Thursday, December 4, 2008

Obama, India, and Terrorism

I'm back. Cabo San Lucas was relaxing, and I will write more on that later. For now, I just wanted to share an interesting article on Obama and make some comments about the senseless massacre in India. 

1. The LA Times (Nov 30, 2008) thinks Obama should be sworn in as President using his full name, including his middle name: 


I like their gusto, but I don't think it's going to happen. 

[Update on December 10, 2008: I was wrong--see Barack Hussein Obama

2. The tragic killings in India have resulted in many commentators blaming Pakistan. One specific, recurring comment has been that "ordinary Pakistanis" need to be marching in the street, condemning the violence. Meanwhile, the Indian government is on record saying that they will get information from one of the captured killers and make him "sing like a canary." One Indian official, according to the WSJ, talked about having certain methods that would make the captured killer talk. 

First, India does itself no favors by implying it uses or condones torture as an interrogation tactic. Even hinting that torture is acceptable raises the stakes tremendously, because it implies that India does not comply with U.N. rules or does not take them seriously. This failure to adhere to generally accepted international standards of conduct should concern the world when both countries involved have nuclear weapons. In addition, if India does use torture or provokes an unnecessary war against Pakistanis, even the ghosts of Gandhi and British imperialism will not prevent the damaging hit to India's image as a respectable emerging superpower. 

Second, many commentators--both Indian and American--have lambasted Pakistanis for not protesting the violence publicly and in large numbers. This complaint is similar to the one lodged against Muslims post-9/11--that by not openly condemning 9/11, they were somehow implicitly supporting it or not doing enough to show their true colors. 

This argument has some emotional appeal, but fails due to its unsound assumption that silence automatically means support. This theory of "speak-or-forever-be-suspected" applies primarily to face-to-face encounters on a specific topic--such as when a person refuses to answer a question of, "Did you take that document that had trade secrets to your home?" or "Does this make me look fat?" Such questions fail to elicit any relevance when they are applied to actions or thoughts made by strangers who happen to share a similar characteristic as some other group. For example, Timothy McVeigh had white skin. When he committed his act of terrorism, did the failure of massive numbers of white persons marching in the streets of Canada imply white Canadian support for his acts? Of course not. When an unarmed black man (Amadou Diallo) in New York is shot 19 times by Christian police officers, does the failure of Christians across the United States condemning the NYPD mean they condone senseless killings? Of course not. Such examples can be made ad infinitum, and it should be fairly obvious that an absence of mass protests or vocal opposition has no relevance as an indicator of general support or non-support. 

The reasons for silence among most "ordinary Pakistanis" are simple. Muslims in Pakistan don't know the killers in India and don't feel any connection to them. To the 99.9% Pakistanis who live their lives peacefully, there is no connection to the killers in India and therefore no reason to say anything publicly about their heinous acts. I hate to be dogmatic, but anyone who says differently is a demagogue seeking to incite ethnic and religious violence. Such ignorance is dangerous and may lead to retaliatory killings of innocent Muslims in India. In addition, 40 of the 170+ victims were Muslim, showing that terrorism knows no ethnicity or religion. 

Personally, I feel tremendous sadness for all the victims of the attacks. The story of Moshe Holtzberg is particularly heart-breaking.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Out till December 3, 2008

I will be out of town until December 3, 2008. If I have access to a computer in Cabo san Lucas, Mexico, I will write travel updates; otherwise, no posts till December 3 or 4, 2008. I am going with my grandparents, which should be fun. I just found out I am their oldest grandson. Yes, I am getting old. Sigh.

Brits and Americans Going Down Same Path

Looks like the Brits are in as much trouble as the Americans:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/3492912/Bonanza-for-jobs-but-only-in-public-sector.html

Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It is unsustainable to have fewer and fewer private sector workers paying for more and more public sector workers. "The state wage bill, not to mention the future pension cost, is putting a crippling burden on the economy."

Didn't the Americans sail away and fight a war to be free from an overbearing government that was taxing them too much?

Oh, the irony.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Happy Thanksgiving


What am I thankful for? Well, other than family and my health, two of my friends just got married on November 25, 2008--I wish them the best.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Foot Locker Affirms its Financial Strength

Things have gotten so bad, Foot Locker is sending emails to individual customers assuring them it is still a viable business:

As you are a valued member of the Foot Locker family, I would like to take a few moments to address the misleading information regarding our Company that has been circulating the Web and covered by the general media. Much of this information is being used to encourage consumers to avoid purchasing gift cards this holiday season.

We can assure you that our financial position remains strong and we continue to be a leader within the athletic retail industry. From time to time, we do close underperforming stores, in the course of normal business, in order to concentrate our efforts on those stronger-performing stores that ultimately allow us to better serve our customers.

During this holiday season and beyond, we will continue to offer an extensive selection of the most sought-after products at our more than 2,000 U.S. stores and on-line at footlocker.com, ladyfootlocker.com and kidsfootlocker.com. And, of course, our gift cards will continue to be another great gift idea and are redeemable at all of our stores and on-line.

Thank you for your support.

Best regards,

Stacy Cunningham
Corporate Vice President
Foot Locker, Inc.


Oh, the paranoia.

Small Business Stats

These are some facts I received from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, which is sort of a BLS for small businesses, gathering lots of useful statistics:

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf [PDF file]

1. "Since the mid-1990s, small businesses have created 60 to 80% of the net new jobs."

For more, go to http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html#us

2. "Small businesses employ about half of U.S. workers."

3. "Two-thirds of new employer establishments survive at least two years, 44 percent survive at least four years, and 31 percent survive at least seven years, according to a recent study."

Well, so far, I'm in the top 44% so far.

4. "Very small firms with fewer than 20 employees annually spend 45 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations."

I have advocated that small businesses with fewer than five employees and a gross income of less than $550,000 annually should have no regulations other than those guaranteeing payment of wages to workers. (I still haven't figured out what the best number is for the gross annual income cutoff and chose 550K because if a company hired five employees and paid them 50K each and had gross receipts of 550K, it would probably net around $200K-$250K, which is not unreasonable.) Criminal laws are sufficient to keep small businesses in check. Beyond that, onerous civil regulations are a form of corporate welfare to larger corporations, who have the capital to hire in-house counsel to advise them, to keep up with ever-changing laws, and to have a litigation defense budget. Small businesses, on the other hand, sometimes don't even know a law until they get sued, because they've been too busy trying to survive in the real world instead of reading regulations and cases.

5. "Commercial banks and other depository institutions are the largest lenders of debt capital to small businesses. They accounted for almost 65 percent of total traditional credit to small businesses in 2003. (This includes credit lines and loans for nonresidential mortgages, vehicles, equipment, and leases.) Credit cards account for much of the growth in small business lending over the past few years."

This might be one factor in the credit crunch--the more small businesses fail, the more bad loans on the banks' books.

In Defense of Small Business

The WSJ's letter section has gotten so much better in the last five months, I am eagerly anticipating reading the letters section. Here is one letter in the November 25, 2008 edition that deserves to be read by every American:

"Let's All Work for the Government"

In regard to your editorial "The Public Payroll Always Rises" (Nov. 18): I am appalled that during these extremely poor economic times our government is the only substantial hiring body in the whole economy. I used to work for the government in Michigan when I was in my 20s and remember being bored to death, because I only had about two hours of real work to do per day. Having many friends that are business owners, I see a huge contrast. Business owners work 24/7, pay high taxes [we pay all of our own payroll taxes, an automatic 6.2% increase in taxes], receive no government pensions or benefits... [there is no state unemployment insurance fund for any solo business owners]

I wonder if our upcoming government administration has ever owned a business and/or has any clue about the differences between workers in the public sector vs. the private sector. It is not beneficial for the economy for government to keep excessive employees on board...I would suggest lowering then freezing property taxes nationwide as a way to offer more stability in the housing market [this is a great idea, but the real problem we have now is that current owners cannot afford their monthly payments, especially the ones who have ARMs].

How many public servants are needed, especially now that the economy has contracted so much and will continue to do so? Every day we read that tens of thousands of workers are being let go, but never in the government sector. The government needs to act like a business while using our taxpayer money. Consider how many government employees are really needed, especially since every sector in every economy in the world is laying off during these austere times.

Susan Marie
Tampa Bay, Fla.

To Ms. Marie and the WSJ: thank you for such a well-written letter.

Walmart Trip

I went to Walmart yesterday just to do some window-shopping and to check out its products. I told myself I wouldn't buy anything, and I was just doing some personal market research. I enjoyed walking around the store. Walmart stores are so huge, it's easy to get lost in them, and at one point, I "found" an entire area I had missed in my first walk-around.

My point in writing this article is to compliment Walmart on its store set-up. Even though I, an avowed cheapskate, had no intention of buying anything, I actually ended up leaving with a bunch of household products, drinks, and NBA cards for around $60. I never spend $60 when I shop, at least not on myself. Walmart's ability to get tightwads like me to spend a relatively large sum is a testament to how well they operate. The only product I didn't see at a substantial discount was aftershave--which had a surprisingly limited selection--but everything else I usually buy was cheaper than I've seen at other stores.

Here is a fairly popular post I did earlier on Walmart:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/05/walmarts-wmt-annual-report.html

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Self-Represented Litigants

More people are representing themselves in court:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_re_us/representing_yourself

This is wonderful news. This will force the court system to be more open to the general population and will cause state legislatures to avoid emphasizing procedure over substance. We already see that happening in family court, where the system has been made consumer-friendly. Tellingly, the California State Bar approved "unbundled services" for family law services first.

The law is the only place where the authorities used to demand that clients get full service or nothing at all. That's like forcing someone who just wants a haircut to get a manicure and pedicure at the same place or get no service whatsoever. That kind of system has never made any sense to me.

In addition, self-represented clients can get flat fees for unbundled work, such as responding to motions or making a specific court appearance, which places the consumer in control rather than the attorney. From the financial perspective of the consumer, unbundled services are excellent because they create more competition, which leads to lower prices, and they allow the consumer to control exactly what s/he pays for specific services.

"Full service" was fine when civil lawyers charged more reasonable fees, and when it was easier to get to trial. Now, it sometimes takes more than a year to get a civil court trial, by which time 6 to 50 very expensive motions have been filed. If the State Bar forces attorneys to offer only full service, the business-savvy lawyers--by that I mean the ones that want to stay in business--will demand deposits of $5,000 to $10,000 before taking on any case. High deposits reduce court access to the poor and middle-class.

Unfortunately, the days of the "country lawyer" are long gone. I try to be a country lawyer, but it is becoming more and more difficult because I end up becoming more of a counselor and therapist than an attorney. When clients know their lawyer won't charge them for emails and phone calls or will cut fees, it creates an incentive to contact the lawyer more than necessary, and to use the lawyer as a therapist. This, in turn, can make an attorney who cares about his/her clients more emotionally involved in the case, causing the attorney to absorb the clients' negative emotions (after all, few people contact a lawyer because something good has happened).

In any case, the "full service only" system requires, practically speaking, a large deposit up front and places the control of that money solely and immediately in the hands of the lawyer. An unethical attorney can easily deplete the initial deposit and dump the client if the client chooses not to provide more funds. Thus, a "full service only" system--by creating an incentive for larger initial deposits--rewards lawyers who see their clients as short-term business propositions, because the less you care about your fellow human being, the easier it is to dump them if they fail to pay your bills or run out of money. In contrast, with unbundled services, the client has more leverage to demand a flat fee and the lawyer has an incentive to do good work so the client comes back.

The best definition of morality I've seen was from Immanuel Kant: "Always recognize that human individuals are ends, and do not use them as means to your end." A "full service only" legal system favors attorneys who treat their clients as "means to an end" by reducing the power and choice the consumer/client has in legal transactions. As such, an argument may be made that "full service only" is an intrinsically unethical system.

Kiva Stats

More good news from Kiva, a pioneer in micro-finance--their interest rates are substantially lower than the local competition:

Average Interest Rate Borrower Pays To Kiva Field Partner 22.91% (as of November 23, 2008)

Average Local Money Lender Interest Rate 85.22% (as of November 23, 2008)


Kiva's existence means that the poor can borrow money and create small businesses without being subject to usury. Even so, I don't like how high the interest rate is--23% still seems high to me, especially because the money given by Kiva lenders is given as an interest-free loan without expectation of re-payment. I'd like to see more transparency in terms of the overhead. I wouldn't be surprised to see nonprofits, especially international ones, without adequate bookkeeping. If some corruption comes to light, it would be devastating to the microfinance world, because it would scare away potential and existing lenders.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Malanga on Public Schools

The City, Autumn 2008 edition, has an article on poverty--"We Don't Need Another War on Poverty," by Steven Malanga. Mr. Malanga points out that all the money we've been throwing at schools hasn't resulted in better performance. This lack of improvement is what is spurring Congress to demand accountability from schools in some format:

[T]he U.S. has made vast investments in its public schools. According to a study by Manhattan Institute scholar Jay Greene, per-student spending on K-12 public education in the U.S. rocketed from $2,345 in the mid-1950's to $8,745 in 2002 (both figures in 2002 dollars)...Washington D.C. now spends more than $22,000 a year per student...

An Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Study found that most European countries spend between 55 percent and 70 percent of what the U.S. does per student, yet produce better educational outcomes. If urban school systems are failing children, money has nothing to do with it. (from page 37,
The City, Autumn 2008)

In the same issue, there is another interesting article by Michael J. Totten on "The (Really) Moderate Muslims of Kosovo."

Also, on page 121, Theodore Dalrymple recalls the British stiff upper lip and laments its decline:

I found his self-effacement deeply moving. It was not the product of a lack of self-esteem, that psychological notion used to justify rampant egotism; nor was it the result of having been downtrodden by a tyrannical government that accorded no worth to its citizens. It was instead an existential, almost religious, modesty, an awareness that he was far from being all-important.

Looks like the West needs more of that old time British culture.

Commonwealth Club

Some great websites re: the Commonwealth Club I recently found:

http://commonwealthlit.blogspot.com [Broken link]

http://weimarworld.blogspot.com [Still works as of March 2018]

http://commonwealthclub.blogspot.com [Outdated link]

Here's an interesting anti-regulation website:

http://overlawyered.com/

And an economics-related one:

http://delong.typepad.com

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Dept of Homeland Security's Incompetence

Yet another reason Homeland Security is America's most incompetent government agency:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/21/60minutes/main4625729_page3.shtml

The American government is spending our taxpayer dollars trying to deport wives of Americans, including dead soldiers, solely because their interview did not occur before the unexpected death of the husband. In the 60 Minutes segment, called "Immigrant Widows Left In Limbo," one mother-in-law tearfully says, "This is America." It's heartbreaking to learn just how incompetent the Department Homeland Security is. I am writing my Congresspersons in both the House and Senate.

And here I thought the federal government couldn't top its previous pinnacle of incompetence, which was improperly jailing an innocent man for seven years. Mr. Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian of Algerian descent, was recently released by a judge--who was appointed by none other than George W. Bush himself. For the legal eagles, there's more about the Boumediene Supreme Court case here: The Most Significant Recent U.S. Supreme Court Case.

For even more on Mr. Boumediene, see WSJ, November 21, 2008, A6. The government jailed him for seven years on the basis of a "single, 'unnamed source.'" Basically, our United States government used secret evidence to jail a man on American-controlled soil for seven years, all the while insisting the man was not entitled to a trial. I'm with the mother-in-law featured on 60 Minutes, but I phrase her sentiment differently: "Is this the America we want, where the Department of Homeland Security appears to have no substantive checks on its powers and very little transparency?"

Ted Turner


I was going to post a review of Ted Turner's speech at the Commonwealth Club last week, but someone beat me to it:

http://weimarworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/ted-turner-on-old-media-plus-economic.html

Ted's book, Call Me Ted, is a quick read. It conveys his man-child personality, which masks a fiercely competitive spirit. Although the book is fun to read, the only real way to experience Ted is in person or on video--the book does as good a job of conveying his personality (several friends call him "crazy," and there's a story about him getting down on all fours at a business meeting asking whose shoes he had to kiss to get the deal done), but Ted is a man meant to be experienced in the flesh. Two interesting tidbits:

1. I am a fan of the San Jose Sharks and although our rivals are the Dallas Stars, I hate the Calgary Flames more because of playoff history. Apparently, the Calgary Flames used to be the Atlanta Flames. (page 105 of hardcover edition)

2. CNBC, the now-ubiquitous finance channel, used to be called the Financial News Network (FNN). The FNN was bought for around 100 million dollars by NBC in 1991. Turner was blocked from buying the channel, which he (correctly) believed would complement CNN's international and political coverage. (page 257 of hardcover edition)

Christopher Buckley

I like David Sedaris, Christopher Moore, and Chuck Thompson when it comes to laugh-out-loud funny books. A friend of mine pointed me to Christopher Buckley, who is featured in this month's Commonwealth Club magazine (p. 39):

You may know of the situation of the teenage boy who has to do a report for school on the difference between hypothetical and reality, so he goes to his father one night and asks him if he could give him a hand with it. The father thinks for a bit and he says, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with a total stranger for a million dollars." So the son goes off and he comes back pretty quickly [and says] the answer is, You bet. So the dad says, "Go ask your sister," and the boy comes back quite lickety-split, and reports the answer as, "Totally." The dad says, "There you go. Hypothetically, we're sitting on two million bucks. In reality? We're living with a couple of hookers."

I think he's modifying something Churchill said, but it's still funny.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Day Trading

Although I've made many, many short-term trades, for the first time in over thirteen years, my brokerage has officially classified me as a "day trader." The exact definition is below:

The FINRA currently defines day trading as purchasing and selling, or short selling and purchasing to cover, the same security on the same day. A pattern day trader is defined as someone who makes four or more round-trip day trades in a five-business-day period, unless this activity is less than 6% of total trading activity in that period.

What happens now? The only differences appear to be 1) I have to maintain 25K in equity ("Pattern day trading accounts are required to maintain minimum equity of $25,000 on any day in which day trading occurs."); and 2) my margin buying power increases.

Friday, November 21, 2008

New Treasury Secretary

We have a new Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Timothy F. Geithner:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres02.htm

What I like most about him? "He has studied Japanese and Chinese, and has lived in East Africa, India, Thailand, China, and Japan." Wall Street apparently likes him, too. The stock market shot up after the announcement.

Stupidity or Genius?

In what can only be described as Las Vegas style gambling, I bought 1300 shares of Citigroup (C) today and yesterday. My average price is around $3.52. When I last checked, C was trading around $3.18, but had dropped as far as $3.07.

I will now proceed to hide under my bed until next week. I am assuming either the government will do something over in a special session over the weekend to deal with the Citigroup issue, or a merger will occur. If I am wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time. If, however, I am right, I'll probably make between 1000 and 1800 dollars. I wish I had the cojones to hold onto the stock till next year, when it might be much higher. Sadly, my cojones remember the old saying, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

Update on November 20, 2008:
in late-day trading, Citigroup went up to $3.83, and then started to dip. I sold at $3.74 and made around $300. Not bad for 60 minutes of risk.

Gold

From the film, The Italian Job--prescient words from a gold bug?

INT. COIN & BULLION STORE - EVENING

Yevhen is 50 and like many in the gold trade, there isn't a conspiracy theory that he doesn't embrace. As they make their way to a back room, he keeps his mouth in overdrive --


YEVHEN:
All those poor bastards out there putting their life savings in banks and S&Ls and mutual funds. What do they think -- that when the collapse comes they can depend on the government? I don't think so.

Governments are nothing more than puppets on the strings of the Trilateral Commission with their twisted gods.

I mean, it's so obvious that in a world where NAFTA can overturn the Supreme Court, not to mention Microsoft's nefarious financial machinations, this, is our only refuge: gold.


I definitely get the part about feeling like a "poor bastard." Sigh.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

A Long Sigh

My poor, poor Roth IRA. I am losing around 2,000 dollars each in Yahoo (YHOO) and a Swiss fund (SWZ). Almost all my other holdings are also losing money. On the bright side, if the aforementioned two investments do well over the next year, along with my S&P U.S. Preferred Stock Index Fund (PFF), my Roth IRA will be somewhat healthy again. Right now, it's on life support. Five years of gains wiped out.

I wish I had more retirement savings to invest. As crazy as it sounds right now, I'd love to buy more stocks in my retirement accounts.

In my non-retirement brokerage account, which is around 90% in money market funds, I picked up some Starbucks (SBUX), Symantec (SYMC), Nvidia (NVDA), 3M (MMM), and ConocoPhillips (COP), and Citigroup (C). I wanted to buy more Cisco (CSCO) but chickened out.

Update on November 21, 2008:

The S&P 500 lost 46.8% from 12/7/07 to 11/21/08 [from December 7, 2007 (1504.66) to November 21, 2008 (800.03)]

In that same time period, my retirement accounts declined in value 27.9%.
Although I am beating the averages in my retirement account, I don't feel happy at all.

Public Sector Costs and Benefits

Rio Vista, California is yet another morality tale about how government spending, which includes public sector benefits, has spun out of control:

Link1 [replaced dead link]

Link 2 [replaced dead link]

In Vallejo, CA, another city that had to file bankruptcy, police and firefighter unions tried to force the city out of bankruptcy court so they could preserve their own government benefits--at the expense of the general taxpayers. How many more California cities have to go bankrupt before our government starts protecting taxpayers from unreasonable government spending, which includes comparatively much higher salaries and benefits in the public sector? (See Malanga article for comparison of private vs. public employees)

The costs of pensions and lifetime health care benefits depend on employees' lifespans and are difficult to estimate, because some employees may live longer or may need care that far exceeds the estimated costs. As a result, it's very difficult to ascertain employee pension liabilities because so many unpredictable factors are involved. Inevitably, because of the uncertainty involved in calculated how many years a public employee has to be paid after retirement, the government will have under-funded pensions. The result is that the taxpayers--and our children--will suffer as a result of the government continuing to provide itself with generous and hard-to-estimate benefits. Almost no private sector employees receive pensions anymore because companies figured out they shouldn't be in the insurance business. If a voluntary 401(k) or 403(b) plan is good enough for most engineers, nurses, and lawyers, why isn't it acceptable for government workers, firefighters, and police officers? Who exactly is the government protecting and serving?

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Cisco's Annual Shareholder Meeting (2008)

Cisco's (CSCO) annual shareholder meeting was held on November 13, 2008 at the Santa Clara Convention Center. The meeting was open to all--Cisco did not check to see if anyone was actually a shareholder. The food spread was above average--OJ, cranberry juice, bagels, fruit, and Starbucks coffee (what I call "the Convention Center special").

Cisco ran its meeting professionally, almost too much so--at times, the meeting felt like a stiff, over-starched white-collared shirt. No one was allowed to ask spontaneous questions, because all questions had to be written down and submitted to employees, who would pick and choose which ones they wanted to display to the CEO. The meeting was designed to run smoothly, and with no unexpected problems or risks. Well, you know what they say--"Man plans, God laughs."

During one of the shareholder proposals relating to China, an older Chinese shareholder stood up and demanded to be heard. He held his hand in the air continuously and would not sit down, even after a Cisco employee came up to him. He had an issue with shareholder proposals being voted on without soliciting public comments. He had a point, but his heavily-accented English made him hard to understand. To his credit, CEO John Chambers later addressed the gentleman's concerns. Mr. Chambers said, towards the end of the informal presentation, that Cisco did not modify its equipment for any customer--the equipment is the same, i.e. "no unique capabilities [are given] to any government in the world." He also made a point of walking towards the gentleman to garner his support. I've never seen a CEO make an effort to approach an audience member who appeared somewhat aggressive, and Mr. Chamber's pro-active behavior made him instantly likable. After the meeting, I saw someone from Cisco talking politely with the gentleman, who appeared to be hawking his book. This high level of corporate professionalism is much talked about, but rarely practiced.

The formal part of the meeting had two presentations, one by Harrington Investments, and another by Boston Common Asset Management. Both focused on human rights issues and transparency. Ms. Carol Malnick (of Boston Common) made very interesting points. She said that censorship would decrease Internet traffic in the long run by discouraging new Internet users and limiting the use of existing users. Cisco's growth, of course, depends on more Internet users. It basically sells products that gets computers to talk to each other over the Internet, and the more computers sold with Internet capability, the more Cisco grows. She asked Cisco not to exit certain international markets, but to be transparent. She listed several countries she felt were Internet censors, including Saudi Arabia, China, Algeria, and Syria. I thought Carol Malnick's presentation was much more effective and polished. Others agreed--only 68% voted against her proposal, while 98% voted against the Harrington proposal. After her presentation, CEO Chambers made a point to use the word, "transparent" several times while looking directly at Ms. Malnick, as if to say, "We hear you, and even though we defeated your proposal, we are working on it." This was a very gracious and conscious move by Mr. Chambers.

CEO Chambers had a video and spoken presentation. The opening slide spelled "Globalization" as "Globalisation," with an "s," indicating that a British employee had worked extensively on the presentation. Mr. Chambers talked about a "six point gameplan," which focused on general ideas, like investing in emerging markets (note: I am sick of hearing about "emerging markets" at shareholder meetings--of course companies must invest in other countries) and Web 2.0. He said that Cisco had "3,000 telepresences a week," which meant that Cisco's sales force was connecting to thousands of potential buyers domestically and worldwide, without the need for any travel. If the telepresences, like the ones you see on Star Trek, become commonly used, it will be Cisco that takes us there. Mr. Chambers acknowledged that some companies wouldn't feel the need to upgrade their technology, which would limit the roll out of newer internet products; however, he was also hopeful, saying that the "next wave of productivity" would happen, and Cisco would be at its forefront. After some more generalities of "vision, strategy, and execution," Mr. Chambers showed a moving video presentation.

This video presentation showed the effects of the devastating 2008 earthquake in the Sichuan Province of China. In a brilliant move, John Chambers traveled there immediately after the earthquake and worked with the cities to rebuild their infrastructure. Cisco donated 45 million dollars to rebuilding efforts (See News Report). The cynic in me says that Mr. Chambers is a PR genius. He knows China represents his company's best chance for growth with its 1.2 billion people. By going to China and lending a hand and funds, he hopes Cisco will be remembered down the line by the Chinese government. But Mr. Chambers has a way of winning people over. He appeared completely sincere when he spoke about his experience in China. In fact, I almost teared up after watching the video. Various pictures were shown of Mr. Chambers interacting with earthquake survivors amidst the rubble, and he joked that a young Chinese boy who was bold enough to approach him would grow up to be a Cisco salesman. Mr. Chambers also mentioned a little girl who hadn't spoken since the earthquake but who spoke again after seeing new faces arrive. The girl, of course, represented the power of the human spirit, something we all implicitly understood. At this moment in the presentation, you could have heard a pin drop. It was hard not to be emotionally affected after seeing the pictures of the two children.

Most important, Mr. Chambers called upon us to act, saying that it was an "embarrassment to us" that 3 billion people in the world live on less than three dollars a day, because we had the power to change this situation. He said that Cisco's worldwide expansion would help "700 million people in China" because Cisco brought high paying jobs and the increased likelihood of a middle class, not only in China, but all over the Middle East. His implication was clear--Cisco would help usher in a new era of worldwide progress.

The Q&A session began, with questions presented to Cisco employees on index cards, which were then typed on a large screen behind Mr. Chambers. One question asked about Cisco's 27 billion dollars in cash. This elicited a funny remark from Mr. Chambers, who said that in the current unstable market environment, "cash is king, queen and the entire royal family." He also said that before he left the company, Cisco would pay a dividend to shareholders. Paying a dividend would help stabilize Cisco's stock price, because the dividend would attract long-term investors and would prevent Cisco from using their cash in unproductive ways. (Also, paying a dividend might allow more mutual funds to buy Cisco stock.) The best question was tongue-in-cheek: "In the spirit of GM, what could make GM obsolete?" Mr. Chambers sat down to show the audience he took this question seriously and said that Cisco hadn't lost its sense of urgency. He mentioned Lucent and other companies that used to be technology high fliers and talked about Cisco's growth and its desire to continue growing.

On their way out, shareholders were treated to a Cisco-branded luggage tag holder, an interesting choice, given that Cisco's technology will probably decrease business air travel.

Overall, Cisco's meeting was run very professionally. In the future, Cisco ought to allow live, spontaneous questions and comments prior to voting on shareholder proposals. Beyond that, Cisco looks like a company well-positioned to benefit from the worldwide expansion of Internet users.

Disclosure: as of November 19, 2008, I own 6100 shares of Cisco (CSCO). I will, however, reduce my positions before the end of the year if not sooner.

OCM Revisited

I keep talking about OCM--Other Countries' Money. Very few people seem to understand the consequences of being dependent on the kindness of strangers. Now, the U.S. is considering selling Japanese-backed bonds rather than its own:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/11/japanese-float-idea-of-treasury-selling.html 

Oh, the embarrassment.

Currencies

You can now buy almost all the major foreign currencies through a U.S. brokerage account: 

FXE: Euro 
FXC: Canadian dollar 
FXF: Swiss franc 
FXM: Mexican peso 
FXY: Japanese yen 
XRU: Russian ruble 
BZF: Brazilian real 
CYB, CNY: Chinese yuan 
ICN, INR: Indian rupee 

Although you can trade currencies, it doesn't mean you should. Personally, I own some FXC and FXF, but my positions may change at any time, and I am *not* qualified to give investment advice.

I view the Canadian dollar as a diversification tool because it is indirectly linked to commodity prices. The U.S. imports most of its oil through Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. 

The Swiss franc should do relatively well, despite Swiss banking problems, because war is the #1 destroyer of economies, and the Swiss have historically avoided war. In contrast, the U.S. has Iraq; China has Taiwan; Russian has Georgia; India has Pakistan (over Kashmir); and Mexico has internal corruption so terrible, it may lead to civil war. Brazil's egregious income inequality makes it difficult for me to invest too much of my money in the country, despite its independence from OPEC and recent economic growth. 

I have heard several Southeast Asians say that Malaysia is doing better than its neighbors Cambodia and Vietnam primarily because Malaysia avoided war and Cambodia and Vietnam did not. The general theory makes sense. Aggression and war destroy economies because they lead to a lack of stability, which drives away investment. Thus, peacenik Americans who crave stability are left with the Euro, which is going to be devalued because of future expected interest rate cuts; the Canadian dollar; the Japanese yen; and the Swiss franc. 

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -- James Madison

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

S.F. Judge Reprimanded

Interesting article on an S.F. judge:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/18/BAAV147BAP.DTL

I've never met the judge, but he sounds like a former District Attorney.

I just checked--Judge McBride was a former assistant D.A. and a police officer. According to the S.F. Sentinel, "[Judge] McBride has previously been named Judge of the Year by both the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and the San Francisco Bar Association’s Barrister Club." Judge McBride was also elected the S.F. Court's presiding judge this year.

Nothing against Judge McBride, but in states where voters can elect judges, I recommend voting against former district attorneys if they lack private sector experience handling non-criminal cases. Some great judges were former D.A.s, but generally speaking, D.A.s tend to see the world in black and white. Also, while former district attorneys seem to have a better work ethic than non-criminal lawyers, this extra energy is usually caused by a Superman complex. What do I mean by a Superman complex?

Most D.A.s become D.A.s to protect society from criminals and bad elements. To place yourself in a role where you can single-handedly protect your fellow man by locking up citizens (some of whom may be innocent), you have to be comfortable playing God or Superman. But people who view power cautiously or who are mindful of their lack of omnipotence will be fearful of wielding any kind of substantial power. This means that the most confident lawyers, the ones who are comfortable playing Superman, will gravitate towards the D.A. role.

In fact, good D.A.s must have supreme confidence to function, especially after seeing horrors like rape, homicides, and infanticides up close. The average person who sees an 18 year old mother microwave her baby probably won't want anything to do with that situation; a D.A., however, must not only get involved, s/he must convince a jury to throw the young mother in jail. If the D.A. thinks about the mother's personal background, her poverty, or some other random factor, it makes his job more difficult. In short, the ability to see gray areas complicates throwing a fellow human being in jail, because a person may realize that in some alternate universe, given the same set of circumstances, it could be him or her across the aisle in the courthouse. Of course, someone has to prosecute unfortunate souls along with the hardened criminals, so you want D.A.s to be tough, supremely confident, and comfortable playing God with people's lives. At the same time, it's important to recognize that kind of attitude works best in criminal law, not civil law.

Many meritorious civil cases involve gray areas without hard evidence (i.e., a smoking gun, fingerprints, DNA). For example, employment cases sometimes involve nothing more than he-said/she-said scenarios, such as where a female employee alleges sexual harassment. Thus, much of the time, a civil judge has to decide whether a case has merit based solely on sworn statements from different people. Although the law requires judges to send cases to a jury if a reasonable person could see genuinely disputed material facts, after seeing so much hard evidence in criminal cases and so many criminal cases involving severe harm, former D.A.s tend to be less sympathetic to cases that lack obvious physical harm.

You will notice that Judge McBride was named Judge of the Year by the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association. Those associations are usually run by personal injury lawyers, who bring cases involving physical injuries. Thus, it is not unusual for former D.A.s to be well-liked by trial lawyer associations, because personal injury cases usually involve obvious physical harm and more black-and-white facts than other cases--such as securities litigation or labor law--which don't appeal to a D.A.'s experience of associating meritorious cases with blood on the ground.

Again, I don't know Judge McBride, so I cannot comment on him specifically. The only reason I write this post is to encourage voters to consider voting for a non-D.A., a public defender, a solo practitioner, or a lawyer with private practice experience when it comes time to choose a judge.

Bonus: an Illinois judge jails a man for making a yawning noise in his courtroom. See here.

Steve Malanga on State Governments

Steve Malanga, senior editor of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, is my new favorite writer. The WSJ included an opinion piece by him in today's paper:

http://s.wsj.net/article/SB122697315476635963.html

A study...by the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimated that the average public sector worker earns 46% more in total compensation than his counterpart in the private sector, largely because government employers spend 60% more per worker on benefits than counterparts in the private sector. States have collectively ranked up some $731 billion in unfunded liabilities for pensions and other retirement benefits, according to a study...by the Pew Charitable Trusts' Center on the States...


California state and local governments are paying some $12.8 billion a year to finance public employee pensions, up form $4.8 billion in 1999.

You know who's on the hook for all those benefits, don't you? We, the taxpayers, and our children. What is the reason government employees, on average, receive more benefits than private sector workers? It is becoming increasingly apparent that our elected representatives believe that we should work for them, instead of the other way around.

The next time you vote to give more money to government programs, just remember what we were told as kids: "Money doesn't grow on trees." Perhaps these days, it should read, "Money may not grow on trees, but what's wrong with getting money through bond sales?" Well, remember OCM--Other Countries' Money? Other countries are and have been the major buyers of our bonds, meaning they have become American Express, while we have become debt-holders, working each month to pay them off. I guess our own government is selling us out to other countries. Who can blame them? Other countries are the ones effectively paying for their benefits and for their inefficient programs (Bridge to Nowhere, etc.) through the purchase of municipal and Treasury bond sales. Although I am opposed to unnecessary regulation of private citizens, that doesn't mean an irresponsible government doesn't deserve to be regulated. Maybe we should require all public sector bond sales to have at least 51% American citizen ownership before being offered to other countries--once Americans realize we don't have the money to buy back our own debt, much less our future debt, we might become more frugal.

Update on Transmeta (TMTA)

On September 18, 2008, I wrote that Transmeta was a potential takeover target:

If you're looking for a growth story, this isn't it; however, as long as its patent portfolio remains viable, TMTA may be a potential takeover target or value play at the right price.

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/transmeta-tmta-shareholder-meeting.html

On November 18, 2008, Novafora acquired Transmeta:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081117/novafora_acquisition.html

This appears to be a good outcome for Transmeta. Kudos to the Board of Directors and to the officers for selling the company in a professional, transparent manner.

Now a Good Time to Invest?

A lot of you have been on the sidelines, waiting for a good time to buy stocks. I'm not making any recommendations, but I just bought between 55 to 250 shares of some tech stocks, including NVDA, ERTS, INTC, STM, SYMC, and CSCO. I realize my financial outlay isn't much, but perhaps these shares will be worth much more five years or more from now.

The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.

Homes v. Stocks as Investments

According to an article in Charles Schwab on Investing, Fall 2007 (p. 7), which looks like it was written by Matt Wood, stocks are a better investment than housing:

[R]esidential real estate provided an annualized return of 8.6% during the period from 1978 to 2004, compared with 13.4% for the S&P 500 Index (citing Jack Clark Francis et al, Contrasting Real Estate with Comparable Investments, 1978-2004, April 2007)

In some cases, [owning a home costs] as much as three times the purchase price [due to insurance premiums, maintenance costs, and property taxes]...Robert Shiller says real estate's historic real returns are closer to zero after adjusting for inflation. [David Crook, "Your Home Isn't the Nest Egg That You Think It Is," WSJ Online, March 12, 2007]

I refused to buy any property during the last five years, believing that everything in California was overpriced. Now, however, I am not so sure. Housing and other hard assets might not be a great investment, but they no longer appear to be flagrantly overpriced.