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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/27/2012 8:38:41 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 149317
 

Economy in U.S. Grows at 1.5% Rate as Consumer Spending Cooled
By Shobhana Chandra - Jul 27, 2012 8:30 AM ET

Facebook Share
LinkedIn Google +1 0 Comments
Print
QUEUE

Q


The U.S. economy expanded at a slower pace in the second quarter as a softening job market prompted Americans to curb spending.

Gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced, rose at a 1.5 percent annual rate after a revised 2 percent gain in the prior quarter, Commerce Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News called for a 1.4 percent increase. Household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the world’s largest economy, grew at the slowest pace in a year.

Consumers are cutting back just as Europe’s debt crisis and looming U.S. tax-policy changes dent confidence, hurting sales at companies from United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) to Procter & Gamble Co. (PG) Cooling growth makes it harder to reduce unemployment, helping explain why Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has said policy makers stand ready with more stimulus if needed.

“We’re starting the second half on a not-so-good footing,” Michael Hanson, a senior U.S. economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York, said before the report. “The economy is slowing notably. Given the risks, it is unlikely the Fed will sit on their hands the rest of the year.”

Forecasts of 82 economists in the survey ranged from gains of 0.7 percent to 1.9 percent. The GDP estimate is the first of three for the quarter, with the other releases scheduled for August and September when more information becomes available.

With today’s release, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis also issued revisions dating back to the first quarter of 2009. The changes showed the first year of the recovery from the worst recession in the post-World War II era was even weaker than previously estimated.

Slower Recovery GDP grew 2.5 percent in the 12 months after the contraction ended in June 2009, compared with the 3.3 percent gain previously reported, the Commerce Department said.

The final quarter of last year was revised up to a 4.1 percent gain, the best performance in almost six years, underscoring a more marked slowdown in the first half of 2012. The fourth quarter gain was previously reported as 3 percent.

Today’s report showed household consumption rose at a 1.5 percent from April through June, down from a 2.4 percent gain in the prior quarter. The median forecast in the Bloomberg survey called for a 1.3 percent advance. Purchases added 1.05 percentage points to growth.

Recent data signal consumers are reluctant to step up purchases. Retail sales fell in June for a third consecutive month, the longest period of declines since 2008. Same-store sales rose less than analysts’ estimates at retailers including Target Corp. (TGT) and Macy’s Inc. (M)

Slowing Sales Slowing sales and currency fluctuations led Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest consumer products company, to cut profit forecasts three times this year.

Among frugal consumers is Roger Szemraj, a lobbyist for the food industry with OFW Law in Washington, who drives a hybrid car and said his routine has always been to find the grocery store with the best deals.

“We are always looking to see what are the sales items and try to buy in that instance,” said Szemraj who was shopping at Safeway Inc. store in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington because of a sale on lamb. “It’s a matter of looking to see what the sales price is.”

Consumers may remain cautious until hiring accelerates. Payroll gains averaged 75,000 in the second quarter, down from 226,000 in the prior three months and the weakest in almost two years. The unemployment rate, which held at 8.2 percent in June, has exceeded 8 percent for 41 straight months.

Bernanke’s View Bernanke told lawmakers last week that progress in reducing the jobless rate probably will be “frustratingly slow.”

“Economic activity appears to have decelerated somewhat during the first half of this year,” Bernanke said in testimony to Congress. The Fed is “prepared to take further action as appropriate to promote a stronger economic recovery.”

Jobs and the economy are central themes in the presidential campaign, with President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney sparring over who can best revitalize the recovery.

UPS, the world’s largest package-delivery company, cut its full-year profit forecast after a drop in second-quarter international package sales. The Atlanta-based company, considered an economic bellwether because it moves goods ranging from financial documents to pharmaceuticals, projects the U.S. will grow 1 percent in the remainder of 2012.

Global Slowdown “Economies around the world are showing signs of weakening and our customers are increasingly nervous,” Chief Executive Officer Scott Davis said on a July 24 call with analysts. “In the U.S., uncertainty stemming from this year’s elections and the looming fiscal cliff constrains the ability of businesses to make important decisions such as hiring new employees, making capital investments, and restocking inventories.”

Cutbacks by government agencies continued to hinder growth as spending dropped at a 1.4 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the ninth decrease in the last 10 periods. The decline was led by a 2.1 percent fall at the state and local level that marked an 11th consecutive drop.

Business investment cooled last quarter reflecting stagnant spending on commercial construction projects. Corporate spending on equipment and software improved, climbing at a 7.2 percent pace, up from a 5.4 percent increase in the previous quarter

A report yesterday showed the corporate spending outlook has dimmed. Bookings for non-military capital goods excluding aircraft, a proxy for future investment, fell at a 3.1 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the first decrease since the same period in 2009, when the U.S. was still in a recession, according to Commerce Department data.

Homebuilding Gains A pickup in homebuilding has helped some manufacturers to fare better. Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), the largest maker of construction and mining equipment, this week raised its full-year profit forecast on increased demand from North American builders.

“We are planning for a world that is growing anemically in the next 24 months,” Chief Executive Officer Doug Oberhelman said on a July 25 conference call to discuss his company’s earnings. “We are not planning for an implosion.”

A measure of inflation, which is tied to consumer spending, climbed at a 0.7 percent annual pace in the second quarter, the smallest gain in two years. The slowdown in spending combined with less inflation helped boost the personal saving rate to 4 percent from 3.6 percent in the prior period.

To contact the reporter on this story: Shobhana Chandra in Washington at schandra1@bloomberg.net



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/27/2012 8:53:06 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
British media hammer Romney on Olympic comments



By Holly Bailey, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 2 hrs 12 mins ago



(Charles Dharapak/AP)

LONDON—On day three of his overseas tour, Mitt Romney woke up to unfriendly headlines from the British media, who continue to trash him for telling NBC News that he found preparations for the Olympics here "disconcerting."

"Mitt the Twit," declared The Sun tabloid, trashing Romney as a "wannabe president."

The Independent headlined their take on Romney's trip, "Romneyshambles"—accusing him of not only committing a diplomatic gaffe but later "the cardinal sin of U.S. politics, flip-flopping" on his criticism.

The Daily Telegraph suggested Romney's "Olympic gaffe" had overshadowed his trip to London.

Meanwhile, the conservative Daily Mail slammed Romney as " devoid of charm, offensive and a wazzock."

Romney's comments led newscasts on both Sky News and the BBC on Thursday night and early Friday morning, just hours ahead of the Olympic opening ceremonies here.

"Is this guy really prepared to be president?" one Sky News reporter asked in his Thursday night report about Romney's day in London. The reporter trashed the GOP candidate's comments as "just daft."

Romney has repeatedly tried to dial back on his criticism, first in a news conference Thursday outside 10 Downing Street, where he had met with British Prime Minister David Cameron—who had been publicly critical of Romney's remarks earlier in the day.

[Get more updates from Romney's overseas trip by following @hollybdc on Twitter]

In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan Thursday night, Romney again tried to contain the controversy, telling the CNN host he believes the London games will be successful.

"It's great. It's absolutely fabulous," Romney said of being in London for the games. "You know I'd never been to an Olympics before I was given the Olympic job. I mean I've done the same thing everybody else did. I watched the games on TV. But to actually be here and to experience not just the athletes but also the volunteers who are working hard and excited, and then the whole community comes together… It's fabulous."

Citing the "enthusiasm" of the people in London, Romney added, "I think you are going to see terrific games that will be long time in our memories."




To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/27/2012 11:23:19 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Stocks, Consumer Sentiment Rise; Expedia Takes Flight

news.investors.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/27/2012 5:20:02 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
Dow Closes Above 13000; First Time Since May 7



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/29/2012 11:51:50 AM
From: bentway  Respond to of 149317
 
Inequality Undermines Prosperity By Joseph Stiglitz, Los Angeles Times

28 July 2012

To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality.

espite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.

Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality - the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.

Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking - activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.

Some examples: Corporate executives in the U.S. take advantage of deficiencies in our corporate governance laws to seize an increasing share of corporate revenue, enriching themselves at the expense of other stakeholders. Pharmaceutical companies successfully lobbied to prohibit the federal government - the largest buyer of drugs - from bargaining over drug prices, resulting in taxpayers overpaying by an estimated half a trillion dollars in about a decade. Mineral companies get resources at below competitive prices. Oil companies and other corporations get "gifts" in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in corporate welfare, through special benefits hidden in the tax code. Some of this rent-seeking is very subtle - our bankruptcy laws give derivatives (such as those risky products that led to the $150-billion AIG bailout) priority but say that student debt can't be discharged, even in bankruptcy.

Rent-seeking distorts the economy and makes it less efficient. When, for instance, speculation gains get taxed at a lower rate than true innovation, resources that could support productivity-enhancing activities get diverted to gambling in the stock market and other financial markets. So too, much of the income in the financial sector, including that derived from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices, derives not from making our economy more efficient but from rent-seeking.

If we curbed these abuses by the financial sector, more resources (especially the scarce talent of some of our brightest young people) might be devoted to making a stronger economy rather than to exploiting the financially unsophisticated. And the banks might actually go back to the boring business of lending rather than high-risk and often opaque speculation.

Curbing rent-seeking is not that complicated (aside from the politics). It would take better financial regulations, fairer and better-designed bankruptcy laws, stronger and better-enforced antitrust laws, corporate governance laws that limit the power of CEOs to effectively set their own pay, and, in all of these areas, more transparency. Because so much of the income at the top is from rent-seeking, more progressive taxation (and in particular, taxation of capital gains) is necessary to discourage it. And if the additional revenue is used by the government for high-return public investments, there are double benefits.

Countries with high inequality tend to underinvest in their collective well-being, spending too little on such things as education, technology and infrastructure. The wealthy don't need public schools and parks. That's another reason economies with high inequality grow more slowly. Indeed, the United States has grown much more slowly since the 1980s, while inequality has been growing more rapidly than it did in the decades after World War II, when the country grew together.

Public investments are of particular importance today; they increase demand in the short run and productivity in the medium to long term. Increasing public investment would help make up for continued weakness in the private sector. Investments in training for new jobs could facilitate the economy's structural transformation, helping it move from sectors with declining employment (like manufacturing) to more dynamic sectors. Strengthening education would help restore the American dream and help make the country once again a land of opportunity where the talents of our young people are fully utilized.

The right says that we can achieve greater equality only by belt-tightening. But that vision would result in a slowdown of the economy from which all would suffer. Because so much of America's inequality arises from rent-seeking and other activities that distort the economy, curtailing inequality would actually strengthen the economy. Investing public money in the collective good rather than allowing it to be captured by rent-seekers would enhance growth at the same time it reduced inequality.

By giving priority to the austerity/deficit cutting agenda, we'll fail to achieve any of our goals. But by putting the equality agenda first, we can achieve all of them: We can have both more equality and more growth. And if we get better growth, our deficit will be reduced - it was weak growth that caused the deficit, not the other way around. We can achieve the kind of shared prosperity that was the hallmark of the country in the decades after World War II.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, chaired President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and was chief economist of the World Bank. His latest book is "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future."



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/30/2012 11:58:04 AM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
This country can't agree on anything for more than 2 minutes.

Sandy Weill Is Wrong About How to Fix the Banking System: Kotlikoff

By Aaron Task | Daily Ticker – 41 minutes ago

Reverberations are still being felt from Sandy Weill's comments last week about breaking up the big banks. (See: Sandy Weill, Welcome to 'Team Break Up the Big Banks': Neil Barofsky)

This weekend was chock-full of op-eds and stories about Weill's change of heart and the wisdom of his recommendations -- or lack thereof.

"The fact Sandy Weill is coming forward is significant," says Laurence Kotlikoff, professor of economics at Boston University. "But he's got the wrong view of what's wrong with the banks."

The problem is not the size of the banks but their "opacity and leverage," Koltikoff says. "Secret-keeping small banks that are highly leveraged is not going to be a whole lot different. The way to fix it is to break up the banks by not breaking up the banks."

How's that now?

As detailed in his 2012 book, Jimmy Stewart Is Dead, Koltikoff advocates what he calls limited purpose banking, wherein banks would focus solely on being financial intermediaries, rather than trading or other non-core activities.

"Limited Purpose Banking transforms all of the financial corporations...whether they are called commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies, private equity funds, venture capital funds, brokerages, credit unions, or something else, into pass-through mutual fund companies," he writes in a recent op-ed at Forbes.

As we discuss in the accompanying video, Koltikoff's idea is to use the mutual fund holding company structure as the model for the banking industry. This may seem strange but mutual funds already conduct 30% of financial intermediation in the U.S., he says. More importantly, they didn't require bailouts when the crisis hit in 2008.

Mutual fund assets can lose value but the entity itself can't fail because it's not leveraged, he explains. "The marketplace is a public good and we can't let banks continue to gamble with it. Their job is not to gamble but to intermediate. That's why we want to limit them to their purpose."

It sounds simple and logical...which is why it'll probably never happen, at least not given the currently cozy relationships between the biggest banks, regulators and elected officials.

Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker. You can follow him on Twitter at @aarontask or email him at altask@yahoo.com

finance.yahoo.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)7/31/2012 6:48:49 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 149317
 
Some at Fed Are Urging Pre-Emptive Stimulus

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
WASHINGTON — Some Federal Reserve officials are reviving an idea that rose and fell with Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman, as they seek to persuade colleagues to take new action to stimulate growth.

Central bankers generally set policy based on their judgment about the most likely path for the nation’s economy. But Mr. Greenspan argued that the Fed sometimes should do more than its forecast suggested, buttressing the economy against large, potential risks. He described such moves as “taking out insurance.”

On the eve of the Fed’s policy-making committee meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, members who favor additional action argued that the likely path of the economy was itself sufficient reason for action. The committee predicted in June that without new measures unemployment would fall slightly, if at all, in the second half of the year.

But officials, including the Fed’s vice chairwoman, Janet L. Yellen, have sought to reinforce the case for action by arguing that the Fed also should seek to offset the looming risk that a European turndown will set off a global financial crisis, or that a failure to dismantle the potential year-end fiscal cliff of government spending cuts and tax increases will tip the economy back into recession.

“There are a number of significant downside risks to the economic outlook, and hence it may well be appropriate to insure against adverse shocks that could push the economy into territory where a self-reinforcing downward spiral of economic weakness would be difficult to arrest,” Ms. Yellen said in a June speech.

Laurence H. Meyer, a former Federal Reserve governor who, like Ms. Yellen, served under Mr. Greenspan, said that the return of “insurance” as a factor in the Fed’s decision-making was a necessary response to the current environment.

“There are many people who look at that idea and feel that this is what was done under Greenspan, and maybe this was one of the factors that led to excessive speculation,” said Mr. Meyer, now senior managing director at Macroeconomic Advisers, an economic forecasting firm based in St. Louis. “But when the downside risks have grown as large as they have become, I think you have to consider it.”

Proponents of new action continue to face resistance from officials who remain uncertain that the economy has lost momentum and would prefer to wait at least until the Fed’s next meeting in September. Ms. Yellen herself is not among the officials who have said publicly that they are convinced the Fed should act now.

The hesitation also reflects widespread concern about the waning potency of the Fed’s remaining tools, and about the cost of the most powerful measure, an expansion of its holdings of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities.

The Fed also is under significant but counterbalancing political pressure in the midst of a presidential election. Republicans oppose additional action, which they describe as ineffective and likely to increase inflation, while Democrats want the Fed to do more.

Several leading analysts of the central bank predict that the Fed is most likely to take a relatively modest step on Wednesday, to show its concern while it awaits more economic data. The most likely action, they said, is an extension of the Fed’s forecast that interest rates will remain near zero at least until late 2014.

Sven Jari Stehn, an economist at Goldman Sachs, said in a note to clients on Monday that the Fed would extend that forecast to mid-2015. That would be more than a year beyond the term of the Fed’s current chairman, Ben S. Bernanke.

Mr. Greenspan described his approach to monetary policy in a 2004 speech in which he said that central banks are in the business of risk management, and that sometimes requires “insurance against especially adverse outcomes.”

He gave as an example the Fed’s response when Russia defaulted on its debts in 1998. The American economy was expanding, and Fed officials predicted that it would continue to do so. Some had been pushing Mr. Greenspan to tighten monetary policy. He did the opposite.

“We eased policy because we were concerned about the low-probability risk that the default might trigger events that would severely disrupt domestic and international financial markets, with outsized adverse feedback to the performance of the U.S. economy,” Mr. Greenspan said then. “The product of a low-probability event and a potentially severe outcome was judged a more serious threat to economic performance than the higher inflation that might ensue in the more probable scenario.”

Mr. Greenspan’s impressionistic approach to monetary policy was widely held in awe during his time atop the Fed, mostly because it seemed to be working. But his ideas lost considerable luster when the economy collapsed, and some concluded that he had suppressed and exacerbated the underlying problems.

Mr. Bernanke, in contrast to his predecessor, has pushed the Fed in the direction of transparent and predictable decision-making, which he says he regards as significantly increasing the Fed’s power by better controlling market expectations.

Some officials and economists also look askance at the idea of insurance because of the cost. It implies that inflation will be somewhat faster in the future.

And some see little reason to talk about insurance now.

Alan S. Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton who was a Fed governor under Mr. Greenspan, said that the central bank should incorporate an assessment of less-likely risks into its decision-making.

But he added that there was little need for such nuances now.

“The Fed shouldn’t really be worrying about the finer points of risk management,” he said. “It should be hellbent on getting the unemployment rate down.”



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)8/7/2012 5:07:45 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 149317
 
Give up on the recession yet?



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)8/10/2012 8:16:44 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 149317
 
A Financial Plan for the Truly Fed Up
By RON LIEBER

The deck is stacked. The game is rigged. The system is unmanageable.

With each passing scandal, it gets a little bit harder to ignore this refrain from individuals who have had it with traditional financial services companies. Perhaps it’s because the unfortunate events seem to be happening with increasing frequency.

This week, the funky trading programs at Knight Capital sent many stock prices scattering. While most individual investors were not hurt, the company, a major player in stock trading, is reeling.

The breakdown at Knight comes on the heels of — well, take your pick. The trading debacle at JPMorgan? The Libor-fixing scandal? The Facebook initial public offering? The customer restitution that Capital One is paying for what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said was deceptive credit card marketing?

It’s enough to give credence to the people who want nothing to do with the profit-making players of the American financial system.

I’ve heard from some of them of late, and they are not fringe characters living in fantasy land. They know they need to continue to save 15 percent or more of their income and invest it in something that earns a reasonable rate of return if they’re going to have any hope of retiring. But they don’t want to own stocks or do business with traditional financial players to achieve their goals.

Are they crazy even to try? This week, I took up the challenge of creating a financial plan for people like this — including the beginnings of a model investment portfolio — to see if such a goal was even remotely possible.

STORING YOUR MONEY It all starts with your day-to-day cash flow, so for a checking account, the opt-outters will want to do business with a credit union.

As for investments (and we’ll get to the specifics in a moment), store them in a brokerage firm at Vanguard, USAA or TIAA-CREF, all of which are member-owned or use profits to pay dividends to customers and lower their fees.

If your employer matches any money that you save for retirement, don’t turn that down out of spite for the for-profit firm that may be administering the 401(k). Keep that savings in cash if you must, but save enough to get that match.

BONDS Just because you’re trying to avoid investing with, or in, for-profit entities doesn’t mean you ought to sit out the bond market.

Consider municipal bonds, which help pay for roads and schools and other local or regional projects. “You’re basically investing in your community,” said Doug Wheat, a financial planner with Family Wealth Management in Holyoke, Mass. “Which is one of the main tenets of being a socially responsible investor.”

Vanguard’s Long-Term Tax-Exempt Fund has averaged a 6.23 percent annual return over its 35 years of existence. That’s no guarantee of long-term future performance in a world where interest rates may rise and cities are going bankrupt, but at least you can sell it if you need the money or wish to reallocate your portfolio for whatever reason.

Then there’s a curious mutual fund offering called the CRA Qualified Investment Fund. (You’ll want to look for the one that trades under the symbol CRATX.) CRA stands for Community Reinvestment Act, and the bonds it holds help banks (who buy their own shares of the CRA Qualified fund) fulfill the requirements that the act lays out.

The banks can meet the rules in part by investing a certain amount of money in affordable housing and community services for low- or moderate-income individuals, small businesses and distressed or underserved areas.

Banks now use this fund to help stay on the right side of the rules, and since 2007, individual investors have been able to as well. The annualized performance (including returns from before individual investors could play along) has been 5.16 percent.

REAL ESTATE Owning property and renting it to farmers, businesses or individuals can be a fine long-term strategy, though timing is everything, as we learned in the middle of the last decade.

But there is plenty about real estate that is nothing like owning stocks, starting with the time it takes to research a purchase. “It’s like being a vegan,” said Michelle Maton, a financial planner with Aequus Wealth Management Resources in Chicago. “You have to educate yourself if you’re going to make that choice.” After all, there is no Morningstar for buildings that are up for sale.

There are a few other things that make real estate at least as risky as owning stocks, even if you may feel better about the underlying asset. It’s not particularly liquid, so you’d better be sure you won’t need to sell quickly. The time it will take you to manage the property counts for something. Then, there are the usual tenant nonpayment and vacancy risks, plus the possibility of permanent economic decline in your region.

There is one upside: If you buy in middle age, you may pay off the mortgage just as your other savings are running out 10 or 15 years after retirement. At that point, the rental income becomes sort of an annuity.

PEER-TO-PEER LENDING In early 2011, I expressed wariness about relatively new services like Lending Club and Prosper that allow individuals to invest money in loans that other people take out. Since then, however, the services have been humming along quite nicely, delivering returns of roughly 7 percent to investors who spread their money in small bits among hundreds of loans to the most creditworthy borrowers.

Alas, regulatory hurdles prevent the companies from taking your money in some states, including Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts, though residents of New York, California, Illinois and Connecticut are free to try their luck. There are other eligibility requirements, too, based on income or net worth; check the company’s Web sites for more detail.

The beauty of this investment is that the two sites exist in large part to undermine big banks. At Prosper, 46 percent of recent loans were to people who were consolidating debt from elsewhere (often from credit cards), while at Lending Club, debt consolidation and paying off higher-interest credit cards account for just over 70 percent of all loans since inception.

SLOW MONEY One emerging wild card is the Slow Money movement, a cousin to the Slow Food approach to more sustainable edibles. It helps connect food producers of various sorts with nearby people who want to invest in them somehow. It’s a little like bond investing, a little like real estate investing and a little like the peer-to-peer approach.

“Let’s just take some of our money and invest it near where we live in things we understand, starting with food,” as the movement’s founder, Woody Tasch, puts it. He describes returns as being in the “lowish single digits,” ranging from roughly 3 percent to a few percentage points higher.

Jennifer Lazarus, a financial planner in Durham, N.C., and a Slow Money investor herself, said she realized that this wasn’t an attractive enough return for many people. She is meeting next week with a local accountant, farmer and lawyer to discuss ways to appeal to more investors. “There is a desire and absolutely a need,” she said.

Higher returns mean higher risk, however, and Mr. Tasch was quick to acknowledge the concentrated bet that Slow Money investors make in any given project. “Some people have opined that this is high-risk, low-return investing,” he said. “But the next question is, risky compared to what?”

That’s the right question. Yet it’s utterly unanswerable. For people who find most for-profit companies repulsive or who can’t sleep because of fears about their stock market holdings, there is real mental health risk to investing in stocks.

But these alternatives are subject to large diversification and liquidity risks and don’t all have long-term track records.

“It is hard to be pure in this world,” said Mr. Wheat, the financial planner, who has helped many socially conscious investing clients. “People may not like buying gas for their car, but they usually end up doing that anyway. They may want to think about it in the same way, from an investment standpoint.”

At the least, ultra-alternative investors need to consider the possibility that a swing of just a percentage point in a portfolio’s average annual return can add up to hundreds of thousands of lost dollars over decades.

Perhaps that’s fine with you. But before you make a risky bet on a portfolio that looks anything like the one I laid out above, think about whether you’re prepared to save even more, spend less and work several years longer to make up for any shortfall in returns.

That may be the best way to figure out whether your principles are truly priceless.


Twitter: @ronlieber




To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)8/12/2012 1:18:32 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 149317
 
The return of supply and demand in housing

By Kenneth R. Harney

WASHINGTON — Though many home shoppers who assume they are still in a buyer’s market find it hard to believe, one of the sobering fundamentals shaping real estate this summer is shrinking inventory: The supply of houses for sale is down significantly in most areas compared with a year ago, sometimes dramatically so. And that is having important side impacts — raising prices and homeowners’ equity stakes, and reducing total sales.

In major metropolitan markets from the mid-Atlantic to the West Coast, the stock of homes listed for purchase is down by sometimes extraordinary amounts — 50 percent or more below year-ago levels in several areas of California, according to industry studies.

In Washington, D.C., and its nearby suburbs, listings are down by 28 percent, reports Redfin, a national online realty brokerage. In Los Angeles, available inventory is 49 percent lower than it was last summer, San Diego by 53 percent. In Seattle, listings are off by 41 percent. According to the National Association of Realtors, total houses listed for sale across the country in June were 24 percent lower than a year earlier.

The dearth of listings is often more intense in the lower- to mid-price ranges, less so in the upper brackets.

Peggy James, an agent with Erick & Co. of Exit Choice Realty in Prince William County, Va., says she gets calls “all the time” from buyers asking, “Where are all the new listings? Are you agents bluffing” — holding back? But the reality is “there just haven’t been many” listings in some high-demand price categories lately, she says.

In Orange, Calif., Carlos Herrera, broker-owner of Casa Blanca Realtors, says “it’s really strange right now. We have many buyers but few sellers,” forcing purchasers to bid up prices on what’s available.

Just south of San Francisco, Redfin agent Brad Le says inventory in Silicon Valley is down so drastically — and demand so strong — that the bidding wars are spinning off the charts. “We’re not just talking about 10 or 15” offers, he says, “but sometimes 40 and 50.” Some buyers are inserting escalation clauses into their contracts to keep pace with counter-bids, and waiving financing contingencies, inspections and even agreeing to increase their down payments to counter any differences between the accepted sale price and the appraised value. One modest, 1,700-square-foot house recently was listed at $879,000. It drew more than 50 competing offers and sold to an all-cash buyer for $1,050,000 in less than a month.

Silicon Valley is in its own special economic niche, but declining inventories are nationwide. In its latest survey of 146 large markets, Realtor.com found that 144 had lower supplies of listings last month than a year earlier. Online real estate and mortgage data firm Zillow reports some of the steepest declines in inventory are in places that got hit the hardest during the bust, and where sizable percentages of owners still are underwater on their mortgages. In Phoenix and Miami, for example, 55 percent and 46 percent of owners respectively have negative equity.

Both cities have seen significant drops in inventory, and both are experiencing strong appreciation in home prices. According to data from research firm CoreLogic, Phoenix prices are up 14.7 percent for the year and Miami by 9.7 percent.

What’s behind the widespread declines in listings? Analysts say negative equity plays a major role — it discourages people who might otherwise want to sell from doing so. They don’t want to take a big loss, especially in a slowly improving price environment. So they sit tight rather than list. Banks with large stocks of pre-foreclosure and foreclosed properties are doing the same, creating a so-called “shadow inventory” of houses estimated to total 1.5 million units.

Where’s this all headed? Stan Humphries, chief economist for Zillow, says the likely trend is for more of the same: Constricted supplies will lead to price increases, especially in segments of local markets where demand is strongest. Longer term, price increases will gradually rewind the cycle, increasing owners’ equities and convincing more of them to list and sell. This, in turn, should put a brake on price increases, especially under today’s super-strict mortgage underwriting and appraisal practices.

Bottom line for anyone looking to list or purchase anytime soon: Though conditions vary by location and price segment, lower supplies of houses available for sale are changing market dynamics — putting sellers in stronger positions than they’ve been in years.

dailyherald.com



To: RetiredNow who wrote (117577)8/15/2012 8:25:21 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 149317
 
Always had a lot of respect for this guy...
============

A Mutual Fund Master, Too Worried to Rest

By JEFF SOMMER VANGUARD, the penny-pinching mutual fund company founded by John C. Bogle, has become a colossus. Its index funds — once derided for not even trying to beat the market — are now the industry standard.

And after at least six heart attacks and one heart transplant, Mr. Bogle has managed to witness this triumph. “It’s all a kind of a miracle,” he says in a booming baritone. “It’s really nice that I’m able to see this happen in my own lifetime.”

With this kind of medical history, any other man of 83 might simply enjoy his success. But not John Bogle. He is still on a mission, as outspoken as ever and nearly as vigorous — thanks, he says, to the heart of a younger man. He’s not done yet.

“It’s urgent that people wake up,” he says. Why? This is the worst time for investors that he has ever seen — and after more than 60 years in the business, that’s saying a lot.

Start with the economy, the ultimate source of long-term stock market returns. “The economy has clouds hovering over it,” Mr. Bogle says. “And the financial system has been damaged. The risk of a black-swan event — of something unlikely but apocalyptic — is small, but it’s real.”

Even so, he says, long-term investors must hold stocks, because risky as the market may be, it is still likely to produce better returns than the alternatives.

“Wise investors won’t try to outsmart the market,” he says. “They’ll buy index funds for the long term, and they’ll diversify.

“But diversify into what? They need alternatives, bonds, for the most part. What’s so frightening right now is that the alternatives to equities are so poor.”

In the financial crises of the last several years, he says, investors have flocked to seemingly safe government bonds, driving up prices and driving down yields. The Federal Reserve and other central banks have been pushing down interest rates, too.

But low yields today predict low returns later, he says, and “the outlook for bonds over the next decade is really terrible.”

Dark as this outlook may be, he says, people need to “stay the course” if they are to have hope of buying homes or putting children through college or retiring in comfort.

He is still preaching the gospel of long-term, low-cost investing. “My ideas are very simple,” he says: “In investing, you get what you don’t pay for. Costs matter. So intelligent investors will use low-cost index funds to build a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds, and they will stay the course. And they won’t be foolish enough to think that they can consistently outsmart the market.”

Still, because the market and the economy are deeply troubled, it’s time for action on many fronts, he says: “We’ve really got no choice. We’ve got to fix this system. All of us, as individuals, need to do it.”

That’s the message of his latest and 11th book, “The Clash of the Cultures: Investment vs. Speculation” (Wiley & Sons, $29.95). It offers a scathing critique of the financial services industry and updated guidance for investors. “A culture of short-term speculation has run rampant,” he writes, “superseding the culture of long-term investment that was dominant earlier in the post- World War II era.”

Too much money is aimed at short-term speculation — the seeking of quick profit with little concern for the future. The financial system has been wounded by a flood of so-called innovations that merely promote hyper-rapid trading, market timing and shortsighted corporate maneuvering. Individual investors are being shortchanged, he writes.

Corporate money is flooding into political campaigns. The American retirement system faces a train wreck. America’s fundamental values are threatened. Mr. Bogle remains a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist but says the system has “gotten out of balance,” threatening our entire society. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else,” he says, quoting Winston Churchill. Now, he says, it’s time to try something else.

He advocates taxes to discourage short-term speculation. He wants limits on leverage, transparency for financial derivatives, stricter punishments for financial crimes and, perhaps most urgently, a unified fiduciary standard for all money managers: “A fiduciary standard means, basically, put the interests of the client first. No excuses. Period.”

Those clients — the ordinary people to whom he has always appealed — need to protect themselves from peril, he says: “In an ideal world, Adam Smith-like, individuals would recognize what they need to do in their own self-interest, and they will make changes happen and look after themselves.”

MR. BOGLE sometimes disagrees with current Vanguard management, but he remains proud of the company he created. Index funds are ever more popular, and Vanguard is gushing money, torrents of it. Thanks largely to its various index funds, Vanguard, which is based near Valley Forge, Pa., pulled in a net $87.7 billion in cash this year through June, excluding money market funds. That’s nearly 40 percent of the cash flow of the entire mutual fund industry.

Burton Malkiel, the Princeton economist and author of “A Random Walk Down Wall Street,” says: “Index funds are so popular now that it’s easy to forget how courageous and tenacious Jack Bogle was in starting them. They were called Bogle’s Folly because all they did was replicate the returns of the market. But, of course, that’s a great deal. In the academic world many people saw the wisdom of this — but Jack is the guy who actually made it happen.”

Mr. Bogle also tried to ensure that Vanguard funds would always be cheap to buy and hold. While Vanguard is his baby, he has never had an ownership stake in it aside from the shares he holds in its mutual funds. Vanguard fund shareholders own the place collectively because he planned it that way.

“Strategy follows structure,” he says, explaining that with no parent company or private owners to siphon profits, Vanguard can keep costs lower than anyone else. That was always his goal. “The only way anyone can really compete with us on costs is to adopt a mutual ownership structure,” he says. “I’ve been waiting all these years for someone to do it, but no one has.”

One reason is surely that there’s no profit in it. Despite Vanguard’s size and success, Mr. Bogle is no billionaire. For comparison, Forbes lists the personal wealth of Edward C. Johnson 3rd, the chairman of Fidelity, as $5.8 billion. By contrast, Mr. Bogle says his own wealth is in the “low double-digit millions.” Most of it is in Vanguard and Wellington mutual funds in which he invested via payroll deduction during his long career.

During his peak earning years at Vanguard, he regularly gave half his salary to charities, including two alma maters — the Blair Academy, a prep school in Blairstown, N.J., and Princeton University. He was a scholarship student at both, holding down part-time jobs to help pay his way. At Princeton, in a senior thesis, he sketched the rough outlines of the cost-cutting, shareholder-serving company that would become Vanguard.

Mr. Bogle continues to make donations to several causes. “My only regret about money is that I don’t have more to give away,” he says.

WHILE he has no operational role at Vanguard, he hasn’t entirely left it. He works on its campus, heading the Bogle Financial Markets Research Center, a small research institute that provides him with a bully pulpit, which he tries to use in the energetic mode of his hero, Theodore Roosevelt. “There aren’t many of us Roosevelt Republicans left,” he said.

Mr. Bogle may be a Republican, but he voted for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and plans to vote for Mr. Obama again. He says government regulation of the financial industry is insufficient, and he endorses the Volcker Rule, named for his friend, Paul A. Volcker, the former Fed chairman, who says regulated banks shouldn’t be making risky bets with their own money.

Mr. Volcker, in turn, embraces Mr. Bogle’s critique of the financial services industry. At a public forum held in Manhattan last winter to celebrate Mr. Bogle’s legacy, Mr. Volcker said that the only unequivocally good financial innovation out of Wall Street in the last 25 years was the bank A.T.M. (If he went back 40 years, Mr. Volcker said, he would include Mr. Bogle’s invention of the index fund.) And Mr. Volcker said that a unified fiduciary standard “is an excellent solution.”

The research institute is financed by Vanguard but is independent, allowing Mr. Bogle to write books and make fiery speeches that sometimes differ from Vanguard policies.

At the moment, for example, he supports a crucial part of a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to tighten rules on money market funds. “Investors shouldn’t be misled into believing these funds are as safe as a bank account,” he says. “They’re not.”

In 2008, one fund, Reserve Primary, “broke the buck,” falling below the $1-a-share asset value that money market funds have traditionally maintained. That set off a panic and the government intervened. To prevent future crises, Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C. chairwoman, would require funds to let their net asset values float — so that $1 invested in a fund might be worth 99 cents.

Vanguard sides with other big firms like Charles Schwab and Fidelity in trying to block the proposal, which is set for a vote on Aug. 29. Allowing shares to float would “require significant, and expensive, changes” and would put off investors, many of whom would shift assets from firms like Vanguard into banks, Vanguard said in a filing.

Mr. Bogle sides with Ms. Schapiro and differs with Vanguard on that point. “A lot of things that are disruptive have to be done anyway, and this is one of them,” he says. “Mary Schapiro has a lot of courage in trying to do it.”

MR. BOGLE moved to the institute after leaving the company’s board in 1999 amid a conflict with John J. Brennan, his handpicked successor and second in command. Mr. Brennan, who has said little about the issue in public and declined to comment for this article, has since been succeeded by F. William McNabb III.

Mr. Bogle’s health was precarious in the 1990s. By 1996, when he relinquished his role as C.E.O. to Mr. Brennan, he had already had at least six heart attacks and was mortally ill, according to two people then at Vanguard. “At that point Jack Bogle couldn’t walk slowly across a room without getting out of breath,” one of those officials said. “Jack’s heart was failing. Either he’d get a transplant or basically have to say goodbye to the world.”

The transplant in early 1996 was spectacularly successful. “Physically, Jack was born again,” the official said. “That was wonderful. But it made things very complicated at Vanguard.”

Mr. Bogle had hired Mr. Brennan in 1982, and they worked together amicably for more than a decade. “The two Jacks are very different types,” said one Vanguard veteran, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue is still sensitive within the company. “Jack Brennan is Mr. Inside, an operations man who doesn’t particularly like talking to journalists, and Jack Bogle is Mr. Outside, the ultimate marketer.” For a long while, it seemed to be a good match.

But things changed after Mr. Bogle returned with a new heart and renewed vigor. Now with the title of “senior chairman,” Mr. Bogle found that he disagreed with some of Mr. Brennan’s decisions, and said so openly. He criticized Mr. Brennan’s interest in starting narrowly focused sector equity funds. Mr. Bogle also worried that Vanguard was beginning to emphasize the sale of funds through investment advisers, these people said. Direct sales to investors had been a principal low-cost innovation in the company’s early days.

In 1999, as tensions rose, Mr. Bogle was asked to leave the board at the mandatory age of 70. “I thought there would be an exception for the company’s founder,” he says. The dispute became public, and the board offered to let Mr. Bogle extend his term. But he moved to the new research institute, which has been his base ever since.

Several Vanguard insiders say that after this, Mr. Brennan habitually walked past his former boss, rather than say hello. Journalists witnessed such scenes. Today, Mr. Bogle says he is puzzled by Mr. Brennan’s behavior.

Soon, contrary to Mr. Bogle’s advice, Vanguard began selling exchange-traded funds, or E.T.F.’s — index funds that may be bought or sold throughout the trading day. For years, Mr. Bogle had opposed this move, saying E.T.F.’s enable frequent trading, which generally hurts individual investors. He compared the innovation to “giving an arsonist a match.”

Now Mr. Bogle says that some E.T.F.’s, like those that mimic core Vanguard index funds, are fine if used carefully by buy-and-hold investors or by institutional investors for specific purposes. But he warns that they are dangerous for investors because many E.T.F.’s track relatively obscure sections of the market and all of them encourage the propensity to trade rapidly — “to speculate, rather than invest.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. McNabb, Vanguard’s current chief executive and chairman, wouldn’t comment on the Brennan-Bogle relationship. He praised both men, saying, for example, that Mr. Brennan’s introduction of E.T.F.’s expanded Vanguard’s influence and, therefore, Mr. Bogle’s legacy.

“We revere Jack Bogle here,” Mr. McNabb said. “Everybody can quote his sayings. He laid out a vision for the company and set up an ownership structure unlike anything the industry had ever seen.”

Mr. McNabb added: “We live and breathe the fact that we’re client-owned, that we’re built for the long-term, and that we serve only one constituency, our clients, who are also our owners. That’s all Jack Bogle.”

For his part, Mr. Bogle says the company embodies his ideas. Current executives are making “hard decisions and doing a good job and doing it very sincerely.” But, he adds, “I think it’s good that I have an independent voice.”

ON the Vanguard campus, on a lawn near the cafeteria, stands a 7-foot-high bronze statue of Mr. Bogle.

He is sheepish about it. “I’m not sure we should’ve done it, but there it is,” he says. “It’s a good likeness, isn’t it?”

Indeed, it is. Thomas J. Warren, the sculptor who created it in 1996, said the Vanguard board commissioned the statue when Mr. Bogle was ill, and that he became stronger as work proceeded.

“Mr. Bogle was very humble about it,” Mr. Warren says. “I went out to his house to ‘live cast’ his face one day, and I was late. He was dressed for a board meeting, but he was very gracious and got down on the kitchen floor, and we made the mold.” Mr. Bogle asked him not to prettify his image. “Mr. Bogle has arthritis, but he told me to go ahead and show him the way he really is, so the fingers on the statue are gnarled.”

One day earlier this year in the company cafeteria — the “galley,” as it’s called at the nautically themed Vanguard — Mr. Bogle ordered a grilled cheese sandwich and chatted with an endless stream of young well-wishers. On the walls were murals embellished with quotations from his speeches:

“Like a rock.”

“Even one person can make a difference.”

“Press on regardless.”

“We lead.”

“Success must not be bought but earned.” And, of course, there is another, which may be his favorite. “Stay the course,” Mr. Bogle says.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 12, 2012

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the Fidelity Investments executive whom Forbes lists as having a personal net wealth of $5.8 billion. He is Edward C. Johnson 3rd, not Edward C. Johnson 2nd. And Mr. Johnson 3rd remains Fidelity’s chairman; he did not step down last year.