Gene Inger

Why the FCC Wants to Smash Open the iPhone

politics of this aside; AT&T's response is inaccurate, aside being arbitrary and discriminatory. Case in point as we outlined at the time to our readers: the SlingBox app. for iPhone. AT&T acknowledged at the time Apple had crippled (or limited) use to WiFi only and not 3G, at the behest of A&T, due to 'network demands'. This alone proves a point: AT&T did have an influence on Apple's approval process.

Further, since then, both Major League Baseball (Chicago alone had more demands on AT&T's network from one game than all the bandwidth requirements SlingBox ever had nationally) .. MLB and now the forthcoming 'Sunday Ticket' access on DirecTV's app for the NFL, vastly exceed the bandwidth utilization SlingBox would.

So, irrespective of whether DirecTV, Apple or AT&T ever intend to 'compete' with distant access (ie: no cost other than the app) for live or recorded (DVR) television; there is little doubt but that this was an arbitrary determination discriminating against SlingBox access (Sling now owned by the Dish Network, which obviously is DirecTV's competitor).

I am not a lawyer but a stock market analyst (who predicted the 'epic debacle' right here on SA over 2 years ago).. so the point is that AT&T's own network permits SlingBox to operate via any Blackberry able to use their app; so this is clearly disingenuous when related to access on an iPhone. All Apple and AT&T have to do is open up 3G (which works according to hackers but I would never suggest that nor do so) as AT&T has on the Blackberry. In terms of the FCC inquiry; the answer is already in based upon the SlingBox crippling; which renders a note of caution to AT&T before they wrongly contend (as their preliminary statement implies) that they do not engage in app denial. Obviously SlingBox proves that indeed they do. Otherwise, AT&T's network has improved greatly in some areas (including Southern California near our Thousand Oaks office); but that is besides the point of open app access.

cheers..
gene inger
ingerletter.com

Mature Market Uptrend becomes 'A Flight To Risk'

I couldn't agree more; and several of those very thoughts (not only about Intel's good efforts, but the Jeff Imelt situation, as well as the Boeing saga) have been explored in our daily market analysis of late.

In this forum I'm trying to avoid the political ramifications and just address the underlying impact on the market; though agreed, there is a current of neglect that spans both parties and a couple of decades at least, as I have often referenced as well.


On Jul 24 01:12 AM Leftfield wrote:

> Thanks. I know you tell the facts as you see them in a dispassionate
> manner, but they tell the story of an onslaught of "stupid trade"
> for decades and no respect for Intel or GE for bringing good jobs
> home. If Boeing had thought of that they might have a Dreamliner
> in production. I find it hard to swallow the phony prescriptions
> of our sold-out leaders whose messages are amplified via concentrated
> sold-out media without thinking they are either evil or stupid.
> I think both.

Is the Populist Mob Right?

funny... if not incorrect... the perpetrators were both bankers, hedgers, and the politicians... and here we are a year and a half later with so-called stimulus 'medicine' not yet infused into the patient. I appreciate what you're saying; however do know that the important thing is we reversed a 4-year bullish stance in February of 2007; and thought during the Spring and the Summer (when the 'waivers' that were barely reported came out allowing 'firewall' breaches between banks and brokers); and there have been only two times since that we nibbled on stocks; literally at the November 2008 low and first few days of March 2009; within harmony of an ongoing macro decline.
Anything I have written here is abbreviated or has reduced specifics, in fairness to our subscribers. I try (though realize my language is likely colored by my age and schooling that came before 'sound bite' analysis) to convey here my overall perspective, while reserving details for our own members. I do appreciate the encouragement and critiques; as they may aid my efforts at consolidating text. This increasingly is the case on our site; as I do almost all technical analysis (integrating fundamentals as appropriate) by video these days; not text.
(By the way I am neither of the left or the right; but a centrist who tries to invoke common sense over all these years.)


On Apr 01 03:03 PM Just Say Whoa! wrote:

> "I’m not in favor of panic or mobs, but we advocated ‘circling the
> wagons' in 2007 before attack of the killer globalist extremists
> with their toxic porridge poisoning the wells for future generations
> as ingerletter.com members know."
>
> The author is correct--back when Republicans were in charge, the
> Fed's actions were "peachy-keen":
>
> "...you can't provide responsible or prudent oversight of the monetary
> structure by caving-in to the unrealistic whims of (largely) the
> very crowd that perpetrated the core problems in the first place."
>
>
> The Fed 'Gets It'; Wall Street Doesn't
> Gene Inger
> December 12, 2007
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> Just another political partisan who is "poisoning the well" long
> before the medicine has had a chance to cure the illness?

Is the Populist Mob Right?

another point will be the 'hoodwink' of the coming 'mark to market' changes; yet another facade. Go to sell your home; it is worth what it is worth; not what you pretend it is to either stroke one's ego, or in the case of bankers, to provide an illusion with respect to what toxic assets are worth. I don't think everyone grasped the implications of the 100% payouts on Credit Default Swaps either (may not have mentioned this other than at our web site; sorry); because the 'bonus' mess is a worthy issue; but pales compared to 'who knew what when' if the bankers did the CDS's after they already knew they held toxic assets. That's equivalent to a 'pre-existing condition' in health insurance; if you didn't disclose it; they may deny payment; not make full payment anyway. Where is the investigative journalism to figure this out? Bloomberg did sue for it; and got denied. Why? In my days of early financial TV almost 30 years ago we would not have toed-the-line with respect to asking the really hard questions. Back then too it too years, not months, to create a new solid environment to invest; though we called it a generational buy. Trade safely!

Is the Populist Mob Right?

appreciate the clarification; it was after midnight and I meant to say Keynes didn't intend for the largest 'debtor' nation to be borrowing at such extremes.

By the way; not patting myself on the back; just trying to put into context how we've guided through this over since calling for an 'epic debacle' and biggest financial catastrophe in my 39 years as an Investment Advisor, starting in February of 2007. New readers should review my other articles to get a sense of this not being 20/20 hindsight; and that is the point. We even wrote in 2007 that 'given a couple years this would result in riots in the Streets' and demands to throw the bums out. That doesn't mean we concur with the mob; just tried to understand the series of psychological events. Quite opposite 'money bags', it was an effort to 'circle wagons' and defend YOUR money; starting in 2007; so as to avoid the carnage.


On Apr 01 09:09 AM mutual wrote:

> u s a was the biggest creditor country. it is now the biggest debtor
> country. article says keynes didn't want creditor country to leverage
> up again. i think he meant to say debtor country.

WSJ Weighs in on Peter Schiff

typo correction.. we reversed bullish to bearish from late 1999-early 2000; bullish from 2002 (not 2006) through 2006 (not 2007); and then warned to sell into expected Spring and Summer rallies of 2007; with the 'epic debacle' then coming. Incidentally; technical bearish deviations were occurring all the while the Goldilocks and 'always a bull market somewhere' crowds were crowing how wonderful everything was; while we revealed the insolvency of major banks that to this day nobody wants to actually acknowledge; as if it was fringe analysis. This month was projected to be a 'brick wall resistance' at the start then down, bounce, and fail. February should flail then fail too.

cheers to those who have been realistic, and in favor of sensible trading too!

gene
gene inger
ingerletter.com

WSJ Weighs in on Peter Schiff

Peter has maintained a similar stance to our own; with a big exception. That was a belief (not taking anything away from his work) that the economy was so soft, that 'inflation' related to a plunging Dollar or anything of the sort, was valid in the ultimate term; but extremely premature for 2008 or 2009 for that matter. It is pertinent because only if one expects an early recovery (and we don't having indicated this as an 'epic debacle' since February of 2007 warning to sell into a series of remaining rallies while underlying distribution prevailed) .. would one be looking for inflation anytime soon. For that reason; and the also important (year-long) view that 'decoupling was a myth', we've been relatively optimistic (not pessimistic) on the Dollar for over 8 months; at the same time as we called for crashes in the Asian submerging markets too. May not have excited everyone; but the safest investment for 2 years now has been suggested to be cash or equivalents; and not chasing for bullish markets elsewhere that we didn't think existed. However, the macro economic view is generally shared (and has been); with the exception that we were bulls from the Fall of 2006 through the end of 2007. To wit: flexible realists. I don't want to take anything away from those who have had publicity on this area; but suffice to say; 'circling the wagons' and just leaving it thusly for the past two years has been a fine approach, rather than chasing yield or other approaches. Nevertheless kudos to Peter for his similar overall macro view.

gene inger
ingerletter.com

The Baby Doomers?

true.. but the nature of the 'growth engines' that are dysfunctional in the U.S. at this time; suggests the older 'Baby Boomers' are more pertinent for now. Let's face it; the decline sets-up good opportunities for those with 'time on their side'; like young singles wanting to buy their first homes, condo's or stocks. Not so for those over middle age (55 which is the new 35). Hence, heaviest spending on big-ticket items usually occurs from the 40 and over crowd; thus recovery is likely tenuous, protracted, and delayed, as we both likely believe. (We remain bearish since turning from bull to bear in February of 2007.. expect lower lows in time)... good work guys by the way!

gene

gene inger
ingerletter.com

Oversold and Headed for a Triple Bottom?

you are 'korrekt'.. a double bottom is essentially our 'w bottom' as called to fail after the breakout-fakeout (above declining tops weeks ago now). It measures some horsing around here and another dramatic break as forward earnings revisions follow. The combination should result in an ensuing S&P drop into the lower 1200's or below in time (as we outlined to our readers).

I'll reserve sharing our measure; but with a macro short from nearly 1600 (forward roll-adjusted in the S&P futures); we believe by no means is this over; and we're historically usually optimistic relative to many. Kudo's again for the humor and getting it right!

gene

gene inger
ingerletter.com

Adventures in Technical Analysis, Jim Cramer Edition

'Korrekt' points about Cramer's memory lapses; however not so korrekt (pun intended) about technical analysis, which reflects fundamentals in a sense.

For those few of us who interrelate technical analysis with the fundamentals, to grasp the psychological prospects ahead; technical work does not lie. To wit: in early 2007 we noted poor breadth aside the narrow universe of participating upside stocks; interrelated the earliest NASD brokerage liquidations related to excess CMO's held in 'house accounts', and concluded the S&P and Dow were having solo-walks to the upside which would not be sustainable, and worse, were masking distribution under-cover of a strong Dow and S&P. That proved not only prescient and 'korrekt', but is (in my 38 years of experience) the appropriate way to utilize technical analysis.

of course I concur with you about just drawing lines without info that underlies the basis for simply saying if this crosses this then that; so you are right; but only as far as it goes. We have had the honor of calling the lowest (of Mansfield's 16-established analysts) Dow call in late 2006, and were number 1. We also are looking at a crashed market aside certain segments; and have our views about where this is leading as the year evolves.

cheers
gene inger
ingerletter.com

The Power Failure on Wall Street

Superb comprehension of the challenges we face. One magazine reporter interviewed me a month ago, noting the other six analysts were bullish, so why was I continuing to be bearish for over a year, other than the allowed-for rally into early May; my response, that they are all bullish should be the answer.

Your allusions to 'risk-aversion' and caution about chasing yield ring true, and should think your clients have been appreciative. Might I add to your 'oil' comments the indirect flow through banks (shows as being commercial traders, when it isn't) as banks/brokers have to buy when clients buy Calls on Oil, is probably part of what propels a parabolic here

again kudo's on a good article and good work!

gene inger

It's Not a Crisis, But a Chaotic Calamity

point of clarification: when the curtain rings down on center-stage, we will be basing out at a BOTTOM of the decline in my view; not starting a downtrend; barring a worst-case scenario.

We were bullish from 2002-early 2007; but called it a 'reflation' and thought they squandered an opportunity to 'square matters' early-on. Just as the upside then was unsustainable, so hopefully will be the downside. Please understand I didn't mean to be complex, as we simplify all this with 'bullet points' for our members. They know our goal is to see the Fed intervene and engage wisely, as belatedly they are doing.

The cost of 'moral hazard' is not as bad as the alternative. And it was the NY Fed, not the FOMC, that handled this. The NY Fed is in-charge of market integrity; not interest rates. We have argued that this is less a liquidity issue (among banks) and more a solvency issue. Solvency is part of market integrity; not monetary policy.

Our members know that the next major (not just trading; and in that area we went long around midday for a trade not enduring reversal) strategy shift will be completing our year-plus of bearishness. I hope that clarifies our thinking a bit. However, if these engagements by the Fed(s) falter (we are on thin ice) there is a more somber type alternative. Heavily in cash (most in 20 years for over a year now) we are looking for entry not exit points, but only as the market gives a message that the coast is clear(er). The perfect-storm still roils.

thanks for the discussion... I appreciate the thoughts..

Counterparty Contingent Liabilities

A 'simple English' summary is provided to our members. Frankly, while I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek note that you comprehend, I think that a focus less on 'sound bites' and more on understanding the underlying facts of an economic condition (or even Constitutional law) could have helped a lot of Americans and people in the free world avoid numerous pitfalls over the years just past. That people insist on things being all put in 'summary' form or sound-bites; is part of the dumbing-down that all educators should disdain. If people don't take the time to comprehend what is going on behind the scenes; they are more apt to make mistakes (including real estate not just stocks & bonds) and get caught in a panic. The foregoing is not criticizing; but an observation. To many drop the context of discussions and news; and that's part of the problem some of us 'old timers' might suspect. This past weekend; all media described the rioting in Denmark as by 'militant young people'; none came forward to flat-out label it as another effort by extreme Islam to radicalize youth to cause trouble; hence an example of how simplifying to the lowest rather than highest common denominator allows avoiding controversy and/or getting to the heart of the matter.

What you wanted me to say in the piece above was: Chairman Bernanke bought time for the banks to re-liquefy by signing the Reg W waivers that shifted funds from bank to brokerage sides; allowing markets to dive without taking down the commercial banking system. Hence, a 'crash' may have been avoided accordingly; as the problem in the 1930's was allowing the banking system to implode; not just the markets.

Hope that helps simplify it for those who don't get it; and I was just sort of trying to convey that the loud critics on TV of Chairman Bernanke are either uninformed or ignoring what he actually did and why he may have done so (and successfully at that). Regards.
gene inger
ingerletter.com

Short-Term Hurdles Become Long-Term Obstacles

thanks.. yes I'm well aware of these factors; as all through the first half of 2007, we tried to enlighten our ingerletter.com members about the falacious perception of 'great liquidity' that was paper-based and thus incapable of making it 'different this time'. That's why we said it was indeed 'different'. .. it was more risky, not less risky, as everyone found out over time.

Further, I believe today's rate cut is NOT aimed at the public though nominally may help some; but rather maintaining solvency and systemic liquidity, not trying to bail out anybody. That was of course the issue in 1930; so if they can avoid major bank failures, the rest of it can migrate through time, but be mitigated with respect to the Recession turning into some worse or more enduring. And the impact on commercial and plastic is essentially yet to come.

gene inger
ingerletter.com

Arthur Laffer: US Is in Recession Now

interesting comment Barry; I have tried for months to address the disconnect between fact and reality. Now; everyone thinks lower rates will solve everything. They won't. We've called this 'pushing on a string' for many months now; since forecasting the unsustainably July rally (broadening top configuration completion).

We'll get through this, in time. But that's the key. Banks are not going to become assertive; and this isn't 2001; no free lunch money so the immensity of the 'junk debt' issue overrides other factors; not that lower rates and so on won't help some folks to a degree.

If we do get a rally from a daily-basis 'v bottom' it will be unlikely to hold; as we've already outlined to our members. Good luck and while sad to see the Nation go through this; cheers to the few of us who leaned against the globalist extremist wind (and for our soverignty) in the year just past.

kudos!
gene inger
ingerletter.com