Graph of U.S. Bear Markets

From "dshort" at Calculated Risk blog:

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/

Singapore, Part Deux

My earlier post on Singapore received quite a few hits:

In Defense of Singapore

Here is an article from www.theonlinecitizen.com about Singapore's political system:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/current-system-lacks-accountability

The existence of The Online Citizen shows that Singapore does indeed have forums for anti-government debate, and the highly connected nature of Singapore--both communally and technologically--limit the government's power to impose overly rigorous speech codes.

American Lawyers

Attorney Raoul Felder recently talked about job prospects for lawyers in the WSJ, only partly tongue-in-cheek:

Meanwhile, Congress might consider a bailout plan for lawyers. There are now some 1,162,124 lawyers in the U.S., and the law schools are spewing out graduates at a rate of 43,518 a year, all set adrift upon a public that increasingly wants doesn't have money to pay for their services. There is no other profession more dependent on discretionary spending, except perhaps the oldest one.

Oh, the reality.

O' Canada

A lot of lovely, lovely numbers showing debt levels of various countries:

http://dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00536

I recently bought some Canadian currency (FXC). Because of the decline in commodity prices, the Canadian dollar has gone from parity with the U.S. dollar to only 71 U.S. cents. Looking at the Canadian debt load, especially in comparison to other countries, the drop seems overdone.

Earlier, I wrote about currencies in the following post, singling out the Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc as possible diversification tools:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/11/currencies.html

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.

Stocks Update: Keeping Score

A year ago--December 7, 2007, to be exact--a good friend and I started arguing about how to invest. My friend and I don't usually agree on stocks--he's more of a technical analyst, and I'm more into macro-economics. For example, he hates Coca-Cola (KO), saying he'd never invest in sugar water, while I like its consistent dividend and international business. He looks for major growth stories, while I look primarily at balance sheets and avoid companies with too much debt. When he and I have agreed on stocks, however, we've never been wrong, at least not in the short-term. Still, we decided to resolve our differences by opening up virtual trading accounts to compete against each other and also decided to keep track of our actual investment performance. This way, if we continued to argue, we would have both actual and virtual evidence to support our investing styles.

I am winning in both the virtual stock games (http://vse.marketwatch.com/Game/Homepage.aspx), but that's because I kept most of my investments in cash, while my friend bought commodity-based companies.

In real life, I have been tracking my retirement accounts. My friend won't tell me exactly how badly he's doing, but apparently, I'm doing better (I'm down "way more" than that, he told me, after receiving news of my percentage drop). I am not gloating at all--I had positive performance through the first week of September 2008. I should have sold everything then, but didn't.

As a result, from December 7, 2007 to December 5, 2008, my retirement portfolio has declined around 23.5%. I can't provide an exact percentage, because I added monies and invested them at different times throughout 2008. In fact, I made so many trades in my 401(k), T. Rowe Price barred me from trading again until late January 2009.

Meanwhile, the S&P 500 declined 41.77% during the same time period (December 7, 2007 (1,504.66) to December 5, 2008 (876.07).

So, I beat the S&P 500 by around 18 percentage points. Ordinarily, I'd be elated, but this year, for obvious reasons, I am not happy at all.

I am looking forward to continuing the competition for the next twenty years. My prize in winning against my friend this year? A Peet's (PEET) coffee of my choice. I do love their eggnog lattes, but I was so close to having positive performance, it will be painful to sip that latte. I am in my early 30's, so I have plenty of time to ride out this recession. But oh, what a difference a few months makes.

Update: my non-retirement accounts should be in positive territory for 2008, because I am typically risk-averse with my liquid assets. I am now 100% in money market funds in my non-retirement accounts. Excepting day-trading and short-term trades, I have probably kept 80%+ of my liquid assets in money market funds this year. Off the top of my head, my two worst performers, in terms of actual monetary losses, have been JMBA and YHOO.

Lawyers and the Economy

To all those aspiring lawyers--beware:

ABA Article

The legal biz ain't recession-proof.

CHP Blunders Yet Again

If you loved the 60's, you will love this story from Sacramento County:

Two women arrested for displaying breasts at a protest get $150,000

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) arrested two women for baring their breasts at a rally. The women recovered $150,000. On November 7, 2005, Sheba Love and Sherry Glaser were protesting the government's definition of "decent" in front of the state capitol building in Sacramento. Ms. Love and Ms. Glaser, members of the political group Breasts Not Bombs, asserted that displaying their breasts was an act of free speech, and therefore was protected under the Constitution. The defense contended that the protest permit had a clause stating that participants who expose their private parts would be subject to arrest.

Love v. Brown, No. 06AS04799

The specific causes of action were ASSAULT AND BATTERY; FALSE ARREST & IMPRISONMENT; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

Here is the organization's blog (some posts NSFW):

http://breastsnotbombs.blogspot.com/

The specific blog post on the CHP lawsuit is titled, "To all our Bosom Buddies."

Oh, the loveliness.

_______________________

I mentioned the CHP's incompetence on this blog in the case of Grassilli v. Barr (2006):

Post on Buffett (referring to the Grassilli-CHP case)

Specific allegations from the 150K Complaint are here:

PARTIES

3. Defendant CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) is an arm of the State of California.
5. Defendant OFFICER TROY is and was, at the time of the incident, a CHP officer, acting under the color of law and in the course and scope of his employment for the Defendant CHP.
7. At all times mentioned here, DOES 1-30 were employees and agents for the Defendant CHP. These unidentified employees and agents are sued individually and in their capacities as police officers for the CHP. By engaging in the conduct described herein, the Defendant DOES acted under color of law and in the course and scope of their employment for Defendant CHP. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant unidentified employees and agents exceeded the authority vested in them as employees of the CHP.
9.10.At all times mentioned, each named and DOE Defendant was the agent or employee of co-defendant CHP and BROWN and in doing the things alleged were acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment and with the actual and implied permission, consent, authorization, and approval of CHP and/or BROWN.

STATEMENT OF FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

11. Defendant, CHP Officer TROY issued the group a permit which stated, “protest of this special election (ANY PERSON WHO EXPOSES PRIVATE PARTS IS SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTIONS 314 AND 647(a). This permit is immediately cancelled and also future requests for permits on state property.”
13. On November 7, 2005 BNB members, men and women, including plaintiffs, participated in political protest at the permitted time and location. During the protest, Plaintiffs SHERRY GLASER and SHEBA LOVE took off their clothing tops exposing their bare breasts.
15. Following the wrongful arrest, SHERRY GLASER and SHEBA LOVE were falsely imprisoned by DOE Officers and detained for twelve hours before being released.
17. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional and mental distress.
19. Plaintiffs were wrongfully arrested, depriving them of their liberty in violation of the law. The charges against them were eventually dropped. However, they paid thousands of dollars in attorneys’ fees to fight the charges.
21. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate their rights under law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of all attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to this action for violation of his state civil right to be free from harassment due to the violation of the civil rights and due to the violations of their civil rights based on their gender.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Arrest and Imprisonment)
(AGAINST CHP, BROWN, TROY, STALLMAN AND DOES 1-100)

23. The Defendant officers named herein, without probable cause, detained Plaintiffs for violations which they did not commit. Defendants could not have reasonably believed that Plaintiffs committed such violations, particularly in light of the fact that the Sacramento County District County clearly deemed that the Plaintiffs actions were not in violation of California Penal Code Section 314 or 647(a).
26.As a proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages as set forth.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
(AGAINST CHP, BROWN, TROY, STALLMAN AND DOES 1-100)

The conduct of the defendant officers, as set forth herein, was extreme and outrageous and beyond the scope of conduct which should be tolerated by citizens in a democratic and civilized society. The Defendants, acting under color of law, falsely arrested and imprisoned Plaintiffs for 12 hours. The Defendants’ actions humiliated Plaintiffs and created enormous frustration for them. Defendants’ decision to arrest peaceful political protesters despite their permit resulted from an unfounded animosity. Defendants deliberately arrested the Plaintiffs and did the aforementioned unnecessary detainment with the intent to inflict severe mental and emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs.

The lawyers involved are here:

LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW KUMIN
MATTHEW KUMIN, CSB # 177561
870 Market Street, Suite 1262
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 434-8454
Fax: (415) 434-8453

ROTHSCHILD WISHEK & SANDS
MICHAEL CHASTAINE, CSB 121209