Category Archives: Investing

The World’s Most Successful Depression-Era Investor

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

I subscribe to a lot of newsletters. One of them Capital & Crises by Chris Mayer had a very interesting write up on John Maynard Keynes:

You probably know John Maynard Keynes as an economist, but may not know that he was also a great investor, maybe the most the successful of the Great Depression era. And for that reason, given all that our own markets are going through, it may be a good time to look at his investment career.

Keynes managed Cambridge’s King’s College Chest Fund. The Fund averaged 12% per year from 1927-1946, which was remarkable given that the period seemed to be all about gray skies and storm clouds – it included the Great Depression and World War II. The U.K. stock market fell 15% during this stretch. And to top it off, the Chest Fund’s returns included only capital appreciation, as the college spent the income earned in the portfolio, which was considerable. I think it must be one of the most remarkable track records in the annals of finance.

Keynes also made himself a personal fortune as an investor. When he died, he left an estate worth some $30 million in present-day dollars, which surprised his contemporaries. How he did it is the subject of this essay. A new book by Justyn Walsh, Keynes and the Market, is our chief guide on the subject.

As Walsh points out, Keynes spent his last six years as an unpaid Treasury adviser. He outlived his parents, who left him no inheritance. And Keynes was a great patron of the arts, financing many ventures out of his own pocket. To finish with such a grand sum sent London society abuzz. “Some surprise has been expressed about the large fortune left by Lord Keynes,” reflected the Financial Times. “Yet Lord Keynes was one of the few economists with the practical ability to make money.”

It wasn’t easy for Keynes, as these things seldom are for anyone. Keynes began as a run-of-mill speculator and trader, trying to anticipate trends and forecast cycles. The Great Crash of 1929 sent him back to the drawing board.

Keynes was, in fact, nearly wiped out in the Great Crash. His personal net worth fell by more than 80%. He then had a great conversion. Trading the market demanded “abnormal foresight” and “phenomenal skill” to work, he concluded. “I am clear,” the new Keynes wrote in a memorandum, “that the idea of wholesale shifts [in and out of the market at different stages of the business cycle] is for various reasons impracticable and undesirable.”

After the crash, he became an investor, rather than a speculator. His new ideas on investing began to presage those of value investing icons Ben Graham and Warren Buffett. Interestingly, the crash hurt Graham too and motivated him also to think deeply about the process of investing. The two great money minds came to nearly the same place in their thinking.

Keynes now focused less on forecasting the market. Instead, he cast his keen mind on individual securities, trying to figure out their “ultimate values,” as he called them. He summed up his new philosophy in a note to a colleague: “My purpose is to buy securities where I am satisfied as to assets and ultimate earnings power and where the market price seems cheap in relation to these.”

He also became more patient. Paraphrasing from his own analogy, Keynes described how it was easier and safer in the long run to buy a 75-cent dollar and wait, rather than buy a 75-cent dollar and sell it because it became a 50-cent dollar – and hope to buy it back as a 40-cent dollar. Keynes learned to trust more in his own research and opinions, and not let market prices put him off a good deal. When the market fell, Keynes remarked: “I do not draw from this conclusion that a responsible investing body should every week cast panic glances over its list of securities to find one more victim to fling to the bears.”

Keynes also developed a fierce contrarian streak. One of his greatest personal coups came in 1933. The Great Depression was on. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speeches gushed with anti-corporate rhetoric. The market sank. America’s utilities were, Keynes noticed, extremely cheap in “what is for the time being an irrationally unfashionable market.” He bought the depressed preferred stocks. In the next year, his personal net worth would nearly triple.

Keynes was an adviser to an insurance company, as well as manager of the Chest Fund. In a note, Keynes laid out his understanding of the quirky, contrarian nature of investing. It is “the one sphere of life and activity where victory, security and success is always to the minority, and never to the majority. When you find anyone agreeing with you, change your mind. When I can persuade the board of my insurance company to buy a share, that, I am learning from experience, is the right moment for selling it.”

He also learned to hold onto his stocks “through thick and thin,” he said, to let the magic of compounding do its thing. (In a tax-free fashion, too, by avoiding capital gains taxes.) “‘Be quiet'” is our best motto,” he wrote, by which he meant to ignore the short-term noise and let the longer-term forces assert themselves. It also meant limiting his activities to buying only when he found intrinsic values far above stock prices.

Keynes also came to the conclusion that you could own too many stocks. Better to own fewer stocks and more of your very best ideas than spread yourself too thin. Committees and others repeatedly criticized Keynes for making big bets on a smaller number of companies. In a typically witty reply, Keynes defended his views. In this case, his critics accused him of making too large a bet on Elder Dempster: “Sorry to have gone too large on Elder Dempster. I was suffering from my chronic delusion that one good share is safer than 10 bad ones.”

He rejected the idea, as Buffett and other great investors have, that you dilute your best bets by holding a long list of stocks. At times during Keynes’ career, half of his portfolio might be in only a handful of names, though he liked to mix up the risks he took. So though five names might make up half of his portfolio, they wouldn’t be all gold stocks, for instance. “For his faith in portfolio concentration,” Walsh writes, “Keynes was rewarded with an investment performance far superior – albeit more volatile – than that of the broader market.”

In the depth of the Depression, Keynes lost a friend, Sidney Russell Cooke, who took his own life after suffering severe losses in the market. Keynes, perhaps reflecting on this experience, wrote that investors need to take losses with “as much equanimity and patience” as possible. Investors must accept that stock prices can swing wide of underlying values for extended stretches of time.

Keynes’ investment performance improved markedly after adopting these ideas. Whereas in the 1920s, he generally trailed the market, he was a great performer after the crash. Walsh dates Keynes’ adoption of what we’d think of as a Warren Buffett sort of approach as beginning in 1931. From that time to 1945, the Chest Fund rose 10-fold in value in 15 years, versus no return for the overall market. That is a truly awesome performance in an awfully tough environment.

As investors wonder whether we face a 1930s-style market or not, I found a review of Keynes’ investing career useful and inspirational. The more I study investing, the more this same handful of ideas and principles seems to recur.

I know what book I’ll be reading over Christmas!

When Is Enough, Enough?

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

UCLA Alumni, Andrew Lahde, announced last week that after making an astounding 866% last year, he was closing down his hedge fund and returning all the money back to his investors. While it’s not certain how much money he’s made, it has been speculated that he’s worth around $30 million – pretty good for a guy who just ran a hedge fund for only 2 years!

Unlike other hedge fund managers, he doesn’t want billionaire status. He’s made enough money to afford him a lavish lifestyle and he’s quitting to enjoy it. He made one-sided bets against the sub-prime market and he made a killing. Why ruin his track-record now!

Here’s his farewell letter to his investors – it’s quite entertaining.

Today I write not to gloat. Given the pain that nearly everyone is experiencing, that would be entirely inappropriate. Nor am I writing to make further predictions, as most of my forecasts in previous letters have unfolded or are in the process of unfolding. Instead, I am writing to say goodbye.

Recently, on the front page of Section C of the Wall Street Journal, a hedge fund manager who was also closing up shop (a $300 million fund), was quoted as saying, “What I have learned about the hedge fund business is that I hate it.” I could not agree more with that statement. I was in this game for the money. The low hanging fruit, i.e. idiots whose parents paid for prep school, Yale, and then the Harvard MBA, was there for the taking. These people who were (often) truly not worthy of the education they received (or supposedly received) rose to the top of companies such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and all levels of our government. All of this behavior supporting the Aristocracy, only ended up making it easier for me to find people stupid enough to take the other side of my trades. God bless America.

There are far too many people for me to sincerely thank for my success. However, I do not want to sound like a Hollywood actor accepting an award. The money was reward enough. Furthermore, the endless list those deserving thanks know who they are.

I will no longer manage money for other people or institutions. I have enough of my own wealth to manage. Some people, who think they have arrived at a reasonable estimate of my net worth, might be surprised that I would call it quits with such a small war chest. That is fine; I am content with my rewards. Moreover, I will let others try to amass nine, ten or eleven figure net worths. Meanwhile, their lives suck. Appointments back to back, booked solid for the next three months, they look forward to their two week vacation in January during which they will likely be glued to their Blackberries or other such devices. What is the point? They will all be forgotten in fifty years anyway. Steve Balmer, Steven Cohen, and Larry Ellison will all be forgotten. I do not understand the legacy thing. Nearly everyone will be forgotten. Give up on leaving your mark. Throw the Blackberry away and enjoy life.

So this is it. With all due respect, I am dropping out. Please do not expect any type of reply to emails or voicemails within normal time frames or at all. Andy Springer and his company will be handling the dissolution of the fund. And don’t worry about my employees, they were always employed by Mr. Springer’s company and only one (who has been well-rewarded) will lose his job.

I have no interest in any deals in which anyone would like me to participate. I truly do not have a strong opinion about any market right now, other than to say that things will continue to get worse for some time, probably years. I am content sitting on the sidelines and waiting. After all, sitting and waiting is how we made money from the subprime debacle. I now have time to repair my health, which was destroyed by the stress I layered onto myself over the past two years, as well as my entire life — where I had to compete for spaces in universities and graduate schools, jobs and assets under management — with those who had all the advantages (rich parents) that I did not. May meritocracy be part of a new form of government, which needs to be established.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government. Capitalism worked for two hundred years, but times change, and systems become corrupt. George Soros, a man of staggering wealth, has stated that he would like to be remembered as a philosopher. My suggestion is that this great man start and sponsor a forum for great minds to come together to create a new system of government that truly represents the common man’s interest, while at the same time creating rewards great enough to attract the best and brightest minds to serve in government roles without having to rely on corruption to further their interests or lifestyles. This forum could be similar to the one used to create the operating system, Linux, which competes with Microsoft’s near monopoly. I believe there is an answer, but for now the system is clearly broken.

Lastly, while I still have an audience, I would like to bring attention to an alternative food and energy source. You won’t see it included in BP’s, “Feel good. We are working on sustainable solutions,” television commercials, nor is it mentioned in ADM’s similar commercials. But hemp has been used for at least 5,000 years for cloth and food, as well as just about everything that is produced from petroleum products. Hemp is not marijuana and vice versa. Hemp is the male plant and it grows like a weed, hence the slang term. The original American flag was made of hemp fiber and our Constitution was printed on paper made of hemp. It was used as recently as World War II by the U.S. Government, and then promptly made illegal after the war was won. At a time when rhetoric is flying about becoming more self-sufficient in terms of energy, why is it illegal to grow this plant in this country? Ah, the female. The evil female plant — marijuana. It gets you high, it makes you laugh, it does not produce a hangover. Unlike alcohol, it does not result in bar fights or wife beating. So, why is this innocuous plant illegal? Is it a gateway drug? No, that would be alcohol, which is so heavily advertised in this country. My only conclusion as to why it is illegal, is that Corporate America, which owns Congress, would rather sell you Paxil, Zoloft, Xanax and other additive drugs, than allow you to grow a plant in your home without some of the profits going into their coffers. This policy is ludicrous. It has surely contributed to our dependency on foreign energy sources. Our policies have other countries literally laughing at our stupidity, most notably Canada, as well as several European nations (both Eastern and Western). You would not know this by paying attention to U.S. media sources though, as they tend not to elaborate on who is laughing at the United States this week. Please people, let’s stop the rhetoric and start thinking about how we can truly become self-sufficient.

With that I say good-bye and good luck.

All the best,

Andrew Lahde

Interview With Warren Buffett

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Addison Wiggin at Agora Financial sat down with Warren Buffett for an interview. He published that interview in his brand new book, I.O.U.S.A – One Nation. Under Stress. In Debt. On the whole, Buffett seems pretty optimistic. Here’s an excerpt:

On our national debt problems…

We’re transferring small bits of the country – ownership of the country, or IOUs – to the rest of the world. But our national pie is still growing.

We’re like a very, very, very, rich family that owns a farm the size of Texas, and we have all this output coming from the farm. Now, because we consume a little more than we produce, we’re selling bits of that farm daily, a couple billion worth. Or we’re giving a small mortgage on it which we don’t even notice, but it builds up over time.

So even though we own a little less of the farm, or we create these IOUs against it, our equity in the farm actually increases somewhat. That’s why people will benefit over time. But they won’t benefit as much as if they hadn’t given the IOUs or sold off little pieces of the farm.

On gold…

Over time, people have dug up gold from the ground in far remote areas and then they’ve shipped it thousands and thousands of miles. And they’ve put it in the ground over here and hired guards to stand over it. So the real utility of gold is not that high. It’s been something that people turn to, but it has not been a very good investment.

On China and globalization…

In 1790, there were about 4 million people in the U.S. and about 290 million in China. They were just as smart as we were. They had a climate that was about the same as ours. And yet we did enormously well over the next 217 years… as compared to China.

Now, why did we do that? Well, we had a market system, a rule of law, and equality of opportunity… and that system unleashed the potential of citizens in the United States to an extent far greater than in many countries including, up until recently, China.

About the risk of default of U.S. government bonds…

The U.S. government bond is absolutely certain to be paid. It’s just total nonsense when people talk about the U.S. going bankrupt. I mean, the U.S. government will always pay its debts. The purchasing power of the dollar you receive is likely to be less than the dollar you invested, so you have purchasing power risk… But you should not be afraid of government bonds in terms of being paid.

The unique situation in the U.S. now…

Many years ago, when we lent a lot of money to various emerging countries and were having trouble getting paid back, somebody said that they found it very hard to imagine some Philippine or Thailand worker spending a couple of extra hours every week in the hot sun merely so Citicorp could increase its dividend twice a year. At a point, people say, “To hell with it.”

It’s much easier just to inflate your way out of it. If you’re a South American or Asian country that owes money in dollars, it gets very binding to pay back in dollars. But if you owe it in your own currency, you just print more currency. And we have the ability to print currency. We can denominate debt in our own currency, whereas many countries can’t because people don’t trust them.

On government economic policies and crises…

We came fairly close to the whole system imploding in the 1930s because of economic conditions. People became very responsive to communism… When people are scared about economics, they’ll listen to whoever is the most persuasive… One thing I don’t like about the consequences of sustained large trade deficits is I think it makes the potential for demagoguery and really foolish policies more likely over time.

When you think about the history of this country, our economic policies have been pretty darn good. I mean, any country that delivers a seven-for-one increase in per capita living in a century has done an awful lot of things right. It’s never happened before in the history of mankind.

What the right policies are…

You want a system where Mike Tyson is fighting for the heavyweight championship and Jack Welch is running General Electric. But you don’t want Mike Tyson to be running General Electric and Jack Welch in the heavyweight championship. Government allocation of resources has tended, too often, to misallocate, and I think a market system does a pretty good job of allocating.

Wrapping up…

It’s been a marvelous time to be alive. It wasn’t really a whole lot better to live in the fourth century BC than the fourth century AD. But it’s been a lot better to live in the year 2007 than it was in the year 1807.

…Even those on the low end are doing far better than people on the high end were doing 100 years ago. There’re many, many things that a person earning a normal wage in this country can do and enjoy that John D. Rockefeller couldn’t do and enjoy. So a rising tide has lifted all the boats… The average American is going to live better 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and 50 years from now.

Cramer Wins Mr Obvious Award!

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

I guess there isn’t “always a bull market somewhere”!

Jim Cramer just advised people to get out of the stock market saying that stocks might lose 20% this year. Isn’t it a bit too late for that prediction? The Dow Jones Index is already down nearly 25% for the year. Telling people that stocks might lose 20% is like telling people with the flu that they might fall sick!

“I don’t care where stocks have been, I care where they’re going, and I don’t want people to get hurt in the market,” Cramer told Curry. “I’m worried about unemployment, I’m worried about purchases that you may need. I can’t have you at risk in the stock market.”

Where was Cramer a few months ago?

But casting aside my skepticism for a second, he actually does have a valid point. He says you should only invest what you won’t need for 5 years. However, this advice is always true, not just for the current scenario. No one really knows what the market will do over 5 years, so investing for at least 5 years helps you ride out any volatility. At least, that’s the theory. If you had invested $1,000 in the Dow Jones Index exactly 5 years ago, you’d be up a whopping $40!

I’ve actually put in a buy order for some shares this evening for tomorrow morning:

ERF – a canadian royalty stock that yields over 15%

BRK.B – a baby Berkshire share. It’s shown great resilience in this market.

EDD – an emerging market government bond fund that yields 20% and is 40% below its Net Asset Value. Even if there are 40% defaults, I should theoretically get my investment back.

CDE – a silver mining stock whose share price has been beaten down next to nothing. I would’ve bought a gold mining stock, but I’m very heavily weighted towards gold and under-weighted with regards to silver.

I had the cash lying in a retirement account and I used 33% of it to make this order. I definitely won’t be accessing this money for a few decades so I think I’ll do well on them in the long run.

Note: These are not recommendations to buy any stocks, even though my passive income is decent, my  portfolio returns for the year are pretty dismal. If you buy these stocks and lose money, I will only laugh at your foolishness!

Now What – Is The US Economy Doomed?

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Well the $700 billion bailout plan was defeated. Wall Street didn’t like it and the market dropped a jaw-dropping 777 points. Was the bailout that vital to the health of the US economy?

Jim Rogers didn’t think so. Here’s a news report from the 25th of September ago:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s proposed bailout plan is “astonishing, devastating, and very harmful for America,” internationally-known investor Jim Rogers told The New York Sun.

Rogers says the current monetary climate in Washington reminds him of when then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns refused to let anyone fail.

Rogers insists Washington is making the same mistake again.

“We’re in for the worst recession since World War II, as well as higher long-term interest rates, higher inflation, higher taxes, a weaker dollar, and substantially lower stock prices,” Rogers says.

Even worse, Rogers believes it’s “embarrassing to see how little the presidential candidates know or grasp what’s going on, just like the current administration.”

But what about the almost 779-point boost in the Dow Jones Industrial Average that lasted for two days? “It’s only a matter of time before reality sets in and the market heads down again,” Rogers says.

“I wouldn’t buy now because it’s insane,” says Rogers, who believes investors “were foolishly sucked in by hysteria and a buying panic.”

Rogers, who bought dollars a couple of months ago, now thinks the greenback rally may have come to an end. He’s now buying more Chinese shares.

I’ve been insanely busy with college so I wasn’t even sure how the dynamic duo of Paulson & Bernanke came up with $700 billion. What were the calculations that led to that number? I couldn’t really find anything about it – most reports were rather vague. And if the risk-analysis departments of banks couldn’t figure out the worth of the toxic assets they owned, how did batman and robin figure them out?

A lot of people believe that printing money and turning on the cheap, easy credit spigot will keep the US from experiencing a 30s-style Depression. I really wonder if that is a likely scenario. It doesn’t seem to be working for Japan (although to be fair, they have cultural differences such as their not letting businesses fail, which is probably distorting their business cycle). Also, if its true that excess liquidity and cheap credit caused much of these problems in the first place, how can the solution be the same as the cause?

Here’s what Ron Paul said on the issue over the weekend:

This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street…and dumping all the bills on Main Street. You can’t solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by creating more money and credit out of thin air…

What they’re doing now, they’re propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They’re doing exactly what we did in the Depression.

Saddling the American Taxpayer with an additional Trillion Dollars of Debt doesn’t seem like a good way of boosting the economy. The way things are going, the national debt is set to increase by a Trillion Dollars per year until 2017, after which it should increase by two Trillion a year!

If you still believe that bailing out foolish and greedy bankers is the right thing to do, check out my comments in  a previous post.  It’s a pretty interesting discussion.

So now that the bailout plan failed, is the US economy doomed? I don’t think so. Here’s an interesting article from the Heritage Foundation which suggests that the government is on a partially correct path regarding the financial markets.

And if you want something that’s even more optimistic about the US economy, I suggest reading Reality Check: The Unreported Good News About America by Dennis Keegan. He’s a hedge fund manager and he actually came and gave a speech to my class last week. While I don’t fully share his gung-ho optimism, he’s worth many millions and I’m not, so that should give you a good idea of whom to listen too! But he did say that chaos brings opportunities and people still make money in bad times, which I fully agree with.

And finally, Citi announced that it would be buying Wachovia. Isn’t that kind of strange considering that Wachovia was thinking of buying Morgan Stanley a week or two ago!

Why Jim Rogers Hates Investing In India

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Here’s an excerpt from a recent interview with Jim Rogers on why he prefers investing in China over India.

High oil prices, inflation, food prices etc have hit countries like India very hard. How should counties like India tackle the situation?
• Inflation affects everyone. Not just India. We pay the same price for copper. Copper price is the same in Australia, Germany and the US and India. India is not getting any worse than other countries. Except for the fact that the Indian government spends periodically more money in controlling inflation. The problem with India is that your politicians are worse than American politicians. You know Indian politicians believe and argue that the cause for inflation is commodities trading. How absurd is that.

Recently India banned Futures trading in some commodities like rice, wheat, rubber, potato etc to control price rise and inflation.
• It is the same tactic that politicians have done for hundreds of years everywhere in the world. Politicians would blame for anything wrong on three groups of people. They blame financiers/financial types. They blame foreigners: It is always good to blame foreigners. And they blame the Press. They blame you guys for commodity inflation in India. If the Press is not writing about inflation, we would not have a problem, politicians would say. It is absolutely insanity.

India banned Futures trading in some commodities without any logic or reasoning and study. And it has not done anything good for commodities in India or in the rest of the world. The commodity prices are still up and up. India needs to understand that there is no easy solution to high prices. As prices go up, people use less of anything and people would continue to produce more and that has always been there in the boom market. I read that India produces lots of foodgrains and do not have storage facilities and tonnes of rice and wheat are destroyed in public sector storage facilities.

How sad it is. It is terrible thing to happen. So let India do things to protect commodities rather than ban Futures trading in them. By banning commodities in boom market, the Indian government is making things worse. Look at China. The Chinese instituted price controls. Price controls have been around for thousands of years. They always make things worse. If you tell somebody that rice is only Rs 2, you have no other ways.

If you tell a farmer that you can sell rice only for Rs 2, he will tell I am not going to produce any more rice. Farming is hard work. I cannot make any money with price controls by producing and selling rice for Rs 2. So then you have less rice and shortage of rice. Even Romans had price controls, it never worked. So the Indian government is making things worse for India. It has been making things worse for the people in the last 50 or 60 years.

Some politicians in India blame commodity Futures trading as the reason for price rise; inflation is a big political issue in India.
•By banning commodity Futures, food prices would not go down. Because people sell in any prices they want to in Futures. So banning Futures is a senseless decision. In commodities market, we know what the price of wheat is. There is a public price for wheat according to demand and supply world over. So India banning Futures does not have any effect on wheat market. Indian government instead of being transparent and serious is creating lots of black market by banning Futures trading. It is going to make lots of people desperate. Politicians have been doing the same thing for many years, all over the world. Not just in India. It is worst for all of us.

What is the reason for the global food crisis now?
• The number of hectares of global wheat farming has declined over the years. The inventories of food are in the lowers ebb now in the last 50-60 years. In the last 30 years, farming has been in a terrible state. There is a terrible shortage of farmers now across the world. Young people do not go for farming. They study computers and get jobs. All the farmers in the world are old now. They are all men. Young people do not go to farms these days because farming is a hard physical job.

Seeds, fertilizers, tractors…there is a shortage for these stuff. We have a shortage of even tractor tyres now. That is the reason why we have shortage of food and there is a food crisis. It is not again speculators who have created the food shortage. Speculators take delivery of wheat. They don’t hoard wheat; it is the government that is hoarding wheat. It is the governments that are making the prices higher. Argentina says you cannot export wheat. A lot of counties say you cannot export wheat. The governments should call farmers to produce more and invite more people to farming by offering incentives.

When farming is coming down, governments like in India are trying to introduce price control mechanisms and bring down prices, and ban Futures. So things are getting worse. Things will be bad if it goes like this way. The food crisis will get worse, if countries act like this way. There will come a time when people will not get enough food. They are going to starve. The world is going through several weather problems. There will be droughts. So things are getting worse for farmers. I promise politicians who rule us are not going to go to the fields and cultivate. Do you think your politicians will go to the fields and work hard till evening to raise more rice? No way.

US President George Bush recently commented that it is the large population in countries like India and China that are causing the food shortage and crisis.
• I don’t agree. Look how things are blown out of proportion by politicians. Why can’t the people in Asia eat and live happily? Is it the prerogative of the US that only they should eat? There are three billion people in Asia. Thirty yeas ago Mao Tse-Tung was still running China. Thirty years ago Indira Gandhi was running India. Vietnam was destroyed.

Now there are three billion people in Asia, working hard, saving and investing. They want to eat more and they should. There is nothing wrong in that. Why should the developed world say that you should not eat? That is discrimination. I hope Asia continues to consume more so that their standards of living would go higher. All the western politicians who say that Asia should not eat more, let them go to the fields and work hard and produce more wheat, rice and maize so that food prices do not go higher.

Do you think India and China are driving the global commodities prices?
• Not just India and China. Most countries are driving the global commodities prices. America consumes lots of sugar, wheat and petrol. Europe does, everybody does. If America stops using petrol, there will be lots of petrol available in the world. If Europe stops eating wheat, there will be lots of wheat available. So what I want to say is that everyone is driving the global commodities prices. Everyone in the world is driving the demand for everything.

Which is the commodity you are most bullish on these days? Gold or Crude Oil?
• I am not particularly bullish on a commodity. I am in fact bullish on all commodities. I am not a good market timer. I am a very good or a very bad sure time trader. So I have no idea. I own all the commodities. I go to commodities based on historic fundamentals.

You recently said that it is the right time to invest in agri-commodities. Is there great investing opportunities in agri-commodities?
• I have bought into agri-commodities recently. I am an admirer of agri-commodities, and I hope there are great investing opportunities there. I make plenty of mistakes. But I try to buy commodities cheap. And agri-commodities are cheap and thus hold great investing potential.

What do you think of Indian stock market? Is it overheated and overpriced?
• It was certainly overheated, and that is why it has come down crashing recently. I am not a good judge of the Indian stock markets. Sometimes I get the Indian stock markets exactly right. Sometimes I get it exactly wrong. So I am not a good judge. So, I would not buy Indian stocks because it is too high. And your government continues to do stupid things like don’t trade in commodities. So if I am a foreigner I cannot invest in Indian commodities. It is sad. Vietnam recently said all the problems is because of importing gold. So don’t import gold. So Vietnamese cannot import gold.

Most astonishing thing. So governments keep doing these kinds of things. Vietnam said their problems are because people have been buying gold. Come on, how crazy can you go? Don’t worry; politicians can go crazy at any lengths. You know America said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were not. They spent hundreds of thousands of billions and killed tens of thousands of people to find those weapons. So politicians do a lot of crazy things.

Among the three emerging nations, Russia, India and China, which one would you rate first as an investment destination?
• China, of course.

Why not India? Can you compare China with India?
• Indians have the worst bureaucracy in the world. India learned bureaucracy from the British. Indian bureaucracy has remained stagnant. Just stagnant. They do what they think only. There is no proper education, no infrastructure in India. It is the most wonderful country in the world. I admire India’s diversity. I tell my friends, if you can only visit one country in your life time, go to India. India is an amazing country.

But as a place for investment? Oh, no, I would think twice. Even Indians who have been doing great business elsewhere in the world, and when they go back to India to do business, it has not been a good experience for them. Many of them get out of the business and go back to other countries to do business.

You have driven through India?
• I have driven through India a couple of times extensively. In 1988 and 2001. It was spectacular; it was wonderful. I loved it. I love traveling across any place. You learn a lot about that place while traveling. The highway from Kolkata to Mumbai should be one of the greatest highways in the world. But the Indian infrastructure development is so bad, that it took seven days for me to cover Mumbai and Kolkata highway. But everyday in India was an adventure, which I loved. Yes, it is a great place to travel. But if you looking for efficiency and investment, it is not the right place yet.

So it is better to go to China?
• Yeah, in China, a truck driver travels 70 km an hour average. China has the best roads in the world. On the Mumbai-Kolkata road, a truck driver goes 20 km an hour. That shows the efficiency between the nations. To cross state boarders in India, it is a nightmare. In China, it is all great. In China, they do what they say. In India, the government says lots of things, and they do not do it. Yes, smart Indians make lots of money. There are several success stories in India. India has the most beautiful women in the world, but has the worst politicians and bureaucrats.

If you haven’t read his latest book, A Bull In China, I strongly recommend it.

Rogers Still Bullish On Commodities

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Jim Rogers recently gave a presentation in Vancouver, Canada where he reiterated his belief that we’re in the middle of a commodities bull market. His logic is simple: the supply of paper currencies in increasing while the supply of hard commodities like aluminum and copper is dwindling. He also believes that there will be a long-term economic shift to China.

Here’s a condensed version of his speech, courtesy of the kind people at Agora Financial Publications.

The commodity bull market has a long way to go. This bull market is not magic. It’s not some crazy “cycle theory” I have. It does not fall out of the sky. It’s supply and demand. It’s simple stuff.

In the 80s and 90s, when people were calling you to buy mutual fund and stocks, no one called to say. “Let’s invest in a sugar plantation.” No one called and said, “Let’s invest in a lead mine.” Commodities were in a bear market and in a bear markets people do not invest in productive capacity. They never have. Perhaps they should have, but they’ve never done it throughout history and probably never will. There has been only one lead mine opened in the world the last 25 years. There’s been no major elephant oil fields [of more than a billion barrels] discovered in over 40 years.

Many of you were not even born the last time the world discovered a huge elephant oil field. Think about all the elephant fields in the world that you know about. Alaskan oil fields are in decline; Mexican oil fields are in rapid decline; the North Sea is in decline. The UK has been exporting oil for 27 years now. Within the decade, the UK is going to be a major importer of oil again. Indonesia is a member of OPEC. OPEC stands for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Indonesia is going to get thrown out because they no longer export oil, they are now net importers of oil. Malaysia has been one of the great exporting countries in the world for decades. Within the decade, Malaysia is going to be importing oil. 10 years ago, China was one of the major exporters of oil, now they are the 2nd largest importer of oil in the world. Oil fields deplete, mines depletes. This is the way the world’s been working for a few thousand years and it will always work this way. So supply has been going down for 25 years.

Meanwhile, you know what’s happening to demand. Asia’s been booming. There are three billion people in Asia. America’s growing. Most of the world has been growing for the last 25 years. So supply has gone down and demand has gone up for 25 years. That’s called a bull market.

One of the things you’ll find if you go back and do your research is that whenever stocks have done well, such as the 1980s and 90s, commodities have done badly. But conversely, you find that whenever commodities have done well, such as the 1970s, stocks have done poorly. I have a theory as to why this always works, but it doesn’t matter about my theory. The fact is that it always works this way and it’s working this way now.

So before I set off to my second trip around the world, I came to the conclusion that the bear market in commodities was coming to and end. So I started a commodities index fund. [Editor’s note: An ETN based on the Rogers International Commodity Index trades on the AMEX under the symbol: RJI.] This is an index fund. I do not manage it. It’s a basket of commodities we put in the corner. If it goes up we make money; if it goes down we lose money. But since Aug 1st 1998, when the fund started, it is up 471%.

I [mention this index] to show you that the commodity bull market is not something that will happen someday. It’s in process right now, and it’s going to go on for years to come, because supply and demand are out of balance. And by the time we get to the end of the bull market, commodities will go through the roof. There will be setbacks along the way. I don’t know when or why, but I know they are coming, cause markets always work that way. Commodities have done 15 times better than stocks in this decade and they’re going to continue that [trend].

You remember my little girls. My 5-year old never owns stocks or bonds; she only owns commodities. She’s very happy owning commodities. She doesn’t care about stocks and bonds, but she knows about gold. I assure you, she knows about gold.

Some of you probably diversify, or believe in diversification. I do not diversify; I am not a fan of diversification. This is something that stockbrokers came up with to protect themselves. But you’re not ever going to get rich diversifying. I assure you. But if you DO diversify, commodities are the best anchor because they are not going to do what the rest of your assets are going to do.

I will give you one brief case study about oil, because it’s one of the most important commodities. Some of you know that oil in Saudi Arabia is owned by a company called ARAMCO. It was nationalized in the 70s. They threw out BP and Shell and Exxon. But the last Western company to leave did an audit [of Saudi oil reserves] and came to the conclusion that Saudi Arabia had 245 billion barrels of oil. Then in 1980, after 10 years, Saudi Arabia suddenly announced that it had 260 billion barrels of oil. Every year since 1988 – 20 years in a row – Saudi Arabia has announced, “We have 260 billion barrels of oil.”

It is the damndest thing. 20 years; it never goes up; it never goes down, and they have produced 67 billion barrel of oil in this period of time. When nuts like me go to Saudi, we ask, “How can this be? How can it be that they always have 260 billion barrel of oil?” (By the way, last year they said they have 261 billion barrel of oil). And the Saudis say, “You either believe us or you don’t,” and that’s the end of the conversation.

I have never been to the Saudi oil fields, and even if I had, I wouldn’t know what I was looking at. But I do know something is wrong. I know that every oil country in the world has a reserve problem, except Saudi Arabia of course. I know that every oil company in the world has declining reserves. So I know that unless someone discovers a lot of oil quickly, the surprise to most people is going to be how high the price of oil stays and how high it goes eventually. That is the supply side. Let’s look at the demand side.

The Indians use 1/20th as much oil as their neighbors in Japan and Korea use. The Chinese use 1/10th as much per capita. There’s 2.3 billion people in India and China alone. Well, the Indians are going to get more electricity. The Indians are going to get motor scooters. They are going to start using more energy, so are the Chinese. But if the Indians just doubled the amount of oil used per capita, they would still use only 1/10th of what the Koreans use. If the Chinese doubled their oil use, they would still be using only 1/5th what the Japanese and the Koreans are using. So you can see what kind of pressures there are on the demand side for oil and energy, at a time of terrible stress on the supply side. These are simple things.

So I would urge you are to take a lesson from my little girls. My little girls are learning Chinese. My little girls are getting out of the US dollar. My little girls own a lot of commodities. I would urge you to do the same.

While, I’m not going to be learning Chinese any time soon, I’m still holding on to my gold, silver and energy stocks. They’ve taken quite a beating this year, but I they’re still in a long-term bull market. Even though the US dollar has shown some strength in the past 2 weeks, nothing has changed in the fundamental economy. The US government is still broke, it looks like we might have a Trillion Dollar deficit by 2010, and  yet it still willing to bail-out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the tax-payers expense.

Top 5 Greatest Investment Book Authors

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Today’s guest post comes from Ryan of Semperfinance, a military-community oriented personal finance and stock investment blog.

Education is the key to developing successful investment strategies. Blogs, websites and periodicals are great for staying up to date on the latest and greatest in the financial world, but nothing beats a good old-fashioned book for reinforcing the fundamentals and learning from the masters. Here’s a list of the top 5 investment authors every stock investor should be familiar with.

Benjamin Graham

Considered the father of value investing, he invented the Mr. Market metaphor and advised evaluating stocks as one would evaluate a business. Graham, a Columbia business school professor, published Security Analysis in the midst of the Great Depression. Anyone who can successfully sell books on stock investing during the Great Depression is worth taking a look at. Warren Buffet considers himself a disciple of Graham, even naming one of his sons (Howard Graham Buffett) after him. Every investor should be familiar with his work.

Recommended Books:

Warren Buffett

While not an author of books, Buffett has written many articles and (now famous) letters to shareholders. His writing contains homey Midwestern wisdom, jokes and pearls of investing wisdom. Buffett was greatly influenced by mentor Graham whose work he draws upon, but he has his own insights developed over many years of successful, smart investing.

Recommended Books:

Peter Lynch

Peter Lynch was an investing legend. His should be admired for his work ethic as much as his stock picks. Lynch practiced due diligence in picking stocks 24/7. Even on vacation he would ski a run, call a company to speak to the management then get back on the chairlift and do it over again. Like Buffett and Graham, Lynch advised focusing on company fundamentals and did not try to predict the market.

Recommended Books:

Tom and David Gardner

These two brothers were taught stock market investing by their father and ushered stock investing into the Internet era with their landmark website, fool.com. These guys have created the “Foolish” philosophy of bucking the trends of the “Wise” on Wall Street.

Recommended Books:

Robert Kiyosaki

Some people hate Kiyosaki, but I think he has some very good points to make. Don’t expect a lot of specific investment advice from Kiyosaki, instead he reinforces fundamental financial principles every investor should espouse.

Recommended Books:

If you haven’t read all of these books, you’re missing out on your financial education. Get started today!

Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Collapse

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

About 5 weeks ago I suggested that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going bankrupt and their shares were going to hit single digits in 12 months. Well it looks like the market believed that too and their shares were punished. Instead of having to wait a year, the stocks dropped like bricks within the month!

According to Nouriel Roubini, renowned Professor of Economics & International Business at NYU’s Stern Business school, this is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and the worst U.S. Recession in the last few decades.

The FDIC that has already depleted 10% of its funds in the rescue of IndyMac alone will run out of funds and will have to be recapitalized by Congress as its insurance premia were woefully insufficient to cover the hole from the biggest banking crisis since the Great Depression

Fannie and Freddie are insolvent and the Treasury bailout plan (the mother of all moral hazard bailout) is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street; it is the continuation of a corrupt system where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. Instead of wiping out shareholders of the two GSEs, replacing corrupt and incompetent managers and forcing a haircut on the claims of the creditors/bondholders such a plan bails out shareholders, managers and creditors at a massive cost to U.S. taxpayers.

Wow, those are strong words! Practically every stock in the financial sector has jumped today, probably due of extreme oversold conditions and not because of any underlying change in the fundamental scenario.

Sadly, my beloved Oil & Gas stocks are down. It may be a sector rotation out of energy stocks and into the financials. But so long as my Canadian Income Trusts continue to provide me with dividends and passive income, I’ll continue to hold them.

But I might enter new short positions in the financials if the stocks rally significantly above these levels. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke announced today that FNM & FRE were “in no danger of failing”. I don’t know if I believe him – sounds just like a few months ago when the government telling us there’s no recession. Meanwhile everything (except housing) is getting more expensive and unemployment is rising. And as Jim Rogers says that “the only people Bernanke cares about are his buddies on Wall Street”!

There's Still No Recession!

Time To Buy Online Retailers?

Posted on by Nirav
Reply

Online retailers have been fairing better than their brick-and-mortar counterparts. One school of thought is that affluent buyers make up a bigger portion of online buyers and they fare better during recessions, which means online retailers are likely to do better.

Another line of reasoning suggests that there is a perception among buyers that there are better deals online than in stores. So its the bargain hunting, not the higher incomes that is driving people to shop online. I think there’s some truth to this.

Last week, I needed to replace the battery on my motorola KRZR cellphone. The battery was no longer holding charge and had developed a slight bulge in the middle as well. I went to the Verizon store and they told me I was out of luck, and would have to buy a new battery for $40 plus tax.

Instead, I bought a cellphone battery online for only $6.41 delivered! I had to wait 2 days, but I got a whopping 85% discount!!!

For some reasons, retailers think that replacement batteries should cost 40-50% of the cost of a new electronic item. If you’re willing to spend a few minutes doing the research and wait 2-3 days, then you can usually save at least 60% of the cost. Now whether your time is worth that 60% in savings is another question.

Incidentally, that battery link goes to a niche store I built initially to buy cheap iPod batteries, which cost a ridiculous $79 plus tax at the local Apple store. I bought my battery replacement kit for $20 online instead!

But getting back to my main point, I think that with inflation eroding the purchasing power of the average American, more people will turn to online shopping. And with gas prices being so high, people are more likely to limit they’re driving to the mall.

So there are two lessons to learn here.

1. If you own stocks of retail stores, ditch them and buy online retailers instead.

2. Look online for bargains.

Maybe it’s time to look at Amazon’s stock (AMZN)?