finance

[crackedpaint]

I think this is an interesting article and as Daniel was mentioning George Soros the other day i though that i would post it here.

*********************

Indiana Jones and the China crusade
Jim Rogers, investment guru; co-founder of Quantum Fund with George Soros

Nils Pratley
Saturday July 3, 2004

Guardian

The American dollar is a flawed currency and will collapse in value before the end of the decade, taking with it the prosperity of the American nation. Investors should be buying commodities - platinum, lead, wheat, sugar, oil, the sort of assets that haven't been fashionable for a quarter of a century or more. While you're at it, teach your children to speak Mandarin, the coming language of the 21st century. And don't encourage them to do an MBA: "Tell them to be a farmer and do a real job."
Such advice, if given by your regular financial adviser, would probably provoke a complaint to the ombudsman. The speaker, though, is Jim Rogers, a legendary Wall Street name. The Indiana Jones of finance - a nickname earned by virtue of two round the world trips in the name of grass-roots investment research - has become a multimillionaire by backing such views with hard cash.

In 1973, Rogers and George Soros founded Quantum, one of the first and most successful hedge funds. In Britain, the Quantum Fund is best known for making £1bn by selling sterling ahead of Britain's exit from the exchange rate mechanism on Black Wednesday in 1992, but Rogers' contribution came before then. He helped Quantum to return a 4,000% gain in its first 10 years and departed in 1980, staying a year longer than he had intended only because 1979 had been so profitable - he predicted the stock market crash of that year.

The "poor boy from Alabama" whose first job was picking up bottles at baseball games at the age of five, retired at the age of 37 a very wealthy man. He set about managing his own fortune and travelling the world, projects that have become virtually indistinguishable over the years. In the early 90s, Rogers travelled 65,000 miles roving the world by motorbike and related the tale in his first book, Investment Biker. Last year, he completed a second, Adventure Capitalist, which was the result of an even more ambitious journey: a three-year, 150,000 mile journey by custom- built Mercedes across 116 countries with his girlfriend, who became his wife along the way - in Henley-on-Thames, of all places.

Snake burger


Like the earlier book, it is part anecdote - what it's like to eat snake; what happened when he forgot about the bottle of vodka in the boot when trying to enter Saudi Arabia - but the heart is commonsense investment analysis built on firsthand observations. His philosophy is that you learn about a country from talking to brothel owners and black marketeers rather than government ministers.

In conversation, Rogers rattles along in similar style. He punctuates everything with American-style full disclosure of his personal holdings - "I'm short Citibank, incidentally," he will interject into a dissection of the rotten heart of the American stock market - and delights in challenging received wisdom. His central argument is that a new bull market has started that will match the fireworks seen in the dotcom-fuelled stock markets of the late 90s. This time, though, the bull market will be in commodities not shares. Rogers' reasoning is straightforward: raw materials are running out.

"There has been no great oil discovery in the past 35 years," he argues. "The North Sea has peaked. Alaska is in decline. Mexico is in decline. All these great oilfields are in decline. To anybody who thinks I am lying about this, I would ask: where is the oil going to come from?

China bull


"Mines deplete. Wells deplete. It's supply. In the 1970s, we had horrible economies around the world, but commodities skyrocketed despite those horrible economies because there was no supply. That is happening again."

How high is high? The nature of all bull markets, he argues, is that prices go higher than anybody would have imagined possible. "Nobody could ever have thought that Cisco could go to $75 [it had been $5 a few years earlier]. Who would have thought in the 1970s that oil could go to $40 a barrel - it was $2 a barrel in the 1960s," he says.

"Sugar in 1966 was 1.4 cents per pound. In 1972 - six years later - sugar was 66 cents. Who could have conceived that? For decades, it had done between one and five cents. If you had said in 1966 that it would go up 47 times they would have made you certifiably insane. But it happened."

Hand in hand with this faith in the value of commodities is a long-term confidence in China, whose appetite for raw materials has already fuelled a strong rise in commodity prices in the past 18 months. All the best capitalists live in communist China, he argues, and overseas Chinese are returning with their capital and expertise. He has employed a Chinese nanny for his one-year-old daughter. Mandarin will be the most important language in his child's lifetime, he thinks.

But even this China bull predicts a major economic slowdown there, with accompanying political unrest, very soon. In this, he is not wholly out of the line with the consensus thinking - City economists are currently debating whether China's landing, after a decade of extraordinary growth, will be hard or soft. Rogers' view is that it will be very hard, but will also represent a golden investment opportunity.

"I remind you of the last two times that China had to cut back an overheated economy," he says. "In the late 80s, it led to Tiananmen Square when things got out of control and the second time was in the mid-90s, when they had to devalue their currency. Sometime this year or next you will see headlines in the Guardian, 'Turmoil in China'. At that point, you buy all the China you can and all the commodities you can because that will be bottom of the consolidation in commodities and consolidation in China."

Buying in the face of prevailing hysteria is a principle that has served Rogers well over the years. Crisis in China - however serious it looks at the time - will merely mark the end of the first leg of this new bull market, he thinks.

"Remember," he enthuses, "that the second leg is wonderful, and the third leg is spectacular. In the fourth leg, there is dancing in the streets and in the fifth leg people are hysterical and everything is skyrocketing every day. We are nowhere near the second leg, much less the third, fourth and fifth legs."

His bearishness on the US dollar is predicated on economic fundamentals, notably the balance of payments. Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and Rogers' bogeyman-in-chief, has been printing money on an unprecedented scale and President George Bush has been spending it just as rapidly.

"The US owes the world $8 trillion," he argues. "We are the world's largest debtor nation by a factor of many times and our foreign debts are increasing by $1 trillion every 21 months. That's terrifying.

Dollar demise


"People need to understand about this major change in the world and about the demise of the US dollar. The US dollar is going the way that sterling went as it lost its place as the world's reserve currency. I suspect there will be exchange controls in the US in the foreseeable future. It will be a complicated and difficult currency."

Not that Rogers is a fan of many currencies. He says he has stakes in a dozen but has "no confidence in any of them". He expects the euro to fail eventually but holds some anyway because he judges it to be less flawed than the dollar. For the record, his daughter's assets are held in Swiss francs and gold, silver and platinum coins.

Unlike his old partner, Soros, who has devoted part of his vast fortune to opposing Bush's election campaign, Rogers stands wholly outside the political fray. He calls the US-led invasion of Iraq a "horrible, horrendous, unbelievable mistake", but thinks the Democratic candidate, John Kerry, would make his own mistakes. "They wouldn't be politicians if they knew what they were doing," he says, far from flippantly.

The balance of payments, and the looming dollar crisis, make the election result irrelevant, he argues: "Whoever is elected president is going to have serious problems in 2005-06. We Americans are going to suffer."

The CV

Born 1942, Alabama

Education Yale; Balliol College, Oxford

Career US army; co-founder, Quantum Fund; professor of finance, Columbia University Graduate School of Business

Family Married to Parker Paige with a daughter

Interests Henley royal regatta

[sidecross]

I think it is very important that the U.S. citizen understand national debt and how the U.S. debt is financed.

If the dollar continues its devaluation, nations that support our debt by buying bonds and other U.S. investments will find another method for their investing.

If OPEC decides it wants oil measured by Euros and not the U.S. dollar, the U.S. collapse will be swift. Both China and India could quite possibly be the next the big international consumers.

We are spending $500,000 every minute on the war in Iraq that is not being funded by a current ‘War Tax’.

[craazyman]

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
- John Adams

[sidecross]

October 22, 2007

Gone Baby Gone

By PAUL KRUGMAN

It pains me to say this, but this time Alan Greenspan is right about housing.

Mr. Greenspan was wrong in 2004, when he sang the praises of adjustable-rate mortgages. He was wrong in 2005, when he dismissed the idea that there was a national housing bubble, suggesting that at most there was some “froth” in the market. He was wrong last fall, when he suggested that the worst of the housing slump was behind us. (Housing starts have fallen 30 percent since then.)

But his latest pronouncement — that the market rescue plan being pushed by Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, is likely to make things worse rather than better — looks all too accurate.

To understand why, we need to talk about the nature of the mess.

First of all, as I could have told you — actually, I did — there was indeed a huge national housing bubble.

What even those of us who realized that there was a bubble didn’t appreciate, however, was how much of a threat the bursting of that bubble would pose to financial markets.

Today, when a bank makes a home loan, it doesn’t hold on to it. Instead, it quickly sells the mortgage off to financial engineers, who chop up, repackage and resell home loans pretty much the way supermarkets chop up, repackage and resell meat.

It’s a business model that depends on trust. You don’t know anything about the cows that contributed body parts to your package of ground beef, so you have to trust the supermarket when it assures you that the beef is U.S.D.A. prime. You don’t know anything about the subprime mortgage loans that were sliced, diced and pureed to produce that mortgage-backed security, so you have to trust the seller — and the rating agency — when they assure you that it’s a AAA investment.

But in the case of housing-related investments, investors’ trust was betrayed. Supposedly safe investments suddenly turned into junk bonds when the housing bubble burst. High profits reported by hedge funds — profits that were reflected in huge payments to the fund managers — turn out to have been based on wishful thinking.

Thus, when two hedge funds run by Ralph Cioffi of Bear Stearns imploded last summer, it came as a huge shock to many investors, and helped trigger a market panic. But a recent BusinessWeek report shows that the funds were a disaster waiting to happen. The funds borrowed huge amounts, and invested the proceeds in questionable mortgage-backed securities.

Even worse, “more than 60 percent of their net worth was tied up in exotic securities whose reported value was estimated by Cioffi’s own team.” We’re profitable because we say we are — just trust us. That hasn’t ever caused problems, has it?

Stories like this have led to a crisis of confidence. The current yield on one-month U.S. government bills is only 3.41 percent, an amazingly low number, and a sign that people are parking their money in government debt because they don’t trust private borrowers. And the result is a shortage of liquidity — the ability to raise cash — that is greatly damaging the economy.

Which brings us to the rescue plan proposed by a group of large banks, with Mr. Paulson’s backing.

Right now the bleeding edge of the crisis in confidence involves worries that there may be large losses hidden inside so-called “structured investment vehicles” — basically hedge funds that borrow from the public and invest the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities. The new plan would create a “super-fund,” the Master Liquidity Enhancement Conduit, which would seek to restore confidence by, um, borrowing from the public and investing the proceeds in mortgage-backed securities.

The plan, in other words, looks like an attempt to solve the problem with smoke and mirrors.

That might work if there were no good reason for investors to be worried. But in this case, investors have very good reasons to worry: the bursting of the housing bubble means that someone, somewhere, has to accept several trillion dollars in losses. A significant part of these losses will fall on mortgage-backed securities. And given this reality, the “conduit” looks like a really bad idea.

I’d put it like this: Investors aren’t putting their money to work because they don’t know where the bad debts are. And when investors need clarity, the last thing you want to be doing is pumping out more smoke.

Mr. Greenspan’s take, expressed in an interview with the magazine Emerging Markets, seems broadly similar. “If you believe some form of artificial non-market force is propping up the market,” he said, “you don’t believe the market price has exhausted itself.”

Translated: this rescue scheme could be seen as an attempt to hide the bad debts everyone knows are out there, and as a result could delay any return of trust to the markets.

Alan Greenspan is making sense.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ref=opinion

[Isaiah Mpski]

Allen Greenspam has never made any sense.