I Was Wrong

My September 18, 2008 call of capitulation was wrong. See call after the jump:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/capitulation-is-hereagain-good-times-to.html

But today, on October 9, 2008, I feel like I called the bottom only a few weeks too early--which isn't a capital crime. Here is my take on the current situation, which I posted on Barry Ritholz's website:

It all depends on GE and Google. That's it--the double G's will determine whether we make or lose money. No other real catalyst on the horizon--interest rates have been cut, and money pumped in, so both the money supply and interest rates have been manipulated. After HP's positive earnings, I am feeling sanguine, despite the blood on the streets.

I bought a commodity fund for my 401k today, T Rowe Price's New Era fund. Being relatively young, I am a buyer at these levels. I just wish I had more gunpowder. My Roth IRA is already fully invested.

What the Japanese Stock Market Tells Us

Remember the Japanese and their banking problems? Japan is much different from the U.S., but this chart does not bode well for the U.S. stock market. Japan currently has the world's third largest GDP (on a purchasing power parity basis). Check out this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1997/asian_economic_woes/34500.stm

The Japanese economy was growing at a headlong rate, and companies were expanding and investing as never before.

The trouble was that much of this investment was being financed by an extraordinary boom in property and share prices. Property and shares were used as security for huge bank loans - and when the property markets and stock markets suddenly crashed at the beginning of the nineties the whole spiral of borrowing, asset price inflation and investment came to a full stop.

And despite many government initiatives to kick start demand, Japan's economy has remained fairly stagnant for the last six years. The stock market has been flat too, making it difficult for companies...to make profits.

Sound familiar? Defensive investors know that consumers will always need health care and consumer staples (e.g., Unilever products); however, investors looking for more than a 5 to 7% annual return are evaluating other options. After all, the key to getting high returns is determining the next high growth economic area and/or product.

U.S. companies realized earlier than most Americans that their growth would rely on non-U.S. countries. As a result, most major companies have shifted their emphasis overseas while lobbying for fewer trade restrictions. Now that the American consumer appears to be down and out, the question is whether the world economy can finally gain traction without the U.S. The most obvious way this decoupling will occur is if the American dollar is devalued, creating incentives for other countries to buy American products. If a Chinese yuan buys quite a bit of American goods, the Chinese consumer will feel flush and may start spending more, allowing the world economy to have more than one major source of income. A similar scenario can also play out with the Indian and Brazilian consumers. In fact, non-U.S. citizens must spend more in order to maintain economic stability.

Once you realize how small the American population is--only 5% of the world population--it's fairly easy to see that the most growth will come from abroad. As a result, trade restrictions will harm U.S. companies and their ability to expand and get their products into the hands of other countries' consumers. American companies that fail to achieve high growth rates will lay off workers in order to become more efficient. Thus, improving the job market means helping American companies gain more consumers, which means giving them more access to non-U.S. consumers. To achieve easy access to the international market, we have to negotiate with other countries and have fewer restrictions to encourage a free flow of ideas, money, and traffic. As much as we may hate to admit it, reducing trade restrictions and devaluing the American dollar may actually stabilize the world economy in the long run.

At the end of the day, what choice do we have, really? The American consumer is tapped out. Other countries' consumers must step up to the plate, and we need to encourage them to do so. In an era where the world economy requires more trust between countries, the latest failure of the Doha Development Round is an ominous portent. Thankfully, the failure of governments is not determinative.

The American corporations that succeed will be the ones who understand that the American consumer is but one small slice of a very large worldwide pie. In an era of cynicism, skepticism, and security fears, we must regain our confidence and look to maximize our international footprint through trade and superior products. The "Post-American world" can no longer be an amorphous, distant concept if we are to succeed--Americans must begin to see the world as one large marketplace in which they have the advantage because of their greater access to technology (Google, Yahoo, eBay, Intel, etc. all made in the U.S.A.); the world's common language (English); an above average health care system (better health means more productivity); and entrepreneurship (it can take less than a week to set up a small business in California--for fun, compare that time with India and its small business rules/red tape).

I never thought I would advocate a weaker domestic currency, but sad times create sad consequences. The time has come to work harder and re-gain our stature in the world. When the non-U.S. buyers come, America must welcome them with open arms and the American attitude formerly known as optimistic. America is down, but as long as we have immigrants arriving and hoping for a better future, you cannot count America out. For better or worse, we are still the world's major repository for dreams. That's why I don't see a Japan-style economic morass happening in America--Japan is getting older and has never liked immigration. As long as we stay away from protectionism and encourage responsible immigration, we will do just fine.

VeriFone (PAY) Shareholder Meeting

VeriFone's (symbol: PAY) 2008 annual shareholder meeting took place today at the Doubletree Hotel in downtown San Jose.

VeriFone, Inc. is a payment-processing-technology specialist. When you use your credit or debit card, someone has to handle the transfer of information from Point A to Point B in a secure format. VeriFone is trying to position itself as the worldwide financial middleman. However, it has been plagued by accounting scandals and as a result, its stock price is near a 52-week low.

The meeting was a bare-bones event. VeriFone did not have a presentation. The informal portion of the meeting involved only a Q&A session and lasted under 10 minutes. Only water was served from a cooler. Only three non-employees attended. I asked about the financial irregularities. The CEO said VeriFone had replaced the CFO and the general counsel in an effort to reform the company. He said the specific accounting problem was that the company overstated inventory and understated the cost of goods. (This accounting problem would cause the company to report an incorrect higher net profit for most of last year.) Class action lawsuits have been filed against VeriFone, and the 10K did not list any settlements or pending resolutions.

I asked several other questions about the company's business. The CEO's responses are below:

1. VeriFone already has 65% market share in the U.S and Canada, and Hypercom is their primary competitor. The main reason VeriFone does not have more market share is because the market wants an alternative, even if that alternative is not as good as VeriFone.

2. (The 10K states that profit margins are lower in the U.S. and Canada, but VeriFone is seeking to expand more internationally rather than domestically.) The reason VeriFone is focusing on international expansion is because emerging markets are not saturated. Only around 1 to 20% of retailers in Brazil, Turkey and other emerging markets use payment-processing technology, and the opportunities for growth are much better.

3. VeriFone's competitive advantage is that it spends the most on R&D and has the most employees. They are a safe, if not the safest, choice.

As a value play, it's hard to go against VeriFone. At the same time, it's also hard to promote a company that had ethical issues as recently as last year, especially in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley world. I personally think there are better companies in which to invest, but others may want to consider VeriFone after it resolves outstanding litigation.

Disclosure: I own less than 30 shares of Verifone (PAY).

Who Pays Taxes?

The WSJ (A25, October 7, 2008) had more statistics on the tax debate:

The top 20% pay 67% of all federal taxes--including not just income taxes, but payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and death/estate taxes. The top 1% of earners pay 26% of all federal taxes.

If Republicans want a return to the Reagan era, pointing out raw numbers isn't the way to get there. The average American knows the rich make the lion's share of money in this country. He also knows that no matter what the percentages and numbers are, unlike the average American, the rich don't have to worry about housing, food, or health care. Despite this knowledge, taxes have continued to come down for years in this country because the average American doesn't hate most rich people. In modern-day America, the majority of super-rich people don't inherit their wealth--they earn it, which gives them some immunity from European-style envy. Thus, the key goal of low-taxation advocates shouldn't be fairness per se. Instead, the goal should be to assure that everyone's tax contributions--no matter what the amount--are spent improving access to health care, infrastructure, and other quality-of-life services as well as cutting wasteful spending. A single dollar collected that goes towards more laws, more useless agencies, more unnecessary subsidies, and more lobbyist requests will damage everyone's faith in the system. In short, low-tax advocates must convince everyone that all taxes collected are going towards necessary services.

Americans want to be rich, so bashing the rich won't work in America as a primary political platform. The average American probably cares more about a) whether his or her tax dollars are spent for necessary services rather than special-interest spending; and b) whether taxes are enough to cover necessary services. Thus, the debate should be about what services are necessary, how the government can best deliver them, and whether the government is the best entity to deliver those services.

Barry Diller on Online Advertising

Barry Diller had an interesting interview today in the WSJ.

You really want to get a headache? Try to understand Internet advertising. Social networking advertising is being discounted because there is so much inventory [of available ad spots], and because methods have not yet been found to make it very effective. Will that get figured out? I absolutely believe it will. What form will it take? Absolutely unknown.

Mark Cuban seems to have found a potential solution/form in www.hulu.com

Update: DJIA Down 550 Points

Yes, it's a bloodbath today in the markets, but I am buying. In fact, I've spent more money today than I ever have, if you include my 401k purchases. As for individual stock picks, I bought GOOG, STT, YHOO, GE, and even some WYNN. Visa (V) looked interesting, too. Remember, Visa and Mastercard don't loan anyone money--they're just middlemen who get a transaction fee. In contrast, Discover and American Express have a more risky practice of loaning money themselves to certain customers or exposing some of their own assets to risk. I predict this recession will be over by May 2009, having started in December 2007. I hope to flip GOOG this week.

Best...Spoof...Ever

© Columbia Business School Follies

http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/students/organizations/follies/Follies/Welcome.html