Why the Fed Is So Wimpy

By John Mauldin

Another in what seems to be a small parade of scandals involving secretly recorded tapes of Federal Reserve regulators emerged last week. What a number of writers (including me) have written about regulatory capture over the past decade was brought out into the open, at least for a while. My brilliant young friend (40 seems young to me now) Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review and business and economic columnist for Time magazine, published a thoughtful essay this week, outlining some of the issues surrounding the whole concept of banking regulations.

Yes, the latest scandal involved Goldman Sachs, and it took place in the US, but do you really think it’s much different in Europe or Japan? Actually, there are those who argue that it’s worse in those places. This does not bode well for what happens during the next crisis (and there is always a next crisis, hopefully far in the future, though they do seem to come more frequently lately).

Writes Justin:

The point here is that if bank regulators are captives who identify with the interests of the banks they regulate, it is partly by design. This is especially true of the Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 more as a friend to and creature of the banks than as a watchdog. Two-thirds of the board that governs the New York Fed is chosen by local bankers. And while amendments to the Federal Reserve Act in 1933 shifted the balance of power in the Federal Reserve System from the regional Federal Reserve Banks (and the New York Fed in particular) to the political appointees on the Board of Governors in Washington, bank regulation continues to reside at the regional banks. Which means that the bank regulators’ bosses report to a board chosen by … the banks.

For those who would like a bit more bearish meat, I offer you a link to John Hussman’s latest piece, “The Ingredients of a Market Crash.”

I’m in Washington DC today at a conference sponsored by an association of endowments and foundations. They have a rather impressive roster of speakers, so I have found myself attending more sessions than I normally do at conferences. Martin Wolf and David Petraeus headline a very thoughtful group of managers and economists, accompanied by an assortment of geopolitical wizards. I’ve learned a lot.
No follow-on note today. I need to get back to my classroom education….

Your loving the fall weather analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...

Click here to sign up for Patrick Cox’s free daily tech news digest.

Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

---

Why the Fed Is So Wimpy

By Justin Fox
Harvard Business Review HBR Blog Network
September 26, 2014

Regulatory capture – when regulators come to act mainly in the interest of the industries they regulate – is a phenomenon that economists, political scientists, and legal scholars have been writing about for decades.  Bank regulators in particular have been depicted as captives for years, and have even taken to describing themselves as such.

Actually witnessing capture in the wild is different, though, and the new This American Life episode with secret recordings of bank examiners at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York going about their jobs is going to focus a lot more attention on the phenomenon. It’s really well done, and you should listen to it, read the transcript, and/or read the story by ProPublica reporter Jake Bernstein.

Still, there is some context that’s inevitably missing, and as a former banking regulation reporter for the American Banker, I feel called to fill some of it in. Much of it has to do with the structure of bank regulation in the U.S., which actually seems designed to encourage capture. But to start, there are a couple of revelations about Goldman Sachs in the story that are treated as smoking guns. One seems to have fired a blank, while the other may be even more explosive than it’s made out to be.

In the first, Carmen Segarra, the former Fed bank examiner who made the tapes, tells of a Goldman Sachs executive saying in a meeting that “once clients were wealthy enough, certain consumer laws didn’t apply to them.”  Far from being a shocking admission, this is actually a pretty fair summary of American securities law. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s “accredited investor” guidelines, an individual with a net worth of more than $1 million or an income of more than $200,000 is exempt from many of the investor-protection rules that apply to people with less money. That’s why rich people can invest in hedge funds while, for the most part, regular folks can’t. Maybe there were some incriminating details behind the Goldman executive’s statement that alarmed Segarra and were left out of the story, but on the face of it there’s nothing to see here.

The other smoking gun is that Segarra pushed for a tough Fed line on Goldman’s lack of a substantive conflict of interest policy, and was rebuffed by her boss. This is a big deal, and for much more than the legal/compliance reasons discussed in the piece. That’s because, for the past two decades or so, not having a substantive conflict of interest policy has been Goldman’s business model. Representing both sides in mergers, betting alongside and against clients, and exploiting its informational edge wherever possible is simply how the firm makes its money. Forcing it to sharply reduce these conflicts would be potentially devastating.

Maybe, as a matter of policy, the United States government should ban such behavior. But asking bank examiners at the New York Fed to take an action on their own that might torpedo a leading bank’s profits is an awfully tall order. The regulators at the Fed and their counterparts at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation correctly see their main job as ensuring the safety and soundness of the banking system. Over the decades, consumer protections and other rules have been added to their purview, but safety and soundness have remained paramount. Profitable banks are generally safer and sounder than unprofitable ones. So bank regulators are understandably wary of doing anything that might cut into profits.

The point here is that if bank regulators are captives who identify with the interests of the banks they regulate, it is partly by design. This is especially true of the Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 more as a friend to and creature of the banks than as a watchdog. Two-thirds of the board that governs the New York Fed is chosen by local bankers. And while amendments to the Federal Reserve Act in 1933 shifted the balance of power in the Federal Reserve System from the regional Federal Reserve Banks (and the New York Fed in particular) to the political appointees on the Board of Governors in Washington, bank regulation continues to reside at the regional banks. Which means that the bank regulators’ bosses report to a board chosen by … the banks.

Then there’s the fact that Goldman Sachs is a relative newcomer to Federal Reserve supervision – it and rival Morgan Stanley only agreed to become bank holding companies, giving them access to New York Fed loans, at the height of the financial crisis in 2008. While it’s a little hard to imagine Goldman choosing now to rejoin the ranks of mere securities firms, and even harder to see how it could leap to a different banking regulator, it is possible that some Fed examiners are afraid of scaring it away.

All this is meant not to excuse the extreme timidity apparent in the Fed tapes, but to explain why it’s been so hard for the New York Fed to adopt the more aggressive, questioning approach urged by Columbia Business School Professor David Beim in a formerly confidential internal Fed report that This American Life and ProPublica give a lot of play to. Bank regulation springs from much different roots than, say, environmental regulation.

So what is to be done? A lot of the classic regulatory capture literature tends toward the conclusion that we should just give up – shut down the regulators and allow competitive forces to work their magic. That means letting businesses fail. But with banks more than other businesses, failures tend to be contagious. It was to counteract this risk of systemic failure that Congress created the Fed and other bank regulators in the first place, and even if you think that was a big mistake, they’re really not going away.

More recently, there’s been a concerted effort to take a more nuanced view of regulatory capture and how to counteract it. The recent Tobin Project book, Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit It, sums up much of this thinking. While I’ve read parts of it before, I only downloaded the full book an hour ago, so I’m not going to pretend to be able to sum it up here. But here’s a thought – maybe if banking laws and regulations were simpler and more straightforward, the bank examiners at the Fed and elsewhere wouldn’t so often be in the position of making judgment calls that favor the banks they oversee. Then again, the people who write banking laws and regulations are not exactly immune from capture themselves. This won’t be an easy thing to fix.

update: The initial version of this piece listed the Office of Thrift Supervision as one of the nation’s bank regulators. As David Dayen pointed out (and I swear I knew at some point, but had totally forgotten), it was subsumed by the OCC in 2011.

Justin Fox is Executive Editor, New York, of the Harvard Business Review Group and author of The Myth of the Rational Market. Follow him on Twitter @foxjust.

Like Outside the Box?

Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

The article Outside the Box: Why the Fed Is So Wimpy was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

International Buying & Your Shot at 1,000% Gains

By Jeff Clark, Senior Precious Metals Analyst

 

As a gold investor in North America, it sometimes feels like I'm living in some far off land where everyone believes in fairy tales and unicorns.


Most people around me don't seem to see anything wrong with the Fed creating $65 billion a month out of thin air, hey, it's not $85 billion anymore, what a relief! It's business as usual for the US government to spend billions more than it takes in, and a public debt hovering at $17.2 trillion—up from $7 trillion just 10 years ago—seems no more alarming than a rainbow.

No surprise then that these people don't feel any need to own assets that might help them in times of crisis. Hard assets like…..gold.

I'm reminded of a visit I made to China several years ago. One night, I awoke in the middle of the night—something was crawling under the bed sheet. I shot up like a cannonball, trampolined out of bed, and hit the light switch. I searched and searched for whatever bug had made its way under the sheet, but never did find the little vermin. Still, I was so creeped out, I spent the rest of the night on the couch.

I told the staff the next morning what happened—and they did nothing. They just stared at me. They spoke English, so it wasn't that they didn't understand me. It was just that none of them seemed to think it was a big deal. One of them even chuckled. They obviously didn't appreciate the potential health hazard and had no sense of customer service. I left bemused, wondering how people could accept bedbugs as normal—or even if they did, how they could not care about a customer's experience. It was like being on another planet.

I have some of those same feelings when I think about mainstream investors today. How can they not appreciate the potential financial hazard inherent in something as obviously dangerous as today's unprecedented levels of money printing? How can they not care that they have nothing solid, like gold, at the core of their investment portfolios? It's like these people think they live on Planet Sesame Street.

Most people seem to really believe that today's heavy-handed government interventions are not only the right course of action, but will have no negative fallout. Massive currency dilution, unstoppable tides of rising debt, and never-ending fiscal imbalances are hardly a way to cure decades of money mismanagement, and certainly aren't consequence-free. How is it that this is not obvious to all?

I honestly don't know. Perhaps people are aware at some level, but the truth is just too awful to face, and so people don't.

Very few of my friends and neighbors own any gold. Rarely am I asked about it anymore, even by those who know what I do for a living. The doctor I saw last month gave me the distinct impression I could be doing better things with my money. Most of the mainstream media ignore gold, while many of the big banks loudly proclaim their latest short position as if they had some sort of divine insight.

I'm starting to feel like the proverbial lone voice in the woods….

 

But We're Not Alone!

As deluded as most Americans seem to be, that is definitely not the case for everyone in the world—the Japanese, for example, are much more prudent and levelheaded.

I wonder if my fellow citizens would feel differently if they lived in any of these countries where people have witnessed economic insanity firsthand, and are acting accordingly:

Japan was a net importer of gold in December, the first time in almost four years. Net purchases totaled 1,885 kilograms (60,604 ounces). It was only the tenth time Japan was a net monthly buyer since the end of 2005. There are reports that Japan's pension funds, which hold the world's second-largest pool of retirement assets, are buying gold.

Dubai gold jewelers just reported the strongest gold sales in seven years. Pure Gold Jewelers, one of the largest dealers in the country, reported a 25% increase in gold jewelry sales during the Dubai Shopping Festival this year.

The state of Gujarat in India reported that silver bullion imports hit a five year record from April 2013 to January 2014. Imports were more than 450% higher than the same period a year ago. The Indian government has since hiked the import duty on silver to 15%, the same rate as gold, and official imports in January subsequently fell. Smugglers will surely add silver to all those secret luggage compartments they've been using for gold.

Australia's Perth Mint said gold sales jumped 41% and silver 33% in 2013. In January, gold demand was up 10% and silver 8%.

Mexico's pension funds are now investing in gold after strict investment regulations were recently lifted. The World Gold Council says it spoke to 10 of the country's most influential pension fund managers (with over $160 billion in assets) and was told that they began investing in gold and commodities in 2013.

Central banks were once again big buyers last year. Of those that have reported so far…

• Turkey purchased 150.4 tonnes (4.83 million ounces)
• Vietnam 110 tonnes (3.53 million ounces)
• Russia 57.3 tonnes (1.84 million ounces)
• Kazakhstan 24.16 tonnes (776,762 ounces)
• Azerbaijan 16.02 tonnes (515,054 ounces)
• Sri Lanka 6.51 tonnes (209,301 ounces)
• Nepal 6.22 tonnes (199,977 ounces)
• Ukraine 6.22 tonnes (199,977 ounces)
• Indonesia 4.04 tonnes (129,889 ounces)
• Venezuela 1.87 tonnes (60,121 ounces)

 

And of Course, There's China….

 

Last year's record import number is impressive enough, but it's the pace that's mind-blowing. 1,139 tonnes is…

• More than 2011 and 2012 imports combined.

• Over 42% of global mine production last year.

• Roughly twice as much as the amount GLD sold in all of 2013.

 

Meanwhile, Back in the Good Ol' US of A…

Gold coin demand for 2013 jumped 24%. Some headlines have pointed out that January 2014 gold and silver coin sales were down compared to a year ago—but January 2013 was the all-time record for single-month sales. Further, Eagle and Buffalo gold coin sales were more than double December's sales, and were the highest since last April. Silver coin sales in January were almost four times more than in December.

There, now I feel better.

Even if you sometimes feel like a lone wolf investing in this market, understand that worldwide demand for gold and silver bullion continues unabated. If you live in the US, realize that people in many other countries are seeing more positive headlines about gold, have more friends who own gold, and heck, could even walk into a bank to buy gold.

I don't think the people in these other countries are stupid. Whatever consequences result from the historic levels of currency dilution across the globe, they seem as sure as I do that they'll be good for gold.
What should you buy? I first recommend buying gold and silver bullion to establish a financial safety net. And then, to maximize gains on the more speculative end of your portfolio, you should look at Louis James' just-released "10-bagger List for 2014" in the February issue of International Speculator. A 10-Bagger is a stock with the potential to gain 1,000% or more—that's not a typo, we really did make 10 times our money on junior gold stocks the last time the sector rebounded, and Louis thinks that's about to happen again.

For example, one of those prospective 10-Baggers is a junior with a multimillion-ounce gold project that's run by one of our Explorers League honorees. This company is on the verge of securing the funds needed to build its exceptionally high-margin gold mine, but it's on sale. Speaking of the potential, Louis said: "If the company delivers, it'd be easy to see these 40-cent shares trading for $4" by 2015.

Investing in these stocks, and there are nine of them on Louis' list, could quite literally make you a fortune, but the opportunity to get in on the ground floor is fading fast.

Click here to learn more about Louis' 10 Bagger List for 2014 or watch the recording of our just aired one hour video event "Upturn Millionaires" to learn why the time to act is now.


International Buying & Your Shot at 1,000% Gains

Jim Rogers On “Buying Panic” And Investments Nobody Is Talking About

By Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor, International Man

I am very pleased to have had the chance to speak with Jim Rogers, a legendary investor and true international man. Jim and I spoke about some of the most exciting investments and stock markets around the world that pretty much nobody else is talking about. You won't want to miss this fascinating discussion, which you'll find below.

Nick Giambruno: Tell us what you think it means to be a successful contrarian and how that relates to investing in crisis markets throughout the world.

Jim Rogers: Well, there are two aspects of it. One is being a trader, being able to buy panic, and nearly always if you are a trader or an investor, if you buy panic, you are going to do okay.

Sometimes it is better for the traders, because when there is a panic, a war breaks out or something like that, everything collapses, and some people are very good at jumping in and buying. Then, when the rally comes, the next day or the next month, they sell out.

Now, the people who are investors can also do that, but it usually takes longer for there to be a permanent rally. In other words, if there's a war and stocks go from 100 to 30 and everybody jumps in, it may rally up to 50, and then the traders will get out, it may go back to 30 again. I'm trying to make the differentiation between investors and traders buying panic.

As an investor, nearly always if you buy panic and you know what you are doing, and then hold on for a number of years, you are going to make a lot of money. You also have to be sure that your crisis or panic is not the end of the world, though. If war breaks out, you have got to make sure it's a temporary war.

I used to work with Roy Neuberger, who was one of the great traders of all time, and whenever stocks would panic down, he was usually one of the few buyers, because he knew he could get a rally—if not that day, at least maybe that week or that month. And he nearly always did. No matter how bad the news, especially if there's a huge drop, it's probably a good time to buy if you've got the staying power and your wits, because you will likely get a rally. In terms of panic buying or crisis situations, that's normally the way to play.

Now, it's not always easy, because you are having everybody you know, or everybody in the media shrieking what a fool you are to even try something like that. But if you have your wits about you and you know what you are doing, and you know enough about yourself, then chances are you will make a lot of money.

Nick Giambruno: What is the story behind your most successful investment in a crisis market or a blood-in-the-streets kind of situation?

Jim Rogers: Certainly commodities at the end of the '90s were everybody's favorite disaster, and yet for whatever reason, I had decided that it was not a disaster. In fact, it was a great opportunity and there were plenty of things to buy. In 1998, for instance, Merrill Lynch, which at the time was the largest broker, certainly in America and maybe the world, decided to close their commodity business, which they had had for a long time. I bought. That's when I started in the commodity business in a fairly big way. So that's the kind of example I am talking about. Everybody had more or less abandoned or were in the process of abandoning commodities, and yet, that's when I decided to go into commodities in a big way, because of what I considered fundamental reasons for doing it, but the fact that Merrill Lynch was getting out buttressed in my own mind anyway that I must be right, because, you know, everybody was out. Who was left to sell? There was nobody left to sell at that point.

Nick Giambruno: What about a particular country?

Jim Rogers: I first invested in China back in 1999 and then again in 2005. The market at those times was very, very bad. I invested again in November of 2008, when all markets around the world were collapsing, including in China. So I have certainly made investments in countries with crisis markets, and I'm getting a little better at it than I used to be, because I have had more experience now. That's why I keep emphasizing that you have to know what you're doing. And by that I mean paying attention to and doing your homework on a stock or a commodity or a country. If you do that with a crisis market, then chances are you can move in and make some money.

Nick Giambruno: In your opinion, which countries today do you think offer the best crisis or "blood in the streets" type opportunities?

Jim Rogers: I think Russia is probably one of the most hated markets in the world. I don't think many people have a nice thing to say about Russia or Putin. I was pessimistic on Russia from 1966 to 2012, that's 46 years. But I've come to the conclusion that since it is so hated, and you should always look at markets that are hated, that there are probably good opportunities in Russia right now.

Nick Giambruno: Doug Casey and I were recently in the crisis-stricken country of Cyprus, which is also a pretty hated market, for obvious reasons. While we were there, we found some pretty remarkable bargains on the Cyprus Stock Exchange which we detailed in a new report called Crisis Investing in Cyprus. Companies that are still producing earnings, paying dividends, have plenty of cash (in most cases outside of the country), little to no debt, and trading for literally pennies on the dollar. What are your thoughts on Cyprus?

Jim Rogers: When I saw what you guys did, I thought, "That's brilliant, I wish I had thought of it, and I'll claim that I thought of it" (laughs). But it was really one of those things where I said, "Oh gosh, why didn't I think of that," because it was so obvious that you are going to find something.

It's also obvious, after what happened in Cyprus, that it's a place where one should investigate. Whether it is right to buy now or not, you are certainly right to look into it. If you stay with it and you know what you are doing, you do your homework, you are probably going to find some astonishing opportunities in Cyprus. It's the kind of thing that I'm talking about and that you are talking about.

(Editor's Note: You can find more info on Crisis Investing in Cyprus here.)

Nick Giambruno: Speaking of hated markets that literally nobody is getting into, I heard that you managed to find a way to get some sort of exposure to North Korea through bullion coins. Could you tell us about that?

Jim Rogers: Yeah, you know, it's illegal for Americans to invest in North Korea. It's probably illegal for us to even say the word "North Korea" (laughs). I look around to see which countries are hated. In North Korea there is no stock market, and there is no way to invest, especially if you are an American, but sometimes you can find something in a secondary market.

Stamps and coins were the only ways I knew of that one could get some sort of exposure. This is because you are not investing in the country, obviously, because you are buying them in a secondary or tertiary market. That said, I think the US government is going to make owning stamps illegal too.

There were people once upon a time—and maybe even now—who invested in North Korean debt. I have not done that, but it may be another way that people can invest in North Korea. I don't even know if North Korean debt still trades, but it was defaulted on at some point.

Nick Giambruno: Another hated market that actually does have a pretty vibrant and dynamic stock market is the Tehran Stock Exchange in Iran. Have you ever taken a look at this market?

Jim Rogers: Yes, at one point I did invest in Iran, back in the 1990s and made something like 40 times on my money. I didn't put millions in because there was a limit on how much a person could invest. But this was over 20 years ago. I would like to invest in Iran again, but I don't know the precise details on the sanctions and the current status of Americans being able to invest there. But Iran is certainly on my list. And so are Libya and Syria. I'm not doing anything at the moment in these countries, but they are places that are on my list.

Nick Giambruno: Switching gears a little, do you have any final words for people who are thinking about internationalizing some aspect of their lives or their savings?

Jim Rogers: Most people have a health insurance policy, a life insurance policy, fire insurance, and car insurance. You hope that you never have to use these insurance policies, but you have them anyway. I feel the same way about what you call internationalizing, but I call it insurance. Everybody should have some of their money invested outside of their own country, outside of their own currency. No matter how positive things are in your home country, something could go wrong.

I obviously do it for many other reasons than that. I do it because I think I can make some money finding opportunities outside your own country. Many people are a little reluctant, you know. It's tough to leave your safe haven. So I try to explain to them, "Well, you have fire insurance, why don't you look on investing abroad as another kind of insurance?" and usually what happens is people get more accustomed to it. And they often invest more and more abroad because they say, "Oh, my gosh, look at these opportunities. Why didn't somebody tell us there are all these things out there?"

Nick Giambruno: Jim, would you like to tell us about your most recent book, Street Smarts: Adventures on the Road and in the Markets? I'd strongly encourage our readers to check it out by clicking here.

Jim Rogers: I've done a few books before, and then my publisher and agent said, "Look, it sounds like it must be quite a story to have come from the back woods of Alabama to living in Asia with a couple of blue-eyed girls who speak perfect Mandarin. How did this happen? Why don't you pull this all together and it might be an interesting story?" So I did, somewhat reluctantly at first, and then, lo and behold, people tell me it's my best book. Whether it is or not, I will have to let other people decide, but that's how it happened, and that's what it is.

Nick Giambruno: Jim, thank you for your time and unique insight into these fascinating topics.
Jim Rogers: You're welcome. Let's do it again sometime.


Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"

John Carter's "Dirty Secrets of Weekly Options".... New Video

2013 will be remembered as the year the retail investor was introduced to the world of trading options. And our readers have been lucky enough to follow our trading partner John Carter of Simpler Options as he teaches us how to successfully trade options using his "unique weekly model".

A couple of times a year John is willing to produce a new video and bring us his latest take on trading options including showing us his recent trades from his personal account. What do you need to do to understand this system?

Just click here to watch his new video!

Here's what you'll be learning......

    *   How he has made $650,000 this year beating the market makers at their own game

    *   The Dirty Little Secret of Weekly Options

   *   Why weekly options are his favorite way to trade options

    *   The account size you need to trade weekly options....[Here's a hint...any size]

    *   Your goal as an options trader

    *   And so much more...

Watch the video and please feel free to leave a comment and tell us what you think about the video and what you think about using his weekly options trading model.

Ray @ The Crude Oil Trader


Watch "What Wall Street Doesn't Want You to Know about Trading Options"

Are Your Bullish Calls Plagued with Divergences?

By now everyone has a prediction about where the S&P 500 Index (SPX) is going to be heading in the future. Most of the sell side and their ilk are all rolling out the green bullish carpet and predicting that a major bull run is right around the corner.

If you are a contrarian investor by nature and tend to sell when others are buying this will be of great interest to you. When retail investors are buying and the professional sell side is quickly reducing their long equity exposure we get increasingly more bearish.

This recent report was accompanied by some eye opening charts...... 

View report and charts courtesy of Bank of America Merrill Lynch


Get our FREE Trading Webinars Today!

Ever wonder why 70% of mutual fund managers can't beat the SP 500?

What a coincidence, I make my rare stop into the used book store around the corner from our house and am lucky enough to find a like new copy of Jack Bogles "Common Sense on Mutual Funds". After getting started reading I realized, I have to get in the office and create this article for our new launch...."Ever wonder why 70% of mutual fund managers can't beat the SP 500". Totally a coincidence, I swear.

Bogle is the father of the modern day fund in my book. And he has taken a lot of criticism for his finger pointing at the majority of new fund managers that have come into this game. While the number of fund managers have more then tripled in the last couple of decades the number of customers has stayed pretty much the same. And profits have fallen off dramatically. How do they stay in business?

Twenty years from now we will only be talking about a hand full of "out of the box thinkers" who helped the average investor beat the fund managers and one of them I would bet will be Doc Severson.

Doc is one of the world's top options traders, and he just created an eye opening presentation that exposes much of the truth behind what it takes to make a consistent income in the markets and why countless financial planners (who people hire to supposedly protect their assets!) lose a shocking amount of money in market crashes.

Even if you are an advanced trader it's nearly impossible for you to watch the video and not find a few nuggets of information that could change the way you look at your own trading and keep you from making some of the same ordinary mistakes that everybody else is making.

Click here to watch > "Ever wonder why 70% of mutual fund managers can't beat the SP 500"

After you watch the video, please feel free to leave a comment and tell us if you were making any of the same mistakes he mentions in the report? I think you'll be surprised, I was....because I have.

Watch this video today....this just might change everything.

Crude Oil Trades Near a Two Year High as U.S. Employment Figures Beat Forecasts

Crude oil traded near a two year high in New York after employment in the U.S. increased more than forecast, signaling a recovery in fuel demand from the world’s biggest crude consuming nation. Futures pared earlier gains above $87 a barrel as the dollar strengthened against the euro, curbing investor demand for commodities. Payrolls climbed by 151,000 workers in October following a revised 41,000 drop the prior month, the Labor Department said Nov. 5. Prices jumped 6.7 percent last week, the most since February.

“Oil is quite positive, the market has taken heart in the unemployment rate,” said Jonathan Barratt, managing director of Commodity Broking Services Pty in Sydney. “Crude has broken through the topside of the range, so you’ve got to look for higher prices.” Crude for December delivery was at $86.90 a barrel, up 5 cents, in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 12:27 p.m. Singapore time. The contract earlier rose as much as 64 cents, or 0.7 percent, to $87.49, the highest since Oct. 9, 2008. Futures are up 10 percent in 2010.

The increase in U.S. payrolls was the first since May and exceeded all estimates from economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The U.S. jobless rate held at 9.6 percent, where it’s been since August, according to the Labor Department......Read the entire article.


Market Trends Trading Made Easy - Learn How

Share

Crude Oil Falls a Fifth Day on Concern Over U.S. Supply Gains, Slowing Recovery

Oil declined for a fifth day after analysts estimated that U.S. inventories of crude rose last week and as the dollar gained against the euro because of concern the global economy is slowing. Oil dropped to the lowest in almost seven weeks yesterday as investors sought the relative safety of the U.S. currency before economic reports that may show the recovery is faltering. U.S. crude inventories probably increased last week, according to a Bloomberg News survey.

“The price of oil dropped again, showing investor uncertainty over the future of the global economy, mainly that of the U.S.,” said Mike Sander, an investment adviser at Sander Capital Advisors in Seattle. “There just isn’t much positive in the news.” Crude for October delivery dropped as much as 56 cents, or 0.8 percent, to $72.54 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $72.79 at 1:02 p.m. Singapore time. Yesterday, the contract lost 72 cents, or 1 percent, to $73.10, the lowest settlement price since July 6. Futures have fallen 8.3 percent since the start of the year.

The dollar rose to $1.2642 per euro at 1:03 p.m. in Singapore, from $1.2657 yesterday, after reaching $1.2621, the highest since July 13. A stronger U.S. currency reduces investor appetite for commodities as a hedge against inflation. Forecasts show sales of existing U.S. homes dropped 13.4 percent in July and gross domestic product growth slowed to a 1.4 percent annual pace in the second quarter, down from 2.4 percent last month.....Read the entire article.

How to Use Money Management Stops Effectively

Share

Oil Is Set for Fourth Weekly Gain on Economic Recovery Optimism

Crude oil traded near $72 a barrel, poised for a fourth weekly gain on optimism the outlook for a global economic recovery has improved. Oil is set to rise 3.2 percent this week as U.S. equities gained and the dollar weakened, increasing investor demand for commodities priced in the U.S. currency. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index reached a nine month high on Aug. 5. “The recent combination of a marked improvement in global business sentiment and a weaker dollar has proved a potent mix for commodities".....Complete Story

Oil Plunges Below $64 on Fears Recovery May Lag

Oil prices plunged nearly $3 to below $64 a barrel Monday as dismal unemployment figures from the U.S. and Europe last week sparked investor doubts about any nascent economic recovery. A significant fall in natural gas prices - a likely sign that industries are still struggling and unlikely to add jobs - as well as gains by the U.S. dollar and falling stock markets around the world all helped push energy prices lower.....Complete Story

Chevron 4th Quarter Conference Call

Chevron Corp. (ticker CVX) reports fourth-quarter 2008 results Friday January 30, in a conference call at 11:00 AM ET hosted by Dave O'Reilly, Chevron's chairman and chief executive officer, Pat Yarrington, Chevron's vice president and chief financial officer, and James Aleveras, Chevron's general manager of investor relations. To take in the conference call by phone just dial 703-639-1116 or 866-219-5256. The conference ID is 1320201. Or on the internet you can catch the live webcast of the call on the company's website. Just Click Here!