Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Obama Administration Unveils New Rules to Fight Tax Inversions - TIME

http://time.com/3419493/obama-tax-inversions-burger-king/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

    

The U.S. Treasury Departmentsaid Monday it will take steps to curb the practice of companies moving their headquarters overseas by trimming the tax benefits of those transactions — known as corporate tax inversions — and, in some cases, stopping them entirely.
“Inversion transactions erode our corporate tax base, unfairly placing a larger burden on all other taxpayers, including small businesses and hard-working Americans,” Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said. “It’s critical that this unfair loophole be closed.”
Lew told reporters on a conference call that he believes the best way to curb a practice that is increasingly popular with corporations, which can generate millions of dollars in tax savings, is through comprehensive tax reform with anti-inversion provisions and he also urged Congress to pass new legislation to tackle the issue.
“Now that it’s clear that Congress won’t act before the lame-duck session, we’re taking initial steps that we believe will make companies think twice before undertaking an inversion to try to avoid U.S. taxes,” Lew said.
Lew announced a new set of measures meant to make inversions less appealing to U.S. companies, including by eliminating some of the ways those companies gain access to deferred earnings of foreign subsidiaries without incurring associated taxes. The Treasury will also require that owners of U.S. companies own less than 80% of a newly combined entity, thus making it more difficult for them to invert in the first place.
“These first, targeted steps make substantial progress in constraining the creative techniques used to avoid U.S. taxes, both in terms of meaningfully reducing the economic benefits of inversions after the fact, and when possible, stopping them altogether,” Lew said in a statement before adding that the “Treasury will continue to review a broad range of authorities for further anti-inversion measures as part of our continued work to close loopholes that allow some taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share.”
The Treasury’s new regulations will go into effect immediately, but will not be retroactive, meaning that they will affect any transactions that are completed after Monday, according to a senior Treasury official. “For some companies considering deals, today’s actions may mean that those transactions no longer make economic sense,” Lew said.
President Obama issued a statement applauding the actions taken Monday by Lew and the Treasury Department “to help reverse this trend.” Obama said that he has personally asked Congress “to lower our corporate tax rate, close wasteful loopholes, and simplify the tax code for everyone.”
Fortune magazine ran a cover story this summer detailing the practice of corporate inversions and the possibility of pending legislation to combat the transactions. A potential high-profile dealbetween Burger King and Canadian doughnuts and coffee chain Tim Horton’s, which would see the U.S. fast food company move its headquarters to the tax haven north of the border, is part of the wave of similar transactions invigorating the debate over the best way to keep U.S. companies’ tax dollars from going overseas.

Monday, September 22, 2014

The Easy Way to Beat the High Cost of Health Care in Retirement - TIME

Sept. 12, 2014
    
Ariel Skelley—Getty Images

Out-of-pocket healthcare costs may total $318,000 in your retirement, new research shows. This expense is most peoples' biggest worry. But it needn't be.

Americans’ top financial concern in retirement is paying for healthcare, which has been rising at twice the rate of inflation and will reach more than $318,000 in out-of-pocket expenses per retiree over a 30-year stretch, new research shows. And those out-pocket costs do not include potential further expenses associated with long-term care.
Strikingly, the fear factor is most acute among the affluent. Perhaps because they have more to lose (or fewer things to worry about), 60% of folks with investable assets greater than $5 million name healthcare costs as their top retirement concern, compared with 35% of those with less than $250,000 in investable assets.
The findings come from a health and retirement report out today from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and aging consultants Age Wave. Overall, 41% of those age 50-plus name healthcare costs as their top financial concern; 29% say it’s outliving their money; and just 11% cite Social Security cuts.
Three major health-related forces are conspiring to change the face of retirement planning, according to the report:
  • Boomers, now all 50-plus, have high expectations for wellness and will demand care that may be costly but keeps them vital and feeling young.
  • Longer life spans will give rise to greater numbers of retirees suffering from chronic diseases including hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s and arthritis.
  • Long-term care costs are unpredictable and can run into many tens of thousands of dollars in a short time, potentially putting a lifetime of saving and planning at risk.
These forces present a huge challenge to government, which must try to keep costs from rising too fast, and to the scientific community, which could make longer lives a joy by discovering treatments for chronic diseases. The report notes:
“If we could find an effective treatment or cure for Alzheimer’s the future health and financial landscape for almost every family would be dramatically improved. The goal is to match our health spans (how long we can expect to be healthy) with our increasing life spans.”
A more readily solved problem may be the dearth of medical professionals focused on healthy aging. Today, there is only one certified geriatrician for every 13 pediatricians, even though the 65-plus population is growing four times faster than any other cohort and is most likely to suffer from some kind of ailment, according to the report. Put another way: We have one pediatrician for every 1,200 children, but just one geriatrician for every 9,400 older adults.
Institutional change will not come fast. So it is important that, as part of taking charge of your financial future, you also take charge of your health. This includes:
  • Exercise People who begin exercising in their 60s or 70s are three times more likely than those who don’t exercise to age in good health.
  • Diet A healthy diet improves heart health, fortifies bones, and reduces the risk of stroke, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
  • Weight People 45 to 64 who eat well, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise a few hours a week can reduce risk of cardiovascular disease by 35%.
  • Connections A low level of social interaction is just as unhealthy as smoking and can be unhealthier than lack of exercise or obesity.
  • Lifestyle It’s never too late to quit smoking, and the benefits are almost immediate. People who consume more than two drinks a day have a 62% greater risk of stroke.

Your money and your health are all part of the same equation in retirement. The good news is that anyone can choose to live healthier—and doing so can make a big difference as to how well you live your last 20 or 30 years.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Are Alibaba’s Best Days Ahead, or Behind It? - TIME

http://time.com/3409413/alibaba-jack-ma-ipo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 20, 2014
    

A question of whether Alibaba will prove the exception or the rule

This week’s record-setting IPO of the Chinese Internet firm Alibaba makes it feel like it’s 1999 all over again (a year I remember with some regret—I joined a “b to c” dot-com company which folded 18 months later).
But I have been feeling for some time that America’s IPO market it’s booming, but broken. I’ve been reading a lot of research recently, including this fascinating NBER paper looking at how much more robust innovation and investment is in private firms, rather than public ones. Particularly for tech companies, their best days as innovators and creators tend to be before they go public, rather than after. Once they are in the public markets, they become beholden to the quarter, and it’s more difficult to justify long-term investment and strategies that won’t yield fruit quickly (this is all the more true with the rise of “activist” investors).

It will be interesting to see whether Alibaba proves to be the exception or the rule to this.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Why the World’s Most Powerful Leaders Really Love India - TIME

http://time.com/3396865/china-india-japan-narendra-modi-xi-jinping-shinzo-abe-trade-economics-asia/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 18, 2014
    
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping walk for a meeting in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2014.Manish Swarup—AP

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India highlights the geopolitical contest reshaping Asia


Some of the world’s most important people are wooing India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi like teenage boys drooling over the homecoming queen. Less than a month ago, Modi was feted in Japan on his five-day official visit, during which he even received an unexpected hug from usually stiff Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. This week, Modi is hosting China’s President Xi Jinping, who upon his arrival in the country on Wednesday, proclaimed that Beijing wishes “to forge a closer development partnership and jointly realize our great dreams of building strong and prosperous nations.”

Why has Modi become so popular? The reason can be found in how Asia is changing, politically and economically. Ever since China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping launched his country’s remarkable economic miracle in the early 1980s, the old Cold War divisions in the region melted away amid increasing economic integration. According to the Asian Development Bank, trade between Asian countries accounted for 50% of their total trade in 2013, up from 30% in 1985. But with China flexing the political and military muscles it has acquired from growing wealth, Asia is becoming split into two camps once again – one centered on China, the other on the U.S. and its allies, including Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. Each side is looking to bolster its support in the region in order to gain leverage on the other. Tokyo, embroiled in a tense stand-off with Beijing over disputed islands in the East China Sea, is looking to build a network of allies to “contain” a rising China. Meanwhile, Beijing is aiming to create a power bloc of its own in the region to counteract U.S. influence.

India has become a key wild card in this new geopolitical power game. As a rising power in its own right, and a huge potential source of new business in everything from espressos to expressways, whichever side manages to lure New Delhi into its orbit will tilt the scales in its favor.
Both camps are making their best pitch. Japan’s Abe took the unusual step of traveling from Tokyo to the historic city of Kyoto to personally welcome Modi to the country. Xi ventured all the way to Modi’s home state of Gujarat on this visit, even donning an Indian-style vest. Abe sent off Modi with a promise of $33 billion of new investment. Xi is reportedly planning to top that during his India visit, dangling an even bigger package of $100 billion.
On purely economic grounds, you’d think Xi has an advantage in his quest for Modi’s favor. Trade between the two has exploded, to nearly $66 billion in 2013 from a mere $1.2 billion in 1996. Their economic links will likely continue to strengthen as Chinese companies become more and more important global investors and Chinese consumers more and more important customers. The world’s two most-populous nations would appear to have many economic interests in common as well. Their companies, accustomed to operating in an emerging economy and selling to emerging consumers, are attracted to the potential of each other’s markets. China’s Xiaomi, for instance, has successfully lured Indian customers to its cut-rate smartphones as it has in China. Wouldn’t Modi be wise to hitch his country to the world’s rising power, rather than Japan, a declining one? That would bring to life the economic power of what’s been termed “Chindia.”
But China-India relations are more complicated than that. After India’s independence in 1947, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru thought his new nation would find a friend in newly communist China. The spirit of the times was captured in the phrase Hindi Chini bhai-bhai, or “Indians and Chinese are brothers.” That hope was dashed, however. India has incensed China by allowing Tibet’s Dalai Lama, who Beijing considers a dangerous separatist, to reside in exile in India. Modi, in fact, invited Tibet’s prime minister-in-exile to his inauguration in May. Relations are also continually roiled by border disputes. In 1962, the two fought a nasty border war, and the causes of that conflict linger to this day. The two countries contest land along their border in India’s far north in Ladakh, while China claims India’s eastern province of Arunachal Pradesh. China perennially irritates India over these unresolved issues. Just last week, only days before Xi’s much-heralded visit, India charged that Chinese troops are building a road in the contested territory in Ladakh. In talks with Xi on Thursday, Modi urged the Chinese President to finally resolve their border disagreements.
Such tensions are clearly weighing on Modi’s mind. He has apparently embarked on a mission to upgrade India’s military capabilities and relationships. Abe and Modi during their recent summit agreed to strengthen military ties, and in August, New Delhi and Washington pledged to do the same during U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s visit to India. One of the first economic reforms Modi announced after becoming Prime Minister was easing restrictions on foreign investment into India’s defense sector, a move aimed at bolstering its technology and production capacities. It is an open secret who is the target of all these military moves. While in Japan, Modi took a swipe at an assertive China when he told business leaders in Tokyo that “everywhere around us, we see an 18th century expansionist mind-set: encroaching on another country, intruding in others’ waters, invading other countries and capturing territory.”

Modi, then, is attempting to have his halwa and eat it, too — playing off both sides to win as many goodies as he can. In his quest to restart India’s economic miracle by building much-needed infrastructure and boosting manufacturing, Modi will need all the money he can get — from China, the U.S., Japan and anyone else who is offering. India has always been wary of trying itself too tightly into any one political camp — during the Cold War Nehru was the leading figure behind what was known as the “nonaligned movement.” The question is how long Modi can play one side off the other. We may find out soon enough. Later this month, Modi will travel to Washington to meet with President Barack Obama. Let’s see what goodies he picks up there.

Friday, September 19, 2014

Everything You Need to Know About Alibaba and its Mega-IPO - TIME

http://time.com/3398957/alibaba-ipo-china/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 18, 2014
    
Employee works at the Alibaba Group headquarters on March 29, 2014 in Hangzhou, China.Hong Wu—Getty Images

What you need to know about the Chinese Internet firm's massive U.S. IPO


The Wall Street hype machine is in full swing as the world anticipates Chinese online retail giant Alibaba’s initial public offering. The company, which operates a vast online marketplace in China, is expected to raise as much as$21.8 billion before it begins trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange Friday morning, giving it a valuation as high as $168 billion. Alibaba has already been called so many things–the Amazon of China, potentially the biggest IPO of all time, the harbinger of a new Internet era—that it can be hard to pin down exactly what Alibaba does and how it makes money.

Alibaba Group is a Chinese Internet corporation involved in a variety of Web businesses. Its most important elements are its online retail sites: Taobao Marketplace, a large eBay-like commerce site; Tmall, an online marketplace for name-brand retailers like Apple; and Juhuasuan, a daily deals site similar to Groupon.
The company is also affiliated with a PayPal-like mobile payments service called AliPay, and it has investments in online video, mobile messaging and cloud computing, among other businesses.

So is Alibaba the “Amazon of China” or not?

Not exactly. Unlike Amazon, Alibaba itself does not sell and ship items to customers. Instead, it acts as a kind of online bazaar where merchants as small as local vendors and as large as Nike can hawk their wares. Alibaba makes money mainly by convincing these sellers to place search ads on its website to reach more potential customers through keywords (like Google) or by charging a commission on some transactions (like eBay).
The company also makes money by selling premium memberships, cloud computing services and access to analytics data — so there are some comparisons to be made to Amazon.

Why is Wall Street so obsessed with Alibaba?

Two big reasons.
First, Alibaba processes a lot of sales and makes a ton of money doing it. Alibaba generated $248 billion in transactions on its three biggest marketplaces last year. By comparison, eBay generated $83 billion.
More staggering is the profit the Chinese giant reaps from these sales: Alibaba made about $2 billion in profit in the most recent quarter, tripling its earnings from a year ago. EBay, on the other hand, made $676 million and Amazon lost $126 million. Alibaba keeps costs low by hiring fewer employees than its closest American competitors and, unlike Amazon, avoiding the costly expense of operating fulfillment centers to ship products to customers.
Investors are also excited because Alibaba offers the most direct way to own a piece of China’s booming tech scene. The Internet population in the country is expected to reach 800 million by next year, according to government estimates, making it the largest market of online users by far. Tencent, another Chinese tech giant, offers many services that compete with Alibaba’s, but it’s traded on Hong Kong’s stock exchange. With Alibaba on the New York Stock Exchange, it will be easier for U.S. residents to invest in the company.

Who’s the mastermind behind Alibaba?

That would be Jack Ma, a former English teacher who founded Alibaba out of his Hangzhou apartment in 1999. Ma is not your average tech executive. He didn’t start using the Internet until 1995and still doesn’t know how to code. He’s an eccentric character who once donned a blonde wig and black lipstick to sing “Can You Feel the Love Tonight?” at a 10th anniversary celebration for his company.
But he’s also a ruthless businessman who effectively ran eBay out of China in the early 2000s and maintains significant influence over Alibaba’s activities even though he’s no longer the CEO.

Who are the other key players at the company?

Yahoo, which owns about one-fifth of Alibaba, stands to make a windfall when it sells more than 120 million of its shares during the IPO, reaping as much as $8.3 billion before taxes. Yahoo will still have a 16.3% stake in Alibaba after the IPO and its stock price will likely continue to be buoyed by Alibaba’s rapid growth. However, Softbank, the Japanese tech firm that owns Sprint, is Alibaba’s biggest shareholder. Softbank will have a 32.4% stake following the IPO.
Despite their large stakes, these companies have relatively little say in the operational activities of Alibaba. They have ceded much of their shareholder influence to a group of executives called the Alibaba Partnership.

What is the Alibaba Partnership?

It’s a group of longtime of Alibaba employees, including Ma and his right-hand man Joe Tsai, who exert incredible control over the company’s activities. Alibaba also has a board of directors, but the Alibaba partnership reserves the right to nominate the majority of the board members, meaning the Partnership essentially controls the activities of the company by proxy without the need for input from other shareholders.

Should investors be concerned about this structure?

Well, it is highly unusual. The Partnership structure was rejected by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which is how Alibaba ended up on Wall Street in the first place. Though members of the Partnership must have a “meaningful” equity stake in Alibaba, according to the company prospectus, it’s not spelled out how large the stake must be. As Harvard Law School professor Lucian Bebchuk points out, partners could choose to later pare down their stakes in Alibaba and attempt to influence the company in ways that are not beneficial to other shareholders (remember, Yahoo and Softbank have basically handed their votes to the Partnership).
The ability of Alibaba’s executives to act unilaterally has already caused concerns before. Jack Ma spun off the fast-growing payments platform Alipay to another company he owns in 2011, which angered Yahoo.

Forget the risks! How do I get in on this IPO?

You don’t, unless you’re really rich. The banks underwriting Alibaba’s IPO will sell shares to mutual funds, hedge funds, and large-scale individual investors. The Average Joe’s first chance to get a piece of the company will likely be Friday morning, once the stock is publicly trading. But those shares could come at a significantly higher price than the IPO price range of $66 to $68. Twitter, for instance, started trading above $45 back in November even though its IPO price was just $26, due to extremely high demand for its stock. Unless you’re well-connected, it would be almost impossible to game the IPO to turn a quick buck. You should either plan to buy in as a long-term investor after carefully studying Alibaba’s prospectus or just relax and watch the chaos unfold without worrying about making or losing money.

What’s next for Alibaba?

The company’s breakneck growth in China shows no signs of abating, and Alibaba also has plans to compete on U.S. shores. Over the summer, the company launched 11 Main, an Etsy-like platform that connects shoppers with boutiques and other small vendors. And during Alibaba’s road show pitching the IPO to potential investors, Ma made his most direct statements yet about his already-massive company’s global ambitions.

“After we go public in the U.S., we will expand strongly in Europe and America,” Ma said. “Because after all we’re not a company from China, we are an Internet company that happens to be in China.”

Thursday, September 18, 2014

How to get children to eat vegetables - The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/how-to-get-children-to-eat-vegetables-9662065.html

 
 
Monday 18 August 2014
Vegetables are better for children than crisps, fizz, sweets and burgers. Vitamins, fibre and antioxidants are more likely to ensure a healthy, lively slim child than sugar and crisps. We all know it. It isn’t exactly headline news.
A survey in March found that only one in five children eat vegetables every day, and ten per cent refuse to eat vegetables at all. Action on Sugar say one in five 10 to 11-year-olds in the UK are now obese, while one in three are overweight. So why do so many desperate parents allow children to fill up on junk food to the exclusion of anything green and leafy?
Many children start refusing vegetables as toddlers. It’s partly the taste. “Most vegetables are not as innately pleasing to the human palate as many of the modern processed alternatives which have been designed to be very appealing,” says Jane Wardle, Professor of Clinical Psychology at University College London’s Department of Epidemiology and Public Health. “Many are an ‘acquired taste’ – you can get to like them but it takes time. Few of us look back fondly on our first sprout.”
Sprouts get a hard time of thingsAnd of course there are plenty of ways of encouraging a child to try pea, beans, leaves and roots so that they acquire new tastes.  “Offer a vegetable and recognise that it may take many repetitions to persuade a child to sample something new” suggests clinical psychologist Edward Abramson PhD, Professor Emeritus at California State University.
“Start with a tiny taste – a piece smaller than a finger nail – and offer a sticker reward for tasting” advises Wardle who recommends the Tiny Tastes game.
Food neophobia – a  fear of new foods – is probably natural and inherited. We are born preferring the sweet taste of high energy food. It was useful for survival, when food was scarce, if an early human being could get a lot of calories without much effort – from honey for example. The same unchecked instinct, given our sedentary life style is a major factor in worsening 21 centuryobesity throughout the developed world.
Many experts believe that chariness about unfamiliar tastes is an evolutionary safety mechanism to protect wandering small children from, for example, poisonous berries. And perhaps it helps anxious parents to understand that children are programmed to react like this. They are not necessarily just being awkward or rebellious.   
Parental attitudes may, in some cases, exacerbate the problem. Children watch and imitate adults. It is how they learn. If a child doesn’t see adults enthusiastically tucking into vegetables then he or she is unlikely to take to them. “Don’t let Dad tell the kids he doesn’t like vegetables” says Wardle firmly.
“Vegetables tend to come with a topping of parental pressure anyway” says Wardle. “How often have you had to say ‘finish your chips’ as opposed to ‘finish your salad’? There is nothing wrong with a bit of pressure but children may read the underlying message: ‘this isn’t very nice but you’ve got to do it.’ “
So what about strategies for concealing vegetables? One company which manufactures pasta sauce has just introduced a range called Hidden Vegetables to enable parents to get vegetables into their children’s stomachs unseen and without battles. It’s a clever marketing idea. It would probably work too but it still isn’t really doing anything to help the child change his or her long term eating habits.
Jane Wardle recommends putting tiny pieces of vegetable in soups and casseroles and gradually making the pieces chunkier as the child gets used to them. According to a survey by Ragu pasta sauces the most popular vegetables with children are carrots, peas, cucumber, corn and broccoli. The thumbs down goes to Brussels sprouts, cabbage, spinach, swede/turnip and mushrooms.
When I was a young mother struggling to get vegetables into my children I used to put them in quiches, finely chopped. And both boys would happily eat thinly sliced parsnip in a baked gratin dish although neither would consider it roasted or boiled in chunks. They’d cheerfully, and knowingly, eat chopped spinach in sauces and other dishes too although noses would have been turned up at a heap of wet soggy leaves on a plate. It was a matter of finding ways of serving vegetables palatably rather than hiding them. The Ragu survey found that  32 per cent of parents try to disguise vegetables and 26 per cent mix them in sauces.  It is, surely, a matter of being adaptable and developing strategies - and positively role modelling every day that vegetables are great and not just an unpleasant but necessary evil imposed on hapless children by horrid adults.
And if you want to tell a few harmless porkies I don’t suppose the children will  actually believe that broccoli will put hairs on their chests or that spinach make them as strong as Popeye - any more than most really believe in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas once they’re old enough to think straight. And there is even a grain of truth in the old one about carrots helping you see in the dark – vitamin A, retinol and all that. Parents and grandparents have always told white lies with a twinkle. My grandmother used to tell me that eating cabbage would make my hair curl. Even at about three I knew it was nonsense (and my hair was OK as it was, I thought) but I humoured her. Sometimes I even ate those pesky greens. I’m hardly a traumatised adult and today I eat any vegetable with real pleasure.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

6 Years Later, 7 Lessons from Lehman’s Collapse - TIME

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/timeblogs/curious_capitalist/~3/fExu6GSg_Ho/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

    
Lehman Brothers world headquarters is shown Monday, Sept. 15, 2008 in New York. Lehman Brothers, burdened by $60 billion in soured real-estate holdings, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court after attempts to rescue the 158-year-old firm failed.Mark Lennihan—Reuters

The venerable investment bank Lehman Brothers went under six years ago today. While Wall Street has recovered from the financial crisis that resulted, lessons endure for Main Street investors.

Exactly six years ago today, Wall Street came closer to imploding than at any other time since the Great Depression.
That was when the venerable investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008, amid the global mortgage meltdown, triggering a cascade effect across Wall Street. Within days, the insurer AIG had to be bailed out by the federal government while other investment banks, including Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, were pushed to the brink. Merrill, in fact, was eventually sold amid panic to Bank of America.
POPULAR AMONG TIME SUBSCRIBERS

Six years later, the nation’s financial system seems to have largely healed. Banks are back to posting record profits. Over the past several years, financial stocks have been among the hottest areas of the market.

And with the housing market recovering, even the dreaded mortgage-backed security — the type of bond that triggered the financial panic in the first place starting in 2007 — are back in fashion.
But even if it seems like it’s business as usual on Wall Street, for Main Street investors key lessons endure. Here are 7 of them.
Lesson #1: The price you pay for stocks matters. Really.
The media’s narrative is that the stock market plummeted into an historic bear market because of the global financial panic. That may be true, but equities may not have fallen that far — and for that long — if the circumstances weren’t ripe for a correction.
Remember that in October 2007, the price/earnings ratio for the stock market — based on 10 years of average profits — rose above 25, marking one of only a handful of times that market valuations rose so high. Not surprisingly, the stock market went on to lose 57% of its value from October 9, 2007, through March 9, 2009. (As an aside, the stock market’s so-called normalized P/E ratio is back above 25 again today.)

By March 2009, the P/E ratio for the S&P 500 had sunk to an historically low 13 (the historic average is closer to 16), which has been a signal of buying opportunities. Had you invested at that moment — listening to the Warren Buffett rule that says “be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy” — you would have enjoyed total returns of 230% ever since.

Lesson #2: Don’t bank on any one group of stocks — even financials.
The turmoil after Lehman’s collapse was different and more frightening than the bursting of the Internet bubble in 2000. Why? This time the stocks that took the biggest hits weren’t shares of profitless startups that no one had ever heard of. In this crisis, the biggest losers were financial titans — some more than a century old — that produced a third of the market’s profits and dividends. No wonder these blue chips were fixtures in many retirement portfolios.
The love affair is clearly over … or is it? Financials have been among the market’s best performers since September 2011, having doubled in value in three short years. As a result, bank stocks, which made up less than 9% of the S&P 500 in 2009, based on total stock market value, now represent more than 16% of the broad market. That means they’re probably among the biggest holdings in your stock mutual funds and ETFs.

Lesson #3: Buy and hold works — eventually.
When the Dow fell to 6547 on March 9, 2009, stocks had already lost more than half their value. And equities wouldn’t fully recover until 2013. So it may seem that investors who pulled $25 billion out of stock funds in March and $240 billion over the next three years — plowing that money into bonds — were on the right track.
They weren’t. March 2009 marked the start of a bull market that saw stocks return 230% so far. Had you simply hung on to a basic 70% equity/30% bond strategy from Sept. 1, 2008, when things started to get scary, you’d have earned nearly the 9% historical annual return for this mix over five-year stretches since 1926. Of course, you’d have earned that only by staying the course.
Lesson #4: There is no such thing as a “conservative” or stable stock.
In past crashes, pundits always pointed out that the “safe” place to be is among giant, blue chip stocks that pay dividends and that are industry leaders. Well, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, and AIG all fell under those descriptions. Yet all of those stocks plunged more than the broad market.
This taught investors a huge lesson: Treat all stocks as the volatile, unpredictable creatures that they are. Even dividends, which are synonymous with financially stable, conservatively run companies, can’t be trusted, because during the crisis, the financial sector began slashing dividend payments to safeguard their finances.

Lesson #5: Reaching for yield can lead to a fall.
When stocks fall, the stability of cash can cushion the blow. Yet things don’t necessarily work out that way.
Just ask shareholders of Schwab YieldPlus. This so-called ultrashort bond fund — which was marketed as a cash alternative, though it really wasn’t one — fell 35% in 2008 when the mortgage securities that provided the “plus” in the fund’s name turned out to be riskier than thought. (In January 2011 Schwab settled the charges that it misled investors but did not admit wrongdoing.)
Before that, there was the Reserve Fund, the first money fund in 14 years to lose value in part because it tried to boost payouts by holding some Lehman debt.
It makes no sense to take risks with your rainy-day savings, a lesson that’s worth remembering today. Since early 2009, investors have poured billions of dollars into floating-rate bond funds, which buy short bank loans that offer higher payouts than basic cash, as well as ultrashort bond funds.

Lesson #6: Diversification works — but in diverse ways.
In 2008, only one type of diversification seemed to pan out: your basic mix of stocks and bonds. Among equities, everything pretty much fell in lockstep.
Fast-forward more than three years, when the financial crisis unfolded in a different guise — this time with the debt crisis in Europe. Fear of government defaults peaked in early 2012, with rates on Greek debt reaching 29%. Diversification worked here, too, but also in a different guise.
While conventional wisdom said investors should flee the continent, European shares wound up beating the world in 2012, returning 20.3%. The year before that, it was U.S. stocks that performed the best (despite Uncle Sam’s fiscal woes). And in 2013, Japan led the way, despite having experienced another recession.
Spreading your bets globally eventually pays off, especially given how mercurial equities can be. For investors who are hearing that the U.S. looks like the only promising market these days, this is a clear lesson to heed.

Lesson #7: Stocks always recover; people don’t.
The Dow closes at an all-time high, but that’s cold comfort to those who retired in the past five years. Big upfront losses can crack a nest egg, even if the market later improves. That’s because your portfolio has the most potential earning power in the first few years after you get the gold watch.
Historically, investors have been able to tap anywhere from 4% all the way up to 10% of their savings annually based on how markets fared in this all-important first decade of retirement.
Over the next 10 years, return expectations are extremely modest, so even a 4% withdrawal rate may seem optimistic. For boomers nearing retirement, the trick is not to make matters worse, as two out of five older workers did in 2008 by keeping 70% or more of their 401(k)s in equities.
It’s time to dial down the risks in your portfolio — before the next downturn.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

China's leaders refuse to blink as economy slows drastically - The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/11098178/Chinas-leaders-refuse-to-blink-as-economy-slows-drastically.html


Premier Li Keqiang is determined to drive through deep reforms and wean the economy off exorbitant levels of debt before the damage becomes irreversible


7:59PM BST 15 Sep 2014

China’s leaders have brushed aside warnings of an incipient credit crunch in the Chinese economy, determined to purge excesses from the financial system despite falling house prices and the deepest industrial slowdown since the Lehman crisis.
Industrial production dropped 0.4pc in August from a month earlier, a rare event that highlights how quickly China is coming off the boil. The growth of fixed asset investment fell to record lows.
“It is a shockingly sharp deceleration,” said Wei Yao, from Societe Generale. “What is surprising is the calm response from Beijing. The new leadership’s tolerance for short-term pain seems to have jumped by another big notch.”
Electricity output has dropped 2.2pc over the past year as the authorities continue to force dinosaur industries into closure, chipping away at excess capacity.


New credit has fallen 40pc, and there has been an outright contraction of trust loans and undiscounted bankers acceptances over the past two months, the result of a clampdown on parts of the shadow banking nexus. “The shrinking stock of trust loans is particularly dangerous to property developers,” she said.
Fleming Nielsen, from Danske Bank, said there are signs of a “credit crunch” – albeit one engineered by regulators – with bond spreads for low grade corporate debt trading at pre-default levels. He said credit has slowed so much over recent months that it is no longer growing faster than nominal GDP, a crucial inflexion point.
The property market remains dazed, with sales down 13.4pc in August. House prices have fallen for the past five months, with the effects spreading to related industries. The output of washing machines is down 7.5pc over the past year.
Chang Chun Hua, from Nomura, said China’s central bank will have to step in to prevent overkill, predicting five successive cuts of 50 basis points in the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) by the end of next year, and perhaps more radical measures if this fails to do the trick.
The RRR is still 20pc, giving the central bank huge scope for stimulus in a crisis. The rate was in the low single digits in the late 1990. Former rate-setter Li Daokui said a cut to this level today would free up $2 trillion of fresh lending.
Premier Li Keqiang has so far refused to blink, determined to drive through deep reforms and wean the economy off exorbitant levels of debt before the damage becomes irreversible. “We are restructuring instead of expanding the monetary supply,” he said last week, warning markets not to expect easy money to ignite a fresh boom this time.
Mark Williams, from Capital Economics, said the reformist regime led by Xi Jinping is willing to tolerate lower growth provided the economy continues to generate jobs, up by a record 9.7m so far this year.
Urban unemployment has remained stable near 5pc, though the latest data from Manpower showed the “employment outlook index” falling to the lowest since 2009. “As long as the labour market remains healthy, significant policy loosening is still unlikely,” said Mr Williams.
China’s workforce is already shrinking and the flow of rural migrants to the cities is slowing rapidly. It is a sign that the country may be hitting the “Lewis Point” when catch-up growth is exhausted, but it also lowers the risk of a social explosion.
The government’s tough line is a major shift in strategy. The Communist Party has until recently responded to each slowdown with a fresh blast of loans, creating ever bigger problems. The ratio of credit to GDP has doubled to 200pc of GDP in five years – or 250pc by some measures – a faster pace of growth than in any other major bubble across the world in the past 100 years.
Credit is no longer gaining traction. The extra output generated by each extra yuan of loans has collapsed from around 0.75 before the Lehman crisis to nearer 0.2 today. It is becoming increasingly dangerous, for little macro-economic benefit.
The Communist Party’s decision to rein in credit has global ramifications. The $25 trillion edifice is already as big as the US and Japanese banking systems combined. The effects of China’s industrial slowdown is a key reason why iron ore prices have crashed, and global demand for oil keeps falling far short of what was expected.
Whether Xi Jinping’s new discipline will last is an open question. The authorities have already relaxed home purchase limits in most cities, and urged banks to loosen mortgage quotas.
Junheng Li, from Warren Capital, said the real scale of horror in the construction industry is disguised by advanced payments that are simply pocketed as cash flow. “This flatters the balance sheet and understates the true leverage,” she said.
China’s “market Leninists” may find just it as difficult to deflate a housing bubble gently as Japanese and American capitalists before them.

Monday, September 15, 2014

The Real Reason Jobs Are So Slow to Come Back - TIME

http://time.com/money/3327031/jobs-growth-global/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 12, 2014
    

It's not tax rates, or too much regulation, or college kids majoring in art history instead of computer science. This is a global slowdown.

Jobs growth has been frustratingly slow in this recovery. The headline unemployment rate is down to 6.1%, but there’s still a lot of slack in the labor market. Wages are stagnant, long-term unemployment is strikingly high, and an unusually large number of Americans are so discouraged about their prospects that they’ve stopped looking for work.
So what’s holding us back from a full recovery? Maybe taxes are too high. Or perhaps regulation is holding us back. Or too many people are going on disability. Or maybe—this theory is especially popular now—there’s something wrong with the workforce we have. Too many liberal arts majors, not enough welders and truckers and computer scientists.
The problem with those theories is that they are way too local. The jobs shortfall isn’t just an American thing—it’s global. Earlier this week, the World Bank released a report on jobs in the “G20″ group of major world economies. Missing jobs and stagnant wages is a story all around the world. 

So what is it that’s holding almost everyone back? The World Bank chalks it up to a weak “aggregate demand”—but that only gets us halfway to an answer. What’s harder and more controversial is figuring out why demand for goods and services, which is what ultimately convinces employers to hire, has been so sluggish. One possibility is that consumers are too nervous to kick-start a virtuous cycle, where they buy more and thus spur more production and more hiring. The report notes that consumers around the world found themselves mired in debt after the crash, and that the growth in their income has been disappointing. I
But to bring the story back home to U.S., at least, the anxious consumer alone isn’t a good enough answer anymore. As economist Brad DeLong points out here, consumption in the U.S. isn’t actually down by that much. What is down, he says, is construction and government spending. And on government spending, what’s true in the U.S. has been true with a vengeance in Europe, where policymakers have pursued government austerity policies.


Rethinking education, or how we train the workforce, or tax policy, or regulations might very well help economic growth in the long run. Finding some way to boost the mood of consumers couldn’t hurt, either. But the big-picture view suggests a deeper problem. The economic crisis blew a massive hole in the global economy. And more than five years later, the evidence is mounting that governments around the world just did too little, too late to help mend the gap.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

China May Be Heading for a Japanese-Style Economic Crisis - TIME

http://time.com/3332552/china-japan-economic-crisis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 12, 2014
    
A man walks past a construction site in Beijing on May 30, 2014. After years of boom that have seen prices rocket, the prospect of a bust is looming over China's vast property sector.WANG ZHAO—AFP/Getty Images

Beijing is pursuing policies similar to those Tokyo did before Japan tumbled into financial meltdown


The economic system East Asian policymakers have put in place over the past 60 years has had both spectacular successes and equally spectacular failures. On the positive side, the “Asian development model,” as it is often called, generated what is probably the greatest surge of wealth in human history, wiped out poverty on an unprecedented scale and built industries at a spellbinding pace. On the downside, however, the model — by effectively subsidizing investment — also produces dizzying levels of debt, burdensome excess capacity and enfeebled financial sectors. That has resulted in severe financial crises, like the one suffered by 1990s Japan (the inventor of the Asian development model), from which it has still not fully recovered.
China, too, has followed this same model. In fact, Beijing has put it on steroids, by adding in a degree of state control that the Japanese would never have dreamed up. So that begs the obvious question: Will China face the same fate as Japan?
POPULAR AMONG SUBSCRIBERS
Strategists Naoki Kamiyama and David Cui at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch say the answer could be yes. “China’s development unfortunately has largely followed the script written by Japan some 30 years ago,” they wrote in a new report. As a result, “China today is facing many similar problems Japan did in the late 1980s and early 1990s — imbalanced growth, government stimulus, overcapacity, an overwrought housing market, and a severely under-capitalized financial system.”
Beijing today, the report contends, is creating these similar conditions by making similar policy mistakes Tokyo did more than 20 years ago. The Asian development model made both economies highly dependent on investment and exports for growth. In the 1980s, when Japanese exports struggled due to a stronger yen and slower global growth, Tokyo tried to keep the system going by flooding the economy with cheap credit. That led, ultimately, to an asset-price bubble.
Beijing has walked the same path. In response to the downturn following the 2008 financial crisis, China pumped up credit at home to offset the collapse of external demand. That held up growth rates, but also led to a scary spike in debt levels, excess capacity, and a surge in the property market. Kamiyama and Cui also contend that Chinese policymakers are repeating the errors their Japanese counterparts made to solve these problems. In Japan, the central bank hiked interest rates to control asset prices, producing a bust in the property market and blowing a hole in the balance sheets of Japanese banks. Then the government was too slow in acknowledging the extent of the problem. China is doing the same. The central bank has been tightening monetary policy to rein in property prices. The Merrill strategists fear that that decision is bursting China’s property bubble. “It appears that the property market seems to be tipping over,” they wrote.
Going further, Kamiyama and Cui make the case that the situation in China is more dangerous than it had been in Japan. “It appears to us that the problem facing China today may be more serious than Japan’s in the late 1980s and early 1990s,” they write. “China’s growth was more imbalanced, its reliance on external demand was heavier, the government’s monetary policy in response to the external demand shock was looser, debt growth was faster, over-capacity was worse, and asset price appreciation had been just as rapid.”
That means, they believe, that the consequences for the financial system in China could be more severe as well. “We suspect that China’s (nonperforming loan) ratio could be higher than Japan’s,” they forecast. “Japan’s reached over 8% some 10 years after the property bubble burst. In fact, judging from past experience in China, we could argue that the ultimate NPL ratio could be significantly into double-digit.”
The Merrill strategists also worry that China’s leaders aren’t taking the action to necessary to confront these problems. They believe the banks need to be given a boost of fresh capital to strengthen and prepare them for an onrush of bad loans, but they aren’t optimistic that Beijing will take such a step anytime soon.
On that point, they appear spot on. China’s leaders seem to be quite content with the current pace of reform in the country. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Tianjin on Wednesday that “the reform measures we have taken are good for now and make a hard landing less possible.” But there is a growing chorus of voices that argue the pace of reform in China is simply too slow. Jörg Wuttke, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, complained on Tuesday that even though China’s new leaders “have recaptured some of the necessary reform zeal … it’s now time that China’s leadership walks the talk.”
The fact is that China’s new leaders, for all of their bold statements, have done little to change the basic nature of the Chinese economy. It has been nearly two years since President Xi Jinping and his team began to take the country’s helm, and almost a year since an important party plenum unveiled a much-heralded policy document that promised sweeping change. But beyond some intriguing experiments — a few new private banks have got the greenlight, and there have been some preliminary steps to reform state-owned enterprises—there has been almost no progress towards making the Chinese economy more market-driven and more capable of fairly allocating resources and financing.
A much-touted free-trade zone in Shanghai, launched a year ago as an experiment in freer capital flows, has barely gotten off the ground. In some areas, policymakers seem to have moved backwards—most notably in market opening. The business environment appears to have become more nationalistic. Government agencies, for example, are widely perceived as wielding an anti-monopoly law against foreign companies to an unfair degree. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently complained that China’s anti-monopoly actions “often appear designed to advance industrial policy and boost national champions.”

There should be, at this stage, real concern about the ability or will of President Xi, Premier Li and their policymakers to undertake the fundamental reconstruction of the Chinese growth model necessary to avoid a Japan-style economic crisis. The Merrill study just provides more evidence that China is repeating the same mistakes and suffers from the same flaws of other economies that experienced financial crises. There will always be businessmen and economists who dismiss or downplay such concerns. These “panda huggers” argue that China is “different” and isn’t vulnerable to the same problems as other economies — that somehow the laws of economics don’t apply. But remember, that’s what experts used to say about Japan too.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Madoff Son Andrew Wills More Than $15 Million to His Fiancée and Family -TIME

http://time.com/3332556/andrew-madoff-son-bernard-will/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fcurious_capitalist+%28TIME%3A+Business%29

Sept. 12, 2014
    
This Oct. 6, 2011 file photo from video provided by CBS, Andrew Madoff, son of disgraced financier, Bernard Madoff, talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Morley Safer in New York.AP

But his will does not mention his mother, Bernard Madoff's wife


Andrew Madoff, the son of convicted fraudster Bernard Madoff, has left a will giving his children, estranged wife and his fiancée more than $15 million in properties, after his death from lymphoma earlier this month, reports Bloomberg.
Madoff’s willed holdingsinclude about $11 million in “personal property,” plus about $4.5 million in real estate, Bloomberg says. The will was written in July and filed on Thursday in Surrogate’s Court in Manhattan.
Madoff, who died at 48 years old and was never charged with involvement in his father’s fraudulent financial empire, left all of his tangible property to his two daughters, Emily and Anne, Bloomberg reports.
One-third of his estate has been left to his estranged wife, Deborah West, while the remaining has been willed to his fiancée, Catherine Hooper, in the form of $50,000 payments each month for the rest of her life, says the New York Daily News.
Ruth Madoff, his mother, is not included in the will, Bloomberg says.
Madoff and his older brother, Mark, who committed suicide in 2010, worked on the trading desk of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Their father, Bernard Madoff, handled client investments.
In December 2008, the two brothers alerted federal authorities to their father’s dubious investment practices, and in March 2009, the elder Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in federal prison for engineering a vast Ponzi scheme that financially wounded thousands of people and organizations, with total paper loses of about $65 billion and cash losses near $17 billion, the New York Times says.

No charges were filed against either of Madoff’s sons, who denied knowing about the scheme until their father confessed to them, and who both cut all ties with him after his sentencing.