WHERE IS THE ECONOMY GOING? SHOULD I INVEST?

I received two questions from readers expressing concerns about issues that I suspect are on a lot of people's minds right now so I thought I'd share them with you today:

From Betty W.: "Keith, my broker is telling me we ought to have a lot more invested in stocks. But my husband and I are uncomfortable because it seems too risky. What do we do?"

Here's two things to think about:

    * First - Contrary to what Wall Street would have you believe, risk is not about what you ought to be doing. It's about how much pressure you can take - financial or otherwise - before you come unglued.

    * Second - As many people have found out the hard way courtesy of the financial crisis, having an appetite for risk is very different from having the capacity to deal with it. In reality, most investors are far more conservative than they thought.

Here's the thing - thanks largely the introduction of modern portfolio theory and computerized investment modeling, risk has gone from being something investors avoided to something investors gladly took on. And this has permeated every level of investing psychology today with the net result being that millions of people think they ought to have x% in stocks, x% in bonds, x% in real estate etc.

At the same time, Wall Street has been very effective in creating the belief that if you don't pay to play, you risk coming up short. In other words, they've turned the equation around.

This is like telling a five year old that he has to touch the hot stove even though he knows he may get burned. Or, worse, creating the incentive to do so just because the odds of getting burned are small.

This makes no sense.

Therefore, i f you're comfortable with lower numbers and can live within your means, there is absolutely nothing wrong with more conservative allocations than your broker recommends.

Johan W. asks: "Hasn't the Fed saved the day and shouldn't we be piling into US stocks?"

Not in my opinion. The road Team Bernanke is taking is filled with potholes.

A fivefold increase in lending capacity and a doubling of the national balance sheet will not help. Instead of expanding credit, history shows that the Fed should be tightening it.

The thing that most of our leaders have not grasped yet despite their good intentions is that any move to tighten things up will require the Fed to sell billions in bonds - a process that could tank prices and cause yields to skyrocket. (Prices and yields move in opposite directions.) So my guess is that they will do what all politicians do and delay making the decisions that put a real recovery in motion for at least two years or after the horses flee the barn again, whichever happens first.

To be fair, though, Bernanke is not stupid. There is a slim possibility that he may get extremely lucky and that would, no doubt, be great for everybody. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I think the market , particularly as the move to hard currencies or international baskets accelerates, are far more likely to vote with its feet and that the dollar could lose up to 50% of its value in the next 10 years. If that sounds improbable, consider this - the U.S. dollar index has already lost 14.9% since its high in March 2009.

As for piling into U.S. equities, that'd be exceptionally risky for reasons related to Betty's question. Given what we know about world markets and about stocks in particular, you never want to pile into anything - especially now. The risks are simply too high.

Instead, it's better to keep an eye focused on what we know is headed our way - a stronger group of emerging nations that are influencing capital markets like our own in unprecedented ways - and make measured decisions to invest accordingly.

Therefore, to the extent that we do invest in the U.S. (and we do at Money Morning), we want to do so only to the extent those choices have solid cash flows and derive substantial portions of their earnings from global markets that are growing much faster than our own. China, Brazil, and South Korea spring to mind, for example.

In closing, if you're wondering what to do next and how to move forward in the markets, you might find my new book, Fiscal Hangover, helpful. It's due out in a little over a week and it covers how the U.S. role in the world economy is shrinking at unheard-of rates, how government intervention may prevent the U.S. markets from normalizing for years to come, why Asia could become the center of the financial world... and much more.  So far, the reviews have been excellent.

With "Buy" and "Sell" Calls on Brazil ETF, Money Morning's Marquez Catches a 148% Move

Money Morning Staff ReportsAmong the many adages that longtime investors are probably familiar with is one that counsels “you’ll never buy at the very bottom and will never sell at the very top.”But with his recent market calls on the iShares MSCI Brazil Index Exchange-Traded Fund (NYSE: EWZ) in his “Buy, Sell or Hold” column, Money Morning Contributing Editor Horacio Marquez may have done just that.Back on Oct. 27, 2008, Marquez told readers of his popular "Buy, Sell or Hold" column that the iShares MSCI Brazil Index ETF was a "Buy." At the time, the ETF that’s designed to reflect Brazil’s overall stock market was trading at $29.94 a share.But that’s not all: Marquez actually made his market call almost exactly at the market bottom for the Brazil ETF, which had actually closed at $100.47 a share on May 20, 2008. After achieving what would turn out to be the closing high for the year, EWZ started a slow decline that accelerated as the summer turned to fall.By the time Marquez penned his column, the Brazilian ETF had plunged 70%, enabling him to make his “Buy” recommendation at what was essentially the bottom for that ETF.And once he did so, the ETF’s share price began to rally almost immediately. Coincidentally, in the four days following the publication of his column, the ETF zoomed 31%.As it turns out, that was just the start.On Friday, Oct. 23, the ETF closed at $74.34, meaning it had zoomed 148% since Marquez’ original “Buy” column was published. That gain came almost in exactly 12 months.

With "Buy" and "Sell" Calls on Brazil ETF, Money Morning's Marquez Catches a 148% Move

Blogged with the Flock Browser

The Dethroning of the U.S. Dollar Will Happen Sooner Than You Think

The Dethroning of the U.S. Dollar Will Happen Sooner Than You Think

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Is Timothy Geithner A Roadblock to Regulatory Reform?

By Jason Simpkins Managing Editor Money Morning

Financial disclosure forms revealed last week that some of U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s closest aides earned millions of dollars a year working for top Wall Street firms.That finding alone would not likely be enough to cast doubt over Geithner’s ability to take the lead in reforming the financial system. But this isn’t the first time the Treasury Secretary has come under fire for maintaining close ties with Wall Street, while failing to look out for the interest of the average American.Indeed, disclosure of Geithner’s phone records showed that the Treasury Secretary has had Wall Street firms on speed dial for the duration of the crisis, and a government watchdog group recently blamed him more than any other government official for the oversized bonuses that were paid out to financial firms that received taxpayer bailouts. Together, these revelations have undermined confidence in Geithner’s ability to be a dynamic force in pushing for the financial regulatory reform he’s promised. The advisors who came under scrutiny last week included Lewis Alexander, a former chief economist at Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Mark Patterson, a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), and Matthew Kabaker, who earnings millions of dollars at private equity firm Blackstone Group LP.Alexander, who in March left Citigroup to join up with Geithner, was paid $2.4 million in 2008 and the first few months of 2009, Bloomberg News reported. Kabaker, who had a hand in crafting the plan to spur banks to sell their toxic assets, earned $5.8 million working on private equity deals at Blackstone in 2008 and 2009 before joining the Treasury in January.

A large portion of that payout was in stock that Kabaker received when Blackstone went public in 2007.Goldman Sachs Group Inc. paid another advisor to Geithner, Gene Sperling, $887,727 for advice on its charitable giving, and fulltime lobbyist Mark Patterson $637,492, according to Bloomberg.Lee Sachs reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from New York hedge fund Mariner Investment Group.Because these advisors work as so-called counselors, they don’t require Senate confirmation, yet they still help oversee the $700 billion banking bailout and influence financial regulatory reform, including limits on executive pay.

Critics, including those in President Obama’s own cabinet, contend that this presents a conflict of interest.“The influence of money and lobbies on Washington has reached a shameful level,” Paul Volcker, chairman of the newly formed Economic Recovery Advisory Board, told the financial daily Il Sole 24 Ore. “Not to mention the fact that, since many Treasury nominees have not been confirmed by Congress, Geithner is surrounded by private advisors. Eight months into the new administration, the Treasury does not yet have a staff of [its own] officials. And this raises the question of using informal advisors who come from Wall Street. It should not happen.”It’s not just Geithner’s aides that have ties to Wall Street, either. The Treasury Secretary’s phone records show he had at least 80 conversations with top financial figures since January 28. That includes 10 discussions with JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s (NYSE: JPM) Jamie Dimon and 22 with Goldman Sachs Chief Lloyd Blankfein. Blackrock boss Larry Fink and Citigroup luminaries Dick Parsons and Vikrim Pandit also ranked high on Geithner’s call registry.It’s not unusual for the U.S. Treasury Secretary to keep close contact with his corporate counterparts, but coupled with his previous position as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of New York, Geither has garnered the perception of being particularly cozy with Wall Street bigwigs.“I don’t mind that he’s talking to Wall Street,” said U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA, “The problem is he appears to be listening.”AIG ArbitrageAccusations such as these were underscored by a recently released watchdog report that blamed Geithner for $168 million in bonuses paid out to executives at AIG, a company that received more than $180 billion in taxpayer funds.Neil Barofsky, the Special Treasury Department Inspector General who is in charge of overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), characterized the payout as a “failure of communication and a failure of management” on the part of the Treasury, which he said “outsourced its oversight” to other agencies.

AIG argued that it had no choice but to pay the bonuses, a large portion of which went the it’s Financial Products group that led to the company’s downfall and exacerbated the financial crisis.AIG asked some of its employees to return the money voluntarily, but so far the insurance company has recovered just $19 million of the $45 million it asked the recipients to repay.While the government – which now owns 80% of the company – has said it has little authority to rescind pre-existing contracts, Barofsky accused both the Treasury and Congress of missing opportunities to demand renegotiations.“Just because it was a legally binding contract didn’t mean there weren’t other alternatives,” said Barofsky.“They didn’t think it was that big a deal – $168 million was a drop in the bucket,” he added. “Their concern was paying back the debt.”Barofsky is currently working alongside TARP “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg to reduce the $198 million in bonuses AIG is scheduled to pay out in March 2010.

Other critics have been even harsher with their criticism.“We have a Secretary of the Treasury who failed to know what he should have known, failed to do what he should have done, and has failed to give us transparency,” U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA told ABC News. “We’re hearing that, one, we’re not getting transparency and, two, even if we get transparency, if we can’t trust the judgment and decisions of the Treasury, then, in fact, we’re not going to get the outcome the American people expect us to get. And we’re going to continue to have non-essential people paid huge bonuses in many cases that are unnecessary with taxpayer dollars.”Window Closing on Reform?Geithner’s ties to Wall Street and his inability to effectively manage the AIG bailout leave questions about his role in financial regulatory reform.Geithner predicted world leaders at the Group 20 meeting in Pittsburgh would sign off on “really far-reaching … pretty detailed” executive-pay standards to take effect by year’s end and set out a timetable for reforming key aspects of financial regulation. But such comprehensive reform has so far failed to materialize.

Similarly, more than a year after the collapse of Lehman Bros., a comprehensive plan for domestic reform has yet to emerge from the halls of Congress.Chairman of House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank plans to “mark up” provisions on hedge funds, insurers and brokerages this week – on Oct 21 and 22 – and bring a reform package to a vote on the House floor in November.“I think we’re making a lot of progress, I think momentum is now with Chairman Frank and [Senate Banking] Chairman Christopher Dodd and, as the president said last week, it’s very important that we try to get this done this year,” Geithner told reporters on Tuesday.However, some analysts believe that the window for significant reform is closing as the U.S. economy edges toward recovery.“As we get a little more distance from the actual collapse and things begin to stabilize, then people think we don’t need to take as much drastic action,” Michael Bernstein, an expert in political and economic history who is currently serving as provost at Tulane University, told NPR. “That’s a very disappointing reality.”In fact, a large portion of the anti-business rhetoric that provided the backdrop to the financial crisis has been replaced by public rants against big government and the vehement debate over healthcare reform that has consumed Congress.

“The president has offered a reform proposal that would grant broad new authorities to government bureaucrats while intruding in private markets and restricting personal choice,” Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the senior Republican on the House Financial Services Committee told The New York Times. “The obvious lesson of the events of September 2008 is that we need smarter regulation, not more regulation, not more government bureaucracy, and not more incentives to engage in harmful business practices.”Meanwhile, big financial institutions and community banks have unified against several pillars of the proposal, including the creation of a new consumer protection agency, and tighter regulation and more transparency regarding derivatives and credit default swaps – the very instruments that have been blamed for exacerbating the financial crisis. They’ve also lobbied hard against restrictions on executive pay, The Times reported.“The clock is ticking and we’re at a cross roads,” Travis Plunkett, chief lobbyist for the Consumer Federation of America, told CNNMoney.

“If we don’t see a substantial move this fall, financial reform may wither on the vine.”News and Related Story Links: * Bloomberg: Geithner Aides Reaped Millions Working for Banks, Hedge Funds * Money Morning: Wall Street Back to Business as Obama’s Regulatory Overhaul Loses Momentum * ABC News: Watchdog: Geithner “Ultimately Responsible” for AIG Bonus Fiasco * La Rouche: Paul Volcker: Geithner Is Surrounded by Private Advisors * The Wall Street Journal: AIG Bonuses Were a Treasury ‘Failure,’ Barofsky Says * The New York Times: For Obama, a Chance to Reform the Street is FadingShareThisOctober 19th, 2009Why Are “Insiders” Going Long on Oil?

Insiders have pumped an astounding $3.8 billion into oil and gas funds this year. That's a 171% increase year over year. Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are staking even more money on this trend. So what do they know? That the fundmentals on oil are building tremendous pressure - and are nearing a price geyser. China’s hoarding is just one of the factors... not to mention the faltering dollar or the mounting deficit. This report shows you how to play oil before the price spike takes hold. Click here to read this urgent, free report.This entry was posted on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 4:21 am and is filed under Home Page.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Due to the amount of comments we receive Money Morning will not be able to respond to all questions. If you have not already registered to leave a comment, once doing so you will receive Money Morning's Daily Email.There Are 9 Responses So Far. » 1. Comment by Gene Elliott on 19 October 2009: The figure quoted in this article says AIG paid $168 billion in bonuses to executives and employees. I belive the figure was millions, not billions of bonuses. 2. Comment by Jacob Steelman on 19 October 2009:

Why is anyone surprised that Tim has been talking to his buddies on Wall Street? That is the name of the government game – rig it in favor of the ruling elites. Real reform would be getting rid of the Fed (and thus the government sponsored banking cartel) and institute a private free banking system (free of government intervention) to provide the currency required by the market. I assume that such a private system would create an asset based currency such as gold and silver but it could do something completely different if the market wanted it.

Money (our medium of exchange in a sophisticated economy) is simply to important to be left to politicians and bureaucrats and a cartel insulated from competition. A global economy needs one private currency as a medium of exchange for private commerce and finance, not a currency produced by a cartel to satisfy government’s appetite for money to finance wars and to finance regulations that handcuff business. 3. Comment by Gaetan ROy on 19 October 2009: This administration is trying to fix the numerous problemes inherited from the failed Bush admistration, BUT it is absolutely not doing the right thing for Wall Street: wrong person(rooster in the henhouse) and this has to change rapidly or they will lose next year mid term. There is a scandal with Wall Street. So, for heaven’s sake, Obama should not have an ex-wall street representative there, it is just common sense. What is wrong on this?? 4. Comment by Myron Martin on 19 October 2009: The foxes are definitely in the hen house! It is simply disgusting to realize how the Wall St cabal has raped the taxpayer. These highly paid executives should suffer the fate of their decisions, their GREED knows no bounds. Many of them should get the same treatment as Bernie Madoff since they are running the mother of all Ponzi schemes that has impacted all citizens through inflation and debt creation. 5. Comment by Owen K. on 19 October 2009: I too, wonder why anyone is surprised by this. This is the same Treasury Secretary that was laughed at by the Chinese.

The problems in this economy and this Administration’s handling of the economy are coming to the surface. With regard to Wall Street fleecing the average investor, Caravat Emptor! As a parting thought, anyone who thinks that the current economic crises is coming to an end had better take a hard look. As the old saying goes; “We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” 6. Comment by Francis Chan on 19 October 2009:

The next financial meltdown will certainly split U.S. into pieces, if the president does not take a corrective action to prevent it from happening. The government should laid down some rules and regulations to curb greed level of these Wall Street big boys for the national interest. 7. Comment by Viswa Ranjan Ghosh on 19 October 2009: Treasury and Fed are two different puzzles. The former deals with Fiscal policy while the latter deals with Monetary. If anyone thought that a banker would be able to do justice to Fiscal responsibilities should have thought twice. Geithner was definitely a wrong choice. There were much better eligible candidates for the Treasury role – Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, et al. I was truly sad to see a bureaucrat from the Fed pick up the reigns of Fiscal policy. And, indeed, Geithner has successfully reduced a big chunk of the Fiscal stimulus into a Monetary push (”pushing on the string” as Keynes would have said) to stimulate the economy! Truly sad. 8. Comment by Amanda Wilson on 19 October 2009: Geithner…another man from Wall Street..Goldman sachs…he IS NOT what we need in the treasury department…must look closer at his resume…. 9. Comment by nate on 19 October 2009: it’s all a ponzi scheme… it’s been a ponzi scheme and every “recession” was always corrected with an expansion of debt… now the tax payers are providing the source of the expansion of debt and this new bubble will collapse. we must end the pyramid scheme, but jacob is absolutely wrong. we need a competent, strong government, because that is the only entity answerable to democratic process. the free market is a myth and currency must be controlled by an entity for the public good. take the power of money away from the financial institutions and put it back into the hands of GOVERNMENT… we must take the step back from feudalism and move back to the nation state system. we live in a sovereign republic, now a feudalistic state dominated by interests of the elite. take it back now!

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Will Global Warming Alarmism Disappear Like the Hula-Hoop?

Will Global Warming Alarmism Disappear Like the Hula-Hoop?

Posted using ShareThis

Many Predict US Financial Collapse in September

Let us contemplate the day in the near future when the consequences of financial chicanery finally outpace the ability of the governments, central banks and big media to cover up and obfuscate the truth. Many respected voices have now gone on record that September 30 or thereabouts will be that day.

Bob Chapman [Internationalforecaster.com] revealed that the US State Dept has advised embassies worldwide to stock up on a year's worth of the local currency in anticipation of collapse of the US dollar. Look for a temporary banking shutdown timed for around September 2009. As under Roosevelt, some banks won't reopen. 96% of bank reserves are currently held with the Federal Reserve who tells the banks not to loan the money, but rather to save it for further banking acquisition and consolidation. Chapman foresees a bank holiday lasting 4-5 days. Chapman thinks this first bank holiday presages a much more significant bank holiday months to years later which will involve simultaneous devaluations of multiple currencies as well as other significant changes in the banking system.

Harry Shultz [as quoted in marketwatch.com] says "Some U.S. embassies worldwide are being advised to purchase massive amounts of local currencies; enough to last them a year. Some embassies are being sent enormous amounts of U.S. cash to purchase currencies from those governments, quietly. But not pound sterling. Inside the State Dept., there is a sense of sadness and foreboding that 'something' is about to happen ... within 180 days, but could be 120-150 days."

Benjamin Fulford [http://benjaminfulford. typepad.com/benjaminfulford/] states that for almost a century the US Treasury Dept has been issuing specialized debt instruments to countries with which the US has had a trade surplus. These complex debt instruments are tailored by complex treaties. Unfortunately, the recent US Treasury funding needs exceed the willingness of these creditor nations to extend additional credit. Fulford writes, "The problem is that after nearly a century of issuing these debt instruments, the chickens are coming home to roost. President Obama tried at the recent G8 plus 5 meeting in Italy to borrow more money than George Bush junior did in 8 years. He was told a resounding no. The result should be total economic chaos in the U.S. by September 30th . "

Jim Willie [goldenjackass.com] writes of an Asian led initiative ending dollar hegemony beginning this weekend. Willie suspects that the Fed/Treasury is covertly loaning foreign central banks the money with which the central banks are now using to buy US debt. Increasingly, US debt is being bought by foreign central banks taking up the slack of investors abandoning US Treasury debt. Willie confirms Chapman's comments and says he solicited and received "multiple confirmations." He adds, "CHAOS WILL PREVAIL WITHIN SEVERAL MONTHS, PERHAPS A YEAR AT MOST{his emphasis}."

Jim Sinclair [jsmineset.com] has recently visited China meeting with its leaders. He states that China is increasingly more willing to take on the United States in its apparent maneuvers to inflate its way out of its debt crisis. In early July Sinclair started a 120 day countdown till breakdown of the US dollar ends market manipulation and all those sour economic chickens come home to roost.

OUT OF TRICKS

Seemingly the Federal Reserve/US Treasury have exhausted their bag of tricks. The Fed is fighting rising interest rates, a difficult task given the hyperinflationary debt financing it is now doing. Once rising pressure on interest rates become too much for the Fed to control, there will probably be several sudden economic and financial surprises cascading with currently known dilemmas: crashing dollar; increasing home mortgage defaults; commercial mortgage defaults reaching critical mass; falling bond and stock markets extending insolvency of pension funds; defaults on debt by state and local governments. And don't forget derivatives and further exposure of corruption and criminality on Wall Street. Bernie Madoff may soon have lots of company.

Unable to produce any more financial wizardry, the cynical federal government is arrayed in full battle dress uniform: 1] Mass forced swine flu vaccinations scheduled this fall performed under the specter of martial law; 2] Rumblings of extending the wars in Asia into Iran and Pakistan; 3] Rekindling the Korean conflict may also be in the cards. Of course, don't forget that both Iran and North Korea are client states of the British World Order. All the recent saber rattling involving Iran and North Korea is wholly orchestrated. We need the distractions from the economic crisis, so our clients Ahmadinejad and Kim provide us with the necessary theater. So what will come first, further banner headlines of dollar collapse and market crashes or the distracting theater of more war or 911 type events?

What will this fall really bring? It is not too far away so we shall soon know. Unfortunately, it may make last fall look pretty tame. When the government answers economic distress by preparing for the worst, then the worst may very well be what happens.

----

Related: "Western World Faces Fiscal Ruin"