SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (160373)2/11/2009 8:34:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362386
 
In Defense of Tim Geithner

seekingalpha.com



To: altair19 who wrote (160373)2/11/2009 8:42:47 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 362386
 
Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1--compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1...

newsweek.com

By Fareed Zakaria
Columnist
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

The legendary editor of The New Republic, Michael Kinsley, once held a "Boring Headline Contest" and decided that the winner was "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative." Twenty-two years later, the magazine was rescued from its economic troubles by a Canadian media company, which should have taught us Americans to be a bit more humble. Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada's virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.

Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn't deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are "non-recourse," which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it's mostly the bank's problem. In Canada, it's yours. Ah, but you've heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It's 68.4 percent.

Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; "healthy life expectancy" is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America's largest car-producing region.

I could go on. The U.S. currently has a brain-dead immigration system. We issue a small number of work visas and green cards, turning away from our shores thousands of talented students who want to stay and work here. Canada, by contrast, has no limit on the number of skilled migrants who can move to the country. They can apply on their own for a Canadian Skilled Worker Visa, which allows them to become perfectly legal "permanent residents" in Canada—no need for a sponsoring employer, or even a job. Visas are awarded based on education level, work experience, age and language abilities. If a prospective immigrant earns 67 points out of 100 total (holding a Ph.D. is worth 25 points, for instance), he or she can become a full-time, legal resident of Canada.

Companies are noticing. In 2007 Microsoft, frustrated by its inability to hire foreign graduate students in the United States, decided to open a research center in Vancouver. The company's announcement noted that it would staff the center with "highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." So the brightest Chinese and Indian software engineers are attracted to the United States, trained by American universities, then thrown out of the country and picked up by Canada—where most of them will work, innovate and pay taxes for the rest of their lives.

If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, in the councils of the financial world, Canada is pushing for new rules for financial institutions that would reflect its approach. This strikes me as, well, a worthwhile Canadian initiative.



To: altair19 who wrote (160373)2/11/2009 8:54:08 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362386
 
Buffett, Who Invests ‘Forever,’ Found Losses in 2008 (Update2)

By Erik Holm

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett likes to say his favorite length of time to hold a stock is “forever.” That’s a good thing because some of his more recent investments aren’t making him money in the short run.

Buffett, 78, ranked the richest man in the U.S. by Forbes magazine, placed bets over the past two years on companies ranging from Kraft Foods Inc. and Johnson & Johnson to oil producer ConocoPhillips. After last year’s 38 percent drop in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, they are among the stocks trading at less than what he paid when he last added their shares to the holdings of his Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

The man heralded as the “Oracle of Omaha” tells acolytes he evaluates companies based on their stability, their competitive advantage and what he thinks they’ll be worth years into the future, instead of trying to find the moment when their stocks are at their lowest. The declines in his recent equity purchases suggest he could have waited before taking the plunge.

“People like to second guess Warren Buffett, but it’s not just a flip question to ask if he should have kept his powder dry a bit longer,” said Jeff Matthews, author of “Pilgrimage to Warren Buffett’s Omaha” and founder of Ram Partners LP, a hedge fund in Greenwich, Connecticut. “He’s paid dramatically higher prices than where some of them are now trading at, so you have to wonder if he was too quick on the trigger.”

Buffett, who makes most of the investment decisions at Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire, wasn’t immediately available to comment. He is required to disclose changes to the firm’s equity portfolio every three months.

‘Buying Too Soon’

The latest report, covering the period ended Dec. 31, is scheduled to be filed this week. It will include purchases and sales made during the worst quarter for the S&P 500 in more than two decades, with the index dropping almost 23 percent.

In separate filings, Berkshire said it spent $9.45 billion on equity securities in the first nine months of last year, buying shares in companies including Eaton Corp., a Cleveland- based maker of circuit breakers and fuel pumps; Ingersoll-Rand Co., a refrigeration-equipment manufacturer incorporated in Bermuda; and U.S. Bancorp in Minneapolis. All of those purchases are now underwater.

“In hindsight, it’s easy to see that he was buying too soon,” said Michael Yoshikami, president of YCMNet Advisors in Walnut Creek, California, who manages $800 million and owns Berkshire shares. “He’d probably be the first to tell you that. But he and pretty much everybody else had no idea how bad things were going to get.”

U.S. Bancorp Stake

Berkshire became U.S. Bancorp’s biggest shareholder as Buffett bought the majority of his stake in a period when the stock never fell below $29.09. He added shares in the third quarter of 2008, during a three-month span when the stock’s minimum price was $20.57, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The bank reported profit declines for eight straight quarters. Its stock closed yesterday at $14.40 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.

Berkshire increased its Ingersoll-Rand stake sixfold in last year’s second quarter, when the shares never fell below $36.54. Since acquiring the stock, which gives Buffett about 1.8 percent of the firm, the price has fallen more than 50 percent to yesterday’s closing price of $15.59. Profit at Ingersoll, which makes Thermo King and Hussman refrigeration equipment, has fallen in three straight quarters.

Buffett first bought Eaton shares between July and September of last year, a period in which the stock never fell below $52.32. The company said in January that it was cutting 5,200 jobs and forecast that it would “break even” in the first quarter. The shares closed at $43.02 yesterday.

Berkshire’s Decline

“He’s not the kind of guy who goes around kicking himself, but it’s pretty clear that some of these are much, much cheaper than when he thought they were a good deal in the first place,” said Gerald Martin, a professor at American University in Washington who has studied Buffett’s investment history. “He knows better than anyone that the economy goes in cycles, so when he buys into something he’s not too worried about trying to figure out where the bottom is.”

Berkshire’s stock has declined 36 percent in the past year, through yesterday, and profit has fallen in four straight quarters.

Buffett has said he’s also spending his own money to buy U.S. stocks as prices decline amid the worst financial crisis in 75 years, switching holdings from government bonds.

“Most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now,” Buffett said in a column in the New York Times in October, warning that investors who sat on the sidelines were ignoring advice from hockey great Wayne Gretzky, who said: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”

Other Opportunities

Buffett is finding other opportunities for Berkshire amid the economic turmoil, funding buyouts, buying preferred shares in private deals and acquiring whole companies. In April, he committed $6.5 billion to help McLean, Virginia-based candy manufacturer Mars buy chewing gum maker Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. In September and October, he agreed to spend $8 billion on preferred shares of General Electric Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. that pay 10 percent annual interest.

Later deals have yielded even more favorable terms. In the past week, Buffett agreed to buy preferred shares in Milwaukee- based motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson Inc. that pay 15 percent and Sealed Air Corp., an Elmwood Park, New Jersey, packaging company, paying 12 percent.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s not much news from the fourth quarter,” Yoshikami said, referring to Berkshire’s next stock-purchase disclosure. “When you can get a 10 percent return that’s virtually guaranteed on preferred shares, why buy stock? People complain that Buffett is less adaptable than he used to be, but that’s not true. I bet he has learned from some of these recent mistakes.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Holm in New York at eholm2@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: February 11, 2009 06:42 EST