As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: collapse


This is a guest article by Rob Bennett, a personal finance journalist and author of the blog A Rich Life. Rob developed the Passion Saving approach to money management; Passion Savers save not to finance their old-age retirements but to enjoy more freedom and opportunity in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s.

You naturally get worried when you see the value of your retirement account drop. Most experts say that you should ignore the ups and downs of the market. But that’s hard. We all want to be sure that we are on track to meet our retirement goals.

The purpose of this article is to offer more detailed and more balanced advice that what is usually put forward by the experts. It is true that there are some circumstances in which it really is best to tune out the market noise. However, recent academic research shows that there are other times when stock price drops should be a serious concern.

There are six sorts of stock price changes you will experience and letting you know the proper way to react, given how stocks have always performed in similar circumstances in the past.

Situation one: Losses incurred at a time when stocks are selling at fair value prices

Say that stocks are priced at fair value (that’s a P/E10 value of 15). Should stock price drops be a concern?

No, not at all. Losses experienced from price drops starting from fair-value prices are always recovered over the next 10 years or so. So these are strictly temporary setbacks.

In these circumstances, the experts are absolutely right. The worst thing to do following a price drop starting from fair-value prices is to sell your stocks. That turns those temporary losses into permanent losses. You want to hold the stocks until the losses are recovered.

Situation two: Gains incurred at a time when stocks are selling at fair value prices

What if you instead see gains starting from a time when stocks are selling at fair-value prices? Are the gains temporary too?

Probably not.

U.S. companies generate enough productivity to support annual gains for the broad stock indexes of 6.5 percent real. So the market price is constantly moving upward. So long as your gains are not more than 6.5 percent real, those gains are not temporary but are yours to keep.

Even if the gains are more than 6.5 percent per year, there probably is not much cause for concern. The average 6.5 percent return for U.S. stocks is good enough that price changes that lower that number a bit for the future don’t cause serious problems for investors. So what if your returns in future years will be only 5 percent real or only 4 percent real? That’s still better than the return you could earn in alternative asset classes. You still want to keep your money in stocks.

Situation three: Losses incurred at a time when stocks are selling at super-low prices

These are the times when you want to be certain to be heavily invested in stocks. You can’t lose. Once prices are already low, they can’t go any lower. If prices remain at the same valuation level, you will obtain that average 6.5 percent return. If they move up to fair-value price levels (they always do in the long term), you will see a return far better than that.

There’s only one problem. Prices only go to super-low levels when most people are so scared about their financial futures that they are not willing to pay a fair price for stocks. You will be hearing lots of stories in the media at such times that the entire economy is about to collapse. You want to try to tune that stuff out.

If the economy really does collapse, there is no good investment class. So you wouldn’t be losing anything by being in stocks, If the economy recovers, those in stocks will generate more wealth in 10 years than they could in 20 years of investing at other sorts of time-periods. Do not get caught up in the gloom and doom!

Situation four: Gains incurred at a time when stocks are selling at super-low prices.

All gains incurred at times of super-low prices are yours to keep, even gains far above the 6.5 percent average return figure. This remains true until stocks are again selling at fair-value prices. So enjoy the ride up! You earned it by managing to tune out the gloom and doom message threatening to throw you off the horse.

Situation five: Losses incurred at a time when stocks are selling at super-high prices.

This is the circumstance in which I disagree with the advice offered by most experts in this field. Losses suffered starting from super-high prices are never recovered. When you pay more than a fair price for stocks, a portion of your money is going to the purchase of stocks and a portion is going to the purchase of cotton-candy nothingness. Prices always return to fair value. So these price drops are not so much losses as they are the market coming to recognize phony gains experienced at an earlier time for what they really are.

Situation six: Gains incurred at a time when stocks are selling at super-high prices.

Stocks are dangerous when they are selling at super-high prices. Gains experienced at such times just make the stocks you are holding that much more dangerous to hold. Investors going with high stocks allocations in such circumstances are living on borrowed time.

Photo: Images_of_Money

{ 20 comments }

The Securities and Exchange Commission, an organization designed to regulate and oversee the financial industry, is charged with acting in investors’ best interests. Most of the time, however, the SEC works on behalf of the large financial companies under its purview. As a result, when consumers demand that companies be held accountable for misleading investors or playing a role in a systemic collapse of the economy, the regulators tend to look the other way. Some companies get by with a slap on the wrist, settling lawsuits with a paltry penalty.

That appeared to be the case recently when Citigroup and the SEC came to an agreement whereby the company would pay $285 million, or 7.56% of that quarter’s profit, to settle a lawsuit that charged that the company did not properly disclose the risk when selling collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and bet against the same investments the company sold to investors. The benefits of a settlement like this would be that Citi could pay the small fine from its cash reserves without admitting wrongdoing, promise they’ll never break the rules again, and continue to operate business as usual.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Federal District Court in Manhattan was not pleased with the resolution or collusion between Citi and the SEC. The judge rejected the settlement because it was not fair, reasonable, adequate, or in the best interest of the public. He demanded the company and the regulator to shed light on the facts of the case, something this settlement might have avoided, protecting the company from any real criticism. A settlement would mean that affected investors could not sue Citi, but if the SEC were to successfully win a case against Citigroup, proving the company was in the wrong, that decision could be used by harmed investors who sue the bank. At the core of the matter is whether a company should be allowed to avoid admitting guilt.

The trial will begin in July 2012.

DealBook

{ 3 comments }

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has advised the managers of super-secret hedge funds, investments of the most wealthy, that they will soon need to disclose more information to the regulators. Highly leveraged hedge funds contributed to the economic collapse, but the pressure to increase oversight has been mostly ignored by the industry. In response to heavy lobbying by the industry, the SEC has scaled back the requirements the commission intended to issue, leaving softer regulation likely to be ineffective.

Hedge fund managers like to keep their operations secret. If managers were required to report underlying investments, trades, and strategies, they might be at a disadvantage. Like a patented formula for creating pharmaceutical drugs, hedge fund managers rely on their proprietary operations to ensure no imitators and no rogue competitors using their strategies to cause them to fail. Most fund managers need to report their funds’ financial details publicly, with statements that outline the funds’ holdings, risk profile, expenses, and strategy. Hedge funds do not have this requirement.

The new SEC regulations allow hedge funds to file a minimum amount of data pertaining to the investments, and the filing will not be available to the public. Only a small committee within the SEC will be privileged enough to see the information. Additionally, only hedge funds with $1.5 billion in assets will be required to report the most detailed information to the SEC. Funds with over $500 million in assets need only report the extent that the investments are leveraged. Hedge funds with $150 million in assets or left will not be required to report anything.

The required reporting, which grows out of the financial crisis three years ago, is meant to allow financial regulators to monitor the risks that the funds may pose to the nation’s overall financial system, something that officials at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the S.E.C. did not have during the crisis.

By focusing on the largest hedge funds, it may seem like the new reporting requirements will achieve this goal of monitoring and evaluating systemic risk. Considering that the largest hedge funds can still get away with reporting vague information about their underlying investments, the SEC may still miss big risks.

Should hedge funds be subject to the same scrutiny as publicly traded companies? Does the idea that very few investors take advantage of hedge funds release these managers from public accountability?

New York Times

{ 10 comments }

As every fourth graders knows, the United States Constitution begins, “We the people…” In the years following adoption of the Constitution, there have been movements to include more classes or types of human beings into that “people” represented by the federal government. The basic rights guaranteed by the core philosophy of the government once applied to a narrow definition of people, but as education levels across all demographics have risen among all socioeconomic subcultures, more people demand to have a voice, or feel that they are represented, in federal government.

The government has always listened most closely to those with money, and as money spread to groups other than white men with a certain heritage, more people gained access to representation. The framers of the Constitution may feel like they represented all colonists in the United States (but certainly not the displaced natives), but they were wealthier and more educated than the rest of their communities. As overall wealth and education increased, rights were extended to black Americans and women, but only when pressured by grassroots initiatives; never have the wealthy in power made any move to share that power unless pressured — significantly pressured, over a long period of time.

Today, the wealthiest still wield the most power in government. While corporations, as of yet, cannot run for office, those who run the corporations can direct profits to initiatives that ensure their interests are well-represented at the expense of just about everyone else in the country, including the middle class. Just like the threat of a terrorist attack (or previously, the Cold War) is used as a reason to increase defense spending for the benefit of corporations connected to the military, the threat of an economic collapse is used to help persuade the public that corporations deserve every break they can get. These threats may very well be real, but the result is that what matters most to policy makers are the concerns of a small, wealthy group of Americans.

Occupy Wall Street ProtestYou may not agree with any of the above. I don’t intend to take a political approach to anything on Consumerism Commentary, but this is the context that is needed to understand what is going on with the Occupy Wall Street protests which, while they have spread beyond New York, are relatively under-reported or ignored by the press.

The reason for the under-reporting, according to the protesters, is that the media, even the more liberal news media in New York like WNYC and National Public Radio, is financially supported by Wall Street firms. They claim that both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have the same corporations pulling the strings.

If there’s anything that can be learned from the Tea Party’s slow ascent from counterculture to the mainstream, it’s that the media won’t grant much attention to a movement until it reaches a critical mass and takes an extreme position. If the Occupy Wall Street movement wants more people to be aware of the issue that only the rich are represented by government, they will need to push the issue much harder, find ways to get on television, and convince the public that they are much more than lone groups of harmless rebels with cardboard signs. The Tea Party protesters weren’t taken seriously at first, either, but they transformed their scattered movements into relative cohesion after they managed to gain more publicity through actions and voices that could simply not be ignored any longer.

It has never been a secret that money buys political power. I don’t see any way for that to change, even if Occupy Wall Street successfully increases awareness of the issue throughout the country. Regardless, the protests will need to crescendo in order to get anyone outside the movement to pay attention for more than a minute.

Should government represent all citizens equally regardless of financial condition? Does focusing representation on the wealthy “trickle down” (an economic policy championed by a Republican) to lower classes by virtue of boosting the economy through the “rising tide” analogy (which is attributed to a Democrat)? Is there any difference in the economic ideologies between today’s Democrats and Republicans when they are all funded by major corporations?

Photo: david_shankbone

{ 44 comments }

$1.2 Trillion in Secret Fed Loans

by Flexo

We know about TARP, the program that used taxpayer money to lend to the biggest Wall Street banks tin an effort to prevent the collapse of the financial industry. The Federal Reserve loaned more money to Wall Street, however, in secret. The details are only coming out now thanks to the Freedom of Information Act ... Continue reading this article…

5 comments Read the full article →

J.P. Morgan Misled Investors, Will Pay $153.6 Million

by Flexo

As the market was collapsing, J.P. Morgan Securities continue to convince clients to invest in a complicated investment made up of credit-default swaps, even though the underlying investments were selected by a hedge fund, Magnetar Capital LLC, that would benefit from seeing the investment fail. Allegedly, J.P. Morgan was knowingly selling an investment designed to ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →

Federal Reserve’s Secret Bailout Helped Banks Profit During Crisis

by Flexo
1422847855_a0b53f1582_b[1]

While the Federal Reserve was publicly providing money to member banks at interest rates of up to 0.5 percent during the financial meltdown of 2008, a different, less public program bailed out Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, and Royal Bank of Scotland with short-term loans with an interest rate of only 0.01 percent. Those banks received the bulk ... Continue reading this article…

10 comments Read the full article →

HBO’s Too Big to Fail

by Flexo

Last night, HBO premiered Too Big to Fail, a movie based on Andrew Ross Sorkin’s book, Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System — and Themselves, based on the events of the financial meltdown of 2008 starring Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 712345···Last »