Monthly benefit checks have a big role in funding retirement -- they make up nearly 40% of retirement income. Still, the size of a typical check is small than you might think.
Social Security is the many significant source of income for Americans age 65 and older, as well as its importance has continued to grow, according to a recent Social Safety Administration report (.pdf file).
Social Security made up 38% of the total income of people age 65 as well as older in 2009 -- up from 30% in 1962 -- and is the largest source of retirement income. The second-largest share of retirement income is earnings from work (29%), a proportion that has remained consistent because 1962. Asset income has shrunk from 15% of retirement income in 1962 to 11% in 2009. Over the same period, income from private pensions has grown from 3% to 9%, and government employee pensions have increased from 6% to 9% of all retirement income.
Just a fortunate minority of Americans have important sources of retirement income other than Social Security. Social Safety made up 50% or perhaps more of the retirement income of 66% of Americans age 65 and older in 2009, up from 64% in 2008. And more than a 3rd of retirees (35%) get 90% to more of their income as a monthly payment from the Social Safety Administration.
Social Safety also covers more people than any other type of retirement benefit. The great majority of retired Americans age 65 as well as older (87%) received Social Security income in 2009, up from 69% in 1962. In contrast, only about half (53%) of older Americans have asset income in retirement, a proportion that is unchanged because 1962. The proportion of retirees receiving private-sector pension income has grown from 9% to 28%. And 14% of seniors have government pension income, up from 9% in 1962. The proportion of older Americans with income from work has fallen from simply over a 3rd in 1962 to about a quarter in 2009.
Whilst Social Security makes up a large share of the typical retiree's income, the checks are fairly little. The average monthly payout to retired workers was $1,176 in 2010. More than 54 million Americans had been paid a Social Security benefit last year. Retired workers make up the mass of people receiving Social Safety payments (64%), but the program also makes payments to disabled workers (15%), spouses of deceased workers (12%), and the spouses as well as children of retired to disabled workers (9%).
The proportion of ladies receiving retired-worker benefits has quadrupled since the program was founded, from 12% in 1940 to 49% in 2010. Regarding a quarter (26%) of ladies age 62 or older received benefits on the basis of only their husband's earning record in 2010, down from 57% in 1960. A growing share of ladies (28%) now have a dual entitlement to Social Security on the basis of both individual and spousal earnings, up from 5% in 1960. Married individuals can claim Social Security on the basis of their have work record or perhaps up to half of the higher earner's benefit, whichever is higher.
Despite the program's growing importance, people now pay a smaller proportion of their income into the system than they did whenever it was founded. Just about 84% of earnings from employment have been taxable in 2010, compared with 92% in 1937. That's due to the fact workers pay into the Social Safety Trust Fund on earnings up to the taxable maximum, that was $106,800 in 2010. Many 6% of Americans had earnings from employment that exceeded the most amount subject to Social Safety taxes in 2010, compared with 3% whenever the system began.
The federal system additionally has a long-term deficit. The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2036. At that time, payroll taxes and other income will generate just enough income to pay out 77% of program costs, unless tax increases, benefit cuts to other changes to the program are implemented.
View the original article here
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 21, 2011
5 ways to sabotage your own retirement
We can definitely not necessarily be thinking of retirement when we celebrate a promotion, but possibly you should be. Plan -- and save -- now to avoid worry as well as need later.
Retirement isn't impossible for we, but we frequently get and so wrapped up in navigating our busy schedule that we unknowingly sabotage our have retirement. Look into these five specific areas of the program to see if you're doing damage to your goal of a comfortable retirement.
In this economy, it's easy to be grateful for even having a job. But you're definitely shortchanging your self if we don't negotiate for higher pay as soon as an employer presents a job provide. A higher starting income sets you up for bigger paychecks down the line due to the fact many raises are calculated as a percentage of your current pay. The worst an employer can say is no. And unless we are very rude in the negotiations, it's highly unlikely that an employer will take back the original provide because we asked if there is any kind of space for improvement.
We can be drastically cutting your own Social Safety checks without having even knowing it if you decide to retire early. Your own Social Security checks will be based on your 35 highest yearly salaries. (The Social Security web site has a tool to estimate your own benefit.) If we work less than 35 many years, you get a zero averaged in for every year that we didn't work. And it's usually a good idea to work even more than 35 many years to cancel out unfortunate many years that you didn't work a lot due to layoffs to your lower salary at the beginning of the career. (Are you saving enough for retirement? Check with MSN Money's calculator.)
It's easy to spend a little more each time the income increases. Spending more money improves the high quality of lifetime, allows you to celebrate the achievements as well as helps to keep we inspired. Even though cash isn't simply for hoarding, it's important to additionally save for the future as the paychecks grow.
If the retirement plan includes owning volatile investments like stocks, you should understand that the performance of those investments can vary widely from year to year.
Let's say you had $500,000 invested in 2009 as well as began your 4% withdrawal at $20,000 a year. Whenever 2011 rolled around, we probably had over $500,000 of liquid assets available even though we withdrew income for two many years. Seeing that you now have more funds, some people might start to inflate their withdrawals as well as take 4% of the brand new total. If your own account balance grew to $700,000, a 4% withdrawal is $28,000 instead of $20,000. But just what if the stock part of your portfolio later loses 20%? Those that stay with their original $20,000 withdrawal probably will not run out of cash, due to the fact the down many years were already accounted for.
People that take out more funds in years when their investments work well increase their risk of running from revenue mainly because that level of investment growth is not likely to continue forever.
If we consistently put off saving, you will certainly not have enough saved to retire well. For most people, retiring well takes many years of diligent saving. The earlier you begin saving, the more time the funds has to accumulate interest as well as grow.
View the original article here
Retirement isn't impossible for we, but we frequently get and so wrapped up in navigating our busy schedule that we unknowingly sabotage our have retirement. Look into these five specific areas of the program to see if you're doing damage to your goal of a comfortable retirement.
In this economy, it's easy to be grateful for even having a job. But you're definitely shortchanging your self if we don't negotiate for higher pay as soon as an employer presents a job provide. A higher starting income sets you up for bigger paychecks down the line due to the fact many raises are calculated as a percentage of your current pay. The worst an employer can say is no. And unless we are very rude in the negotiations, it's highly unlikely that an employer will take back the original provide because we asked if there is any kind of space for improvement.
We can be drastically cutting your own Social Safety checks without having even knowing it if you decide to retire early. Your own Social Security checks will be based on your 35 highest yearly salaries. (The Social Security web site has a tool to estimate your own benefit.) If we work less than 35 many years, you get a zero averaged in for every year that we didn't work. And it's usually a good idea to work even more than 35 many years to cancel out unfortunate many years that you didn't work a lot due to layoffs to your lower salary at the beginning of the career. (Are you saving enough for retirement? Check with MSN Money's calculator.)
It's easy to spend a little more each time the income increases. Spending more money improves the high quality of lifetime, allows you to celebrate the achievements as well as helps to keep we inspired. Even though cash isn't simply for hoarding, it's important to additionally save for the future as the paychecks grow.
If the retirement plan includes owning volatile investments like stocks, you should understand that the performance of those investments can vary widely from year to year.
Let's say you had $500,000 invested in 2009 as well as began your 4% withdrawal at $20,000 a year. Whenever 2011 rolled around, we probably had over $500,000 of liquid assets available even though we withdrew income for two many years. Seeing that you now have more funds, some people might start to inflate their withdrawals as well as take 4% of the brand new total. If your own account balance grew to $700,000, a 4% withdrawal is $28,000 instead of $20,000. But just what if the stock part of your portfolio later loses 20%? Those that stay with their original $20,000 withdrawal probably will not run out of cash, due to the fact the down many years were already accounted for.
People that take out more funds in years when their investments work well increase their risk of running from revenue mainly because that level of investment growth is not likely to continue forever.
If we consistently put off saving, you will certainly not have enough saved to retire well. For most people, retiring well takes many years of diligent saving. The earlier you begin saving, the more time the funds has to accumulate interest as well as grow.
View the original article here
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Tax law can make grandkids rich
Congress last year enacted temporary changes that allow for a massive estate-tax break through a Roth IRA. As a result, a grandchild could pocket millions, tax-free, over a life.
Sometimes Congress hands out a break that is so generous it seems it must be a mistake. This your a doozy: The ability to get a totally tax-free inheritance of $400 million or perhaps more.
Thanks to 2 recent changes in the tax code, investors with huge 401k accounts have a method to turn them into completely tax-free income for their grandchildren's lifetimes.
This is by far the biggest estate-planning break on record, created even as lawmakers debate over which tax giveaways should be killed to help shore up the federal budget.
"I call this tax break the government's going-out-of-business sale," says individual retirement account guru Ed Slott, that travels the country teaching advisers as well as accountants how to squeeze benefits out of the Roth IRA. "This is a tax break we can drive 10 Mack trucks through. It's an incredible opportunity to a totally tax-free transfer of wealth."
This massive estate-tax break was created last year in 2 steps. First, Congress lifted a $100,000 income restriction on that can convert a 401k to IRA to a Roth IRA, allowing even the wealthiest investors to convert. Then, late in the year, it raised the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption to $5 million until 2013. The GST exemption was previously $3.5 million as well as was scheduled to drop to $1 million this year before Congress stepped in.
Both of these provisions on their own create possibilities for important tax savings, upon conversion. But utilized in combination, the results are exponentially greater.
The Roth IRA has always been on a different playing field compared with alternatives, due to the fact it allows gains to be withdrawn tax-free. Funds taken from a 401k, regular IRA or other retirement accounts is subject to income tax rates. Also, the Roth doesn't need that minimum distributions be taken after we turn 70½, as other plans do. Thus if you don't want retirement plan assets to live on, the Roth preserves it best for heirs.
Certainly not everyone jumps at the chance to convert to a Roth IRA, because we have to pay income taxes on the assets moved into the account. And so if you plan to live off of retirement account assets, a conversion may definitely not make sense. But from an estate-planning perspective, when there are decades of gains ahead, the tax bill is a small price to pay for big benefits down the road.
With the new GST exemption, the estate-planning benefits that can be wrung from a Roth are eye-popping. Consider an extreme case: A wealthy individual converts a large 401k account to a Roth IRA as well as names a grandchild as the beneficiary. The grandchild, at age 1, inherits the Roth, whose assets have grown to $5 million. Due to the fact of the new $5 million GST exemption, the Roth assets would not be topic to estate tax or perhaps generation-skipping transfer tax.
Under Roth rules, an heir should take needed minimum distributions, but the distributions can be stretched over a lifetime, and assets left in the Roth can continue to grow tax-free. Based on a 1-year-old's 81.6-year life expectancy and assuming an average annual return of 8%, Slott calculates that the grandchild's lifetime income from the Roth would definitely be $408 million -- "completely without estate, gift, income and capital gains taxes," he says.
If both grandparents left a big Roth account to the same grandchild, the tax-free inheritance would be almost twice that amount, depending on the age of the grandchild whenever the second Roth is inherited.
View the original article here
Sometimes Congress hands out a break that is so generous it seems it must be a mistake. This your a doozy: The ability to get a totally tax-free inheritance of $400 million or perhaps more.
Thanks to 2 recent changes in the tax code, investors with huge 401k accounts have a method to turn them into completely tax-free income for their grandchildren's lifetimes.
This is by far the biggest estate-planning break on record, created even as lawmakers debate over which tax giveaways should be killed to help shore up the federal budget.
"I call this tax break the government's going-out-of-business sale," says individual retirement account guru Ed Slott, that travels the country teaching advisers as well as accountants how to squeeze benefits out of the Roth IRA. "This is a tax break we can drive 10 Mack trucks through. It's an incredible opportunity to a totally tax-free transfer of wealth."
This massive estate-tax break was created last year in 2 steps. First, Congress lifted a $100,000 income restriction on that can convert a 401k to IRA to a Roth IRA, allowing even the wealthiest investors to convert. Then, late in the year, it raised the generation-skipping transfer tax exemption to $5 million until 2013. The GST exemption was previously $3.5 million as well as was scheduled to drop to $1 million this year before Congress stepped in.
Both of these provisions on their own create possibilities for important tax savings, upon conversion. But utilized in combination, the results are exponentially greater.
The Roth IRA has always been on a different playing field compared with alternatives, due to the fact it allows gains to be withdrawn tax-free. Funds taken from a 401k, regular IRA or other retirement accounts is subject to income tax rates. Also, the Roth doesn't need that minimum distributions be taken after we turn 70½, as other plans do. Thus if you don't want retirement plan assets to live on, the Roth preserves it best for heirs.
Certainly not everyone jumps at the chance to convert to a Roth IRA, because we have to pay income taxes on the assets moved into the account. And so if you plan to live off of retirement account assets, a conversion may definitely not make sense. But from an estate-planning perspective, when there are decades of gains ahead, the tax bill is a small price to pay for big benefits down the road.
With the new GST exemption, the estate-planning benefits that can be wrung from a Roth are eye-popping. Consider an extreme case: A wealthy individual converts a large 401k account to a Roth IRA as well as names a grandchild as the beneficiary. The grandchild, at age 1, inherits the Roth, whose assets have grown to $5 million. Due to the fact of the new $5 million GST exemption, the Roth assets would not be topic to estate tax or perhaps generation-skipping transfer tax.
Under Roth rules, an heir should take needed minimum distributions, but the distributions can be stretched over a lifetime, and assets left in the Roth can continue to grow tax-free. Based on a 1-year-old's 81.6-year life expectancy and assuming an average annual return of 8%, Slott calculates that the grandchild's lifetime income from the Roth would definitely be $408 million -- "completely without estate, gift, income and capital gains taxes," he says.
If both grandparents left a big Roth account to the same grandchild, the tax-free inheritance would be almost twice that amount, depending on the age of the grandchild whenever the second Roth is inherited.
View the original article here
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Time to check out Saks, Tiffany?
The economy is slowing, and most consumers are cutting back -- but it looks such as the well-heeled have hardly noticed. That means the stocks of luxury retailers will be in for lift.
Do we have "class warfare" in the U.S.? You bet. And the deep are winning.
Don't take my word for it. No less an expert on affluence than Warren Buffett said it in an interview with Charlie Rose last week: "In fact my class is certainly not simply winning, we're killing. It's been a rout."
Buffett was talking about a pet peeve of his: tax rates that mean effectively lower taxes for the well-heeled. It can just as easily apply to the well-documented and growing gap between the deep Americans as well as everyone else.
I have written more than as soon as about the issues this gap creates as well as about how the recession has just created it worse. But there's also an investing angle we should not miss.
With the economy slowing again and ordinary Americans again cutting back, this has been a brutal summer for retail stocks. Luxury retailers have been sold off like everything else -- on the assumption the well-to-do must cut back with the rest of us.
Except that, well, they haven't. To the victors go the spoils, and so the deep are still purchasing.
This tells me that for investors, it's time to consider the places the rich go shopping. Let's take a look at precisely why luxury retail stocks are poised for bounce in an increasingly tough marketplace -- and why names such as Nordstrom (JWN, news) as well as Saks (SKS, news) will belong on the shopping list.
By any measure, August was a tough month for the stock marketplace as well as the economy. September brought more volatility as well as certainly not much good news. The evidence suggests that consumers had been pinching pennies as they digested all the bad news from Washington and Europe.
The marketplace seemed to assume this consumer crunch used across the board and that the wealthy would be putting off purchases of TechnoMarine watches, Gucci handbags and Miu Miu footwear.
The shares of luxury stores have all been hammered. The stocks of Tiffany (TIF, news), Saks, Coach (COH, news) as well as luxury chain Morgans Hotel Group (MHGC, news) have fallen 25% to 30% from their July highs. Nordstrom is down regarding 12%. In contrast, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) is off around 18%.
But in fact, the deep barely blinked.
"We are seeing that even when the stock market trembles, the affluent don't get afraid as easily as they did," says Candace Corlett, the president of WSL Strategic Retail, a consultancy. The deep lived through the 2008 market meltdown and the recession that followed with their wealth "intact enough," she says. Thus now, "they don't panic like they did in 2008."
We will know how true that is as sales reports from September roll in. But here's exactly where some of the key players stand now.
Nordstrom: In early September, Nordstrom reported that August sales at shops open more than a year were up 6.7%, compared with the year before. That was almost no different from the 6.6% gains in July. And it's essentially the same as the year-over-year gains the retailer posted for the first half of the year. Including money from new shops, sales were up more than 12% during the first half of the year, a pace that continued in August.Saks: This chain did report a important decline in same-store sales growth for August to 6.1%. In contrast, it reported 12.7% year-to-year growth for February through July. But still, 6% growth isn't bad at a time when consumers overall have pulled back sharply. As well as Wall Street analysts are predicting no slowdown at Saks for September. They expect 6% growth, according to Thomson Reuters.Tiffany: This high-end jeweler doesn't report monthly sales. But the business reported total worldwide sales growth of 30%, as well as a 25% gain in U.S. sales, for the quarter ending in July. Sales at its New York flagship store surged 41%, in part mainly because of spending by Chinese tourists. Tiffany has additionally been raising costs, which hasn't fazed shoppers lookin to take home a splurge in 1 of the luxury retailer's coveted blue boxes. The business noted specific strength in sales of items costing more than $20,000. But it was additionally helped by the fact that luxury jewelry was the strongest retail category in the 2nd quarter, posting sales gains of 8.4%, according to American Express Business Insights, a division of American Express.Coach: This bag-maker additionally doesn't report monthly sales results. But it has additionally been shooting out the lights. Coach saw money jump 17% in the 2nd quarter. The U.S. retailer's success in Japan over the previous few many years has proved that it can hold its have against Old World European luxury brands. Now, Coach is building on its strengths to grow quickly in China and other developing markets. Naturally, a slowdown in China will hurt Coach. But I don't believe leaders in China will run the risk of civil unrest a significant economic slowdown would definitely bring.
In contrast to these luxury stores, more pedestrian stores such as J.C. Penney (JCP, news) as well as Kohl's (KSS, news) are expected to post same-store sales growth of only 1.2% as well as 1.7%, respectively, as they report this month, according to Thomson Reuters.
Expect this dichotomy to continue during the holiday season. Because the market turmoil began Aug. 1, Wall Street analysts have raised fourth-quarter earnings estimates for luxury retailers, while cutting them for J.C. Penney, Kohl's and similar chains catering to lower-income shoppers, according to information provided by Thomson Reuters.
View the original article here
Do we have "class warfare" in the U.S.? You bet. And the deep are winning.
Don't take my word for it. No less an expert on affluence than Warren Buffett said it in an interview with Charlie Rose last week: "In fact my class is certainly not simply winning, we're killing. It's been a rout."
Buffett was talking about a pet peeve of his: tax rates that mean effectively lower taxes for the well-heeled. It can just as easily apply to the well-documented and growing gap between the deep Americans as well as everyone else.
I have written more than as soon as about the issues this gap creates as well as about how the recession has just created it worse. But there's also an investing angle we should not miss.
With the economy slowing again and ordinary Americans again cutting back, this has been a brutal summer for retail stocks. Luxury retailers have been sold off like everything else -- on the assumption the well-to-do must cut back with the rest of us.
Except that, well, they haven't. To the victors go the spoils, and so the deep are still purchasing.
This tells me that for investors, it's time to consider the places the rich go shopping. Let's take a look at precisely why luxury retail stocks are poised for bounce in an increasingly tough marketplace -- and why names such as Nordstrom (JWN, news) as well as Saks (SKS, news) will belong on the shopping list.
By any measure, August was a tough month for the stock marketplace as well as the economy. September brought more volatility as well as certainly not much good news. The evidence suggests that consumers had been pinching pennies as they digested all the bad news from Washington and Europe.
The marketplace seemed to assume this consumer crunch used across the board and that the wealthy would be putting off purchases of TechnoMarine watches, Gucci handbags and Miu Miu footwear.
The shares of luxury stores have all been hammered. The stocks of Tiffany (TIF, news), Saks, Coach (COH, news) as well as luxury chain Morgans Hotel Group (MHGC, news) have fallen 25% to 30% from their July highs. Nordstrom is down regarding 12%. In contrast, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) is off around 18%.
But in fact, the deep barely blinked.
"We are seeing that even when the stock market trembles, the affluent don't get afraid as easily as they did," says Candace Corlett, the president of WSL Strategic Retail, a consultancy. The deep lived through the 2008 market meltdown and the recession that followed with their wealth "intact enough," she says. Thus now, "they don't panic like they did in 2008."
We will know how true that is as sales reports from September roll in. But here's exactly where some of the key players stand now.
Nordstrom: In early September, Nordstrom reported that August sales at shops open more than a year were up 6.7%, compared with the year before. That was almost no different from the 6.6% gains in July. And it's essentially the same as the year-over-year gains the retailer posted for the first half of the year. Including money from new shops, sales were up more than 12% during the first half of the year, a pace that continued in August.Saks: This chain did report a important decline in same-store sales growth for August to 6.1%. In contrast, it reported 12.7% year-to-year growth for February through July. But still, 6% growth isn't bad at a time when consumers overall have pulled back sharply. As well as Wall Street analysts are predicting no slowdown at Saks for September. They expect 6% growth, according to Thomson Reuters.Tiffany: This high-end jeweler doesn't report monthly sales. But the business reported total worldwide sales growth of 30%, as well as a 25% gain in U.S. sales, for the quarter ending in July. Sales at its New York flagship store surged 41%, in part mainly because of spending by Chinese tourists. Tiffany has additionally been raising costs, which hasn't fazed shoppers lookin to take home a splurge in 1 of the luxury retailer's coveted blue boxes. The business noted specific strength in sales of items costing more than $20,000. But it was additionally helped by the fact that luxury jewelry was the strongest retail category in the 2nd quarter, posting sales gains of 8.4%, according to American Express Business Insights, a division of American Express.Coach: This bag-maker additionally doesn't report monthly sales results. But it has additionally been shooting out the lights. Coach saw money jump 17% in the 2nd quarter. The U.S. retailer's success in Japan over the previous few many years has proved that it can hold its have against Old World European luxury brands. Now, Coach is building on its strengths to grow quickly in China and other developing markets. Naturally, a slowdown in China will hurt Coach. But I don't believe leaders in China will run the risk of civil unrest a significant economic slowdown would definitely bring.
In contrast to these luxury stores, more pedestrian stores such as J.C. Penney (JCP, news) as well as Kohl's (KSS, news) are expected to post same-store sales growth of only 1.2% as well as 1.7%, respectively, as they report this month, according to Thomson Reuters.
Expect this dichotomy to continue during the holiday season. Because the market turmoil began Aug. 1, Wall Street analysts have raised fourth-quarter earnings estimates for luxury retailers, while cutting them for J.C. Penney, Kohl's and similar chains catering to lower-income shoppers, according to information provided by Thomson Reuters.
View the original article here
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Bargain-hunting in rare earths
Rare earth stocks have gone from marketplace darlings to market dogs. But if we can live with the risks, there are many good reasons to take an additional look.
Remember rare earths? As well as how prices of these metals, that are necessary raw materials for technologies including wind turbines, hybrid cars as well as flat-screen displays, had soared? Technology manufacturers scrambled to find reliable sources of supply as China utilized its position as owner of 95% of global production of rare earths to restrict supplies to manufacturers outside of China. And investors scurried to find a rare earth stock or perhaps two to add to their portfolios.
As well as now?
Shares of Molycorp (MCP, news), the highest-profile U.S. rare earth miner, were down 33% in simply you week (Sept. 16 through 23) recently. Lynas (LYSDY, news) (LYC.AU in Australia) dropped 17% in Sydney and 12% in Brand new York on Sept. 26.
After falling an additional 3.5% on Sept. 30 to $32.87, Molycorp is 58% off its 52-week high. Lynas, at $1.07 in Brand new York on Sept. 30, is 64% off its 52-week high.
The plunge in the price of rare earth stocks is, of course, partly a result of macroeconomic fears -- of a slowdown in the Chinese economy, of a slide by the U.S. economy back into recession, of a chaotic default by the Greek government that will return the international financial program to the brink it faced in 2008.
Mainly because rare earth stocks such as Molycorp as well as Lynas are highly speculative issues -- Molycorp has simply begun full-scale mining, as well as Lynas is still waiting on approval from the Malaysian government to open a processing plant to turn rare earth ores into useful forms of rare earth minerals -- their share costs are more volatile than the highly volatile global financial markets.
The rare earth story isn't all macroeconomics. The drop in the cost of rare earth stocks -- and the odds that these shares may definitely not only recover and move up to brand new highs -- is a result of changes in the rare earth marketplace that have nothing to do with global macroeconomics. As well as the trajectory of any individual stock in any rally is strongly influenced by company-specific news.
In other words, if you want to figure out whether or not to invest in exactly what are currently very depressed rare earth stocks, you should understand what's been happening in this once-hot sector because it dropped from the headlines.
Let me take we back to days of yesteryear -- 2009 or perhaps and so, for many of us -- whenever rare earth stocks burst on the investment scene.
China, that controls about 95% of the global provide of rare earth elements, got the ball rolling with the risk of an export boycott. Because rare earth elements are a key ingredient in many of the world's emerging technologies, the risk was a big deal. Adding a bit of 1 of the 17 rare earth elements to a magnet in the engine of an electrical to hybrid vehicle increases the power as well as efficiency of the engine, mainly because rare earth magnets are the strongest type of permanent magnets now made. Rare earths improve the color in TV screens and in lasers. You will also find rare earth elements in tunable microwave resonators, as well as terbium, 1 of the rare earth elements, is a key ingredient in low-energy light bulbs.
We're definitely not talking about trace amounts of these elements, either. The electrical engine in a Toyota Prius uses about 2 pounds of neodymium in its permanent magnets. Each Prius battery also uses 20 to 30 pounds of yet another rare earth, lanthanum. As well as it takes about a ton of neodymium to make the big magnets used in each megawatt of wind-turbine capacity.
Fortunately, despite their name, rare earth elements aren't especially rare. They're found in reasonably high concentrations in the Earth's crust, with you, cerium, coming in at the 25th most abundant element in the crust. Global production came to about 140,000 metric tons of refined rare earths in 2008.
But supplies of the rare earths that can be profitably mined aren't distributed evenly across the world. Partly that's the luck of the geologic draw. But mostly it's a function of the huge environmental costs of mining these rare earths. The traditional way has been to bore holes into promising rock formations, pump acid down the holes to dissolve many of the rare earths, and then pump the slurry into holding ponds for extraction of the rare earths. That extraction leaves behind a lake of water mixed with acid as well as various and sundry dissolved minerals.
It's a great deal, a lot cheaper if a company can get away with spending just regarding nothing on controlling the resulting water and sludge. The world's low-cost manufacturers of rare earth elements are definitely not huge and efficient open-pit mines but small, completely unregulated mom-and-pop mining companies in China. (The Chinese government is now trying to force many of these companies from business. The motive is many combination of a desire to limit environmental damage in China as well as to exercise greater control over exports. I'd say that the latter dominates.)
Over the past 20 years, the accidents of geology as well as the realities of unequal regulation slowly led to the closure of most of the rare earth mines outside of China. The Mountain Pass, Calif., mine, the world's richest proven reserve of rare earths, stopped production in 2002, for example.
Rising demand began to change that pic. Companies like Lynas as well as Molycorp crept back onto the stage with plans to start brand new mines or perhaps resume production from old mines.
It took the Chinese overplaying their hand, however, to turn that small trend into a speculator's dream. The Chinese started to reduce the amount of rare earth metals that can be exported. Companies outside China began to worry about the very real possibilities of paying higher prices as well as of not being able to purchase required raw materials.
This appears to be a key goal in China's strategy. By restricting exports, China would definitely force high-technology companies that need these rare earths to relocate production to China, accelerating the transfer of intellectual property to Chinese companies. It's no secret that China wants to create major wind, solar as well as hybrid-car industries.
The restrictions on production have increased in 2011. Beijing just regarding closed down its industry in early August to assess pollution issues (at least that's the official story). China is also creating a government-controlled monopoly, Bao Gang Rare Earth, that would definitely consolidate the 35 companies that now mine rare earths in northern China. Three similar government-controlled companies will consolidate production in the south of the nation.
The growing demand for rare earths from brand new technologies, plus China's moves, had 2 immediate effects. First, prices for rare earth minerals, especially those of the heavy rare earth elements, soared. Costs for many rare earth elements climbed 10 times from 2009 into 2011. 2nd, the scramble was on for alternative sources of supply. Quickly, there was a lot of capital available to restart mines that had closed mainly because of low prices as well as stricter environmental regulation outside of China.
View the original article here
Remember rare earths? As well as how prices of these metals, that are necessary raw materials for technologies including wind turbines, hybrid cars as well as flat-screen displays, had soared? Technology manufacturers scrambled to find reliable sources of supply as China utilized its position as owner of 95% of global production of rare earths to restrict supplies to manufacturers outside of China. And investors scurried to find a rare earth stock or perhaps two to add to their portfolios.
As well as now?
Shares of Molycorp (MCP, news), the highest-profile U.S. rare earth miner, were down 33% in simply you week (Sept. 16 through 23) recently. Lynas (LYSDY, news) (LYC.AU in Australia) dropped 17% in Sydney and 12% in Brand new York on Sept. 26.
After falling an additional 3.5% on Sept. 30 to $32.87, Molycorp is 58% off its 52-week high. Lynas, at $1.07 in Brand new York on Sept. 30, is 64% off its 52-week high.
The plunge in the price of rare earth stocks is, of course, partly a result of macroeconomic fears -- of a slowdown in the Chinese economy, of a slide by the U.S. economy back into recession, of a chaotic default by the Greek government that will return the international financial program to the brink it faced in 2008.
Mainly because rare earth stocks such as Molycorp as well as Lynas are highly speculative issues -- Molycorp has simply begun full-scale mining, as well as Lynas is still waiting on approval from the Malaysian government to open a processing plant to turn rare earth ores into useful forms of rare earth minerals -- their share costs are more volatile than the highly volatile global financial markets.
The rare earth story isn't all macroeconomics. The drop in the cost of rare earth stocks -- and the odds that these shares may definitely not only recover and move up to brand new highs -- is a result of changes in the rare earth marketplace that have nothing to do with global macroeconomics. As well as the trajectory of any individual stock in any rally is strongly influenced by company-specific news.
In other words, if you want to figure out whether or not to invest in exactly what are currently very depressed rare earth stocks, you should understand what's been happening in this once-hot sector because it dropped from the headlines.
Let me take we back to days of yesteryear -- 2009 or perhaps and so, for many of us -- whenever rare earth stocks burst on the investment scene.
China, that controls about 95% of the global provide of rare earth elements, got the ball rolling with the risk of an export boycott. Because rare earth elements are a key ingredient in many of the world's emerging technologies, the risk was a big deal. Adding a bit of 1 of the 17 rare earth elements to a magnet in the engine of an electrical to hybrid vehicle increases the power as well as efficiency of the engine, mainly because rare earth magnets are the strongest type of permanent magnets now made. Rare earths improve the color in TV screens and in lasers. You will also find rare earth elements in tunable microwave resonators, as well as terbium, 1 of the rare earth elements, is a key ingredient in low-energy light bulbs.
We're definitely not talking about trace amounts of these elements, either. The electrical engine in a Toyota Prius uses about 2 pounds of neodymium in its permanent magnets. Each Prius battery also uses 20 to 30 pounds of yet another rare earth, lanthanum. As well as it takes about a ton of neodymium to make the big magnets used in each megawatt of wind-turbine capacity.
Fortunately, despite their name, rare earth elements aren't especially rare. They're found in reasonably high concentrations in the Earth's crust, with you, cerium, coming in at the 25th most abundant element in the crust. Global production came to about 140,000 metric tons of refined rare earths in 2008.
But supplies of the rare earths that can be profitably mined aren't distributed evenly across the world. Partly that's the luck of the geologic draw. But mostly it's a function of the huge environmental costs of mining these rare earths. The traditional way has been to bore holes into promising rock formations, pump acid down the holes to dissolve many of the rare earths, and then pump the slurry into holding ponds for extraction of the rare earths. That extraction leaves behind a lake of water mixed with acid as well as various and sundry dissolved minerals.
It's a great deal, a lot cheaper if a company can get away with spending just regarding nothing on controlling the resulting water and sludge. The world's low-cost manufacturers of rare earth elements are definitely not huge and efficient open-pit mines but small, completely unregulated mom-and-pop mining companies in China. (The Chinese government is now trying to force many of these companies from business. The motive is many combination of a desire to limit environmental damage in China as well as to exercise greater control over exports. I'd say that the latter dominates.)
Over the past 20 years, the accidents of geology as well as the realities of unequal regulation slowly led to the closure of most of the rare earth mines outside of China. The Mountain Pass, Calif., mine, the world's richest proven reserve of rare earths, stopped production in 2002, for example.
Rising demand began to change that pic. Companies like Lynas as well as Molycorp crept back onto the stage with plans to start brand new mines or perhaps resume production from old mines.
It took the Chinese overplaying their hand, however, to turn that small trend into a speculator's dream. The Chinese started to reduce the amount of rare earth metals that can be exported. Companies outside China began to worry about the very real possibilities of paying higher prices as well as of not being able to purchase required raw materials.
This appears to be a key goal in China's strategy. By restricting exports, China would definitely force high-technology companies that need these rare earths to relocate production to China, accelerating the transfer of intellectual property to Chinese companies. It's no secret that China wants to create major wind, solar as well as hybrid-car industries.
The restrictions on production have increased in 2011. Beijing just regarding closed down its industry in early August to assess pollution issues (at least that's the official story). China is also creating a government-controlled monopoly, Bao Gang Rare Earth, that would definitely consolidate the 35 companies that now mine rare earths in northern China. Three similar government-controlled companies will consolidate production in the south of the nation.
The growing demand for rare earths from brand new technologies, plus China's moves, had 2 immediate effects. First, prices for rare earth minerals, especially those of the heavy rare earth elements, soared. Costs for many rare earth elements climbed 10 times from 2009 into 2011. 2nd, the scramble was on for alternative sources of supply. Quickly, there was a lot of capital available to restart mines that had closed mainly because of low prices as well as stricter environmental regulation outside of China.
View the original article here
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
At half off, is Groupon a buy?
The website has scaled back its IPO in response to a weak stock marketplace, executive exits and questions regarding its accounting as well as business model. But the debut can still be a tough sell.
As with half-price crochet lessons, Groupon's newly planned stock providing is sharply discounted from a cost that was arbitrary to begin with.
The company is seeking to raise $621 million for a sliver of its shares, which would definitely imply a marketplace value of $11.4 billion, The Wall Street Journal reports. That's down from an estimated value of $15 billion to $20 billion -- with many projections as high as $25 billion -- that would have resulted from an initial public providing that was scrapped earlier this year.
In June I wrote that Groupon's theoretical cost was preposterously high relative to its revenues, not least due to the fact its revenues weren't really income.
Groupon holds no inventory but rather markets goods and services on behalf of merchants in exchange for a cut. It was claiming certainly not just its take but also the merchants' as revenues.
Last month, after regulators questioned the practice, Groupon said it will restate revenues, reducing them by over half for the year. It also said its No. 2 executive had left for Google (GOOG, news), which has launched its have local discount service called Google Offers.
Last week, Groupon released third-quarter results showing that revenues climbed 9% from the second quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from growth of 33% during the 2nd quarter and 72% during the first.
With world stock prices having tumbled because summer, investors and the media have turned less cheerful toward Groupon. Chief Executive Andrew Mason called criticism "insane" and "hilarious" in an August memo to employees but has remained quiet of late, so as certainly not to violate rules about information released before a stock providing.
A few of the criticism is overdone. If Groupon indeed secures an $11 billon stock marketplace value, its Nov. 3 offering will have been anything but a flop.
Definitely not very a year ago, Google offered $6 billion for the business. If the valuation strikes many as silly, that's the fault of investors, definitely not Groupon.
For that matter, if discounted massages as well as yoga visits strike a few as consumerist fluff, it reflects just on the consumers who purchased 33 million Groupons last quarter.
Prospective buyers of the stock should exercise caution, however.
In June I estimated Groupon's pending price-to-sales ratio at 18. It's around one-third of that now, but that's still a good deal for a profitless company with sharply slowing sales growth as well as over a dozen competitors.
The company has additionally exhausted a great deal of its expansion possible. In June 2009 it operated in five North American markets. It's up to 175, plus 40 nations.
"In any marketplace in America, we can market $500,000 of half-off manicures as well as teeth-whitening procedures in a year simply by hanging out a shingle," wrote Sucharita Mulpuru, an analyst with Forrester Research.
Groupon's expansion into new cities is akin to a retailer opening new shops, so exactly what matters is its "same-store" sales growth, which has been sharply slower than its total sales growth, according to Mulpuru.
Will the stock jump on its first day of trading? That depends on Morgan Stanley (MS, news), Goldman Sachs Group (GS, news) and the deal's other underwriters. If they do well by both their investment banking clients and their retail investors, the deal will raise the most that the public pays, absolutely nothing more, as well as shares is small changed on their first day. Naturally, that rarely happens.
As well as the tiny size of the Groupon deal seems to set the conditions for a scarcity of shares, a run-up in the cost and -- pure speculation here -- a follow-on providing in which insiders market more.
So if you're thinking about buying Groupon shares with funds you'd otherwise bet on a horse, go ahead. Grab a few on a dip as well as try to unload it on a more eager buyer a day to 2 later.
If, however, you are a long-term investor hunting to settle down with a dot-com stock, go for Google instead. It's very priced, stuffed with money and, seven years after its stock providing, it's still expected to grow its sales by over 30% this year.
View the original article here
As with half-price crochet lessons, Groupon's newly planned stock providing is sharply discounted from a cost that was arbitrary to begin with.
The company is seeking to raise $621 million for a sliver of its shares, which would definitely imply a marketplace value of $11.4 billion, The Wall Street Journal reports. That's down from an estimated value of $15 billion to $20 billion -- with many projections as high as $25 billion -- that would have resulted from an initial public providing that was scrapped earlier this year.
In June I wrote that Groupon's theoretical cost was preposterously high relative to its revenues, not least due to the fact its revenues weren't really income.
Groupon holds no inventory but rather markets goods and services on behalf of merchants in exchange for a cut. It was claiming certainly not just its take but also the merchants' as revenues.
Last month, after regulators questioned the practice, Groupon said it will restate revenues, reducing them by over half for the year. It also said its No. 2 executive had left for Google (GOOG, news), which has launched its have local discount service called Google Offers.
Last week, Groupon released third-quarter results showing that revenues climbed 9% from the second quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from growth of 33% during the 2nd quarter and 72% during the first.
With world stock prices having tumbled because summer, investors and the media have turned less cheerful toward Groupon. Chief Executive Andrew Mason called criticism "insane" and "hilarious" in an August memo to employees but has remained quiet of late, so as certainly not to violate rules about information released before a stock providing.
A few of the criticism is overdone. If Groupon indeed secures an $11 billon stock marketplace value, its Nov. 3 offering will have been anything but a flop.
Definitely not very a year ago, Google offered $6 billion for the business. If the valuation strikes many as silly, that's the fault of investors, definitely not Groupon.
For that matter, if discounted massages as well as yoga visits strike a few as consumerist fluff, it reflects just on the consumers who purchased 33 million Groupons last quarter.
Prospective buyers of the stock should exercise caution, however.
In June I estimated Groupon's pending price-to-sales ratio at 18. It's around one-third of that now, but that's still a good deal for a profitless company with sharply slowing sales growth as well as over a dozen competitors.
The company has additionally exhausted a great deal of its expansion possible. In June 2009 it operated in five North American markets. It's up to 175, plus 40 nations.
"In any marketplace in America, we can market $500,000 of half-off manicures as well as teeth-whitening procedures in a year simply by hanging out a shingle," wrote Sucharita Mulpuru, an analyst with Forrester Research.
Groupon's expansion into new cities is akin to a retailer opening new shops, so exactly what matters is its "same-store" sales growth, which has been sharply slower than its total sales growth, according to Mulpuru.
Will the stock jump on its first day of trading? That depends on Morgan Stanley (MS, news), Goldman Sachs Group (GS, news) and the deal's other underwriters. If they do well by both their investment banking clients and their retail investors, the deal will raise the most that the public pays, absolutely nothing more, as well as shares is small changed on their first day. Naturally, that rarely happens.
As well as the tiny size of the Groupon deal seems to set the conditions for a scarcity of shares, a run-up in the cost and -- pure speculation here -- a follow-on providing in which insiders market more.
So if you're thinking about buying Groupon shares with funds you'd otherwise bet on a horse, go ahead. Grab a few on a dip as well as try to unload it on a more eager buyer a day to 2 later.
If, however, you are a long-term investor hunting to settle down with a dot-com stock, go for Google instead. It's very priced, stuffed with money and, seven years after its stock providing, it's still expected to grow its sales by over 30% this year.
View the original article here
Get prepared for the middle-class boom
It will happen around the world -- but not here -- as the middle class grows globally. Two big questions for investors trying to catch this trend: How big it is and how long it will last.
It's big as well as it's growing fast.
But that's regarding all the experts agree on about the global middle class.
I don't expect investors to achieve enlightenment where a generation of political and social scientists, development experts, investment strategists and economists have tied themselves into statistical knots.
But because I think the growth of the global middle class is the single many important investing trend for the next 20 many years, I think investors ought to make a begin at sorting through the myths.
I'd start by trying to distinguish myth from our imperfect grasp on reality in four areas.
Myth versus Reality No. 1: We don't have a good head count on the rising global middle class.
The global middle class numbers 1.8 billon, or perhaps 28% of the world's population, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation as well as Development. According to The Economist magazine, however, in February 2009, more than half of the world's population was already middle class. The World Bank projects that between 16% and 19% of the world's population is middle class by 2030.
Whenever you are talking about a world population of 7 billion, a difference of 10 or 20 percentage points, or a decade or perhaps two, amounts to a lot of people.
The projections don't necessarily get a whole lot closer when we go from a global perspective to an individual country.
The McKinsey Global Institute projects that India's middle class of 50 million, less than 5% of the country's population, will explode to 583 million by 2030. But economist Nancy Birdsall, the president of the Center for Global Development, calculates that India has no middle class at all. McKinsey Global puts China's middle class at 43% of its population today, on its way to 76% in 2025. Birdsall calculates that China's middle class was simply 3% of the population in 2005.
The extraordinary difference in these estimates comes from the difficulty in defining the middle class. By Birdsall's definition, the middle class consists of people who earn more than $10 a day but who aren't in the top 5% of the population by income. In 2005, India's extremes of income inequality put just regarding everyone creating over $10 a day in the top 5% of the population. The World Bank uses a range between the mean income levels in Brazil as well as Italy to define middle class.
Other estimates say the middle class begins at either $2 a day (twice the World Bank's $1 a day definition of extreme poverty), or at $6 a day.
Myth versus Fact No. 2: Forget regarding the look for a single definition of a international middle class. There isn't you international middle class -- there are at least 2. When I consider all these struggles to define "middle class," the thing that jumps out is how a lot of the difficulty comes from trying to mash together the income levels of the existing middle class of the developed world with the income levels of the developing world.
If we take a behavioral approach to our definition of "middle class," economists see middle-class activities such as discretionary purchasing for status, or the use of credit to turn future wealth into current consumption, emerging, to a degree, at income levels of $2 or perhaps $6 a day.
But whilst it can make an interesting intellectual challenge to try to somehow unify all these people at such disparate income levels under a single heading of middle class, from a business perspective -- as well as thus an investing perspective -- it makes no sense at all and may in fact be dangerous to a company's top line and the portfolio.
This division into 2 -- to more -- middle classes shows up, for example, in the method Coca-Cola (KO, news) markets its products in China. In urban areas, where incomes and aspirations are higher, Coke sells its products at prices that are just slightly lower than in Western markets. The fairly high price is part of a strategy to brand Coke as a product that consumers aspire to as incomes rise. In rural areas, Coke sets its costs reduce, sells in slightly small bottles and requires customers to drink their Cokes on-site as well as return the bottles to vendors. Coke remains an aspirational product for rural Chinese consumers with rising incomes, but the income bar is set reduce.
Coke's pricing strategy is being duplicated by other consumer companies, including Procter & Gamble (PG, news), that market their products in developing economies in smaller sizes as well as at lower costs, but the strategy suggests that there's a sizable opening for companies to develop brand new products as well as create brand new brands that fit different price points for the developing-economy middle class. If this massive developing-economy middle class doesn't have the income of its developed-economy peers -- at least definitely not yet -- it still has the aspirations to signal its new wealth and status.
Investors should not assume that the fruits of the growth of the developing-economy middle class will automatically flow to developed-economy consumer companies. We are seeing a process in the cellphone sector, for example, where Taiwan's HTC as well as Korea's Samsung have created brands that are displacing phones from Nokia (NOK, news) as well as successfully waging mind-share battles with Apple (AAPL, news).
You of the factors that companies including Nestlé (NSRGY, news) are investing and so much cash to set up research, development and marketing centers in developing economies is a belief, well-founded I think, that the rise of a developing-economy middle class requires over simply transporting middle-class products from the developed economies to the developing world with, perhaps, many tinkering at price points.
Following this perspective just a bit down the road raises the possibility that there are over two middle classes -- developed as well as developing-economy models. There's sufficient difference in income levels between the BRICS economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China as well as South Africa) and the next wave of developing economies that look willing for international takeoff (nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia) to create openings for an additional group of companies catering to the aspirations as well as cost points of these new middle-class consumers.
View the original article here
It's big as well as it's growing fast.
But that's regarding all the experts agree on about the global middle class.
I don't expect investors to achieve enlightenment where a generation of political and social scientists, development experts, investment strategists and economists have tied themselves into statistical knots.
But because I think the growth of the global middle class is the single many important investing trend for the next 20 many years, I think investors ought to make a begin at sorting through the myths.
I'd start by trying to distinguish myth from our imperfect grasp on reality in four areas.
Myth versus Reality No. 1: We don't have a good head count on the rising global middle class.
The global middle class numbers 1.8 billon, or perhaps 28% of the world's population, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation as well as Development. According to The Economist magazine, however, in February 2009, more than half of the world's population was already middle class. The World Bank projects that between 16% and 19% of the world's population is middle class by 2030.
Whenever you are talking about a world population of 7 billion, a difference of 10 or 20 percentage points, or a decade or perhaps two, amounts to a lot of people.
The projections don't necessarily get a whole lot closer when we go from a global perspective to an individual country.
The McKinsey Global Institute projects that India's middle class of 50 million, less than 5% of the country's population, will explode to 583 million by 2030. But economist Nancy Birdsall, the president of the Center for Global Development, calculates that India has no middle class at all. McKinsey Global puts China's middle class at 43% of its population today, on its way to 76% in 2025. Birdsall calculates that China's middle class was simply 3% of the population in 2005.
The extraordinary difference in these estimates comes from the difficulty in defining the middle class. By Birdsall's definition, the middle class consists of people who earn more than $10 a day but who aren't in the top 5% of the population by income. In 2005, India's extremes of income inequality put just regarding everyone creating over $10 a day in the top 5% of the population. The World Bank uses a range between the mean income levels in Brazil as well as Italy to define middle class.
Other estimates say the middle class begins at either $2 a day (twice the World Bank's $1 a day definition of extreme poverty), or at $6 a day.
Myth versus Fact No. 2: Forget regarding the look for a single definition of a international middle class. There isn't you international middle class -- there are at least 2. When I consider all these struggles to define "middle class," the thing that jumps out is how a lot of the difficulty comes from trying to mash together the income levels of the existing middle class of the developed world with the income levels of the developing world.
If we take a behavioral approach to our definition of "middle class," economists see middle-class activities such as discretionary purchasing for status, or the use of credit to turn future wealth into current consumption, emerging, to a degree, at income levels of $2 or perhaps $6 a day.
But whilst it can make an interesting intellectual challenge to try to somehow unify all these people at such disparate income levels under a single heading of middle class, from a business perspective -- as well as thus an investing perspective -- it makes no sense at all and may in fact be dangerous to a company's top line and the portfolio.
This division into 2 -- to more -- middle classes shows up, for example, in the method Coca-Cola (KO, news) markets its products in China. In urban areas, where incomes and aspirations are higher, Coke sells its products at prices that are just slightly lower than in Western markets. The fairly high price is part of a strategy to brand Coke as a product that consumers aspire to as incomes rise. In rural areas, Coke sets its costs reduce, sells in slightly small bottles and requires customers to drink their Cokes on-site as well as return the bottles to vendors. Coke remains an aspirational product for rural Chinese consumers with rising incomes, but the income bar is set reduce.
Coke's pricing strategy is being duplicated by other consumer companies, including Procter & Gamble (PG, news), that market their products in developing economies in smaller sizes as well as at lower costs, but the strategy suggests that there's a sizable opening for companies to develop brand new products as well as create brand new brands that fit different price points for the developing-economy middle class. If this massive developing-economy middle class doesn't have the income of its developed-economy peers -- at least definitely not yet -- it still has the aspirations to signal its new wealth and status.
Investors should not assume that the fruits of the growth of the developing-economy middle class will automatically flow to developed-economy consumer companies. We are seeing a process in the cellphone sector, for example, where Taiwan's HTC as well as Korea's Samsung have created brands that are displacing phones from Nokia (NOK, news) as well as successfully waging mind-share battles with Apple (AAPL, news).
You of the factors that companies including Nestlé (NSRGY, news) are investing and so much cash to set up research, development and marketing centers in developing economies is a belief, well-founded I think, that the rise of a developing-economy middle class requires over simply transporting middle-class products from the developed economies to the developing world with, perhaps, many tinkering at price points.
Following this perspective just a bit down the road raises the possibility that there are over two middle classes -- developed as well as developing-economy models. There's sufficient difference in income levels between the BRICS economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China as well as South Africa) and the next wave of developing economies that look willing for international takeoff (nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia) to create openings for an additional group of companies catering to the aspirations as well as cost points of these new middle-class consumers.
View the original article here
Sunday, November 13, 2011
A risk manager's 5 funds moves now
There's no going back to the pre-crash economy, says Satyajit Das. Today's winning investors should do exactly the opposite of what was commonplace before the crisis hit.
There is no polite way to convey what Satyajit Das is saying regarding the world investors will face for several years, but it must be said: The unwinding of the international debt crisis will make some people extremely wealthy, but we will have to live with less -- in a few cases, far less.
Das, a risk consultant in Sydney, Australia, has for years been an expert on the use as well as abuse of credit derivatives. Thus while viewing the world's governments, businesses as well as consumers binge on cheap, borrowed revenue -- as well as seeing central bankers as well as financial regulators doing little to stop it -- Das understood that this party would definitely end badly.
Soft-spoken and matter-of-fact, Das told anyone who would definitely listen that the international economy was on the precipice of a credit crash that would definitely trigger a worldwide deleveraging as well as the mother of all bear markets for stocks.
That was in 2006. Five many years as well as you international crisis later, those same governments, businesses as well as consumers are hamstrung.
"People wasted trillions of dollars, that now has come home to roost," Das mentioned in a recent telephone interview.
Put just, at this wee hour of the global economy's morning, partygoers are too hung over to have a coherent conversation about cleaning up the mess, let alone pour more drinks to get the festivities started again.
The problem child in this debt crisis and credit crunch is Europe, mentioned Das, the author of "Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe as well as the Cult of Risk."
European leaders dallied so delayed the day of reckoning, Das said. "The real problems have been not dealt with. If we not really deal with the problems, then obviously they come back to haunt we."
Now, Europe's meisters and ministers are trying to orchestrate an orderly default for Greece, you that also recapitalizes weak European banks exposed to troubled Greek debt and props them up enough to deal with an anemic global economy that will affect even China.
"In Europe the steps are extremely straightforward, if they would like to do them," Das mentioned. "Greece, Ireland and Portugal have to restructure their debts. That will cause losses of between 35% as well as 75%" on bond principal, he added.
"Whenever that happens we trigger massive losses in the banking program," he continued. "And if Greece and Ireland as well as Portugal go, then companies in these countries whose debt we don't talk about will also be problematic. Economies will go into deep recessions. The losses will be substantial."
The amount of cash needed to shore up this crumbling wall will be enormous as well as can even require the recapitalization of the European Central Bank itself through money printing to funding from other central banks, Das said.
His reality check for Europe (as well as the big U.S. money-center banks additionally exposed to eurozone woes): "Allow the countries fail, recapitalize the banks, put German and French balance sheets at risk and gain competitiveness. Then at least you've got a chance."
In an overly indebted world, this is just what passes for "orderly" default. In a disorderly event, Das said, "self-interest dominates."
Financial markets at the moment are priced for such an orderly default, he noted, though more on the order of a 20% haircut than 50% to worse. Mentioned Das, "They're assuming the people in charge will manage to muddle their method through."
Das said he's certainly not convinced. "The vested interests and divisive positions that everybody has make it far more difficult to engineer that orderly crash landing," he said.
Yet at some point this financial crisis too will subside and allow a healing process to evolve, Das mentioned. But it will require patience and cooperation from political as well as business leaders as well as average people in Europe, the United States, Asia as well as elsewhere, who neither welcome compromise nor are happy regarding a new reality that looks absolutely nothing like the old.
"Economic growth is not going to go back to high levels," Das mentioned. "I don't know precisely why this surprises anybody. The growth was debt-fueled. If you can't have debt, which is just what deleveraging means, you'll see a huge decline in growth."
View the original article here
There is no polite way to convey what Satyajit Das is saying regarding the world investors will face for several years, but it must be said: The unwinding of the international debt crisis will make some people extremely wealthy, but we will have to live with less -- in a few cases, far less.
Das, a risk consultant in Sydney, Australia, has for years been an expert on the use as well as abuse of credit derivatives. Thus while viewing the world's governments, businesses as well as consumers binge on cheap, borrowed revenue -- as well as seeing central bankers as well as financial regulators doing little to stop it -- Das understood that this party would definitely end badly.
Soft-spoken and matter-of-fact, Das told anyone who would definitely listen that the international economy was on the precipice of a credit crash that would definitely trigger a worldwide deleveraging as well as the mother of all bear markets for stocks.
That was in 2006. Five many years as well as you international crisis later, those same governments, businesses as well as consumers are hamstrung.
"People wasted trillions of dollars, that now has come home to roost," Das mentioned in a recent telephone interview.
Put just, at this wee hour of the global economy's morning, partygoers are too hung over to have a coherent conversation about cleaning up the mess, let alone pour more drinks to get the festivities started again.
The problem child in this debt crisis and credit crunch is Europe, mentioned Das, the author of "Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe as well as the Cult of Risk."
European leaders dallied so delayed the day of reckoning, Das said. "The real problems have been not dealt with. If we not really deal with the problems, then obviously they come back to haunt we."
Now, Europe's meisters and ministers are trying to orchestrate an orderly default for Greece, you that also recapitalizes weak European banks exposed to troubled Greek debt and props them up enough to deal with an anemic global economy that will affect even China.
"In Europe the steps are extremely straightforward, if they would like to do them," Das mentioned. "Greece, Ireland and Portugal have to restructure their debts. That will cause losses of between 35% as well as 75%" on bond principal, he added.
"Whenever that happens we trigger massive losses in the banking program," he continued. "And if Greece and Ireland as well as Portugal go, then companies in these countries whose debt we don't talk about will also be problematic. Economies will go into deep recessions. The losses will be substantial."
The amount of cash needed to shore up this crumbling wall will be enormous as well as can even require the recapitalization of the European Central Bank itself through money printing to funding from other central banks, Das said.
His reality check for Europe (as well as the big U.S. money-center banks additionally exposed to eurozone woes): "Allow the countries fail, recapitalize the banks, put German and French balance sheets at risk and gain competitiveness. Then at least you've got a chance."
In an overly indebted world, this is just what passes for "orderly" default. In a disorderly event, Das said, "self-interest dominates."
Financial markets at the moment are priced for such an orderly default, he noted, though more on the order of a 20% haircut than 50% to worse. Mentioned Das, "They're assuming the people in charge will manage to muddle their method through."
Das said he's certainly not convinced. "The vested interests and divisive positions that everybody has make it far more difficult to engineer that orderly crash landing," he said.
Yet at some point this financial crisis too will subside and allow a healing process to evolve, Das mentioned. But it will require patience and cooperation from political as well as business leaders as well as average people in Europe, the United States, Asia as well as elsewhere, who neither welcome compromise nor are happy regarding a new reality that looks absolutely nothing like the old.
"Economic growth is not going to go back to high levels," Das mentioned. "I don't know precisely why this surprises anybody. The growth was debt-fueled. If you can't have debt, which is just what deleveraging means, you'll see a huge decline in growth."
View the original article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)