September Jobs Report Indicates Economy Dead in the Water

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


September was the 15th month with the U.S. unemployment rate was at or above 9.5%.  The underemployment rate, which includes forced part-time and some discouraged workers, rose to 17.1%. While the Great Recession supposedly ended in June 2009, well over a year later the employment figures have still failed to show any significant improvement.

Private sector hiring was tepid to say the least in September. While the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) claims that there were 64,000 private sector jobs added last month, only two categories dominated hiring - 'leisure and hospitality' and 'health care and social services'. Leisure and hospitality, which includes drinking establishments, added 38,000 jobs. It is perfectly understandable why people would want to drink more considering the state of the economy.  Health care and social services (the mainstream media always leaves out the social services part), which is the only category that continually added jobs during the recession, added 32,000 jobs. Why social service jobs are counted as private sector jobs is a of course a mystery known only to the BLS. Education jobs are also counted as private sector, even though most of them are paid for with taxpayer money. Many health care jobs are of course also government funded.

Government jobs actually counted as government jobs dropped 159,000 in September. Almost half of this was accounted for by a loss of 77,000 Census positions. Considering the Census was supposedly finished months ago, this leads to the obvious question: What have these people been doing since then? Another 76,000 jobs were lost by local government. The Obama administration's February 2009 stimulus package provided a lot of funding for localities to pay for police, fireman and teachers. This funding seems to already be running out. What will happen in 2011, when the stimulus money has been completely spent?

The economic establishment has told us that the U.S. economy has had four quarters of recovery so far and we have already in the fifth. Employment hasn't shown any recovery however. Up to now, the claim have been that this is because employment is a lagging indicator (something that only showed up in the 1990s after a number of 'adjustments' had been made to how GDP and the inflation figures were calculated). The employment lag has already been several quarters and it now looks like it is heading for several years.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Inflation Makes Economy Look Better; Stocks Soar on the News

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Despite a number of economic reports at the beginning of the month indicating continued problems, stocks rallied strongly on September 1st. The Nikkei was up over 1% and the major European markets were up between 1% and 2%. The U.S. markets were up over 2% in morning trade.

U.S. stock futures were up strongly in the pre-market and not even an incredibly weak ADP employment report indicating a loss of private sector jobs in August could derail the rally. In a rare moment of candor, even news service coverage found the rally odd. One article stated, "The sharp jump in U.S. stock futures is surprising given the domestic economic reports due out later in the morning. Often investors don't make big bets ... heading into key economic reports, particularly in recent weeks as data has consistently showed growth is slowing." And this was before the ADP report indicated that job losses in the U.S. are accelerating again after three challenging years and despite trillions of dollars of government stimulus spending.

What supposedly started the global stock rise was 'good' news on China's manufacturing index (PMI). The official government number was 51.7 in August versus 51.2 in July. While that may seem OK, albeit rather mediocre, the details indicate big trouble on the horizon. One component of the report was disproportionately responsible for the index not falling below 50 and indicating contraction. That component was the Input Price Index, which rose from 50.4 in July to 60.5 in August. Isn't that an inflation indicator? Doesn't that mean that input prices went up around 20% in only one month? Couldn't this possibly indicate that China is on the verge of experiencing major inflation and this is masking a big drop in manufacturing activity there? Then the U.S. PMI was released at 10:30AM and it unexpectedly rose.  Of all its components, the highest number was Prices, also an inflation indicator.

In the U.S., the market was also pleased that home prices were rising.  This news however was more laughable than ominous. According to Case-Shiller, U.S. houses prices in select cities were up 4.4% in the second quarter. The entire time period included the $8,000 home-buyer tax credit. According to other sources, an increase of $8,000 in the median average U.S. home price would be about 4.4%. So what happened was the government gave homebuyers $8,000 and they then spent an average of $8,000 more to buy the same home they would have without the tax credit. This obviously didn't make real estate any more affordable, all it did was create the illusion that this was the case. It wasn't just naive and gullible homebuyers that fell for this scam either. One prominent mainstream economist commented on the data, "Even with concerns about near term developments, we recognize that the housing market is in better shape than this time last year." Home sellers of course got an extra $8,000 courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer (if you check your bank account and notice $8,000 missing, this is where the money went).

So how is it possible that stocks are having a massive rally on the above news items?  The state of the economy is not the short-term reason stocks rally or sell off. Stocks rally on liquidity. And it is obvious that central banks are injecting huge amounts of liquidity into the global financial system at the moment. The liquidity free lunch doesn't last for a long time however. It has to be paid for periodically with withdrawals of liquidity to prevent a huge inflation spike. This causes lots of volatility with stocks experiencing big price rises followed by sharp drops. We saw a lot of this in the second half of 2008 when the market went up and down like a yo-yo on crack cocaine. While this resulted in an eventual market collapse two-years ago, this is not likely to deter the Fed from continuing to play the same dangerous game again until the November 2nd election. Investors should brace themselves for a rocky market during the next two months.


Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Q2 GDP Up Only 0.7% Without Government Spending

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.



The Bureau of Economic Analysis revised second quarter GPD growth down from 2.4% to 1.6% today. Stimulus spending peaked in the second quarter and despite the big boost that it provided, the U.S. economy only expanded at a rate that indicates the U.S. standard of living isn't declining further.

The U.S. needs GDP growth (adjusted for inflation) at about 1.5% for the well-being of the average person to remain the same. This is because of population increases and other factors including some overstatement of the numbers. Actual growth, meaning more jobs and increased incomes for the American people, only takes place when the GDP number is above that level. The U.S. right now needs a substantial amount of actual growth just to make up for the decline from the Credit Crisis/Great Recession and to get back over eight million lost jobs. Despite $2.7 trillion in federal deficit spending in the last two years, it's just not happening.

At the bottom of the Credit Crisis/Great Recession GDP declined at a 6.8% annual rate. So far during the 'recovery' GDP growth has been:

2009 Q3  1.6%
2009 Q4  5.0%
2010 Q1  3.7%
2010 Q2  1.6%

Most of this has come from changes in inventories -in the first three quarters, approximately two-thirds of 'growth' came from this one factor. Indeed this also would have been true of the Q2 number as well if the inventory component hadn't been lowered. Inventories for Q2 were originally reported as being responsible for GDP growth of 1.05% (divided by the new 1.6% total, this would indicate inventories were 66% of Q2 GDP growth). However the inventory contribution to GDP was revised downward even though according to the BEA, "Private businesses increased inventories $63.2 billion in the second quarter, following an increase of $44.1 billion in the first quarter". The smaller increase in inventories in Q1 was responsible for GDP increasing by 2.64%. This is a peculiarity of GDP math. In 2009 Q4 inventories decreased (yes, decreased) by $36.7 billion and this created 2.83% GDP growth. A decrease in inventories also created a 1.10% increase in GDP in Q3 2009.

Government spending was supposedly responsible for 0.86% of GDP growth last quarter. Subtracting that from 1.6% leaves only a 0.74% increase in Q2 GDP. Describing this as anemic would be an understatement. The federal government however accounts for almost a quarter of the U.S. economy and its spending increased by 9.1% in Q2. This would seem to indicate that the federal government contributed a lot more to Q2 GDP growth than what the BEA claims. It also begs the question as to how good the GDP numbers will be when government spending significantly declines as it is scheduled to do in fiscal 2011.

Q2 GDP would also have also been a lot lower without big increases in 'Gross Private Domestic Investment', which was up a whopping 25%. 'Equipment and Software' was up by 24.9% between April and June. In the recently released durable goods report for July, it had a big drop, as did machinery and other components in this category.  Two years of stimulus spending is responsible for revving up the investment component of GDP in the second quarter, but economic reports from early in the third quarter indicate that its impact is already waning. We will have to wait though until just before the November election to see the first numbers for Q3 GDP.

Disclosure: No positions

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. There is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Q2 GDP Report: 5 Important Things You Need to Know

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported today that GDP increased by 2.4% in the second quarter. First quarter GDP was revised up to 3.7%. The annual revisions for previous years indicated that the U.S economy contracted at an average annual rate of 0.2% between 2006 and 2009.

While 2.4% is in and of itself a fairly decent increase in GDP, the components that made up the increase are the key to interpreting how good it really is. To do this, it's necessary to know whether or not they are sustainable and even whether or not they are believable. Increases in some components are a negative because they ultimately lead to lower growth in the future. Inventories are the best example of this. Others, such as increased government spending are at best neutral because they don't indicate an improvement in the private economy. If spending isn't going to be increased further in the future, then this also indicates lower GDP going forward. Finally, some numbers simple don't match up with other government reports, observations of reality, or economic definitions. If they don't, they are obviously inaccurate.

So how do the GDP numbers stack up in the latest report?  Based on the official news release from the BEA, which can be found at: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm, it can be seen that:

1. Inventory increases added 1.05% to second quarter GDP. Based on the annual revision, they added 2.64% to first quarter GDP or 71% of the total increase. Inventories were also responsible for approximately two-thirds of the GDP increase in the fourth quarter of 2009. The entire economic 'recovery' has essentially been an inventory adjustment. This does not bode well for the future.

2. Government spending was up across the board in Q2. Federal spending increased by 9.2% in the second quarter versus 1.8% in the first quarter. State and local spending was up 1.3% this quarter versus a decline of 3.8% last quarter. The second quarter was when stimulus spending was at its maximum. So expect less of a contribution from government spending to future GDP and lower numbers as a result.

3. The most obvious fantasy figures in the report was the new home construction figure. This supposedly increased by a whopping 27.9%, even though the Commerce Department's New Residential Structures report (more commonly known as new home sales) indicated a 6% decline quarter to quarter and an 8% decline year over year. Nor is there any evidence of a massive increase in new home inventories or any real world evidence indicating a huge building boom. This number is impossible.

4. Somewhat suspicious is the increase in investment on business structures (commercial real estate). This was up for the first time since Q3 2008. The big increase in banks going under that is currently taking place is being caused by commercial loans going bad, yet commercial construction is now on an upswing? Perhaps work on the BP oil spill juiced up this number. Interestingly, the UK also reported a huge increase in construction spending last quarter as well, although there is little evidence of much construction going on there. BP is headquartered in the UK, but it spent its money to handle the oil spill in the U.S.

5. The most ridiculous claim of all was the revised figures for 2008 GDP. Based on original reports, GDP increased by almost 3% in 2008, a very good rate, even though it is universally acknowledge that the U.S. was experiencing the worst economic downturn since the 1930s Great Depression. GDP is supposed to decrease during a recession, not go up. In the revision in July 2009, GDP for 2008 was revised downward to plus 0.4%. In the current revision, GDP growth for 2008 is now listed as 0%. Perhaps after another 15 to 20 revisions it will get to a more reasonable number. The history of 2008 GDP indicates the U.S. can overstate its GDP by a total of 6% to 9% in its initial reporting. Keep that in mind when you read that GDP was up 2.4% last quarter.


Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

UK Q2 GDP: Unblanced, Unsustainable, and Unbelievable

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The UK economy grew by 1.1% in the second quarter according to just released figures from the Office for National Statistics. The pound rallied sharply on the news, but a look inside the numbers indicates this growth is neither balanced, sustainable, nor even believable.

Even a cursory glance at the Office for National Statistics charts shows quite clearly three components of GDP had an outsized impact in creating the good headline number - Construction Spending, Business Services and Finance, and Government and Other Services.  Without these three sectors, there was no growth in the UK economy. While these sectors were growing, there were significant decreases in the Electricity, Gas, and Water and Transport, Storage, and Communication categories. It would be reasonable to assume that these categories should be showing increases in a growing economy, but they aren't. The charts can be found at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/gdp0710.pdf

The UK had a bigger housing bubble than did the U.S. and they have yet to work off the excesses of too much building earlier in the decade. Nevertheless, the biggest contributor to second quarter GDP was Construction Spending, up a whopping 6.6%. Based on the numbers, a major new building boom is taking place there. People capable of logical thought may wonder how this is possible. A reasonable explanation is an obvious statistical error since the UK changed the source for its construction numbers and for the first time is basing them on a new Monthly Business Survey for Construction. Expect some major downward revisions for this figure in the future because it is something that is just not possible in the real world (government statisticians rarely question an impossible number as long as it makes the government look good).

The next best category was the one that contained financial services. The UK has propped up its big banking institutions (and has nationalized more of them than the U.S. has) with a number of government programs. Not surprisingly, after this huge transfer of money from government coffers, they are doing much better as are U.S. banks There was a 1.3% increase in the Business Services and Finance category and this contributed almost as much to the total rise in GDP as did Construction Spending. Together these are both part of the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) economy, where excesses led to the Credit Crisis. The UK seems to be trying to reestablish the imbalances that led to 2008 economic collapse.

Finally, government spending was up 0.9%, almost the same as the increase in total GDP. Government spending in the UK is indeed the lynchpin for making GDP look good as is the case in the U.S. The new Conservative government is planning major spending cuts and tax increases though and this will negatively impact future GDP numbers. Going forward things are not going to look rosy for the UK economy. Perhaps this is why the Bank of England was recently discussing lowering interest rates. Either they have access to other private economic data or they simply realize how misleading the current UK GDP numbers are.

Disclosure: No positions.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Gulf Oil Spill: Will BP Survive?

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


British Petroleum (BP) has lost around a quarter of its value since April 20th, when its blown out well started spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Several efforts to control the leak so far have failed and the damage is rapidly escalating. This is not just shaping up to be the biggest man-made environmental disaster of all time, but it will have ramifications for BP and the oil market for years to come.

The oil spill has already reached shore, stretching 150 miles from Grand Isle, Louisiana to Dauphin Island, Alabama. The ecologically fragile marshlands of Louisiana have already suffered noticeable damage. The oil moving underwater could be even more dangerous that the oil on the surface however. Scientists have found vast underwater plumes emanating from the well, one of which is 10 miles long and a mile wide. An outer edge of the spill has already reached the Gulf of Mexico loop current and that could bring oil to Cuba and both coasts of Florida affecting its beaches and the Everglades.

The size of the oil spill has been continually upgraded. It was originally claimed that the leak was only 5000 thousand gallons a day. Most recently BP admitted to 210,000 gallons a day, at least until it employed a siphoning mechanism (a mile long tube) that took in 210,000 gallons a day at its peak. Even at that rate, a lot of oil was still leaking and not being siphoned. This means the 6-million estimate for the spill in the first 30 or so days is in all likelihood is much too low. The Exxon Valdez tanker spilled 11-billion gallons in 1989. Many scientists believe the leak from BP's Macondo seabed well has already exceeded this figure.

The siphoning approach is only the latest one that BP has tried. It has now failed. While there are a number of possible solutions for containment, none of them have been attempted, let alone perfected in deep water. The leaking wells (there are actually three of them) are 5,000 feet below the surface. BP first attempted to place a dome over the hole, but ice crystals caused the dome to clog up. BP is apparently going to try this again because it thinks it can prevent the ice crystal problem next time. This week though BP will attempt to plug the leak with heavy mud and cement. The U.S. government is starting to get irritated though because it hasn't seen much progress. President Obama at first stated that the leak was "BP's mess", despite its multinational environmental, health, and economic consequences. Presumably, some recent political polls indicate that the American public doesn't buy the 'it's not my job' philosophy of the Obama administration and instead thinks the president should provide leadership during a major crisis.

That it was going to be difficult to control the BP oil spill was obvious from the beginning. There is no precedent for dealing with this problem in deep water. A much smaller spill in 150 feet of water in 1979 (IXOT 1) took nine months to fix. BP's spill is considerably more difficult to handle. The company says that it has already spent $760 million on the spill so far. The final figure will be much, much higher. The costs from lawsuits are completely open ended. While the company may survive, it will be severely financially damaged from this spill for years to come.
Disclosure: None

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Similarities Between the 2010 and 1997 Market Crashes

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


My blog post on May 4th mentioned the stock market was rolling over and on May 5th, I made the comparison between the problems in Europe today with those of Asia in 1997. I specifically pointed out that the Dow Jones Industrial Average had a one-day 7% drop because of the Asian crisis. The next day, the Dow was down 9.9% intraday on the current European crisis.

The Asian crisis in 1997, frequently referred to as the Asian contagion because it eventually spread from country to country, started with a currency crisis in Thailand. It soon engulfed most of East and South Asia. While Thailand's economy was small, it had been vibrant for many years. Its currency was overvalued though and this is where the problem began. Few people would characterize Greece as having a vibrant economy at the moment, though it is certainly represents a very minor part of overall eurozone economic activity. As the Asian situation in 1997 demonstrated, problems that show up in small countries can easily spread throughout an entire region and have global consequences.

So what did the EU leadership do? Despite this recent historical lesson, they decided to continually postpone dealing with the situation in Greece. Not surprisingly, contagion began to spread to the other PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and Spain), the euro tanked and this in now endangering the export based economies of currency union, and finally, world markets have sold off. Fortunately, EU authorities weren't faced with an outbreak of bubonic plague - otherwise we'd all be dead.

The U.S. stock market drop in 1997 mostly took place on October 27th.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 7715 on Friday the 24th. It then dropped 554 points on Monday, closing just off its low for the day. The loss was 7.2%. The bottom wasn't hit until intraday on the 28th however. At the low, the Dow had lost another 225 points and was trading at 6936. From top to bottom, the index was down 10.1% in a little over a day. On Thursday, May 6, 2010, the Dow at its intraday low was down 9.9% from the previous day's close. So far at least, the percent of the two drops is almost identical.

The 200-day moving average was an important barrier in 1997 and probably will be so in 2010 (at least for now).  The markets were trading way above the 200-day before the drop in 1997, as they have been recently. There was some piercing of the 200-day both times. It could happen again in the next few days, but the 200-day should be considered an important support level that the market will try to hold or return to quickly on a break.

The VIX, the volatility indicator, spiked into the high 40's in 1997. In 2010, it rose to 42.14. While the highs are somewhat different, the rallies of the VIX in both cases are very similar. In October 1997, the VIX had been slowly rising for almost two years from a low of around 10 and was trading around the 20 level. The low of 15.23 in 2010 was hit in early April. The VIX rose approximately 47 points from its value a few weeks earlier during both crashes.

The important question now of course is what is going to happen. The markets recovered rapidly in 1997, but this was during a long-term secular bull market. We are now in a low-term secular bear market and such buoyancy can't be assumed. The 1997 crash was not the end of the market's problems either. Regional financial crisis after all can easily cause problems for a couple of years. A deep, but short, bear market followed in August 1998 caused by the collapse of Long-Term Capital. Central banks reacted by pumping liquidity into the financial system and the tech stock blow-off followed. If they do that this time, and they most certainly will, expect a commodities blow-off instead.

Disclosure: None relevant.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
 http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Why Thursday's Market Crash Was Caused by Computer Failure or Errant Trades

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The trading pattern on the U.S. markets on Thursday, May 6th can be explained by only one of two things - a huge erant trade or a computer system failure.  Even after the market close, the NYSE was claiming that there were no technical problems with its trading system. Citi specifically issued a statement that it had nothing to do with implementing an errant trade. Nasdaq however said that it was investigating possible erroneous transactions executed between 2:40 and 3:00PM.

It wasn't so much the drop that was unprecedented. The waterfall decline that took place for approximately eight minutes somewhat after 2:30PM is common in crashes. Even during crashes however, numerous intra-period gaps on the one-minute chart aren't common. There were four such gaps yesterday in S&P 500 trading. Large market indices almost always trade continuously and the probability of this type of trading pattern is extremely small. Even less probable was the instantaneous recovery of the indices. The S&P 500 also has four gaps on the upside in only eight minutes, when it rose approximately 50 points.  During that same time the Dow Jones Industrial Average was rising around 500 points. None of this represents a normal trading pattern.

The major indices were damaged enough as is on the day.  The Dow was down 348 point of 3.2%. The S&P 500 dropped 38 points or 3.2%. Nasdaq gave up 83 points or 3.4% and the small cap Russell 2000 lost 28 points or 4.0%. Of all the major sectors, financial stocks were hit hardest closing 4.1% lower. The confusion caused the VIX, the volatility index, to spike above 40. It was in the mid-20s only two days ago. It closed at 33.19, up 41% on the day. This type of movement in the VIX is extreme and is likely to be reversed in short order. Gold rallied in the confusion.

Having looked at the charts as the sudden trading plunge and the subsequent recovery that took place during and after the market close, I noted the charts changed over time. Some of the gaps on the charts disappeared and a straight-line trading pattern the existed for a while before and just after 3:00 disappeared on later charts. The straight-line trading pattern only exists if trading has been halted or if there has been a break in the information feed from the exchanges so no data is forthcoming. Either way, traders and investors are entitled to an explanation of what really went took place. Otherwise, they might think there is either a cover-up of a serious technical glitch or collusion by the big players in manipulating the market.

Disclosure: Sold VXX.

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Intel's Earnings: Not Much Has Changed in 10 Years

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The French saying, 'the more things change, the more they remain the same' tells the story of the last decade of semiconductor giant Intel's earnings. While media commentary was gushing with enthusiasm about Intel's first quarter earnings of 43 cents this morning, it went unmentioned that Intel had also reported earnings of 43 cents per share ten years ago in the first quarter of 2000.  Intel's stock price reached the $75 level in 2000; it is under $24 today.

While Intel's earnings have finally recovered to what they were at the top of the tech bubble, gross revenues have increased by more than 25% in the last decade. In the first quarter of 2000, Intel sold almost $8.0 billion in products, but last quarter it sold $10.3 billion. This improved Intel's operating income from $2.5 billion ten years ago to $3.4 billion today. Quarterly Income Before Taxes was $3.2 billion in 2000, but $3.5 billion last quarter. Whatever Intel earns today has a more significant impact on its per share earnings though. There were 6.7 billion shares of common stock outstanding at the end of the first quarter in 2000, while there are only 5.5 billion today. Stock buybacks during the lean times have paid off for the company.

Some things that haven't changed are the importance of Asia for the computer market and Intel's microprocessor sales. North America ceased to be Intel's largest market long ago. The CFO's commentary today on first quarter earnings noted that Asia Pacific, Japan and Europe performed better than seasonal patterns would have predicted. The Americas experienced a larger than seasonal revenue decline from the fourth quarter. So if Intel's first quarter results indicate economic recovery, as many in the media suggested, that recovery is taking place in Asia, not in North America.

Semiconductors have always been a cyclical business. Stock prices for semi companies tend to decline before peak earnings in the cycle. Intel's stock is up nicely today on its earnings news, so it is quite possible business is still heading up. The longer-term picture on the other hand seems to have changed dramatically. Intel was leading a rapidly growing industry in the 1980s and 1990s. The last ten years have been fairly stagnant, although characterized by significant ups and downs. Based on stock price, the market isn't nearly as happy today with 43-cent quarterly earnings from Intel as it was ten years ago.

Disclosure: No position in Intel

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

An Analysis of Retail Sales Media Coverage

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Retail sales look like they increased 8% to 10% in March 2010 according to the International Council of Shopping Centers. Assuming the numbers are correct, and this is perhaps a very big assumption, a number of mitigating factors led to the unusual rise, including an Easter holiday that fell right in the beginning of April and very mild weather in March after a February filled with snowstorms. Nevertheless, mainstream media reports heralded that "consumers are finally coming out of hiding" and that happy days are here again.

Today's New York Times had some of the most positive reporting stating that the U.S. consumers' mood has gone from panicked to cautious to "almost a bit giddy" - a quote from Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com. In coverage elsewhere, Jackson Bros., Boesel & Co. noted that this is season when chain store sales increase and that they saw interesting possibilities in Woolworth, Grand Union, and J.C. Penney.

Today's coverage in the Times noted that "import cargo volume in March also suggested a strong month for retailers", having risen for four months in a row and being up an estimated 6% in March according to the National Retail Federation.  Other publications reported that rail freight loadings in the week that ended March 21st gained more than they usually do in March and had hit a new high for the year. The implications are of course that this indicates that retail sales will be getting better in the future.

The Times upbeat coverage also included "sales are simply much stronger than companies had expected,” and the improvement extends to some of the most costly items including autos with Ford, Toyota and General Motors having robust sales increases in March. The Times did concede that incentives such as no-interest loans may have been responsible. Other sources reported that one major automaker had its third straight monthly gain of around 50% and its highest sales since last June. Dodges, De Sotos, Plymouths, and Fargos were apparently flying off the lot in March... March 1931 that is.

While the New York Times article was published on April 7, 2010, the other articles cited were published 79 years ago in early April 1931 - two years before the economy hit bottom during the Great Depression and many more years before the U.S. managed to crawl out of the economic devastation that the downturn had caused. Rosy media reports in 1931 did not mean that the economy was getting better and it is quite possible that don't indicate that in 2010 as well. Mainstream media wants to tell the 'everything is getting better' story and managed to do so in 1931 when the U.S. economy was actually falling off a cliff. Investors should assume little has changed with media reporting since that time.

What has changed since the 1930s is that the Federal Reserve is pumping huge amounts of liquidity into the financial system and the government is spending huge amounts of money it doesn't have to keep the economy functioning. Retail ETFs, such as RTH, XRT and PMR, are trading at two-year highs. While a realistic analysis of the macro picture may not justify such high stock prices for retailers, liquidity is responsible for the ongoing rally. The party should continue as long as the Fed continues to supply free booze. One it stops doing so, expect one big hangover.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Why China is About to Change Its Currency Policy

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

The 2011 U.S Budget - Inflationary and Out of Control

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


Two things happened the week before president Obama released his proposed 2011 budget today. First, in his State of Union address Obama promised a three-year freeze on domestic spending. Almost simultaneously, the U.S. congress raised the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion. When it comes to politicians, investors would be wise to watch what they do and pay no attention to what they say.

There is no reason to believe that the U.S. spending orgy that was ratcheted up with the Credit Crisis is going to be controlled now, next year, the year after, nor the year after that. The 2011 fiscal year begins October 1, 2010. Obama's proposed budget includes $3.83 trillion in total spending and an estimated deficit of $1.27 trillion. The deficit would be much worse if the Bush tax cuts didn't expire at the end of 2010 and a proposed $90 billion tax on big banks wasn't being factored in. Higher taxes are Obama's approach to controlling the deficit, not less spending - and he is going to be raising taxes much higher if any deficit reduction is going to take place.

To be fair, president Obama only promised to control a small amount of the domestic spending part of the U.S. budget. This is estimated to be $447 billion or less than 12% of 2011 spending. The biggest U.S. budget items - military, social security and Medicare are not being frozen. No significant spending control is possible with this approach, but the public would never know it if they read the mainstream media headlines indicating otherwise.

The 2010 budget is also being affected by Obama's revised spending agenda. Last February, the 2010 budget deficit was supposed to come in at $1.2 trillion. In August, this was revised upward to $1.5 trillion. In a big news release, also just last week, the figure was lowered to $1.35 trillion. This allowed Obama to state that the deficit for 2010, the first budget Obama fully controlled, was less than the over $1.4 trillion in 2009. Well, that was last week when the cameras were rolling. Now that the State of the Union address is over, the 2010 deficit is now estimated at $1.56 trillion - almost $200 billion higher only one week later.

The U.S. national debt was an already huge $8.95 trillion by the end of 2007, when the Credit Crisis began to unfold. It could easily get to the new debt limit of $14.29 trillion long before the 2011 fiscal year is even finished (the national debt can increase by much more than just the budget deficit because of accounting tricks played with inter-governmental money transfers). The United States has only two ways of paying for its budget deficits. We either borrow the money - almost all of which comes from foreign sources - or we print it. At some point our lenders are going to say enough is enough and then the printing press will be our only option. There will be no way limit how much inflation will exist once that happens.

Disclosure: None

NEXT: Gold Rallies Off Support; Inflation Threat Hasn't Disappeared

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Lessons for Investors from the Massachusetts U.S. Senate Race

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.


The markets can be thought of as a daily poll showing support from two competing sides - the bulls and the bears. Election day is the date an investor sells. What is really taking place in the markets or a political campaign is never completely clear because there are always conflicting pieces of data. The losing side will be prone to using the mainstream media to bolster their case and they will always have something to work with, even if they have to produce the supporting numbers themselves. Investors need to sift through the numbers to pull out the most relevant ones and ignore the numbers that are questionable or that are just not that important.

The numbers produced by political polls as well as economic figures constantly confuse people. One reason is that both are subject to manipulation. The best rule for helping to sort out what is going on is 'the trend is your friend'. This rule instantly makes clear what is going on in today's Massachusetts Senate race for Ted Kennedy's old seat.  The Democrat, Martha Coakley started out 30 points ahead in the polls in the fall and has dropped to negative numbers in a number of polls taken just before the election.  While the specific numbers for each poll vary, the trend is unmistakable: Coakley in losing ground fast and her Republican opponent Scott Brown is surging. Nevertheless, the media has had a number of articles trying to downplay this story by finding problems with one poll and talking up another poll (which was usually more error prone than the poll being attacked) with somewhat different results. All this is just noise, just like much of investing coverage is.

The handling of the Massachusetts race also highlights a constant problem with investing - starting from preconceived notions. Massachusetts is one of the most Democratic leaning states in the U.S. Ted Kennedy, and President Kennedy before him, held the senate seat being contested for 56 years. It is quite reasonable to think that a Republican could not win this seat and this was indeed the conventional wisdom right up to the week before the election. The early statistical evidence indicating this could happen was ignored because of unwillingness to consider the alternative. Only when the evidence became overwhelming did it get people's attention. There are times when it can be dangerous to think something has to be one way because it has always been that way. Investors need to be alert for these possibilities. The demise of General Motors, Bear Stearns and Enron are good examples of this. Legions of people insisted that General Motors could never go bankrupt, but it did. Right up to the last week of its existence, Bear Stearns had its cheerleaders telling the public that everything was fine with the company. Enron also had it supporters trying to get investors back into the stock almost to the very end.

Just like in politics, a strongly entrenched bull or bear view can always result in a counterattack against the changing status of an investment. In Massachusetts, the Democrats finally realized an impending loss was imminent in the Senate race. Money and political operatives started flooding into the state from Washington, D.C. President Obama himself came to Massachusetts to try to rouse the base in favor of Coakley. Obama's volunteer lists were tapped and phone banks set up across the U.S. to call into Massachusetts to get Coakley voters to the polls. After being promised a big tax break in the health care bill, big labor has bussed in a number of foot soldiers to work the vote on Election Day. The entrenched interests do not give up easily and investors should always keep this in mind. A counter-trend rally is the best stock market analogy and the price movements of the U.S. dollar have similar underpinnings to the reaction counter-reaction that is taking place in Massachusetts politics.

There is also an important lesson on short versus long-term trends in the Brown Coakley race. With the exception of short-term momentum traders, most investors need to keep the long-term trend in mind. One race for the senate in and of itself represents a short-term event. In context it can have much broader implications. A loss for the Democrats in Massachusetts will follow loses in statewide races in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009. These were downplayed by the pundits as being caused by special circumstances. It will much harder to deny a third loss is not part of a bigger trend (although this will indeed happen, expect the excuse machine to be revved up to full power after the election). In the markets, a major sea change appears to be taking place in long-term U.S. interest rates. They are trying to break a three-decade downtrend. It is likely when this takes place it will be explained away by a number of investing pundits.

The implications for the Brown Coakley race in Massachusetts are very significant for U.S. politics going forward. Obama will be severely depowered by a Coakley loss, both in the short and long-term. The Democratic supermajority in the U.S. Senate will be gone. Republicans will be energized in the November elections and are likely to gain a significant number of House and Senate seats. Investors should pay attention to how the markets react the day after the Senate election and to Obama's State of the Union address on January 27th. The market will tell you what it thinks of this turn of events.

Disclosure: Not applicable

NEXT: Big Bank Earnings Contradict Economic Recovery Claims

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer, New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Energy Investing Guide for 2010

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

As has been the case for many years now, oil was once again one of the best investments in 2009. While oil has a leadership position in energy, it is only one part of a very large and complex sector that includes natural gas, coal, nuclear power, biofuels and renewables. Ultimately, the price of everything else in the sector will be influenced by the price of oil. All sources also have an easy to determine cost per unit of energy generated and these at least in theory should be somewhat similar across the sector. In reality, that price can become significantly different from one energy commodity to another and this can indicate severe over or under pricing. Price moves in oil and the other commodities in the sector don't necesarily take place at the same time, but can be considerably lagged.

While oil and coal (both the commodity and their stocks) and wind energy and natural gas stocks had significant rallies from their respective price bottoms in February and March 2009 , the natural gas commodity, uranium and nuclear-related stocks, and many solar stocks remained depressed throughout the year. While almost every commodity rallied strongly in 2009, natural gas and uranium were the two glaring exceptions. Natural gas prices literally collapsed and at the low were trading at price levels that were seen earlier in the decade and in the later 1990s. Natural gas futures fell to around $2.40 and spot prices were even lower. Uranium had a strong rally from 2003 to 2007 when it rose from around $10 to over $130. It fell to around $40 at its low in 2009 and hovered just above that price throughout the rest of the year. The solar industry is a more complex story. It is only an economically viable source of energy when oil prices are high. At lower oil prices, government subsidies are key. While a few solar stocks have rallied nicely from their lows, most had not gone up much by the end of the year.

In 2009, prices for both natural gas and uranium fell below estimates for their production costs. No commodity can trade in that range for long since production closes down to bring supply and demand back into balance. By the spring, 50% of natural gas rigs in the U.S. had already closed down. In must be kept in mind that prices in both the natural gas and nuclear industries are influenced by the government. The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) held hearings this summer about trading in the oil and natural gas markets. Along with the SEC, the CFTC interfered with access to trading vehicles in these markets that were used by the small investor. Natural gas ETF, UNG was effectively turned into a closed-end fund because of the actions of these two government bodies. Leveraged oil ETF, DXO, closed down as a consequence of their interference. As for the nuclear market, the U.S. Department of Energy has a stockpile of 158 million pounds of uranium and it occasionally sells some of this on the open market and depresses prices, just as central bank selling of gold occasionally depresses gold prices.

While prices were down for natural gas and uranium, they are not likely to go lower in 2010, at least for any extended period of time. They will be supported because they are too close to their production cost levels. This does not mean a major rally is imminent however. Prices can get low and stay low for a long time, as was the case in the 1990s. A number of commentators claim that this will be the what happens now because oil, natural gas, uranium and solar stocks were in a bubble that lasted into the 2007 and 2008 period and once the price goes down it will not recover again for many years. Similar arguments were made in 1974 when oil hit $12 a barrel. It's ultimate high was still several years off and several times higher. Energy was in a bullish period back then just as it is now.

Oil looks like it will be strong again in 2010, based on its price behavior in the fall of 2009. Oil prices, like many commodities, have a strong seasonal component. For oil, the bottom tends to be in the winter between January and March and the yearly peak between June and September. Light sweet crude rallied 9% in October 2009, at a time of the year when it should have been selling off. This indicated unusual strength. Crude ended the year near its yearly high, which was somewhat above $80. While seasonal selling pressure will exist for the first couple of months of 2010, buying pressure will then cause the price of oil to rise. It would not be unreasonable to assume that it will get above $100 a barrel during the year. It is not likely however that price will go up enough in 2010 to break the old high of $147. That will have to wait until the following year. Oil and many oil stocks should continue to be good investments in 2010.

ETFs/ETNs, exchange traded funds and exchange traded notes, are the easiest way for investors to get oil and oil stock exposure in their portfolios. The ETF/ETNs: OIL, DBO, USO and USL can be used to invest in oil as a commodity. For those who are more aggressive and want as much as 200% long exposure through leverage, UCO, HOU or LOIL, which trade in the U.S., Canada, and the UK respectively, can be bought. For ETFs that hold stocks of oil and gas companies, XLE, IYE, and IXC are possible choices. Investors bullish on oil stocks can get leverage on them by purchasing DIG and ERX.

While oil should be doing well in 2010, natural gas does not look as promising. There is an incredible glut in the market and new supplies are coming online through the global shipping of compressed natural gas. Still the price of natural gas is relatively low compared to oil on a historical basis. It will take some time to work out the excesses however and fully restore balance between these two commodities. Natural gas tends to have sharp price rises every four to five years and the last peak was 2008, so another really big move up shouldn't be expected until around 2012. Trading opportunities will of course exist in 2010 and low prices will be available for those who want to slowly accumulate and hold their positions for a while. A good ETF for the natural gas commodity is GAZ. Leveraged natural gas ETFs HNU and LNGA trade in Canada and the UK. The leveraged ETFs are a better choice for shorter-term investors.

The supply demand picture of uranium is bullish in the intermediate term. A number of new reactors will be coming online in Asia over the next several years. Growth in the use of uranium usage is expected to be over 2% a year until 2030 according to the World Nuclear Association. The market is thought to be in deficit of 60 million pounds a year. It is estimated that uranium prices would have to move up to around $75/$80 to improve supply. Miners in particular will benefit when this happens. ETFs for nuclear power include NLR, NUCL and PKN. Only NLR has any significant trading volume however.

As for solar power, a few of the leaders had good rallies in the second half of 2009. This is an indication the whole sector is in the beginning stages of a market recovery. Investors should keep in mind though that this is a new industry and there will be a period of consolidation. Some companies will not last. Longer-term investors should avoid stocks with bad financials. The two solar ETFs are TAN and KWT, but these have partially rallied already in 2009 because the leaders in the sector started moving up. Individual stocks which have not rallied too much yet and which investors might want to consider are ENER, JASO, SPWRA, and WFR.

Commodities have been in a longer-term secular bull market since around 2000. This type of bull market tends to last around 20 years. So, there is still a lot of time left and good investments to be made. Buying stocks and commodities on intermediate term drops is the correct strategy in such markets. Buying oil in the spring of 2009 produced quick and substantial profits. Prices in other parts of the energy sector haven't moved as fast as oil did in 2009 and this is giving investors another chance to profit in 2010.

Disclosure: Long ENER, WFR, natural gas.

NEXT: Conmodities Versus Stocks: A Decade Performance Review

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.

Investing Themes for the Next Decade: 2010 to 2020

The 'Helicopter Economics Investing Guide' is meant to help educate people on how to make profitable investing choices in the current economic environment. We have coined this term to describe the current monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, which involve unprecedented money printing. This is the official blog of the New York Investing meetup.

Investors make the most consistent money by following bigger trends and going long in uptrends or shorting into downtrends. Longer term trends are not unidirectional however, but subject to either sharp or intermediate term reversals. At those points, it is best to get out of the market until the uptrend or downtrend resumes. Of course all trends eventually come to an end and it is important to recognize this when it happens and to close out your positions. Failing to protect profits is perhaps the biggest mistake that investors make. While it is not possible to predict the future with complete accuracy, it is possible to make some useful projections that can be used as a general investing guide for the next decade.

The way to see into the future is to look into the past. Human behavior hasn't changed in the last many thousands of years and this is what is mostly responsible for repeating market boom and bust cycles. History has shown that government leaders in particular are prone to making the same monetary and fiscal errors over and over again. People who run governments have a tendency toward megalomania and a belief that things that happened consistently in the past (assuming that they are even aware of them) because of certain financial policy actions won't happen again in the present. They are invariably wrong. Central bankers can and do evidence this behavior to an extreme. They have repeatedly claimed that they have the ability to control the economy. The Credit Crisis makes it very clear that they do not - otherwise it would not have happened. Real world events have not shaken their faith in their own omnipotence however. Their arrogance combined with denial indicates that workable solutions to the Credit Crisis are many years off and only likely to take place once extreme conditions have been reached.

Repeating cycles and the historically oft repeated government responses to them provide us with a lot of information about what can happen in the markets during the next ten years. Just like everything else, the cycles will behave as they have in the past because the fundamental driving forces behind them are the same as they always have been. Before the decade even begins, we can clearly see three major factors that will impact the market until at least 2012. These are: the lag between monetary stimulus and inflation, the steep yield curve, and price cycles in certain commodities. These predict that a peak in the inflation rate, long-term interest rates and commodities prices is probable between December 2012 and July 2013. This will not be the ultimate peak however. There will be at least one additional peak that follows this one and two extra peaks are even more likely.

The exact high for commodity prices and interest rates of course can't be stated yet. It can be said however that they will be much higher than the beginning of the decade and be at levels that would currently be considered extremely high by most investors. Sharp price acceleration is likely to be evidenced in the last several weeks to few months of the move with as much as 20% to 25% gains for commodities such as gold and oil possible during this end phase. While an inflation investing strategy centered around precious metals, energy, agricultural commodities and shorting long-term bonds will be highly profitable up to early 2013, investors will then need to sell these holdings to protect their profits. Either switching to cash or engaging in a deflationary investing strategy will then become the best option, at least for a while.

This first inflation peak will end because it will become politically untenable for governments to allow it to go on. Investors should expect the typical government responses from the past. These include price and wage controls, currency intervention and cross border currency controls, import/export controls, rationing, punitive taxation policy on certain investments, changes in investing rules and regulations and either indirect or direct government forced dissolution of certain investment vehicles. As has happened in the past, these policy initiatives will work quite well - in creating shortages, black markets, general disrespect for the law, and in preventing the economy from fixing itself. Inflation will remain controlled for approximately 18 months at most. At that point, there will either be a de facto or de jure dissolution of many of the policy initiatives because of lack of support among businesses and the public. By 2015, inflation will on the rise again and investors will need to switch back to precious metals, energy, agricultural commodities and shorting long-term bonds.

Some ultimate resolution to rising prices will likely take place toward the end of the decade between the 2017 and 2019 time frame. Prices for most commodities will reach levels that would be considered unimaginable in 2009. U.S. interest rates will be somewhere well into the double digits (if not higher) and the U.S. dollar will have lost most of its value. By that point, the world financial system will have to be restructured. The dollar will have to be given some backing to regain credibility. There will probably only exist a narrow window of time for inflation investors to sell their holdings so that they keep most of their spectacular profits. They must then switch their investing strategies to approaches that work in a disinflationary or deflationary environment. For an update on how to do this, check back in 2020.

Disclosure: Long precious metals, agricultural commodities, short long-term bonds.

Next: Energy Investing Guide for 2010

Daryl Montgomery
Organizer,New York Investing meetup
http://investing.meetup.com/21

This posting is editorial opinion. Like all other postings for this blog, there is no intention to endorse the purchase or sale of any security.