(AP:WASHINGTON) The government is telling a federal judge that $285 million is a fair penalty for Citigroup Inc. to pay to settle charges that it misled buyers of a complex mortgage investment ahead of the housing bust.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff has blocked the settlement that the Securities and Exchange Commission reached with Citigroup last month. He implied that the settlement was insufficient given the charges and asked the government to justify the amount.

The SEC says $285 million is close to what it would have won in a trial. The sum came after an extensive investigation and will go to investors harmed by Citigroup’s conduct, the SEC said.

The SEC said the bank bet against the investment in 2007 and made $160 million, while investors lost millions.

Tonight, there are more than 20 million Americans that are living in extreme poverty.  This number increases a little bit more every single day.  The following statistics that were mentioned in an article in The Daily Mail should be very sobering for all of us….

About 20.5 million Americans, or 6.7 percent of the U.S. population, make up the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 per cent or less of the official poverty level.

Those living in deep poverty represent nearly half of the 46.2 million people scraping by below the poverty line. In 2010, the poorest poor meant an income of $5,570 or less for an individual and $11,157 for a family of four.

That 6.7 percent share is the highest in the 35 years that the Census Bureau has maintained such records, surpassing previous highs in 2009 and 1993 of just over 6 percent.

Sadly, the wealthy and the poor are being increasingly segregated all over the nation.  In some areas of the U.S. you would never even know that the economy was having trouble, and other areas resemble third world hellholes.  In most U.S. cities today, there are the “good neighborhoods” and there are the “bad neighborhoods”.

According to a recent Bloomberg article, the “very poor” are increasingly being pushed into these “bad neighborhoods”….

At least 2.2 million more Americans, a 33 percent jump since 2000, live in neighborhoods where the poverty rate is 40 percent or higher, according to a study released today by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Of course they don’t have much of a choice.  They can’t afford to live where most of the rest of us do.

Today, there are many Americans that openly look down on the poor, but that should never be the case.  We should love the poor and want to see them lifted up to a better place.  The truth is that with a few bad breaks any of us could end up in the ranks of the poor.  Compassion is a virtue that all of us should seek to develop.

Not only that, but the less poor people and the less unemployed people we have, the better it is for our economy.  When as many people as possible in a nation are working and doing something economically productive, that maximizes the level of true wealth that a nation is creating.

But today we are losing out on a massive amount of wealth.  We have tens of millions of people that are sitting at home on their couches.  Instead of creating something of economic value, the rest of us have to support them financially.  That is not what any of us should want.

It is absolutely imperative that we get as many Americans back to work as possible.  The more people that are doing something economically productive, the more wealth there will be for all of us.

That is why it is so alarming that the ranks of the “very poor” are increasing so dramatically.  When the number of poor people goes up, the entire society suffers.

So just how bad are things right now?

The following are 19 statistics about the poor that will absolutely astound you….

#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the percentage of “very poor” rose in 300 out of the 360 largest metropolitan areas during 2010.

#2 Last year, 2.6 million more Americans descended into poverty.  That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

#3 It isn’t just the ranks of the “very poor” that are rising.  The number of those just considered to be “poor” is rapidly increasing as well.  Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty.  Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

#4 The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010.

#5 There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

#6 In Washington D.C., the “child food insecurity rate” is 32.3%.

#7 More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

#8 One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.

#9 Today, there are over 45 million Americans on food stamps.

#10 According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly 15 percent of all Americans are now on food stamps.

#11 In 2010, 42 percent of all single mothers in the United States were on food stamps.

#12 The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.

#13 We are told that the economy is recovering, but the number of Americans on food stamps has grown by another 8 percent over the past year.

#14 Right now, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

#15 It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.

#16 More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid.  Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.  Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#17 One out of every six Americans is now enrolled in at least one government anti-poverty program.

#18 The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

#19 It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.

Sadly, we don’t hear much about this on the nightly news, do we?

This is because the mainstream media is very tightly controlled.

I came across a beautiful illustration of this recently.  If you do not believe that the news in America is scripted, just watch this video starting at the 1:15 mark.  Conan O’Brien does a beautiful job of demonstrating how news anchors all over the United States are often repeating the exact same words.

So don’t rely on the mainstream media to tell you everything.

In this day and age, it is absolutely imperative that we all think for ourselves.

It is also absolutely imperative that we have compassion on our brothers and sisters.

Winter is coming up, and if you see someone that does not have a coat, don’t be afraid to offer to give them one.

All over the United States (and all around the world), there are orphans that are desperately hurting.  As you celebrate the good things that you have during this time of the year, don’t forget to remember them.

We should not expect that “the government” will take care of everyone that is hurting.

The reality is that millions of people fall through the “safety net”.

Being generous and being compassionate are qualities that all of us should have.

Yes, times are going to get harder and an economic collapse is coming.

That just means that we should be more generous and more compassionate than we have ever been before.

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) — JPMorgan Chase & Co. racked up a perfect trading record for the second half of last year, making money every day after accomplishing the same feat in the first three months of the year.

Traders at the New York-based bank made an average of $76 million a day last year, down from $84 million in 2009, according to an investor presentation today at the bank’s New York headquarters. JPMorgan’s average daily trading revenue was $21 million in 2008, $39 million in 2007, $47 million in 2006 and $37 million in 2005, according to JPMorgan’s presentation.

The investment bank lost money on eight days last year, all in the second quarter. That’s down from 42 days of losses in 2009, 97 in 2008, 46 in 2007, 33 in 2006 and 52 in 2005, according to the presentation.

The stock award, part of Mr Blankfein’s 2010 bonus, and pay rise come after one of the most tumultuous years in Goldman’s history. The bank settled civil charges from the Securities & Exchange Commission, saw US lawmakers rewrite hundreds of rules governing the financial services industry, and endured a tepid year in trading activity that crimped Goldman’s profits and stymied its stock price.

Goldman had granted Mr Blankfein $9m in restricted shares a year ago, well below the bonuses he had received before the financial crisis, despite reporting record profits. But the bank and its peers were under intense pressure from regulators and politicians to rein in pay.

The bank’s performance before the crisis – it paid Mr Blankfein $68m in cash, stock and options in 2007 – and stunning recovery has helped make the company a bellwether for Wall Street compensation.

Goldman upped the salaries of top executives for the first time since the bank’s 1999 IPO. Mr Blankfein’s annual pay climbed to $2m from $600,000. Gary Cohn, Goldman’s president, will be paid $1.85m this year, also up from $600,000.

Michael Evans and John Weinberg, two of the bank’s vice-chairmen, and David Viniar, chief financial officer, will also receive $1.85m each.

The bank granted Mr Blankfein 78,111 restricted stock units, which are paid out over three years and cannot be sold for five.

All four deputies received the same number of restricted stock units as their boss: 78,111.

Michael Sherwood, a third vice chairman who co-heads Goldman’s European operations, was granted 89,270 restricted shares, valued at $14.4m.

Goldman shares fell $2.26, or 1.4 per cent, to $161.77 in New York trading. The stock has climbed 5.5 per cent in the past year.

The bank will offer additional details on its top executives’ year-end pay-outs in its annual proxy statement.

A Goldman spokesman declined to comment.

After spending much of last year’s meeting defending the industry and debating proposed rules, bankers plan to focus on wooing clients and winning business, according to executives at three Wall Street companies, who spoke anonymously because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly.

The bankers will be coming to Davos, Switzerland, with a renewed sense of confidence. JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s profits last year were the highest in the bank’s history, and Citigroup Inc. returned money to the U.S. Treasury and reported its first full- year profit since 2007. Governments have so far opted against breaking up or levying extra taxes on banks deemed too big to fail, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which sets global financial-regulatory guidelines, isn’t requiring lenders to meet new capital standards until 2015.

“It will feel less acute,” said Anne M. Finucane, Bank of America Corp.’s chief strategy and marketing officer, who attended with CEO Brian T. Moynihan for the first time last year and is returning this week. “The level of angst should have dissipated some given that there is movement in the economy.”

Goldman, Morgan Stanley

Two years ago, after the 2008 financial crisis, the CEOs of Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley stayed away from the annual forum. This year the only major Wall Street banks that aren’t sending CEOs are Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, instead represented by President Gary D. Cohn, 50, and Chairman John J. Mack, 66, respectively.

That means banks will be spending on parties. JPMorgan upgraded its cocktail reception to the Kirchner Museum from last year’s event at the Tonic Piano Bar at Hotel Europe Davos. Bank of America’s Moynihan and the firm’s other top executives will meet clients for drinks on Jan. 27 at the Steigenberger Grandhotel Belvedere — the same night Morgan Stanley’s Mack is hosting a private dinner at restaurant Gasthaus in den Islen. Standard Chartered Plc and Deutsche Bank AG are both hosting events at the Belvedere the following night.

Nomura Holdings Inc. is having a British journalist and a newspaper editor speak at a dinner for clients, the first such event the Tokyo-based bank has held in Davos, according to a person familiar with the planning. Barclays Plc will again hold its annual client dinner at the Hotel Schatzalp, and Credit Suisse Group AG is hosting two client lunches, one discussing financial regulation and the other focused on emerging markets.

‘Cup of Coffee’

As always, much of the action at Davos will happen at meetings and parties that aren’t on the official program.

“The most useful thing for us is really just to spend time with key clients over there, even if it’s just a cup of coffee for 20 minutes or so,” said William Vereker, the London-based joint global head of Nomura’s investment banking division.

For bankers like Vereker, in contrast with this year’s Davos theme of “Shared Norms for a New Reality,” the old reality is back.

“They’re out there to make money for shareholders and trying to do that the best way they can under a system they helped design,” said Simon Johnson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management and a Bloomberg News columnist. “We’re just going through the same cycle again with pretty much the same incentives and power structures. Why would one expect anything different?”

Co-Chair Kochhar

One thing different this year is that none of the heads of big western banks is among the event’s six co-chairs. Chanda D. Kochhar, the 49-year-old CEO of ICICI Bank Ltd., India’s second- biggest lender, is replacing Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann and Standard Chartered CEO Peter A. Sands, who represented the industry last year.

Kochhar’s bank, unlike many of its western counterparts, remained profitable throughout the financial crisis and this week reported a record profit for the three months ending Dec. 31. Her salary, bonus, expenses and pension contributions for the year ending March 31, 2010, totaled 20.9 million rupees ($457,500), the Mumbai-based bank’s annual report showed, less than half the $1 million base salary paid to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who is returning to Davos after skipping last year.

A survey released today by New York-based public relations firm Edelman showed the percentage of respondents in India who said they trusted banks rose to 87 percent, while in Germany, Ireland, the U.K. and U.S., trust in banks tumbled to 25 percent or less. In China, trust in banks soared to 90 percent, the study showed.

Lessons Learned

Finucane and other senior bankers said the lessons learned from the financial crisis aren’t forgotten. They also said the reform process isn’t finished. Many of the rules required by the U.S.’s Dodd-Frank financial legislation have yet to be written, and Basel still has to craft rules for too-big-to-fail banks and capital requirements for trading units.

“The way that Dodd-Frank is implemented is still up for grabs,” said Jane R. Gladstone, who leads the financial- services corporate advisory practice at New York-based investment bank Evercore Partners Inc. and is going to Davos for the third time. “There is a chance that we still have some important sessions and regulatory meetings at Davos.”

This year the discussion at Davos will probably move to different topics such as economic stimulus, monetary policy and the role played by emerging markets, Finucane said.

Geithner, Cantor

Timothy F. Geithner is scheduled to be in Davos, the first time in more than a decade that a sitting U.S. Treasury secretary has flown to Switzerland for the conference. The leaders of France, Germany and the U.K. will also appear, as will seven members of the U.S. Congress, including Republican Majority Leader Eric I. Cantor and Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank.

None of the U.S.’s main financial regulators, such as Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary L. Schapiro or U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler are on the list of participants.

“Last year there were a lot of conversations about who to blame, how to blame them, and how to re-jigger the industry,” said Yury Spektorov, a Moscow-based partner in Bain & Co.’s mergers and acquisitions practice. “It’s not a hot topic anymore. Some people probably learned their lessons, some probably didn’t, but they will discuss how to move forward.”

Back on Track

Goldman Sachs’s Cohn and Standard Chartered’s Sands are scheduled to participate in one of the first panels tomorrow, discussing “The International Financial System: Back on Track?” The discussion will also include Liu Mingkang, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, as well as London- based lawyer David R. Childs and hedge-fund manager Frank P. Brosens. That session is closed to the press.

JPMorgan’s Dimon, 54, will make a more public appearance the following morning on a panel titled “The Next Shock: Are We Better Prepared?” Dimon is the only financial-industry participant in that discussion, which also includes Israeli President Shimon Peres and the leaders of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., Alcoa Inc. and Paris-based advertising company Publicis Groupe SA.

Pandit, Diamond

Other appearances by top bank executives are less likely to focus on Wall Street and regulation. Citigroup’s Vikram S. Pandit is on a panel about expanding financial services to the poor; Bank of America’s Moynihan will talk about currency devaluations; and Barclays’s Robert E. Diamond Jr. will discuss the global economy in a session that features World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick and the finance or economy ministers from three countries.

Jonathan Chenevix-Trench, who spent 23 years at Morgan Stanley and went to Davos in 2006 and 2007, said the event could be more useful than ever if executives used the time with politicians and regulators to address unsolved problems in the financial system.

“There will always be client meetings, that’s what they’re there to do, so absolutely they’ll be doing that,” said Chenevix-Trench, 59, who co-founded London-based African Century Group, which invests in sub-Saharan Africa. Still, “we’ve not solved this conundrum of bankers making hay when the times are good and taxpayers picking up the tab when times are bad, and that model, everyone’s got to look at it very carefully.”

Inside the great investment houses on Wall Street, business has taken a surprising turn — downward.

Even after taxpayer bailouts restored bankers’ profits and pay, the great Wall Street money machine is decelerating. Big financial institutions, including commercial banks, are still making a lot of money. But given unease in the financial markets and the economy, brokerages and investment banks are not making nearly as much as their executives, employees and investors had hoped.

After an unusually sharp slowdown in trading this summer, analysts are rethinking their profit forecasts for 2010.

The activities at the heart of what Wall Street does — selling and trading stocks and bonds, and advising on mergers — are running at levels well below where they were at this point last year, said Meredith Whitney, a bank analyst who was among the first to warn of the subprime mortgage disaster and its impact on big banks.

Worldwide, the number of stock offerings is down 15 percent from this time last year, while bond issuance is off 25 percent, according to Capital IQ, a research firm. Based on these trends, Ms. Whitney predicts that annual revenue from Wall Street’s main businesses will drop 25 percent, to around $42 billion in 2010, from $56 billion last year.

While the numbers will not be known until after the third quarter ends and financial companies begin reporting earnings in October, the pace of trading this summer was slow even by normal summer standards. Trading in shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange was down by 11 percent in July from 2009 levels, and August volume was off nearly 30 percent.

“What’s happened in the third quarter is that after a very slow summer, people expected things to come back,” said Ms. Whitney. “But they haven’t, and the inactivity is really squeezing everyone.”

The downward slide on Wall Street parallels a similar shift in the broader economy, which has slowed considerably since showing signs of a nascent recovery this spring. And if banks come under pressure, all but the safest borrowers may struggle to get loans.

With less than two weeks to go in the third quarter, companies will be hard-pressed to fulfill earlier, more optimistic expectations.

“It’s like the marathon: if you’re five miles behind, you can’t make that up in the last 10 minutes of the race,” said David H. Ellison, president of FBR Fund Advisers, a money management firm that specializes in financial companies. Many banks are barely scraping by in traditional Wall Street business.

As a result, executives, portfolio managers and analysts say that even the mighty Goldman Sachs, which posted a profit every day for the first three months of the year, is unlikely to deliver the kind of profit growth that investors have come to expect.

Keith Horowitz, a bank analyst at Citigroup, said he expected Goldman Sachs to earn $7.8 billion in 2010, a 35 percent decline from the $12.1 billion it made last year.

The drop in trading translates into lower commissions for brokerage firms, as well as a weaker environment for underwriting initial public offerings and other stock issues, traditionally a highly lucrative niche.

Banks are also scaling back on making bets with their own money — known as proprietary trading — another huge profit source in recent years that will soon be forbidden under terms of the financial reform legislation passed by Congress this summer.

Indeed, analysts have finally started to bring their forecasts in line with the new reality. On Sept. 12, Mr. Horowitz reduced his estimates for third-quarter profits at Goldman and Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Horowitz had predicted Goldman would make $1.75 billion in the third quarter, or $3 a share; he now expects Goldman’s profit to total $1.34 billion, or $2.30 a share. For Morgan Stanley, his revision was even steeper, with earnings expectations revised downward to $140 million, or 10 cents a share, from $726 million, or 53 cents a share.

Mr. Horowitz’s estimates are considerably lower than the consensus among analysts who track the two companies. If the other analysts revise their estimates closer to his, they would put pressure on the shares.

One of the rare bright spots for Wall Street recently has been the issuance of junk bonds, as ultra-low interest rates encourage investors to seek out riskier debt that carries a higher yield. But that will not be enough to offset the weakness elsewhere, said one top Wall Street executive who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly for his company, and because final numbers would not be tallied until the end of the month.

To make matters worse, he said, many Wall Street firms increased their work forces in the first half of the year, before the mood shifted and worries of a double-dip recession arose. If activity remains anemic, firms could soon begin cutting jobs again.

“I think the summer was horrible for everyone, and no one expected it to be as bad as it was,” he said. “It’s coming back a little bit in September but nowhere near enough to make up for what happened in July and August.”

The profit picture is brighter for diversified companies like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, which have larger commercial and retail banking operations in addition to their Wall Street units, but some analysts say earnings expectations for them could come down as well.

“Estimates still seem a little high, and the revenue story for all the banks is not a good one,” said Ed Najarian, who tracks the banking sector for ISI, a New York research firm.

With interest rates plunging, banks are making less off their interest-earning assets like government bonds and other ultra-safe securities. At the same time, demand for new loans remains weak.

One wild card will be the credit card portfolios at major banks like JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citigroup. As delinquencies ease, Mr. Najarian said, credit losses are likely to decline. That trend helped earnings at JPMorgan in the second quarter, and could be crucial again in the third quarter.

Ms. Whitney says the gloomy short-term predictions foreshadow a series of lean years in the broader financial services industry.

Indeed, she said the Street faced a “resizing” not seen since the cutbacks that followed the bursting of the dot-com bubble a decade ago.

“We expect compensation to be down dramatically this year,” she wrote in a recent report. She predicts the American banking industry will lay off 40,000 to 80,000 employees, or as many as 1 in 10 of its workers.

That may be extreme, but Ms. Whitney argues that the boom years are not coming back anytime soon. As both consumers and companies cut back on debt, and financial reform rules put the brakes on profitable niches like derivatives and proprietary trading, the engines of earnings growth for the last decade will continue to sputter.

Yes, we are one year removed from that column and Gold is up 25% in dollar terms at nearly $1000/ounce. Detractors will quickly point out Gold’s inability to land and stick above the $1000 level. In return, I will point at the Dollar’s failed rally to 90 as measured by the USDX. Detractors will point to a lack of interest and dividends from investing in Gold. I will point out that Gold is not an investment; it is money. However, for those who insist on comparing Gold to stocks, I will point out that in the year since the last article, Gold is up 25% while the Dow Jones Industrials are down 19%. Detractors will point out the new bull market in stocks. I’ll counter with the fact that stocks are merely in the middle of a countertrend rally within a bear market while Gold’s correction last year was a countertrend move within a bull market. Detractors will point to the save-haven status of the Dollar during times of economic distress. I’ll counter with the fact that Congress has ensured that the Dollar will die of nearly two trillion cuts – in FY 2009 alone. Must we really continue this?

So on the anniversary of the beginning of the first in extremis phase of the financial crisis, we’re going to look at two of the many developing situations that should give us pause when considering the stability of our financial structures despite all the positive rhetoric and hopefully compel us to consider how to adequately protect ourselves.

China’s stop-loss

Earlier this week, China released some rather earthshaking news that was barely reported by the diligent media here in the US. And where it was reported, the significance was completely glossed over or even ignored. The Chinese Government gave a directive to its state banks to cut their losses on commodity related derivatives, many of which are tied to NY and London banks. In doing so, the Chinese government is in essence saying it no longer respects the validity of these specific performance contracts, pointing out that without performance, there is nothing special about the contracts.

This is tantamount to a shot across the bow. The commodities portion of the total notional value of all OTC derivatives as of December 2008 is rather small at .75% of the total. Telling Wall Street to take a long walk off a short pier in this instance will probably not destroy the financial system in and of itself, but it will certainly give the bailout boys a hint of what could happen if the Chinese et al (think BRIC) start backing out of other more important areas such as interest rate swaps which were nearly 55% of the total notional value. (Data courtesy of BIS)

Even the most diehard of Keynesians, who have never seen a deficit they didn’t love, are aware of the fact that it is much more favorable to have foreign cooperation in your currency burying than to have to do it on your own with direct (or around the woodpile) monetization. In that regard, they still need the Chinese if for nothing else than maintaining the façade of vendor financing and the maintenance of the status quo.

Stock markets reacted poorly to the news on Tuesday with the DOW losing nearly 200 points on a day where there was a bevy of ‘green shoots’ economic news in the form of ISM manufacturing data, pending home sales, and motor vehicle sales. Financial stocks led the decline and we must wonder if the smart money had its eyes on the Chinese as the day progressed. On Wednesday, Gold broke out of its recent doldrums and immediately headed north. Granted the technical patterns had been predicting the breakout for the past few weeks, but it is rather coincidental and we have to ask if we are not beginning to see the first shockwave from the recent Chinese action? If so, Gold gets a big thumbs up, while paper assets get the boot.

FDIC: The paper tiger is going to need more paper

“We’ve all seen the good news that has come out on the economy in the past few weeks. While challenges remain, evidence is building that the American economy is starting to grow again. But no matter how challenging the environment … the FDIC has ample resources to continue protecting insured depositors as we have for the last 75 years. No insured depositor has ever lost a penny of insured deposits … and no one ever will.”

The above statement, made by FDIC boss Sheila Bair is overflowing with inaccuracies, but for the purposes of this article, I want to focus on the last sentence. The FDIC’s ‘trust fund’ is dry. At the beginning of 2008, the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) had a balance of approximately $52.8 Billion. By the end of 2008, the DIF had been drained to around $17.3 Billion on the back of just 25 bank failures. To date in 2009, there have been 81 failures, with the two largest failures of the recession coming in the last month. At the end of Q1 2009, the DIF balance had already been reduced to $13.1 Billion. In addition, the list of ‘troubled’ (read: dead) banks now stands at 416 as of the FDIC’s latest quarterly report.

Ms. Bair, in her statement alluded to the notion that the FDIC sets aside reserves for anticipated failures. The problem is that their estimates of the total impact of failures have been categorically low during the recent run of bank failures. In fact the actual losses have been nearly twice (1.94X) the estimates by FDIC. In the following graphic, used in Ms. Bair’s presentation, the FDIC has estimated the cost of failures to be $32 Billion. If recent history is any guide, the real cost is likely to be a tick over $62 Billion. Given that the balance of the DIF is now at $10.4 Billion, I’d say they have more than a small problem.

What is even more interesting is that Ms. Bair considers money borrowed from the Treasury (taxpayers) and thrown into a black hole to be an asset and her chart above fails to recognize that such a loan creates a liability as well. However, this is indicative of our new accounting paradigm. In addition, she asserts that the FDIC is entirely ‘industry-funded’. Not so when they’re tapping a Treasury credit line. While most folks are sniffing a bailout of FDIC, I wouldn’t count on it. So far, the vast majority of the bailout money has found its way to Wall Street, not Main Street.

So while the FDIC is bragging that no insured depositor has ever lost a penny and never will, it must be noted that it is incorrect to assume that Congress is under any type of mandate to bailout FDIC. When the DIF requires massive borrowing from the Treasury, bank premiums will be increased in a vain attempt cover the cost, which will mean higher borrowing costs for the real economy. And if Congress does step in and bailout FDIC, the amount will just get tacked onto the national debt. So while large banks gobble up smaller ones and consolidate on the back of TARP, TALF, TSLF and a dozen other ‘emergency’ Fed lending programs, everyday Americans will foot the bill in its entirety. How’s that for a guarantee?

The above items are just a sampling of where we stand a year later. The opportunity offered by precious metals is the opportunity rid oneself of counterparty risk. The Dollar is the ultimate example of counterparty risk as it relies on the responsible performance of government and monetary authorities to maintain its value. Since the two aforementioned entities have been absentee custodians of the Dollar for so long, its value has deteriorated dramatically. Precious metals have allowed individuals to compensate for that loss in purchasing power. Pundits will say that Gold is a lousy investment and they’re right. The problem with their thinking is that Gold is not an investment; it is sound money and should be regarded as such, not with contempt as is routinely the case in the mainstream press corps.

So as we begin another September, a time of year that seems to bring out the worst in our financial and banking system, I will say it again – Gold continues to be the opportunity of a lifetime.

Despite the calm appearance on the economic waters of late, there is quite a bit of turbulence building beneath the surface on a multitude of fronts. Several developments have emerged that fly directly in the face of the idea that we’re headed for a green shoots recovery. Even more surprising, when you take a deeper look at these issues, some rather remarkable inconsistencies emerge in that the methods being used in some critical areas virtually guarantee that they will not be successful. We’ll take a look at two of these areas, but first, let’s discuss maneuvering room.

A compressing timeline – less time for proactivity

Last week we presented a chart of the spread between 10 year and 2 year bonds and noted how with each interest rate ‘cycle’ that the spread is getting bigger. For reference, that chart is included below.

What is perhaps even more alarming than the increasing spread with each successive cycle is that the timelines are becoming compressed meaning that there is less time for recovery with each subsequent cycle. Such as has been the case in many other fiat systems when they begin to degrade. Volatility increases while the business cycle compresses. This is exactly what we’re seeing here. Firms and cohorts become reactive rather than proactive and it seems they’re always a day late and a dollar short. Not only do they have limited time to properly position for the next cycle, but with each subsequent cycle, they emerge with diminished resources as well.

No Green Shoots for Consumers?

Consumers are not far behind in this regard. As consumer prices continue to be on the increase due to the recent blowout in the monetary base (M1), expectations will switch from deflationary to inflationary.

However, there is a problem in this regard; the fuel for this inflation is not present. In order to see a meaningful inflation at the consumer level, money or credit has to find its way into the hands of consumers to monetize demand. Wages have been remarkably stagnant, with the most recent data suggesting that wages are increasing at a 1.2% annual rate. Consumer credit, which is another potential source of spending money, has been in a contractionary pattern over the past 4-6 months.

Fiscal stimulus by the federal government has largely left consumers out of the picture as the government has opted to try to initiate consumers to spend their own money instead of monetizing demand directly through rebates or other types of transfer payments. The shift from the direct stimulus method, which was used at the beginning of 2008 to the indirect method of using tax credits, has been important. Ostensibly, from a financial perspective it doesn’t really matter which means are used. The government will either spend money directly or lower future tax receipts as people take advantage of the credits.

The message here is clear. The government would prefer that people didn’t save, opting rather to borrow and consume in the present and avail themselves of a tax credit at the end of the year.

This is evidenced by the ever-growing list of tax credits that are available for doing various things like buying a home, putting in alternative energy systems, or installing energy saving devices. The problem is that in order to take advantage, consumers must have access to the money and/or credit to make the expenditure in the first place. This is probably the worst way to stimulate consumption in a cohort that is already grossly overextended. Consumers, to a certain degree have sniffed this out as is evidenced by increased savings rate in recent months. Job losses haven’t helped to encourage spending and certainly won’t do much for consumers’ willingness to borrow. If the government was interested purely in consumption, there are much better ways to stimulate it.

It would seem possible that there are some ulterior motives at work here. Namely that the government would prefer that consumption remain tepid or even contract without them actually coming out and saying it. More on this a bit later.

Mortgage bond yields continue to rise

The Federal Reserve publicly plans to purchase $1.25 Trillion in mortgage bonds this year alone in an effort to keep mortgage rates down. However, rates have shot up from just under 4.8% to nearly 5.5% in just the past few weeks. One would wonder what exactly is going on here. How can this be, given that the Fed has pledged its undying support to this market? It would appear they have, at least for the meantime, reneged on their pledge. Consider the following:

As of April 30th, the Fed held a total of $367.728 Billion in mortgage backed securities. That number increased to $384.115 Billion on 5/14, $430.485 Billion on 5/21, and reached a peak of $430.902 Billion on 5/28. However, as of yesterday, Fed holdings of MBS actually fell to $427.612 Billion, meaning the Fed sold over $3 Billion of MBS during the past week.

So not only has the Fed slowed its support of this endeavor in the weeks leading up to 5/28, they are now contributing to higher mortgage rates by selling into an already weak market. I would contend that they never should have been buying MBS in the first place, but since they decided to monetize this market, why all of a sudden are they content to allow rates to jump nearly 15% in two weeks by withdrawing their support? Every piece of Fed testimony would lead one to believe they firmly attach the success of the housing market to the success of the overall economy. So why pull the plug on that support just when there seemed to be at least something of a bottom forming? No doubt the quick increase in rates will scare buyers away. A three quarter percent increase in rates will quickly eat up any tax credit the government is providing.

Again, similar to the issue with consumers, it would seem as though there is an attempt being made to throttle recovery without coming right out and admitting it.

One possible answer – The $100 Trillion consumption gap?

It has long been the view of this weekly editorial that our climbing debt levels would eventually be what sank the US as the premier economic world superpower. Even more than the debt itself is the impact such debt will have on future generations. Unfortunately, this is one angle that is rarely looked at. Most government reports reflect the national debt, trade, and budget deficits as a percentage of GDP. Using this measure, it is easy to look at the debt picture of the US in a rosy light. On a purely percentage basis, the debt looks manageable and is not out of line with other industrialized nations. The problem lies in the ability of both the economy, and the working class young to repay the debt. In other words, we never look at the impact of the debt, but rather choose focus on the size of it.

When one starts to examine the impact of our mounting debt and take into account generational and demographic factors affecting our population, it becomes immediately clear that not only is our current standard of living unsustainable, but it is downright foolish to expect that it can continue. This week on our Spin Cycle podcast, we talked with Professor Laurence Kotlikoff who can easily be considered an expert in the field of generational accounting. He pointed out during our discussion that there was more than a $100 Trillion gap between our ability to produce, and our appetite for consumption. Such studies are stretched out over many years with the future dollars being discounted to the present so we can compare apples with apples.

Certainly those in the upper levels of government and finance are aware of these realities and realize that there is simply no way we can continue to consume at our present rate, enjoy the same standard of living, and ever have any hope of paying for it without a massive hyperinflation and the resultant economic and social discord. Another contributing factor in this analysis is the growing likelihood that not only has global oil production peaked, but that our ability to procure ever-increasing amounts of other materials necessary for our standard of living has peaked along with it.

For more information about generational accounting and our current fiscal and consumption gap, listen to our interview with Professor Laurence Kotlikoff by visiting our podcast page: www.my2centsonline.com/radioshow.php and looking in the ‘Spin Cycle’ section. Next week we’ll conclude our cubic analysis with a discussion of energy and natural resources with Zapata George Blake. That podcast will be available on 6/10/2009 and may also be found at the above link under the same section.

While it may seem rather inappropriate to talk about hedging strategies while the markets are retracing at least a portion of 2008’s devastating plunge, common sense continues to support the position that the worst is yet to come. Granted, focus has shifted to ‘less bad’ economic data and the anointing of government spending as the elixir that will return the American economy to prosperity. Yes, that whole “We’re going to spend our way to prosperity” mantra is once again in play. Make no mistake about it; what we are witnessing right now will be viewed years from now as the biggest suckers rally in history – so far.

That said, now is the time to start talking about protecting portfolios from the next move down. The techniques below were used either singly or in tandem to drastically limit losses in our client portfolios during the 2008 liquidation. Some of these strategies have been sold to the investing public as ten feet tall and bulletproof, but don’t work out too well unless the intricacies are understood. And still others are exceedingly complicated to execute and rely on a preponderance of difficult predictive successes to be beneficial.

Flight to Cash and Equivalents

This move is an obvious one and constitutes either a partial or total exit from the market in question and the capitalization of whatever gains/losses existed to that point. Depending on the type of account you’re dealing with you will have a taxable event. Under many circumstances, it may be detrimental to sell out of the market. This can especially be the case if you are one of those folks who have invested in a dividend-producing portfolio and need the income from those investments for living expenses. Obviously, people in this position don’t want to see their portfolio go down in value, but can’t necessarily afford to sell those assets either.

In terms of the average investor, this is undoubtedly the easiest hedge to execute with the opportunity costs being commissions, possible tax consequences, and the forfeited gains if you’re wrong.

Going Short the Market

Shorting shares and/or indexes is one way investors will choose to hedge portfolios during times when they believe markets will head lower. Let’s use the DJIA as an example.
Let’s say that an extremely prescient (and lucky) trader identified the last major top in the Dow Jones on 5/19/2008 at 13,028.16. That day he shorted 100 shares of DIA at a price of $130.23 for a total of $13,023 with a $10 commission. So our trader has $13,013 in his pocket, knowing he’ll have to cover those shares at some point. Let’s assume once again that our trader gets lucky and picks the precise bottom on 3/6/2009 with the DIA at $66.23 and decides to cover. He buys 100 shares for $6,633 ($10 commission) and has $6,380 as his gain.

Obviously, this is a best-case scenario, and ironically enough, this is often how many investment ‘get-rich-quick’ schemes are presented.

The following is the flip side of shorting the market.

In this scenario, our trader, having seen his brokerage account drop by 25% since the beginning of 2008 decides to short DIA on 10/22/08. He is scared to death of a further decline. He shorts 100 shares at a price of $84.59 on the DIA, pays the same $10 commission and has $8,449.00 in his pocket. Unfortunately, he has picked a short-term bottom and the market rallies substantially immediately after he takes his position and our trader is scared into covering on 11/4/08 at $95.19. Including commissions, his short position just cost him a quick $1,080 – in just 9 trading days.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we can easily point out that our trader would have been much better off waiting a few more weeks to cover. He would not have lost anything, and in fact would have helped his portfolio.

The take-home point here is that shorting is not for the faint of heart. You’d best have a solid understanding of market behavior and fundamentals before even considering short-selling shares. As we learned above, the risk to the trader is unlimited. Lets say the DJIA would have gone all the way back up to its 2007 high after our trader shorted on 10/22/2008. He’d have been out over $5,700. In shorting, the rewards are finite (a stock can only go so close to zero) whereas the risks are theoretically infinite.

For the average investor, shorting shares is difficult in that you must pledge the balance of your account as collateral in case your bet goes bad. This nullifies the ‘qualified’ status of IRAs therefore IRA custodians will not extend margin privileges to IRA accounts. Standard brokerage accounts may be used to short stocks and such an account could be used to hedge other investments. While this strategy may bear occasional fruit, it is not for everyone, particularly those with short time horizons or a low appetite for risk.

Inverse Funds – Not what they’re cracked up to be?

Before beginning this segment, a few things must be said. For those who read this column regularly, you know that I rarely use specific companies or funds in these discussions, and tend to stick to sectors, fundamentals, and macroeconomic conditions. However, in this article, specific examples are going to be used to illustrate the points made and to show investors how these funds don’t always perform the way they’d expect. This is not to imply that there is an attempt to deceive on the part of the fund sponsors, but rather a misunderstanding by the investing public of the stated objectives of these funds.

Dow Jones UltraShort Profund (DXD) – The stated objective of this fund is as follows:

The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses that correspond to twice (200%) the inverse (opposite) of the daily performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Let’s use a couple of hypothetical examples to illustrate how a leveraged inverse fund works. We enter our position when the DOW is at 10,000 and the price of DXD is $100/share. For the purposes of the example, we’re going to forget about the expense ratio. While the expenses must be considered, they are not necessary to make our point.

So over the course of our hypothetical 10-day trading period, the DJIA lost 8.28%. Conventional wisdom would have expected DXD to come in at a 16.57% gain. However, it only returned 14.44% (before expenses). Granted, this is not a big difference, but when you start putting it in the context of a million dollar investment you’re talking about some serious money.

Now, for the sake of argument, let’s use DOG, which is the non-leveraged inverse ETF for the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and see what happens.

The performance of the non-leveraged inverse ETF wasn’t quite as bad as it netted 7.64% (before expenses) when compared to an 8.28% loss in the Dow Jones Industrials Average.

Now let’s apply a real-world example from earlier this year and watch what develops:

On February 9th, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 8270.87. The Ultrashort DOW ETF (DXD) closed at $58.07 that same day. Now, shortly before close on 5/13/2009, the Dow Jones Industrials Average is at 8274.05, while DXD is at $51.33 – a difference of $6.74 from the 2/9/09 price. Conventional logic would have surmised the DXD prices would be within a few cents given the trivial difference in DOW levels. For comparison, the non-leveraged ETF (DOG) closed at $71.82 on 2/9/2009 and sits at $68.60 shortly before the close on 5/13/2009 – a difference of $3.22. Conventional logic would have also expected the price of DOG to be very similar. What is going on here?

Here’s what. It is all in the objective of the fund. Remember how it mentioned the daily performance? These funds track the index on a day-by-day basis, but as time goes on, the tracking becomes more and more sloppy. Volatility enhances this condition as was evidenced in our 10-day hypothetical study from above.

It is due to the fickle nature of mathematics that a 10% drop followed by a 10% gain doesn’t put you back where you started. This is where the inverse funds fail to protect portfolios in the longer-term. Now, if prices always moved in straight lines, the inverse funds would do fine. Obviously prices don’t behave that way. The above analysis should not be construed as an indictment of the DOG and DXD inverse funds, but rather suggests they only be used with a clear understanding of their objectives. Furthermore it must be realized that you might not get quite the level of protection you anticipated even if you’re right and the market goes down but takes a lazy path to get there.

For the average investor, inverse funds are an easy way to ‘short’ the market without actually taking the full risk of shorting. Think of it this way: if you invest in an inverse fund and the fund goes to zero, you’ve lost only your initial investment. Your actual risk is known going in. A second plus is that inverse funds may be bought in non-marginable accounts like IRAs. The major drawback, outlined above, is that you may not get the performance you expected for your buck – particularly over extended periods of time.

Using Options to Hedge Portfolios

Another potential strategy for hedging portfolios is through the use of options. We have previously discussed covered call writing for the purposes of generating income, but this week’s topic varies considerably and requires looking at things from a totally different perspective. This discussion focuses on using options for protection ONLY – not for day trading or other speculative activities.

While this is not intended to be a primer on options trading and involves prerequisite knowledge, there are some important concepts that must be highlighted when using options for hedging purposes. For most average investors, hedging with options involves the purchase of put options, which can be done from many types of accounts. However, individual brokers have their own restrictions on what can and cannot be done in particular types of accounts.

Time – Options are good for a specified period of time and after such time has passed expire worthless. Even in the month (or sometimes more) before their witching (expiration), options begin to degrade in value and investors find that they’re not doing their job in terms of protecting the portfolio. Options have ‘sweet spots’ and if you’re going to use them to protect a portfolio you’d better be able to align the option’s sweet spot with the period when the market’s decline will be most dramatic. Otherwise you’re not getting the full benefit of the option and your portfolio isn’t being protected. This is no easy task by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike Price – In the case of the Dow Jones Industrials Average, put options could be purchased on DIA. If you feel the decline will last 6 months and start today, you’d look at options that expire 11/2009 or beyond. In the case of DIA, 12/2009 put options are available. Now you must decide how far you think the market will fall. Buying an option with a strike price that is too low may result in it staying out of the money in which case you might not get the full performance; especially if the decline is not as steep as you anticipated. Buy an option at a strike price that is too close to the current price of DIA and you’re going to pay a hefty premium for the option. If your prediction ends up being right that won’t be an issue, but if you are wrong, you just wasted a lot of your money.

Know Your Portfolio - A common mistake of investors who use options for hedging is that they buy the wrong option. It is imperative to understand the components of the portfolio that you’re trying to protect. For example, hedging a portfolio of junior gold mining stocks with Dow Jones Industrials Average puts is probablynot a great idea. While the junior gold stocks may trace the DJIA to a certain extent there are plenty of times when such is not the case. Using a simple statistical correlation study between your portfolio’s value and the value of different market indexes can help you identify which markets your portfolio tends to track and you can then hedge more effectively.

The major benefit of buying options is that you’re taking a known level of risk. Your outlay for the option and related commissions is the extent of your risk. If you are wrong and the market moves up your option will expire worthless and you lose your initial investment only. It must be noted that this defined risk does not apply when one is writing uncovered (naked) options. These types of activities are extraordinarily risky and are highly inadvisable merely for hedging purposes.

In conclusion, there are many other factors that play into hedging and would require a dissertation to elucidate all of them to proper justice. Each investor must consider their own objectives and risk tolerance and should also consult a qualified advisor before implementing any investment strategy.

The important thing to take away from this discussion is that if done properly, hedging can provide relative comfort during periods of market mayhem such as we just witnessed last year. However, if undertaken without a solid understanding of both the benefits and detriments of the hedging methodology you choose to employ, not only will you not enjoy comfort, you’re quite likely to be a regular in the antacid aisle at your local pharmacy as well.

Improper hedging techniques and use of hedging vehicles are some common mistakes investors make. Consider taking a look at our free report about 7 additional mistakes investors make – and how to avoid them. To get your copy click the following link: www.sutton-associates.net/7mistakes_report.php

Back in 2006, Marketwatch Columnist Mark Hulbert made the comment that those who had invested at the 2000 market top had finally gotten their money back.A long six years to get back nominal dollars that had decayed significantly by the time they were ‘gotten back’.

We wrote the pilot issue of the Centsible Investor in early November 2007; right after the market peak. Was this an accident? Hardly. Our keynote article in that issue dealt with our purchasing power coming under attack and we vowed to put together a portfolio model that would fight inflation by providing a high rate of current income with a secondary goal of capital preservation.

Today, I am proud to announce that while the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P are all down (38%, 39%, and 40% respectively), that the total return on our Portfolio Model is now positive at .51% as of close of business 5/8/09. Where traditional investors had to wait several years from the bottom to get their dollars back, our Portfolio Model has accomplished the same feat in just over 2 months – and has paid great dividends while we waited!

For those who have been subscribers over this 18 month roller coaster called the markets, I am hopeful that our publication has demonstrated its worth and you will consider renewing. For those who have not subscribed to this point, I am hopeful you will consider doing so. The attack on our purchasing power is only beginning and will feed on the inflation created to support unsustainable government spending and the various bailouts. Vigilence is required now – more than ever.

As an added incentive, we are currently offering $30 off our one year subscription. Get 12 issues plus interim updates for just $99. This special will last through Memorial Day.

The Centsible Investor’s Subscription Page may be found below. If you have any questions or need assistance, please reply to this email.

http://www.sutton-associates.net/newsletter.php

Best Regards,
Sutton & Associates, LLC

DISCLAIMER: The statements made in this communication are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute an offer to either buy or sell any security, nor should any statements herein be construed as investment advice. Neither Sutton & Associates, LLC nor any contributor to the materials contained in the above-referenced report shall be liable for any losses as a result of these or any other investments.