicians will respond to huge payments by arranging favors for those that want to bring excesses back. If this can be prevented that would be great, but I doubt it will.
Related: Investing books – Tilting at Ludicrous CEO Pay – Losses Covered Up to Protect Bonuses
SEC to temporarily ban short-selling: report
Wow, that would be very surprising to me (especially if you asked more than a month ago the chances of this happening). But given these crazy times I can believe it. I wish they just properly regulated short selling the last 10 years (the failure to do so has been very disappointing). And I would be against banning short selling unless there were a very extreme situation. I don’t see that are necessary now, but I have far from all the details so maybe it is warranted now (though I am skeptical).
Update: SEC Halts Short Selling of Financial Stocks
Given the importance of confidence in financial markets, the SEC’s action halts short selling in 799 financial institutions.
Related: Naked Short Selling – Shorting Using Inverse Funds – Investor Protection Needed
Watching your new worth decline isn’t fun. But when investing over the long term you will have some good periods and some bad periods. Diversification can help smooth out the extremes but the markets are often driven by emotion. And those emotions (greed, fear…) cause extreme price swings. I am getting ready to invest more in the market. I don’t know how much further we will go down, or if we are at the bottom now (unlikely). But there are investments I am happy to own at these prices. The main reason I don’t buy more is the limitation of my capital. And I would rather buy in slowly so if prices decline I can get more for my money.
Not surprisingly the stocks I am looking at are those in the 12 stocks for 10 years portfolio. I am looking at buying more Templeton Dragon Fund, Toyota and Google for myself now. I am happy to be able to buy more of these stocks for the long term. It is not fun to see my net asset value decrease but that does provide some opportunities for buying stocks at lower prices. They may turn out to be bargains, or maybe they will drop much further. That only time will tell, but I am happy to add to those positions at these prices.
On the overall market I am waiting and watching. But I am leaning now toward moving more of my long term investing into stocks – I am already over-weighted there compared to the conventional wisdom but that is my style. I am willing to take more risk with a long long term investment portfolio. As the time frame shrinks (and the assets grow) I believe in reducing the risk profile for the overall portfolio (though I still believe conventional wisdom over-emphasizes price volatility risk (compared to inflation risk, for example). This market does have real potential for creating serious long term problems, which is why I need to think more (and get more information) about the long term implications.
Related: Investment Risks – books on investing – Does a Declining Stock Market Worry You? – Uncertain Economic Times
Why Allocations Make A Big Difference
Good advice, but I believe people need to be much more careful with bonds than many people believe. Long term bonds can be volatile (both due to interest rate and other risks). And with interest rates low this risk is higher. The duration of your bonds (as well as credit/business risk) is a very important factor (the longer the duration the higher the interest rate risk).
I also think the importance of asset allocation increases as your assets increase and the goal gets closer (normally retirement but also could be a child’s education fund…). And I think you need to look at more than just stocks versus bonds (different types of stocks, real estate… are important considerations). I discussed some possible retirement account allocations possibilities for early in life in a previous post.
Related: Lazy Portfolio Results – Investing books – Roth IRA – Dollar Cost Averaging
Short selling is when you sell something before you buy it (you try to sell high and then buy low later, instead of buying low and then selling high later). In order to sell short, you are required to borrow the shares that you then sell. So if I own 1,000 shares of Google (I wish), I could lend them to someone to sell. Nothing happens to my position, it is just that those shares are now allocated to that short sale. If I sell them then the short seller has to go borrow them elsewhere or buy the stock to close their position. In general the borrowing is either from brokers that hold shares for individuals or from large institution (mutual funds, insurance companies…).
However from everything that I read it appears the SEC hasn’t bothered to actually enforce this law much. There was a bunch of excitement recently when the SEC announced it would bother to enforce the law to protect a few large banks, many of whom are said to practice naked short selling but didn’t like it when that was done to their stock. As you can see, this does make the SEC look pretty bad, when they chose to enforce a law, not in all circumstances, but only to protect a few of those who actually take advantage of the SEC’s failure to enforce the law to make money.
CEOs Launch Web Site To Protect Short Sellers
Some people find the whole concept of short selling bad since it is based on making money on stock price declines. I don’t feel that way and believe it can help the market. But it requires regulators that actually do their jobs and enforce laws. A favorite tacit of those who seek to keep open special ways for themselves to benefit from abusing the system is to try and make things seem complex. The recent SEC order saying they would enforce the intent of the law to protect a few powerful banks from the behavior many (or most) practice themselves for years shows that it isn’t that complicated.
Adding the decision not to enforce the requirement to borrow shares to their recent decision to eliminate the requirement that short sales take place on down ticks in price (a measure put in after the 1929 stock market crash to not have short sellers accelerate market declines and insight panic seems like a really bad combination).
Related: Shorting Using Inverse Funds – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare – SEC data on “failures to deliver”