THE BLOG'S THREE MAIN OBJECTIVES:
QUICK LINKS FOR PASSIVE INCOME CREATION:

Wednesday, 31 October 2007

As Fed meets, U.S. stocks see warning signs

By E.S. Browning
1401 words
30 October 2007

The U.S. Federal Reserve meets this week amid persistent signs of trouble in the stock market.
After the Fed's half-percentage-point interest-rate cut six weeks ago, major stock indexes rebounded, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average remains near its record high. But rising oil prices, mixed corporate-profit reports and the spreading effects of a housing slump continue to fuel tumult in the economy -- and some underlying patterns suggest that stocks may have trouble maintaining their high-wire act.

Major stock indexes are being supported by multinationals such as Microsoft Corp., Coca-Cola Co. and Procter & Gamble Co., which benefit from the strong global economy. Many other stocks, notably financial institutions and smaller companies dependent on the flagging U.S. consumer, have taken hits.

Other indicators also suggest thin support for the market. The ratio of the number of stocks rising versus the number that are falling has been getting worse since the spring, and the number of stocks at 52-week highs has been on the wane since last year.

"If you look at the economy, you see softening durable-goods orders, slowing manufacturing gains and a troubled housing market," says Russ Koesterich, head of investment strategy at Barclays Global Investors in San Francisco. "These problems are entrenched." Even if the economy escapes recession, he worries, "we could face a choppy, grinding stock market" next year.

At the other end of the world, the prospects are quite different. Abundant liquidity and expectations of a Fed rate cut pushed Hong Kong shares to new heights yesterday. Blue chips surged 3.9%, or 1181.68 points, to 31586.9, its third straight record close.

The market's advance was sharp enough to stir speculation of a correction, but some analysts say shares still have room to run. Francis Lun, general manager of Fulbright Securities, said the market could suffer a major selloff as early as November, though he predicted the benchmark Hang Seng Index might first soar as high as 35000. "The madness won't last too long," Mr. Lun said.

Money has been flooding into Asia, with a weak U.S. dollar prompting traders to seek investments across the region. In India, shares soared to a record as the key stock index crossed 20000 for the first time during the day, propelled by foreign-fund buying. The Bombay Stock Exchange's 30-share Sensex closed up 734.5 points, or 3.8%, at 19977.67. There are few signs of any slowdown, and some observers warned that the government may now have to make further moves to stem the flow of hot money.

In the U.S., the worrisome news, along with $90-a-barrel oil, so far has done little to push down the Dow industrials and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Last week, the Dow had its best week in more than a month, rising 2.1% to 13806.7. It would need to rise only an additional 2.6% to surpass its record finish of 14164.53, hit Oct. 9.

Bullish investors point to low interest rates, which are fueling the world economy with lots of cash, and to the expectation that the Fed will cut interest rates following its meeting today and tomorrow. Some even see the weak U.S. economy as a positive factor for financial markets because it could force the Fed to cut rates by a half percentage point to 4.25%.

"The Federal Reserve is highly sensitive to this issue of credit getting squeezed in U.S. markets. If they see that happening, they will cut rates pretty aggressively," making it cheaper for banks, consumers and companies to obtain money and keeping the economy out of recession, says Rafi Zaman, head of U.S. stock investment at DuPont Capital Management in Delaware, which manages $15 billion in stocks.

Mr. Zaman is sticking with his holdings not only in the U.S. but also in such developing countries as Brazil and South Africa. Nonetheless, he says, a number of stock markets in developing countries, such as China and India, are starting to look like bubbles that could end badly.

"It is like being in the U.S. markets back in late 1998," he says. Professional investors then were almost forced to invest in bubble stocks, he says, for fear of trailing the competition, and the same is true today of some non-U.S. markets. He and others are prepared to start selling developing-country stocks at the first sign that the bubble may be getting ready to burst.
That is one reason to be wary of the view that the Fed will rescue the U.S. stock market. If global markets begin to teeter, and if U.S. consumers continue to struggle, rate cuts alone could have trouble holding the U.S. market up.

Few money managers consider this scenario imminent, as Mr. Zaman indicates. The warning signs are there, however. One stark way to see them is to compare the performance of the Russell 2000, an index of 2,000 smaller stocks, with that of the Dow industrials, the quintessential blue-chip index, made up of just 30 big stocks.

For most of the bull market that began five years ago, the Russell 2000 rose faster than the Dow, as its small, nimble companies benefited from low interest rates and a booming economy. Since Oct. 9, 2002, when the bull market began, the Russell is up 151%, while the Dow is up 89%.

Starting this past spring, however, they switched places. The Russell fell as consumer-spending growth finally began to suffer and as the housing crunch and troubled credit markets roiled the U.S. economy. The Dow industrials, dominated by multinationals that benefit from global sales, are up 1.3% since the end of May, while the Russell has fallen 3% over that period.

When a bull market is young, and the economy is vibrant, small stocks typically outpace large ones. When the bull market gets older -- five years is above average for a bull market -- and economic growth starts showing fatigue, the number of stocks that can sustain their gains tends to shrivel. The biggest, strongest multinationals keep rising, pushing up indexes such as the Dow. Finally, as the biggest stocks peak and decline, the bull market tends to end.

That isn't inevitable, of course. But there are other signs of below-the-surface weakness. Of the 500 stocks in the broad S&P 500, more than half were trading last week below their average levels of the past 200 days, says Phil Roth, chief technical market analyst at New York brokerage Miller Tabak. The overall index, buoyed by its biggest stocks, still was trading above its 200-day average. So while the index looked fine, most of its components didn't.

U.S. economic growth has slowed markedly in recent months because of the housing downturn, past Fed rate increases and a lingering credit crunch, with some banks still refusing loans to low-rated corporate borrowers and consumers. Oil futures have pushed above $90 a barrel, reawakening inflation fears. Faster inflation would push interest rates higher, making it harder to borrow money and taking away one of the main underpinnings of the economy and the financial markets -- cheap credit.

One big question now is whether the healthy job market and recent U.S. export strength, helped by growth in Asia and Europe and a weakening dollar -- which makes U.S. goods and services less expensive compared with foreign ones -- will offset those negatives.

Last week, stocks benefited from hopes that the Fed would bail out the market by cutting rates this week, which it almost certainly will do. But after that, the Fed won't meet again until Dec. 11. And in practical terms, it takes months for a Fed rate cut to percolate through the economy and actually boost corporate performance.

"I think the Fed is going to ease rates again. But as soon as the Fed eases, we won't have a Fed ease to look forward to, and we will be staring at the bad economic environment," says Mr. Roth of Miller Tabak.

---

Aries Poon contributed to this article.

Tuesday, 30 October 2007

Alert: Sunshine Empire

The Electric New Paper :

WHAT WATER THEME PARK PROJECTS?
Blacklisted S'pore MLM company unveils lavish M'sian developments. But M'sian authorities say...
THEIR presentation was certainly designed to impress and strike awe.
By Hedy Khoo
29 October 2007

THEIR presentation was certainly designed to impress and strike awe.

With just $12,000, you stand to make many times more by being part of a 'global' company that has stakes in many high-profile projects in the region.

These include a trading portal that is supposedly better than eBay, as well as majestic theme parks in Malacca and Sabah that boast floating villas and underwater hotel rooms.

To prove the point to about 100 people who attended Sunshine Empire's talk last week, a slide show titled Anything Is Possible was shown.

Without any explanation, the audience was shown several pictures, including one of an overcrowded bus in India with some passengers on the roof and others with legs dangling out of the windows.

Another photo showed square watermelons from Japan.

WOULD YOU BELIEVE?

The audience was told: 'To believe or not to believe is up to you.'

Sunshine Empire, a multi-level marketing (MLM) firm, is now on the radar of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Though MLM companies are legal here, MAS has included the firm on its list of unauthorised companies that investors should avoid.

The Securities Commission in Malaysia has also listed Sunshine Empire on its investor-alert list. It advised the public not to make any investment with companies that are not licensed or approved by it.

The commission's website noted: 'Offers often come in the guise of seemingly attractive investment opportunities or schemes and may also be camouflaged as direct-selling or business opportunities.'

In Singapore, a visit to Sunshine Empire's office in Toa Payoh Hub saw several people there holding stacks of cash, presumably to pay for their investment.

One man had a thick stack of Indonesian rupiah.

Earlier, they had been given a brief overview of 'the Empire', as it is called, detailing its ventures in a range of businesses from telecommunications to health to property.

A representative showed various slides of the company's regional projects, including two impressive marine theme park developments in Malacca and Sabah.

Graphics of the park in Malacca showed an intricate network of floating villas and structures on the water which formed the shape of a lion's head. The park also has an adjoining condominium project.

Artists' impressions of the park in Sabah, called The Magic Kingdom, showed a lavish underwater hotel.

An aerial view showed a network of structures in the water which took the shape of an lobster. These structures are purportedly underwater hotel rooms.

'You can open the curtains to your room and see your friends swimming outside,' the representative said.

However, the Malaysian authorities appeared to be unaware of the projects.

When contacted by The New Paper on Sunday, the press secretary to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Environment Sabah, MrFrancis Au Chee Thong, said he had not heard about the Empire's plan to build a water theme park in Sabah.

Mr Au said: 'To our Ministry's knowledge, we have no information relating to a water theme park project.

'And, at this point, there is no such project that is under construction or in progress in Sabah at the moment.'

As for the project in Malacca, Datuk Zaini Md Nor, the mayor of Malacca City Council, told The New Paper on Sunday that the council had indeed received an application in August for approval of a piece of 0.87-ha land (slightly larger than a football field).

The land, located at Pekan Klebang, is listed under developer Empire Property Venture, an affiliate of Sunshine Empire. It is supposed to be for a commercial building.

However, the mayor said the application is still being processed.

On the water theme park, Datuk Zaini said: 'No application has been made to the city Council for the building of a water theme park till today.'

Nevertheless, the Empire's projects were not the only thing that impressed visitors.

Its sprawling office on the seventh floor of Toa Payoh Hub exudes opulence. Crystal chandeliers cascade from the ceiling and the marble walls are trimmed in gold.

The company's logo - a lion's head - is imprinted everywhere, from the carpet to a painting spanning an entire wall of the lobby.

At the reception was a stream of people queuing up to hand money to the receptionists. At least two people in the queue held wads of $50 notes.

The New Paper on Sunday had earlier phoned the number listed on the Sunshine Empire website and the woman who answered said it was not an investment company.

She also asked for the name of our 'introducer' and recommended we attend the 8pm presentation.

YOUNG SPEAKER

At the presentation, the speaker was a young woman who appeared to be in her mid-20s. She was dressed smartly in a black blazer over white business shirt and skirt.

The talk took the tone of a motivational speech with the speaker running up from the back of the room to the stage energetically.

The audience of about 50 (with 50 more in another room) appeared to come from all walks of life. There were housewives in their 50s, 20-somethings in office wear and a handful of teenagers. Among them were several people dressed in black suits.

At regular intervals, the speaker would urge the audience to applaud themselves.

She would ask: 'Who is here to learn how to make more money?'

When some in the audience responded with a show of hands, she exclaimed: 'Give yourselves a big round of applause!'

A 17-year-old student, who wanted to be only known as Tan, told us he was approached by a friend from the company two weeks ago.

He said: 'My friend told me about a part-time job with many benefits and I can start with just $2,000.

'All I need to do is to keep the money in the account for 11 months and every month, the company would pay me a sum.

'At the end of 11 months, I would get my money back, and the company would still pay me a monthly sum. My friend said he earned $1,000 in two weeks.'

In the end, Tan said he did not sign up as he did not want to have his money tied up for 11 months.


The Electric New Paper :
SO WHERE DO SUPER RETURNS COME FROM?
MAS ADVISES INVESTORS NOT TO DEAL WITH BLACKLISTED FIRM
THE returns for this investment is supposedly so 'good' that even famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett can't hold a candle to it.
By Alvin Chiang
29 October 2007

THE returns for this investment is supposedly so 'good' that even famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett can't hold a candle to it.

MrJames Phang, Sunshine Empire's international president, had told The Straits Times in an interview earlier this week that he was a 'legend'.

'I'm very good - better than Warren Buffett,' he declared.

And the company's promises are indeed sweet. It told people at its talk this week that they would get back their $12,000 investment in a year, plus $1,000 every month for the next seven years.

That roughly translates into a 700per cent profit within eight years - compared to Buffet's 21 per cent a year.

That's not all. Each investor would also get $21,000 worth of mobile talktime with Emcall, a local company with links to Sunshine Empire.

The claimed returns are mind-boggling and 20,000 people have signed up here since it was set up last July.

Responding to The New Paper on Sunday's queries, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) advised investors not to deal with Sunshine Empire.

Noting that the company was put on the Investor Alert List last month, a MAS spokesman said 'entities on this list are not authorised by MAS to conduct regulated activities'.

'In making financial investments, we urge all investors to deal only with persons regulated by MAS,' the spokesman said.

'If investors choose to deal with persons not regulated by MAS, they forgo the protection afforded under laws administered by MAS.'

The concern seems to be that Sunshine Empire, unlike other multi-level marketing firms, allows its members to notch up what seem like profits without buying or selling products. This makes its business model look like a pure financial investment scheme.

MrPhang had said that Sunshine Empire is not an 'investment firm'.

If so, then how does it give such super returns to its investors?

A LawNet check showed that MrPhang - described as 'international president' on the company's website - is not listed as a director or shareholder of Sunshine Empire.

It also showed that Sunshine Empire, which changed its name from Niutrend International in January, is a company 'providing entrepreneur and self-improvement courses'.

It has a paid-up capital of $150,000.

On its website, it said it is involved in 'network marketing' and is interested in 'wealth redistribution'.

It also listed offices in Malaysia, Thailand, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

There are reasons that MAS raises caution to those who guarantee high returns in a short time. In the US, for instance, some get-rich-quick schemes are known as 'Ponzi' schemes, named after convicted conman Charles Ponzi.

He took US$10million ($14.6m) from 10,000 people in Boston in the early 1920s by guaranteeing investors 50 per cent returns on investments in postal coupons after 45 days.

The website of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) noted: 'A Ponzi scheme is essentially an investment fraud... Instead of investing victims' funds, the operator pays 'dividends' to initial investors using the principle amounts 'invested' by subsequent investors.

'The scheme falls apart when the operator flees with all the proceeds, or when a sufficient number of new investors can't be found to allow the continued payment of 'dividends'.'

In other words, money is taken from Ah Kow to pay initial investor Ah Seng. No goods are bought and sold. Neither is the money collected invested in anything.

Ah Kow's position is riskier than AhSeng's as Ah Kow joined the scheme after Ah Seng. This is because the purpose of recruiting AhKow is to pay Ah Seng, but there is no guarantee someone else can be recruited to pay Ah Kow.

But if everything goes smoothly, no one will complain so long as they are paid on time.

Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, thinks that such schemes are normally too good to be true.

He said: 'It's very rewarding and lucrative to those who join at the start. But the funds will dry up eventually and the company will close and set up shop elsewhere, or in another country.'

Monday, 29 October 2007

Millionaires focus on freedom

Jay MacDonald

Want to get to the top financially? Take advice from those who are already there. At a glance Name: Keith Cameron Smith Hometown: Ormond Beach, Fla. Education: Calvary Christian Academy, Ormond Beach, Fla. Career highlights:

Author of the national best-seller, "The Spiritual Millionaire" and "The Top 10 Distinctions Between Millionaires and the Middle Class"

Entrepreneur and self-made millionaire at age 33

Hosted "Flames of Truth," a motivational radio program, for five years

Hosts seminars and teaches success principles to individuals, churches and companies across America Financial guru Keith Cameron Smith, author of the best-selling "The Spiritual Millionaire" and himself a self-made millionaire at age 33, invested $100,000 and two years of his life to meet face-to-face with some of the world's wealthiest people to learn what makes them tick.

Overwhelmed by the life lessons they imparted, Smith holed himself up in a North Carolina cabin and, in one week, distilled their wisdom into a 100-page crib note for successful thinking, "The Top 10 Distinctions Between Millionaires and the Middle Class."

Some of the distinctions are commonsensical (millionaires think long-term, the middle class, short-term; millionaires take risks, the middle class avoids risk). Others are quite illuminating (millionaires ask themselves empowering questions, the middle class ask themselves disempowering questions; millionaires learn and grow, the middle class, not so much).

Smith, who became independently wealthy with a string of furniture stores in his hometown of Ormond Beach, Fla., continues to seek opportunities in networking and real estate as he travels the country teaching financial success principles to individuals and companies.

As part of our Financial Literacy tuneup, Smith shares with Bankrate his insights into how to think like a millionaire.

You were not born wealthy.

(Laughs) Oh no. I grew up on the lower end of the middle class. My dad never made more than $25,000 a year. He sold auto parts to different garages. He had different routes to a couple of different towns around Florida.

Did you attend college?

I went to college for two weeks and said that's not for me. I'm on the list of millionaires that just did it in the real world and didn't go to school. School is phenomenal for some people. Some people absolutely need to go to school as part of their purpose. But some people don't need to go to school. They don't need to get a good job so the government or your corporation can take care of you, because as we know, that formula doesn't work anymore.

When you go through failures like I have and like other millionaires have, you learn something on an emotional level that you cannot learn when you go to college. When you get intellectual knowledge from a book or a lecture, it's not the same as investing money in something and then seeing all that money disappear. When you learn something on an emotional level, that is what really starts making you stronger.

Your original goal was to be a golf pro, right? What happened?

I had an apprentice position at the LPGA International in Daytona Beach when they first got started. I helped them get their pro shop up and running and I had my handicap down to about a four and I thought for sure I was going to pursue golf as a career. I took the PAT, the player's ability test, a couple of times; that's where you have to play a couple of rounds and shoot like 150 between two rounds of golf. And I could never do it; my nerves just couldn't handle it. But that was one of the turning points in my life. I sat down with the pro there at the time and asked how long it was going to be before I could really start making good money. I was making $20,000 a year as an apprentice. He said, "I'm going to be honest with you, it's going to be at least five or six years before you can move up." And I said no way, I'm not going to sit here and make $20,000 a year for five or six years.

How did you lift yourself out of the middle class?

Education. I started learning, but it wasn't education in the school system. It was education from my real-world experience as an entrepreneur and taking risks and having some good successes and some failures, too. Those are always tough when you go through them, but I honestly can say, thank God for those, too. Because those are the situations I really learned the most from, so I had some new knowledge to apply on the next endeavor.

Your book seems to strip down dozens of motivational books to their essence.

What I tried to do in my book was to stay away from specific areas like real estate or stocks or small businesses and instead encourage people to pursue their own passion to create wealth. What would they love to do to wake up and make money every morning? That's the key to it. By far, one of the biggest things I learned talking to all these millionaires was they really enjoyed whatever they were doing.

You maintain that the wealthy expect different things from money than the rest of us. How so?
The very poor and the poor are stuck in survival mode; they just want to survive. The primary goal of middle-class people is comfort; I just want to have enough; I just want to be comfortable. When you get into the rich and the very rich, their primary goal is freedom; I'm going to do whatever it takes to experience freedom. That's the biggest difference. It's OK to have a plan for survival, it's OK to have a plan for comfort, but just make sure that most of your mental energy is focused on freedom. Then you'll start experientially understanding the old saying, "Seek and you will find." If you seek to survive, you will. If you seek to be comfortable, you will be. But if you seek freedom, you will find it. It just takes longer to create freedom in your life than it does to create survival. Does it take longer to grow a weed or an oak tree? Financial freedom is like an oak tree, where survival or comfort is like growing a weed or a little bush; it doesn't take too long.

Do you remember when you turned the corner and began to think like a rich man?

Yeah, I do. I can remember banging my head against the inside of an elevator. I had just worked 11 hours at a golf course as an assistant pro and I was going to work at a high-dollar restaurant that night from 7 until midnight, and I was banging my head against the elevator, thinking, "God, there's got to be an easier way to make money than this." Shortly after that, I decided I was done working for somebody else. I was going to learn how to earn profits. That has made all the difference. From the age of 15 to 25, I worked for wages. At 25, I started working for profits, and at 33, I became a millionaire for the first time.

Your book seems to strip down dozens of motivational books to their essence.

What I tried to do in my book was to stay away from specific areas like real estate or stocks or small businesses and instead encourage people to pursue their own passion to create wealth. What would they love to do to wake up and make money every morning? That's the key to it. By far, one of the biggest things I learned talking to all these millionaires was they really enjoyed whatever they were doing.

You maintain that the wealthy expect different things from money than the rest of us. How so?
The very poor and the poor are stuck in survival mode; they just want to survive. The primary goal of middle-class people is comfort; I just want to have enough; I just want to be comfortable. When you get into the rich and the very rich, their primary goal is freedom; I'm going to do whatever it takes to experience freedom. That's the biggest difference. It's OK to have a plan for survival, it's OK to have a plan for comfort, but just make sure that most of your mental energy is focused on freedom. Then you'll start experientially understanding the old saying, "Seek and you will find." If you seek to survive, you will. If you seek to be comfortable, you will be. But if you seek freedom, you will find it. It just takes longer to create freedom in your life than it does to create survival. Does it take longer to grow a weed or an oak tree? Financial freedom is like an oak tree, where survival or comfort is like growing a weed or a little bush; it doesn't take too long.

Do you remember when you turned the corner and began to think like a rich man?

Yeah, I do. I can remember banging my head against the inside of an elevator. I had just worked 11 hours at a golf course as an assistant pro and I was going to work at a high-dollar restaurant that night from 7 until midnight, and I was banging my head against the elevator, thinking, "God, there's got to be an easier way to make money than this." Shortly after that, I decided I was done working for somebody else. I was going to learn how to earn profits. That has made all the difference. From the age of 15 to 25, I worked for wages. At 25, I started working for profits, and at 33, I became a millionaire for the first time.

Some people reject the idea of wealth, "It's lonely at the top" and so forth. What do you say to them?

A lot of people are still stuck in the comfort mode, they just want to have enough, and they think if they pursue all that money, they'll lose their family; they'll lose their health. That's not me at all. God, family and finances are my priorities. I never wanted to be somebody that went after financial freedom and lost my health or lost my family. I refuse to go down that path. But I've known people that do that. They put money as such a high priority in life that they lose the things that matter most. But if you keep your priorities in order and focus on financial freedom, it's a wonderful world. I love people and I use things. There are some millionaires out there that love things and use people and that is definitely the wrong formula.

Do you manage your own money?

I did everything on my own, yes. I never went to a professional to handle my money for me. What I've come to find out is, while some of those guys are great, a lot of those guys just put on a front; they're making $50,000 a year and they're trying to tell someone who is making a million dollars a year how to invest their money and they really don't know; they're just doing what they've been told to do. I'm not knocking anyone; if you're going to use one, make sure you find a good one who is doing very well financially themselves.

What do you see yourself doing 10 years from now?

There are some things we do for money that are only good for a certain season. That's why we have to keep our eyes open for new opportunities. I'm constantly polishing my portfolio and looking at different forms of income. I never got heavily involved in the stock market. I am still dabbling in real estate but nothing real serious right now. I'm still a young entrepreneur. I still have a lot to learn. I haven't mastered all those principles; I'm still living them on a daily basis. When I focus on them, it seems like opportunities come my way and I make some better decisions. It's not just about the money, it's about the learning process.

What's the best advice you've gotten?

Dana Dratch

When you need advice, it's usually best to go to the experts. So Bankrate did, collecting the thoughts of eight personal finance gurus on increasing your wealth.

In some cases, the experts had to learn the lesson themselves (usually after a few hard knocks).

Many times, a sound example was offered by someone successful who was already living it.
And in every case, the person who later became an expert recognized the wisdom for what it was -- and is still using it to build wealth.

Learn what these successful people said they consider the best personal financial advice they ever received.Experts' best advice Get advice from the authorities. Here's what these personal finance experts had to say:

Gary Belsky, co-author of "Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes and How to Correct Them: Lessons from the New Science of Behavioral Economics":

"Be afraid when people are greedy, and greedy when people are afraid. It's basically, 'Buy low and sell high.' In general, I've been doing better than market averages when I've been handling my investments. I've basically done that by being conservative when the market is frothing and aggressive when the market is down."

Wayne W. Dyer, Ph.D., author of "Your Erroneous Zones" and "It's Not What You've Got: Lessons for Kids on Money and Abundance":

The lesson "for me was, first, pay yourself," Dyer says.

While in the Navy stationed in Guam, Dyer saved 90 percent of his pay over the last 18 months he was there. "So I came home with enough money to pay tuition for four years of school and a car. Even today I pay myself first. If you want to be financially independent by the time you're 30 years old, pay yourself first.

"When you get your paycheck, take a percentage -- between 10 percent and 30 percent -- and put that away," Dyer says. "You'll be rich enough to be financially independent within a short period of time."Neale S. Godfrey, author of "Money Doesn't Grow on Trees: A Parent's Guide to Raising Financially Responsible Children," and chair of the Children's Financial Network:
"Step away from the television and the magazines. All they serve to do is show you how stupid you are because you've missed whatever they're talking about. It's old news. It's already happened."

The advice came from her financial adviser, she recalls. "I used to call him and say, 'Why didn't we ...?' He'd say, 'Stop it. Step away from the television. It's done.'"

She realized that he was right. "By the time you see it or read it, it's done; it's happened," Godfrey says. And if you listen and follow the hot news, she says, "You will buy at the top and sell at the bottom -- exactly what you're not supposed to do."

George Kinder, Certified Financial Planner, author of "The Seven Stages of Money Maturity: Understanding the Spirit and Value of Money in Your Life," and founder of The Kinder Institute:

"It's about the meaning, not the money. If my investing is not really deeply tied to what I think is most important in my life," he says, then, "the asset allocation, the estate plan, the retirement plan might as well be thrown out the window."

His best advice: "Hire a Registered Life Planner (a financial planner with additional training in helping clients identify and reach life goals) to help you through this," Kinder says. "Nobody can do this themselves."

A life trainer, he says, "is trained in how to elicit from a client what is meaningful and how to keep their eyes on the prize."

Robert Kiyosaki, co-author of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad: What the Rich Teach Their Kids About Money -- That the Poor and Middle Class Do Not!":

"My rich dad gave me lots of advice. One of the better ones: There's good debt and bad debt. Bad debt is debt you have to pay for and makes you poor. If I use credit cards to buy new shoes it makes me poor. Good debt makes me rich and someone else pays for it."

One example: "I'm closing on a $17 million property and financing $14 million. That $14 million is good debt. It makes me richer every month by putting $20,000 in my pocket."

Rieva Lesonsky, co-author of "Start Your Own Business," and senior vice president and editorial director at Entrepreneur magazine:

Lesonsky's best advice "was from the owner of our magazine, Peter Shea," she recalls. "He said, 'Housing prices have gone up -- get a second mortgage and pay off your debt.' I did, and I'm debt-free."

Peter Navarro, Ph.D., author of "The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won," and associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of California, Irvine:

"Take every piece of advice you get from any investment adviser with a barrel of salt. Most are trying to sell you things that you probably don't need or want. Think for yourself."

Navarro says he learned that lesson after a bad experience with a financial adviser. "I lost some money, then took control and never looked back," he says.Best financial advice What's the best financial advice you've gotten? And who gave you that advice? Dave Ramsey, author of "The Total Money Makeover: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness" and host of a nationally syndicated radio show focusing on personal finance:

"A friend of mine who is a billionaire told me that he reads a book to his grandkids and I should read that book. The book is 'The Tortoise and the Hare.' Every time he reads the book, the tortoise wins. Slow and steady wins the race, and consistency matters. Get-rich-quick never wins.

"If you try to impress other people, you'll lose the wealth race, as well," Ramsey says. "It sure did give me a nice metaphor. It's a good reminder to somebody like me to keep me in check. It has implications for debt, for mutual funds, for budgets -- an overlay for everything."

As China's bubble fears grow, choosy investors favor large caps

Beijing -- AS CHINA'S stock markets have zoomed to new highs this year, local investors have become increasingly worried about a bubble and are getting pickier with their choices.
The result? The market is going still higher, as investors pour cash into the large companies that dominate the broad indexes. Such stocks are seen as safe and conservative investments in the context of China's market, and are favorites of domestic mutual funds and institutional investors.

So even as concerns about a bubble grow, many analysts are still saying that China's biggest listed companies are worth buying, since they are generally seen as well positioned to deliver decent earnings growth at a lower risk. These tend to be state-controlled companies in sectors from energy to telecommunications to metals and real estate.

The shares, traded in Shanghai and Shenzhen, are generally off-limits to foreign investors, although shares of some companies also trade in Hong Kong. Also, foreign fund managers who get licensed as Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors can buy into the mainland's own stock market. "We suggest investors still focus on large-cap blue-chip companies, as they turn out faster revenue growth than others, and they can gain more strength by expanding to overseas markets," says Cheng Weiqing, chief strategist with Citic Securities Co. in Beijing.

Blue-chip stocks have become the biggest driver of the recent rally. Since hitting its recent low on July 6, the broad Shanghai composite index has surged 57%. But the Shanghai Stock Exchange 50 Index, which measures the performances of 50 large-capitalization companies, has done even better, rising 64%. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange's index for small and midsize companies has gained 23% during the same period. Overall, the Shanghai composite index has risen 109% this year, while the Shenzhen counterpart has gained 150%.

Some of the market's 10 largest stocks by market capitalization have done even better. At a peak on Oct. 15, shares of Aluminum Corporation of China, also known as Chalco, were more than triple their close on their first day of Shanghai trading, in April. Shares of China Cosco Holdings are 3 1/2 times their first day close, on June 26, of 16.38 yuan.

As the market's gains become focused in a smaller group of big companies, some once-popular stocks are starting to stumble. Beijing Urban Construction Investment & Development, once a hot pick for investors looking for a play on the 2008 Olympics, has lost 30% compared with its peak in June. Zhejiang China Commodities City Group, a wholesale marketer for industrial goods, has dropped 37%.

That's one reason Yang Liu, an analyst at China Chengxin International Credit Rating, is advising a more defensive strategy. He favors companies he says can post stronger earnings when the economy is good, while also holding up well during a recession. Among those meeting the criteria, he says, are real-estate developer China Vanke, coal miner China Shenhua Energy and financial institutions China Merchants Bank and China Construction Bank.

While the surge in China's inflation this year increases the risk that the central bank will keep raising interest rates, potentially denting stock prices, Citic's Mr. Cheng says investors can benefit from rising prices by buying energy and other natural-resource stocks. Mr. Cheng likes China Petroleum & Chemical, the refiner better known as Sinopec, and PetroChina, China's largest oil supplier. While some analysts think Sinopec is overvalued, Mr. Cheng thinks the stock -- among the biggest on the Shanghai exchange by market cap -- is Shanghai's most attractively valued blue chip. PetroChina is in the process of a giant share sale to add a Shanghai listing to the one it already has in Hong Kong.

For those worried that the market has risen more than the fundamentals justify and is likely to experience a big decline, the most-conservative strategy is to stay on the sidelines. Jiang Zuoliang, director of the investment department for E Fund Management, says his team largely hasn't bought anything in the past two months. "We are waiting for a correction," he said.
But such views are the exception. Indeed, stocks and mutual funds are so popular in part because other investment options offer such poor returns. Chinese government bonds and bank deposits pay fairly low interest rates, currently just over 3%, which doesn't keep up with an inflation rate expected to surpass 4% for this year.

So domestic mutual funds are raising money and launching at a fast pace. According to research by Beijing-based TX Investment Consulting, new mutual funds have raised 417.7 billion yuan ($55.78 billion) from investors so far this year. In 2006, mutual funds raised 393.5 billion yuan.
Many strategists and analysts are happy to concede that the stock market is in a bubble. But they think it isn't going to pop anytime soon and aim to profit from further rises.

"There's definitely a bubble, but it's not yet the time for it to burst," says Lin Wenjun, strategist with Fullgoal Fund Management. She says she believes the outlook for the economy remains positive, and there is plenty of investor cash available to push stock prices higher.

-- Zhou Yang

With inflation monster tame, Fed can manage risk

CHICAGO (Reuters) - With inflation pressures relatively tame for now, the Federal Reserve appears to have a wide-open window to pursue a "risk management" interest rate policy that insures against a steep economic downturn created by the housing market slump.

Recent mild inflation data has been applauded by policy-makers, and even as the dollar sags and crude oil prices climb many Fed watchers guess that inflation will stay contained by anemic economic growth.

"The cost of cutting with regard to inflation risk is low, but the cost of doing nothing in terms of economic growth may be high," said Cyril Beuzit, economist at BNP Paribas.

The Fed's Open Market Committee meets Tuesday and Wednesday to decide its next move. In September, the central bank surprised markets with an aggressive 50 basis point cut in the federal funds rate, its first in more than four years. That took the key lending rate to 4.75 percent from 5.25 percent.

Financial contracts handicapping expectations on Fed rate policy show a one-quarter basis point rate cut is fully priced for the upcoming meeting, with another half-point move not out of the question.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is thought to favor the increased "juice" that the bank can get from markets if it does more than simply match expectations with policy moves.

With that in mind, a significant minority of bets has been placed on a 4 percent fed funds rate by year end, or 75 basis points in cuts at the next two FOMC meetings.

Deep into the quarterly earnings season, businesses such as freight-hauling companies are keeping up a drumbeat of talk about recession as the residential housing slowdown drags consumers to the ground.

Tapping Truly Emerging Markets

By Andrew Tanzer

It's been hard to go wrong investing in emerging markets in recent years. Chris Alderson, lead manager of T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock has made the most of this bull run.

His fund returned a sizzling 62% in the year through October 24, six points better than the MSCI Emerging Markets Index -- the most common benchmark for funds that invest in developing countries Korea, Taiwan, Russia and Brazil. Over the past five years, he's returned an annualized 40%, an average of four percentage points per year ahead of the benchmark.

So now he's turning to relatively virgin markets with T. Rowe Price Africa & Middle East, which launched in September and gained 10% in its first month. "This represents the last frontier," says Alderson.

You don't want to put your life savings in such a narrow and essentially untried geographic sector, but there are quite a few intriguing aspects to this new fund.

Stock exchanges in Africa and the Middle East, only recently opened to foreign investors, are under-researched and under-discovered (Alderson says that on average only one analyst covers a stock). That creates stock inefficiencies and fine opportunities for shrewd investors. The correlation with the U.S. stock market is a remarkably low 10% at a time when most international markets have been moving closely in sync with the U.S.

Gulf States such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman are drowning in new oil and gas wealth from petroleum selling for more than $80 a barrel. Oil is a state-owned industry, but Alderson says asset prices, including stocks, are destined to rise.

That's because most of these countries peg their currencies to the dollar but run higher inflation rates than the U.S. does. That creates the negative real interest rates (inflation higher than stated interest rates), and that's conducive to asset inflation.

Examples of Alderson's holdings are Bank Muscat, which has a 42% share of financial services in Oman, and Orascom Construction Industries of Egypt, which is the largest contractor in the Middle East. (Africa & Middle East fund does not invest in Israeli stocks, which are instead held in T. Rowe Price Emerging Europe and Mediterranean, also managed by Alderson.)

Strong commodity prices, from oil in Nigeria to gold, platinum and diamonds in South Africa, are also driving African economies. As a continent, Alderson says, Africa has grown by a respectable 6% annually over the past five years.

Africa & Middle East requires a $2,500 initial minimum investment. Anticipated annual expenses of 1.75% are on the high side but are not surprising given the exotic fare in which the fund invests. The fund does not levy a sales charge, but there's a 2% redemption fee on shares held 90 days or less.

The Only Investment Style You'll Ever Need?

By Michael Breen

Casting your net in the fishiest waters gives an edge in fishing. The same is true in investing. The ability to slice and dice data using hundreds of specialized statistics can cause us to lose sight of the fact that the underlying goal for most investors remains very straightforward: compound capital at the highest possible rate over time. Beating the overall market over time is a common goal for many funds and investors. We looked at the performance of broad investment styles over time to see if a particular style had done a better job at helping investors meet this goal. A clear pattern emerged.

Top Fishing Hole
Here's what we did. We compared the performance of all domestic-equity share classes with the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Index for the trailing 15-year period through Sept. 30, 2007. We chose this index because, unlike the large-cap-leaning S&P 500 Index, it covers the full market-cap spectrum. This stretch of time also represents more than a full market cycle, encompassing the last bear market from 2000 through 2002 and the fantastic bull-run from 1995 through 1999. And it contains enough funds to make meaningful comparisons. We then placed funds into value, blend, and growth groups based on their investment style. Where possible, specialty categories were placed according to style. For example, specialty technology and communications funds landed in the growth camp, while utilities and financials ended up in the value group. Some specialty categories were tough to pigeonhole, so they were not assigned a subgroup.

As the table below shows, one style stood out from the pack. (To see the table, click here: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=210975) Ibbotson Associates has shown that value stocks have outperformed other styles by a wide margin since 1927. And they've done so consistently, beating all other styles in nearly every decade over the past 80 years. But because of active management and fees, stock performance doesn't always translate into fund performance. In this case it does. More than 70% of value funds topped the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 in the trailing 10- and 15-year periods. That's a much better record than domestic-equity funds in general, and growth and blend funds in particular.

Averages Aren't Equal
The Russell 1000 Value Index has easily topped the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 over the past 15 years, so value funds have had a leg up. But that's the point. Since value has been the superior style over time, even average value funds have beaten the market. For example, the typical large-value fund has equaled the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 over the past 15 years. Slightly better-than-average value funds have left it in the dust. And value funds haven't just ridden a tailwind. Nearly 40% of them beat the Russell 1000 Value over the past 15 years, even though it was one of the strongest-performing domestic indexes during that time.

Avoiding Losses Pays Off
Two words explain value's long-term outperformance: downside protection. The math is simple. If a fund loses half its value, it needs to gain 100% just to get back to break-even. In the last bear market from 2000 through 2002, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 lost about 40% of its value. And excluding value funds, nearly 80% of domestic-equity funds were in the red in that downturn. In fact, many growth funds shed nearly two thirds of their value--a huge hole that would take years to dig out of. Meanwhile, more than 60% of value funds were in the black during the same stretch. Such a big head start coming out of a downturn means that value funds can still outperform over the long haul even if they lag in every bull market.

Never Goes Out of Style
Of course, the past isn't always prologue. But we feel confident about value's prospects. Because of their parsimonious ways and tendency to hold some cash, value funds have always fared better than others in market downturns. There is no reason to believe that this trend will change. So even though growth has been leading a strong market lately, value remains appealing. It may not happen tomorrow or next year, but at some point stocks will experience an extended downturn. When that happens, value's appeal will be even more readily apparent.

Wednesday, 24 October 2007

John Bogle shares his wisdom

Cheryl Allebrand

If you can't beat the market, be the market: That's the logic behind index funds. More than 30 years ago, John Bogle set up shop to help investors capture market returns at minimal cost. He had realized a quarter-century earlier that complex mutual fund investing strategies don't consistently outperform market returns.

At a glance

Name: John C. Bogle
Hometown: Valley Forge, Pa.
Education: Magna cum laude economics degree from Princeton in 1951


Career highlights:

  • Founded Vanguard in 1974

  • Voted one of the "world's 100 most powerful and influential people" by Time magazine in 2004

  • Institutional Investor's Lifetime Achievement Award (2004)

  • Named one of the investment industry's four "Giants of the 20th Century" by Fortune magazine in 1999

  • Received the Woodrow Wilson Award from Princeton University for "distinguished achievement in the Nation's service" (1999)

    Even Bogle's detractors have had to admit that the wisdom of his investing model has been borne out by time. Somewhat uncomfortable in his status as a present-day folk hero, Bogle remains an ardent defender of the common investor, and his zeal shines through in his latest work, "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing," published earlier this year by John Wiley & Sons.

    At age 78, the founder and former CEO of The Vanguard Group is still going strong. When he's not traveling to teach at a college seminar or to deliver a speech, he works 60 hours a week running Bogle Financial Markets Research Center, a unit of Vanguard that's funded by the company. He took time out of his hectic schedule to talk about investing with Bankrate.

    History of the index fund
    You wrote your senior thesis 55 years ago on index funds. Did you understand their potential back then, or have you been surprised with the developments since you founded Vanguard in 1974?

    It was just a thought that I had in my thesis, not about index funds, but about outperforming the market by managed funds. I'm quite happy I wrote it down, this little kid, one year out of his teens. In that thesis, I wrote: "Mutual funds may make no claim to superiority over the market averages."

    We didn't have as much data as we do today, but I looked at performance of a great number of funds and found that they couldn't beat the market. That was the seed that was planted that by 1974 had burst into flower when I created the first index mutual fund.

    Simplicity is key
    What is the most important piece of advice you have for someone who is new to investing?


    Rely on simplicity; own American or global business in broadly diversified, low-cost funds.

  • Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing?

    Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing.

    Switching to indexing
    Should someone who does not currently hold index funds sell their actively managed funds and move the money to index funds, or should they hold those and start investing their new money in index funds?

    A lot depends on the kinds of funds they own. We've got an industry that makes life very complicated for investors because we've got dozens of different types of funds, different investment styles, different market capitalizations, specialty funds that are in telecommunications, gold, technology or whatever it may be, and a whole variety of international funds, including some that invest in just a single country. The more concentrated those investments are, say, in a single country or a single industry, I'd say the answer is generally yes, move to an index fund -- but watch out for taxes. If the funds are in your retirement plan, you can ignore taxes, but if they're in your own account you want to take into account the tax cost involved.

    Another factor to consider is how much it's costing you. The record is very clear: High-cost funds do considerably worse than low-cost funds. How could it be otherwise?

    Think about diversification when you're deciding what to do, and think about cost.

    Costs add up
    That brings me to my next question. You've made the point time and again that costs dramatically impact investor returns. No-load funds are preferable to load funds, naturally, but how important is the expense ratio?


  • Let's take the question a little bit differently, if I might. There are three costs that are involved in mutual funds. The one that we talk about the most and the one that is the easiest to calculate is the fund's expense ratio. That averages about 1.5 percent for an equity fund and about 1 percent for a bond fund. That's a heavy drain on your returns, unless the money manager has superior ability, which over the long term very few do. People look good in the short term and then they fade in the long term. Working with low-expense ratio funds -- as I call it, fishing in the low-cost pond -- is one way to make sure your returns are improved.

    There's a second cost that we don't pay nearly as much attention to and which we don't quantify very often and that's the impact of a sales commission -- if you buy a fund with a load. For example, if the load is 5 percent, which is the typical load today, and you hold the fund for five years, that has cost you 1 percent a year. If you hold it for 10 years, it's a half a percent a year. Think about three-quarters of 1 percent a year, the combination of those two, as cost No. 2 after the expense ratio.

    The third cost is hidden, but we know it exists, we just don't know exactly how large it is. That's the portfolio turnover cost. Mutual funds turn over their portfolios at an astonishing rate, averaging about 100 percent per year. By my estimates, any fund that turns its portfolio over at that rate is costing you an extra 1 percent per year: a half percent to buy all those securities, including market impact costs, and a half percent to sell them. A 100 percent turnover means a billion-dollar fund buys a billion dollars' worth of stock and sells a billion. That's our definition of 100 percent, but that's $2 billion of transactions. You have to take into account that cost.

    If you find lower-turnover funds, and very few funds turn over at lower than 30 percent per year, you're talking about not 1 percent per year, but about a three-tenths of 1 percent cost per year -- in other words, the turnover rate with the decimal point moved over two places (0.003). So 100 percent turnover would cost 1 percent roughly. And a 30 percent turnover would cost three-tenths of 1 percent. So let's call it an average of seven-tenths of 1 percent per year for portfolio turnover.

    So adding costs together, we have a 1.5 percent expense ratio, if you're paying a sales commission, another 0.7 percent on average for a seven-year holding period plus another 0.7 percent for turnover costs if you're average, so that adds up to roughly 3 percent. That's an astonishingly high cost and investors are almost oblivious to nearly all of it, but totally oblivious to the second and third costs. We've got to pay attention, or as we say in "Death of a Salesman," "Attention must be paid."

    I usually estimate total costs at 2.5 percent; if someone wants to argue that's too high, say a minimum of 2 percent paid by the typical fund investor. If you don't like my estimates, knock them down a little bit.

    How much to pay
    What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund?



  • I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe.

    For an international fund?

    I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent.

    For a bond fund?

    One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2.

    One of the ironic things about this is if you want to eliminate turnover cost, the third cost I mentioned, it's like rolling off a log -- it's the easiest thing in the world: Buy an index fund.

    If you buy a no-load index fund, with an expense ratio of, say 0.15 percent a year, you've taken that typical 2 (percent) to 3 percent cost and reduced it by about 95 percent a year. And it's there for the taking. In the long run it's really quite certain, because the data show us that only about 5 percent of the managers will outperform the market over an investment lifetime.

    Bogle's portfolio
    Do you own any actively managed funds?

    I'm largely indexed, 85 (percent) to 90 percent in my equity funds, but I've hung onto some of my, what I call "legacy funds" that I'd been investing in over the years that I was running Wellington Management Co. That would include Wellington Fund, Windsor Fund, Explorer Fund, Primecap Fund; other funds like that. I've owned them, and they're going to give me more or less a market return because they're very diversified, but that's 20 percent of my funds and I don't intend to change that.

    I should say that on the bond side, in my retirement plan account, which is my largest investment -- because I never owned Vanguard, which is sad to relate because I'd be a billionaire, multibillionaire -- but I don't own that, so my retirement plan is my largest investment, and in my personal account I own 100 percent municipal bond funds, which are very indexlike in their nature.

    Money market investing
    You have said that most people hold five different funds, and that people should hold equity index funds and bond index funds. How much, if anything, should people hold in money market funds?




  • In general I look at investing as having no money market funds. If you're concerned about risk you're better off holding a short-term bond fund. While the returns will be a little jagged if you draw them on a chart, they're upward about 95 percent of the time. Where a money market fund, if you put it on the same chart, will go in a straight line but will end up at a lower level, because that reduction in risk comes with a reduction in return.

    When investing, do not own money market funds. In saving for your emergency reserves, yes, own money market funds. An important caution: Money market funds are pure commodities. What differentiates the highest- and lowest-yielding money market funds is cost. The correlation between high cost and low return or low cost and high return in money market funds is 0.99 -- almost perfect. Avoid high-cost money market funds at all costs in your emergency account.

    ETFs vs. index funds
    Recently we published a profile on Ben Stein and he mentioned you. Basically he said that you might disagree as to which are ultimately better -- index funds or exchange-traded funds -- but that he finds them equally attractive. You have been critical of ETFs. What don't you like about them?

    It is not the idea of ETFs that I find unpersuasive. After all, if someone wants to buy the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF compared to the Total Stock Market fund directly, or to that point buy the SPDR, which is an S&P 500 ETF, compared to the Vanguard 500 (Index Fund), I don't have a bone to pick with them. I would tell smaller investors who are dollar averaging: Don't touch the ETF, because every time you touch them you pay a commission.

    In fact, I wouldn't buy the Vanguard ETF because you pay a commission. What's the matter with that? The answer is nothing. So Stein and I are on the same square. What troubles me and troubles me deeply is: What are ETFs? They are index funds that you can trade all day and they are index funds you pay a commission on. Those two things strike me as a great disadvantage.

    Trading is your enemy, because it's based on emotion. People do trade them with great rapidity. So I have a problem with trading ETFs, which you are lured into doing if you watch the market all day long, and also, the types of ETFs we have.

    There are now 690 types of ETFs and only 12 are broad-market ETFs, like the S&P 500 or the World Stock index or similar total-stock indices. That leaves 678 funds that are vehicles for speculating. Whether it's in emerging cancer shares or the Taiwanese stock market, or the Nasdaq, those are speculative things to do. I can't tell you they won't work, but I can tell you that when you have a speculative instrument that you can trade all day long, I would bet an awful lot of money that you would be better off instead of doing a lot of trading over the next 10 years in those narrow, specialized, undiversified and, in terms of commissions, costly instruments -- you don't have a fighting chance of beating the kind of index strategy that I just described.

    Investing for everyone
    You were the first to introduce index funds in the form of mutual funds for everyday investors. Would you say that this was your greatest contribution to the investing public?


  • Vanguard 500 Index Fund is unequivocally the first index mutual fund. I don't dwell on my contributions such as they may be to the investing public. I've tried to do my best to build a better world for the average investor and, for that matter, for pension funds and institutional investors, too. Central to that was the creation of Vanguard, which was and is the only truly mutual mutual fund organization.

    The management company is owned by the funds; its profits, now running about $12 billion a year, are largely rebated -- 98 percent or something -- to our fund shareholders in the form of lower expenses. Without that kind of structure, it would be very difficult to bring out an index fund.

    We went no-load around the time the index fund was introduced. We then focused on being a low-cost provider in the mutual fund industry. And therefore following, when we became effective operationally in May 1975, the first thing on my agenda was to start an index fund, which depended on low cost to work. The chicken-and-the-egg is that Vanguard was the chicken, and the index fund, the egg. But which was the most important?

    We've been the most innovative company in this industry. And, I would argue quickly, soundly innovative. I don't give you points for innovation if you bring out an Internet stock fund at the height of the stock market boom in early 2000. That's bad innovation. In terms of good innovation, I think it's pretty clear we've led the way.


  • Tuesday, 23 October 2007

    You're Not Super Rich? You Lucked Out.

    By Jonathan Clements

    Great wealth is overrated.

    Whenever my kids swoon over a palatial home or a passing Ferrari, it always bugs the heck out of me. Before long, I am on my soapbox, insisting that they shouldn't be awed by such symbols of wealth.

    This might sound odd coming from a personal-finance columnist. But the fact is, while it is comforting to be financially secure, money is no measure of self-worth, no guarantee of happiness -- and no reason to be impressed.

    We all tend to sit up and take notice when we come across people with fancy titles, hefty incomes and immense riches. Yet these aren't signs of genius or virtue. Want proof? All it takes is two words: Paris Hilton.

    Wealth may be inherited, which means the beneficiaries' struggle for riches didn't extend beyond the delivery room. Legendary investor Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has described "the idea that you win the lottery the moment you're born" as "outrageous."

    What about the self-made rich? Shouldn't we be more impressed by them? While their hard work and perseverance are often admirable, I wouldn't be too quick to deify.

    Today, if you are adept at judging the chances that a corporate takeover will go through, you can make good money running an investment fund devoted to merger arbitrage. Such a skill, however, wasn't nearly so valuable in thirteenth century England -- or, for that matter, twenty-first century Afghanistan.

    In other words, in a different society or at a different time, your peculiar set of skills might ensure fabulous financial success. But in today's America, you are just another working stiff.
    Displays of wealth can also be misleading. Folks can appear wealthy -- but the mansion may be fully mortgaged, the cars might be leased and the landscaper may still be awaiting payment.
    Even if you come across somebody who can easily afford the trappings of wealth, the trappings themselves are not a sign of wealth, but of wealth that has been spent. The money lavished on the cars, homes and jewelry is now gone.

    True, these purchases could always be sold. But there's no guarantee they will fetch the price that was paid -- and, in the meantime, they may require hefty maintenance costs.
    Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with spending. The whole reason for saving and investing now is so we can have money to spend later. That said, I can't imagine why I should find this spending impressive -- and I am not sure it is making the spenders happy.
    As the old adage goes, money doesn't buy happiness. Yes, those with high incomes and more wealth often say they are happier.

    This may, however, be a so-called focusing illusion. When the well-heeled are asked how satisfied they are with their lives, they contemplate their position in society -- and they realize they're pretty fortunate.

    But research has found that, when high-income earners are asked about their emotions on a periodic basis throughout the workday, they don't report being any happier -- but they are more likely to say they are anxious or angry.

    All this might have you scratching your head. It seems obvious that your life would be better if you had a gardener to maintain the yard, a chef to prepare your meals and a private jet to whisk you off to exotic locations.

    And if you were suddenly handed all these things, life would indeed be grand -- until you got used to them. Unfortunately, after a while, you would become accustomed to the great food and the no-hassle travel, and you would be hankering for something even better.

    Problem is, once you are used to life's finest, that hankering can be hard to satisfy. Suppose you go to the best restaurant in town with your wealthy friends. To you, the food is unimaginably good. To your friends, it is just another meal -- and yet there's no place better they can eat.
    As you might gather, I think it is important to realize that there is nothing that special about the wealthy or the life they lead. But my goal isn't to discourage folks from striving to be rich. That brings me back to my children.

    Not everybody will grow up to be president of the United States -- or, for that matter, president of a major corporation. Still, I hate the idea that my kids might be so awed by such people that they consider these lofty positions out of reach.

    Maybe, of course, my kids will decide that they aren't interested in spending their lives in pursuit of fame and fortune, and that would be fine. But I don't want them to be so awestruck by anybody -- whether wealthy, talented or powerful -- that they rule out such possibilities.
    Having enough money is important, but having heaps of it doesn't guarantee happiness. Instead, what matters is doing something that you enjoy and that gives you a sense of purpose -- and I don't want my children to be deterred from doing just that.

    Possible 2008 recession in US will hit Asia: Stephen Roach

    Asia needs to take events in US more seriously, he says

    THE United States could face a consumer-induced recession next year, which will also hit Asian economies, said Morgan Stanley's chairman for Asia, Stephen Roach.

    Speaking at the World Knowledge Forum in Seoul, Mr Roach - well known for his bearish views - presented what he called a 'decidedly sub-prime outlook' for the US economy.

    The so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis is 'the tip of a much bigger iceberg', he said. It has started to hit the American consumer.

    Mr Roach, who has long predicted a US economic slowdown, pointed out that the US consumer is facing the toughest times in 30 years, and the impact on the economy could be acute.

    He noted that in the first half of this year, US consumption accounted for a record 72 per cent of GDP, or about US$9.5 trillion.

    'The US consumer is about to take a long rest,' he said, 'and if the US consumer goes, there's nobody on the demand side who can fill the void.' Even China's total consumption is only about one-ninth that of the US, he noted.

    Mr Roach suggested that the US consumer is at risk because the consumption binge of the last seven years has been underpinned, not so much by rising incomes but by a wealth effect which has, in turn, been driven by 'an extraordinary property market'.

    In short, 'the US consumer has turned his home into an ATM machine', he added.

    But now, with the US property bubble deflating, the wealth effect, based on rising home values, 'is over, is done, is finished'.

    In fact, next year, home prices for the whole of the US could decline for the first time in history, he predicted, which would severely diminish US consumers' ability to extract equity from their homes.

    In the face of this, Mr Roach said that the risk of recession 'is quite high'.

    Although sub-prime mortgage assets account for only 14 per cent of all securitised assets, the sub-prime crisis has already spread.

    Moreover, 'the big story gets written in the real economy, not in the financial markets', he said.
    And worth noting here, he added, is that US consumption is about five times the size of US capital spending, which triggered the US recession of 2001.

    Mr Roach, who is based in Hong Kong, said that Asia needs to take developments in the US more seriously.

    'What's worrying is a complacency in Asian markets, based on a belief that Asia has 'decoupled' from the US,' he pointed out.

    But the decoupling thesis is fanciful, he said, noting that the US absorbs 21 per cent of China's exports, 22.5 per cent of Japan's and about 14 per cent of Asean's. 'If the US consumer goes down, Asia will feel it,' he said.

    Fund houses show their hand - and it's thumbs-up

    Teh Hooi Ling
    834 words
    18 October 2007
    Business Times Singapore
    English
    (c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

    BT survey reveals they are mildly bullish, still hot on China but worried about US slowdown
    (SINGAPORE) In a unique exercise to determine exactly what the smart money is thinking, BT has polled top fund houses and found that they are moderately bullish about the equities market over the next six months. The 10 fund houses who shared their views have combined assets of US$1.39 trillion under management.

    The average outlook of fund managers is +2, on a scale of -10 (being ultra bearish) to +10 (being super bullish). Their ratings are weighted by their fund size.

    The most bullish rating is +8 and the most bearish -3. Meanwhile, cash level stands at about 5 per cent.

    BT intends to conduct a similar poll every month and this will form the basis of a fund managers' sentiment index - a gauge of how they see things unfolding. The results of the poll will be published in Pulses, the Singapore Exchange monthly financial magazine from next year onwards. SGX has outsourced the production of the magazine to BT starting from January 2008.

    The latest snapshot, based on the first poll, shows that geographically, Hong Kong and China still feature among the top picks of fund managers despite the incredible run that the two markets have had in 2007. For the year to date, the CSI 300 - an index that tracks the daily price performance of the 300 most representative A-share stocks listed on the Shanghai or Shenzhen Stock Exchanges - has surged a jaw-dropping 185 per cent.

    China is the best performing market in the world for the year to date. Meanwhile, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index has risen 47 per cent during the same period.

    Singapore also appears as the top pick among a number of fund managers. Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand showed up on the lists of more than one fund manager.
    Said Geoffrey Wong, UBS Global Asset Management's head of global emerging markets: 'Within Asia, we are currently finding a lot of value in Indonesia, Thailand and India.'

    Thailand and Indonesia are favoured for their cost competitiveness. In addition, companies within these markets generate relatively higher return on equity and earnings growth compared with their regional peers, he said.

    Schroders, meanwhile, maintains a moderate overweight in the US market for its defensive qualities. 'The Fed has plenty of policy scope to cut rates while earnings growth and valuation remains attractive,' it said.

    It also likes European equities for their strong earnings per share growth and valuation - 'the most compelling compared to its own history and other regions'. Schroders is also positive on Asia as the region continues to show signs of decoupling from the US economy, with China providing the key support.

    Sector-wise, fund managers see upside in property, industrial, construction, energy, and consumer sector and technology.

    Said UBS' Mr Wong: 'In Asia, we like the consumer sector due to strong structural drivers such as a big reserve of young and under-leveraged individuals with rising disposable incomes.' UBS is also positive on the industrial sector as it relates to the infrastructure theme. 'Spending on infrastructure,' said Mr Wong, 'is expected to triple over the next ten years.'

    Meanwhile Schroders prefers large over small cap stocks, and growth over value. As for Roger Groebli, head of equity research, Asia at ABN Amro PrivateBanking, his three sector picks are energy, commodities and technology.

    When it comes to concerns, the biggest worries for fund managers include a slowdown in the US economy, over-valuation of equities, sharp appreciation of Asian currencies and volatility in the US dollar.

    One risk, noted UBS, is that 'higher interest rates and oil prices may result in an outflow of funds from emerging market assets.'

    There are a couple of bears amidst the majority of bulls. One particularly bearish fund holds the view that there are a number of imbalances now in the market that will cause a significant market decline at some point in the next few years. 'The most tenuous characteristics is record high profit margins across the board, particularly in lower quality companies,' said the fund manager.

    As such it recommended risk reduction and capital preservation to its clients. 'We are not averse to advising our clients to invest a chunk of their portfolio in cash at the moment...In the case where clients have to or want to take on some equity risk, we recommend high quality and large cap equities, particularly in the US.'

    A total of ten fund houses responded to BT's poll. The aim of constructing the index is to let the market have a snapshot of the collective outlook of the smart money. No firms will be highlighted without consent. The index is only as good as the number of fund managers who respond to the survey - and hopefully more will start to share their sentiment.

    Emerging Asia: positive outlook despite pitfalls

    Business Times Singapore

    Beware uncertain global economy and riskier financial environment, says DAVID BURTON
    EMERGING Asia's economies have been among the most dynamic in the world in the last decade. Today, the region accounts for almost half of global economic growth. Much of this success stems from broad reforms by these countries in the last 10 years.

    These reforms have led to healthier financial and corporate sectors and more robust macroeconomic policy across the region. But the recent financial turbulence, still playing out across the globe, highlights the question of just how vulnerable the region remains to developments in the United States and other industrialised countries.

    What, therefore, are the key strengths and vulnerabilities for the region today? And what challenges are Asia's policymakers likely to face in the period ahead?

    The International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Asia and Pacific Department addresses these issues in detail in its Fall 2007 Regional Economic Outlook ( www.imf.org ).

    The year 2007 has been another good one for the region so far. Economic growth has exceeded expectations. China and India have led the way, with growth rates in the first half of the year of 11.5 and 9.25 per cent respectively. The trend has been positive for others as well. Exports remain buoyant and growth is becoming somewhat better balanced in many countries, with private consumption and investment making an increasing contribution.

    For the year as a whole, we project that emerging Asia will achieve economic growth of nearly 9.5 per cent. Moreover, inflation continues to remain in check. While a recent modest pick-up in headline inflation in the region requires close monitoring, this rise mainly reflects higher food prices, especially in China, and is not expected to generate large second-round effects.

    The region weathered well the recent global financial turbulence, when concerns over rising defaults in the US sub-prime market led to increased volatility in equity and credit markets worldwide.

    Emerging Asia's equity markets did initially decline along with other emerging markets, Asian currencies did experience downward pressure, and financial conditions did tighten. However, what is striking is the speed with which emerging Asia recovered from this initial shock.

    Capital inflows to the region have returned, and its equity markets are now about 10 per cent higher than before the summer's turbulence. Reflecting this resilience, the IMF foresees only a modest slowdown in 2008, to about 8.5 per cent, resulting from lower external demand for Asia's exports, and an assumed effective policy tightening in China.

    The sub-prime crisis has, however, increased uncertainty about the outlook for the global economy - and for emerging Asia. First, it remains uncertain whether we have seen the worst of the global financial turbulence or if there are additional shocks ahead. The region's apparently small exposure to sub-prime mortgages and structured products more generally has helped moderate the impact of the sub-prime crisis on Asia. This in itself reflects the relatively unsophisticated nature of the financial sector in much of the region.

    But another bout of global financial volatility could have significant spillovers for the region. It could reverse recent inflows and make financing more difficult for a number of sovereign and corporate borrowers.

    But perhaps the main risk to the region is that of a sharp slowdown in the US and the euro area, resulting from the persistent US housing doldrums and associated global financial problems.
    Despite the view being expressed that Asia has 'delinked' from the US and other industrialised countries, the truth is that the region remains significantly dependent on exports to the rest of the world. While an increasing share of exports are within the region, much of this still reflects the integrated production processes within Asia, with much of the final demand still in the industrialised world.

    So, how big an impact would a US or global slowdown have on Asia? It would likely not be as big as during the dotcom bust of 2001-02. Then, the decline centred on information technology products, which are of particular importance for emerging Asia.

    Nevertheless, IMF staff estimates that a one percentage point decline in US economic growth could reduce growth in emerging Asia, through lower exports, by up to 0.4 percentage point. While sizeable, this would, however, not have a dramatic impact on emerging Asia's economies.
    Overall, then, the outlook for emerging Asia remains positive, but the economic environment will, as always, present a number of policy challenges.

    First, policymakers need to be ready to respond to a slowdown in the global economy including - in countries where inflation expectations are low and well-anchored - through more accommodative monetary policy.

    Second, the volatile global environment has raised uncertainty regarding capital flows to the region. Countries will need to continue to be pragmatic and allow for greater exchange rate flexibility to create two-way risk in foreign currency markets and promote a rebalancing of growth where necessary. This is especially pertinent in China, where the current account surplus has continued to grow and the currency remains considerably undervalued relative to medium-term fundamentals.

    Finally, the sub-prime crisis, while so far largely skirting the region, will provide a number of lessons for Asia, as its financial systems become more sophisticated. This is likely to include the need for enhanced financial supervision.

    At the same time, countries will also likely need to strengthen reporting and disclosure requirements, and pricing and provisioning rules to deal effectively with complex financial products, and the cascading system of risks they imply.

    The author is director of the International Monetary Fund's Asia and Pacific Department

    Monday, 22 October 2007

    This time it is different?

    Most observers are holding on to this view, the consensus outlook being that although the market may undergo more short-term pain in the next few weeks, its strong fundamentals should eventually prevail.

    In its Aug 3 Global Investment Strategy for example, Canadian research house BCA Research summarised this view when it said that although the damage from the sub-prime fallout will persist for a while because problems are more pervasive than first believed, it does not believe the recent selloff signals the beginning of a bear market.

    'There is plenty of growth outside of the US economy: economic news from China and the rest of Asia has been very strong . . . suffice to say that the world economy is still in a low-inflation boom, driven by an enormous supply-side expansion', it said.

    It all sounds very appealing - in cliched broker jargon, the present mini-crash qualifies as a 'much-needed correction' for an 'overbought' market that might even present 'bargain-hunting' opportunities.

    Once 'overbought' becomes 'oversold' and once the market has 'digested' the bad news, it should easily be able to resume its uptrend.

    To be honest, such a happy scenario is entirely possible. The problem, however, is that 'this time is different' can cut both ways. Over the past 15 months global markets have been rocked as violently as they are now on three occasions - in May last year when US Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke unwittingly stoked inflation/interest rate fears, in February this year when China crashed 9 per cent in one day and in April when China again crashed on fears of the unwinding of the yen 'carry trade'.

    In each instance prices recovered quickly, thus enhancing the complacency and conditioning referred to earlier. So it's no surprise that the prognosis for the present crisis is the same as before - a brief period of pain before the bull run resumes.

    But surely the spreading rot from the sub-prime crisis suggests the rather inconvenient truth that this time really is different because it is the crucial financial sector which is under threat, and that it would be too simplistic to expect a swift return to the heady days of May and June when stocks regularly rose to all-time highs?

    US broker Morgan Stanley is possibly the only big name so far to share this view. In its Aug 5 assessment of the exposure Singapore banks have to the US mortgage fiasco, it hit the nail on the head when it wrote 'the market has for some time exhibited excessive optimism, driven by liquidity rather than fundamentals and hence has been willing to extrapolate the positive and ignore the negative'.

    The truth is that no one knows yet the full extent financial stocks everywhere are exposed to the US sub-prime market's problems and it may take several weeks or maybe months before all the rot is uncovered. And if the financial sector is undermined, so is the entire market.

    Until then investors will remain nervous while hoping for salvation from the US Fed in the shape of interest rate cuts (the futures market is now pricing in at least two rate cuts over the next 12 months).

    However, buying heavily into 'this time is different' too soon would be a dangerously risky proposition because ironically, this time round, it is not the reasons to buy which are different but the reason to sell.

    Get Out of China While You Still Can

    By Morgan Housel

    As you've probably heard by now, today marks the 20th anniversary of the stock market crash of 1987, which yanked down the Dow Jones Industrial Average by 22% in a single day. I can hardly think of a better way to commemorate one of the most famous stories of irrational expectations that ended in calamity than to discuss the world's frothiest, most overheated, and biggest waiting-for-trouble market: China.

    The financial world is no stranger to bubbles. As we've seen with the stock market crash of 1929, the Nifty 50 in the early 1970s, Taiwan and Japan in the 1980s, the Nasdaq dot-com hoopla in 2000, and the real estate mania over the past seven years, there's rarely a shortage of stupidity somewhere in the markets.

    One belief that tends to characterize these bubbles is that "it's different this time." People justified the incredible surge in the Japanese Nikkei average because they knew electronics would change the way our world functioned. They justified the Nasdaq boom by saying the Internet would forever change the way people do business. In both cases, those people were right about the effects on our lives -- but that didn't justify the massive speculation that dominated the market.

    Sure, the Chinese economy has a lot going for it right now. For the first time since economic restructuring began in the 1970s, growth is being fueled by the citizens -- not the Communist government. Combine that with low interest rates, an increase in property values, growing corporate profits, and a sky-high personal savings rate ... and, heck, maybe it is different this time, right?

    Keep dreaming. Just as the day after Christmas used to depress me beyond belief, all excessively good things must come to an end.


    Regardless of a slew of factors stacked in its favor, China is no exception to the rule that speculation always leads to a fall. Here are some of the factors that make the Chinese stock market look more like a Las Vegas casino floor than an attractive place for your money.

    The big guys have left the building
    Big-timers like Li Ka-shing -- whom some regard as the Warren Buffett of Asia -- along with Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan and Alan Greenspan all share a strong sense of pessimism about the Chinese market. Unlike the U.S. stock market, which is dominated by hedge funds and mutual funds (whose managers, in theory, should know what they're doing), 70% of Chinese market activity comes from regular people. One-sixth of all Chinese individual brokerage accounts have been opened in the past year; the fact that the indices have more than doubled in value during the same period should come as no surprise.

    Eastday, a Chinese government-run website, announced in April that 10% of all the maids in Shanghai have resigned because day-trading stocks became more lucrative than traditional work. Here's a quick rule of thumb to remember in investing: When everybody and his or her mother is rushing to get in, it's time to pack your bags and head for the exits.

    Rationality: a thing of the past
    So much speculation has entered the Chinese market that some traders have opted to focus on superstition. Some are picking lucky ticker symbols that include the number 8, which in Chinese is a homonym for good luck. At this point, Sylvia Browne is starting to look rational.

    The Chinese market has all but abandoned the idea of investing in companies. It's now completely based around the fear of not getting aboard before the train takes off. As Buffett said, "Like most trends, at the beginning it's driven by fundamentals. At some point, speculation takes over. What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end."

    As jittery as a hummingbird on Red Bull
    And talk about neurotic. All it took in February was a tax on trading to send shares down more than 9%. Even the slightest hint of bad news could send shares falling faster than you can panic sell. I bet that'll make you feel different about taking a bathroom break.

    Will China go any higher? It easily could. But that certainly doesn't mean you should hope to pick the top. Bubbles burst much more quickly than they form, and it could be far too late before you realize how much trouble you're in. Don't kick yourself for watching others make money by irrational means. Stick to sensible investing, and you'll always be left with the last laugh.

    And if speculation is your thing, go to Las Vegas. You're odds of winning are better, and you'll eat for free.

    Sunday, 21 October 2007

    "If I work hard, is it guaranteed that I'll succeed?"

    So what is your answer to the above question?

    Most people say 70% hard work, 30% luck.

    Do you agree?

    I don't.

    The truth is, if you work hard, you are guaranteed to succeed, period!

    "But I've worked very hard, why am I not successful yet?"

    I'll give you the answer later, but let me explain why hard work guarantees success.

    The world is governed by a set of laws and these laws work with mathematical certainty. Some of the well known laws are the law of gravity and the law of action and reaction. These laws are taught in school because they can be proven by science. Some laws cannot be proven scientifically and thus, they are not in the mainstream of our education. One of these laws is the law of compensation.

    The law of compensation simply states that you get compensated for whatever you contribute, nothing is lost and nothing is wasted. If you work hard, you will succeed. That's it. There is no other conditions. There is no BUT..... There is no UNLESS....

    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 ~ 1882), one of America's most influential philosophers, explains the law of compensation: “The whole of what we know is a system of compensations. Every defect in one manner is made up in another. Every suffering is rewarded; every sacrifice is made up; every debt is paid.”

    If you work hard, creative ideas will come to you. If you work hard, you will meet benefactors and other people who can help you to succeed. If you work hard, resources that were not available to you in the past will become available to you now. What other luck do you need?

    "But I've worked very hard, why am I not successful yet?"

    This question was also asked by a friend of mine, who said that he had worked very hard and yet his business was still not making money. He said he was not compensated for the hard work he had put in.

    Is it true? Let's see.

    The truth is this friend of mine had been working very hard to solve problems, not working very hard to make money. He had been working hard to solve his problem with his supplier. He had also been working hard to help his employees to solve their problems, which have nothing to do with him! He worked hard to solve all kinds of problems. So in the end, the law of compensation worked. He becomes a great problem solver. The only problem he didn't solve is to earn enough money to continue with his business.

    Take myself for example. I try to spend most of my time on money making activities. I'm either promoting my websites or networking with my customers or creating more products that can make more money in the future. As much as possible, I leave other tasks like customer service and accounting to other people. What about problems? Well, I have been "advancing" from my problems for a few years and I have little problems to solve now. What I have now are challenges. Problems are boring and annoying, challenges are exciting and interesting. See the difference? (If you don't know what I mean by "advancing" from my problems, please read last month's newsletter.)

    The law of compensation only warrants you success in the area where you've worked hard, not in the area where you "think" you've worked hard.

    For instance, if you have been working hard days and nights to provide for your family and one day your wife leaves you because she says you don't love her, please don't be mad because the law of compensation in this case only compensates you with financial stability, not love. See what I mean?

    Another example, you may be working hard to learn how to make money online. If you do just that, you may deserve a degree on how to make money online, but you will NOT make money. You will only make money when you work hard to do things that can generate profits, not learning how to make money.

    I hope I've given you enough examples to illustrate the idea.

    After today, I hope there is no more excuse for any underachievement in you. Work hard and success will be inevitable. Just make sure you are working hard at the right thing!

    THE ABOVE IS COURTESY OF EMAILCASHPRO, A SAFE, LEGITIMATE AND PROFITABLE PAID TO READ EMAILS PROGRAMME.

    Friday, 19 October 2007

    Profiting from subprime turmoil

    (Money Magazine) -- News this week that major banks are planning a massive fund to prop up the hardest-hit victims of the subprime mortgage crisis got investors worrying again.

    Specifically, they're concerned that potential losses from bad subprime bets could be much bigger than previously feared.

    In fact, the bailout fund is good news. And you actually have a chance to profit personally over the long term from today's turmoil, as long as you make your investment decisions cautiously.

    Shares of banks and financial services companies may not have hit bottom yet - but there will soon be bargains to be had. And some companies with exceptionally strong balance sheets are already good deals.

    Understanding the problems

    The credit crisis itself is very complicated, but here's pretty much what you need to know. As home prices kept rising over the past few years, more and more people wanted to buy houses. Lenders accommodated them by devising mortgages that required less money down and lower monthly payments.

    Often the interest rates on these mortgages could increase sharply from initial low levels. That created the risk that buyers who had stretched to the utmost to buy a house could be forced to default.

    The risks were greatly multiplied as the original mortgages were bundled into separate investments and sold off. This kind of packaging has been done for decades by institutions, and the resulting securities have long been part of a stable credit market.

    But the new packages, a type of collateralized debt obligation (CDO) known as structured-investment vehicles (SIVs) are far more complicated - too complicated, in fact.

    The packagers sliced and diced underlying pools of mortgages, mixing lousy loans with solid ones, until nobody could tell what was what. Even the resulting investments that had great credit ratings could ultimately be backed in part by shaky mortgages.

    In addition, long-term assets in the portfolios were financed with short-term borrowed money. That means that rising interest rates or tight credit could force banks to take losses as they scrambled for cash.

    The great risk is that the overall credit market freezes because lenders are afraid to lend.

    And that's why recent news has been encouraging. The Federal Reserve has made extra short-term credit available to banks and is clearly willing to do more. And the Fed aggressively cut short-term interest rates in September, which greases the wheels for more lending.

    In addition, the new fund that the major banks are proposing will ensure that the hardest-hit investors will be able to sell securities when necessary. Equally important, the fund will allow solid securities to be separated from those that are iffy.

    Ratings agencies and other experts estimate that there are as much as $400 billion of SIVs outstanding, although it's impossible to know the total amount. But not all of this is at risk - the actual losses should be in the manageable range for major banks that earn tens of billions of dollars a year.

    The credit crisis will require more big earnings writeoffs, like the one that slashed Citigroup's (Charts, Fortune 500) profits by 57 percent in the third quarter. Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500) and Washington Mutual (Charts, Fortune 500) also announced weak results. But once they are completed, such writeoffs won't impair the value of the stocks involved.

    Bargains to be had

    When things calm down, top-quality financial stocks will likely be great bargains, as I discussed in the October issue of Money Magazine.

    Basically, there have been a couple of episodes, starting with the Savings & Loan crisis almost 20 years ago, that were similar to what's been going on recently. In those earlier cases, it took about six months for financial stocks to hit bottom.

    So far, the big banks are generally above their August lows. The notable exception is Citigroup, which is having the most trouble, because its exposure is estimated to account for about a fifth of the outstanding SIVs. Other banks should have an easier time.

    The good news is that once the past selloffs ended, financial stocks posted gains of more than 50 percent over the following two years.

    Still, take your time about adding more financial stocks to your portfolio. There could still be some unpleasant surprises between now and early next year when final 2007 results are known. At that point, however, financial shares will actually be a lot less risky because the extent of their problems will be known and reflected in share prices.

    If you're looking for stocks in other sectors that are smart buys now, you'll find bargain-hunting opportunities among companies with plenty of cash or pristine balance sheets. At a time when banks are cautious about making new loans, businesses that have ready money or that are still attractive borrowers will be able to expand, acquire weaker players and take advantage of other opportunities.

    Investors haven't yet fully recognized the competitive advantage of creditworthiness. But they will soon enough, and financially strong companies should then be accorded higher price-to-earnings ratios. The greatest bargains are likely to be stocks that are depressed and trade below their typical price/earnings ratios, such as Johnson & Johnson and Microsoft. For more on financially fit stocks, click here.

    While stock prices will likely be volatile over the coming year, the odds are still in favor of continuing growth rather than recession. So hold down your risk by adding stocks with relatively low P/Es to your portfolio and diversify as broadly as you can. But don't shy away from equities because of today's market troubles. Remember that after the S&L Crisis ended, stocks enjoyed a six-year bull market. Top of page

    Don't Let Bad News Scare You Off Market

    Donald H. Gold

    When the stock market notched its most recent follow-through day, Aug. 29, many people simply didn't trust the message. Buy stocks? At a time like this?

    But the market's message with that follow-through was clear. And investors must get past the headlines. Whether the world's woes are real or imagined, stocks often take off in what seems the worst of times.

    Look back at Aug. 29. What was happening?

    The market was still reeling from the subprime-mortgage fiasco. Some huge mortgage companies were either shutting their doors or coming close to it.

    Shares of rock-solid investment bankers with exposure to that mess -- Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS - News) and Bear Stearns (NYSE:BSC - News), for instance -- were getting hammered. No one knew how much the fallout would spread to the economy.

    Iraq was still a mess. Politicians were falling over each other to propose timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals.

    Iran is intent on building a nuclear program and seems delighted to thumb its nose to the West, especially the U.S.

    Global warming, North Korea, Hamas, Hezbollah, George Steinbrenner.

    The world often looks gloomy when the stock market bottoms.

    The Aug. 15, 2006, market follow-through occurred amid hand-wringing about corporate earnings. But also that day, a tame inflation report raised hopes for an interest-rate cut.

    The March 21 follow-through happened after a series of bad news on the housing market. But on that day, the Fed hinted that it would take a dovish stance on interest rates.

    The Federal Reserve's moves, by the way, are important to watch.

    While not every follow-through leads to a new uptrend, every bull phase has started with a follow-through.

    Watch for this signal, which consists of a big gain in at least one major index sometime after the third day of a rally attempt.

    Also important is to watch for high-rated stocks, with outstanding fundamentals, breaking out of bases. When leading stocks make such moves, it serves to confirm a new rally.

    More importantly, realize the economy usually isn't as bad as the news outlets will tell you.

    The jobless rate is under 5%. Incomes are rising, and the latest retail sales stat shows we are spending well. Interest rates are low and probably poised to go even lower.

    How to Protect Your Portfolio

    By David Bogoslaw

    Once burned, twice shy. Even though the major stock indexes are trading at record highs and concerns about a possible credit crunch-led recession have abated slightly, many of today's investors have vivid memories of the market meltdown of 20 years ago. No surprise, then, that one feature distinguishing the current stock market from the one that crashed in October, 1987, is evidence of more caution among investors.

    It wasn't that way back when Gordon Gekko of Wall Street was telling investors that "Greed is good." Twenty years ago, traders in thrall to the possibilities of making money by exploiting the differentials between stock index futures and the underlying stock indexes were buying and selling without covering themselves with an opposing transaction, a strategy that would have afforded them some protection when their bets went sour.

    Today, they're much more likely to put safeguards in place to hedge against downside risks. Since 1987, the average daily trading volume of options has more than tripled, with index options in particular seeing growth in volume, open interest, and liquidity.

    More Players, More Protective Tools

    The primary difference between today's index futures market and that of 20 years ago is that there's now a much larger pool of participants, including hedge funds, creating a more diverse and liquid market, says Scott Warren, managing director of equity products at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which specializes in index futures. Circuit breakers in the futures, cash, and options markets that temporarily halt trading after a drop of a certain percentage also limit the magnitude of bearish events, he says.

    In addition to the market's much greater ability to absorb large buy and sell orders of stocks and options, there's also a much better understanding of the strengths and limitations of protection strategies, says Jim Bitman, senior instructor at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange's Options Institute. "People still remember 2001 and 2002 a little bit, so they're probably trying to take some protective measures," and leaving more money on the sidelines, says Jody Team, president of Team Financial Strategies in Lewisville, Tex.

    To protect clients' portfolios, money managers are using a host of sophisticated hedging tools intended to offset risk to their core stock holdings. One such tool: inverse index funds. These so-called bear funds are designed to move in the opposite direction of the index to which they are benchmarked, such as the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.

    Inverse Index Investing

    The inverse index mutual funds at Rydex Investments don't short the indexes themselves. Instead, they use derivatives such as index futures, which can be traded and rolled over into later periods more cheaply than shorting the stocks themselves, says Jim King, director of portfolio management at Rydex. They're still at risk of losing money, but they can't lose any more than they put into the fund, King says. Investors are "long" the fund, while the fund takes the short positions, but the returns are the same as if clients were actually short the index. "It's up to us to keep the fund from losing more money than it has," he says.

    Inverse funds can be especially useful in retirement accounts, where investors don't otherwise have options to short the market. Among the 11 inverse funds that Rydex manages are a few that give shareholders twice the leverage to the underlying index. The Inverse S&P 500 2x Strategy, for instance, gives investors twice as much return for each percentage move down in the S&P 500, but it also generates double the loss for any uptick in the index.

    A Little Leverage Goes a Long Way

    One reason for the popularity of these extra-leveraged bets, also known as ultra funds, is that they give investors the same amount of exposure as the regular fund, with a commitment of only half the money. But because they're twice as risky, King says Rydex tries to make sure customers understand the implications and prefers they work with financial advisers instead of buying directly from Rydex.

    Of course, leverage has to be used wisely. The use of stock index futures accelerated selling pressure in the 1987 crash, but King says that was primarily a result of the way they were used, as opposed to a fundamental flaw in the instruments themselves. "It all comes down to the degree of leverage," he says. "Our funds are leveraged at most 2 to 1. A person using index futures could get leverage approaching 10 to 1 if he wanted to. That's where folks get into trouble. They take on a lot of leverage, where even a small move in the market can wipe out their position."

    The trick to making money from inverse funds is to invest in them before stock prices start to fall, says King.

    A Healthy Margin

    Having been caught in the downdraft in October, 1987, losing a lot of his clients' money, Joseph Biondo Sr. believes in keeping portfolio protection simple. Since the large amount of money borrowed on margin to boost positions was a key contributor to both the 1929 and 1987 crashes, "we limit the amount of margin we'll have a client use to 20% instead of the 50% cap that regulations (allow)," says Biondo, the founder and senior portfolio manager of Biondo Investment Advisors in Milford, Pa.

    For a client who has put up $100,000 to buy $200,000 in stock, it takes just a 50% drop in the market to wipe out the initial investment and force the investor to use the remaining $100,000 to pay back the loan. "We'll only borrow 20% to buy stock, so essentially stocks have to go down 80% for a client to be bankrupt instead of 50%, and that's never happened," he says.

    Hedging with Exposure to All Asset Classes

    There seems to be an unspoken belief in the financial industry that history repeats itself, but Bill Neubauer, an independent financial planner in Miami, says he tries to position his clients for crises that haven't been seen before.

    For Neubauer, the only way to really minimize risk is through extreme diversification, by adding more asset classes that behave differently from one another. Four years ago, he began adding real estate to clients' portfolios. Then he began to shift toward greater international exposure in all asset classes, expanding from stocks to include bonds, currencies, and real estate. International assets now account for 70% of his clients' portfolios, which total roughly $30 million.

    "For them to have a hedging function, they have to be in fairly meaningful quantities," at least 5% of the total portfolio, he says. "The thing people really worry about is correlations and negative correlations being tossed out the window when everything goes down at once." Dispersing his clients' portfolios among five or six major asset classes and 18 subclasses has produced a much smoother ride, he says.

    Targeting Vulnerable Sectors

    Investors can also hedge based on a belief that one type of stock will do worse than other types under certain economic conditions. Team, of Team Financial Strategies, invests in inverse funds that track the Russell 2000 index because he thinks an economic downturn would be much harder on smaller-cap companies. But he balances that by concentrating his long positions in a small number of stocks that are owned by a few value-oriented fund managers he trusts and that trade at a discount of at least 30% to multiples like price-to-sales and price-to-earnings.

    Exchange-traded funds that target particular sectors are another sharp tool for building protection into a portfolio. Kipley Lytel, managing partner at Montecito Capital Management in Montecito, Calif., has been buying shares of UltraShort Financials ProShares (AMEX:SKF - News), an inverse index ETF, on the belief that financial stocks are overpriced and still vulnerable to the credit crisis. "So as financials go down, we'll make money." Montecito's portfolio also includes hard assets like commodities, as well as high-yield and hybrid equity funds, like Hussman Strategic Growth Fund (NASDAQ:HSGFX - News), that can buy index put options.

    The burgeoning portfolio protection strategies probably deserve most of the credit for keeping a lid on irrational exuberance, but the additional caution may also reflect the aging of the biggest investor population, the baby boomers. "They're a little more senior and mature. There's a realization that sensible returns -- between 7% and 15% -- are acceptable, where there was time in the 1990s and late 1980s when people wanted high 10s, low 20s returns," says Biondo. "As people get a little smarter and older, they realize that's not reality and that if you get those types of returns, they're short-lived."

    Buy Stocks Selling for $15 To $100 Or More

    Investor's Business Daily

    It helps to have allies. In stock market investing, institutional investors can be your friends.

    Managers of mutual and pension funds have billions of dollars at their disposal. They sink that cash into stocks they deem worthy. Buddy up with them by investing in the same kinds of stocks they do.

    You won't find many managers in cheap stocks. Why? They know that you get what you pay for. A $2 stock trades at that level for a reason. Usually earnings and sales are lackluster.

    About 3,000 stocks trade below $15. Their average Earnings Per Share Rating is a lowly 14. That's way below the 80 EPS you want for stocks you buy.

    You might hear a lot of hype about some low-priced stocks. Their business is going to be great for this or that reason, you're told. Too often these stocks ride more on promise than performance. When the sizzle fizzles, they don't have much of a foundation and fall fast.

    Most big winners start their runs trading between 25 and 50. More of them have solid earnings and sales records -- proof that they can deliver the goods. They also have a more promising future.

    You might think it's easier for a stock to go from 2 to 4 a share than 30 to 60. But they're both doubles, and the gain is more likely to stick with a stock of substance.

    Plus, don't be fooled into thinking that cheap stocks can't or don't fall as much as high-priced stocks. In reality, the distance between 2 and 1 is the same as 50 and 25.

    And don't be lured by the false benefit of more shares. Sure, $10,000 will buy 5,000 shares of a $2 stock. But that number of shares isn't worth any more than owning 200 shares of a $50 stock.

    Because of higher quality, you have a better chance of cashing in with a higher-priced stock.

    Watching The Leaders Can Be Profitable

    Christina Wise

    Sticking with the leader in an industry group can pay off -- when looking for buy opportunities or tops.

    Think of the leading stock as sort of a canary. It's usually the first to take off in flight and -- according to the old coal mine saying -- the first to signal there may be trouble ahead.

    The leading stock is usually the strongest company in its industry in terms of both fundamentals -- things like earnings and sales growth -- and price performance.

    Perhaps it has a unique product that sets the pace for its industry.

    For instance, when personal computers began to become wildly popular in the 1980s and 1990s, you could have invested in virtually any PC-related stocks and had a pretty good chance of making money.

    But if you'd chosen industry leader Dell (NasdaqGS:DELL - News) as your key investment at that time, you would have made even more money.

    The same thing occurred during the tech frenzy of the 1990s with Microsoft (NasdaqGS:MSFT - News) and its competitors in the software industry.

    Similarly, Wal-Mart's (NYSE:WMT - News) unique supply chain set it apart from the also-rans in the retail industry when it rose to prominence in the late 1990s.

    But when an industry's leader breaks down, flashing clear sell signals on its chart, it probably means the rest of the group is also headed down.

    Watching the leading stock in the group can also help you spot when that group has reached its peak and is heading for a fall.

    For instance, early last summer Google (NasdaqGS:GOOG - News) was arguably the leader in the Internet-Content industry group. It broke out of a base in late May at a 492.60 buy point, then went on to gain 13%.

    But on July 20, it suffered a nasty high-volume fall (point 1), an unquestionable sell signal as shares plummeted. The stock went on to form a new base, though it was smart to sell at least some shares when Google tumbled.

    The break also signaled that Internet stocks were ready to take a break. During the following weeks others in the group, such as Sina (NasdaqGS:SINA - News) and Shanda Interactive Entertainment (NasdaqGS:SNDA - News), which had previously scored some solid gains, also began to come off their highs.

    A good way to quickly size up how a stock compares with its industry peers is to check out its Composite Rating, which appears in the price tables and quotes at investors.com. The rating combines the five IBD ratings into one. Also helpful is the IBD Stock Checkup at investors.com. Its ratings compare a stock to its industry in key metrics.

    Monday, 15 October 2007

    Happy Birthday, Bull

    The major market indices have been on a winning streak for the last five years, and there are several reasons to believe they won't start losing now.

    The bull market turns 5 years old October 10, and while some may celebrate with champagne, others may be drinking for other reasons. Aging bull markets can be a lot like Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard -- well past their prime and a little unstable.

    Most of a bull market's gains come in the first year or two, so an aging bull market typically brings in diminishing returns. Because all bull markets do come to an end eventually, every day this one continues brings us closer to the next bear market.

    But there are still good reasons to think this bull market might carry on a while longer. And when it ends, the ensuing bear probably won't be too fierce.

    For the record, the S&P 500 closed at 776.76 on October 9, 2002, bringing to a merciful end a 2 ½-year decline that erased 49% of the index's value. The next day began a rise that has seen the index climb 103% through a record close of 1,565.15 October 9. (These results do not include dividends.)

    While you can't help but cheer the fact that this key barometer of U.S. stocks has doubled over the last five years, another way to look at it is that an index that loses half its value and then doubles winds up back where it began. In this case, the beginning point was March 24, 2000 when the S&P 500 hit its previous bull-market closing peak of 1,527.46, about where we stand today.

    And as long as we're in a glass-half-empty frame of mind, the 103% recovery at this point in the bull market is the second-weakest of seven post-World War II bull markets that lasted five years or more, according to Standard & Poor's chief investment strategist, Sam Stovall.

    The only slower recovery came during the 1974-80 bull market, when the big-cap stocks represented by the S&P 500 were up 82% at the five-year mark (although, in fairness, small-company stocks performed far better). In contrast, stocks had gained 386% five years into the 1990-2000 bull market.

    Not to pile on, but among bull markets on the global scene, ours is the runt of the litter. Here is a sampling of five-year gains for some foreign indexes maintained by research firm MSCI Barra: EAFE (developed foreign economies) 169%, Emerging Markets 375%, Brazil 1,372%, China 654%, Austria 510%, Sweden 459%, Korea 358%, Ireland 227%.

    But enough nitpicking. Everyone (except short-sellers) would agree that a bull market, even an underachieving one, is better than the alternative. Besides, we're not going to be like Norma Desmond and live in the past. The stock market is a relentlessly forward-looking mechanism. What is most important is what's ahead, or more to the point: How long can this bull market go on? Stovall offers a few insights.

    The ten post-war bull markets have lasted 56 months on average. So this one, at 60 months, is already long in the tooth. But others have lasted 74 months (1974-1980), 86 months (1949-1956) and 113 months (1990-2000).

    During all three of these durable bull markets, stocks posted double-digit gains during the sixth year of the run. That's a good omen. So is the fact that the sixth year will, for the most part, coincide with a presidential election year, which is often a good year for stocks.

    In addition, the Federal Reserve has begun to cut short-term interest rates, which can be good for stocks as long as it's not seen as a desperate move to stave off an imminent recession.

    The falling value of the dollar against other currencies is a worrisome factor, but in the short term it increases profits for many U.S. companies by making exports cheaper to foreign buyers and allowing those foreign sales to be converted back into more dollars.

    More importantly, corporate earnings, which ultimately are the most important factor driving stock market returns, are expected to continue rising. The S&P forecasts that operating earnings will rise 13% in 2008 on top of an expected 6.6% gain for this year.

    Sure, stocks could fall, despite rising earnings, if price-to-earnings ratios shrink. But that's not a likely scenario. P/Es are fairly reasonable -- just 18 times trailing earnings and about 16 times projected operating earnings for next year.

    That's probably the best news of all. Because stock prices aren't out of whack as they were at the start of the last bear market (the S&P 500's trailing P/E was around 32 in March 2000), any reversal for stocks during the next bear market -- whenever it arrives -- should be relatively mild by comparison.

    Sunday, 14 October 2007

    25 Year Old Beauty Seeks Rich Banker

    25 Year Old Beauty Seeks Rich Banker

    05/10/2007 following exchange took place on Craigslist - don’t misss investment banker's response


    'What am I doing wrong?’
    Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from . I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

    Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board ? Any wives ? Could you send me some tips ? I dated a business man who made an average of around 200 - 250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. $250,000 won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker, and lives in Tribeca. She’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right ? How do I get to her level ?

    Here are my questions specifically:
    - Where do you single rich men hang out ? Give me specifics - bars, restaurants, gyms
    - What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings
    - Is there an age range I should be targeting ?
    - Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the so plain? I’ve seen really ‘Plain Jane’ boring types, who have nothing to offer incredibly wealthy guys. Then I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the . What’s the story there ?

    - Lawyers, investment bankers, doctors. How much do those guys really make ? And where do the hedge fund guys hang out ?

    - How do you rich guys decide on marriage vs. just a girlfriend ? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.
    Please hold your insults - I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial - at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice hearth and home'.

    An Investment Banker's Response:

    Dear Pers-431649184:

    'I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.

    Firstly, I’m not wasting your time. I qualify as a guy who fits your bill - that is, I make more than $500K per year. That said, here’s how I see it:

    Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is a plain and simple crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity - in fact, it is very likely that my income will increase, but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

    So, in economic terms, you are a depreciating asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, however, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain - you’re 25 now and will likely remain pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 - stick a fork in you!

    So, in Wall Street terms, we'd call you a trading position - not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to 'buy you' (which is what you’re asking) - so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following: if my money were to go away, so would you - so when your beauty fades I need an out too. It’s as simple as that. So the deal that makes sense for me is dating, not marriage.

    Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as 'articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful' as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that, if you are as gorgeous as you say you are, your $500K man hasn’t found you - if only for a tryout.

    By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money - and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

    With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic 'pump and dump'. I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, please let me know'.

    Saturday, 13 October 2007

    Cashing In

    by Jonathan Clements
    provided by

    How to play banks for all you're worth

    Welcome to cash management, 2007-style.

    Forget the quaint notion that you should have your checking account, credit card and savings account all at the same bank.

    Instead, look to cherry-pick the best of these accounts -- with the goal of sidestepping fees, piling up credit-card rewards, earning extra interest and building a great credit score. Sound like a lot of work? It doesn't have to be.

    Boosting yield.

    Start by getting a no-fee, no-interest checking account with little or no required minimum balance, advises Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. Many banks now offer such accounts.

    Not collecting interest might seem like a bum deal. But, in truth, this isn't a big loss. On average, interest-paying checking accounts now require a $3,300 balance to avoid fees -- and, even then, you will earn interest averaging just 0.3%, according to a recent Bankrate survey.

    Result? You're better off with a low-minimum checking account and then sweeping your extra cash into a high-yield online savings or money-market account, such as those offered by EmigrantDirect, HSBC Direct and ING Direct. High-yield online accounts typically pay 4% and sometimes 5% interest.

    You can link these accounts electronically to your low-minimum checking account. That will allow you to shift surplus cash into the online account so you earn interest until your next batch of expenses comes due, at which point you can move the money back.

    Transfers might take 48 hours. One warning: Don't keep your checking-account balance too low -- or you might overdraw the account, triggering hefty fees. "A $30 overdraft fee could wipe out a couple of months of interest," Mr. McBride cautions.

    Getting rewarded.

    To complement your low-minimum checking account and high-yield savings account, you'll want the right credit cards. Indeed, if used deftly, your cards will help you to collect rewards, build a great credit score and earn even more interest.

    The strategy: Pile expenses onto credit cards that pay cash back or other rewards. Until these bills come due, keep your money in your online savings account, where it will earn interest. As an added bonus, by paying off your cards every month, you should build up a good credit score.

    All this comes with a few caveats. Pick your rewards cards carefully. To get a sense for what's available, check out the offerings from large issuers such as American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, Citigroup, Discover Financial and J.P. Morgan Chase.

    It's easy to find a no-fee card that will give you 1% cash back, and some pay 3% or even 5% on certain purchases. But be leery of rewards cards with annual fees. Those fees probably aren't worth paying unless you're a big spender.

    Ideally, to help your credit score, try to avoid using more than 10% of the credit limit on your cards, counsels credit expert John Ulzheimer, author of "You're Nothing but a Number." If you find it hard to keep below that threshold, he suggests applying for more credit cards or asking your current cards to raise your credit limit.

    Finally, be careful not to overspend or you may not have enough to pay off your card bills in full, at which point you will get hit with financing charges. My advice: Keep a running tally of your monthly card charges so there are no unpleasant surprises when the bills arrive.

    Because of the risk of overspending, some folks prefer debit cards, where the money comes straight out of their checking account. Problem is, debit-card rewards usually aren't as generous as credit-card rewards, and there's less chance to earn interest because you're paying for your purchases right away.

    In addition, debit-card activity usually isn't reported to the credit bureaus, so your prudence won't earn you a good credit score. Still, a\ debit card, combined with a low-interest credit card, may be your best bet if you're less financially disciplined and sometimes carry a credit-card balance.

    Copyrighted, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

    Is Your Image Hurting Your Career?

    by Penelope Trunk

    Being overweight or sloppily dressed is worse for your career than being a poor performer.

    I'm not saying this is fair, I'm saying it's true. So manage your weight, and manage the image you project at work, and you'll do wonders for your career.

    If you doubt that your image can inhibit your career, think about this: According to a 2005 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, good-looking people make more money than average-looking people for doing exactly the same work.

    Fit in Every Way

    Before you get up in arms over how unfair it is to discriminate against people who are overweight, consider that there may be some rationale behind it. If you're overweight, you're probably not exercising every day. But regular exercise increases peoples' ability to cope with difficult situations in the workplace and, according to University of Illinois kinesiology professor Charles Hillman, might even make people smarter.

    And the same self-discipline we use to make ourselves exercise regularly and eat in moderation carries over into other aspects of our lives. This is probably why, in a study from Leeds Metropolitan University, people who exercise regularly were found to be better at time-management and more productive than those who don't.

    So don't kid yourself that if you do good work it won't matter if you're overweight. It's sort of like people who have messy desks: The perception is that they're low-performers, poor time-managers, and not clear thinkers. This might not be true at all, but the only thing they can do to overcome the perceptions of their coworkers is clean their desks.

    Make Image a Priority

    What makes this information particularly troubling is that so many people say they can't make time to exercise and eat right because they need to work instead. In fact, if you're overweight, you should probably put aside some of your work, accept that you won't be performing as well at the office, and manage your image more closely by going to the gym.

    That's right -- get rid of that perfectionist streak, do a little less work, and use that time to make yourself look better. People will perceive that you're doing better work anyway. So instead of rationalizing why you can put work ahead of taking care of your health, start acting like a healthy person. Go to the gym at lunch, or leave work at 5 to hit the gym. Reorganize your schedule to make health a priority and your coworkers will respect you for it.

    Here's something else: Dress like you care. Building a strong brand for yourself is the only way to create a stable career in today's workplace. You'll change jobs often, and what influences your ability to get new jobs most is the image you convey. People judge that before they judge one word that comes out of your mouth.

    A Career Constant

    I didn't have a weight problem when I owned my first company, but I did have an image problem -- I was younger than almost everyone, and my mentor told me my age was creating problems. So I hired an image consultant to drag me around town and spend lots of money until I looked more grown up.

    I still worry about image issues today -- everyone does, no matter where they are in their career. It's just that today I worry less about looking older and more about what shirt is right for an appearance on CNN. The point is that issues of image are ongoing in a career that matters.

    So don't be overweight and don't dress carelessly. These are just as detrimental to your career as doing your work poorly. And if my bringing this up makes you angry, consider being more forgiving, because anger is a risk factor for obesity. Besides, forgiveness makes people more resilient to difficulties because it's about seeing the world in a positive light -- which is, of course, also good for your image.

    Monday, 8 October 2007

    Asia verges on major asset inflation, says CLSA

    the world's biggest debtor is finding out what happens when all that money comes home: a credit crunch in the US and soaring growth in Asia, says Russell Napier of CLSA.

    The US Federal Reserve is locked in a great battle with inflation – and thereby triggering an exodus of private foreign capital to Asia, writes CLSA strategist Russell Napier, in a recent report.

    The effect is damaging for the US, but beneficial for Asia, he points out.

    Investors are leaving because fighting inflation throttles economic activity and is thus bad for growth and asset prices in the US. “Inflation will be a stubborn presence of the next decade or more," writes Napier. "I believe that the great disinflationary following wind (of the last 13 years in the US) is abating, and that the Fed is running out of easy options."

    The notion of capital flight is clearly disastrous for the US, which relies on $476 billion in foreign funds per quarter to drive its credit-driven economy, according to figures produced by CLSA.

    The effect on investors in Asia would be favourable, however. Instead of the tough, deflationary environment of the last 15 years, the inflow of capital would bring monetary easing and less stringent conditions for nominal growth. Asset prices would rise, representing a great buying opportunity for investors.

    Napier gives the scenario a twist, however: as private investors switch out of US assets, Asian central banks step in. Otherwise, the dollar becomes too weak, and harms Asian export-focused economies. This intervention will further encourage asset price inflation in Asia.


    Both the private and public sectors of foreign countries are major players in funding the US. But the private sector is, unexpectedly, far more important. Just 17% of the $13.8 trillion in assets owned by foreigners in the US are owned by foreign central banks. As a proportion of US GDP, non-US central banks account for less than 1%. But private inflows account for almost 3%. Napier also calculates that 90% of Fed funds paper and repos (that is, short term financing instruments) and 40% of checkable deposits are owned by foreign private investors.

    As the central banks step in, explains Napier, they generate domestic liquidity, setting the scene for further domestic asset price inflation. “Central bank support for the US dollar must accelerate, and with it (the growth of) non-US dollar money.”


    There are really two inter-related factors stimulating Asian inflation, writes Napier. Central banks are being forced to substitute for private capital by buying US dollars; and the same private capital is returning to Asian countries looking for a home – a double whammy. Both actions are inflationary, in the sense that they add liquidity. Assets become scarce relative to that liquidity and rise in price.

    The effect on domestic liquidity works likes this: Asian banks print their own currency in order to buy US dollars. Printing and selling their own currencies to buy dollars maintains (or even increases) the currency weakness central banks want – but it also increases the units of their own currency in circulation, fuelling domestic inflation. “Central banks will have to pick up the slack, shifting more and more funds into US dollars to prevent their currencies standing out as the strong global currency,” he writes. In other words, those enormous forex reserves in the region will grow, since they are not sufficient to prevent the decline of the US dollar.

    There is a range of currency systems in Asia. Under the Hong Kong system, for example, any inflow of US dollars has to be matched by the creation of the exact equivalent amount of Hong Kong dollar. This also stimulates liquidity in the financial system, eventually feeding into the stock and property markets. Territories and countries with such tight pegs are especially prone to asset inflation, says Napier, including Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore.



    If foreign private capital does leave the US, the effect will be serious, since it’s a major factor keeping interest rates down and the dollar strong. That will make US assets even less attractive to investors and encourage further a switch by the private sector out of the US.

    What about the evidence private investors are turning against the US? Napier reckons the credit crunch is merely a sign that foreign investors have suddenly realised that they are unwise to hold so many US assets. “The rising price of US mortgage credit is really just an indication of the finite appetite of Asian/petrodollar savings for US dollar assets. Mortgage backed securities (MBS) were one dish too many.”

    He adds the likely trigger was the collapse of the US dollar to an all-time low against a basket of currencies in February this year. At roughly the same time, the Chinese government was making it easier for private – not state – investors to buy foreign assets. Napier reckons the realisation that Chinese investors would not be interested in crumbling US assets encouraged Japanese investors to switch out of US assets as well.

    The great unwinding of the US credit bubble has been predicted many times before. The idea that Asia will continue to prop up the US is a tempting one. But if local asset prices get too high, one must fear that even Asian central bankers will have to tighten their purse strings. Whether the US will survive the resulting Asian slowdown is probably the key question of the next decade.

    Singapore's Economy Shows Signs of Overheating, Economists Say

    By Shamim Adam

    Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore's economy risks overheating as home prices reach the highest in a decade, companies hire workers at an unprecedented pace and the stock market soars to record levels, economists say.

    Inflation at a 12-year high and an economy expanding ``a little too rapidly'' mean signs of overheating are ``a few too many for comfort,'' Robert Prior-Wandesforde, an economist at HSBC Holdings Plc in Singapore, said in an Oct. 3 report.

    ``Consumer prices are by no means the only thing running relatively hot in the economy at present,'' Prior-Wandesforde said. ``A buoyant labor market was accompanied by strong wage growth. The Straits Times index has also risen nearly 50 percent over the last year.''

    Singapore's economy grew an annualized 14.4 percent in the second quarter, the fastest pace in two years, fueled by construction and financial services. Employers added a record number of workers in the same period, pushing the jobless rate to a six-year low as service companies increased hiring.

    ``The overheating problem in India and China has now spilled over to Singapore,'' Deyi Tan, an economist at Morgan Stanley in Singapore, wrote in an Oct. 3 report. ``Not only has persistently strong growth resulted in an office space crunch, labor supply needs have also led to a jump in the foreign population. Residential property is booming and expat schools are oversubscribed.''

    Office rents in Singapore's central business district are at record highs as financial institutions, lured to the city- state by corporate tax cuts, expand their businesses.

    Home Prices

    Singapore's private residential prices rose 8 percent to a 10-year high in the third quarter, the government said on Oct. 1. Home prices have increased every quarter in the past 3 1/2 years, according to data from the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

    Singapore's consumer price index increased 2.9 percent in August from a year earlier, in part after an increase in the goods and services tax the month before.

    The central bank expects inflation in 2007 to be between 1 percent and 2 percent, it said on Aug. 27, up from a previous range of 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent. Consumer prices may rise as much as 2 percent next year.

    The island's longest economic expansion since 1991 and the prospect of higher salaries are prompting more Singaporeans to enter the labor force. Average monthly wages climbed 8.5 percent in the second quarter, the fastest since 2000.

    Income gains are fueling consumer spending at restaurants and department stores, and may help the economy achieve the government's forecast of as much as 8 percent growth this year.

    `Signs of Overheating'

    The $134 billion Southeast Asian economy may expand 8.5 percent this year, and grow 7.3 percent in 2008, HSBC predicts.

    ``If forecasts are right and the country can look forward to another 12 months of above-trend expansion, then there will be less and less spare capacity in the economy and hence more and more signs of overheating,'' Prior-Wandesforde said.

    The Monetary Authority of Singapore targets its currency instead of interest rates to guide monetary conditions and control price gains.

    The central bank will probably maintain a three-year policy of allowing a ``modest and gradual'' appreciation of its currency when it reviews its policy next week, the HSBC and Morgan Stanley economists said.

    The city-state's government may also take steps to cool demand for homes and ease the labor market crunch, Prior- Wandesforde said.

    It may avoid waiting too long and ``act sooner rather than later'' to damp property price gains, he said. ``Increasing immigration quotas is another tool that has been used in the past to cool a hot labor market.''

    A slowdown in the economies of the U.S. and others globally may also ease Singapore's risk of overheating, the analysts said.

    ``Singapore remains the most exposed to external conditions within Asia,'' Morgan Stanley's Tan wrote. ``The global soft- landing that lies ahead will help cool the economy.''

    Saturday, 6 October 2007

    Ben Stein talks about investments

    Kamil Skawinski

    Most of us remember Ben Stein from the hit 1986 John Hughes comedy, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," where he gave that inimitable performance as the ever-droning high school teacher who labored to explain intellectually challenging economic concepts such as "voodoo economics" to a group of thoroughly disinterested teens.

    At a glance

    Name: Ben Stein
    Hometown: Washington, D.C.
    Education: Graduate Columbia University, 1966, with a B.A. and honors in Economics; Yale Law School, 1970
    Career highlights:

    • Active in civil rights
    • Economist with the Department of Commerce
    • Speechwriter at the White House for presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford
    • Taught at American University in Washington, D.C., the University of California at Santa Cruz, and at Pepperdine Law School
    • Screenwriter, TV writer, syndicated columnist, author of 23 books, latest of which is "The Real Stars"
    • Helped to create the cult hit Fernwood Tonight; wrote the outline for the ABC miniseries "Amerika"; producer of the television movie "Murder in Mississippi"
    • Appeared in about 30 movies and TV series, but most fondly remembered for his role in 1980s comedy hit, "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"
    • Honorary chairperson of the National Retirement Planning Coalition
    • Lives in Beverly Hills, Calif., with wife, Alexandra, and son, Thomas

    Not unlike in the popular film, the ever-affable economist, lawyer, former White House speechwriter, Hollywood personality and author is again reprising his role as educator, but this time the subject is much more serious and the information he has to convey could be life altering, depending on whether or not his "students" actually pay attention.

    As honorary chairperson of the National Retirement Planning Coalition, Stein is the writer and star of three two-minute segments on retirement-readiness. Focusing on a simple and practical plan, he guides viewers on how to get started as well as how to gain and grow income.

    Stein recently sat down with Bankrate to share his insights and recommendations for how one can better prepare oneself financially for the future.

    Why are Americans finding saving for retirement so challenging? What aren't they getting when it comes to retirement?

    Well, what people aren't getting is the basic idea of deferred gratification. They basically want to have everything that they want now -- but, of course, they also simultaneously want to have all the savings that they will need for their future. What they haven't gotten is that you just can't have everything all at once. So, they're like children … and they think that everything should and will be provided for them by Mommy and Daddy -- be it a real mommy or daddy, or an employer or the government. And that's just not going to happen.

    There needs to be a greater measure of personal accountability and responsibility out there because retirement is something we all know is coming and it's something that we, if we choose to, can all actually do something about. If you want to live well at 75, you have to plan for that when you're 45.

    Yet there are still many out there who are convinced that the federal government will inevitably step in and come up with a solution that will save everyone who had not prepared for the reality of life in retirement.

    To provide all of the future retiring baby boomers with a middle-class existence upon retirement, the sum of money needed would be so large that it would not be in the grasp of the federal government to raise, let alone provide. And so it's just not going to happen -- and it never has historically happened.

    Social Security has always been just a small fraction of what people need to live on when they retire, and it will continue to be just a small fraction of what people need to live on when they retire. Now, yes, there's been lots of talk lately of fixing Social Security in the future, but it'll change only in the sense that there will be tremendous cutbacks in the amounts that will be paid to us middle-class and upper-middle-class people. But in terms of what's ultimately going be paid out to those who perhaps hadn't saved, well, they're not going to get another $20,000 to $30,000 a year from Social Security.

    What about those who are concerned and want to be prepared? Given the recent volatility in the stock markets, both here and abroad, there is more apprehension among investors than there used to be, prompting some to be more conservative with their money. Are they right in thinking that CDs and money market accounts are now preferable to stocks and bonds over the short-term? Or is now precisely the best time to invest in the stock market?

    If you want rewards, you have to take risks. If you don't want to take risks, you can't expect too much in the way of rewards. The reason you get those excess returns, the reason you get returns greater than you would otherwise get from having your money in a money market fund or a Treasury bond, is because there is that risk component to the stock market. And so the very reason some folks complain about and use to justify their not putting money into the stock market is the exact same reason why it pays off better than the less risky investments.

    People have to be brave and go into it. Yes, there will be some periods of slumps. There may even be some periods of extremely prolonged slumps, and there is always a chance that you could lose a lot of money in a downturn, too. But, all in all, the broad market indexes will over time be much more likely than not to give you a much better return on your money. Sure, it can be scary sometimes, but I guarantee you that back in July and August, back when the U.S. stock market went down, you had some very, very smart people, like Warren Buffett, buying stocks, putting significant sums of money into the market.

    Now, not everyone might be well-served putting a lot of their money into the stock market. If you're already a senior, this might not be a good idea. The woman who is 83 years old today, for example, will be much better off keeping her money liquid in CDs or money markets that pay that safe-and-steady 5-plus-percent rate of return. Even putting money into a broad market index fund could be too risky for a person in that particular situation.

    But for younger people, investing the bulk of their money in "safe investments" has two significant risks that cannot be minimized: the inflation risk and the longevity risk. When you're young, almost all of your money should be in stocks. And only as you get older should you have more liquidity -- more money in bonds or CDs.

    And here I also want to add that I see a role for variable annuities to accumulate gains tax-free, and then for regular (immediate) annuities to guarantee you money for your whole life. There are new versions of these with reasonable fees, inflation guarantees and other worthwhile features. They should not be ignored.

    Your upcoming book, "Yes, You Can Supercharge Your Portfolio!" deals with how one can make one's investments much better performing and safer from risks. Can you, in a nutshell, describe what it covers and what recommendations it makes?

    This book is probably the most substantive that my partner-in-crime, Phil DeMuth, and I have written to date -- to be honest, it's 99.99 percent Phil's work, with a word or two thrown in by me. It basically tells you everything you need to know about the value of diversification and the value of weighting according to volatility and size, weighting toward small-cap and foreign stocks in both emerging and established markets. Phil, in fact, gets into foreign markets and how they're especially good because they'll be a very good play on the falling dollar.

    It's the sort of book you'll want to have tucked under your arm when you go and see a broker.

    Index funds and Exchange-Traded Funds -- or ETFs -- appear to be a big part of that investment strategy.

    Yes, I love index funds and ETFs. Index funds and ETFs are inexpensive to buy and own. They afford you immediate diversification, and they're extremely tax-efficient investments. Their performance is terrific and you aren't paying exorbitant fees to a fund manager. They're also very stable, meaning you don't have to worry about any unexpected changes a manager might make, or worry about the impact of a management change, or worry about winding up overexposed to any particular market sector.

    Now, Mr. (John) Bogle and I might disagree as to which are ultimately better, but I find both index funds and ETFs equally good and attractive. Personally, I don't see a huge difference between them.

    And as for ETFs, I especially like EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets) and EFA (iShares MSCI EAFE Index), as well as those that invest in REITs, like RQI (Cohen & Steers Quality Realty) and, especially, ICF (iShares Cohen & Steers Realty Majors). Incidentally, they're now practically giving these away, in my opinion. I mean it's just a joke how cheap they've become.

    Some market pundits advocate as much as a 40 percent allocation to foreign stock funds. Is that too much to have invested abroad today?

    No. I actually think that that is a very good idea. Forty percent, today, isn't at all an unreasonable allocation. I personally don't have that much invested in foreign markets, but I should. Having a higher exposure to foreign markets than we've been used to is now a positive, not a negative.

    Your book gives straightforward guidance about supercharging a portfolio for growth. Will it also be possible to use it to create a supercharged portfolio for income?

    No, no, this new book is not about income, it's about growth and definitely not about income or an income portfolio. We actually wrote a different book on that subject years ago called, "Yes, You Can Become a Successful Income Investor." That's still a damn good book, but it's now quite out of date because, since it was written, the Federal Reserve changed interest rates and other things in the economy have also changed. It's still a very good book to read because, generally, its principles are still valid.

    Returning to the growth portfolio then, when and how should one go about rebalancing?

    Okay, I don't rebalance at all and, actually, I don't believe in rebalancing. If the stock part of your portfolio is doing well, then there is no reason why things should be rebalanced into bonds.

    The only exception is when you get much, much older. Only when you are considerably older should you seriously consider rebalancing out of stocks and into bonds -- and then only into short-term bonds or into cash, but never long-term bonds. Stocks just give you a much greater return on your money, and only when you get into your seventies should you really consider moving into other more liquid investments or cash.

    Have you any final words of advice or thoughts you'd like to share with Bankrate readers?

    If there's one thing I would like you to really emphasize it is this: It's great to have money, but it's also great to lighten up about it. Try to approach it all with a free spirit, and not to approach it all as some sort of morbid duty. Nobody is ever going to get it perfect, so do the best you can. Not even a Warren Buffett is going to get everything right all of the time, so don't beat yourself up if you don't.


    Monday, 1 October 2007

    There's No Inflation (If You Ignore Facts)

    By Daniel Gross
    Newsweek

    Oct. 8, 2007 issue - Imagine that a cardiologist told you that aside from the irregular heartbeat, the stratospheric cholesterol count and a little blockage in your aorta, your core heart functions are just fine.

    That's precisely what the government's cardiologist—Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve—has just done. The central bank is supposed to make sure the economy grows fast enough to create jobs and make everybody richer, but not so fast that it produces inflation, which makes everybody poorer. "Readings on core inflation have improved modestly this year," the Federal Open Market Committee said in justifying its 50-basis-point interest-rate cut last month, while conceding that "some inflation risks remain."

    Catch that bit about "core inflation"? That's Fedspeak for: inflation is under control, unless you look at the costs of things that are going up. The core rate excludes the prices of food and energy, which can be volatile from month to month. Factor them in, and inflation is about as moderate as Newt Gingrich. In the first eight months of 2007, the consumer price index—the main gauge of inflation—rose at a 3.7 percent annual rate.

    That's more than 50 percent higher than the mild 2.3 percent core rate. The prices of energy and food are soaring, at 12.7 percent and 5.6 percent annual rates, respectively, and have been doing so for years. As a result, the CPI—including food and energy—has risen 12.6 percent since July 2003, for a compound rate of about 3 percent.

    Signs of inflation are evident throughout the economy. When investors fear a rising inflationary tide, they latch onto the driftwood of gold. The day Bernanke cut rates, the price of the precious metal soared to heights not seen since 1980, when inflation ran at nearly 12 percent! I read about this in The Wall Street Journal (whose newsstand price rose 50 percent in July), which I picked up in the lobby of a New York hotel (where the average nightly rate soared 12.5 percent in the first seven months of 2007 from 2006, according to PKF Consulting) while sipping on a Starbucks Frappuccino (whose price has risen twice since last October).

    There are sound macro-economic reasons to believe higher inflation may be a fact of economic life, according to former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who discusses the topic in his new memoir, "The Age of Turbulence." (Apparently, the editors killed the original title: "The Dotcom Bubble Wasn't My Fault. Nor Was the Housing Bubble.") Greenspan notes that vast anti-inflationary forces in the 1990s—especially China's emergence as a low-cost producer of goods—helped tamp down prices. But China's rampant growth and rising living standards could encourage inflation. "China's wage-rate growth should mount, as should its rate of inflation," he writes.

    Indeed. China's CPI leapt forward 6.5 percent between August 2006 and August 2007, the highest rate in 11 years. One of the main culprits? An 18.2 percent year-over-year increase in the price of food. In still-poor China, food expenditures account for 37 percent of the CPI, compared with 14 percent in the United States. In a recent paper, Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace warns of China's "gathering inflation storm," powered in part by "explosive price increases in key consumer categories" like noodles and pork.
    China is bound to export its inflation—it exports everything else, after all—either in the form of higher prices for toys, or in the form of higher global prices for the commodities it consumes in increasingly huge gulps.

    The Wall Street Journal noted that iron-ore producers are about to ask for a 50 percent price increase for 2008, thanks to rising demand from Chinese steelmakers. Chinese car sales are up 25 percent through August, which helps support oil prices.

    In the United States, companies are passing along high-er commodity and fuel costs by boosting prices, slashing portions and tacking fuel surcharges onto things ranging from deliveries to lawn service. And because food and energy prices are so visible—the prices are posted in public, and consumers buy these goods frequently—price increases have a disproportionate impact on perceptions of inflation. Each month the Conference Board asks consumers what they expect the rate of inflation will be for the next 12 months.

    The figure has been above 5 percent since April.

    China's government is trying to deal with its inflation in predictably Orwellian fashion. "Beijing has instructed local provincial and urban statistical bureaus in a subtle form of denial—they are not to use the word 'inflation' to describe what is happening," notes Keidel. It's easy to mock Beijing's clumsy bureaucrats. But by focusing on core inflation, the Federal Reserve—along with the legions of investors who reacted ecstatically to the interest-rate cut—is practicing its own subtle form of denial.

    Private programs, refunds and naive investors

    by Tony Clifton

    Imagine you were a scammer.

    What would you want? What would be your most important goals?

    To get as much money as you can and to get out clean.

    Most HYIP investors seem to have problem putting themselves in the scammer's shoes. This of course means that they are honest people and hardly can think like a scammer, but also makes them naive and pliable to fraud.

    In two occasions I regularly see some otherwise smart people to turn naive when it comes to high yield investing.

    Private Programs


    It's widely known that when a program announce going private that often means they are about to scam. However if the program keeps paying after few months of closing for new members, most investors turn into easy believers.

    Their arguments are simple: "If they were a scam why would they not accept new spends?". "If they were scam, why would they be paying and not just pack and run away?".

    These arguments of course make sense. But I have answers which also make sense. Let's before that see the other occasion:

    Programs Paying Refunds


    This does not happen so often in the HYIP world, but recently we've seen some major scams to issue refunds before disappearing (MPDW, GoldenRocks, WiredSurf, FXIG and more).

    Of course the first thing which comes to your mind when you see a program to issue refund is that it can't be scam. Why would a scammer pay some of the money out instead of running with all of it? Why did MPDW paid some money at the end, why did GoldenRocks refund some happy members?

    There are good reasons for doing this...

    The Reasons


    In both occasions listed above we have basically one and the same thing - a program which does not take money, but pays out. Just that fact by itself immediately makes most of us think that the HYIP in question is not a scam.

    They want us to think that.

    It's really as simple as it sounds. They do it because they want us to believe. Why? Just because of their ego and to calm down their destiny? Maybe some con artists have some moral, but the majority do not.

    The reasons are mostly two:

    Fear


    Have you ever done anything wrong in your life? Have you been unfaithful in your marriage, have you skip reporting taxes or have you driven with higher speed that allowed? If ever you've done something wrong you may know what the fear of the consequnces is.

    The fear is what makes scammers do everything possible to make you believe they are honest. They are afraid of being caught and put in the jail. We as investors know that this happen very rare, but when you are on the other side, the things are different. Even the slightest danger of being caught breaks your sleep and nerves.

    This is especially valid for scams which have provided admin's address and ID. (MPDW or FXIG for example). If people understand that they are scammed and know the admin's name and address they can send authorities against them or just go crazy and visit their houses to "advice" the scammer in person.

    That's why instead of just disappearing such programs issue parital refunds, report losses, keep posting in forums or update their members by email about the efforts to "recover" the program.

    Future Plans


    I can't believe that many investors don't think about this. If you have ever invested long term you shouldn't be surprised that the con artists invest in their fraudient business too. Creating a HYIP scam is a business and these worms are investing in their business in their future.

    They issue refunds now to return in the future with their new "limited time" or "private" offer. They are not accepting members now to make us believe that they are for real. Then they will either start accepting members in a new sub-program or just allow the current members (who are completely devoted at this stage are are ready to get a second mortgage) to add more funds to their investments.

    Don't be naive, the scammers are not stupid. They don't act straight and their intentions can't be decrypted so easy. They don't follow the simplest logic - if they were doing that, they would never survive the competition. If the scammers were not sophisticated, they wouldn't be able to take so much money from the investors.

    There were few real HYIPs who strugled to clean the face of this arena. Most of them just failed, other survived to make 3% - 5% monthly (which is great of course), but most which people considered "real" were just scams. All these programs were trusted at some point, people were passionately defending them on forums, some of them were private, ID verified and issued refunds. They are all scams now. Browse the net to study their stories and you'll learn a lot about the sophisticated scams.

    I still haven't seen the real HYIP which pays 10% monthly or close to this figure. Believing that such exists and will work for your $100 is simply naive.

    When NOT To Invest In An Online Business

    by Andrew Shim

    A friend of mine, Joe (not his real name) recently asked for my opinion about investing in an online business. He had found this "fantastic" money making opportunity on the Internet. Joe was thinking of investing a substantial amount. All he had to do for this "online business" was view a couple of websites a day and he would be paid a percentage of his investment every month. He said some people were making thousands every week! When I heard this, red lights flashed in my mind and they were screaming "SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!"

    When he had finished telling me about the "investment", I asked him two questions: "Don't you think it sounds too good to be true and have you done any background research into this?" Joe said he did do some checking and although he found a fair bit of criticism about this "investment" on a couple of online forums and chat rooms, he was still willing to invest and see if it worked. I then asked, "Joe, you sound desperate. Is everything OK with your business?" The truth finally came out. Joe's business had folded about a month earlier and YES, he was desperate. I advised him to hold on to his money - that he would need all his money to help him and his family through the tough time ahead. I offered walk him through starting an online business if he really wanted to - just not this particular one.

    This wasn't the first time someone had asked me about such "investments" when they were in the midst of a crisis. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. It's so very easy to believe what you read on the Internet. The web is filled with millions of sites that guarantee you riches if you will just make a "minimal investment". The cold, hard fact is that there are many irresponsible internet marketers out there who prey on the weakness of desperate folk, getting them to part with their money - which is a precious commodity when you're jobless - to make themselves rich.

    Most people fail to realize that in many ways, an online business is like a regular business. It takes time and effort to build it into something successful. It definitely does not happen overnight the way many internet marketers would have you believe. After all, if they told you the truth - that it DOES take time and effort - would you part with your money so easily?

    Here are some examples of when you should AVOID investing in an online business:

    *When you've just lost your job or source of income. The sense of desperation leads many into rash decisions that they soon regret and they are left much poorer!

    *When you're all hyper after discovering that one-in-a-million opportunity which needs your response A.S.A.P because "places are limited".

    *When you've had a bad day at the office, and you've been grilled by your boss and you want out - NOW!

    *When you read or hear someone tell you how "easy" it is to make tons of money on the internet and they want you to join them - NOW!

    *When you suddenly find yourself in a financial crisis.

    *When you've just quarreled for the thousandth time with your wife about money.

    You get the message - DON'T invest in an online business when you're emotionally charged. That's exactly what internet marketers WANT you to do! I know it's hard to do but channel all that energy and frustration into research instead. Do it as if your life depended on it - and it probably does. Be ruthless in your fact-finding. Be objective in what you read and hear. Be merciless in rooting out potential SCAMS. Give yourself some breathing space, do your homework and when you find an online business that you are confident about, JUMP IN! Go into it with all your heart and don't stop till you've reached your goal!

    Until then, I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it - the Online Business Pie is growing everyday. There is ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE plus more to spare! It's not going to just disappear one day so don't worry. When you're ready, you can dig in and enjoy your slice of the pie too - Cheers!

    Goldman Sachs Information, Comments, Opinions and Facts