4 Questions for Bruce Krasting

Bruce Krasting is a 25-year Wall St. vet, and runs one of my favorite finance/econ blogs.

#1 – If you were advising President Obama, what would your #1 economic action item be? Ignore political viability, if possible.

On a “big picture” basis I would set an agenda that was clearly moving in a direction of unwinding many/all of the emergency measures that were introduced in 08. For confidence to be restored we have to get the sense that the crisis is behind us. There is nothing that can be done “tomorrow” that can magically restore home values and reduce unemployment. Bernanke will try to save the day with QE-2, but it will not work any better than QE-1 did. A short term benefit at most. Same with fiscal policy. We can have another stimulus and borrow another $1 trillion. That would give us a few quarters more of anemic growth. But after that we would fall off the shelf when the life support ends. Our policies appear to me to be a bridge to no-where. A smooth ride till the end of the ramp and then a crash.

I think the Europeans have it closer to “right” than we do. They are moving in the direction that I think is better if one is looking out five years and asking, “What do we want to look like?” We are headed in the direction of Japan. We will have 1% growth (disaster) and debt to GDP of 150% (death).

But you asked a narrow question. What would I do?

I think we do need a stimulus. But it has to be different this time. We need the private sector to pick up the slack. So let’s give them a chance. I want a one year (18 months?) Payroll tax holiday. That tax is currently 12.4%. For 2011 that tax will be equal to about $700 billion. A very big drag. I want to cut SS by 60% during the holiday. I want the reduction to be shared by workers and and their employers. I would have a ratio of 60% for the workers and 40% for the employers. I want to put $400b in the hands of the private sector. This is money that does not even get collected by D.C.. So the government can’t spend it. I believe that the 150 million American workers will make the best use of that extra $240B. They will spend some of it and they will save some of it. The companies that get a break will also spend it. I would require that the savings that the employers get have to be re-invested.

BUT. This has to be PayGo. This can be done. I estimate that a ~4 year cut of SS benefits for those who are getting checks now but also have taxable income in excess of ~$200k PA is required. I call this the Bill Gates/Warren Buffet tax. These guys do not need the extra 1500 a month SS is paying them. This is a means test. It taxes wealth. I do not like that, but it is necessary. We have to raise revenue.

The percentage of people that this would affect is small. Therefore it is politically “sale-able”. It is a significant change of the rules of SS. But those changes would be temporary. To attempt to make this “fairer” I would give those that lost benefits a tax credit. That tax credit would be available to offset (dollar for dollar) any federal estate taxes that would be due at death. What would this do? It would put more “wealth” back into the hands of the next generation. Everything we do robs from the next generation. This has the opposite impact. It puts more in the hands of our children.

Some would object to this. But my guess is that Bill and Warren and many others who would lose benefits would be happy to do so. Those that would be impacted by this have a great stake in America. These are the ones who have the most to lose if we fall into a debt spiral or a depression. They are getting the money, but only after they are dead.

Trust me. A $400b reduction in PR taxes would be a very effective stimulus. It would work. The economy would stabilize. But it must be paid for. If we just borrow and spend we will have accomplished nothing. Making it PayGo would instill confidence.If confidence is restored markets will improve and interest rates will return to more normal levels. Those that lost SS benefits would rejoice at that result.

Disclosure: I would lose my benefits if this plan were implemented.

#2 – You have written extensively about Social Security. Which aspect of this program do you feel is most misunderstood? How much of a threat are baby-boomers to entitlement programs?

Hmmm. Most misunderstood? There are so many aspect of this that are misunderstood.

The $2,500,000,000 Trust Fund has to be at the top of the list. I typed all the zeros to show just how big the number is. $2.5 Trillion. Hard to think of.

Some say there is no money or assets in the TF. That it was robbed by some prior administration. Many refer to it as a ponzi scheme. Just a fictional accounting scam.

Those on the extreme other side look at this as massive pile of AAA Treasury bonds that will mature and be available to pay scheduled benefits for the next 25 years or so. They think that SS is sound and nothing need be done about it.

Both of these views are wrong in my opinion. The bonds in the TF will be paid on time. They are legally just as sound as those held by the Chinese central bank. We exclude these debts when evaluating our current Debt/GDP ratios.  We are doing ourselves a disservice, this is real money that is owed.

But to honor these debts means that the Debt Held By the Public will increase $ for $. That can’t and will not happen. Yes there are real assets, and no they can’t be used without a (my word) disastrous consequence to the bond market. There is a limit to what can be sold. I think we are dangerously close to that limit today. Adding in another 2.5t will make us lose our AAA and our financing cost will go up. We will become Greece.

On the Boomers. They have been the problem for decades. This demographic bulge is probably our most significant medium term challenge. When the boomers were born they created a housing boom. That has not stopped until 2007. 2008 is the first year of the boomers getting to 65 folks. That is not a coincidence. The mcmansions, second and third homes are coming up for sale now. The boomers are downsizing. This will go on for many years.

While the boomers did pay a lot of taxes and funded the surpluses in SS they are now going to start costing us big time. The aging of our population is accelerating. We still have a decade to peak.

If the economy were growing by 4-5% we could afford this transition. But that is the least likely thing to happen. Because of the boomers, we will be lucky to grow at 1.5%. Should that be the case the boomers will sink the economy.

Resources are are scarce. Allocations will have to be made. It will not be pretty. We have the risk of “age warfare”. We may be faced with the choice, “Who do we protect?” The health and education of people 25 and younger, or the health and well being of those over 80. If we are faced with triage we will have to support the former over the latter.

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

I am a boomer.

#3 – Reports of under-funded pensions at corporate, state, and federal levels are widespread. Are you concerned?

Not my area of expertise.  I read the reports as you do. I am certain they are right. We are on a train wreck with this. The problem is that there was an assumption about how quickly assets would grow (8%) and and how big future contributions will be. Both are wrong. The lines are crossing in public and private PFs all over the country.

Cuts will have to be made. But these were promises that were made in ink, so it will not be easy. To a very significant extent this is another boomer problem. I will repeat from above:

Socially, we may be looking at a bad end for the boomers.

#4 – Could you briefly sum up your thoughts on U.S. equities?

Briefly? What a tough assignment.

There are today some excellent investment opportunities in the capital markets. That will be the case every day for the next ten years. But I don’t know what they are and if I did I would not share them. Those that “share” are just selling their book. I am convinced of one thing:

THE “BUY AND HOLD” IS DEAD. DEAD. DEAD….

Thanks to Bruce for taking the time. He’s one of the more level-headed and knowledgeable finance bloggers out there, and has the real-world experience many of us lack.

Charles Nenner: Dow 5,000

Mr. Nenner interview on CNBC. It aired a month ago, and he predicted stocks will have peaked by now (8/24/2010).

On The Misguided Interpretation of Historical Gold Prices

Gold bears are on the prowl again, having apparently recovered from their 10 year scorching, and it looks like some are launching a new counter-offensive.

Exhibit A:

The gold chart below was included in a recent post by John Ameriks of Vanguard. It shows gold prices over the last 139 years (1871-2010), adjusted for inflation.

The intent behind these types of charts is clear. It makes gold look very bubbly indeed.

Mr. Ameriks furthers his bearish gold argument thusly:

Bottom line: Any value that gold has as an investment appears, historically, to have accrued to investors who had a position prior to certain episodes of economic or financial distress. And to generate truly eye-popping returns from a gold-based strategy, you’d have needed to be selling at the peaks of these past price spikes, not buying.

The basis for making an investment in gold now is a conviction that the worst is yet to come. I’m not saying it can’t happen. But looking at how far these prices have come already, and thinking about the kinds of truly disastrous events that are included in this 140-year period, I’m skeptical.

First off — Yes, of course the worst is yet to come. Have you heard about the state of state governments? The double dip is getting rolling, and QE 2.0 is right around the corner. For more on that see this must-read piece from DoctorHousing Bubble.

And regarding the use of long-term charts to predict future prices, it is folly. In 1472 the inflation adjusted price of silver is around $800/ounce.  Is it headed back there any time soon? No, though I would welcome the move.

I did a more thorough writeup on why gold bears are wrong over at WealthDaily.com.

Gambling on a BP Bankruptcy with LEAP Puts

2012 BP puts offer some interesting possibilities. I’m using them as a speculative bet on a worst-case Gulf scenario, but they could also make a nice hedge for longs.

Jan ’12 BP LEAP puts expire 566 days from today (7/14/2010). That’s a lot of time for something to go wrong.

For example, there will be two hurricane seasons between then and now. Just one poorly-placed hurricane could push millions of gallons of crude further into sensitive areas along the Gulf Coast, multiplying the eventual bill for BP. Warm water conditions mean NOAA is forecasting an abnormally high 13-23 named storms in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Potential Profit from BP Puts

Let’s use Jan ’12 $2.50 BP puts as an example. They closed with an ask price of $0.16 today. One hundred contracts at that price would cost $1600 + commission. Each put gives its holder the right to sell 100 shares of BP stock at $2.50 on date of expiration (Jan 21 2012 in this case).

If BP shares are wiped out, the maximum potential profit on 100 $2.50 puts would be $23,138 (assuming a $.02 share price at option expiration). Max loss is the initial cost of the puts, $1600 + commission.

So the max ROI would be 1446%, or around 14x the initial investment. BP filing for bankruptcy is still a highly hypothetical scenario, but I think the risk/reward ratio is good here.

The fact that you can make 14x your money on these options means investors are essentially betting on a 1 in 14 chance of BP going bust by the expiration date, Jan 21 2012. I think there’s more like 1 in 4 chance of bankruptcy, hence the bet.

Buying the $2.50 puts is an aggressive strategy. It’s betting on total disaster. A more conservative strategy use puts closer to the money ($15, $25, etc). The potential upside would be less, but it’s a little bit safer. I own a few different 2012 strikes, including some $2.50s.

BP is an international giant with deep pockets and political clout to match. But its risks are high too. The litigation costs alone will be staggering. Other potential potholes include legislation, reputation, well casing degradation, environmental devastation, and other “ations” we have yet to fully grasp.

On the legislation front,  today the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed an amendment which could effectively ban BP from future offshore drilling leases. More on that over at Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

For BP, it all adds up to unknown liabilities, slower growth, and higher drilling costs going forward (no more shortcuts, hopefully). That’s why I think that even a behemoth like BP could buckle under the weight of this mess.

Bankruptcy Scenario

One big question that would emerge from a BP bankruptcy is how claim seniority is handled. Would bondholders and other creditors retain seniority over economic and environmental claims?

I’m guessing common shareholders would be wiped. But a Bear Stearns-esque buyout, with Exxon or Shell reprising the role of J.P. Morgan and U.K. gov’t subbing in for the Yanks is certainly possible. We won’t know until the situation plays out and the full extent of the damage is known.

Further harm to BP investors would be unfortunate. It’s a staple of retirement funds and the demise would have widespread financial impact. However, if it comes down to a lack of funds at some point, it would be an even greater tragedy to punish innocent parties adversely affected by the spill, and shortchange cleanup efforts in favor of investors. An investment comes with risks, always. If someone has to suffer, it’s gotta be stakeholders of the at-fault party.

But that probably won’t happen based on what I’ve read. In the fallout from asbestos/mesothelioma bankruptcies, creditors were placed above victims in most cases (as I understand it). More on that here.

Disclosure: Long BP puts including Jan 2012 $2.50s.
Note: This is NOT financial advice. It is provided for informational purposes only.

Random market thoughts

  • Bought more GOOG this week, it is really really cheap here. I wrote a bull-case article for Wealth Daily on Tues.
  • Re-shorted BP today @ $32.50 with a stop @ $36. Still holding some pure gamble 2011/12 LEAP puts at multiple strikes ($2.50 to $29).
  • Bought XOM this week, partially as a pair to the BP short, but mostly cause it looks cheap and I needed more energy.
  • Trimmed AAPL to near the bone, used proceeds to buy GOOG. Recent developments in China may look bad for Google, but I think they’ll be worse for Apple in the long run (labor costs set to skyrocket).
  • Trimmed PGJ (domestic-driven Chinese ETF) a bit. Nothing against this China really, just finding other options more attractive and taking some profits.
  • Bought Acergy (ACGY), a Norwegian offshore drilling services firm. Among other things, ACGY are some of the guys who run those ROVs hovering around BP’s Macondo well. Co. just merged with Subsea 7, which should work out well for both parties.

Anyone else got ideas? This market is obnoxious.

TradeKing Review

TradeKing’s $4.95 trade fees have attracted a lot of attention in the e-brokerage world, allowing them to steal customers away from competitors. Compare their pricing to $9.99+ at Etrade and Ameritrade, and it’s easy to see why.

Fees and Pricing

Say you make 100 trades per year. Switching to TradeKing would save you $500/year, assuming you pay $9.99 today. That’s $500 more to put to work in the markets every year, money that will compound and grow over time. Investors who trade more often will see even bigger savings, of course.

Follow this link to

Pricing Comparison:

As you can see, trading is much cheaper on TradeKing. Their $4.95 price includes broker-assisted trades. I’ve had to use this option before with Etrade, when my internet went down. It wasn’t cheap. If you get in a similar spot, it’s nice that TK doesn’t charge a ton.

Official TradeKing site here:

Options pricing: Trades are $4.95  plus $.65 per contract. Compare that to $9.99 and $.75 per contract with Etrade. Big difference, especially when you trade volume.

Savings like that can make a huge difference for options traders. TK also offers options price calculators and options screening tools, allowing you to search for options that are fundamentally cheap (or expensive) depending on whether you’re looking to buy or sell.

Mutual Funds: Transaction fees also beat rivals by around 25%. They’re $14.99 vs. $19.99. These small savings make a big difference over time, especially in retirement accounts where your portfolio has decades to grow.

TradeKing is the cheapest online broker I know of. I can’t see fees going much lower, as TK’smargins must already be thin when you factor in exchange fees and business overhead. I assume TradeKing must be relying on some more advanced offerings to pad margins.

Drawback – Not Ideal For OTC/Penny Stocks

One potential drawback is TradeKing’s $.01/share fee on shares priced less than $1. For dumpster-divers and OTC gurus, this is not ideal. Those fees can really add up over time, when you’re doing transactions with 100k or even 1m shares at a time.

Charts and Technical Analysis Review

TradeKing offers some nice technical analysis tools, which are powered by Recognia. You can set up email alerts to notify you when breakouts or other events are happening.

Charting is pretty standard. Pattern-recognition, tons of TA indicators you can add, comparisons, etc. Like research, most investors can find the charts they need for free these days.

Margin Rates

TradeKing’s margin rates are slightly cheaper than the competition, at 6.5%. That compares to ETrade’s 7.99% and TD Ameritrade’s 9.00%.

Research Reports

TK offers MarketGrader fundamental research reports to clients. These look solid, but don’t boast the same big-name appeal that firms Etrade pay for. But to be honest, I find very little value in reports from companies like Standard and Poors.

All these ratings agencies have fee-based relationships with the companies they cover, and that creates a bias problem. I was an Etrade customer for 8 years, and found most of those reports to be useless. Better information can be found for free on the web, in my experience. I’d rather not pay for pricey research that I never use.

Customer Service

TradeKing offers phone support with minimal wait times. They also offer online chat and email support. I made a call to test their claims, and got a real person on the line within a minute. Not bad, considering how cheap the trades are. They also received Smart Money’s #1 in Customer Service award in 2008.

Tax Reporting

Review Conclusion:

Controlling costs today is more important than ever. TradeKing is a good way for investors and traders alike to cut their brokerage fees in half. I’m currently in the process of moving my old Etrade account to them. I make about 120 buys a year, so this should save me $600 in the next 12 months alone. Not bad.

Here’s a link to signup:

Feel free to share your own review of TradeKing in the comment section. I’d like to hear all experiences, good and bad.

Page 1 of 201234567...Last »