Chart: Precious Metals and Bonds’ Domination of the ’00s

Telling chart by Jesse, showing the returns of various asset classes, 01/01/2000 – 12/31/2009. Note – If you factored in the 25% price inflation since 2000, it’d be even uglier (official CPI inflation # via BLS’ CPI tool).

How bout that Nasdaq 100? Kinda shocking from this vantage point. Down 49% in 10 years (excluding dividends, which wouldn’t improve the situation much for these low-yielders. Especially if you take inflation into account). Ugly all around, minus hard assets.

It’d be interesting to see an energy/oil stocks index included in the mix. I’ll put it on the to-do list.

In another 10 years, I suspect we’ll all be looking back on this period with 2020 hindsight. Har har… ha. Saw that on Reddit today, couldn’t resist.

BeautifulPeople.com’s brilliant viral marketing

Filed under: Off-topic marketing stuff.

I’d say any viral marketing campaign that gets picked up by the BBC is a success. BeautifulPeople.com just pulled off a doozy, and the evil marketers behind this one deserve a bonus.

The site announced that due to their weight gain over the holidays, 5,000 members will be booted off the site. From the BBC piece:

‘Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded’, site founder Robert Hintze said.

The members were singled out after posting pictures of themselves that reportedly showed they had put on pounds over the holiday period.

The site allows entry to new members only if existing members vote them as sufficiently attractive to warrant it.

I’m a bit of an internet marketer myself, so I appreciate what they did there. Is it offensive to most people? Hell yes. Offensive to their target audience? Nope.

It’ll get them thousands of links and tons of traffic. Smart marketing, moral issues aside. BTW, check out the notice on the bottom of their homepage. Provocative stuff like this generates buzz.

Bearish Sentiment At 22-Year Low

The latest sentiment reading by Investors Intelligence shows a disturbing trend. Only 15.6% of financial newsletters are currently bearish on equities.

Last time the bearish indicator was this low was April 1987. A few months later (Black Monday) the DJIA dropped 21% in a single day:

In other words – when everything seems peachy — watch out. Turns out that peaks and troughs in investor sentiment are pretty good contra-indicators. Bullish sentiment tends to peak as bubbles are near their top, and vice versa.

From the revamped and newly Bloombergesque Business Week:

Pessimism about U.S. stocks among newsletter writers fell to the lowest level since April 1987, six months before the equity market crash known as Black Monday, following the biggest rally in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in seven decades.

The proportion of bearish publications among about 140 tracked by Investors Intelligence fell to 15.6 percent yesterday from 16.7 percent a week earlier. Sentiment has improved since October 2008, when the financial crisis drove the figure to a 14-year high of 54.4 percent. After plunging 38 percent in 2008, the S&P 500 has risen 25 percent this year.

This is not to say markets wont’ run again in 2010. Irrational bull markets can last much longer than you’d think. The momentum they build up is impossible to fight. Gotta wait for that to break before getting seriously short. Example – After the bearish-sentiment index bottomed in 1987, the market rallied another 14% before crashing.

Smart investors like Bill Fleckenstein have been highlighting the credit bubble since the mid-1990’s. And today markets are more irrational than ever. Government intervention is preventing market cycles from proceeding like never before.

Industries like housing, banking, and commercial real estate have become completely dependent on government support. Their future (and that of our currency) depend on whether our leaders will extend or end this support. It’s a ludicrous, manipulated market.

So far America’s leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that they have zero tolerance for economic pain. Their support for the financial markets seems unlimited, no matter the long-term cost. I don’t see that changing without something drastic hapenning – another huge round of bailouts, a shift in the political landscape, or something else.

Earnings Distorted, Bloated

Earnings, as officially reported, are less and less reflective of a company’s real income.. Today’s earnings are nothing less than a rosy version of what they “should of been, had not X happened.” X represents the bad stuff that constantly happens to businesses, but currently they are treated as one-time events, no matter how many quarters-in-a-row they occur. One-time transactions that are profitable, however, are included in “headline” earning numbers, of course.

This is a different breed of bubble. On top of creative income interpretation, asset losses are being swept under the rug with an impressive array of accounting gimmicks. Changes to rules that govern loan valuation, and the continued allowance of off-balance-sheet vehicles are examples.

Related:

The Economist Visualizes the Risk of Social Unrest in 2010

From The Economist:

If The world appears to have escaped relatively unscathed by social unrest in 2009, despite suffering the worst recession since the 1930s, it might just prove the lull before the storm. Despite a tentative global recovery, for many people around the world economic and social conditions will continue to deteriorate in 2010. An estimated 60m people worldwide will lose their jobs. Poverty rates will continue to rise, with 200m people at risk of joining the ranks of those living on less than $2 a day. But poverty alone does not spark unrest—exaggerated income inequalities, poor governance, lack of social provision and ethnic tensions are all elements of the brew that foments unrest.

Found this via Michael Panzner, author of When Giants Fall. Mike thinks that the map should show a bit more brown, specifically between Canada and Mexico. Regardless, it’s shocking how much risk the analysis shows.

Related: Interview with Mike Panzner

Slate Interviews Tim Geithner

Link. I’m going to post some of the more interesting excerpts, plus my translation/commentary:

GROSS: So you don’t think the bailouts were too friendly to Wall Street?

GEITHNER: The idea that the strategy was unfair and has principally benefited a small number of institutions in New York is a mischaracterization of the design and result of the strategy. I thought people would have understood this after the failure of Lehman Bros. But when you do too little and you leave the system with real fear that everything is going to fall apart, like any financial crisis, it hurts the poorest most. A just and fair strategy, even if it is politically hardest to explain and justify, is to use well-designed but massive force to stabilize the system.

Translation: Ignore the fact that bailouts resulted in record bonuses in 2009. Think about all those poor people who would be without more credit (debt) had we not acted. Ignore the fact that they still don’t have credit, extending more debt to people is not sustainable, and unemployment is still on the rise.

A bloated financial sector subsidized by government is the lifeblood of our economy. I have this on good authority. My mentor, Bob R. (former Goldman CEO, slayer of Glass-Steagall), Lloyd, and Jamie all agree.

GROSS: The biggest downside surprise?

GEITHNER: The [high] level of unemployment rel­ative to what was happening in the economy as a whole. I’m not an economist, but almost all forecasters missed that. And that’s hugely consequential, because it’s the prism through which most people view basic economic health.

Translation: What’s the problem? The market is up. That means the economy is OK. So why is unemployment still an issue? We injected trillions of dollars here. Our projections show sunshine and rainbows into 2010 and beyond.

GROSS: There’s a perception that you regard your portfolio narrowly, as primarily focused on the health of Wall Street, with Main Street a distant second.

GEITHNER: My first and essential responsibility was to fix and reform the financial system. That was necessarily going to be the principal part of what people saw. About half my time from the beginning has been spent on the design of the broader economic strategy. The idea that we did not do much for the broader challenges facing the country is completely unjustified. The Recovery Act itself was not just a sweeping, essential force for growth but included a bunch of targeted investments in education, energy, environment, health care that will have huge long-term benefits.

Translation: Banks come first. Speculation and mass-bonuses with government backing is crucial to America’s economy. But hey, we’re looking out for the lil’ guy too. After we took care of the really important stuff, we also pledged $787b for questionable pork-barrel projects. Those quilt-museums and $3m turtle highways will create some jobs.

GROSS: What portions of the financial meltdown will the government still be dealing with a year from now?

GEITHNER: This was the worst thing that’s happened in 70 years, and it’s going to have a tail. Unwinding our stakes in autos, in AIG, and in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is going to have a somewhat longer fuse. The transition away from this massive government intervention in the housing market is going to take some time. A year from now, the FDIC will still have a large stock of assets from institutions they’ve taken over.

Translation: Kiss those giveaways investments in Freddie, Fannie, and automakers goodbye. The FDIC is also taking on loads of overvalued crap from failed banks, so watch out for that too.

GROSS: What keeps you up at night? What do you worry about?

GEITHNER: Apart from whether my kids are going to be happy in life? What concerns me is whether we will be able to do well enough on the things that are most important. The hardest thing in governing is to make politically achievable the policies that are economically good, just, and sensible for the country. That’s a challenge, partly because of the damage done to the confidence in government and policy in the last two decades, partly because of the populism, and partly because we have to build broad consensus on the Hill in order to do anything meaningful. What countries need in crises the president delivered. He said, this is the plan, and he got it done. But on a range of things that really matter to the future, it requires a coalition to really make legislation happen.

So Tim, the reason it’s hard to make good economic decisions is due to populism? The nerve of those Main Street jackals, asking to be the primary concern of their government. It’s more clear than ever that Tim’s priority is Wall Street. And he doesn’t see anything wrong with that.

Maybe he should read up on Treasury’s mission statement. I don’t see anything in there about propping up a corrupt zombie-banking system.

Sprott: Is it all just a big ponzi scheme?

Fascinating report from Sprott Asset Management.

h/t ZH.

Page 5 of 56« First...2345678...Last »