How The "Leverage-Game" Works

Leverage  and Margin

Margin is defined as the amount of money that is needed as “deposit" to open a position with your forex broker. It is used by your forex broker to maintain your open position. What your forex broker basically does is that takes the margin deposit and lump them with everyone else's margin deposits. It then uses this accumulated “margin deposit" to make transactions within the interbank network.

Margin is often expressed as a percentage value of the full amount of the position. For instance, most forex brokers say they require 2%, 1%, .5% or .25% margin. Based on the margin required by your broker, you can calculate the maximum leverage you can wield with your trading account. Here are the other popular leverage ranges that most forex brokers offer:

Margin Required	Maximum Leverage
5.00%	20:1
3.00%	33:1
2.00%	50:1
1.00%	100:1
0.50%	200:1
0.25%	400:1
0.20%	500 : 1
0.10%	1000 : 1

In addition to "margin required", you will probably see other "margin" terms in your trading platform. These margin terms refer to different aspects of the trading account and they are defined as follow:

Margin required: It is expressed in percentages and is referring to the amount of money your forex broker requires from you to open a position.

Account margin: This is the total amount of money you have in your trading account.

Used margin: This refers to the amount of money that your forex broker has set aside to keep your current positions open. Although the money is still considered yours, you will not be able to use it until your forex broker returns it back to you either when you close your current positions or when you receive a margin call.

Usable margin: This is the money in your account that is available to open new positions.

Margin call: If your open losing positions decreases beyond the usable margin levels set for your account, a margin call will take place and some or all open positions will be closed by the broker at the market price.

The margin is actually used by the forex broker as collateral to cover any losses that you may incur during trading. In actual fact, nothing is being bought or sold for physical delivery to you. The real purpose for having the funds in your account is for sufficient margin.

http://www.learn-forex-trading-basics.com/leverage.html

5 "New" Rules for Safe Investing

1. Buy and Hold
History has repeatedly proved the market's ability to recover. The markets came back after the bear market of 2000-2002. They came back after the bear market of 1990, and the crash of 1987. The markets even came back after the Great Depression, just as they have after every market downturn in history, regardless of its severity.

Assuming you have a solid portfolio, waiting for recovery can be well worth your time. A down market may even present an excellent opportunity to add holdings to your positions, and accelerate your recovery through dollar-cost averaging Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/buy-and-hold.aspx#ixzz1ZC8MiDKw


2. Know Your Risk Appetite
The aftermath of a recession is a good time to re-evaluate your appetite for risk. Ask yourself this: When the markets crashed, did you buy, hold or sell your stocks and lock in losses? Your behavior says more about your tolerance for risk than any "advice" you received from that risk quiz you took when you enrolled in your 401(k) plan at work.

Once you're over the shock of the market decline, it's time to assess the damage, take at look what you have left, and figure out how long you will need to continue investing to achieve your goals. Is it time to take on more risk to make up for lost ground? Or should you rethink your goals? Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/risk-appetite.aspx#ixzz1ZC8qhVwu

3. Diversify
Diversification is dead … or is it? While markets generally moved in one direction, they didn't all make moves of similar magnitude. So, while a diversified portfolio may not have staved off losses altogether, it could have helped reduce the damage.

Holding a bit of cash, a few certificates of deposit or a fixed annuity along with equities can help take the traditional strategic asset allocation diversification models a step further.
Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/diversify.aspx#ixzz1ZC921poy

4. Know When to Sell
Indefinite growth is not a realistic expectation, yet investors often expect rising stocks to gain forever. Putting a price on the upside and the downside can provide solid guidelines for getting out while the getting is good. Similarly, if a company or an industry appears to be headed for trouble, it may be time to take your gains off of the table. There's no harm in walking away when you are ahead of the game. Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/know-when-to-sell.aspx#ixzz1ZC9IVW7b

5. Use Caution When Using Leverage
As the banks learned, making massive financial bets with money you don't have, buying and selling complex investments that you don't fully understand and making loans to people who can't afford to repay them are bad ideas.

On the other hand, leverage isn't all bad if it's used to maximize returns, while avoiding potentially catastrophic losses. This is where options come into the picture. If used wisely as a hedging strategy and not as speculation, options can provide protection. Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/leverage.aspx#ixzz1ZC9XvuWx

Everything Old Is New Again
In hindsight, not one of these concepts is new. They just make a lot more sense now that they've been put in a real-world context.

In 2009, the global economy fell into recession and international markets fell in lockstep. Diversification couldn't provide adequate downside protection. Once again, the "experts" proclaim that the old rules of investing have failed. "It's different this time," they say. Maybe … but don't bet on it. These tried and true principles of wealth creation have withstood the test of time.
Read: 5 "New" Rules For Safe Investing

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-new-rules/old-is-new.aspx#ixzz1ZC9pYbAD

Investing can (and should) be fun. It can be educational, informative and rewarding. By taking a disciplined approach and using diversification, buy-and-hold and dollar-cost-averaging strategies, you may find investing rewarding - even in the worst of times.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/slide-show/5-tips-for-diversifying-your-portfolio/conclusion.aspx#ixzz1ZCCNZVfl

ROA And ROE Give Clear Picture Of Corporate Health

by Ben McClure 

With all the ratios that investors toss around, it's easy to get confused. Consider return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA). Because they both measure a kind of return, at first glance, these two metrics seem pretty similar. Both gauge a company's ability to generate earnings from its investments. But they don't exactly represent the same thing. A closer look at these two ratios reveals some key differences. Together, however, they provide a clearer representation of a company's performance. Here we look at each ratio and what separates them.

ROE
Of all the fundamental ratios that investors look at, one of the most important is return on equity. It's a basic test of how effectively a company's management uses investors' money - ROE shows whether management is growing the company's value at an acceptable rate. ROE is calculated as:

Annual Net Income             Average Shareholders' Equity

You can find net income on the income statement, and shareholders' equity appears at the bottom of the company's balance sheet.

Let's calculate ROE for the fictional company Ed's Carpets. Ed's 2009 income statement puts its net income at $3.822 billion. On the balance sheet, you'll find total stockholder equity for 209 was $25.268 billion; in 2008 it was $6.814 billion.

To calculate ROE, average shareholders' equity for 2009 and 2008 ($25.268bn + $6.814bn / 2 = $16.041 bn), and divide net income for 2009 ($3.822 billion) by that average. You will arrive at a return on equity of 0.23, or 23%. This tells us that in 2009 Ed's Carpets generated a 23% profit on every dollar invested by shareholders.

Many professional investors look for a ROE of at least 15%. So, by this standard alone, Ed's Carpets' ability to squeeze profits from shareholders' money appears rather impressive. (For further reading, see Keep Your Eyes On The ROE.)

ROA
Now, let's turn to return on assets, which, offering a different take on management's effectiveness, reveals how much profit a company earns for every dollar of its assets. Assets include things like cash in the bank, accounts receivable, property, equipment, inventory and furniture. ROA is calculated like this:

Annual Net Income             Total Assets

Let's look at Ed's again. You already know that it earned $3.822 billion in 2009, and you can find total assets on the balance sheet. In 2009, Ed's Carpets' total assets amounted to $448.507 billion. Its net income divided by total assets gives a return on assets of 0.0085, or 0.85%. This tells us that in 2009 Ed's Carpets earned less than 1% profit on the resources it owned.

This is an extremely low number. In other words, this company's ROA tells a very different story about its performance than its ROE. Few professional money managers will consider stocks with an ROA of less than 5%. (For further reading, see ROA On The Way.)

Watch: Reture On Assets

The Difference Is All About Liabilities
The big factor that separates ROE and ROA is financial leverage, or debt. The balance sheet's fundamental equation shows how this is true: assets = liabilities + shareholders' equity. This equation tells us that if a company carries no debt, its shareholders' equity and its total assets will be the same. It follows then that their ROE and ROA would also be the same.

But if that company takes on financial leverage, ROE would rise above ROA. The balance sheet equation - if expressed differently - can help us see the reason for this: shareholders' equity = assets - liabilities. By taking on debt, a company increases its assets thanks to the cash that comes in. But since equity equals assets minus total debt, a company decreases its equity by increasing debt. In other words, when debt increases, equity shrinks, and since equity is the ROE's denominator, ROE, in turn, gets a boost. At the same time, when a company takes on debt, the total assets - the denominator of ROA - increase. So, debt amplifies ROE in relation to ROA.

Ed's balance sheet should reveal why the company's return on equity and return on assets were so different. The carpet-maker carried an enormous amount of debt - which kept its assets high while reducing shareholders' equity. In 2009, it had total liabilities that exceeded $422 billion - more than 16 times its total shareholders' equity of $25.268 billion.

Because ROE weighs net income only against owners' equity, it doesn't say much about how well a company uses its financing from borrowing and bonds. Such a company may deliver an impressive ROE without actually being more effective at using the shareholders' equity to grow the company. ROA - because its denominator includes both debt and equity - can help you see how well a company puts both these forms of financing to use.


Conclusion
So, be sure to look at ROA as well as ROE. They are different, but together they provide a clear picture of management's effectiveness. If ROA is sound and debt levels are reasonable, a strong ROE is a solid signal that managers are doing a good job of generating returns from shareholders' investments. ROE is certainly a “hint” that management is giving shareholders more for their money. On the other hand, if ROA is low or the company is carrying a lot of debt, a high ROE can give investors a false impression about the company's fortunes.

by Ben McClure (Contact Author | Biography)

Ben McClure is a long-time contributor to Investopedia.com.

Ben is the director of Bay of Thermi Limited, an independent research and consulting firm that specializes in preparing early stage ventures for new investment and the marketplace. He works with a wide range of clients in the North America, Europe and Latin America. Ben was a highly-rated European equities analyst at London-based Old Mutual Securities, and led new venture development at a major technology commercialization consulting group in Canada. He started his career as writer/analyst at the Economist Group. Mr. McClure graduated from the University of Alberta's School of Business with an MBA.

Ben's hard and fast investing philosophy is that the herd is always wrong, but heck, if it pays, there's nothing wrong with being a sheep.

He lives in Thessaloniki, Greece. You can learn more about Bay of Thermi Limited atwww.bayofthermi.com.

Filed Under: Accounting, Fundamental Analysis, Investing Basics, Stock Analysis, Stocks

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/05/052005.asp

Wealth and happiness from the power of 10

Wealth and happiness from the power of 10

Marcus Padley
June 19, 2010 - 3:00AM

You don't have to be a genius to work out that if only we could avoid the losses, we would all be winners. The first rule of making it is not losing it. So here are my top 10 tips on not losing money.

1 Inside information. A colleague has professionally traded all his life. It's what he does. He says: ''If I had never been given any inside information … I would be a million pounds better off than I am today.''

2 IPOs. The golden rule of IPOs is that if it's any good, it won't be offered to you. If you get offered it … then you don't want it.

3 Pretending to be Warren Buffett. The concept that Buffett can be emulated has cost investors more than it has ever made them. No one has ever managed to replicate his performance. The idea that you can is the biggest drawcard the equity market has and it is a lie. We all keep buying the dream.

4 Gurus. Go to any rainforest, discover any tribe and you will find them huddling under some concept of god and creed. It is a human need to be able to answer the unanswerable questions and we do it by deifying someone or something. In our search for answers to the stockmarket's unanswerable questions, we credit our commentators with vastly more powers than they could possibly deserve or possess. And dangerously, he who guesses the boldest guesses the longest.

5 Greed. The biggest killer of them all. Approaching the stockmarket with greed is like running onto a battlefield in bright orange. We'll get you.

6 Leverage. The mechanism of greed. Leverage is marketed one way, but it works both ways. You lose much faster as well. That means it only works for some of the time and not all of the time.

It only works when you are right. And with average equity returns after interest, transaction costs, inflation and tax of less than zero, man, you had better be right, and right at the right time. You cannot habitually use leverage to ''invest''. Only trade and trade at the right time, not all the time. That's a big ask for someone with a day job.

7 Confidence. What's the core skill of the finance industry?

I'll tell you: it's marketing. And oh, do we have some material to work with. The finance industry is never short of a success story to free your wallet from your pocket. But we cannot all be successful, and of course we aren't. But the concept of success from mere participation in the financial markets is sold and endures because of one convenient fact of life. Crappy cars and small houses don't attract attention. The winners stay, and we raise them up. The losers, conveniently, go away. Thank goodness for that. Imagine how much product we'd sell if we raised them up.

8 Expectations. The root of all happiness. The root of all unhappiness. Expect the unexpectable and expect the inevitable. Best you expect the expectable.

9 Laziness. The nucleus of many of the stockmarket's very large and public losses. There has been more money lost through laziness than through effort - in particular, from putting your future in the hands of financial products you haven't taken the time to understand (Opes Prime, Storm Financial), from ''investing'' without investigating (otherwise known as gambling), from relying on someone else's grand declaration rather than taking responsibility yourself. Let's get this straight. There is no easy route to riches in the stockmarket and there is no free lunch, so participation without effort is not enough.

10 Life. My mum used to say there are three foundations for spiritual and financial happiness and success: your relationship, your job and where you live. Get one of those wrong, and all three will go wrong. Note there's no mention of the stockmarket in there. The stockmarket is not life. It is a side issue. The biggest financial decisions you will make in your life have nothing to do with the stockmarket - such as getting married, getting divorced, having kids, investing in your home, committing to your career or your business. These are the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make. Focus on them. The stockmarket is not a priority.

Marcus Padley is a stockbroker with Patersons Securities and the author of the daily stockmarket newsletter Marcus Today.



This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/business/wealth-and-happiness-from-the-power-of-10-20100618-ymsd.html

But the original problem - too much debt - hasn't gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets.

Time to give up debt addiction

GREG HOFFMAN
May 17, 2010 - 2:12PM

The first week of May's panicked trading on world financial markets was eerily reminiscent of the post-Lehman chaos of September 2008. Equity markets plummeted, debt markets froze and inter-bank lending rates skyrocketed.

The question is not whether Greece can or cannot pay its debts (without dramatic cuts to government spending, it looks nigh on impossible), but which country is next.

With Spain, Portugal and Ireland in the firing line, it's no wonder banks are reluctant to lend to each other. It's also no surprise that the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have orchestrated a 750 billion euros ($1 trillion) rescue package.

The Europeans, being European, took their time. But, not surprisingly for students of human nature or politics, they've taken the easy option and kicked the can down the road. For now, another crisis has been avoided.

In hock

For more than a decade, Western consumers borrowed too much money, ably assisted by financial institutions creating financial products they themselves didn't understand. When the consumers couldn't pay and the banks were about to collapse, governments bailed them out. Remember the calls for a "global stimulus package"'?

Well, it worked in as far as we're not looking down the barrel of another Great Depression. Amongst the recent chaos, statisticians announced that the US economy generated an astonishing 290,000 jobs in April.

But the original problem - too much debt - hasn't gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets. Now, one of those governments can't meet its obligations. So what do we do? We just transfer the problem onto bigger balance sheets. In this case, they're the ones owned by the EU and the IMF.

The buck, however, can't get passed any further. Europe and the US are not too big to fail, but they are too big to bail. It is going to hurt but eventually, eventually, the Western world needs to reduce the overall leverage in the system. And what form might that take?

How to deleverage

McKinsey and Co, a consulting company, recently produced an insightful analysis of 45 prior episodes of deleveraging, 32 of which followed financial crises. The authors conclude that there are four ways to deleverage an economy, and only two of those options are available to the West today.

The two options are inflation and "belt tightening". The latter has been the most common tonic to a bout of indebtedness (16 of the 32 post-crisis deleveraging episodes).

This means cutting back on government spending in order to bring spiralling foreign debt balances under control and the result, in all cases, was a substantial reduction in economic growth.

Inflation might seem like a far more palatable solution and, for creditors, there's no doubt it is. Perhaps best described as "default by stealth", inflation erodes the value of debts and, if you're the supposed recipient of those debts, the value of your assets.

Inflation also reduces the value of all other assets in an economy, creates substantial frictional costs and destroys a country's ability to borrow in its own currency again.

It might be the most palatable option for a leveraged electorate, but for the owners of capital, inflation is a disaster. And once the inflation genie is out of the bottle it can be very difficult to get it back in.

As investors, we should be preparing for one or both of these factors to have a substantial impact on our portfolios over the coming decade. In many ways, however, we should welcome it. It's in everyone's interests to unwind imbalances in global trade and fiscal budgets and so begin the process of Western deleveraging. Otherwise we run the risk of a crisis so big it might portend another Great Depression. From my perspective, the sooner the better.

This article contains general investment advice only (under AFSL 282288).

Greg Hoffman is research director of The Intelligent Investor

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-give-up-debt-addiction-20100517-v84t.html

Financial success? Debt-free

Many Americans have redefined the meaning of financial success in the post recession era, to be debt-free.

Understanding Leverage

Leverage is easily expressed as a ratio:  assets/equity

Most banks equity:asset ratio is around 8% to 9%.  Thus, the average bank has a leverage ratio in the range of 12 to 1 or so, compared to 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for the average company.

Given the size of the average bank's asset base relative to equity, it's not difficult to imagine a doomsday scenario.

• Earnings serve as the first layer of protection against credit losses.  
• If losses in a given period exceed earnings, a reserve account on the balance sheet serves as a second layer of protection.  Banks must have a pool of reserves to protect shareholders, who hold only a small stake in the company because of the leverage employed.
• If losses in a period exceed reserves, the difference comes directly from shareholders' equity.  When losses at a bank start destroying equity, turn out the lights.

Leverage isn't evil.  It can enhance returns, but there are inherent dangers.

For example, if you buy a $100,000 home with $8,000 down, your equity is 8%.  In other words, you're leveraged 12.5 to 1, which is pretty typical for a bank.  Now, if something atypical happens and the value of your home suddenly drops to $90,000 (just 10%), your equity is gone.  You still owe the lender $92,000 but the house isn't worth that much.  You could walk away from the house $8,000 poorer and still owe $2,000.  Highly leveraged businesses put themselves in a similar situation.

This doesn't mean all leverage is bad.  As a rule, the more liquid a company's balance sheet, the more the company can be leveraged because its assets can be quickly converted to cash at a fair price.

Eliminate or severely limit your investments in companies with large downside risks to avoid huge losses

When you think that there is a large downside risk in investing in a company, you should be especially vigilant even if expected returns are high.

• A highly leveraged balance sheet is one indicator of high downside risk in a company.  

• Even countries that borrow large amounts of money are not safe:   Russia defaulted on its loans in 1998.

Since even a country the size of Russia can get into trouble, clearly you should never think of any country as "too big to fail."

By eliminating or severely limiting your investments in companies with large downside risks, you should be able to avoid the huge losses emanating from market volatility.

On the other hand, market volatility may cause good companies' stock prices to go down in the short run, giving you good buying opportunities.

Airline Capital Expenditure

This is one of the many reasons for avoiding airline stocks.  It is a tough industry to be in.

LCL Founder Loses Company After Dubai Debt Crisis

Debt and leverage are double-edged swords. You can make it big or you can be decimated. You will never be bankrupt if you are not in debt or excessively leveraged. Always be prepared for the unexpected downsides. Who would have thought that Dubai will be also mained in this financial crisis?

LCL Founder Loses Company After Dubai Debt Crisis (Update3)


By Barry Porter

Dec. 15 (Bloomberg) -- LCL Corp Bhd. Managing Director Low Chin Meng lost control of the Malaysian interior design company he founded after a debt crisis in the Gulf emirate of Dubai forced it to default on loans.

CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd. sold 16 million of Low’s LCL shares, representing his remaining 11.2 percent stake in the business, that were pledged as security against financing, Malaysian stock exchange filings show.

More than of 80 percent of Selangor-based LCL’s sales came from the United Arab Emirates last year compared to 46 percent in 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, as Dubai built the world’s tallest tower and palm tree-shaped islands in a bid to lure international investors.

“When the company was growing at a fast rate it needed short-term capital to meet orders,” Nigel Foo, an analyst at CIMB Investment Bank Bhd., said in a telephone interview from Kuala Lumpur today. “To achieve this Low personally pledged his own shares.”

LCL said Dec. 10 it had been “severely” impacted by financial turmoil in Dubai and defaulted on 72 million ringgit ($21 million) of loans from Affin Bank Bhd. and Bank Islam Malaysia Bhd. because clients in the sheikhdom hadn’t paid bills. State-owned Dubai World roiled markets worldwide Dec. 1 when it said it was in talks with creditors to restructure $26 billion of debt built up during the emirate’s six-year real estate boom.

Bank Debts

LCL had 376 million ringgit of net debt as of Sept. 30, according to a Dec. 11 report by CIMB’s Foo. In addition to loans from CIMB the company borrowed from AMMB Holdings Bhd., Alliance Bank Malaysia Bhd., Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd., EON Capital Bhd., Public Bank Bhd., Standard Chartered Plc, Kuwait Finance House and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, according to its Dec. 10 statement.

LCL jumped 8.7 percent today in Kuala Lumpur trading to close at 25 sen, giving the company a market value of 35.8 million ringgit. The stock has plunged 64.5 percent this year.

Low sold blocks of shares in the past three months, reducing his stake to 11.2 percent from 29 percent on Sept. 24, exchange filings show.

Calls to his mobile phone today weren’t answered today and officials at the company’s main office said he wasn’t there when Bloomberg called seeking comment.

Separately, the Malaysian stock exchange said today it reprimanded LCL for not submitting its annual audited accounts on time for the year ended Dec. 31 2008.

To contact the reporter responsible for this story: Barry Porter in Kuala Lumpur at bporter10@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: December 15, 2009 04:23 EST

What is the most important lesson from financial crisis?

Updated: Monday May 4, 2009 MYT 11:32:51 AM

What is the most important lesson from financial crisis?

OMAHA, Nebraska: Billionaires Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger said Sunday the most important lessons of the recent financial turmoil are that companies should borrow less and build a system of severe disincentives for failure.
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s top two executives offered that frank assessment of businesses' role in the current recession at a news conference held a day after 35,000 attended the company's annual meeting in Omaha.
The two men also said most of the nation's biggest banks are not too big to fail, but consumers shouldn't be worried about bank failures because of the protections built into the system.
Buffett said having severe disincentives for failure and proper incentives for success is key to ensuring large financial institutions are run well.
He said people didn't become more greedy in the last decade, but the system allowed people to take advantage of it.
"I think the most important lesson is the world needs a whole lot less leverage," said Buffett, who is Berkshire's 78-year-old chief executive and chairman.
In speaking of disincentives, Buffett suggested that if an executive would be shot if the company fails, then the company would definitely borrow more carefully.
Buffett said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac show that intense regulation can't prevent problems because those mortgage finance firms were some of the most regulated companies before government seized control of them amid mounting mortgage losses.
But Buffett said assigning blame for the economic mess doesn't make a ton of sense because so many people made mistakes.
"I think that virtually everyone associated with the financial world contributed to it," Buffett said.
Munger, Berkshire's 85-year-old vice chairman, said a combination of factors caused the financial mess.
He said the nation tolerated way too much debt, immorality and stupidity, and now it's paying the price.
"We have failed big-time on multiple fronts," Munger said.
He said gross immorality persisted in the consumer credit and derivatives businesses, and many people were taken advantage of.
Then the accounting profession failed to catch problems and tolerated too much foolishness, Munger said.
He said accounting rules that allow companies to report huge profit just before failing doesn't make sense.
"We do not need insane accounting that rewards people that can't handle the temptation," Munger said.
But it still might be hard to get Congress to pass sensible rules for investment banks and derivatives, Munger said, because of the amount of lobbying investment banks have done.
"We're going to have a hell of a time getting this fixed the way it should be fixed," Munger said.
Buffett said he's not sure how the government will handle the results of the stress tests officials are conducting on the 19 largest U.S. banks, but he doesn't think the government should rule out the failure of most of the banks.
"These 19 banks are not too big to fail," Buffett said.
"You can make a deal for any but the top four on the list."
To prove his point Buffett pointed to the examples of Wachovia and Washington Mutual banks, which both failed in the past year and were sold to competitors.
The stress tests are supposed to determine which banks would need more cash if the economy weakens further.
Federal Reserve officials have said the banks will be required to keep extra capital on hand in case losses escalate, which means some banks would be forced to raise money.
Buffett said consumers should not worry about bank failures because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is there to protect them with the resources it collects by charging banks fees, so taxpayers don't pay when the FDIC rescues banks.
"I'm not worried at all about a run on the banks," said Buffett, whose company holds large stakes in Wells Fargo & Co., US Bancorp, M&T Bank, Bank of America and Sun Trusts Banks
Given the age of Buffett and Munger, there is always speculation on who might replace them.
Buffett said Sunday that investors would know if either had health problems.
"If I know of anything serious - or anything that might be interpreted as serious - health problems, Berkshire would disclose it," Buffett said.
"We don't want rumors flying around."
But Munger joked there might be a high threshold for disclosing anything about his health: "In my case, I'm so nearly dead anyway that it's a minor detail."
Both Munger and Buffett said they feel great.
Berkshire's Class A stock lost 32 percent in 2008, and Berkshire's book value - assets minus liabilities - declined 9.6 percent, to $70,530 per share.
That was the biggest drop in book value under Buffett and only the second time its book value has declined.
But Buffett always measure's the company's book value performance in relation to the S&P 500, which fell 37 percent in 2008, so he's not bothered by stock price fluctuations.
"We don't consider it our worst year by miles," Buffett said Sunday.
Berkshire owns more than 60 subsidiaries including insurance, clothing, furniture, and candy companies, restaurants, natural gas and corporate jet firms.
Berkshire also has major investments in such companies as Coca-Cola Co. and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp.

On the Net: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: www.berkshirehathaway.com
Latest NYSE, NASDAQ and other business news, from AP-Wire
For latest Bursa Malaysia indices, charts and other information click here
New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com
Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com
For Tokyo Stock Exchange click here

Assessing indebtedness. How much debt is too much?

Leverage

Leverage and debt assessments are perpetually subjective and are discussed continuously by financial and credit analysts. Some debt is usually regarded as a good thing, for it expands the size of the business and hence the return on owner capital/equity. But too much is too much. Where do you draw the line?

Guiding principles include comparative analysis and vulnerability to downturns. Debt must always be paid back, whether business is good or not - so debt stops being okay when it's too large to cover during a downturn or business strategy change.

Here are a couple of supporting metrics:

Debt to equity

This old standard is common used to get a feel for indebtedness, particularly in comparison with the rest of an industry.

D/E = Total long-term debt / Equity

A company with only $300,000 in long-term debt beyond the portion currently due, against $653 million in equity is virtually debt-free. Such a debt to equity ratio well below 1% is healthy, and so it is for most businesses too. But business analysts may wonder if the company could produce a greater return by borrowing and putting more assets in play. Evidently management has decided that it isn't worth it, so hasn't. That's a better decision than borrowing funds to make the wrong investments.

The investor is left to agree or disagree with management's judgment, but debt-free companies - just like debt-free consumers - come out ahead more often.


Interest coverage

Interest coverage is the ratio of earnings to annual interest, a rough indication of how solvent or burdened a company is by debt.

Interest coverage = Earnings / Annual interest

One way to look at whether a business has the right amount of debt is to look at how much of its earnings are consumed to pay interest on it. (Prudent to keep annual interest less than 20% of earnings.)

When looking at interest coverage, a good question to ask is this: What happens to coverage if, say, business (sales) drops 20%, as in a deep recession?

Buying Stocks on the Verge of Bankruptcy

QUESTION: Why is it that investors are buying stocks in companies that are on the verge bankruptcy like AIG (AIG: 1.60, -0.07, -4.19%) and General Motors (GM: 4.49, +0.83, +22.67%)? Is there any benefit to buying at this price, and what would be the worst-case scenario of my investment?
--Mike Ghazala

ANSWER: Let's get right to the point: The worst-case scenario is you lose your entire investment. When a company files Chapter 11 the business is reorganized, but there's no guarantee shares will be worth anything once the company emerges from bankruptcy protection. Ditto for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation, in which a company's assets are sold off. Rules governing corporate bankruptcies generally dictate that secured and unsecured creditors -- banks, bondholders and the like -- get paid off first. Stockholders are last in line, and often there's nothing left by the time their turn comes around. If there are assets remaining, stockholders may receive shares in the newly reorganized company.

So why do investors buy shares of companies on the verge of bankruptcy?

Some may truly believe the company will avoid disaster and bounce back, making the shares an attractive long-term investment.

More often than not, though, investors are looking to make a quick buck on a short-term trade. In that case fundamentals are thrown out the window. Hedge funds and institutional trading desks are often involved in highly leveraged trades of these extremely volatile stocks. With such heavy hitters in the game, and so much uncertainty surrounding the companies, we recommend that individual investors keep their distance.

One other note: Even in bankruptcy a company's shares may continue to trade, often for pennies apiece. While the low price might be tempting, liquidity is spotty because the stocks are usually forced to trade over the counter rather than on a major exchange like the NYSE.



http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/college-planning/financial-crisis-answer-center/?cid=1108