Another Case For Gold

Today’s post is an excerpt from What If Stocks Were Priced In Gold? posted at Experience Is Everything.  While the post is incredibly interesting it is rather long. The portion I’ve quoted explains why gold will likely outperform the dollar and stocks over the next few years. It follows that you should invest in gold. Even though, I’ve been recommending gold since it was at $495/oz back in December 2005, it’s still not too late.  If the below mentioned scenario comes true, you’ll be happy you did!

For much of the last century the dollar was tied to gold, and while the relationship was never perfect — and the U.S. government betrayed the union many times, in many different ways — there was at least some relationship, which helped pull the ratio down. Eventually, excessive inflationary printing caught up with the government in the 1960s, and it became clear it wouldn’t be able to honor redemptions against the dollar at the price it had fixed. Nixon essentially defaulted on the U.S. promise to redeem dollars for gold by taking the U.S. off the standard in the 1970s — and this, more than anything else, allowed inflationary pressure to drive general prices into the stratosphere. This was the moment the Dow-to-gold ratio approached 1:1. To fight rising prices, Paul Volcker, the Fed Chairman at the time, pushed the Fed’s target interest rate past 20% and barely saved the U.S. economy from collapse.

For most of the next 20 years, gold fell and stock prices rose. Meanwhile, the U.S. government capitalized on the lie it had created and printed more and more money. Who really cared? Everyone was making money in the stock market, and prices remained relatively stable. In fact, every time prices failed to act “correctly,” the Fed simply changed the rate at which it would lend to banks. But the illusion of the monetary policy game couldn’t last forever; people used easy money printed by the government to buy assets they couldn’t afford throughout the economy — especially houses. Finally the pressure was just too much, and everything started unraveling in 2007. But the gold market seemed to understand the game couldn’t last, and around 2000 it started a slow, steady rise.

Relative to everything, the number of dollars in the system in early 2009 is almost incomprehensible. Once de-leveraging reaches its nadir — and it’s coming soon — those dollars are going to hit the economy and drive prices much higher.

What have we learned about stocks in such periods of rising prices? Not only do they fail to perform, but adjusted for inflationary price pressures, they actually underperform. General prices and unemployment will continue to rise. The consumer will continue to be unable to consume. Corporate earnings and dividends will continue to collapse as a result. Stocks are going lower — probably much lower.

And what about the price of gold? It will almost certainly continue to increase — not only because people will flock to its long historical stability and consistency, but also because there are simply so many more dollars (and yen, and rubles, and euros) in the world. Remember, the U.S. isn’t the only country printing innumerable sheets of currency. And in that context, remember also that inflationary price increases have almost nothing to do with increased demand, but rather they are the result of currency devaluation and destruction — through printing.

I just want to share two more charts with you. The first should give you a little perspective — it is a historical chart of gold, in both nominal and real dollars. Notice the real price of gold in 1980 (in 2007 dollars) was $2272 per ounce. If I’m correct about inflation and the fate of the dollar — and I’m confident I am — then we are nowhere near the historical high in gold. But I don’t think we’re merely going to re-test that high — I think we’re going to blow through it as the dollar loses value.

In the 1930s, as corporate earnings and dividends disintegrated, the Dow lost nearly 90% of its value from peak to trough. The U.S. was a creditor nation with a huge manufacturing base. The dollar was tied closely to gold. Since its peak in October 2007, the Dow has lost less than 50% of its value. The U.S. is a debtor nation with a relatively small manufacturing base. I can’t say it enough: we borrow profusely, we manufacture very little, and we consume gluttonously. Nonetheless, the consumer has now lost almost all his purchasing power, and corporate earnings and dividends are going to suffer massively as a result.

In 2007, the Dow peaked at about 14,150. To give you some perspective, an 85% drop in the Dow from peak to trough would put it at about 2100.

I know its easy to imagine the Fed has magical powers. I’ve fantasized about such things myself at times of extreme weakness — that maybe the Fed will “somehow” figure out a way to fight and defeat the unprecedented evil specter of inflation it is foisting on its unsuspecting children. Sometimes I do believe that our Lord and Savior Barak Obama will wave his charmed “unicorn horn of change” and all will be well again. Likewise, at times I feel like I could let Uncle Ben Benanke take me just about anywhere in his helicopter of prosperity. My faith in the reverend John Maynard Keynes runs deep, as I hope, and hope, and hope. I find myself gleefully clicking my heels together and repeating, “the dollar is almighty, and the Stars and Stripes will prevail.” And when I am in this wonderful place, I have confidence that someday soon, we’ll all be buying houses with no money down, and with no jobs. Our driveways and backyards will once again overflow with boats, motorcycles, and sports cars.

Then I think about the 1930s. And suddenly I am wide-awake.

Let me ask you a simple question, and I want you to actually think about it. Do you really think we can’t get to the 1930s again? Do you really think that we’re going to return to the exuberant excess of the past few decades? If so, let me disabuse you of the notion: the United States was in much better shape, economically, going into the Great Depression than it is now. Prosperity is not coming back to the U.S. as we know it. We are in a lot of trouble.

Is a Dow-to-gold ratio of 1:1 so incomprehensible? Again, it has happened before — several times. But I’ll even take it a step further: what about a Dow-to-gold ratio of .5? Or less? I promise you, if the Fed fails to soak up all the dollars it’s putting in the system, that’s exactly where we’re going. And what, you may ask, does the Fed use to “soak up dollars?”

I’ll be glad to tell you that too. When the Fed needs to take dollars out of the system, it sells Treasuries (which means it buys dollars). The problem is, the U.S. debt-load is astronomical. Who, exactly, is going to buy that debt from the Fed? And at what interest rate? Remember, if the Fed is desperately trying to take dollars out of the system, there can be only one reason: it is scared of rising prices caused by inflation. But if the Fed floods the market with Treasuries, it will achieve exactly the opposite effect it’s looking for — it will cause rates to rise, probably dramatically. Do you really think the Chinese and the Japanese are going to buy Treasuries at a 2% yield if the Fed is panicking and trying to buy dollars to stop an inflationary price explosion? If so, you’re delusional. Chinese and Japanese people are smart. They’re not going to fund an inflationary dollar at 2%. Ever.

In the past it might have worked. Of course, in the past, the U.S. money supply was much smaller, and our ability to borrow was much stronger. But those days are gone.

As if I haven’t terrified you enough, the last thing I’m going to leave you with is really scary. It is a link to an excellent article by Mark J. Lundeen, whose insight into this economic catastrophe has been stupefying since long before all of this even started. Embedded in the article is a chart that shows historical dollars-in-circulation, relative to U.S. gold.

With that, I think I’ll let you do the rest of the math. Sleep well.

I strongly recommend you subscribe to his blog. And don’t forget to add some gold & silver to your portfolio.

Leaking your Way to the Poorhouse

Today’s guest post is by Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP® (www.Sidoxia.com), author of How I Managed $20,000,000,000.00 by Age 32

We are living through unprecedented times in our economic history and the urge to give into the all-consuming panic spreading across the airwaves is very tempting. Unfortunately, succumbing to the pressures of following the herd produces suboptimal investment returns over the long run. The appropriate tactic is to invest objectively and independently, not emotionally. Or in other words, buy fear and sell greed. Most people understand the concept of buying low and selling high, but their thought processes at peaks and troughs somehow regress to the belief that circumstances are “different this time.” Stocks are definitely not for everyone; however history shows that recessions are the absolute best times to buy, for long term investors.

The eventual outcomes of emotional buying or selling are self evident in the regrettable data. John Bogle, the very successful founder of The Vanguard Group, did an eighteen year study (1984-2002) showing that individual investors underperformed the “do-nothing” index strategy by more than 10%…PER YEAR. It really astonishes me how much trading, fees, and emotions can impact long-run investment returns.
Paying fees on your investment portfolio is somewhat like a car leaking oil. A few oil drops leaking out of your engine is no big deal. But if your car is leaving behind large puddles and the engine cannot maintain the adequate level of lubricant, eventually the engine will simply stop running – leaving behind a messy situation that precludes one from reaching the desired destination. The same principle applies to investing, when considering fees, transactions costs, and taxes.

If the last decade hasn’t been challenging enough for equity investors, some brokers have added insult to injury by charging excessive fees – not a healthy recipe for individuals’ retirement plans. I am actually very optimistic about the investment opportunities available in today’s marketplace, however less sanguine about the sucking sounds coming from some of the aggressive fee-sucking brokers (a.k.a., Hoover vacuums). I’m making every effort I can to educate investors to better arm themselves against unscrupulous behavior and augment their knowledgebase regarding fees, transaction costs and taxes.

And when it comes to the investment industry, fees come in all shapes and sizes. There are explicit fees, such as, management fees, 12-b1 fees, administrative fees, load fees, and surrender charges, among others. Unfortunately there are indirect costs that drag down returns such as excessive transactions costs and taxes, and most investors don’t consider these impact. It does no good for the investor if a gargantuan pre-tax return is achieved and then evaporated away with fees, transactions costs, and taxes. Even if you exclude taxes, the average investor is paying 2.5% annually according to Bogle (1% in management fees, 1% in sales/load fees, and .5% for transactions costs).

Consider a $150,000 investment account earning an after-tax (net of fees) return of 5% over 20 years. That portfolio would grow to nearly $398,000. Let’s assume the efficiency of a portfolio could be improved with lower-cost, tax- efficient products and strategies, resulting in a net after-tax return of 7%. What do you think that innocent 2% improvement is worth? ANSWER: Over $182,000! That’s not chump change, and that money could buy a lot of vacations, medical bills, tuition for grandchildren, or many other niceties and necessities. Most people don’t fully appreciate how direct and indirect costs impact the timing of when AND how you will retire.

Now that you have recognized the leaking oil in your engine, don’t let fees, transaction costs, and taxes seize-up your investment engine!

Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP® (www.Sidoxia.com)

Plan. Invest. Prosper.

December 2008 Passive & Alternative Income Update

I just ran the totals for passive income for December and I found out that it was the 3rd most “profitable” month of 2008.  The other two were October and June.

Monthly Passive (alternative, online & dividend) Income was $3,276.07.

The total online income was $2385.20 which broke the previous record by ~$130.

Here’s the breakdown of the $3,276.07:

Online Income:$2385.2

Dividend/Alternate Income: $890.87

The largest segment was the income from Ebay which was over $900, probably due to Christmas. Over the course of 2008, I made a total of $3332.55 from the Ebay sites. Adding a storefront on this site has helped boost this income.  The store targets people who want to buy online businesses, cheap real estate and timeshares, gold coins and other income producing ventures.

In another post, I’ll list the total income for 2008 and a break-down by category.

Long-Short Bond Trade: Now With Reduced Volatility!

In a previous post on Deleveraging, I promised I’d talk about an interesting long-short bond trade that I entered last week.

If you believe that US Treasuries are over-valued, or foreigners will lose their appetite for US debt thus forcing up the interest rates, you’re probably looking to short treasuries.  Ok, maybe you haven’t looked in to shorting anything.  In that case, may be you should read this link on Barrons and then come back. (Barron’s thinks that investors are buying gold as an alternative to near-zero yielding treasuries.)

One of the ways to short the Treasuries is buying the UltraShort Lehman 20+ Treasury ProShares (TBT).  This ETF returns twice the inverse of the daily movement in the 20 year T-bill. However, these things never move in a straight line and can be extremely volatile.

Instead, I decided to do something a little esoteric.

I shorted the iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond (TLT) and netted $112.10 per share.  I used that money to buy an equivalent dollar amount  of the Alliance Bernstein Global High Income Fund, Inc. (AWF) at $8.29 (that’s buying about 13.52 shares of AWF for every share shorted of TLT).  Unlike the TBT position however, this position yields a dividend! AWF has a yield of ~13.4% while the short TLT position had a negative yield of 3.5% (since I shorted the ETF I need to pay this dividend), which results in a positive net dividend yield of ~9.9%.

Since TLT and AWF might sometimes move in sync, you’d think this portfolio would have a lower volatility than just TBT. Just to be sure, I also calculated the standard deviation of this portfolio on a bloomberg terminal at school and the resulting standard deviation was about 30% lower than for each individual ETF. (The standard deviation is often used by investors to measure the risk of a stock or a stock portfolio. The basic idea is that the standard deviation is a measure of volatility: the more a stock’s returns vary from the stock’s average return, the more volatile the stock. In short, less volatility is better).

Check out the graphs of TLT, AWF and TBT. Remember, TLT is a short position so you need to multiply the returns by -1 and add it to AWF.

long corporate bonds - short US treasuries

From the chart you can see that yesterday both TLT and AWF trended higher and predictably TBT lost value.  However the combined portfolio was slightly positive.

After last years volatile returns, anything that reduces volatility in your portfolio is a good thing!

Note that AWF is mainly comprised of short-term US corporate debt and some soverign bonds. There is a some foreign currency risk involved but with the US Dollar being a lot higher than it was a year ago, I’m willing to take this risk.

[Disclaimer: In case it wasn’t obvious, I’m long AWF (short-term corporate bonds) and short TLT (long-term government bonds).]

Sam Zell Imparts His Wisdom

One of the advantages of going to a top-tier MBA program is that you get to meet a lot of succesful, well-known people. Last week, billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell was on campus and gave an hour long speech about his views on the economy.

He made an analogy that the economy was like a bus being run by a monkey who let everyone drink, smoke weed and fornicate like crazy and then crashed it!  There’s no free lunch.  We’re going to have to pay for the past excesses.

sam_zell_equity_properties

Over the past 40 years, there’s only one true metric for real estate – and that’s the replacement cost of a building. Costs cannot stay much higher than that for extended periods of time. During the past few years, real estate was selling at astronomical levels. People were buying long-term with short-term financing, which has always ended in disaster. The value was not based on its intrinsic value, but on how much they could borrow against it. And the people making the loans just sold them off to unsuspecting pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. There was a huge disconnect between the borrower and the actual lender. There was also a disconnect between risk, reward and responsibility.

A lot of the current mess was caused by long held beliefs just being plain wrong. People believed that real estate always goes up, that companies like GM and Merill Lynch were too big too fail.  They also came up with a new belief system that didn’t include paying back loans – instead they just refinanced them! A rolling loan, carries no loss.

Instead of throwing people with bad credit out of homes they couldn’t afford in the first place, the government lamented on the victimization of the borrowers. Zell isn’t impressed with the government’s handling of this situation. In an effort to get the bail-out bill passed, there was a lot of fear-mongering and even a bait-and-switch to get the bill passed.  Apparently a $700 billion bailout got passed with a 3 page memo which no mention of how to spend the money.

He also commented on the recession. He sees consumer consumption going down, but the government will step in replace it. He thinks that government spending will increase from the current 18% of GDP to being more like France, where it is around 50%. This is a structural change caused by the deleveraging effects of and this recession is going to felt around the world.

But this doesn’t mean there won’t be opportunities to make money! Opportunities exist, but for those with access to capital. Capital is as scare as ever and you need to recognizing that capital will be the key to make money in this environment.  Asset pricing has started to become out of whack with reality.  We are starting to see deep discount below the intrinsic value.  We can buy assets below their replacement cost.  This will essentially create a floor at some point, since buyers will step in below the replacement cost.

But right now he see the best opportunities in debt. Right now we can get unlevered returns of 15-20% on performing loans, which is unheard of.   This is a function of liquidity risk, not of default risk!

In the 80s and 90s, Zell was a buyer of the last resort. He’s proud of the fact that everyone calls him the grave dancer, since he buys properties at fire-sale prices and resells them for a profit.He recommends waiting until the equity holders have no equity left in the assets before buying them.  He mentioned the story about a bank who came to him with a property they said was worth $32 million. He offered $16 million. The bank said they’d do the deal at $18 million or else they’d take it to the market. Zell called their bluff and eventually bought it for $9.5 million! Patience is a good thing to have in this market! (Check out this link to see cheap commercial real estate).

Zell thinks there will be a demand recession. You never want to invest where there is no demand for your product. He recommends buying where demand is still strong. He’s currently building low-income housing in places like Mexico, where there is a strong pent-up demand for that product.

He also spoke about investing in BRIC (thats Brazil, Russia, India and China). He strongly cautions against Russia because there is no law. However, he thinks positively of the other countries since they have embedded demand. If you can service that demand, you will do well. But doing business with honest and ethical people is very important. He recently passed on a proposal to do business with an Indian company because he didn’t think they were ethical. As it turns out, they weren’t and they’re now facing bankrupcy. That company was Satyam, India’s Enron!

He isn’t a fan of investing in Europe. With it’s shrinking population, he sees no demand.

However, if you can find demand in the US, you will do well here too. The US will somehow spend its way to recovery, although he later mentions that this will come at a cost of a severe inflation. But he still likes the US. We’re special. The US is the only place on the planet where you’re allowed a do-over if you mess up. It’s called Chapter 11!

Housing in the US is getting better. While there is a standing inventory of 1 million households, the creation of new households keeps on increasing. Housing will come back, but slowly.

He thinks there will be no instant gratification this time around. The medicine being put into the system will slowly impact the economy. He thinks the economy will start to turn around by the beginning of 2010 but the risk of inflation is very high. He didn’t really elaborate on the inflation or economy part but the only thing I know is that you should buy gold ;-).

The US is a unique society with a lot of opportunity. However, he sees the current government interference hindering the growth that has made us the greatest country on earth. This sounds a bit contradictory to me. First he says the government spending will pull us out of recession but it will also hinder our growth? Again, he didn’t really explain this.

After this he took a few questions:

He doesn’t think the US will lose it’s place as the world’s reserve currency.  There isn’t really any other replacement. In the very long term maybe it might happen, but right now he doesn’t see any alternative. Currently no central bank wants to bet against the dollar.  He also mentioned that the “beggar thy neighbor” mentality of European countries would disappear and interest rates would drop all across the developed rates to match the pathetically low rates of the US.

He also explained how he managed to sell Equity Properties at the very peak of the real estate cycle to Blackstone group. (Speaking of Blackstone, check out this post on How Capitalism Really Works). He does a quarterly valuation of all his holdings. Blackstone made him a $39 Billion offer that was 20% higher than what he thought it was worth, so he sold it.

He also mentioned that he didn’t think the government programs would stem foreclosures. There has been massive fraud going on. He gave the example of an entire subdivision of  homes in Stockton being sold to migrant Mexican workers. People who made $8/hour were somehow approved for $350,000 loans! Only people who can really afford them to get to keep them. He cites the example of Japan. The government/lenders allowed people to stay in the homes rent and mortgage free. Since there was no incentive for people to pay, property prices stayed depressed a lot longer than they should have. So the biggest risk right now is lenders not cleaning up and making poeple pay for there mistakes.

Zell also spoke about his Tribune purchase. He says the newspaper model is broken. It costs more money to have papers home-delivered but you pay less for that service. He explained he would change that model and that would increase the revenues. Let’s see if that’s true.

In all, it was very interesting.  But it was over quickly and the $5  billion man literally ran out the door before anyone could stop him for photographs or autographs.

Deleveraging Is Not Deflation!

I read a very interesting article on called De-leveraging is Not Deflation.

Here’s a partial extract:

“Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation’ to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages.”

— Ludwig von Mises

It’s true that just about every asset class is coming down in price right now. This, however, is not deflation — as I have said so many times recently, much to many readers’ unqualified chagrin. To the contrary, these declines are the products of de-leveraging — not deflation — and the distinction is nearly incalculably important, although the subtlety seems to elude even the most astute these days.

If the previous premise is true (which it is), any removal of money from the economy would eventually result in an increase in the value of our currency, relative to everything else. And that, in turn, would eventually translate into lower prices in dollars. But that’s clearly not what is happening. No, the Fed is printing money, sending the amount in the economy higher than ever seen in U.S. history. That’s not deflationary. That’s inflationary.

Just so you’ll know, here’s the definition of inflation I’m using. And before you pooh-pooh it with too much eagerness, remember that one of its authors, F.A. Hayek, won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974.

Look, the thing we should be worried about is relative value, not “inflation,” per se. It’s not about the growth of M0, or M1, or M2 (or even M3, if you keep up with shadowstats.com), so much as it is about what the money supply is doing relative to everything else that is happening. I know assets are falling in price — believe me, I get no shortage of reminders every single day. But the amount of money in the system — not just M0 — is increasing at a tremendous rate. I won’t argue that the relative value of things like real estate and equities are going to continue to drop — maybe even dramatically, and for a long time — in terms of demand (or lack thereof). No, what I’m most concerned about is that demand will stay extremely low, and yet prices will rise anyway because of the increase in the amount of money in the system.

But it’s not just money; it’s also Treasuries. The Fed has specifically stated that its objective is to stimulate “inflation” (by its definition). It wants prices to rise, and it’s going to do everything it can to find success. But the amount of money in the system is unprecedented. When the Treasury bubble starts to collapse, yields are going to explode. Yes, the Fed will probably print more money to buy down the long-end of the curve, but how long will that work? Some people say years, but how? Do you really think the Chinese and the Japanese are going to keep funding that sort of behavior? Or even more importantly, do you think they’re just going to sit on their current holdings? Probably not, and if they start dumping Treasuries, yields are going much higher.

It’s not a matter of if this is going to happen. Yields can’t stay where they are for any sustained amount of time, and once they start rising, so will prices. But will demand for, say, houses have increased? No. Cars? No. Boats? Televisions? No. Why? The American consumer is tapped out.

Credit card companies are tightening limits prodigiously. Teaser rates are all but gone. Home equity has dried up. The consumer has driven two-thirds of our economy for at least the last few decades, and now the consumer is dead. There’s another aspect to this that I won’t go too deep into: the American consumer protects his or her credit score for one reason — to obtain future credit. But the consumer also knows that loans have dried up — not just today, but for the very distant future as well. You know these consumers have to be thinking about defaulting; if they can’t get loans anyway, why would they not default on thousands of dollars in unsecured credit card debt? I plan on writing more about this in future articles, but suffice it to say, I think credit card companies are going to give us the next blow to our collective stomach, and it’s going to hurt.

So here we have a situation in which demand is gone, and yet prices and rates are rising — because of inflation (printing money) and the Treasury collapse. And that’s the point: it’s not going to come from just one source. It’s not just going to be inflation (printing money). It’s not just going to be the collapse in Treasuries. It’s not just going to be the nearly unfathomable costs of the stimulus packages that are coming online in the next two years. It’s going to be the confluence of all of it. And if I’m right about the continued deterioration in credit markets, things will be even worse.

You think it’s not different this time? Add it all up, in real dollars — the staggering amount of debt, the parabolic rise of currency in the system, the annihilation of real-estate investment, and the demise of the consumer. $8.5 trillion committed to bailouts and stimulus packages. Oh, yes it is different this time. It’s very different.

Credit cards didn’t even exist in 1930, and the dollar was backed by gold. Credit cards barely existed in 1973. Nixon had just taken us off the gold standard, and look what happened? Volcker was immensely lucky to have stopped hyperinflation, and look at the extreme measures he had to employ to do it.

Of course, every time I bring all of this up — which is a lot lately — somebody starts talking about the velocity of money. And pretty soon after that, somebody starts talking about the multiplier effect.

Yes, the U.S. employs a fractional reserve system, and while that system certainly lends to rising prices and yields, the amplifier effect is not inflation. Like the printing of money, the fractional reserve system is only one ingredient in the poison that lends to the ultimate catastrophe inspired by central banks: rising prices and increased costs of borrowing.

And then there’s velocity…

While I am eternally grateful to my critics for forcing me to defend the theories I hold dear, I sometimes fatigue of the incessant snapping at my heels by people who want me to know that the velocity of money has slowed down. I know the velocity of money has slowed. It doesn’t matter. It’s not going to stay this low for long, and when it starts speeding up, it’s not going to be a “good thing.” Treasuries are going to break, rates and prices are going to rise, and all that money pressing against the dam is going to find a crack. Why? It has to. People will flee from dollars that are losing value. They will extract all the dollars sloshing around the system, and they will buy commodities and durables in order to preserve the value of their wealth.

Remember, just because the dollar is losing value does not mean that the concomitant subsequent rise in certain asset classes necessarily means that demand for all assets has increased dramatically — as it did during previous eras of easy money. Demand for assets economy-wide can continue to wane even as people spend dollars as fast as they can get them in the midst of rising prices. And this is a very important distinction: prices can rise because of demand, but prices can also rise because of excessive increases in the amount of money in the system. If prices are rising without a simultaneous increase in demand, well, I can’t think of a more dangerous economic environment to be in.

You don’t believe it can happen? You think there’s a huge demand for houses, cars, and boats in Zimbabwe? Prices there are rising exponentially, but there is very little demand for assets — other than staples, of course. What do you think their velocity of money is?

Do you think’s long Gold? You bet he is!

In my next post I’ll talk about an interesting long-short bond trade I entered on Tuesday.

How To Figure Out What To Do With Your Life?

As someone who’s struggled with finding meaning in life, I can understand the frustration young high schoolers feel when they ask me what they should be doing with their life. Unfortunately, I never have a good answer.

But now thanks to Penelope Trunk, I can direct them to this page and get them off my back:

There is no other way to figure out where you belong than to make time to do it and give yourself space to fail, give yourself time to be lost. If you think you have to get it right the first time, you won’t have the space really to investigate, and you’ll convince yourself that something is right when it’s not. And then you’ll have a quarterlife crisis when you realize that you lied to yourself so you could feel stable instead of investigating. Here’s how to avoid that outcome.

1. Take time to figure out what you love to do.

When I graduated from college, I was shocked to find out that I just spent 18 years getting an education and the only jobs offered to me sucked. Everything was some version of creating a new filing system for someone who is important.

Often bad situations bring on our most creative solutions. And this was one of those times: I asked myself, “What do I want to do most in the world, if I could do anything?” I decided it was to play volleyball, so I went to Los Angeles to figure out how to play on the professional beach circuit.

I spent my days on the courts, and late nights at the gym, and in between, I worked odd jobs in bookstores. And then I realized that the other thing I wanted to do was read. I had been so stifled in school being told what to read all the time. It was thrilling to be able to read whatever I wanted.

I wasn’t making very much money. Sometimes I couldn’t pay rent, and my landlord hated me. And sometimes I couldn’t afford to wash my clothes and I pretended that bikinis never get dirty. But, in fact, you really don’t need much money to figure out what you love to do, you just need time and space and a willingness to keep yourself busy until something sticks.

2. Take time to figure out what you can get paid for.

It took me a few years to navigate the arcane hierarchy of Southern California beach volleyball, but I finally played on the professional tour. For a summer. And what I found was that I am not nearly as competitive as the top players. I was, at one point, ranked 17, but I can tell you that I never cared as much about my rank as the other women.

What I did excel at, though, was winning sponsors, which, on some level, is what professional sports is all about anyway. I always had better sponsors even than women higher than me in the ranks, and I won partners and trainers by dint of my ability to attract sponsors.

But the truth about professional volleyball is that it is a really tough life. The eight hours a day on the beach starts getting old, and so do the Budweiser commercials I did (totally not fun) to manage to scrape together enough money to support myself.

So I thought to myself: Who is using the skills I have to make money? And I landed on marketing. And I had this boyfriend who was going to hire someone to do marketing at his Internet startup, so I volunteered to do it for free, to get something on my resume. And then I got a job.

3. Watch people around you to figure out who is happy.

I ended up having a pretty big job at a Fortune 500 company running their web site. Don’t get me wrong. It was the earliest days of the Internet, and it actually took more people to redesign my blog recently than it did to launch that Fortune 500 site in the early 90’s.

But anyway, I started climbing the ladder and tons of people wanted to mentor me, to help me get to where they were. And they told me they were happy, but when I watched them, day in and day out, I realized that the people at the top of the ladder were not nearly as happy as I had expected them to be. They tucked their kids into bed from their phones at their desk. They were overdressed constantly and they had hair-trigger tempers for topics that seemed inconsequential to me.

So I went to where coolness seemed to be: At startups.

Now that I’m on my third startup, I can tell you with certainty that if you looked at my life you would not see that I am happy. Running a startup is really high risk and really difficult, and entrepreneurs work longer hours than anyone else. But I’m almost always there to eat diner with my kids, because I control my own hours.

So the final step of finding out where you should be is looking at everyone’s life with a clear lens. Adult life is really hard. Finding out who we are, and finding someone to share our life with, and having kids and still having a life, and being able to pay for all of that: Impossible, really.

So you look around and see who is doing what part of that well. And you pick the sacrifices that they made. Because no life is perfect, but all lives have some things to offer. Be clear on what you’re choosing and what you’re giving up, and don’t pick anyone’s life if they tell you they have everything: they’re lying.

But if you’re already out of college and still don’t know what you want to me, may I suggest considering an MBA at top Business School? 😉

Super-Hero Investments

Just thought I’d share an interesting email:

Jim Grant noted in his recent Interest Rate Observer that eight blue-chip companies now meet or exceed Ben Graham’s strictest criteria for defensive investors: Pfizer, Nucor, Cooper Industries, Cintas, Tiffany, Archer Daniels Midland, Molex, and RadioShack.

These are like superhero investments. Each has

  • 10 consecutive years of net profits
  • 20 consecutive years of uninterrupted dividend payments
  • earnings growth in the past decade of at least 33%
  • price-to-earnings and price-to-book multiples of less than 15

For perspective, Grant notes that at the bottom of the Nasdaq bust in 2003, only two stocks met all those criteria. At the bottom of the market in 1991, only six qualified. (Since 1991, those six produced average annual returns of almost 19%.) If you bought just these eight stocks and forgot about them for a decade, chances are better than 90% you’ll make a substantial return and beat the market. Usually, that’s a lot harder to do.

Note: These, are not my personal recommendations to buy. Do your own Due Diligence.

Is It Safe To Buy California Munis?

In my last post, I mentioned that about California was running out of cash.  Because of these concerns, yields on California Municipal Bonds are pretty high right now. But is it safe to buy them?

According to the Wall Street Journal, it would appear that it is. They asked the California state treasurer Bill Lockyer whether  the California public debt was completely safe. “Absolutely, the only way we’re going to default is if there’s a thermonuclear war.”

David Blair, the head of municipal credit research at bond giant Pimco, agrees. “They clearly have the ability to pay,” he said. But he added that the main risk is headline risk, where bad news smacks prices.

The ten-year Treasurys currently yield about 2.5%. California’s bonds yield about 4.2%. And that’s also exempt from federal income tax.

According to Vanguard’s Mr. Smith, the gap between the two has never been so high. The picture is similar for municipals across the country. Panicked investors have dumped everything – and blindly jumped into Treasurys, driving yields down to incredibly low levels. Meanwhile munis are also under pressure because so many states and cities will have to borrow more.

So there’s no doubt that California will pay back the debt. In the worst case, the Federal Reserve would just bail the state out. If they’re willing to bail out car companies, I’m sure they’ll step in for California.

But if there’s more bad news, the yields could go higher still, and the prices of the bonds could fall in value.

California Tax Refunds To Be Delayed

The state of California, the 9th largest economy in the world, is having liquidity issues of its own. Faced with a shortfall in taxes, it under-budgeted by nearly $42 billion. The government said it will have to delay issuing tax refunds. In fact, according to Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state could run out of cash by February.

According to the AP News:

California’s controller says he will begin a 30-day delay on tax refunds and other payments starting Feb. 1 because the state is running out of money.

Controller John Chiang said Friday he must delay $3.7 billion in payments next month because lawmakers have failed to address California’s growing deficit.

With a $41.6 billion shortfall over the next year-and-a-half, the state is on the brink of issuing IOUs.

Chiang says his office must continue education and debt payments but will defer money for tax refunds, student aid, social services and mental health programs.

A severe drop in revenue has left the state’s main bank account depleted. The state had been relying on borrowing from special funds and Wall Street investors; those options are no longer available.