China may dampen growth of offshore bonds market

According to an article in STV, China is working quietly behind the scenes to tighten its control of the rapidly growing offshore RMB market, and risks turning off some investors from participating in the growing market and slowing use of the RMB in global trade. Click here for the full story.

Is it time to buy the US Dollar?

There are riots in the streets of Greece, which now has the lowest credit rating of any sovereign nation on earth. Remarkably, the Euro Zone has managed to weather the storm quite well.  Whether it can continue is another matter.

The European Facade maybe Crumbling

A look at the US Dollar Index and the US dollar / euro exchange rate certainly points in that direction. As bad as things appear to be in the USA, Europe seems to be more worse off. 

The European Union is made up of 17 countries who speak different languages, have different customs and have varying degrees of work ethics and national productivity levels. 

As split as the US is between liberal and conservative views, the people are still all Americans - even if they come in all shades and shapes.  As such Americans have far more in common with one another than the 17 nation Europeans do.  If one of the states in the  USA gets into trouble, people won't be rioting in the streets if the Federal government decides to bail them out.

Now let’s consider it from the European point of view: If you are the German Chancellor, how do you defend the diverting of your national wealth to support a country such as Greece, when your electorate holds the firm view that the Greeks are neither as hard working nor as fiscally responsible as the average German? Correctly or not this appears to be the view reportedly held by much of the German public.

This puts Angela Merkel in quite a political situation. If the so-called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) follow Greece, it would be a miracle if the European Union survived intact. This fear is what has been behind the bull market we have seen in US bonds over the last six or so weeks, because, on a relative basis, US Treasuries still look like a much safer bet than EU Sovereign debt.

So, how can we benefit?

I know it's in vogue or even cool to be totally negative on the dollar, but to me, the dollar looks like it wants to rally. The US Dollar Index (DXY) is a basket of 6 currencies measured against the US dollar.  The biggest component by far is the euro, which makes up 58.6% of the index. Any drop in the euro will push up the value of the dollar, which in turn will drive the US Dollar Index higher.

If we get a real increase in Euro-related fear, we could easily see the US Dollar Index hit 80 - 81. Those looking to go long the dollar could do so by either buying the front month US Dollar Index futures contract (DXU11), or via the Bullish Dollar ETF, symbol UUP. 

So if I’m going long, I would use a break below 74.50 on the US Dollar Index as my stop point. In fact, if the US Dollar Index breaks that level, I'd be inclined to switch my entire strategy and look to going short for a  bit.  Anybody who tells you that they know with 100% conviction what the future will be is either fooling themselves or attempting to con you into something nasty.

Another way of playing a rising dollar is to take some bets directly against other currencies. One such currency is the Australian Dollar. I doubt if there is another developed country (except maybe Canada) that is more leveraged to the price of commodities. Remember, global commodities are priced in US Dollars -- if the value of the Dollar goes up, commodities typically go down. As commodities go down, the value of the Australian Dollar will typically decline as well. I would go short the Australian dollar in the futures market. The symbol on the front month contract is ADU11.  I'd use a move above 1.0730 as my stop if I’m short, with a price target of say 1.0275.  Alternatively, I could use the Australian Dollar currency ETF, symbol FXA.  If I’m using FXA to go short, I’d be sure to track the movement of the front month futures contract. I’d use the levels in the actual futures contract to trigger any profit taking and stop loss decisions in the ETF.

Remember, the whole world is looking for the US dollar to collapse into oblivion. I don’t consider it likely that everyone will be right. May the trend be with you always...

 

 

 

The Toughest Investing Question is When to Sell?

Here is an article first published on the RAOMABO (Research and Analysis of Merger and Buyout Opportunities) Website that I think is interesting and relevant in these times:-

We considered various issues and decided on five signals that will warrant a reason to sell a Stock if you owned it or even sell short if you don’t own it...

As the sage of Omaha - Warren Buffet puts it, it’s often, “easier to figure out the losers.”

Referring to the automobile industry, WB points out that although it was one of the the most important inventions of the 20th century, it was very hard to make money as an investor in the industry. Thousands of upstart automakers failed. So the easiest money to be made was on the short side…

Today, we’ll concentrate about individual “loser” i.e. companies that are likely have more downside ahead of them than upside. We’ll see how it is often easier to spot these than the next winners, specially in a market with so much head wind against it ... like today’s markets.

We’ll also look at selling some of your former winners. These are stocks that may have made you good money but are beginning to show signs that you’re better off selling them than holding on to them.

Essentially it all boils down to the most important question in investing: When to Sell?

We’ve found that there are some major red flags you can use to get out of a long position… and go short a stock you don’t own, as well…

Red Flag # 1: High Valuations without High Growth

If you had the foresight to buy a small coffee chain named after an obscure literary character, you would have rode through some fantastic profits. All through the 1990’s and even through the tech-bust, it seemed like Starbucks would never cease to open more stores.
Around that time a Starbucks started opening across the street from another Starbucks, though, it was time to get out. Their growth prospects have been hammered. Other coffee chains are after their alluring market share. Even fast food chains have entered the business.

Today Starbuck’s balance sheet looks like a wreck. Let’s take a quick look. With a trailing P/E of 127, the company fails to pass an analyst’s first evaluation of a company’s value. The profit margin is less than 1% and the operating margin is 5%. Debt is three times cash. Return on equity, one of our preferred valuation measures, is 3.5%. Clearly, yesterday’s winners can become today’s losers.

Red Flag # 2: Technological Changes Taking Away a Former Competitive Advantage

Change is the only factor that’s constant in investing. Technological changes can make an entire company or industry’s products obsolete.

That doesn’t necessarily mean to go long the new technology. You should just avoid the obsolete one, or even short it as it dies off. Within the auto industry, we’ve seen technological changes that are partially responsible for the sad state of American automakers.

Toyota Motors was the first to market hybrid vehicles — namely its flagship Prius. The rest of the industry has been playing catch-up ever since. Sure, foresight is imperfect, and entrenched interests kept American automakers from fully adapting to this threat. But the solution wasn’t to go long Toyota; it was to stay away from General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler. Add in their uncompetitive cost structures, and it’s clear who the losers would be in this industry.

Red Flag # 3: The Company Begins to Use Questionable Accounting

Reading boring financial statements may tell you if you’re invested in the next Enron or Worldcom. Bad companies try to hide poor performance with financial gimmicks. One of the biggest things we’re looking at in the current investment environment includes companies reporting profits substantially in excess of reputed analyst expectations.

If such gains come from cutting costs, like firing employees, then the numbers being reported aren’t going to be sustainable over time. It’s the opposite of real sales growth and it’s a way of hiding a decline.

A lot of service-based companies are guilty on this count in recent quarters, from retailers to restaurateurs. Think of it as mold that people mistake for green shoots. It’s just too toxic to invest in.

The other major accounting areas to look at in this earnings environment are receivables and inventory. If Accounts Receivable is rising, there could be a problem with customer’s ability to repay... or there’s a problem with lax credit to customers to buy products. Either way, it’s one of the most obvious red flags you can see without. Eventually, toxic AR has to be written off. And the imaginary gains have to become real losses.

Rising inventories are even more problematic. A store offering this year’s fashions at 50% off may be able to post some good sales numbers, but over time it’s a recipe for disaster. Deeper and prolonged sales shorten the life of the business as lower margins choke off cash flow. Think Circuit City, Linens and Things, Mervyn’s and a host of other retailers. The retail industry’s problems are not over by a long shot.

Red Flag # 4: Divestiture to Meet a Cash Crunch or Burning the Furniture for Heat

Companies worth owning for the long- term don’t need to issue new debt right now. They certainly don’t need to go to the capital markets and issue stock to shore up reserves, either.

While this clearly applies to all the household-name financials, other companies have quietly been raising capital in the midst of this bear market rally as well. Any company that has to sell off assets or divisions right now is one worth reevaluating. Even in the absence of the worst credit crunch of all time, it would still be a very red flag.

Within this category insider selling is worth a mention. It’s a form of raising equity - only it benefits management and not the company. Certainly non insider the shareholders don’t benefit. Combined with other red flags, it’s the closest thing to a leading indicator we’ve seen that a stock is going to fall. Be especially aware of multiple insiders selling.

Red Flag # 5: Key Related Industries Are Suffering

There’s more than one way to make a profit. In investing, the term ‘pin action’, stolen from bowling, means that if one industry is on fire, related industries will share the heat as well. The same thing applies when it’s time to sell.

Watch the Flags...

Take a good hard look at the positions in your portfolio, and the major positions in any mutual funds you own. If your rationales for buying no longer apply or if any of the changes listed above are occurring, you might want to take some money off the table.

After a run-up, is the perfect time to re-balance your entire portfolio — to reduce risk by getting out of toxic assets and into better ones. When the market comes crashing down again, you’ll have more capital preserved to invest in companies that are innovative, growing, diverse, and ethical—and still have some left over to short the losers.

Nationalize all banks and permanently solve the Global Banking Crises!

Extract of interview by Jayke Umarezz as appeared in various publications. Please also read comments and related articles at the end of this extract.

In an exclusive interview by Jayke Umarezz, Dr A S Johan revealed his views as to how he believed the current global banking crises could be successfully and permanently solved….so that the global economy may allowed to prosper again.

Dr Johan made it clear that, in his opinion, the world’s current problems can be clearly defined as problems caused by banking industry excesses.

“As long as banking is privately owned and run as a business for the benefit of its shareholding investors, as it has to be, we will continue to have this problem of excesses over and over again” he said.

He went on to say “Banking like healthcare, water, energy etc. is an essential service industry that people need to survive in order to be productive and contribute to a country’s economy. They have an overriding social purpose that cannot be achieved through a private, for profit structure.

Don’t be mistaken, as an entrepreneur myself, I am in support of capitalism. I believe capitalism is the only system that encourages productivity and savings. However, I also believe that banking and other essential industries like healthcare, water, energy etc. just cannot properly and honestly serve society in a privatized form.

If banks are run as privately owned businesses, they cannot avoid taking on greater and greater levels of risks and eventually reach the excess we now know about. Because, in order to survive, banks must produce returns, expand and attract investment capital. The current banking crises is a direct result of competition among banks.

In all fairness, we cannot blame bank management for doing what they had to do to stay competitive. In our misguided belief that competition in a social service like banking is good and more is better, we have once again shot ourselves in the foot….and in the process almost wiped out the savings and wealth of millions.

Bailouts through equity injection and purchase of toxic assets only serves to support the excesses of management and the greed of shareholders….at the expense of innocent depositors.

I believe that In order to restore confidence once again and this time to keep it permanent, each country really needs just one credible national bank whose customer deposits are fully guaranteed by the Government.

I propose that all existing banks registered in a particular country be merged into one large Government owned bank. Pre-merger, all current shareholders of these banks will be bought out at net asset value per share by crediting them for the sales proceeds with deposits in the new nationalized bank. Such a state owned bank may expand its operations to other countries if it wants to but the host Government will make it known that only deposits received and registered at their home country will be guaranteed and not deposits taken in at a foreign subsidiary or branch. The Government of that foreign country may guarantee the deposits of its residents with this foreign bank if it so wishes.

Directors of these new nationalized banks will be appointed by Government and held accountable for their decisions just as other Government appointed heads of departments are. Management and staff will effectively become Government employees with salaries and benefits similar to other equivalent Government employees.

I do not see any issue of service efficiency. If other Government employees like the police, immigration etc. can provide reasonably efficient services, I don’t see why banking staff cannot.

The new nationalized bank’s checking (current), savings and deposit accounts will be 100% guaranteed by Government as to principal and contracted interest. These new state owned banks will also offer basic home mortgage and business loans to its domestic customers on a properly collateralized basis, in line with each Government’s policy.

State owned banks will therefore exist only to provide basic deposit and loan services and will not engage in investment management services, securities brokerage, private equity, venture capital etc. Their cash surpluses will be invested exclusively in National / Federal Government Bonds and profits if any paid to their respective Governments as dividends.

Non deposit taking services like investment management services, securities brokerage, private equity, venture capital etc. will be offered by licensed and regulated investment and brokerage firms who cannot call themselves banks.

Businesses, corporations and investors who need these services and can afford the costs and risks associated with dealing with these firms, may do so freely. However, they will be told, in no uncertain terms, that their accounts with these firms are not guaranteed by the Government.

It may however be a good idea to establish a credible clearing house funded by mandatory, dynamic contributions from all such investment management services, securities brokerage, private equity and venture capital firms.

National banks who wish to expand their banking services beyond their national borders will only be allowed to deploy their foreign country registered deposits (which will not in any case be guaranteed by their home country Government) to finance loans in that country.

If they try to fund such loans through inter - bank deposits they will find other banks reluctant to extend large lines of credit for long periods in view of the non guaranteed status of such inter – bank facilities.

Each country’s national bank will only enjoy a rating equivalent to their Government’s credibility and the amount of their guaranteed deposits. This will discourage banks from expanding overseas simply for the sake of expansion.

In fact the relationship by one country’s Government postal service with other country’s postal service regarding the international delivery of mail through the offsetting of stamp sale receipts could be a good example of how the future of international banking relationships could evolve.

The recommendations I’ve made here with regard to banking will apply to other essential services like water, power, healthcare etc. as well. So let’s get back to honestly and fairly providing the basic services that every citizen needs and can all rely on.

No doubt there may be many out there who could have issue with my proposal. If so, please let me know your views and together we can try and create a safer place for our savings”. END

Following is a response and a related article from L.M. Arndt of San Rafael California:-

Dr. Johan, I am ecstatic! I just found and read your essay, "Nationalize all banks and permanently solve the Global Banking Crises!"

I totally agree with your conclusions, which I'm delighted to find dovetail with my own. In the course of articulating a similar argument, I happened upon your comments – a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dismal miasma of foggy thinking. I make no claims to expertise as an economist, but I have lived a few years, and paid at least some attention, and it has become increasingly obvious that the current banking system is fatally flawed – for the reasons you so cogently articulate. You also analyze precisely how a nationalized banking system would function. Your knowledge of the internal workings of banks far outpaces my own, yet we have independently arrived at the same conclusion, that, as you put it, “Banking, like healthcare, water, energy etc. is an essential service industry that people need to survive in order to be productive and contribute to a country’s economy. They have an overriding social purpose that cannot be achieved through a private, for-profit structure."

I respectfully submit the following, all of which I wrote before reading your essay. I would greatly appreciate any comments you may have. Also, if there is any possibility of a face-to-face meeting and conversation, please so advise.

L.M. Arndt, San Rafael California

Why would it not be a good idea for our government, i.e., We The People, to own and operate the banks in our nation? By L.M. Arndt

The banking “industry,” as we know, is not an industry at all and creates nothing of real value. Moreover, it requires, indeed demands, a constant infusion of money in order to cover the interest it charges.

Nevertheless, it provides an essential service, very much like other governmental services such as streets and highways, police protection, food safety, environmental quality, a justice system, and national defense.

Contrary to popular belief, the Federal Reserve, the “central bank” of the United States, is not owned by the U.S. government, nor is it a single “bank” but comprises 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. The system is, at least theoretically, controlled by a governmental agency, its Board of Governors, but actual oversight power is held by the Federal Open Market Committee composed of the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and presidents of 4 other Federal Reserve banks, serving on a rotational basis. The regional Federal Reserve banks issue shares of non-tradable stock to member banks, whose stock may in turn be held by banks in other nations, giving rise to the claim that foreigners own the system. The governmental web site describes the system as “independent within the government.” If the original intent was to create a banking system separate from and uncorrupted by politics, history has amply demonstrated abysmal failure.

Until 1933, collateral to back up the nation’s money supply was the gold stored at Fort Knox, but the real wealth of a nation lies in its land and its people, i.e., the common wealth. Forests can be managed to produce a sustainable yield – or they can be mismanaged, with clear-cutting that causes erosion, silting of streams, and destruction of fish stocks. No tourist ever traveled to California to see Big Tree stumps.

So it is with farmland, streams and rivers, towns and cities. Poor farming practices, polluted streams, deteriorating buildings, all reduce the nation’s common wealth. So it is with the citizenry. Well-educated citizens are able to fulfill higher-level jobs and therefore are of greater value. Healthy citizens have a longer working life and require fewer medical services. Responsible, creative and engaged people make wiser personal and political choices and are of greater benefit to the nation. People who are in dire economic straits, suffering poor health, ignorance and apathy will fill our prisons and overwhelm our welfare systems.

For a nation to increase its “common wealth” requires a sensible, operational basic economic system. That we do not have, nor do most nations in the world. In the current monetary system in the U.S., banks MAKE MONEY by lending and then use the debt as an asset to lend more, on and on, which is what has brought this economic crash, not the first, I might add – and coincidentally has sucked up even more wealth into the pockets of the already very wealthy. Year after year, this system has redistributed wealth upward.

We desperately need a REVERSAL of the entrenched wealth-redistribution system!

So here’s my concept: Suppose that our GOVERNMENT, i.e., We The People, OWNED THE BANKS! Government, using our common wealth as collateral, would issue our currency. Yes, “national banks” would be “NATIONAL” banks, taking deposits, making loans, managing credit cards, etc. All the interest currently being siphoned upward into the pockets of bankers would be used to operate our government. That’s a tremendous amount of money, and I’m wondering if it might not be enough to SERIOUSLY lower taxes or even eliminate taxes entirely!

Under an economic system of truly “national,” i.e., government-run, banks, corporations would continue in business (although limited in size so that NO such entity becomes “too big to fail”). Entrepreneurs could easily get loans to start new businesses. Small companies could get loans for operation of their businesses. Ordinary people would have money to spend or save, credit cards would charge a reasonable rate of interest, and usury would become only an unpleasant memory.

Estimates of the bailout now nears $3 trillion. Rather than throwing it at privately owned banks and lenders, our government could buy controlling interests in smaller banks, those otherwise likely to be bought up by banking behemoths. With ownership of these banks, government could immediately begin to make loans and thereby ease the current credit crunch. We wouldn’t need the likes of CitiCorp with its usurious interest rates, punitive fees and charges, and its inherent arrogance and irresponsibility.

In order to have a truly healthy economic system, one that does not continue to redistribute wealth upward, we’d need to make some other corrections as well:-

• Raise the minimum wage,
• End subsidies to corporations that offshore jobs,
• Ban the practice of avoiding taxes by setting up offshore offices,
• Require that our government fulfill its traditional obligations rather than out-sourcing and privatizing (which the Bush administration has done in many areas, up to and including our military),
• Eliminate the special Social Security tax and put Social Security into the federal budget.
• Impose any necessary taxes on an equitable, progressive basis. (Even Adam Smith wrote that “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”)

It seems to me that a fully nationalized banking system would introduce more freedom and more fairness into our society and that it would result in a truly healthy and sustainable economy.

An economy cannot continue to grow ad infinitum (nor can anything else, including population). If we humans want to continue our lives on Earth, we will have to begin to think about a sustainable future. End

An interesting article related to the subject....click here