My apologies

  This is a brief note to explain the weird formatting of the most recent post. My knowledge of the economy and the markets is not, sadly, matched by my knowledge of Typepad and HTML. I have tried on numerous occasions to post really interesting articles to the blog only to have the perfectly attractive postings somehow transformed into a mess as I process them through Typepad. I am working on this but, in the interim, I thought it made more sense to post slightly odd looking postings than to postpone them until that distant day when I fully master HTML etc.

                                              Mike

                                                

The case for the bears

  This is an article published in the Financial Times of London and it outlines the difficulties faced by those of us who are concerned about the imbalances in the current economic environment.

Philip Coggan: Even the bears are divided between two camps
Published:

January 27 2006

  | Last updated:

January 27 2006

 

Last week, I spelt out why the “new bulls” believe the future could be rosy for both economies and the stock market. In essence, they argue that the emergence of

India

and

China

is boosting output and profits while keeping the lid on inflation.

Now it is the turn of the bearish case. Their argument is based on the presumption that the excesses of the dotcom bubble have not been shaken out of the system. Shares may have fallen a long way between March 2000 and March 2003, but they never reached a level that could be called cheap in historical terms.

That is because the central banks stepped in to protect the economy by cutting interest rates. That seemed good at the time; a sharp recession was avoided, as was the kind of financial crisis that was associated with past bear markets. But the bears argue that this was the equivalent of a drunk having another beer to stave off a hangover; it may feel better in the short term, but in the long run the headache will be worse.

The bears believe central banks have simply stimulated another bubble, in the housing market, to replace the technology boom. Rising house prices have boosted consumer confidence and kept them spending, despite the loss in their equity wealth between 2000 and 2003.

In terms of where we go from here, the bearish camp tends to split in two. One half believes inflation is the inevitable result. Indeed, that group believes we are already experiencing inflation; it is simply not being picked up in the official statistics. They are contemptuous of “core” inflation measures that leave out vital items such as energy and food, and argue we should pay a lot more attention to asset and commodity prices, particularly gold.

The steady rise of the yellow metal is a sign, they believe, that investors are worried about inflation and are seeking safety in the one true source of value. Paper money, they argue, always depreciates to its intrinsic value; that is, nothing.

The Federal Reserve, the bears say, has consistently intervened to rescue markets when share prices are falling sharply but has refused to puncture bubbles, whether in technology stocks or in housing. The result has been the “Greenspan put”; the increased willingness of investors to take risks because they believe the Fed is underwriting asset values.

Eventually, the bears argue, high debt levels will overwhelm consumers. When it does, the Fed, under new chairman, Ben Bernanke, will allow a “helicopter drop” of money into the

US

economy. The resulting inflation will alleviate the debt problem but result in a collapse in the dollar and cause substantial damage to the portfolios of those invested in cash or bonds.

The other half of the bearish camp agrees that high debt levels are a problem. But they argue that central banks will prove powerless to stop deflationary forces, just as the Bank of Japan failed in the 1990s. The result will be a deflationary depression. This camp believes one should own government bonds and large amounts of cash, in case of a collapse in the banking system.

This is one problem with accepting the bearish argument; it results in two completely divergent investment approaches.

How do bears deal with the bullish arguments advanced last week?

They argue that equities may look cheap relative to bonds but this is faulty analysis based on a shaky theory and selective analysis of the data.

The so-called earnings yield ratio is a case in point. Why should falling bond yields be good for equities? If yields are falling because inflation expectations are lower, then forecasts for nominal earnings growth should be reduced. And if yields are falling because the economy looks weak, then expectations for real profits growth should decline as well.

Andrew Smithers of the consultancy Smithers & Co says the only useful valuation approaches are the Q ratio (which compares share prices with the replacement cost of net assets) and the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio. Both make equities look expensive.

As for the recent profits rise, the bears argue this is more cyclical than structural. At the top of the cycle, one should be paying lower-than-average valuations for equities, not higher.

On the role of

India

and

China

, the bears tend to divide. Some see the Asian story as the latest of the “different this time” arguments that regularly lure investors into overpaying for assets; others see

Asia

as the force that will cause the eventual deflationary bust.

So how can we compare the two arguments? I think there is merit in the case that easy money has been pushing up the prices of financial assets; why else would gold, index-linked gilts and emerging markets all be going up?

These benign conditions may not last. Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, worried in a recent speech that the low level of yields was unsustainable and could lead to disruption in financial markets.

The governor was non-committal about the timing and this remains a problem for many of the bearish arguments; people have been warning about the risks of high debt levels for a very long time, without an apocalypse occurring.

Nevertheless, before we reach the paradise foreseen by the bulls, I find it hard to believe there will not be a significant market setback. And that is why investors should keep plenty of cash in their portfolios.

philip.coggan@ft.com

The Fed. steps up the pressure.

Rather Dense but pertinent. The words are not my words but I agree with the conclusions.

                                                 ***********************

In our MaxOut Savings Report dated 5/27/2005 we reported that the Federal Reserve was trying to slow the housing market by tightening lending standards on mortgage lending.  We stated that “There is evidence that the Fed has begun to move to contain the housing bubble using credit standards in place of interest rates  The report mentioned the joint memo dated May 16,2005 Entitled “Agencies Issue Credit Risk Management Guidance for Home Equity Lending” This memo cautioned lending institutions on home equity lines and loans to consumers.  It was the opening salvo by the financial regulators to tighten lending standards on homes.

The other shoe to fall was dropped on December 20, 2005.  Entitled: “Federal Financial Regulatory Agencies Propose Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products”

  The memo’s proposed guidance targets nontraditional mortgages such as “interest-only” mortgages and “payment option” adjustable-rate (ARM) mortgages.  As the memo states, “The proposed guidance discusses the importance of carefully managing the potential heightened risk levels created by these loans.”  The federal authorities are clearly concerned the lending standards have gotten lax during the recent real estate boom.  The concern has reached the point that Controller of the Currency John C. Dugan recently stated: “And are lenders really prepared to deal with the consequences – including litigation risk – of providing such products in markets where real estate prices soften or decline, or where interest rates substantially increase?”.  The concern with these mortgages is two fold how will they hold up if interest rates move higher and or if real estate declines over time.  And do consumers really understand the risks of these loans.

The housing boom has been brought about by the confluence of two major trends in the financial markets.  The first is the Federal Reserve’s decision to lower the Fed Funds Rate and thereby short-term rates to an historic 1%.  Lesser understood is the explosive growth of the home mortgage lending market.  The development and mass marketing of more exotic loans such as the “interest-only” and “payment option” loans have transformed the housing market.  Together these two trends provided the liquidity surge that ignited the housing bubble in many markets in North America.

“Interest-only” loans accounted for over 30% of all new mortgages in many cities in 2005. 

Many people are now using these loans to buy more home than they can afford.  These exotic loans coupled with over-borrowing are very reminiscent of the Savings and Loan problems that plagued the county in the 1980s.

We believe this latest memo is part of a major campaign to tighten lending standards and there by cool the housing markets. In same way you would cool a stock market bubble by raising margin requirements.  Earlier this year Alan Greenspan made the statement that there was no national housing bubble, but he then stated, “here are a lot of little bubbles around the country”. As we have stated in the MaxOut Savings Report when the Fed makes it known that they are out to change something the generally stick to their guns and do it.  We believe the Federal Reserve is concerned about the residential real estate bubbles and this is how they will cool the markets off. 

This should result in a major slowdown in the housing market for 2006.  The increase in the supply of existing homes for sale to 2.903 million for November is the highest number since April of 1986 is just one indicator of the slowdown.  We expect this number to climb much higher in 2006 as housing prices decline and the American consumer slows down spending.  A major slowdown in consumer spending will be one of the results of the busting of the housing bubble.  The other thing to watch for as the housing market weakens is to look for the Federal Reserve to react quickly to lower short-term rates to cushion the decline.  The important thing to recognize is the Federal Authorities are draining liquidity from the housing market and its effect will be a decline in the housing market.

Portfolio allocation

Here is how the portfolio is allocated as we start 2006.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION

January 1, 2006

STOCK     Domestic  Long

15.4%

                 Domestic short sale

(-4.7%)

                 Foreign 

17.2%

STOCK TOTAL                                    

27.9%

BONDS    Domestic short term

1.3%

                 Domestic long term

3.7%

                 Domestic short sales

(-2.0%)

                 Domestic variable

5.4%

                 Foreign

5.1%

BOND TOTAL

13.5%

REAL ASSETS   Gold

5.1%

                            Commodities

3.9%

                            Real estate

0.0%

REAL ASSETS TOTAL

9.0%

OTHER ASSETS   Arbitrage

2.1%

2.1%

CASH                     Domestic

47.5%

                               Foreign

0.0%

CASH TOTAL

47.5%

                 

TOTAL

100.0%

            

                                                        

                             Happy New Year from

Mike, Nancy Thrasher and Nancy Cushing

Happy new year

    I want to wish all of you a happy and peaceful new year.

  Now for some disquieting statistics.

As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan sails toward his port of retirement, he and his associates are now given to issuing warnings, on numerous topics and with increasing frequency.

Most recently, the Fed Chairman has warned of fiscal policy causing a “pernicious drift toward fiscal instability” and of a “protectionist reversal of globalization”.

     Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Just noticed this Alan????

The blue line below is what the consumer price index would look like before the last two Presidents administrations massaged the numbers. Bi-partisan shenanigans. Hmmmppphhh.

    Many statistics that are presented are not as worrisome as they seem as they just use big numbers ($22 trillion. Wow!!!!) to scare us. On the other hand some statistics can accurately compare the past and the present as is true with the graph below measuring debt as a % of GDP (How much we as a nation produce in a year). Seems to me the fact that we are at an all time high suggests someone (or some Government) has been on an insane credit financed buying boom. These things always end well. Look how comfortably we handled the previous peak in 1929-33.

   Anyway as I was saying.....

                                               HAPPY NEW YEAR.

More warnings

An interesting article from Boston.com. Seemingly pertinent for anyone dabbling in real estate on the eastern seaboard.

           ********************************************************************************************8

Sellers chop asking prices as housing market slows

Cuts of up to 20% are now common as analysts see signs of a 'hard landing'

Boston-area homeowners trying to sell their houses are sharply reducing asking prices -- in some cases, by $100,000 or more -- in response to the sudden slowdown in the real estate market.

Demand for single-family homes has declined as prices have risen in recent years and interest rates have begun to climb, causing the number of properties on the market to pile up.

The median price of a single-family home in Massachusetts has dropped 7 percent in the past two months, to $349,000 for sales that closed in October. But reductions in asking prices of 10 percent or 20 percent are now common in both high and moderately priced neighborhoods, according to real estate agents and listings of homes for sale. In Cambridge, price cuts averaged $300,000 in a sampling of a dozen houses listed in the $1.25 million to $4.3 million price range. In suburbs like Tewksbury and Hopkinton, homes originally listed for around $500,000 have been slashed to the low $400,000s.

''The evidence -- both early data and the anecdotes -- are pointing more toward a hard rather than a soft landing" in the housing market, said Nicholas Perna, an economic consultant in Ridgefield, Conn. ''Prices could come down. Could it be 10 to 15 percent? There's no way of knowing, but what we're getting is more clues that you've got a decline in prices underway.

Agents said price cutting began last summer but accelerated in the past two months and is far more frenzied than in 2004, a year of record sales volume. Today, homeowners in no rush still have the option of letting their listing expire, unsold, and putting the house back on the market in the spring when brokers hope conditions will improve.

But those who need to sell quickly -- couples in the midst of a divorce, employees who are relocating to another region, or owners who are purchasing another home, for example -- may have no choice but to entertain offers they would have scoffed at months or even weeks ago.

''It's unbelievable," said Polly Drinkwater, an agent with Coldwell Banker Cambridge, who has dropped the price on one of her listings $550,000, or 22 percent, since March. These ''are very large drops," she said.

Last February, Gary and Susan Kazmer were confident of selling their Foxborough home for $949,900. He had landed a high-level job in Manhattan, and the couple planned to relocate their three daughters during the summer to a house they purchased in Mendham, N.J., with a bridge loan.

They built the Foxborough house on a pond in 1997 and filled it with extras: two marble fireplaces and hardwood floors with dark cherry borders. ''We called it our wow house," he said.

But it attracted little interest at that price, and Gil Campos of Re/Max Real Estate Center in Foxborough lowered the price to $899,000 in early August. Since then, it has been reduced four times, to $800,000. ''That's an unbelievable spiral," he said.

The Kazmers' limbo ended this week, when they accepted an offer, which Campos declined to disclose.

''It never would've sold if it hadn't been reduced," he said. But, he added, ''Once you're in that price-reducing mode, all the vultures are out, the people looking for a deal. I've had the most ridiuclous offers I've ever had."

Some houses are now listed below what buyers paid a few months ago for a similar house, making it very difficult for real estate agents to estimate an asking price for clients.

In September, Steve Levine of Re/Max First Choice in Northborough apparently priced one client's house right, at $712,000. It sold ''within days" of putting it on the market Sept. 25, he said. But currently, two similar houses are for sale in the same area, at $689,000 and $699,000, he said, and ''those aren't moving."

Moderately priced homes are feeling the brunt of the price squeeze, according to an analysis of MLS listing data by Cambridge broker Bill Wendel.

Statewide, 38,418 houses had priced reductions between Jan. 1 and Nov. 24, or 22 percent more than the number of reductions during the same period in 2004. But the number of price reductions on homes between $500,000 and $1 million increased by 36 percent. One price segment that ''jumps off the page as soft," said Wendel, is the $500,000 to $600,000 price range, the fourth most active segment of the single-family housing market. It had 1,258 more markdowns, up 40 percent from last year.

Coldwell Banker agent Egor Evsiouk said many househunters have walked through his client's spacious 1970s Colonial in Tewksbury, which needs ''cosmetic updating" but abuts state conservation land. Since late July, the Willants have cut the price by $100,000, or 20 percent, to $429,000, barely above the town's assessed value for the property.

The house is an ''albatross around my neck," said Elsie Willant, creating so much stress she developed an inflamed sciatic nerve that has immobilized her. In the midst of separating from her husband and still grieving the death, years ago, of her oldest daughter, she is anxious to ''move on" and buy a place in Maine, closer to her second daughter.

But first they must sell. Willant said they received one ''ridiculous" offer of $380,000. ''There is nothing wrong with this house," she said.

Real estate - yet another, yawn, warning.

Yet another warning. This time it is from the Wall Street Journal.

The ONLY thing that worries me is that this disaster is so well telegraphed. But then, if I think about it, so was the 2000-2002 stock debacle and that warning was similarly ignored by a large swathe of the population.

Here is the article.

Investors Retreat
From Housing Market

Inventories Rise as Speculative Buying Slows
In Once-Hot Markets Like Phoenix and San Diego
By RUTH SIMON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 7, 2005; Page D1

Individuals are pulling back from buying homes and condos as an investment, in a move that could accelerate the cooling of the housing market.

In markets such as Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego and Washington, D.C., where investor activity had been heated, fewer people are competing to buy properties as an investment, real-estate brokers and housing analysts say. Some investor-owned properties are returning to the market for sale. With the pace of price appreciation slowing, some investors who were betting on quick profits are instead being squeezed.

SIGNS OF COOLING
Investors are shying away from residential real estate in some markets as house-price appreciation slows.
Some brokers are advising investors looking to buy and flip properties to put away their checkbooks.

More purchase deals on condos are falling through as investors get cold feet.

With inventories of homes for sale rising, some investors are seeking renters instead.

The apparent pullback by investors is recent and is just beginning to show up in national data. Evidence of the development can also be seen in a number of markets that had until recently been a hotbed of investor activity. As speculators withdraw from the market in San Diego, for instance, the number of investors buying property has fallen by nearly half, estimates Russ Valone, president of MarketPointe Realty Advisors, which tracks the San Diego housing market.

In the Phoenix area, as many as 30% of properties for sale are currently owned by investors, says Jay Butler, director of the Arizona Real Estate Center at Arizona State University. Six months ago, most investors were buying rather than selling, he says. The shift has helped to drive up inventories of homes for sale in the Phoenix area, which climbed to 22,340 in October from 8,600 in April, according to data from the Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service.

In the latest sign that the housing market is cooling, the National Association of Realtors said yesterday that its index of pending home sales dropped 3.2% in October. The reading is the lowest since March.

It's too early to tell just how a pullback by investors will affect the broader housing market, but their impact on the housing boom has been considerable. Investors accounted for 9.6% of mortgages used to purchase homes in the first nine months of this year, the most recent data available, up from 6.7% in 2002, according to LoanPerformance, a unit of First American Corp. But the investor share began to drop in the third quarter, the firm says. The figures don't include second homes that may also provide rental income and serve as an investment.

A softening in investor demand is likely to accentuate any slowdown in home sales, says David Berson, chief economist at mortgage giant Fannie Mae. He estimates that home sales will fall 10.4% over the next two years, largely because of a decline in investor and second-home purchases. Mr. Berson also figures that without the recent surge in these purchases, home sales would have been 7.3% lower in each of the past two years. That estimate assumes that investment properties and second homes account for 10% of total sales.

Another concern is that investors will be quicker to sell if prices soften, accentuating any downturn, particularly in areas where speculation has been most prevalent. Some of the most vulnerable markets include Daytona, Fla., Las Vegas, Phoenix and Fresno and Bakersfield, Calif., according to Credit Suisse First Boston analyst Dennis McGill.

Even if investors don't all rush for the exits at once, more investor-owned properties are likely to return to the market over the next few years. In part, that's because many investors have bought preconstruction properties that won't be ready for occupancy for another year or two.

To be sure, investor demand remains strong in some parts of the country as investors take their profits in markets that have seen double-digit gains and move into areas such as Dallas, where price gains haven't been so steep. And while it's getting tougher for speculators to make a quick buck, brokers say that opportunities remain for investors who plan to hold their properties for several years.

Earlier this year, Sandra Geary, a broker in California's Sonoma County, was running seminars that drew as many as 200 would-be investors. She's also taken California investors on out-of-state home-buying expeditions to Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon and bought more than 30 rental properties for her own portfolio. But in recent months, her investor sales have fallen more than 75%. "Now that the market is slowing down, it's scaring investors away," she says.

Some brokers are advising speculators to put away their checkbooks. "I'm telling people who want to buy new construction to flip it that the gig is up," says Frank Borges LLosa, a real-estate agent in Arlington, Va.

Last year, Mike Morgan, a real-estate broker in Stuart, Fla., set up a Web site designed to attract investors scouring the Internet for preconstruction properties. But with the market softening, Mr. Morgan has cut back on promoting his site. Now, he works only with investors seeking "buy and hold" properties. "I haven't sold an investor a property to flip since June," he says.

Some investors also are backing out of preconstruction properties they bought. In San Diego, cancellation rates for new condominium units climbed 47% in the third quarter over the second, in part because a growing number of investors are getting cold feet, according to the Building Industry Association of San Diego County.

Cancellation rates for condo units are also rising in many other markets, including Florida and metropolitan Washington, according to the National Association of Home Builders. "It's largely because of investors" pulling back, says NAHB staff vice president for research Gopal Ahluwalia. "A whole lot of condo units are sitting empty." Whether a buyer can easily get out of a deal can depend on a number of factors, including the builder's policies and the terms of the buyer's contract.

With price appreciation slowing, it's getting tougher for investors looking to quickly flip a property to earn a return that's high enough to cover brokerage commissions, mortgage costs and other expenses. Prices for existing homes are expected to rise 12.4% this year, according to the National Association of Realtors, well above the 5.3% average annual gain since 1990.

Some investors are already getting pinched. Barry Fiske, an account manager, teamed up with a friend to buy a bungalow in the oceanside town of Hingham, Mass. The pair tore down the house and put up a three-story Victorian home that went on the market in October, priced at $889,000. After three price cuts, the asking price is now $799,000 and the opportunities to profit are "marginal," Mr. Fiske says. "We probably spent more than we originally intended to," he adds.

Robert Cayouette, a computer programmer, has put down deposits on 10 homes under construction in Florida, figuring he'd quickly flip them and make a profit of about $30,000 apiece. The first of those purchases, a three-bedroom home in Port St. Lucie, is expected to close this month. But Mr. Cayouette has learned he'll be lucky if the house fetches $285,000, or $10,000 less than his original purchase price. "I wouldn't be able to flip it if I wanted to," says Mr. Cayouette.

With home prices growing faster than rental rates, investors who decide to rent out their properties rather than sell them often can't make enough to cover mortgage payments, taxes and other costs. Arash Yazdi, an information technology consultant, decided to rent out his $465,000 townhouse in Merrifield, Va., this fall after a deal to sell the home fell through. He figures he's losing about $1,000 a month.

Our Primitive Urges

Our Primitive Urges

This is an interesting article explaining how our "wiring" leads us astray. It may also explain the startling results of the thorough Dalbar study of the actual performance of individual investors during the period 1984 - 2002 which was a very positive period in the equity markets.

        The S. and P. 500 index compounded at 12.2% p.a. (albeit with a lot of volatility). The individual investors, in aggregate, compounded at 2.75% (with a lot of volatility) during that same period. Ouch.

        This is one of the reasons why there has been a lot of work done in the field of behavioral economics over the last 10 years.

        The author's partial solution is at the conclusion of the article. I have outlined what coincides with our approach in red.

*************************************************************

The Basics

Bingeing on stocks? It’s biology

Are impulsive money moves wrecking your returns? Here's how to keep yourself in check.

By Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine

You buy a risky stock impulsively. You beat yourself up over an investment that's losing money, but you can't bear to sell it. You know you should stash more away for retirement, but you never get around to it.

For most investors, these types of seemingly irrational, shortsighted decisions are nearly as automatic as flinching when a bug hits the windshield. But with the help of a new branch of science, neuroeconomics, investors can learn how to resist their self-destructive tendencies.

Neuroeconomics shows that our brains are wired with two different systems, each struggling for control of our financial decisions. Call it the battle between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Jekyll brain, the prefrontal cortex, is highly evolved and rational. The Hyde brain, or limbic system, is more primitive and reactive. All too often, says Kevin McCabe, an economist at
George Mason University, in Fairfax, Va., Mr. Hyde takes control, even "when it's not in our best interest."

Primitive urges

Experiments reveal that Mr. Hyde's power can be striking. For example, researchers at Stanford University had students play a simple game in which they could win or lose money depending on how quickly they pushed a button. During the game, an MRI machine scanned the students' brains. Scientists discovered that the thought of making money pushed the reward system of the students' brains into high gear. That system releases dopamine, the pleasure chemical of the brain, which is the same chemical that spews into the brain when we see images of sex or sports cars. The bigger the perceived reward, the more dopamine. The more dopamine, the more emotions control your decisions.

Sexy but dangerous

Brian Knutson, who runs the Stanford lab, says that although the experiment didn't focus on investing decisions, you can draw some conclusions. Says Knutson, "If you're thinking of how sexy a stock is or how fast its price is rising, but not thinking about how it compares with other investments -- in other words, if you're acting on the basis of excitement -- you'll make bad decisions."

Moreover, when we see opportunities for big rewards, we tend to downplay the potential risks. The part of the brain that kicks in during the presence of high-reward opportunities "responds to how much you think you can make, but not probability," says Knutson. "It's like wearing beer goggles and going after the hottest woman at a party."

Jekyll and Hyde also duke it out when you must choose between long-term and short-term gratification. Put simply, the emotional system is "impulsive and myopic," says Sam McClure, a researcher at
Princeton University. He helped engineer an experiment at Princeton in which students could receive Amazon.com gift certificates either immediately or up to six weeks later. Brain scans showed that the promise of an immediate reward set off an emotional response -- Mr. Hyde "wants things now," says McClure.

But when given a choice between rewards of varying amounts at different times in the future, Dr. Jekyll prevailed. For example, offered a choice between a $5 gift certificate in two weeks or a $40 one in six weeks, most participants in the experiment delayed gratification for the larger reward down the road. Says Harvard economist David Laibson: "Our emotional brain wants to max out the credit card, order dessert and smoke a cigarette. Our logical brain knows we should save for retirement, go for a jog and quit smoking."


Mr. Hyde is virtually incapable of thinking about the future. Neuroscientist Jordan Grafman's research for the National Institutes of Health discovered that Vietnam veterans with injuries to the prefrontal cortex struggled when making long-term financial decisions. "They had a difficult time articulating goals for the future, especially far into the future," such as planning for retirement or saving for their children's education, says Grafman.

Scientists have found another component of our neural wiring that hamstrings financial decision-making: We are programmed to see patterns. "At a very deep level, it's what our brains do," says Scott Huettel, a psychiatry professor at
Duke University. This ability is useful in the natural world, where there is often good reason to assume a pattern is meaningful. In the days when humans were hunter-gatherers, for example, a man who found three nests that contained eggs would check a fourth nest.

Nowadays, though, that kind of assumption could cause problems. For example, you see red come up three straight times on a roulette wheel. What do you do? Bet next month's mortgage payment on red? Or, worse, you note that Tyrannosaurus Technology's stock has risen three days in a row. Do you buy it?

In investing, the pattern we see is often a coincidence. But the subconscious part of our brain urges us to act on this pattern. It may override the rational part, which may see, for instance, that the stock of the company that just had a good run is wildly overpriced.

The broken pattern

Now what do you do if you reach into that fourth nest and a snake bites you? You'll almost certainly start giving nests a wide berth. When a pattern is broken, your brain generates feelings of fear and revulsion -- which is a good thing because it lessens the likelihood of future snake bites. But that is not necessarily a desirable outcome for investors. If a company releases a poor earnings report, you may sell the stock even if it is still a sensible investment, or you may be so disgusted that you do nothing when, in fact, you should sell the stock.

Because our minds are wired to avoid the unpleasant, bad memories last much longer than good ones. Stanford's Knutson, a professor of psychology and neuroscience, says that positive stimulation is short-lived. "Those mechanisms turn on and off quickly," he says. "But if you're scared by a saber-toothed tiger, you'll be scanning the bushes for the next three years."

Trusting patterns is one thing. But what about trusting people? Science has something to say on that subject, too. The "trust game" has become a staple of neuroeconomic research. Variations exist, but basically the game involves a trustee and an investor. The investor sends the trustee money and the rules of the game say that that mere act automatically expands the amount of cash. The trustee may then share the wealth with the investor and return some of the money or -- and here's the rub -- the trustee may burn the investor and send back nothing.

You might think that behavior in such a game would be based on a simple financial calculation: "I'll send more money if I get more back." But Paul Zak, an economist at Claremont Graduate University, in Claremont, Calif., says trust is an emotional response. The hormone oxytocin fills different areas of the brain in social situations, such as bonding between spouses or between parents and children. "We are a social species, and it's a good thing that we can learn how to trust," he says. As the trust game shows, a certain amount of cooperation between parties benefits both of them.

Just how powerful is oxytocin? In a version of the trust game, Zak and other researchers discovered that simply squirting a dose of oxytocin up a test subject's nose prompted the person to give the trustee more money.

What’s the solution?
Although neuroeconomics identifies the reasons for our actions, it's less helpful in prescribing corrective measures. But that doesn't mean you have to wait a few hundred thousand more years for your brain to evolve to the point that you can approach your finances more rationally.

The overarching rule is that investors must learn to recognize situations that will set off emotional decisions. "Then you can place yourself in a circumstance that doesn't require you to make snap decisions," says Grafman, the NIH scientist. When it comes to trust, for example, you shouldn't act on someone's financial advice just because you like the person. "If your tennis partner tells you about a stock, stop and think about it," says
Claremont economist Zak.

If you are presented with a high-reward opportunity -- say, a broker calls with a hot tip on a penny stock -- wait. Acting on impulse means you won't properly weigh the risks involved. Let your Dr. Jekyll spend some time researching the stock -- no sense in having a highly evolved brain if you don't use it. And be aware of patterns. Sometimes they're valid, sometimes they're not. Get the big picture about a company before investing.

Follow these other simple rules, and you stand a much better chance of moving the investment decision-making process into the rational part of your brain:

·  Don't fixate on the short term. A daily, or even hourly, diet of news fires up Mr. Hyde and can trigger fear and greed, two emotions that often trip up investors. In the same vein, don't check the prices of your investments too often.

·  Set long-term goals for your investments. Research has shown that as soon as you stop thinking short term and start thinking about the long term, the emotional part of your brain shuts off.

·  Diversify and examine the performance of your portfolio as a whole. Big rewards and big losses set off emotional responses. A diversified portfolio evens out these ups and downs.

·  Set a timetable for when to sell stocks, mutual funds and other investments. That "sell discipline" creates rational goals and preempts emotional reactions.

·  Throw Mr. Hyde an occasional bone. If you crave excitement, place a bit of your portfolio in a separate account and use that money to speculate on penny stocks, pork bellies or whatever else satisfies your dark side.

By Bob Frick, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance Magazine

Tupperware anyone?

  This is a synopsis of an interview in Investment news (October 17,2005). My comments are in bold print .

   Minnestota life have developed home-based workshops akin to Tupperware parties to sell variable annuities (one of the most controversial products in modern financial planning) and other financial products to prospective female clients.

   "I gathered 10 female clients together and we hired a limo, we went to dinner and a show, and then out for chocolate martinis" said financial advisor Sue Coon. "You would be amazed at the amount of business I developed" (I wouldn't as peer pressure and alcohol are pretty effective sales tools).

    Minnesota life has also developed "icebreakers" including singing or humming the Beatles song "When I'm 64" and imagining what life what be at that age or using the "can we talk" routine of comedian Joan Rivers.

    I read about 10 trade journals a week that are full of advertisements offering to enrich advisors (cruises, golf vacations, hard cash) essentially at the expense of their clients. Of course they aren't worded that way as in the advertisements everyone wins and lives happily ever after. The fact that so much sleaze still exists is a testament to the naivete of many investors, the clever marketing skills of the providers of annuities etc. and the abundance of poorly educated advisors (or, if I take a darker view, the abundance of self serving greedy advisors).

    Enough of the dark side.

    Have a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving.

                                     Mike, Pat and Alex

The greatest investor of our generation

  Did you think I was going to say Warren Buffett?? Maybe Michael Price of Mutual Shares? Surely not Peter Lynch? Ben Graham?

  I choose Marty Whitman for his academic influence through his classes and through his brilliant, if impenetrable, books. I also chose him for his brilliant record with the Third Avenue funds and, prior to that, with Equity Strategies. And, most importantly, I choose him for always telling it like it is and for constantly challenging, and questioning, the wrongheadedness of academia and the dubious morality that pervades Wall Street.

    Our operations have many similarities and a few differences :

         Similarities are

                          a. We both intend to do this for many, many years.

                          b. We both believe in the same fundamental approach to investing the hardearned funds that have been placed in our care.

                         c. We are both astonished that ANYONE still believes the orthodoxy that is taught at virtually every business school and university in the country. I think I can also speak for him when I say it is a mixed blessing as we would like to convert the world but we aren't unhappy at the amount of money (it is the competition after all :) ) that is managed using the othodox approach.

         Differences:

                         a. He runs a much more concentrated portfolio that is going to be subject to much larger fluctuations than our portfolio.   

                        b. He is a hired gun. A pure investment manager. We obviously take a broader more integrated approach.            

              ******************************************************************************
This is a very recent article from Barrons.
Monday, November 7, 2005

Having the Last Laugh

By JACK WILLOUGHBY

AT 81, MARTY WHITMAN SHOWS NO SIGNS of slowing down. And why should he when he's at the top of his game? He's also got lots of wisdom to impart to B-school students steeped in the shibboleths of modern portfolio theory, which he contradicts with his outsized returns from value investing -- and his generous charitable contributions. Read and learn a few things from the master.

A Whitman Sampler

AT 81, MARTY WHITMAN HAS REACHED THE POINT where he can appreciate the ironies of life. These days, he gets to enjoy his time on the tennis court -- but he's scored his biggest points in bankruptcy court.

Whitman's legendary investment wins also have generated vast wealth for himself and his investors. And that's afforded him the luxury of being able to choose to walk to work in a polo shirt. But his shirt doesn't sport the logo of a polo player but of a business school adorned with Whitman's name. The further irony is that the accepted orthodoxy taught at B-schools says that what he has done so well and for so long -- value investing -- is an impossibility.

That doesn't mean Whitman plans to retire anytime soon. "What would I do?" he asks, the same response given by the growing roster of vigorous septuagenarians and octogenarians who remain active in their businesses. Why sell? "I did it to make my grandchildren rich. None of my kids seem to take the same interest in money management as I do. We also had to keep our talent by giving them the proper incentives. My colleagues do all the work. I still pull the trigger on the Third Avenue Value fund."

The flagship of the operation, Third Avenue Value, accounts for $6.3 billion in assets. Whitman himself has almost $78 million in the main fund, with more in the three other funds and hedge-fund accounts. He and his wife, Lois, are active givers to human-rights causes, with Lois often taking an active role with her charities.

Over the years, Whitman has become the paterfamilias of value investing in New York, mentoring bright students from Syracuse and Yale Universities, nudging promising managers, fostering talent within his Third Avenue firm, and giving advice to powerful policymakers -- whether they like it or not.

"He's the first guy I call to get advice outside of my office -- the most unassuming rich person you'd ever meet," says Robert Morgenthau, an equally legendary contemporary who also shows no sign of slowing down. "He's public spirited. Back in the early stages of the BCCI case, he gave us a lot of help pro bono," says the 86-year-old Manhattan District Attorney, a friend and investor who consults Whitman on the phone and for lunch. "He reads balance sheets the way that some of us read the sports section of a newspaper."

Warren Buffett may have popularized and exemplified the teachings of his Columbia University professor Ben Graham, co-founder of the value school of investing along with David Dodd, his co-author of Security Analysis, the bible of value investors to this day. But Whitman is every bit as important for having taken Graham and Dodd a step or two further. Says Stan Garstka, Deputy Dean of the Yale School of Management, and a former director of Danielson Holdings: "A lot of people talk about value investing. Marty is one of the few people who actually does it."

According to Whitman, fundamental analysis has received only lip service from academia, which favors scientific theories, including the Efficient Market Hypothesis embodied in modern portfolio theory.

To Whitman, those notions have little practical value for the long-term investor. Folks may talk about Graham and Dodd, but surprisingly "few people seem to have actually read the early editions of Security Analysis or The Intelligent Investor," Whitman told Columbia Business School back in 1997. He still feels the same way today.

Whitman believes the information revolution has eclipsed large parts of Graham and Dodd's work. The weakness, according to him, comes in the gentlemanly way they handled credit analysis. They do just enough to assure the public company avoids default, concerning themselves primarily with valuing the stream of earnings and revenue thrown off by public companies.

Whitman draws his ideas from the scrum of bankruptcy court, where companies get retooled under the intense pressure of rival creditor interests. "My fundamental credit analysis involves the assumption that a money default will occur, and then gauging how the security will work out either in an out-of-court restructuring or a Chapter 11," says Whitman. This requires intensive research because in workouts, both debt covenants and levels of seniority become crucial to understanding how value can be garnered and traded as the company moves toward resolution.

Whitman concentrates especially hard on the balance sheet of a company, which means de-emphasizing the income statement and contradicting the market's obsessive compulsion with predicting earnings. Explains Gerald Pinkerton, a former Third Avenue employee who now runs a managed-account business called NBC Securities in Birmingham, Ala.: "Most of the companies in which Marty invests have serious short-term problems, and thus have their earnings impaired. The challenge is to properly value the quality of the assets."

According to Whitman, few, if any, major public companies go five years without some major restructuring event that involves resource conversion. It could be a buyback, spinoff, writedown or merger.

Naturally Whitman buys into out-of-favor sectors. The discount he aims for is 50 cents on the private dollar. The purchase price is where he builds in the kind of margin of safety that allows him to sleep easy.

But such a strategy often means buying when the market is selling. When the value of Armonk, N.Y.-based MBIA (ticker: MBI) dropped to the mid- 50s on news it was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General over alleged reinsurance deals done to offset losses, Whitman turned into a buyer. That, despite his running against a rising tide of headline risk, capped by a Barron's article outlining further investigations of impropriety

"Having Marty as an owner puts management in the position of being able to deliver solid results over extended periods of time, without having to fret over normal short-term fluctuations in business conditions or reported earnings," says Jay Brown, chief executive officer of MBIA. "Marty's brutally honest observations are a good reminder to all of us that the truth is obvious if we just keep our eyes and minds open."

When it comes to the question of value, Whitman takes no prisoners. For example, in his latest shareholder report he defends selling a swath of Sears Holdings common (SHLD) because the stock appears to be fully valued. Wrote Whitman: Sears Holdings "has to succeed in a big way in order to justify these prices." Third Avenue had acquired a stake in Sears Holding as the result of his holdings of Kmart debt purchased at deep discounts, which was exchanged for stock after the discounter emerged from bankruptcy. Sears' acquisition of Kmart made for another classic Whitman win.

Whitman buys these value-laden companies with strong business franchises and stronger management, and bets that short-term issues will soon fade and the basic value propositions will eventually shine through. Just don't ask him when. Says Whitman: "When may be important for individual securities. But it isn't for portfolios. And Third Avenue runs portfolios."

Whitman built his expertise from the ground up -- not from the top down, as promoted by many of the theories that now dominate the business-school curricula. These theories assume uninterrupted liquidity and functioning markets for all assets -- a questionable proposition at best, he says.

"The guy is a real stickler for detail, he really does his homework," says Tim Collins, founder of Ripplewood, one of the most successful private-equity investors in the Japanese market, and a former teaching assistant. "Marty has to do his homework because unlike a private-equity investor, he doesn't have the ability to change management if they make a mistake. He's had a profound impact on the attention I pay to details."

THE BOTTOM LINE
Third Avenue Value's Marty Whitman continues to prove you can buy low and sell high, notwithstanding what the efficient-market theorists assert.

Whitman has earned the respect of the business community for both his longevity and willingness to share his knowledge. For 33 years, he has taught an investment seminar at Yale University and, more recently, at Syracuse via teleconference. Morgenthau tells the story of how astonished the Yalies were when this balding guy in a sweatshirt, who was fiddling with the radiators and was assumed to be the janitor, suddenly strode to the podium and started lecturing them about investing.

"He's totally unassuming," says Yale's Garstka. "He spends at least half of the seminar refuting the top-down theories propounded in most business schools."

A lot of Whitman's success comes from voracious reading and scholarship. Says Garstka: "These days, the more disclosure we have, the less people read. Marty can read through reams of material and find the two or three key things that need to be analyzed in detail."

One of the keys to Whitman's success has been an ability to sort out the community of interest, and the conflicts of interest, in any given crisis situation. By knowing these he can find allies in a corporate bankruptcy or workout, while steering away from the hidden shoals.

Value investor James C. Roumell, founder of Roumell Asset Management based in Bethesda, Md., remembers the strict price parameters Whitman gave him for his first order in June 1997, when Roumell was a broker. Recalls Roumell: "He buys at his price and if it gets away, he just goes hunting elsewhere."

The hunt for deep value has led Whitman into foreign markets. Now almost 40% of Third Avenue's assets lie in foreign jurisdictions, mainly subject to English corporate laws, which carry few if any of the stockholder protections present in the American system.

He notes that asset manager Tweedy Brown would not have been able to oust Conrad Black from Hollinger if the activities were done solely in domains subject to the English system. Under pressure from U.S. shareholders, the Toronto-based publishing company forced former top executives Conrad Black and David Radler to step down nearly two years ago amid allegations that they siphoned tens of millions of dollars from the company, often through entities they control in Canada, where they both live.

For years prospective clients keep holding out concern over Whitman's advancing age. But Whitman has outlasted many of them already and he intends to be the last value investor standing. Saith the Sage of Syracuse: "Our whole approach is less stressful than anything on Wall Street."

Moreover, Third Avenue is in good hands when Whitman finally steps aside. In recent decades potential investors have sometimes dragged their feet about investing in Third Avenue, concerned about Whitman's age.

Curtis Jensen, 43, became co-chief investment officer some years after distinguishing himself in the Yale seminar. Jensen also manages the Third Avenue Small-Cap Value fund. As Whitman's protégé he's a prime acolyte of the "Buy Right" strategy. "It's that discount that gives us our anchor to windward," providing shelter against raging market storms, he says. Meanwhile, Whitman remains firmly at the helm.