Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Fred Hickey: “This Market Is Going Down And Will End In Chaos”

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/investment-legend-fred-hickey-this-market-is-going-down-and-will-end-in-chaos/

Investment Legend Fred Hickey: “This Market Is Going Down And Will End In Chaos”

By ContributorUntitledReposted from Finanz und Wirtschaft
The editor of the influential investment newsletter «The High-Tech Strategist» warns of trouble in semiconductor stocks and spots bright investment opportunities in gold miners.
It’s unchartered territory: For the first time since more than half a decade the global financial markets are supposed to live without the constant liquidity infusions of the Federal Reserve. Fred Hickey, the outspoken editor of the widely-read investing newsletter «The High-Tech Strategist», says this won’t work well for long.About Fred Hickey
For many investors around the world, Fred Hickey’s monthly newsletter is a must read. It’s a unique treasure of deep knowledge that goes way beyond the tech sector. Grown up in Lowell, Massachusetts, in the heartland of the computing cluster around Route 128, he’s been fascinated by technology since his youth. After graduating at the University of Notre Dame, he started working for the former telecom giant General Telephone & Electronics. 1987 he began writing his newsletter for friends and family.
After just five years it went so well that he could make out a living of his investing tips. Today, the fiercely independent analyst lives far away from Wall Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, and in sunny Costa Rica. «By the end of this year or by the start of next year, without QE, the market is going down», says the sharply thinking contrarian. In his view, especially the outlook for semiconductor makers like Intel is gloomy. As protection against the upcoming crash he recommends investments in gold and in gold mining stocks.
Mr. Hickey, after the short setback in October the hunt for new records at the stock market is on once again. What’s your take on the current situation?
We are living in an aberrational world. It’s all driven by an orgy of money printing. All the major central banks are engaged in this. From the Federal Reserve in the United States to the ECB, to the Bank of England and the National Bank of Switzerland to the Bank of Japan and the People’s Bank of China. It’s been tried ever since there was money, but in thousands of years of history it has never worked. When the Roman empire was unraveling the Caesars would shave the silver from the coins in order to be able to make a lot more of them. And in Weimar Germany, Reichsbank president Rudolf Havenstein ran the printing presses day and night, seven days a week. And here we are now,  repeating the same mistake.
Yet, the markets love cheap money. The S&P 500 just climbed to another record high this Monday.
I lean towards the school of Austrian economists and they tell you that you can’t get out of those things. As a reminder, I keep the following quote from the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pinned to the bulletin board in my office: «The final outcome of credit expansion is general impoverishment». Von Mises also warned that the boom can only last as long as the credit expansion progresses at an ever-accelerating pace. That’s why the Federal Reserve is unable to get out of this.  Shortly after QE1 the stock market sold off 13% and the economy tanked. Then they did QE2 and when that ended the market sunk 16% in just a few weeks. That led to Operation Twist and that led to QE3, the biggest money printing operation of them all. Even before QE3 ended the markets started to take a dive and the Fed had to come to the rescue again. James Bullard of the St. Louis Fed came out and said that maybe they shouldn’t stop QE. That led to what they call the «Bullard Bounce» or «Bullard’s Charge». So they gave the green light to speculate once again. But fact of the matter is that money printing does not work.
Nevertheless, Fed chief Janet Yellen stopped QE3 at the end of October.
That’s why I expect things to fall apart in the market. I don’t know what’s going to happen between now and the year end because this is a seasonally strong period for stocks. Money managers who have been underperforming all year are under pressure to get into the stock market. And we might see what I call a «Run for the Roses» and the market gets to even more extreme levels. I don’t know how much longer this global money printing experiment can continue. But it sure feels to me that we’re nearing the day that it spins out of control. By the end of this year or by the start of next year without QE the market is going down and we will end up in chaos.
But without those constant shots of liquidity the situation might be even worse today.
Money printing has unintended consequences. Some of them cause asset prices to rise, that causes real estate prices to rise and that makes houses unavailable for many people. Mortgage applications to purchase a home are at the same level as at the bottom in 2009. And the reason is that prices are too expensive, wages are stagnant and the cost of living is up. First time home buyers are suffering. They have 1.2 trillion Dollars of debt hanging over their heads and living in their mom’s basement. These are the kind of things that create imbalances, including wealth inequality. So the situation worsens for the general population.
Where do you spot the biggest risks in the stock market if the Fed doesn’t come up with a new round of quantitative easing?
I was there in 2000. I was one of the few tech guys who didn’t understand «it» because we were supposedly in an a new area. And that was the greatest bubble that I ever saw in technology. The spread of that boom was narrow. Other parts of the stock market weren’t anywhere near as overpriced and there were things you could actually buy. Sure, today’s stocks prices are very high and they’re 25% overvalued based on the P/E ratio. But they aren’t as high as they were in 2000 when the P/E ratio was much higher. The big problem is that this one is broader than 2000. Also, the earnings per share are inflated by a number of financial tricks. Corporations have been piling up record amounts of debt and a lot of that has been done to fund buybacks. These buybacks lower the share count and increase the E of the P/E ratio. As a consequence, you end up with higher earnings per share without commensurate increases in revenue. So when you look at the price-to-sales ratio, that’s as high as it has never been before.
What should investors do in such a kind of market?
There is a huge lake of liquidity out there. And most market participants – the herd, the crowd, Wall Street or any name you wanna put on it – have been swimming in this lake of liquidity for a long time. They think it’s the greatest invention ever and it’s beautiful: They shout: «The water is warm, come on in!» But I don’t see it as a safe place. I look at it and I see it as a cesspool. And if you stay in there long enough you’re going to get buried and die.
Such criticism isn’t always appreciated. For example «Barron’s» did disinvite you recently to its famous investors roundtable. How do you personally get along as a contrarian when stocks prices rise further and further?
It’s very difficult to do. You have to be an independent person. I always thought being in New Hampshire was the best place because I was out of Wall Street and away from all the pressures that other people feel. But that was still too close to Wall Street and now Costa Rica seems to be doing the trick. I’m able to separate myself from the insanity of the world out here and it helps. To maintain your sanity, you need to turn off the hype machines of some of the financial media like CNBC. Take long walks and clear your head. Don’t let the pressures of the crowd get to you to make an emotional decision because the crowd is always long. The same people who were encouraging you to go into the market in 2000 and 2007 are encouraging you now again. Learn from that. And the most important thing is to be patient. It’s very hard to stay out when it goes on year after year after year and all the others swim in that cesspool of liquidity and are having a great time.
Especially Silicon Valley seems to have a great time again. What are your thoughts on the IT industry as a veteran high-tech strategist?
The IT market has not been particularly good. That’s because the economy is not good.  IT is too much a part of the broader economy now to be not a subject of the cyclical forces of economic winds. Worldwide, capital spending has been disappointing. In the U.S., every year Goldman Sachs and the Fed forecast a pick up in capital spending and it hasn’t happened. The major companies,  the Hewlett-Packards, the IBMs, the Oracles and the Ciscos, they all report disappointing number after disappointing number. So it has not been good. But the market holds them up, except in some cases like IBM because it has gotten so bad there.
In which parts of the tech world do you see the biggest troubles on the horizon?
PC sales have been negative year after year. Recently, they have been slightly less negative. But that’s only because Microsoft had pulled the support of its old operating system Windows XP in April 2014. And when they did that they did all sorts of things to pressure companies to upgrade. So PC sales were still not good but they were less bad in Q4 2013 and if you want into this year. Now going forward, that upgrade cycle has ended. The resellers of the world, the CDWs, the Insights, the PC Connections, they have all said that the impact of that is over. As we go forward into Q4 of 2014 and the first half of next year, PC sales are likely to go deeper negative again. And those numbers are going to be compared against strong quarters. In addition, the economy is worse around the world and last quarter they had only one month when the Dollar was really soaring. But this quarter it’s going to be awful with the Dollar so strong all three months. Those pressures from the skyrocketing Dollar are going to be worse.
And what about Apple? The company is now so big that it’s almost an economy of its own.
Apple is going to have a big quarter and it will be safe. We will have a big number from Apple, and we had big numbers from Apple suppliers. Everybody will be buying iPhones because Apple didn’t have a large screen phone for a very long time and their customer base is jumping on the new phones. This is probably the biggest upgrade cycle we have seen in Apple. In the past, other upgrade cycles have led to cannibalization of the available money on tech spending. People will buy less of other things. So it will be bad for PCs and other types of electronics. And there’s another thing which is very interesting: A lot of the very large internet companies – Amazon, Google, Ebay, Yelp, Priceline – missed their earnings estimates or guided lower. That tells me more than anything that we have an economic problem because these guys were not losing market shares like Hewlett-Packard or IBM. These guys are the winners and they’re all struggling.
What does this mean with respect to your investment strategy?
We’ve seen all this weakness that occurred and the buildup in inventories. And we’ve seen key semiconductor companies like Microchip Technology which famously caused quite a stir about a month ago when they said:  «We’re a canary in the coal mine and we’re seeing a downturn in our numbers.»  In addition to that, a whole assortment of other semiconductor companies from Freescale Semiconductor to Fairchild Semiconductor to Intersil and Altera echoed the comments of Microchip. So there is clearly a downturn that is in process right now. Intel for example, is going to be in a lot of trouble in 2015 since they even have been building up inventory. I follow Intel close to thirty years now and I’ve seen this many times before. They’re constantly over optimistic. At the same time, the SOX semiconductor index is near its highs. That’s very, very dangerous and that’s why you probably should short semiconductor stocks.
Just probably?
Here’s my caveat: We’re in this environment where money is not only easy but they’re printing money. Therefore, even if the economy is weak nominal prices can go to any level and when you’re short it means potentially infinite losses. So all these years I have basically not been shorting technology even as much as I wanted to. I have been very careful and I do only what I call «guerilla warfare»: going in the market and being short for just a couple of hours right before an earnings report that might miss. But now, we’re in seasonal strength in November and December so I will only act again when comes January and we’re going to have those earnings disappointments. Then, I will definitely go after some of these companies again.
And how does your strategy look like with regard to longer term investments?
I was never a gold bug and I’ve never even owned an ounce of gold until the late nineties. But in 2002 when Greenspan was dropping rates rapidly and all the money printing started, I said to myself: I need to protect myself. The technology stocks that come and go wouldn’t be the right place since they’re not a long term store of value. But I knew that the best way to protect yourself in an easy money environment historically has been precious metals. Yet at that time, I would have never imagined that we would end up with central bankers printing trillions of Dollars. But all that happened and for ten years gold was the place to be and outperformed stocks dramatically. So despite the 2000 decade was considered to be a lost decade for stocks, I had double digit year after double digit year.
In the last few years, though, the gold price has been falling quite rapidly.
In 2011 gold got overbought. We had a lot of hot money that came into the market and we had a sell off and that sell off has continued. I would argue this sell off has gone on longer than normally, partly because there are so many gold haters out there. That same herd that’s willing to pay any price for bubble stocks like Tesla, GoPro or NetSuite also dislikes gold intensely and the owners of gold. Anything they believe in, is based upon the theory that the central bankers will be able to stop QE successfully, that they will be able to raise interest rates to normal levels, that the economy will normalize and that we will live happily ever after. That’s their belief. Gold owners don’t hold that belief. They say: «You’re going to die in that cesspool of liquidity.» But the herd doesn’t want to hear that. So I believe that they use a lot of their leveraged money to punish the gold owners. And they’re having a good time doing it.
Are you suggesting that the gold price is being manipulated?
We have basically all prices manipulated right now: Interest rates are manipulated down, stock prices are manipulated up and gold prices are manipulated  down. That’s the way they want it. I think they can do that in the short run. And I do think they target major technical break levels with their enormous leverage. They can throw billions of dollars at something in the dark of night or the wee hours in the morning when trading is illiquid. But we’ve also seen a number of things happen:  We’ve seen that investment demand for precious metals skyrocket around the world, even in Germany according to reports. We’ve seen it even in the U.S. where the mint ran out of silver coins. In addition to that, the leasing rate for gold has gone negative. That’s a very rare occurrence and a good sign that there are shortages of gold. I’m not going to say that the gold price won’t come back more but I’m hopeful that these pressures will go away and that the amount of buying that we have will be enough to hold off those attacks that occur in the futures markets.
So what’s your advice when it comes to investing in gold?
It’s easier to hold the metal. You can own it through an ETF but it’s important that you hold at least some physically and some amount outside of your country, particularly for U.S. investors. The gold stocks, on the other hand, are extremely volatile. They will go widely to the upside and widely to the downside. At this moment, they’re historically depressed, back to the levels we only saw before the bull market began. So this is an opportunity and I try to own only the highest quality names. I start with where they are located. If it’s Russia, I’m worried about expropriation. The same goes for Venezuela. In a lot of other countries like Bolivia, I’m worried about big tax hikes. So a good example is Agnico Eagle Mines. Their mines are located in Canada, Mexico and Finland. You can’t get a better basket than that. And then, I look for the quality of the mines, the track record of the management and that they have sustaining costs. That’s why I like names like GoldCorp, New Gold, AuRico Gold and Detour Gold, which is a little bit more risky. But I’m not levered and I never go in debt. Therefore, I’ll never get a margin call and I can wait until the rally comes.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Dow Faces Bouncy Ride to 5,000: Strategist

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38826988 

The Dow Jones Industrial Average will lose about half of its value over the next couple of years as it follows a Nikkei-like pattern of several sharp rallies in an overall decline, according to Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research.

<p>Dow Could Tumble to 5,000</p> <p>&acirc;?If you look at the American stock market for the last 100 years&acirc;?&brvbar;the markets appreciate in the average of 8-9 percent in the long term. The problem started in the 80s and 90s when the markets appreciate more than 8-9percent,&acirc;? Charles Nenner from Charles Nenner Research told CNBC.</p> 
 
Stocks are currently in a bear-market rally, and looking at charts and past trends, unemployment and leading indicators suggest the Dow will drop to 5,000 in the next two to two-and-a-half years, Nenner told CNBC in an e-mail.

Deflation will arrive, along with a sharp double-dip recession, pushing the Dow lower, although, like the Japanese market, stocks will see several jumps of 30 percent to 40 percent, he said.

- Watch the full Charles Nenner interview above.

"Things look really bad for the next 10 years," Nenner said.

While most stocks will get caught in the downturn, the exception will be those with exposure to soft commodities like wheat, corn and soybeans, he added.

Last week, JPMorgan strategist David Kelly said there is still a lot of opportunity in stocks and that a double-dip scenario is "very unlikely."

Nenner is also bullish on gold and silver over the longer term and expects the precious metals to start a new leg higher by the end of the year.

Bond yields should go lower for the next three or four years and the Japanese yen should gain against the dollar, he said, adding that his target was 80 yen per dollar.

Nenner also said that there is a strong case to suggest that the Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy further.
  • Charts: Dow Facing 'Serious Trouble'

Investment Outlook December 2008 Dow 5,000 Redux William H. Gross

http://www.pimco.com/en/insights/pages/io%20dow%205000%20gross%20dec%2008.aspx

 Here I go again! Gosh it was only six years ago that I cemented my place in stock market history by predicting that the Dow would fall from 8,500 to 5,000, instead of going up to 14,000 where it peaked in October of 2007. Well, I could use the standard set of excuses: 1) No one else saw it coming, 2) I was misinterpreted, and taken out of context, 3) I was tired, overworked, and had family problems, or 4) I had just come out of rehab. But these days what really works is a full confession. I mean, like, uh, it was totally my fault and I take full responsibility. The fact is I was only off by 9,000 points. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.


Dow 5,000? We don’t have to go there if current domestic and global policies are focused on asset price support and eventual recapitalization of lending institutions. But 14,000 is a stretch as well. 

Dow 5000? There's a Case for It

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB123654810850564723

Strategists Still See Rally, but Earnings Point to 1995 Levels for Stocks

Just how low can stocks go?
Despite Friday's small gain, the Dow Jones Industrial Average marked its fourth consecutive week of losses as it tumbled through the 7000-point mark and spiraled to new 12-year lows. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is trading below 700 for the first time since 1996.

As earnings estimates are ratcheted...

The Winners of the New World Feb 2000

http://www.thestreet.com/story/891820/1/the-winners-of-the-new-world.html

Editor's Note: James J. Cramer is the keynote speaker at the 6th Annual Internet and Electronic Commerce Conference and Exposition, held today at the Jacob Javits Center in New York City. We're running the full text of that speech here.
 
You want winners? You want me to put my Cramer Berkowitz hedge fund hat on and just discuss what my fund is buying today to try to make money tomorrow and the next day and the next? You want my top 10 stocks for who is going to make it in the New World? You know what? I am going to give them to you. Right here. Right now.

OK. Here goes. Write them down -- no handouts here!: 724 Solutions (SVNX), Ariba (ARBA), Digital Island (ISLD), Exodus (EXDS), InfoSpace.com (INSP), Inktomi (INKT), Mercury Interactive (MERQ), Sonera (SNRA), VeriSign (VRSN) and Veritas Software (VRTS).
We are buying some of every one of these this morning as I give this speech. We buy them every day, particularly if they are down, which, no surprise given what they do, is very rare. And we will keep doing so until this period is over -- and it is very far from ending. Heck, people are just learning these stories on Wall Street, and the more they come to learn, the more they love and own! Most of these companies don't even have earnings per share, so we won't have to be constrained by that methodology for quarters to come.

There, now that that's done with, can we talk about the methodology that produced those top 10 so that you can understand how, in a universe of a gazillion stocks, we arrived at those, so you too can figure it out? I hope we can because I have another 10 and still another 10 and another. They all do the same thing: They make the Web faster, cheaper, better and easier to access anywhere, anytime. They allow you to get on the Web securely anywhere in the world. They make the Web economy the only economy that matters. That's all they do.

We try to own every one of them. Every single one. And if I had my druthers, I wouldn't own any other stocks in the year 2000. Because these are the only ones worth owning right now in this extremely difficult, extremely narrow stock market. They are the only ones that are going higher consistently in good days and bad. I love every one of them, just as I loathe the rest of the stock universe.
How did this stock market get like this, to where the only people who can make a dime in it are the people who are interested in the most arcane subject, the moving of data from one space to another, via strange new machines and software? How did it get to the point where nothing else matters, most particularly the 90% of the stock market I have studied for the last 20 years? How did all of that knowledge become totally irrelevant and the only stocks that work are the stocks of companies that didn't exist five years ago and came public in the last two or three years?

Let's start with the world in the early 21st century, a world where capital is abundant for a chosen few and nonexistent for just about everybody else. It is a world where the whole of Wall Street and Silicon Valley is at your fingertips if you are creating the infrastructure for the New Economy, and a world where neither Wall Street nor Silicon Valley could give a darn about you if you are using that infrastructure.

Or in other words, we don't care if General Motors (GM) and Ford (F) are going with Oracle (ORCL) or with i2 (ITWO) for their new parts procurement process. We don't want to own GM or Ford on any occasion. In fact, we would rather own the loser in that tech bake-off than the winner in nontech, because in this new world, there is so much business to be done for the i2s and the Oracles that the capital will remain plentiful for them, win or lose a particular piece of business.
Just yesterday I found myself wishing I had bought i2 when it lost out to Oracle for the giant business-to-business contract for the Big Three automakers. Others had the same idea because i2, the loser Friday, was up much more Monday than GM and Ford could be this year. i2 can own the world because the company with the access to cheap capital always wins. And the companies with no access have to lose.

Or, closer to home. We in the stock market don't care that The Street.com Inc. (TSCM), a company I helped create, has built a compelling new brand, has more than 100,000 paid subscribers and has $100 million in the bank. We just want to know which companies TheStreet.com employs to publish each day. We want to know who the host is, which publishing tool works best, which wireless strategy TheStreet.com is adopting and how does it automate its email? (By the way, the answers are Exodus, Vignette (VIGN), Motorola (MOT) and Kana (KANA) -- all at or near their 52-week highs as TheStreet.com languishes at its 52-week low, a triumph of the arms merchants over the combatants if there ever were one.)
How did this bizarro world where nine-tenths of the companies I have followed as a stock picker for the last 20 years are losers and one-tenth are winners? To answer that question, you have to throw out all of the matrices and formulas and texts that existed before the Web. You have to throw them away because they can't make money for you anymore, and that is all that matters. We don't use price-to-earnings multiples anymore at Cramer Berkowitz. If we talk about price-to-book, we have already gone astray. If we use any of what Graham and Dodd teach us, we wouldn't have a dime under management.

So how do we sort through which stocks get bought and which stocks get assigned to the waste bin?
We have a phrase on Wall Street. It's called raising the bar . If you can raise the bar, or brighten the outlook for your company, if you can see your growth accelerating, your stock will go higher and you will be given the currency to expand, acquire and do whatever you want. That's the secret of the quintessential New Economy stock: Cisco (CSCO). This giant networker has the ability to control its own destiny. It can, as my colleague Adam Lashinsky says at TSC, buy any company it wants to. It can pay any price. Because it has a currency that it better than U.S. dollars: It has Cisco stock. It can do that because it raises the bar every quarter!

But what about the Old Economy stocks? Can Merck (MRK) raise the bar? Can Pfizer (PFE)? Can U.S. Steel (X)? Or Phelps Dodge (PD)? Union Pacific (UNP)? No, no, no, no, no and no. So what happens to them? Despite the billions in buybacks and the plethora of strong buys that the Street has put out about these companies, their stocks have no traction. They just stumble along, rising and falling haphazardly with every whim and quizzical speech of the Federal Reserve chairman that still controls their destiny. If Greenspan indicates that there is more tightening ahead, these traditional companies, the ones that you measure with traditional matrices, get pole-axed as we worry about where the capital will ultimately come from if credit gets choked off, while the arms merchants in the Web war, with capital to burn, just go higher.

It is no secret that the Dow, made up principally of companies that can't raise the bar, is down 12% while the Nasdaq, which is made up of companies that can raise the bar, is up 12%. And in the self-fulfilling jungle that is Wall Street, only growth can maintain growth!

So how do we find what are the great growth companies, knowing that growth and not cheapness of stock to company is what matters? We have to look for the fastest-growing industries and then select the companies that can make the infrastructure happen the fastest and the cheapest in those industries. The growth must be positively organic, if not viral. There must be heavy technological barriers to entry. And there must be an ability to scale without any thought to human cost. These companies must be able to dominate their businesses or be willing to become part of a larger institution that dominates.

So, whom does that eliminate? First, any company that is a commodity producer simply can't be owned, no matter what. The New Economy makes those be simply a function of low-cost producer with no ability ever to raise price. This, of course, is the crying shame of the way the Fed is trying to break the economy because the only place that could stand for a little inflation is in the deflationary commodity industries. But their inflation revolves around the ability to build inventory to anticipate future price hikes and the Fed is taking short rates to a height that makes it uneconomic to stockpile.
Second, it eliminates any bricks-and-mortar company that doesn't embrace the Net. To not embrace the Net is to give a cost edge to a competitor who does. It does so because the Net removes the middleman that was a product of the regional economy. There is $4 trillion worth of wholesaling that gets instantly eliminated by the Net. Before only the largest orders could be processed by the biggest companies because it was too expensive otherwise. Now all orders can be processed by the biggest companies through the Web. There is no need for the jobber or the wholesaler. Obviously, if you are still using that old distribution network, you can't compete against those who do
.
Third, it eliminates any industry that does not have a proprietary brand. This is one of those weird features of the Web that people haven't woken up to yet, but it will seem obvious a few months from now. In the New World's economy, the desire to "name your own price" is too great to squelch. An outfit like priceline (PCLN) will change the very nature of brands in this country. It won't destroy the premium brand, but it will force everyone else out of the market. Why? Because the way priceline works is that we are trying to buy the premium brand for the price of the off-price brand. That means the off-price brands, whether they be Colgate (CL) or Dial (DL) or Hunt's or Ralston (RAL), are simply doomed by the Web. Why would you ever buy the second- or third-best when you can get the best via priceline for the same price as the lower tier? Ahh, that's a real killer. It leaves only the top brands to vie for supermarket space. The others won't be worth carrying. They won't move! Oh yeah, same goes for the airlines and the hotels and just about everybody else.

Fourth, it just destroys retail as we know it. Why? Because the companies that embrace the Web more vigorously will eventually be pitted against other companies that embrace the Web more vigorously, creating a virtual constant price war, the kind of war that Marx, of all, actually predicted would happen to capitalism. It will happen to retail once everyone realizes that Amazon (AMZN) recreated Wal-Mart (WMT) online because it will forever have access to cheap capital. Why do I say forever? Because at a certain point, it will be done with its buildout and will effectively be able to cherry-pick whomever it wants to destroy while having it be subsidized by other areas. It will be Home Depot (HD) vs. Wal-Mart vs. Amazon in the end. Nobody else. And that's only if Home Depot figures out it better get on the Web and fast.

Fifth, it wipes out everybody who straddles the Old and New Worlds. Let's take the brokerage industry. If you are trying to preserve a price point, because you need those margins, you can't and you become roadkill. Same with journalism. If you are free online and cost offline, you will eventually not be able to charge offline. Why not? Because the Hewlett-Packards (HWP) and Intels (INTC) and Ciscos are bent on making the online version far superior to the offline version. And they will do it. They, too, have the access to capital to make it happen.

I can tell you from TheStreet.com that we have substantial cost advantages over our printed cousins. We can come out around the clock. We don't require paper, ink, delivery people or trucks. In that sense, we are much more like television, personal television, which is why we were wrong initially to think we could charge for basic news, and right to think we can charge a huge amount for proprietary analysis that can make you money.

The struggle between the offliners and the onliners in banking will also pan out just like these other industries, with huge wins for those with a fresh online culture and hideous losses for those who don't see it coming or are slow to adjust. If you have to preserve your giant branch network and the costs that come with it while someone else perfects secure wireless Internet transactions, you can forget about it. You can't afford to compete. How can Bank of America (BAC) compete with Nokia (NOK) as a way to bank? How can Goldman Sachs (GS) compete with Yahoo! (YHOO) as a way to invest? Isn't Nokia, with its wireless machine that goes everywhere a better bank than one that needs branches? Isn't Yahoo!, with its access to all of the information and quotes in the financial world a better place to buy stocks than Goldman?
Of course they are.

So, if you can't own the retailers, and you can't own transports, and you can't own banks and brokers and financials and you can't own commodity makers and you can't own the newspapers, and you can't own the machinery stocks, what can you own?

A-ha, that just leaves us with tech. That's why we keep coming back to it. That's why, despite the 80% increase in the Nasdaq last year, we are looking at another record year now. It is by that process of elimination that I have picked my top 10. And my next 10 and my next 10 after. Only those companies are worth owning. The rest?
You can have them.
Thank you.

Real Conversations: Crisis Coming? Stockman on ‘Likely Global Recession’ & Consequences of the Fed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q1g5swAUrA&feature=youtu.be

Published on Nov 13, 2014
David Stockman, the outspoken former Reagan budget director and bestselling author of “The Great Deformation,” sits down with Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough to discuss a number of important subjects in this wide-ranging interview including consequences of what the Fed is currently doing and why a global recession may be in store.

TOM LEE: In 5 Years, I Think The Dow And S&P 500 Will Double

"I think the S&P and the Dow in five years will actually double," Fundstrat's Tom Lee said.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Why Dow 20K may take longer than you think

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/talking-numbers/why-dow-20k-may-take-longer-than-you-think-225400184.html

he Dow Jones Industrial Average touched record highs on Monday and that has investors asking a simple – but big – question: How long before we see Dow 20k?
After a scary first half to October, the Dow rebounded and traded at 17,410.65 on Monday, its highest level ever.
So can the Dow hit 20,000, just 15.2 percent from Monday’s close, soon? After all, the Dow gained 26.5 percent in 2013.


One Talking Numbers contributor isn’t holding her breath. According to Gina Sanchez, founder of Chantico Global, the Dow will likely not move higher at last year’s breakneck speeds. If anything, she expects the index’s growth to be reined much as it has been this year; so far in 2014, the Dow is up just 4.7 percent.
Sanchez has a time horizon of about six years before the Dow reaches the 20,000 mark.
Since 2009, on an annualized basis, “the Dow has been compounding at a little over 12 percent,” said Sanchez, a CNBC contributor. That is above the nominal GDP growth plus its dividend yield for the index during that period. Since the Dow grew faster than nominal GDP plus dividend yields in the last five years, Sanchez expects it will slow down over the next several years so that the fundamentals will catch up to its valuations.
“If we’re compounding well above trend, that suggests that we’re going to have to compound well below trend in order for that to end up at about 6.5 percent, which is my expectation,” she said. “So if you start from 2009 and you compound at 6.5 percent, we get to 20k in 2020.”
View photo
.
Like Sanchez, Mark Newton, chief technical analyst at Greywolf Execution Partners, believes it may be a while before the Dow sees 20,000.
(Watch: Art Cashin: Midterm elections next market catalyst)
“The market is fairly overbought here,” Newton said. “It’s as overbought as we’ve been since 2007. And now you’re seeing signs of momentum starting to wane a bit.”
Specifically, fewer stocks in the Dow are hitting their 52-week highs since the spring of last year, said Newton. “Half of the Dow stocks peaked prior to 2014 and another third of them actually peaked between January and July of this year,” he added. “You only have about a quarter of the stocks that recently made new highs as the Dow is making new highs. The combination of those things is pretty big problem for me.”
Instead, Newton’s chart shows the Dow may hit another big round number – to the downside. “I think even a pullback down to 15,000 to me is a lot more likely in the next 12 to 24 months than getting right away to 20,000,” he said.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Short Gold: Citigroup



Strategists at Citigroup on Monday said that sour-looking charts augur more bearish price action for gold.
Jeremy Hale, a global macro strategist at Citigroup, is out with the report with a pithy but foreboding title: “Trade Ideas: Short Gold.
Mr. Hale remarked that U.S. gold futures closed last week below “important support levels,” a signal that buyers might not be chomping at the bit to buy until prices go lower still.
And Mr. Hale said that, based on trader positioning reports from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a growing number of bets on a rising dollar portends less willingness to buy gold.
From Mr. Hale:
“With gold having no yield and limited industrial use, as we approach Fed tightening (or expectations thereof) we still think gold has no friends. This leaves a bleak price outlook for the yellow metal, so long as the Fed hawkish tone and USD bid remain.”
The SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) slipped 0.2% on Monday, losing ground for the fourth day in a row. GLD ended last week at its lowest price since April 2010.
Tatyana Shumsky at The Wall Street Journal highlights the link between the rising dollar and falling gold in a story Monday morning:
“You have everything going in the dollar’s favor and the stronger the dollar gets, the more pressure you’ll see on gold,” said Thomas Capalbo, a broker with Newedge in New York.
Dour market sentiment on gold isn’t stopping popular gold miner ETFs from rebounding after last week’s brutal declines. Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) adds 1.2% and the Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) gains 1.4%.http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/11/03/short-gold-citigroup/http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/11/03/short-gold-citigroup/

Fed Rewarding Top Traders’ Faith in U.S. Dollar

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-04/fed-rewarding-top-traders-faith-in-u-s-dollar.html


By sparking a dollar rally over the past week, the Federal Reserve has saved the smart money in the $5.3 trillion-a-day foreign-exchange market from its first monthly loss since June.
A Parker Global Strategies LLC index tracking 14 top currency funds has jumped 1.6 percent since Oct. 28, a day before U.S. central bankers said they may raise interest rates sooner than anticipated if the jobs market keeps improving. Both that measure and the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, which rose to a 5 1/2-year high yesterday, had been poised to end a three-month winning streak until boosted by the Fed’s optimism over the economy.

“The Fed move has reignited the dollar,” Ian Stannard, the head of European foreign-exchange strategy at Morgan Stanley in London, said yesterday by phone. “When you do get setbacks, a good strategy would be to use those setbacks to build those positions, certainly if you have a longer-term bullish view for the dollar in place.”

Large speculators such as hedge funds are well placed to take advantage of the rally, with more money wagered on a dollar advance than ever before, data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Washington show.