I.M.F. Puts Bank Losses From Global Financial Crisis at $4.1 Trillion

I.M.F. Puts Bank Losses From Global Financial Crisis at $4.1 Trillion

By MARK LANDLER
Published: April 21, 2009
WASHINGTON — As finance ministers gather here this weekend for meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, they will focus on two eye-popping numbers: $4.1 trillion, the fund’s latest projected losses from the global economic crisis, and $1.1 trillion to help fix it.
The huge numbers illustrate the depth of the worldwide economic upheaval and the challenge facing those institutions, which are increasingly at the heart of efforts to contain the damage.
In a report released Tuesday, the I.M.F. estimated that banks and other financial institutions faced aggregate losses of $4.05 trillion in the value of their holdings as a result of the crisis.
Of that amount, $2.7 trillion is from loans and assets originating in the United States, the fund said. That estimate is up from $2.2 trillion in the fund’s interim report in January, and $1.4 trillion last October.
The fund said that it spotted the first glimmers of stabilization in the global financial system, but that “continued decisive and effective action” by governments, banks and institutions like the I.M.F. would be needed to prevent the system from going into a downward spiral.
At a meeting of industrial and developing countries in London this month, President Obama and other leaders pledged $1.1 trillion more for the fund and, to a lesser extent, the World Bank.
Now, the I.M.F. must figure out how to turn those pledges into hard cash — no easy task, insiders and outside experts say — and how to marshal the money to steady teetering economies including those of Iceland and Pakistan.
“We’d be deluding ourselves if we think it is going to solve the crisis,” said Desmond Lachman, an expert on the fund at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. He was speaking at a conference organized by the institute titled “Can the I.M.F. Really Save the World?”
The answer, most participants agreed, was no, but its vastly increased resources have turned the fund into a crucial player.
“Anytime you raise expectations, it’s important that you deliver,” said Robert B. Zoellick, the president of the World Bank. “Part of this week’s meetings will be about how you deliver.”
Analysts said the $1.1 trillion sum assumed huge contributions by the United States, China and other countries, which may or may not come through. It also counts some contributions more than once, and it counts some in the form of a synthetic I.M.F. currency that is not hard cash.
Using funds on hand, the World Bank said it would triple its investments in social safety-net programs to $12 billion over the next two years. The goal, Mr. Zoellick said, is to protect the most vulnerable people in developing countries from facing poverty, hunger or disease because of the crisis. “It’s vital that we make this more than a discussion of high finance,” he told reporters on Tuesday.
The reality is that the Washington meetings will be dominated by talk about the escalating losses weighing on the world’s leading banks, insurance companies and pension funds. The fund’s report said the recession was magnifying the impact of the credit squeeze on them.
“Shrinking economic activity has put further pressure on banks’ balance sheets as asset values continue to degrade, threatening their capital adequacy and further discouraging fresh lending,” the fund said in its report, released twice a year, which has become a barometer of the severity of the crisis.
As banks struggle to cleanse their balance sheets, the fund said, capital flows to emerging-market economies have plummeted, throwing Eastern Europe into crisis. That threatens to spill over to Western Europe, because its banks are major lenders to Hungary, Estonia and other countries.
Among European countries, the fund has already agreed to more than $55 billion in loans to Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Iceland, Ukraine, Belarus and Latvia. More may yet need to be bailed out.
On Tuesday, Colombia became the second Latin American country to seek aid, requesting $10.4 billion. Last Friday, the fund approved a $47 billion line of credit for Mexico, making it the first country to qualify for a loan from a program that extends credit to emerging economies that are considered well managed. Poland also said this week that it would seek a $20.5 billion credit line under that program.
With so many loans flowing out the door, experts said, the fund would run out of money without the infusion.
“They really need to nail down this financing, especially from emerging markets,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and a former head of the China division at the I.M.F.
In a twist that leaves some experts shaking their heads, the fund needs money from cash-rich developing countries, like China and India, to help more developed but strapped countries, like those in Eastern Europe.
Western Europe looms as the next front in the crisis, according to the fund’s report. It estimates that financial institutions will have to write down $1.19 trillion in loans and securities originating there. And they have gotten off to a much slower start than their American counterparts.
In the United States banks reported $510 billion in write-downs by the end of 2008, and they face an additional $550 billion in 2009 and 2010, the fund said. In the countries of the euro zone, banks reported just $154 billion in write-downs by the end of last year and still face $750 billion in projected write-downs, the fund said.
David Jolly contributed reporting from Paris.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/global/22fund.html?em

For US Housing Crisis, the End Probably Isn’t Near

For Housing Crisis, the End Probably Isn’t Near

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: April 21, 2009
The closest thing to a real estate crystal ball in the last few years has been the house auctions that are regularly held around the country.
At the real estate auction, a bidder assistant yells to signal to the auctioneer that an audience member decided, after a tense moment, to place a higher bid.
In 2006 and early 2007, the official housing statistics were still showing that house prices were holding up. But that was largely because so many sellers were refusing to sell. The auctions, made up mostly of foreclosed homes, showed the truth: house values were starting to plummet in many places.
So a few weeks ago, I decided to go to an auction at a hotel ballroom in Washington — and to study the results of several others elsewhere — with an eye to figuring out whether prices may now be close to bottoming out.
That’s clearly a huge economic question. Last week, JPMorgan’s chief financial officer told Eric Dash of The New York Times that JPMorgan, and presumably other banks, would be under pressure “until home prices stabilize and unemployment peaks.” As long as home prices are falling, foreclosures are likely to keep rising and the toxic assets polluting bank balance sheets are likely to stay toxic.
There are reasons, though, to think that prices may be on the verge of stabilizing. Relative to fundamentals, like household incomes and rents, houses nationwide now appear to be overvalued by only about 5 percent. You can make an argument that the end of the housing crash is near.
But that’s not what I found at the auctions.
•
“This is a perfect storm of opportunity,” Bob Michaelis, goateed with a shaved head, told the 300 or so people who had come to downtown Washington for the auction.
Mr. Michaelis, the auction manager, spoke from a lectern on stage, and his goal seemed to be to persuade people that they might never see a buyers’ market as good as this one. Prices have plunged, and interest rates, he said, are at “generational lows.” (The National Association of Realtors has been running a radio commercial this spring making a similar case.)
“Look around to your left and your right, and you’ll see someone who sees an opportunity just like you do,” Mr. Michaelis said. “We’re approaching the bottom of the market, I think. We’re approaching the bottom of the market, if we’re not there already.”
He then told the audience that, in the last 100 years, house prices have recovered from every downturn and gone on to reach record highs. Oh, and Wells Fargo and Countrywide were standing by, ready to offer financing to qualified auction buyers.
If nothing else, this sales pitch certainly had chutzpah. It combined the old bubble-era notion that house prices always rise over time (ignoring the fact that incomes, stock values and the price of bread do, too) with the new postcrash idea that houses must be a bargain because they’re a lot cheaper than they used to be. Even Countrywide, which was taken over by Bank of America after so many of its subprime mortgages went bad, is still part of the housing pitch.
Yet as soon as the auction began, it was clear that the pitch wasn’t working.
The winning bid on the first home auctioned off, a two-bedroom townhouse in Virginia Beach, was $115,000. Just last July, it sold for $182,000, according to property records. A four-bedroom brick house with a two-car garage in Upper Marlboro, Md., went for $375,000. Last year, it sold for $563,000.
Throughout the evening, such low-ball prices continued to win the bidding. At one point, the auctioneer, Wayne Wheat, interrupted his sing-song auction call to cheerfully ask, “Where are my investors?”
The tables that had been set up around the edges of the ballroom, reserved for people planning to buy multiple houses, were mostly empty. Many audience members, like the man in a camouflage baseball cap just in front of me, were attending their first auction.
On Sunday, my colleague Carmen Gentile went to a larger auction, in Miami, to see if my experience had been unusual. It wasn’t. The homes there also sold for just a fraction of what they would have even a year ago. The rate of decline in Miami hasn’t even slowed noticeably in recent months, according to data kept by Real Estate Disposition Corporation, known as R.E.D.C., which runs the auctions.
A recently transplanted New Yorker named Michael Houtkin won the bidding on a one-bedroom condominium on the outskirts of Boca Raton, a few blocks from three golf courses, for the incredible price of $30,000. “Things were almost being given away,” he said later.
As is often the case at these auctions, the seller of the condo — Fannie Mae — retained the right to refuse the winning bid and keep the property. But Mr. Houtkin told me he was optimistic his bid would be accepted. An R.E.D.C. employee suggested to him that $30,000 wasn’t much below the minimum price that Fannie Mae had hoped to receive.
How could that be? Because Fannie Mae, like many banks, is inundated with foreclosed properties. In recent weeks, banks have begun accelerating foreclosures again, after having held off while waiting to find out which homeowners would be eligible for the Obama administration’s assistance program.
The glut of foreclosed homes creates a self-reinforcing cycle. Falling prices lead to more foreclosures. Foreclosures lead to an excess supply of homes for sale. The excess supply then leads to further price declines. Jan Hatzius, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, says that the “massive amount of excess supply” means that home prices nationwide will probably fall an additional 15 percent.
This estimate hides a lot of variation, too. In Miami, Goldman forecasts, prices could drop an additional 33 percent, which is pretty amazing since they’ve already fallen 50 percent from their 2006 peak.
Nor is excess supply the only reason prices still have a way to fall. Nationwide, homes may not be overvalued by much. But in some cities, including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago and Miami, they remain very expensive.
So while Mr. Hatzius and his Goldman colleagues are somewhat more pessimistic than most forecasters, but the difference isn’t enormous.
I’ll confess that this bearish picture isn’t exactly what I had hoped to find. A year ago, as part of a move from New York to Washington, my wife and I bought our first house.
We did so fully expecting prices to continue falling (though perhaps not as much as they ultimately will, given the severity of the financial crisis). But we decided they had fallen enough for us to take the plunge. We preferred buying before the bottom of the market instead of renting and having to move again in a year or two.
Still, when I wrote about that decision last spring, I argued that anyone who didn’t have to probably should not buy yet. Prices still had a way to fall.
They don’t have as far to fall today, but the great real estate crash is not over, either. So if you are part of the 30 percent of American households who rent and you’re trying to decide when to buy, relax.
The market is still coming your way.
E-mail: Leonhardt@nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/business/economy/22leonhardt.html?em

US Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air

Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: April 20, 2009

This is starting to feel like amateur hour for aspiring magicians.
Another day, another attempt by a Wall Street bank to pull a bunny out of the hat, showing off an earnings report that it hopes will elicit oohs and aahs from the market. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and, on Monday, Bank of America all tried to wow their audiences with what appeared to be — presto! — better-than-expected numbers.
But in each case, investors spotted the attempts at sleight of hand, and didn’t buy it for a second.
With Goldman Sachs, the disappearing month of December didn’t quite disappear (it changed its reporting calendar, effectively erasing the impact of a $1.5 billion loss that month); JPMorgan Chase reported a dazzling profit partly because the price of its bonds dropped (theoretically, they could retire them and buy them back at a cheaper price; that’s sort of like saying you’re richer because the value of your home has dropped); Citigroup pulled the same trick.
Bank of America sold its shares in China Construction Bank to book a big one-time profit, but Ken Lewis heralded the results as “a testament to the value and breadth of the franchise.”
Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth professor of management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, also pointed out that Bank of America booked a $2.2 billion gain by increasing the value of Merrill Lynch’s assets it acquired last quarter to prices that were higher than Merrill kept them.
“Although perfectly legal, this move is also perfectly delusional, because some day soon these assets will be written down to their fair value, and it won’t be pretty,” he said.
Investors reacted by throwing tomatoes. Bank of America’s stock plunged 24 percent, as did other bank stocks. They’ve had enough.
Why can’t anybody read the room here? After all the financial wizardry that got the country — actually, the world — into trouble, why don’t these bankers give their audience what it seems to crave? Perhaps a bit of simple math that could fit on the back of an envelope, with no asterisks and no fine print, might win cheers instead of jeers from the market.
What’s particularly puzzling is why the banks don’t just try to make some money the old-fashioned way. After all, earning it, if you could call it that, has never been easier with a business model sponsored by the federal government. That’s the one in which Uncle Sam and we taxpayers are offering the banks dirt-cheap money, which they can turn around and lend at much higher rates.
“If the federal government let me borrow money at zero percent interest, and then lend it out at 4 to 12 percent interest, even I could make a profit,” said Professor Finkelstein of the Tuck School. “And if a college professor can make money in banking in 2009, what should we expect from the highly paid C.E.O.’s that populate corner offices?”
But maybe now the banks are simply following the lead of Washington, which keeps trotting out the latest idea for shoring up the financial system.
The latest big idea is the so-called stress test that is being applied to the banks, with results expected at the end of this month.
This is playing to a tough crowd that long ago decided to stop suspending disbelief. If the stress test is done honestly, it is impossible to believe that some banks won’t fail. If no bank fails, then what’s the value of the stress test? To tell us everything is fine, when people know it’s not?
“I can’t think of a single, positive thing to say about the stress test concept — the process by which it will be carried out, or outcome it will produce, no matter what the outcome is,” Thomas K. Brown, an analyst at Bankstocks.com, wrote. “Nothing good can come of this and, under certain, non-far-fetched scenarios, it might end up making the banking system’s problems worse.”
The results of the stress test could lead to calls for capital for some of the banks. Citi is mentioned most often as a candidate for more help, but there could be others.
The expectation, before Monday at least, was that the government would pump new money into the banks that needed it most.
But that was before the government reached into its bag of tricks again. Now Treasury, instead of putting up new money, is considering swapping its preferred shares in these banks for common shares.
The benefit to the bank is that it will have more capital to meet its ratio requirements, and therefore won’t have to pay a 5 percent dividend to the government. In the case of Citi, that would save the bank hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
And — ta da! — it will miraculously stretch taxpayer dollars without spending a penny more.
The latest news on mergers and acquisitions can be found at nytimes.com/dealbook.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: April 22, 2009 The DealBook column on Tuesday, about accounting changes at large banks that had the effect of improving their quarterly earnings reports, misidentified a professor who was critical of the accounting moves. He is Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth professor of management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth — not Steven Roth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/21sorkin.html?em

Spain’s Falling Prices Fuel Deflation Fears in Europe

Spain’s Falling Prices Fuel Deflation Fears in Europe

The company Fermax has reduced prices by a third on the video intercoms it makes for homes and apartment buildings, hoping to increase sales.

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
Published: April 20, 2009
VALENCIA, Spain — Faced with plunging orders, merchants across this recession-wracked country are starting to do something that many of them have never done: cut retail prices.
Prices dipped everywhere, from restaurants and fashion retailers to pharmacies and supermarkets in March. Hoping to increase sales, Fernando Maestre reduced prices by a third on the video intercoms his company makes for homes and apartment buildings. But that has not helped, so, along with many other Spanish employers, he is continuing to fire workers.
The nation’s jobless rate, already a painful 15.5 percent, could soon reach 20 percent, a troubling number for a major industrialized country.
With the combination of rising unemployment and falling prices, economists fear Spain may be in the early grip of deflation, a hallmark of both the Great Depression and Japan’s lost decade of the 1990s, and a major concern since the financial crisis went global last year.
Deflation can result in a downward spiral that can be difficult to reverse. As unemployment rises sharply and consumers cut spending, companies cut prices. But if sales do not pick up, then revenue can decline further, forcing more cuts in workers or wages. Mr. Maestre is already contemplating additional job and wage cuts for his 250 employees.
Nowhere is this cycle more evident than in Spain. Last month, it became the first of the 16 nations that use the euro to record a negative inflation rate. The drop, though just 0.1 percent, had not happened since the government began tracking inflation in 1961, and Spanish officials have said prices could keep dropping through the summer.
Some of the decline came as volatile food prices sank; the cost of fish fell 6.2 percent, and sugar was down 5.7 percent. But even prices in normally stable sectors like drugs and medical treatments fell 0.7 percent in March, and there were slight declines in footwear, clothing and prices for household electronics.
“Alarm bells are going off,” said Lorenzo Amor, president of the Association of Autonomous Workers, which represents small businesses and self-employed people. “Economies can recover from deceleration, but it’s harder to recover from a deflationary situation. This could be a catastrophe for the Spanish economy.”
Deflation is not just a Spanish concern. Luxembourg, Portugal and Ireland have reported price drops, too. While the declines have been slight — and prices rose modestly after factoring out food and energy prices, which can fluctuate widely — other figures released this month suggest the risk of deflation is growing.
In Germany, wholesale prices dropped 8 percent in March from a year ago, the steepest fall since 1987. In Japan, wholesale prices fell 2.2 percent on an annual basis. In the United States, the Consumer Price Index fell 0.1 percent in March, year over year, the first decline of its kind since 1955, though prices rose 0.2 percent excluding food and energy.
“It doesn’t mean it will spread here to the U.S., but we need to look closely at Spain and other places to understand the dynamic,” says Simon Johnson, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. “It’s like the front line of a new virus outbreak.”
The trends have unnerved even well-established businesses. “There is such a huge lack of confidence in the politicians, in the European Union and in the banks,” said Arturo Virosque, 79, president of Valencia’s chamber of commerce and the owner of a local logistics company. Ticking off crises going back to the Spanish Civil War in his youth, he said, “this is different. It’s like an illness.”
After price cuts by competitors, Mr. Virosque’s company reduced charges for storage and transportation, and slashed its work force to about 170, from 250. “The worst thing is that we have to cut the young people,” he said, because higher severance makes it too expensive to fire older workers.
While unemployment traditionally is higher in Spain than in much of Europe, the sharp increase has many here nervous. The jobless rate for those under 25 is at a Depression-like level of 31.8 percent, the highest among the 27 nations of the European Union.
Before cutting prices in early 2009, Mr. Maestre ordered several rounds of job cuts at his company, Fermax, as sales of the intercoms collapsed with Spain’s housing bubble.
“It’s a question of survival for everybody,” he said. Still, the lower prices have not translated into higher sales. Fermax’s orders fell 25 percent in the first quarter. Prices for some intercom parts that he buys, like video screens, have also come down, but it is not enough to make up for the sales drought. “Prices have to come down more and we will have to spend less,” he said.
The effects of this downward spiral are evident at Valencia’s principal soup kitchen, in an imposing stone building constructed a century ago as an alms house. Each day, a line forms around the block by noon. The Casa de la Caridad, or House of Charity, is helping three times as many people as it did a year ago. More than 11,000 meals were served in March, and it expects to top 12,000 this month.
As the economic decline has broadened, so has the range of people seeking help. In the past, most were out-of-work immigrants or the homeless, said the center’s director, Guadalupe Ferrer. Today, “it’s more and more people like us who had a house, a respectable job, but are now unemployed.”
The employed worry that falling prices will endanger their jobs as well.
Yolanda Garcia has worked as a butcher under the arches of Valencia’s soaring Art Nouveau central market for a decade, but she’s troubled that a drop in the price of chicken, to 5.99 euros a kilo, from 6.99, has not attracted more customers to her stall.
“Of course, we’re worried the boss will have to reduce staff,” said Ms. Garcia, 38, whose husband, a construction worker, was laid off two months ago.
All this has made deflation, once a subject largely reserved for economists who studied the Great Depression, into front-page news here.
The American economy is less vulnerable to deflation, in part because of the Federal Reserve’s decision to cut interest rates to near zero and increase lending by $2 trillion. The European Central Bank has also cut rates, though more slowly, and it has resisted the lending measures adopted by the Fed and the Bank of England to prop up spending.
When Spain had its own currency, the peseta, the central bank could have simply devalued it, or cut interest rates to zero. But that is not an option in the era of the euro, when monetary policy is controlled from the European Central Bank’s headquarters in Frankfurt, said Santiago Carbó, a professor of economics at the University of Granada.
“If we enter into a deflationary period, we won’t have the monetary tools to sort it out,” Mr. Carbó said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/business/global/21deflate.html?em

Revenue Drops 62% as Morgan Stanley Posts a Loss

Revenue Drops 62% as Morgan Stanley Posts a Loss

By DAVID JOLLY
Published: April 22, 2009
Morgan Stanley reported a bigger-than-expected first-quarter loss on Wednesday, as it wrote down soured real estate investments and took a hit on its own debt.
The bank reported a net loss of $177 million, or 57 cents a share, compared with a profit of $1.4 billion a year ago. Revenue fell 62 percent to $3 billion. Analysts surveyed by Reuters had expected a loss of about 9 cents a share and revenue of about $4.9 billion.
Results were helped by a one-time tax benefit of $331 million “from the anticipated repatriation of non-U.S. earnings at lower than previously estimated tax rates.”
Morgan Stanley said its results were hurt by a $1.5 billion decrease in net revenue related to the tightening of credit spreads on certain of its long-term debt and “net losses of $1 billion on investments in real estate, amidst the industry-wide decline in this market.”
Like its larger rival, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley in September converted itself into a bank holding company from an investment bank in order to gain access to emergency Federal Reserve funds. Accounting rules governing holding companies required the banks to change their reporting periods to the calendar year from a Nov. 30 year-end, leaving December as an orphan month.
Morgan Stanley reported a net loss of $1.3 billion for December.
Goldman Sachs last week posted a net profit of $1.7 billion for the first quarter of 2009. For December, it lost $1 billion.
Morgan Stanley also cut its quarterly dividend to 5 cents a share from 27 cents, saying the move would allow it to conserve about $1 billion a year.
Some investors have greeted bank results in the last weeks with optimism, seeing in better-than-anticipated headline numbers signs that the financial industry is stabilizing. But many analysts have cautioned that one-time items and liberal accounting were allowing banks to dress up what would otherwise, considering the continuing deterioration of asset values, have been a bad quarter.
American banks face great uncertainty as the Treasury and financial regulators work out how they will disclose the results of stress tests of 19 large banks. American banks had reported $510 billion in write-downs related to the credit crisis by the end of 2008, the International Monetary Fund said Tuesday, and it predicted they would need to write-down an additional $550 billion in 2009 and 2010.
In spite of difficult business conditions, Morgan Stanley “delivered strong results in investment banking, commodities, interest rates and credit products as well as solid performance in global wealth management,” John J. Mack, the chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “In fact, Morgan Stanley would have been profitable this quarter if not for the dramatic improvement in our credit spreads — which is a significant positive development, but had a near-term negative impact on our revenues.”
Morgan Stanley said it had a Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of financial strength, of 16.4 percent at the end of the first quarter. It said its investment banking business had revenue of $800 million, and that it ranked first globally in announced mergers and acquisitions in the first quarter. The bank said its fixed income sales and trading business posted revenue of $1.3 billion reflecting strong results in commodities, interest rates and credit products.
Goldman Sachs said last week that it wanted to return $10 billion in federal bailout money received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as soon as possible to rid itself of the restrictions on executive pay and other matters. Morgan Stanley’s loss might make it more difficult for it to follow suit in the near term. For its part, Goldman Sachs is awaiting Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner’s approval before it can do so.
Like its rivals, Morgan Stanley has also benefited from an indirect subsidy in the form of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation backing for their debt issues, which allows them to raise money far more cheaply than they could on their own. Morgan Stanley has issued $23 billion of debt under the program.
Morgan Stanley, which sold a 21 percent stake to Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group in September for $9 billion, entered a joint venture this year with Citigroup’s Smith Barney brokerage unit to expand its brokerage business.
It also announced a new joint venture with Mitsubishi UFJ integrating the two firms’ Japanese securities businesses into the third largest brokerage franchise in Japan.
Mr. Mack told a Japanese newspaper this week that Morgan Stanley also wanted to buy an American retail bank to gain deposits.
The bank has a market value of about $27 billion. Its shares, which had gained about 54 percent this year through the market close Tuesday, fell about 2 percent in premarket trading Wednesday.
Louise Story contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/23bank.html?ref=business

Global downturn deeper that feared, says IMF

April 22, 2009

Global downturn deeper that feared, says IMF

In a grim assessment of global prospects, the IMF once again drastically cut its forecasts for key economies across the world

The savage slump in the world’s leading economies is set to be even deeper than previously feared, with recovery next year now unlikely to materialise, the International Monetary Fund warned today.

In a grim assessment of global prospects, the IMF once again drastically cut its forecasts for key economies across the world. It blamed the continuing blight from severe financial stresses for a still worsening global outlook.

For Britain, the fund inflicted a double blow on Alistair Darling minutes after the Chancellor unveiled his Budget. It predicted that the UK economy will now shrink by 4.1 per cent this year — markedly worse than Mr Darling’s own new projection for a 3.5 per cent decline, and said that the recession would drag on into 2010, with a further drop of 0.4 per cent in GDP next year. The Chancellor has predicted a recovery with 2010 growth of 1.25 per cent.

The fund’s hard-hitting report warned that, despite a blizzard of far-reaching official efforts to bail-out banks and stem financial turmoil, governments had failed to halt a vicious downward spiral as intense financial strains and deteriorating economic conditions feed off each other.

Calling for still more “forceful action” by governments on both sides of the Atlantic, the IMF said that halting the slump in the global economy and restoring growth now depended critically on governments “stepping up efforts to heal the financial sector”.

But a day after the fund predicted that cumulative losses for banks in the US, Europe and Japan from the credit crisis will hit $4 trillion, it also warned that, even if economic recovery is secured, it is set to be anaemic and “sluggish relative to past recoveries”.

The latest IMF forecasts, in its twice-yearly World Economic Outlook, project that what it says will be by far the worst world recession since the Second World War will mean a worldwide plunge in economic output (GDP) of 1.3 per cent. That compares with its January forecast which foresaw meagre world growth of just 0.5 per cent, still weak enough to be classed as a global recession.

In the leading economies of the West, the IMF now expects GDP to plummet this year by a vicious 3.8 per cent, down from the 2 per cent drop it expected in January.

It also now expects no revival in 2010, with the advanced industrial economies as a whole set to stagnate with zero growth. That contrasts with the recovery to 1.1 per cent growth that the fund was able to envisage only four months ago.

The bleak new assessment saw forecasts cut for every Western economy this year. The US economy, at the epicentre of the global financial firestorm, is forecast to shrink by 2.8 per cent this year and then to stagnate in 2010. The IMF has abandoned its hopes of a resurgence of American growth to 1.6 per cent next year, and cut its US forecast for this year by a further 1.2 percentage points.

In the eurozone, the report said that the plight of Europe’s big economies would also worsen, with the 16-nation bloc as a whole suffering a 4.2 per cent collapse in GDP this year, and set to shrink by another 0.4 per cent in 2010.

Germany is tipped to be worst hit with a GDP plunge of 5.6 per cent this year, and a further 1 per cent next year. Only France is predicted to see some imminent relief from the gloom, with as 3 per cent decline in 2009 forecast to be followed by modest 0.4 per cent growth after the new year.

The IMF said there were dangers that even its grim new assessment could be too rosy a view, if what it repeatedly called the “corrosive” downward spiral of financial and credit stresses aggravating economic woes was not arrested. “A key concern is that policies may be insufficient to arrest the negative feedback,” it said.

The fund attacked failures by governments to tackle the banking and credit crisis effectively enough. “Announcements have too often been short on detail and have failed to convince markets; cross-border coordination of initiatives has been lacking, resulting in undesirable spill-overs; and progress in alleviating uncertainty related to distressed [toxic] assets has been very limited.”

It renewed its warning a day before that an angry public backlash against banks, bankers and the financial industries could prevent governments from taking the decisive and extensive action needed to stem the threat.

Even once growth is eventually restored to the world’s key economies, the IMF added that the long-term damage from the recession and financial turmoil meant that “there will be a difficult transition period, with output growth appreciably below rates seen in the recent past”.

In a rare glimmer of hope, it conceded, however that: “Recent data provide some tentative indications that the rate of contraction [in the main economies] may now be starting to moderate.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article6147495.ece

Alistair Darling unveils 50 per cent tax rate in UK Budget 2009

Alistair Darling unveils 50 per cent tax rate in Budget 2009

A new 50 per cent top rate of income tax has been announced in the Budget by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor.

By Jon Swaine and Angela Monaghan
Last Updated: 1:43PM BST 22 Apr 2009


The rate will apply to earnings above £150,000 and will replace the 45 per cent rate unveiled in the pre-Budget Report last November. It will take effect from next April - a year earlier than had been planned for the 45p rate.

Personal allowances will also be fully withdrawn for those with incomes over £100,000 from next April.


Tax relief will be reduced on pensions earnings above £150,000, Mr Darling added. However, the basic state pension and the Winter fuel allowance will both continue to rise.

The decisions came as Mr Darling announced the most important budget for a generation, aimed at tackling the worst recession since the Second World War.

Outlining the scale of the problem, Mr Darling announced that he expects that the economy will contract by about 1.6 per cent during the first quarter of this year, and that GDP growth will be about -3.5 per cent for the year.

The recession has forced the Chancellor to rip up his economic forecasts made in the Pre-Budget Report in November, in which the economy was expected to contract by just 1.25 per cent.

In contrast to more pessmistic forecasts from the City, Mr Darling said that he expected the economy to start growing again towards the end of this year, before growing by about 1.25 per cent in 2010 and 3.5 per cent in 2011.

The Chancellor also admitted that Government borrowing will soar to £175bn in the current financial year, or 12 per cent of the country's gross domestic product. The recession has torn a hole through Britain's public finances as tax receipts collapse and spending on benefits such as unemployment rise.

Inflation is expected to continue falling sharply, Mr Darling said, reaching about 1 per cent on the Government's preferred measure by the end of this year. Deflation will continue to be shown on the RPI measure, he added. It is set to fall to about -3 per cent by September, before moving back above zero next year.

A widely-trailed car scrappage scheme will be implemented next month to provide motorists with a £2,000 discount on new vehicles bought when they trade in cars over 10 years old, Mr Darling announced. The scheme will end in March 2010.

Mr Darling also announced a blitz of measures to stop UK unemployment spiralling higher as the recession bites. An additional £1.7bn was pledged to support the unemployed.

From January everyone under the age of 25 who has been jobless for 12 months will be offered a job or a place in training with additional money on top of benefits for those in training.

The "stamp duty holiday" on properties sold for less than £175,000 is to be extended until the end of the year, Mr Darling announced.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/5200435/Alistair-Darling-unveils-50-per-cent-tax-rate-in-Budget-2009.html

Britain and US at odds over further bank bail-outs

Britain and US at odds over further bank bail-outs
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling are growing increasingly concerned over America's failure to clean up the "toxic" debts of many of its major banks despite repeated attempts to do so.

By Robert Winnett and James Quinn
Last Updated: 11:15AM BST 22 Apr 2009

Although President Barack Obama announced a plan last month to offer fund managers and private investors the equivalent of cheap US government loans to buy up $1 trillion (£681bn) of toxic debts from big American banks, the plan has yet to swing into action with many details still unknown.

There are now growing fears in Westminster that President Obama's proposed "public-private" partnership will fail to solve the problem as there is not sufficient appetite among the investment community to buy up the dubious loans. Mr Darling is understood to believe that President Obama will have to announce a new state package of assistance for American banks. In Britain the Treasury has agreed to underwrite 90pc of losses from questionable loans incurred by banks including the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Treasury is now concerned that unless a new American package is announced imminently, British attempts to tackle the recession may be hindered. "America will have to announce a new package to help its banks, this needs to be sorted before we can move forward," said one well-placed source.

The growing signs of tension between Westminster and Washington DC – the first between the Brown and Obama administrations – come as the US Treasury completes a series of financial "stress tests" designed to measure the capital requirements of 19 of America's largest financial institutions.

Publication of the test results are scheduled for May 4, and it is thought highly unlikely that the Obama administration will make any move to shore-up the banking system before then.

One source close to the US Treasury expressed surprise that Mr Darling would think the US is not doing enough, given that the public-private partnership to buy toxic loans is just one of a number of programmes launched by the Obama administration to rescue the financial system.

Those programmes include the Federal Reserve's $1 trillion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility designed to fund new bank lending through buying up existing securities, and efforts to resuscitate the ailing US housing market.

Under President Bush, the US initially apportioned $700bn to rescue its banking system, choosing first to inject money straight into bank's balance sheets, but it has also since been used to help the car industry.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5196478/Britain-and-US-at-odds-over-further-bank-bail-outs.html

Related Articles
Geithner calms fears over US bank capital

Goldman Sachs turns bullish on Chinese economy

Goldman Sachs turns bullish on Chinese economy

Goldman Sachs has dramatically raised its forecasts for the Chinese economy and is now predicting 8.3pc growth for this year, above the Communist Party's own target.

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Last Updated: 9:36AM BST 22 Apr 2009


The reversal came after a raft of strong economic data in March convinced pundits that green shoots are starting to reappear in the Chinese economy, which could shortly overtake Japan as the world's second-largest.

Previously Goldman Sachs forecast that China would only grow by 6pc in 2009. Other economists have predicted growth to be as low as 5pc; strong compared to the rest of the world, but lower than the magic 8pc threshold that China believes is essential to maintain calm.

The Communist Party says that growth under 8pc will not produce enough jobs to keep unemployment at a manageable level and to avoid unrest.

After exports fell by nearly 20pc in the first quarter, the government has poured money into the economy to keep it running. As well as a 4 trillion yuan (£400bn) fiscal stimulus package, Chinese banks have made 4.8 trillion yuan in new loans so far this year.

In order to finance the sudden increase in credit, the Chinese central bank has started printing huge quantities of money. In March, the increase in M2 money supply was 25.5pc, the highest it has been since the Asian financial crisis.

Goldman Sachs is predicting that consumer price inflation will be negative, at -0.3pc, this year, allowing for further cuts in interest rates and the issuing of more new money.

"We are fully confident that we will overcome difficulties and challenges and we have the ability to do so," said Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, at the National People's Congress in March, as he underlined the government's determination to keep GDP growth at 8pc.

"Since the announcement of the fiscal stimulus package last November [...] the pace of implementation of new infrastructure investment and the scale of domestic credit expansion have been unprecedented," said Helen Qiao, an economist at Goldman Sachs. She added that growth next year would be 10.9pc.

Economic growth was just 6.1pc in the first quarter of this year, the lowest on record. However, commentators suggested that the figure was the bottom of the cycle, and that increases in industrial production, retail sales and fixed asset investment would soon buoy the Chinese economy.

However, Stephen Green, an economist at Standard Chartered in Shanghai, expressed some skepticism that there was a full-blown recovery underway. He said growth had accelerated from the end of last year, but cautioned that "there is a huge amount of volatility in the numbers and a chunk of salt is needed."

He added that while the fiscal stimulus package is likely to boost investment by companies in the short-term, in the long run China needs to increase the incomes of its workers and complete a social welfare system. He kept his forecast at 6.8pc for the year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/5198966/Goldman-Sachs-turns-bullish-on-Chinese-economy.html

What should you do? The market has lost more than half of its value.

It's Time to Sell and Walk Away
By John Rosevear (TMF Marlowe) March 5, 2009 Comments (40)

There's no escaping this truth: The market has lost more than half of its value since it peaked in October 2007.

It could go even lower -- and it probably will.

Things are getting worse. If you have any home equity left, it's still shrinking. General Motors inches closer to Chapter 11 every day -- and General Electric (NYSE: GE) is confronting some mighty problems of its own.

Our entire banking system seems on the ragged edge of collapse, as nervous investors wonder who AIG's counterparties are and fret about the true financial condition of institutions such as Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Layoffs continue at a torrid pace, as companies such as General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) and Tyco Electronics (NYSE: TEL) join the very long list of companies adjusting to new economic expectations.

It's going to get worse before it gets better -- if it gets better. Some folks are saying there's no way out -- a huge collapse might be in the cards. At best, they say, we're looking at a decade or more of high unemployment and stock market misery.

This is the time when you look at your decimated portfolio and wonder how much more you can take. This is the time when many pundits remind you that the "buy and hold myth" has been "debunked," and that the "smart money" is already in cash, waiting for the bottom. This is the time when the temptation to join them is overwhelming.

This is the time when you sell it all and walk away,

There's just one catch

But if you act while you still have something left to get rid of, answer this: What do you do after that?

I mean, great, you sold. Congratulations. Now what?

You can leave what's left in a money market fund that earns a whopping 1%. You can buy gold, though that seems more and more to me like buying tech stocks in 1999. You could buy bonds issued by a blue-chip company such as Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) or Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) -- yet that still leaves you exposed to an economic cataclysm.

You could … geez, I don't know what else. There isn't much available that looks like a great long-term investment strategy once you're out of the market. Picassos? Vintage Ferraris? Rental condos in Scottsdale? The Ferrari would be fun, but it's not really a retirement plan.

Of course, when people talk about selling, they're not thinking about an alternative long-term strategy. They're thinking they'll wait for the bottom and then buy back in.

Is that what you're thinking?

You sure that's a good idea? Waiting for the bottom and jumping back in would be market timing. That's the practice of using something -- technical analysis, macroeconomic factors, seasonal indicators, astrology -- to buy when markets are about to rise and sell when they're about to fall.

Market timing, the academics say, doesn't work. But there were academic theories that said our current mess couldn't happen. Are they wrong about this, too?

As Foolish retirement guru Robert Brokamp notes in the new issue of the Fool's Rule Your Retirement newsletter, available online at 4 p.m. Eastern time today, some timing indicators seem to work more often than not. For example, when dividend yields go up and price-to-earnings ratios go down, prospects for stocks in general have usually been good. No-brainer, eh? But some notions are more nuanced -- for instance, statistically speaking, the stock market does best between November and April.

Ouch. Given how the market's done since last November, let's hope that last one doesn't hold this year. But that makes for a good point -- tendencies and trends and "more often than not" isn't reliable enough to bet your retirement fund on. Consider: Will the next sharp upward spike in the markets be yet another bear-market rally -- or the birth of a new bull? One thing history tells us about bull markets: They start sooner than most folks think they will. We'll only know for sure in retrospect.

Likewise, we'll all know what the bottom was -- a year or two later. But how will you know it when it's here? Can you say for sure that we haven't already seen it? The bottom happens, we all know, at "the point of maximum pessimism." I don’t see very many optimists around today.

Wall Street chest-thumping aside, there's only one good answer to that: I don't know.

So what should you do?

The short answer is to "invest well and hang on." Successfully timing the markets involves an extraordinary combination of luck, skill, knowledge, and more luck -- and even the best market timers regularly miss the mark.

A better answer?

Well, we can't predict the future -- but as Robert notes in his article, there are reasons to believe that the remainder of this bear market will unfold along certain lines. And there are strategies you can use to mitigate downside risk in the meantime -- strategies that don't involve selling everything and sitting in cash.

These aren't esoteric strategies, either -- they're approaches you can use in any portfolio, even a 401(k).

Fool contributor John Rosevear has no position in the companies mentioned. Johnson & Johnson is a Motley Fool Income Investor selection. Tyco Electronics is a Motley Fool Inside Value pick. The Fool owns shares of Procter & Gamble.

http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2009/03/05/its-time-to-sell-and-walk-away.aspx

Learn to be an above-average investor. Few can ever hope to be a great investor.

http://www.manualofideas.com/files/sellers.pdf

So You Want To Be The Next Warren Buffett? How.s Your Writing?

By Mark Sellers

First of all, I want to thank Daniel Goldberg for asking me to be here today and all of you for actually showing up. I haven.t been to Boston in a while but I did live here for a short time in 1991 & 1992 when I attended Berklee School of Music. I was studying to be a jazz piano player but dropped out after a couple semesters to move to Los Angeles and join a band. I was so broke when I lived here that I didn.t take advantage of all the things there are to do in Boston, and I didn.t have a car to explore New England. I mostly spent 10-12 hours a day holed up in a practice room playing the piano. So whenever I come back to visit Boston, it.s like a new city to me.

One thing I will tell you right off the bat: I.m not here to teach you how to be a great investor. On the contrary, I.m here to tell you why very few of you can ever hope to achieve this status.

If you spend enough time studying investors like Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett, Bruce Berkowitz, Bill Miller, Eddie Lampert, Bill Ackman, and people who have been similarly successful in the investment world, you will understand what I mean.

I know that everyone in this room is exceedingly intelligent and you.ve all worked hard to get where you are. You are the brightest of the bright. And yet, there.s one thing you should remember if you remember nothing else from my talk: You have almost no chance of being a great investor. You have a really, really low probability, like 2% or less. And I.m adjusting for the fact that you all have high IQs and are hard workers and will have an MBA from one of the top business schools in the country soon. If this audience was just a random sample of the population at large, the likelihood of anyone here becoming a great investor later on would be even less, like 1/50th of 1% or something. You all have a lot of advantages over Joe Investor, and yet you have almost no chance of standing out from the crowd over a long period of time.

And the reason is that it doesn.t much matter what your IQ is, or how many books or magazines or newspapers you have read, or how much experience you have, or will have later in your career. These are things that many people have and yet almost none of them end up compounding at 20% or 25% over their careers.

I know this is a controversial thing to say and I don.t want to offend anyone in the audience. I.m not pointing out anyone specifically and saying .You have almost no chance to be great.. There are probably one or two people in this room who will end up compounding money at 20% for their career, but it.s hard to tell in advance who those will be without knowing each of you personally.

On the bright side, although most of you will not be able to compound money at 20% for your entire career, a lot of you will turn out to be good, above average investors because you are a skewed sample, the Harvard MBAs. A person can learn to be an above-average investor. You can learn to do well enough, if you.re smart and hard working and educated, to keep a good, high-paying job in the investment business for your entire career. You can make millions without being a great investor. You can learn to outperform the averages by a couple points a year through hard work and an aboveaverage IQ and a lot of study. So there is no reason to be discouraged by what I.m saying today. You can have a really successful, lucrative career even if you.re not the next Warren Buffett.

But you can.t compound money at 20% forever unless you have that hard-wired into your brain from the age of 10 or 11 or 12. I.m not sure if it.s nature or nurture, but by the time you.re a teenager, if you don.t already have it, you can.t get it. By the time your brain is developed, you either have the ability to run circles around other investors or you don.t. Going to Harvard won.t change that and reading every book ever written on investing won.t either. Neither will years of experience. All of these things are necessary if you want to become a great investor, but in and of themselves aren.t enough because all of them can be duplicated by competitors.

As an analogy, think about competitive strategy in the corporate world. I.m sure all of you have had, or will have, a strategy course while you.re here. Maybe you.ll study Michael Porter.s research and his books, which is what I did on my own before I entered business school. I learned a lot from reading his books and still use it all the time when analyzing companies.

Now, as a CEO of a company, what are the types of advantages that help protect you from the competition? How do you get to the point where you have a wide .economic moat., as Buffett calls it?

Well one thing that isn.t a source of a moat is technology because that can be duplicated and always will be, eventually, if that.s the only advantage you have. Your best hope in a situation like this is to be acquired or go public and sell all your shares before investors realize you don.t have a sustainable advantage. Technology is one type of advantage that.s short-lived. There are others, such as a good management team or a catchy advertising campaign or a hot fashion trend. These things produce temporary advantages but they change over time, or can be duplicated by competitors.

An economic moat is a structural thing. It.s like Southwest Airlines in the 1990s . it was so deeply ingrained in the company culture, in every employee, that no one could copy it, even though everyone kind of knew how Southwest was doing it. If your competitors know your secret and yet still can.t copy it, that.s a structural advantage. That.s a moat.

The way I see it, there are really only four sources of economic moats that are hard to duplicate, and thus, long-lasting.

1. One source would be economies of scale and scope. Wal-Mart is an example of this, as is Cintas in the uniform rental business or Procter & Gamble or Home Depot and Lowe.s.
2. Another source is the network affect, ala eBay or Mastercard or Visa or American Express.
3. A third would be intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks, regulatory approvals, or customer goodwill. Disney, Nike, or Genentech would be good examples here.
4. A fourth and final type of moat would be high customer switching costs. Paychex and Microsoft are great examples of companies that benefit from high customer switching costs.
   

These are the only four types of competitive advantages that are durable, because they are very difficult for competitors to duplicate. And just like a company needs to develop a moat or suffer from mediocrity, an investor needs some sort of edge over the competition or he.ll suffer from mediocrity.

There are 8,000 hedge funds and 10,000 mutual funds and millions of individuals trying to play the stock market every day. How can you get an advantage over all these people? What are the sources of the moat?

Well, one thing that is not a source is reading a lot of books and magazines and
newspapers. Anyone can read a book. Reading is incredibly important, but it won.t give you a big advantage over others. It will just allow you to keep up. Everyone reads a lot in this business. Some read more than others, but I don.t necessarily think there.s a correlation between investment performance and number of books read. Once you reach a certain point in your knowledge base, there are diminishing returns to reading more. And in fact, reading too much news can actually be detrimental to performance because you start to believe all the crap the journalists pump out to sell more papers.

Another thing that won.t make you a great investor is an MBA from a top school or a CFA or PhD or CPA or MS or any of the other dozens of possible degrees and designations you can obtain. Harvard can.t teach you to be a great investor. Neither can my alma mater, Northwestern University, or Chicago, or Wharton, or Stanford. I like to say that an MBA is the best way to learn how to exactly, precisely, equal the market return. You can reduce your tracking error dramatically by getting an MBA. This often results in a big paycheck even though it.s the antithesis of what a great investor does. You can.t buy or study your way to being a great investor. These things won.t give you a moat. They are simply things that make it easier to get invited into the poker game.

Experience is another over-rated thing. I mean, it.s incredibly important, but it.s not a source of competitive advantage. It.s another thing that is just required for admission. At some point the value of experience reaches the point of diminishing returns. If that wasn.t true, all the great money managers would have their best years in their 60s and 70s and 80s, and we know that.s not true. So some level of experience is necessary to play the game, but at some point, it doesn.t help any more and in any event, it.s not a source of an economic moat for an investor. Charlie Munger talks about this when he says you can recognize when someone .gets it. right away, and sometimes it.s someone who has almost no investing experience.

So what are the sources of competitive advantage for an investor? Just as with a company or an industry, the moats for investors are structural. They have to do with psychology, and psychology is hard wired into your brain. It.s a part of you. You can.t do much to change it even if you read a lot of books on the subject.

The way I see it, there are at least seven traits great investors share that are true sources of advantage because they can.t be learned once a person reaches adulthood. In fact, some of them can.t be learned at all; you.re either born with them or you aren.t.

Trait #1 is the ability to buy stocks while others are panicking and sell stocks while others are euphoric. Everyone thinks they can do this, but then when October 19, 1987 comes around and the market is crashing all around you, almost no one has the stomach to buy. When the year 1999 comes around and the market is going up almost every day, you can.t bring yourself to sell because if you do, you may fall behind your peers. The vast majority of the people who manage money have MBAs and high IQs and have read a lot of books. By late 1999, all these people knew with great certainty that stocks were overvalued, and yet they couldn.t bring themselves to take money off the table because of the .institutional imperative,. as Buffett calls it.

The second character trait of a great investor is that he is obsessive about playing the game and wanting to win. These people don’t just enjoy investing; they live it. They wake up in the morning and the first thing they think about, while they.re still half asleep, is a stock they have been researching, or one of the stocks they are thinking about selling, or what the greatest risk to their portfolio is and how they.re going to neutralize that risk. They often have a hard time with personal relationships because, though they may truly enjoy other people, they don.t always give them much time. Their head is always in the clouds, dreaming about stocks. Unfortunately, you can.t learn to be obsessive about something. You either are, or you aren.t. And if you aren.t, you can.t be the next Bruce Berkowitz.

A third trait is the willingness to learn from past mistakes. The thing that is so hard for people and what sets some investors apart is an intense desire to learn from their own mistakes so they can avoid repeating them. Most people would much rather just move on and ignore the dumb things they.ve done in the past. I believe the term for this is .repression.. But if you ignore mistakes without fully analyzing them, you will undoubtedly make a similar mistake later in your career. And in fact, even if you do analyze them it.s tough to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

A fourth trait is an inherent sense of risk based on common sense. Most people know the story of Long Term Capital Management, where a team of 60 or 70 PhDs with sophisticated risk models failed to realize what, in retrospect, seemed obvious: they were dramatically overleveraged. They never stepped back and said to themselves, .Hey, even though the computer says this is ok, does it really make sense in real life?. The ability to do this is not as prevalent among human beings as you might think. I believe the greatest risk control is common sense, but people fall into the habit of sleeping well at night because the computer says they should. They ignore common sense, a mistake I see repeated over and over in the investment world.

Trait #5: Great investors have confidence in their own convictions and stick with them, even when facing criticism. Buffett never get into the dot-com mania thought he was being criticized publicly for ignoring technology stocks. He stuck to his guns when everyone else was abandoning the value investing ship and Barron.s was publishing a picture of him on the cover with the headline .What.s Wrong, Warren?. Of course, it worked out brilliantly for him and made Barron.s look like a perfect contrary indicator. Personally, I.m amazed at how little conviction most investors have in the stocks they buy. Instead of putting 20% of their portfolio into a stock, as the Kelly Formula might say to do, they.ll put 2% into it. Mathematically, using the Kelly Formula, it can be shown that a 2% position is the equivalent of betting on a stock has only a 51% chance of going up, and a 49% chance of going down. Why would you waste your time even making that bet? These guys are getting paid $1 million a year to identify stocks with a 51% chance of going up? It.s insane.

Sixth, it.s important to have both sides of your brain working, not just the left side (the side that.s good at math and organization.) In business school, I met a lot of people who were incredibly smart. But those who were majoring in finance couldn.t write worth a damn and had a hard time coming up with inventive ways to look at a problem. I was a little shocked at this. I later learned that some really smart people have only one side of their brains working, and that is enough to do very well in the world but not enough to be an entrepreneurial investor who thinks differently from the masses. On the other hand, if the right side of your brain is dominant, you probably loath math and therefore you don.t often find these people in the world of finance to begin with. So finance people tend to be very left-brain oriented and I think that.s a problem. I believe a great investor needs to have both sides turned on. As an investor, you need to perform calculations and have a logical investment thesis. This is your left brain working. But you also need to be able to do things such as judging a management team from subtle cues they give off. You need to be able to step back and take a big picture view of certain situations rather than analyzing them to death. You need to have a sense of humor and humility and common sense. And most important, I believe you need to be a good writer. Look at Buffett; he.s one of the best writers ever in the business world. It.s not a coincidence that he.s also one of the best investors of all time. If you can.t write clearly, it is my opinion that you don.t think very clearly. And if you don.t think clearly, you.re in trouble. There are a lot of people who have genius IQs who can.t think clearly, though they can figure out bond or option pricing in their heads.

And finally the most important, and rarest, trait of all: The ability to live through volatility without changing your investment thought process. This is almost impossible for most people to do; when the chips are down they have a terrible time not selling their stocks at a loss. They have a really hard time getting themselves to average down or to put any money into stocks at all when the market is going down. People don.t like shortterm pain even if it would result in better long-term results. Very few investors can handle the volatility required for high portfolio returns. They equate short-term volatility with risk. This is irrational; risk means that if you are wrong about a bet you make, you lose money. A swing up or down over a relatively short time period is not a loss and therefore not risk, unless you are prone to panicking at the bottom and locking in the loss. But most people just can.t see it that way; their brains won.t let them. Their panic instinct steps in and shuts down the normal brain function.

I would argue that none of these traits can be learned once a person reaches adulthood. By that time, your potential to be an outstanding investor later in life has already been determined. It can be honed, but not developed from scratch because it mostly has to do with the way your brain is wired and experiences you have as a child. That doesn’t mean financial education and reading and investing experience aren’t important. Those are critical just to get into the game and keep playing. But those things can be copied by anyone. The seven traits above can’t be.

Ok, I know that.s a lot of information and I want to leave time for questions so I.ll stop there.

Copyright, Mark Sellers, 2007


Also read:
Mark Sellers: So You Want To Be The Next Warren Buffett?
http://whereiszemoola.blogspot.com/2009/04/mark-sellers-so-you-want-to-be-next.html

****Stock selection for long term investors

Overview of the the market and stock selection for long term investors

The Market

There is much volatility in the market. This is due to trading activities. The majority of trades are short term trading. Trading has increased in the market due to various factors:

• Increase turnover rates of mutual funds, hedge funds, off shore funds and pension funds.
• Decrease cost of trading.
• Speed of trading facilitated by technology innovations.
• Investing institution and managers are acting more as agents rather than as investors on behave of their clients.

A minority invests based on fundamentals.

Trading can be in derivatives. The nature of derivative securities is based on price or action of another security. Trading in derivatives has too increased.

Is trading a good thing? It does increase liquidity to the market and this is good. However too much trading and speculation has its downsides. This is akin to breathing 21% Oxygen (life-sustaining) versus breathing 100% Oxygen (too much oxygen has the associated danger of spontaneous combustion).

In this market downturn, questions we have been hearing the most recently are:

• Is it different this time?
  
• How long will it last?
  
• Have we seen the bottom yet?
  

Who knows? These questions are important but not knowable, therefore don’t waste time pondering on these.

The questions long term investors should ask are:

• Are you investing in an easy to understand, wide moat and well run business?
  
• Does that business generate consistent cash flows and has a clean balance sheet?
  
• Finally, are you buying at a large discount to what the business is worth?
  

Strategies for selecting stock for the long term investor

Benjamin Graham: "Investment is best when it is business like. "

However, long term investing is not the only way to make money, there are other ways too.


These 4 strategies should aid one’s investment into equities:
1. Select the business that is long term profitable and giving good return on total capital (ROTC).
2. The business should have managers with talent and integrity in equal measures.
3. Understand the business reinvestment dynamics.
4. Pay a fair price for the business.

1. The business to invest in must make money over time.

• Examine how its revenues and profits are generated. 
• How do its products or services contribute to the value of its business? 
• What are its costs? 
• Look for a business that gives good RETURN ON TOTAL CAPITAL (ROTC), not just those with high ROE. 
• Be aware that high ROE can be due to taking on too much debt. 
• Avoid IPOs, start-ups and venture capitals.

2. Look for managers with a good balance of talent and integrity.

• Those with integrity but lack talent are nice people to have as friends, but they may not be able to deliver good results for the business. 
• Those with talent but lack integrity will harm your business and longer term investment objectives.

3. Is the company able to reinvest its money or capital at a better rate over time?

Basically, be conscious of the reinvestment dynamic of the company.

(a) There are companies giving good return on total capital and able to reinvest their capital at better incremenetal rates over time.

• Invest in these companies as they are effectively compounding your money year after year. 
• This is the powerful concept of REINVESTMENT COMPOUNDING seen in some companies, best illustrated by Berkshire Hathaway. (Reinvestment Compounding)

(b) Some companies have good return on total capital but can’t reinvest this at better rate over time.

• For example, a restaurant business may be dependent on the personal touch of the owner. 
• Expanding the business to another restaurant may not generate the same return on capital. 
• In such cases, the worse approach is to grow the business of the restaurant. This is unlike McDonald. 
• Those investing into such businesses should understand that their RETURNS ARE FROM DIVIDENDS and from RETURN OF TOTAL CAPITAL.

(c) Avoid those businesses with no return on total capital but use more capital all the time.

• An example of this is the airline industry. AVOID such investments.

4. Determining the fair price to pay for the ownership of the business is important.

• For the outside shareholder, the investment should earn the same returns as the company’s business returns.
• If the company earns 10% or 12% or 15% per year for 5 years, the outside shareholders should likewise aim to earn a return of 10% or 12% or 15% per year for 5 years by paying a fair price. 
• Paying a PE of 40 for this company may mean not earning such return as the price paid was too high. 
• On the other hand, paying a PE of 10 – 15 gives the investor a better odd of getting this fair return.
• Paying a fair price for owning a business is important. The company earnings maybe as expected but then your returns failed to match these as you have paid too much to own the business.

What about other factors?


The economy, interest rates, fuel prices, commodity prices, foreign exchange, price of gold and geopolitical situations; should not these influence your investing?

Yes, these are hugely important factors. However, they are not predictable and largely out of our control. They are not knowable in advance. It is better to distance oneself from thinking about them when assessing the business to invest in.

Therefore, the approach adopted should generally not be a top-down macroeconomic one, but a bottom-up microeconomic one. “The implication is with the passage of time, a good business over a long period of time produce results to the investor over time.”


Summary

Identify the company that is in a profitable business giving good return on total capital (ROTC).

The managers should be talented and honest, and have the interest of the shareholders.

The business should be able to reinvest capital at higher incremental rates of returns and with discipline. (Reinvestment compounding).

Also, acquire the company at fair price to ensure a fair return. Avoid paying too much for the current prospect of the company, look long term.

-----
-----


Effectively the above is the same as the QVM approach.


Quality: A good quality company has consistent and/or increasing revenue, profit, eps, and high ROE or ROC.


Value: This is dependent on the price paid to acquire the business. Using earnings yield or PE enables one to determine the fair price to pay for this business.


Management: Look for businesses where the managers have these 2 qualities in the right balance - talent and integrity.


Search out for companies with high ROE or ROTC and low PE or high earnings yield (indicating "cheapness"). Relate the ROE or ROTC to the PE or earnings yield of the business.


A fair price to pay for the business will be the price that guarantees at least a return equivalent to the returns generated by the business you invest in.


Owning a good quality company with talented and honest managers at a good price (fair or bargain price) incorporates all the elements of investing preached by Benjamin Graham, namely the safety of capital considerations, reward/risk ratio considerations and the margin of safety considerations.

Also read: ROE versus ROTC

Intelligent Investor Chapter 20: Margin of Safety as the Central Concept of Investment

Chapter 20: Margin of Safety as the Central Concept of Investment

Graham distills the secret of successful investment into building a “Margin of Safety” into each and every investment.

What is a margin of safety?

It is coming up with a valuation of the underlying business, and then paying less! Warren Buffett describes this as building a bridge that can carry 30,000 pounds, and then only driving 10,000 pound trucks across it. Know the value, then pay less, and don’t cut it close!

How does one do this?

Here are some key points:

1. Not overpaying for a security just because it is the latest market darling
2. Buying good companies that are undervalued
3. Diversifying across multiple companies and industries
4. Having a portfolio that is both bonds and stocks and reviewing the allocation at regular intervals (not every time the market seems to be throwing a fit)
5. Having the courage to buy even when the market is saying something else.
6. Having the courage to ignore the daily market fluctuations and hold on to the investment until the underlying fundamentals change
7. Recognizing that it is better to be safe and careful than to take risks in an effort to earn above-average returns