Andy spent an hour with Joe Cristiano on Liberty Talk Radio discussing the global financial crisis, the problems in the Eurozone, and some of the different scenarios for our financial markets moving forward. To listen, Click Here

“Identifying False Signals” I discussed the false signals being generated in two key areas of the economy: housing, and GDP. Don’t be fooled into making important decisions based on what you’re getting from these reports; there is much more than meets the eye. Listen Here

“IEA Whitewash” – The IEA’s Chief Economist announced that the agency had grossly underestimated the rate of supply decline. His comments survived long enough to make it into one mainstream story. Then the spin machine kicked in and tried to drop those comments down the memory hole. We’ll make the kick save and present this whitewash to you with our guest Zapata George. Listen Here

“Discussion with Chris Wilson of yourcontrarian.com” Chris and I talk about the state of the consumer, the intracacies of the major economic reports and also spend some time on the timely topic of Keynesian vs. Austrian. Listen Here

If anyone has difficulties accessing the content or has questions, I may be reached at my firm’s website: www.sutton-associates.net

Types of Risk

In general, there are two broad types of risk: systematic (non-diversifiable) and non-systematic (diversifiable). Keep in mind that what we are discussing here is slightly different from geopolitical risk, currency risk, interest rate risk, etc although each of those specific types of risk do contribute to the overall riskiness of a particular stock and as such cannot just be ignored.

The data in the chart below is from a 1987 study on diversification just after the market crashed. Obviously, at that time, diversification was a hot topic as investors scrambled to adjust portfolios and recoup the losses. The data below lists the number of components, the standard deviation of annual returns for each portfolio, and a comparison of the standard deviation of the portfolio to that of a single component.

Number of Components in the Model Portfolio Average Std. Deviation of Annual Portfolio Returns (%) Ratio of Portfolio Std. Dev. to Std. Dev. of a Single Component

Below is a graphic representation of the data in the chart above. It may clearly be observed that standard deviation of the portfolio is asymptotic (law of diminishing returns) as it relates to eliminating the systematic (diversifiable) risk. In fact, once the number of portfolio assets surpasses 30, the standard deviation does not drop appreciably, even when another 970 components are added! Obviously, this reality enforces that quality is better than quantity.

Think of the case of the individual investor who buys 100 stocks thinking he is diversifying away all his risk. He has borne a significant opportunity cost in the form of commissions without purchasing much in the way of additional protection from non-systematic risk. The upper portion of the chart deals with non-systematic risk, which can be largely diversified away. Notice though that even when the portfolio contains 1000 components that the standard deviation is still 19.21%. That constitutes the systematic risk.

A good example of systematic risk is pure market risk. Obviously if the capital markets crash again as they did in 2008, it will be exceedingly difficult to put together a basket of stocks that will withstand such a downward draft. There are other types of risk such as geopolitical, currency, inflation, interest rate, industry, and geographic. By using a crosscut approach to diversification, one is able to not only mitigate much of the non-systematic risk, but a good portion of the systematic risk as well. This is accomplished by looking at your themes selected several weeks ago, then addressing each type of systematic risk in your selection of assets. This approach is one of the main reason that our Centsible Investor Model Portfolio has done so well while the broad markets have languished.

Beta (ß)

Quantitatively, Beta is the generally accepted measure of systematic risk for a stock and is defined as the amount of systematic risk present in a particular risky asset relative to that in an average risky asset. Essentially what Beta does is compares a particular stock in this case with an average stock, or more accurately, a benchmark basket of stocks:

where ra measures the return of the asset, r_p measures the return of a portfolio of risky assets (often the stocks in an index), and Cov(r_a,r_p) is the covariance of the returns.

Interpreting Beta is rather simple. 1.0 is the Rubicon so to speak. Betas lower than 1.0 indicate that the stock in question has a lower level of systematic risk than the ‘market’ while a Beta of greater than 1.0 indicates a stock that has a greater level of systematic risk than the ‘market’.

Knowing this, it becomes a rather simple matter to calculate the Beta of your portfolio simply by ascertaining the weight of each component and then multiplying it by that component’s Beta. Let’s use a hypothetical example where we have a 3 stock portfolio; Stock A is 25% of the portfolio, Stock B is 40% of the portfolio, and Stock C is 35% of the portfolio. The Beta of Stock A is .75, Stock B is .50, and Stock C is 1.25:

Beta_portfolio= .75(.25) + .50(.40) + 1.25(.35)

Beta_portfolio = .83

This calculation indicates that this 3 stock portfolio has systematic risk that is lower than that of the market, however, its non-systematic risk would be considerably higher than one would desire since there are only 3 components. All else being equal, the ideal would be to find a portfolio of perhaps 25-30 stocks that has a Beta_portfolio of .83, as this would mitigate much of the non-systematic risk as well.

Beta and the Risk Premium

While using the term risk-free in today’s financial and economic climate might result in a shower of protest, the concept of the risk-free asset has an important place in the discussion of risk vs. reward, particularly when selecting portfolio assets.

Let’s use an example of a stock with an expected return of 20% and a Beta of 1.6. Let us also assume (entirely for illustrative purposes) that the risk-free asset has a return of 8%, with a Beta of zero since it has neither systematic nor non-systematic risk. In the case of expected return, we are relying on an educated guess, but in the case of stocks that pay dividends, one could easily plug the dividend yield into the expected return as well. When we plot out our stock and the risk-free rate and generate a Security Market Line (SML), we get the following:

The chart above is relatively easy to interpret; we consider the ‘risk-free’ asset R_f with its corresponding Beta of zero and return of 8% and our stock with its Beta of 1.6 and its expected return E(R_A) of 20%. When we connect the dots and measure the slope of the line (rise/run), we get a slope of 7.5%. From this graph, we can ascertain that our stock has a reward to risk ratio of 7.5% meaning that our stock has a risk premium of 7.5% for each ‘unit’ of systematic risk. Obviously, the higher the reward to risk ratio, the better, meaning we’d want to see higher E(R_A) and/or lower Beta; either of which would increase the slope.

In a final example, let us now compare our stock in the previous example (called Stock A) with a second stock (Stock B). Stock B has a Beta of 1.2 and an expected return E(R_B) of 16%. When we construct our Security Market Line, we end up with a slightly different picture than we had with Stock A.

The reward to risk ratio (or slope of the line) for Stock B is 6.67%.

What this tells us (all other things equal) is that in essence, Stock A is a ‘better’ choice than Stock B simply because it generates more reward for each unit of systematic risk undertaken.

This analysis is especially useful when one is selecting portfolio components and wants exposure to a particular industry or sector, has multiple candidates, but doesn’t want to include them all for fear of being overweight that particular area. In this manner, the candidates may be lined up and compared to see both visually and quantitatively where the best bang for the buck lies.

Of all the areas discussed in our sample exercise over the past few weeks, diversification and risk are the two areas where investors are most likely to stumble. Many fail to properly diversify because they don’t understand the value of it or because they don’t have enough capital to diversify by purchasing individual stocks and should look to ETFs, open-end or closed-end funds as an alternative.

While the analysis above was primarily for stocks, those investors seeking to hedge their portfolios with precious metals can certainly plug their favorite shiny coins into this analysis. For those so inclined, Betas may be hand/Excel-calculated for commodities using the major indexes, or commodity indexes, such as the CRB as the ‘market’ portion of the calculation.

In summation, probably the most important takeaway from this article should be that a portfolio doesn’t need 100 components to be adequately diversified in terms of non-systematic risk. 30-40 will do just fine. A second important point is that by using your economic themes and how they relate to systematic risks in your selection of an appropriate number of assets, you can mitigate a good deal of the systematic risk to your portfolio as well.

It is therefore worth chronicling his recent reversal on the prognosis for the US economy. Long known as a ‘bear’ and as recently as June 15th skeptical of Helicopter Ben’s ‘Green Shoots’, Roubini now sees ‘light at the end of the tunnel and for once, it is not a train’.

It is hard to understand how any economist who looked at our broken system in a proper enough fashion to predict what has happened over the past 18 months could suddenly come to a different conclusion given that virtually nothing has changed – unless you want to count the exacerbation of many of the problems which got us into this mess to begin with.

How could persistent multi-trillion dollar deficits, more intrusive government policies, the apparent guarantee of additional tax burdens, debt monetization, and higher than expected unemployment numbers (even the watered down BLS numbers are above administration and Fed estimates) cause someone of Roubini’s intellect to suddenly change his mind and see green shoots instead of yellow weeds?

Whatever the reasons were, the markets loved it. The DOW continued its winning streak, dragging the NASDAQ and S&P500 with it. Interestingly enough, the Wilshire 5000 did not exactly follow suit, actually losing ground at the end of the day while the benchmark indexes gained.

This is just another bit of anecdotal evidence that the rally from March 6th has nothing to do with green shoots for the broader markets and the economy, but rather resembles Jack’s beanstalk. And we all know what happens when you play with magic beans.

Added from Roubini’s Blog on 7/16:
“It has been widely reported today that I have stated that the recession will be over ‘this year’ and that I have ‘improved’ my economic outlook. Despite those reports – however – my views expressed today are no different than the views I have expressed previously. If anything my views were taken out of context.”

The Mainstream’s Darling – P/E

If you turn on your television, perhaps the most popular measurement of ‘value’ is the price/earnings or P/E ratio. While P/Es are mentioned frequently, rarely does anyone stop to really think about what it represents. Simply put, the P/E ratio is the price of a share of stock divided by the earnings per share. In essence, it is how many dollars you will pay in share price for each dollar of earnings. I will be honest; I rarely use P/E as a decision tool simply because I don’t believe it is applicable in most situations. An average investor is not buying earnings. Sure, earnings may help drive the share price in the future, but they just as easily might not. News events about a company can drive price as much if not more than earnings, so perhaps a Price/News ratio would be appropriate too? And really, why would anyone ever want to pay more than a dollar for a dollar’s worth of earnings anyway? By definition then, a P/E of greater than 1.0 would mean the stock is expensive. The argument will also be used that one is not simply buying the earnings, but a claim on the assets of the corporation. While this is theoretically true, you can’t drive down to your local Home Depot and take a truckload of lumber out of the store without paying just because you’re a shareholder!

So there are many conceptual problems with the idea of P/E ratios yet once the P/E of the DOW goes below a certain point, we’re supposed to buy because stocks are now ‘cheap’. This to me is drawing some parallels that are eerily similar to herd mentality. All this should not be construed as an indictment of the P/E ratio, but rather to point out its limited relevance in terms of determining ‘value’.

Another frequently used, but less popular metric is the Price/Book ratio or P/B. Simply put this is dollars paid in share price for each dollar of book value. This is more of a liquidation metric, however, than an actual investing metric. Now there are some obvious instances where once might sniff out a bargain. Our example in the prior week’s issue of food companies is a bit lacking, but let’s use the example of a natural resource company. If for example, the company has proven resources in its properties and the P/B is .75, we might, in the absence of extenuating circumstances conclude that this is a bargain and that the stock is currently undervalued.

Some Situational Metrics – Cash Flow Generating Securities

One of my personal favorites is calculating the Net Present Value/Breakeven point for a stock that pays a stable dividend stream. This metric actually has relevance because the dividend is a cash payment that comes directly to the investor as a consequence of owning the shares. In the short-term, dividends are a known quantity. Obviously the metric only applies in the case where a dividend is paid. In the case where an investor is focusing on dividend investing for income purposes or simply for generating the maximum cash from their investing capital, these are important considerations.

An example is on order. Let’s say that an investor purchases 100 shares of a stock trading at $10/share that pays a $1/share annual dividend. The dividend yield on his investment is 10%. The P/Div ratio is 10. This means that the investor paid $10 for every dollar in dividends. Now the nice thing about dividends is that they are cash streams and we can use some common time value of money calculations to make determinations as to whether or not to invest. Let’s use the 100 shares as an example and do a net present value calculation with the following assumptions:

• Our time horizon is 25 years

• Dividends over the 25 years will average the current $1/year

• The Cost of Capital (COC or inflation) will be 6%/year for the duration of the exercise

Most popular spreadsheet programs contain the NPV function where you can set your COC and the value of the individual cash flows if you desire to perform this analysis for yourself.

The Net Present Value of this situation is $262.58, giving a positive indication or a ‘buy’ signal. This alone should not be used to make a buy determination, but should be used as a tool to validate or invalidate individual investment opportunities that arose from our analyses in parts I and II.

The Time to Cover or Breakeven point of this hypothetical investment is Year 15. What this means is that after 15 years, the dividends (after accounting for the deterioration in value due to inflation) will cover the cost of the initial investment. Whatever the investment itself is worth at that time is added value. So even if our stock is still at $10/share, it is paid for, we’re in the clear, making dividends for another 10 years before we need the funds, and can sell the stock at any time thereafter for a pure profit. And since inflation has already been figured in, we’re talking about real gains. We can easily modify the analysis to accommodate hypothetical taxation circumstances as well.

Another important point may also be made from the above analysis. Considering that we’re getting $1/year in dividends, in nominal terms, the Time to Cover/Breakeven would be 10 years. Inflation at a rate of 6% per annum increased the breakeven point by 50% or 5 years. While 6% doesn’t seem like that much, this example illustrates exactly how much of a burden on wealth it represents. If anyone really wants to see why clipping bond coupons isn’t such a hot idea, run this analysis on the 30-year Treasury Bond and it will become immediately obvious.

Moving forward, when looking at dividend paying investments, we are looking for lower P/Div ratios (higher yields), and consequently lower Time to Cover/Breakeven points. While looking at the yield gives some good insight, using the NPV and breakeven analysis allows us to quantify the deleterious effects of inflation over time. The yield alone doesn’t give us that ability since it is a snapshot in time and changes as the price of the underlying security changes. It is important to note that in this study, we are NOT valuing the firm. We are valuing the cash streams that the firm pays to shareholders and discounting them to the present.

The risks to the above analysis are obviously many. 25 years is a long period of time, and things can change dramatically. Firms can go out of business or eliminate dividend payments thereby rendering the above effort worthless. Also, the major types of risk such as market, currency, political, and systemic cannot be accounted for over such a long period of time. This is one of the reasons why it is never a good idea to buy today and walk away. Successful investing is a journey, not a destination. As soon as you think you’ve got it all figured out, that is when you’ll get bitten. Vigilance is the name of the game. Another obvious takeaway here is that we’re dealing with long term investing, not trading. Such studies are a moot point for the short-term trader since their focus is on a different goal. Realize I am not trying to be impertinent towards traders, but simply pointing out the difference between their objectives and those of long-term investing.

Non Cash Flow Generating Securities

For firms that do not pay dividends, the investor is limited to just one way to make money directly (other than writing options) from owning the stock and that is appreciation. In this situation, choosing appropriate themes becomes even more important because say for example, you selected a firm that pays no dividend and is in a market niche that relies heavily on discretionary consumer spending. When the economy entered into recession in late 2007, you would have had very little in the way of flexibility since there is in effect no longer anything supporting the price of your stock. You’re not being paid dividends while you wait out the business cycle. So you can either write covered calls and ride out the storm or just pull up stakes and get out of town. Below are charts of the XLY (Consumer Discretionary Sector) and the XLP (Consumer Staples Sector).

Let’s compare these two distinctly different themes.

From peak to trough, the loss for XLY was approximately 58% while the loss for XLP was 29%. For sure, 29% is not anything to write home about, but it does serve to illustrate the importance of picking the proper themes.

Earnings Growth

However, there is one quantitative metric that is very useful in determining the success of a firm’s operations in the absence of dividends, and that is earnings growth. I prefer using earnings growth to sales growth or margin growth simply because earnings are at the bottom of the income statement and represent the impact of the entire operation including all of its cost centers on the bottom line. Companies that are able to consistently grow their earnings even during troughs in the business cycle are obvious candidates for any investor’s portfolio. While it remains true that the investor isn’t paid those earnings, companies that make money and grow their earnings are generally looked on favorably by the market, and as such are positioned to do well, all else being equal. One spinoff of this methodology is the PEG ratio or price/earnings/growth, which is stated below:

P/E Ratio

——————– = PEG Ratio

EPS Growth

The PEG ratio gives some degree of relevancy to the P/E ratio because it factors in growth. Obviously, the lower the PEG ratio, the ‘cheaper’ the stock is because in essence, you’re paying less for growth. Or, put another way, you’re paying less for the likelihood that the stock will go up in the future all other things being equal.

When valuing firms that don’t pay cash streams to the shareholder, it also becomes important to focus on intangibles because many times, they are what will drive the share price, rather than solid fundamentals such as earnings growth. There is an old market saying that goes as follows: “The market can be wrong far longer than you can remain solvent betting against it”. If you have the luxury of a long time horizon and no immediate need for your cash, you can afford to buy into the themes you feel will do well in the long term, monitor them, and wait for the market to sort it all out.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer dividend-paying investments. First of all, from an analysis standpoint, they provide something quantitative to analyze. Secondly, if you’re a long-term investor and the market hasn’t gotten on board with you yet, you are being paid (in some cases very handsomely) to wait. Thirdly, if you come to a decision where you’d like to retire and need some income, you already have it coming in. You’re not forced to sell into a potentially bad market to find income.

Next time we’ll take a look at risk, diversification, and portfolio construction now that we’ve been able to select our themes, come up with some portfolio candidates, and use various metrics to make some value judgments regarding those candidates.

For investors who are concerned about battling inflation, and operating within our new economic paradigm of spiraling debt and taxation, we are hosing a complimentary seminar on July 28th in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. For anyone who would like more details, information, or registration instructions, please visit www.sutton-associates.net/seminar_reserve.php

I have talked on my weekly radio shows for some time now about two potential rallies in this bear market. I am not looking at technical indicators to make that statement, but rather two potential occurrences that could trigger rallies within this mega-bear market. It has been my opinion that policymakers would use these occurrences to either touch off or maintain the current bear market rally. As it turned out, the markets provided their own bottom of sorts in terms of selling exhaustion and a wave of euphoria about economic prospects from Washington. Now we get to our possibilities – and the rhetoric and symbolic changes are already taking place.

1) The Uptick Rule – The uptick rule, put in place to prevent predatory short-selling was for some still unknown reason removed in the summer of 2007 – just a few months before the peak in the DOW and S&P500. The SEC claimed that the uptick rule in the age of instant (and in their opinion, perfect) information was irrelevant. This incredibly foolish move paved the way for institutions and hedge funds to cannibalize each other from November 2007 through the present. The net result of this cannibalization was an unprecedented and historic consolidation in the financial sector.

It seems the SEC has finally found its common sense and there have been hearings about re-instituting the uptick rule. This serves to send the signal to opportunistic banks and hedge funds that the coast is clear to start buying assets at fire sale prices, which will lead to further consolidation. Even mere talk of bringing back the uptick rule will impact investing decisions. Keep in mind that this arena is not one occupied by Ma and Pa Podunk, but rather multi-billion dollar hedge funds and banks.

2) Revisions of the Mark to Market Rule – This is the equivalent of allowing financial institutions to play ‘Alice in Wonderland’ with regard to the value of otherwise worthless derivative securities and non-performing mortgage tranches. While the arguments for mark to model are plentiful, and in some cases legitimate, the bottom line is that an asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay you. Following the current logic, homeowners should be able to pretend that their homes are worth 40% more than the market price and behave accordingly. See another bubble possibility here?

We will present a much more in-depth analysis of the ramifications of the uptick rule and the changes recently made to ‘mark to market’ accounting in this month’s edition of The Centsible Investor. For more information, please click here.

- ADP Report shows worst ever job losses in March 2009; stocks surge on the news.

- US President fires CEO of a private-sector corporation after the government shuffled tens of billions into the zombie firm.

- US Congress considering measure to set pay levels for ALL employees of any firm in which the US Govt. has taken a ‘capital position’.

- The Federal Reserve and US Treasury have now spent a year’s worth of Gross Domestic Product on rescuing financial firms.

No folks, we’re not making this up.

It is the latter statement that causes me to reflect this week on the prospects for our return to prosperity. We have had the opportunity over the past year to listen to many speeches from Presidents to heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Many men and women – bright men and women, have weighed in and opined on our current situation. They’ve spoken of stimulus, of consumer spending, government spending, bridges, roads, healthcare, energy, banks, and many other topics too numerous to count in this short space. However, what I haven’t heard nearly enough mention of is confidence even though the stated purpose and intent of these speeches has been to inspire the same.

The confidence of consumers

One report in particular has made some inroads in terms of getting coverage of the precipitous drop in overall consumer confidence. And in fact, the most recent release of the Conference Board’s measurement of consumer confidence was the worst in history since measurements began more than 40 years ago. Perhaps the worst part of this report was the expectations component, which absolutely fell off a cliff, plunging from a level of 42.5 to a 27.5 level. The jobs component of the report was no better. 47.3% of those surveyed expect there to be fewer jobs in the future with a mere 7.1% expecting more jobs. 4.4% thought jobs are easy get with nearly half (47.8%) opining that jobs are very hard to get. The chart below tells the awful story.

It is fairly easy to see how the lack of confidence has translated into overall drops in retail sales. Sure people are spending less for gasoline (a major component of retail sales) than they were a year ago, but they certainly aren’t buying anything else in its place either.

This situation, however, goes way beyond some numbers reported every month. It goes to the very heart of the opening paragraph. Confidence is the key to a successful economy, particularly ours, which is so heavily dependent on the consumer taking on debt and spending money. In order to perpetuate this dynamic, the consumer needs to have utmost confidence. As last 2008’s failed stimulus package demonstrates, simply handing money to consumers who are not confident will result in the money being saved or used to pay off existing bills. No confidence, no spending. It’s as simple as that.

Collapse of retirement contributions a referendum on confidence in the financial system

Whether it is along with, beside, or because of consumer’s confidence, equity markets on a global scale have crashed in grand form over the past year. Sure, not all of that was caused by the little guy selling his 401(k)/IRA and going to cash. It is our opinion that the little guy actually represents a relatively small component of the overall money invested in the markets when leverage is factored in. However, the little guy’s actions have still had major ramifications. Consider the following:

• 529 plan contributions are down an average of 60% from 2007 according to a 529 plan representative who materialized at my office door a few weeks ago

• According to TD Ameritrade, 63% of people with retirement plans stopped contributing to them in 2008

• Only 21% of individuals surveyed in the above study had more than $50,000 in investable savings

• Unemployment (32%) and increases in health care premiums (25) were the leading reasons why people stopped contributing to retirement plans in 2008

• Nearly 25% of survey respondents in the 35-44 age group said they’d completely stopped contributing to retirement accounts in 2008. This more than any other group

While complete data for 2008 contributions is incomplete due to the fact that 4/15/09 is the deadline for 2008 IRA contributions, it is relatively clear that 2008 contributions will be down significantly. This problem is two-fold. The first is many people don’t have the funds to invest. The second is that they have lost confidence in the markets and their ability to protect (let alone grow) capital. This reality is unfolding at an unprecedented time in history – a time when people can least afford to be caught without savings.

Job loss – the ultimate confidence-killer

As now more than 600,000 Americans each week are realizing, the loss of a job is one of the most stressful events one can endure. There is an old adage that it is a recession when your neighbor loses his job, but it is a depression when you lose yours. This is not meant to trivialize the matter of unemployment in the least, but rather to underscore the effect that the loss of one’s livelihood has on confidence. As can be expected, consumer confidence has plunged as job losses continue to increase.

Next Friday’s unemployment report is likely to feature an unemployment rate well north of 8% not counting the thousands of workers who lost their jobs in late 2007 and early 2008 that have now fallen off the unemployment rolls and as such are no longer counted. By our count, there have been nearly 2.4 million first time claims for unemployment in the past 4 weeks alone and the trend shows no signs of slowing, at least not in the short term. While unemployment insurance lasts up to a year (depending on the state), it only covers a portion of lost earnings. A good average is probably around 60%. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know too many people who can maintain their current standard of living on 60% of their income – or are even willing to try.

Money – A True Crisis of Confidence

Confidence in the monetary system of the United States has been a true lagging indicator. Inflation at a rate of 5% or so per year has been institutionalized in the system for as long as anyone can remember. Keynesian economics teaches us that this inflation is a normal by-product of growth and should be accepted with glee, which is absolute nonsense. This is akin to welcoming a burglar into your home and offering him 5% of your belongings then chalking it up as a cost of living.

However, even the most regular of folks are starting to wonder where the trillions of dollars for their retirements, healthcare, financial system bailouts, various industry bailouts, state bailouts, government spending, and other pet political projects are going to come from. The fact is we’ve crossed the Rubicon in this regard. The world no longer creates enough savings to cover our massive balance of payments and fiscal deficits. And remember, one in three Americans have less than $50,000 in savings to deal with this. Everyday Americans are starting to wake up to the reality that this money doesn’t exist and must be created from nothing. That certainly doesn’t bode well for their confidence in the value of the currency they carry in their pockets. It can no longer be called money, because to call it money is to imply that it is a store of wealth and acts as a standard unit of exchange.

A real store of wealth holds its value and maintains purchasing power. The US dollar has lost around 96% of its purchasing power since the Fed was created in 1913. Other paper currencies are not far behind. This reality has driven record demand for gold and silver coins as the public awakens and attempts to diversify out of paper. This overall loss in confidence in paper assets is what drives mainstream columnists to attack gold as a ‘useless rock’ and float the false notion that people who bought stock after the 1929 crash got their money back in a few years when in fact it took a few decades. Remember, it is all about confidence.

In the end, the financial crisis of 2007-? will be summed up as a fairly simple process:

1) Confidence shaken

2) More debt accumulated to maintain confidence

3) Confidence further shaken

3) Even more debt accumulated

4) Confidence lost because of all the debt accumulated

For in fact during the early stages of the crisis, policymakers and pundits alike were busy talking about strong economic fundamentals and failing to address the root causes of the problem when it might have mattered. For nearly 9 months the current depression brewed before Fed head Bernanke and Treasury Secy. Paulson were even willing to admit that a problem existed outside the banking system. The entire sum total of their efforts was to maintain confidence. It was a dangerous gamble that has proven disastrous and they’re about to learn the hard way that while you might be able to create a bailout for big banks and big government, there is no bailout for confidence.

Don’t miss out on your free copy of our report “The 7 Mistakes Investors make..and how to avoid them”. Get your copy today by going to our website www.suttonfinance.net and clicking the free report banner.

Disclosures: Long GDX

The bigger question is how could an elected representative in good conscience vote for something they haven’t even had a chance to look at? At the very least, this is despicable behavior. This bill of goods has been sold under the premise that if something isn’t done within days that the economy will collapse. This is utter nonsense and fear-mongering – nothing more. An economy doesn’t collapse over a period of days. It has taken us well over 2 years from the beginning of the blowup just to get to where we are now. Certainly a few weeks could be taken here to at least give due diligence before committing the equivalent of fiscal suicide.

Unfortunately, by the time we actually learn about the content of this ever-changing bill, and its ultimate impact on us as citizens, the time for action will be long gone.

At the same time, equity markets have been atrocious. That goes without saying. And it hasn’t just been the US markets either. International indexes have been decimated. Commodities, save Gold, have been hammered as well. There are always FOREX markets, trading options, and futures, but they are risky and often outside the comfort zone of the average investor. So the big question right now is how does one aspire to make any money in the markets given the current realities? Fortunately, there are a couple of strategies that are relatively easy to implement for the average investor. We’ll outline two of them here.

The hedged dividend Portfolio Model

The first is to create a situation where the investor is able to secure a higher rate of dividend income than that of traditional fixed income investments while significantly decreasing the risk to the portfolio. In order to do this, a portfolio of dividend paying assets is selected, and an appropriate hedge is identified to protect the investment. This allows the investor to get a comparatively high dividend yield while providing a higher degree of capital preservation than would otherwise be possible.

The problem with hedges is that markets don’t always go down, nor do they always go up. Obviously, when markets are moving higher a hedge will be a boat anchor on any portfolio. Conversely, the absence of a hedge in a falling market will also be a boat anchor. The challenge is identifying the bigger moves and acting accordingly.

Back in December, we took at a look at some model portfolios that were based on the investment themes focused on by the financial media during 2008. Of the three, let’s focus in on the energy portfolio, simply because it paid the best dividends of the three mentioned in that article:

This model contains 4 Canadian Royalty Trusts, an oil service company, two Master Limited Partnerships (MLP’s), and an express Trust. The model is heavy on the side of Canadian Royalty Trusts because they have been a popular vehicle for individuals to invest in oil and natural gas.

This model portfolio paid $19.98/share in dividends during the course of the period studied.
The assumption for the portfolio is that an equal number of shares were purchased for each issue listed. Let’s say for example that we purchased a round lot (100 shares) of each and a 16% hedge (250 shares) of DUG.

The initial cost of our portfolio on 5/19/08 (recent market high) would have been $41,681.50 plus any applicable commissions. The November 11/20/08 value (recent market low) was $29,490.50 for a loss of $12,191.00 or 29.25%. The dividends paid during that time would have totaled $1,998.00, a yield of 4.79% for just 6 months. Considering the S&P500 lost 47.25% during the same period, the hedged strategy performed much better and produced dividends at an annual rate of 9.58% as well.

Obviously, if the price of oil and natural gas had continued to rise, this would not have been an appropriate move since we would likely have gotten capital appreciation in additional to the dividends but the hedge would have lost significant value. The obvious risk to this type of an approach is that the incorrect hedge is used or a major market signal is missed. The whipsaw of the energy markets underscores the need to be up on the wheel in terms of keeping up with this type of a strategy. While it can certainly pay off, like anything else, it requires constant vigilance. The benefits are obviously the dividends and the knowledge that even if you don’t nail every move; you are still getting paid handsomely to wait until market conditions become favorable. And in the case of energy, you have the conviction of the belief that you are investing in a wasting asset that is becoming more and more difficult to get to market.

Income through covered calls

A second method that investors can use to make money on investments they hold is by writing covered calls. It isn’t as complicated as it sounds. In the interests of brevity, I will present a short primer of how an option works, focusing on calls for the purposes of this article.

A call gives the holder the right to purchase 100 shares of a stock at a given price, or ‘strike price’ for a period of time. For this option, the purchaser pays a premium. Let’s use an example to illustrate. Joe buys a call for Company XYZ at a strike price of $30 that expires in 3 months. The current share price is $28. Joe is speculating that the price of the stock will go up within the next 3 months. If indeed that happens, he can either sell his option to someone else (if it appreciates in value) or, if the price of the shares goes above $30, he can exercise his option, purchase the shares at $30 then sell them on the market for a profit. However, if the share price doesn’t move or goes down, Joe’s option will expire worthless.

Now let’s flip the roles and look at it from the standpoint of the investor who holds the shares. Let’s say that Joe buys 500 shares of XYZ stock at $28/share. What he can do is sell 5 calls (each call is an option on 100 shares) at a strike price of say $35. For selling these options, he’ll receive the premium, which will vary on a number of items such as the volume of options at that date and strike price, the time involved, and other factors.

Joe’s calls are ‘covered’ because he already owns the shares. If the option is exercised, he’ll just surrender his own shares as opposed to having to go out in the market and purchase them (naked call).

In the ‘worst’ case, the stock price rises to the point where the option holder will exercise and Joe will have to sell his $500 shares at $35/share. However, he not only received the premium from selling the options, but he also made $7/share. So his profit is $3,500 plus whatever he made selling the options. If the stock stays under $35, the option will expire unexercised and Joe can sell 5 more covered calls and bring in more premium. For stocks that are stuck in a range, this is a great strategy. Applying this strategy to a dividend-paying portfolio is a great way to enhance income, especially in a down market such as what we are dealing with right now. By combining this tactic with the hedged portfolio presented in the previous example, a fairly stable basket of dividend producing assets with extra income from the covered calls can be created.

Some things to consider

• It is a good idea to sell calls at a strike price that is significantly above what was paid for the shares. The example above is a reasonable one. If the strike price is too close to the current market price, you stand a better chance of getting blown out of your position. You’ll likely bring in more in premium for those options, but the likelihood of losing your position must be weighed. This is especially true if the intent is to collect dividends and supplement the dividend income with covered calls.

• Tax implications must also be considered. Generally for IRA type accounts this is not an issue as all taxes are deferred anyway. However, in the case of an individual taxable account, Joe’s $2,500 gain would be taxed as a capital gain. The amount of time Joe held his shares would determine whether he’d pay the short or long term rate.

• Writing uncovered or naked calls is not generally advisable and is typically more risky because the writer of the naked call has to have the money available to purchase the shares to sell should the option be exercised. For an investor who is looking to augment dividend income, writing naked calls is probably not a great idea.

If there is one silver lining to the current zero-rate environment, it is that consumer prices have not gone ballistic at the same time. The reduction in energy costs have helped consumers immensely and slightly lessened the need for inflation fighting 10-15% returns (see table below).

However, by seeking out these types of returns anyway, investors can begin to either recoup some of what they lost in 2008 or prepare for a future that is at best unclear. Based on recent money supply figures, the assumption that we will once again be entering a period of high inflation is a pretty good one.

Perhaps the most important take home message from this article is that when you buy a stock you become an equity owner in that firm. And it is my belief that equity owners should share in the profits of the firm rather than resting their success solely on the hope that someone will come along at some point in the future and give them more for their shares than they paid.

It must be noted that these strategies are not suitable for every investor. The model portfolio in this article is used for informative and illustrative purposes only and should not be taken as an investment recommendation or offer to buy or sell any security. Always consult a qualified financial professional before making any investment decisions.

Disclosures: Long PWE, HTE