William James

Market Timing: Either Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way

Mr. Shaefer,

Thank you for another careful, considered and thoughtful article. I share your concerns about the current rally because it does not seem to be linked to any fundamental improvements in the economy. I hate to be mostly sitting on the sidelines but I agree none of this feels very right at the moment.

Why Bank Fees Need to Be Regulated

I think that the majority of people agree with Mr. Salmon that the banks are responsible, in large part, for getting us into this mess and that they need to be better regulated in all kinds of ways. The fees that many banks charge for NSF checks and other items are unreasonable and do not reasonably relate to the cost incurred. No one has any sympathy for the banks at this point and any "we love the free market" arguments became rather silly after they took all that bailout money. The price the banks pay for selling us all down the river is more regulation. Get used to it.

By the way your personal observations about Mr. Salmon are inappropriate and more in line with postings that are probably better made on the Jerry Springer site.


On Jul 03 09:35 AM punditobserver wrote:

> Look lets just cut to the chase here: journalists are low achievers
> - thats why they become journalists. Among journalists the low achievers
> are bloggers. So bloggers are basically loser's losers.
>
> Here is a case in point: salmon's operating premise is to just parrot
> whatever insane rants are being put out by the loudest ranters.<br/>
>
> Forget about the free market argument against the bank crackpots,
> lets just analyze this fee legislation at on a practical basis.
> What salmon is saying - and he does not even know he is saying it
> - is laid out below:
>
> Lets make a law that limits what banks can charge for overdraft protection.
>
>
> Then banks will stop offering overdraft protection, and people who
> would have been protected by overdraft protection end up writing
> bounced checks and getting hit up with bounced check fees -- from
> the people they are writing the bounced checks to -- that are higher
> than the original bank overdraft protection fees would have been.
> These people will additionally be hit up with having to pay the bounced
> back checks with money orders because their checks are no longer
> considered good the people got "insufficient funds" notices the first
> time around.
>
> At that point the felix salmons step in and say "lets make a law
> stating that banks cant withhold payment for insufficient funds for
> people who write checks that are not covered by whats in their account."
>
>
> Thanks felix for serving your the usual daily bowl of stupid.

The Scandal of Overdraft Fees

Banking really isn't optional just as having a credit card in today's world isn't really optional either, which is why the banks should expect to be regulated. Sure they can charge NSF fees but such fees should be reasonable and relate in some way to the costs incurred by the bank in servicing the NSF check. The current fees are not reasonable and do not relate in any way to the costs of a bounced check. And yes the banks can and should expect to be punished for their part in getting us all into this awful mess, that is the price they pay for being bailed out by the taxpayer, and for bouncing about the biggest check anyone has ever seen.

On Jul 02 11:36 PM Jon Jegglie wrote:

> So where is the investment angle in this article since this is an
> investment site. So lets see if I have the "poor little guy" angle
> on the banks correct. The banks are evil because they were losing
> money and needed TARP funds, but they are also evil for enacting
> punitive measures against customers whose irresponsible behavior
> puts them at risk of further and greater losses.
>
> Remember they are providing an optional consumer service as private
> corporations. If you don't agree with the terms of service, abide
> by the rules, go to a competitor, or do not utilize the service.

Expect FDA Approval of AMAG Pharmaceutical's Feraheme

Something odd about this article and all the comments. I agree that the article is comprehensive, well written, informative etc. But it reads more like a AMAG press release than anything else. Its also odd that there are 12 comments that basically repeat the same thing over and over again. Its all a bit pumpish for my taste. Where is the discussion of downside risk?

Here's What World Markets Are Telling Income Investors to Do

I really don't think you are reading the same article that I am!

Mr. Wachtel seems to be pointing to the likelihood that this IS a bear market rally and that buy and hold folks should probably not dip their toes in at this point. Perhaps you should read some of his other articles before you jump in so readily with an inaccurate critique.


On Jun 21 08:51 AM SageNot wrote:

> Sorry Cliff, but you're missing the point badly. Until these banks
> begin to earn money w/o the public Tarp aid, any gains in net income
> w/b short lived. These banks caused millions to lose billions &amp;
> yet they are considered too big to fail, what B.S.!
>
> This rally you've invested heavily in is a Bear trap, millions more
> home, businesses &amp; individuals will go belly-up w/o doubt. Once
> our many creditors decide to really dump their dollar holdings, inflation
> will really take off, &amp; what then happens to this bear rally,
> if you know Cliff?

Is This Rally in Its Final Innings?

Thank you - I appreciate it


On May 07 01:27 PM Joseph L. Shaefer wrote:

> I'm willing to do so, Mr. James, but there are over 50 on our "watch
> screen," so I'll just list a few. Plus, as a Registered Advisor,
> I provide the caveat that I don't know your, or any other reader's
> specific financial situation, so I do not and will not recommend
> these but merely offer my analysis that I have found them interesting
> enough to consider for those clients whose financial situation we
> are fully aware of. Please note that we have purchased virtually
> all of these, but sold them in the past week or have current orders
> to do so. We plan to buy many of these back if/when we reach the
> next bottom of the "W" that I believe we'll see this year. (I see
> us somewhere near the top of the middle of that W today.) They include:
>
> USB E, G, and J; BBT A, PMB P, MSDXP, PNC L, PNH, PNU, SIVBO, VLY
> A, MTB A, PVTBP, and the slew of WFC preferreds to include WFC J,
> FWF, WSF, BWF, and GWF and some of their Wachovia preferreds like
> WB B, C and D, and insurers WRB A, KTN, KVW, KVF and KVN.
>

Is This Rally in Its Final Innings?

Very good article, thank you for sharing it. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts about specific preferreds you are following. I bought into a couple of bank preferreds earlier this year and made a good gains but then exited early - as it happens too early. Seems to me that many bank preferreds will suffer an inevitable decline as investors realize the increasing risk of conversion / dilution and that profits might again be had from investing in select preferreds that are likely to survive without the need to raise more capital.

Must-Know Criteria for Picking Inflation Proof, High Dividend Stocks

At least as far as BP is concerned the CEO, Tony Hayward, has made a commitment not to reduce the dividend payment, even if that means increased borrowing in order to maintain the dividend payment and capital expenditure at planned levels. However, I think it likely that most of the oil majors' share prices are likely to see declines based upon significant drops in oil consumption. See, for example, this quote from the Guardian:
"The economic slump has sharply reduced energy use. The IEA is now forecasting that oil demand will fall by 2.4m barrels a day this year from 2008. The agency estimates that the world economy will need 83.4m of oil a day, 1m less than its previous forecast and the lowest level since 2004."
Such demand destruction is likely to lead lead to declines in the oil price and declines in equity prices for all oil majors, including BP, which is reported to see the need for $60 oil in order to maintain current capital expenditures and the dividend without borrowing. Long term a strong company like BP, with good fundamentals will do fine, but I anticipate that the share price will decline until oil demand starts to pick up. BP may well be a good buy but look to get in at levels closer to its lows.



On Apr 11 11:42 AM X Oil Man wrote:

> Interesting recommendations; however, I sense a danger because of
> the recent trend to reduce dividends. For example, BP, T, VZ and
> others could simply follow the trend and reduce dividend to give
> more funds for management to play with - seldom a good outcome here.
> Too much goes to bonuses!!
> MLP's on the other hand, MUST distribute the cash to the investors
> - no extra funds for idle hands. This is a good thing, but too
> much concentration in any area spells danger for the future. I
> like HGT as another MLP; not too high a yield now, but the good times
> will return.
> Also, be wary of overseas stocks - CNOOC and others - because, these
> companies do NOT run with the same honesty, integrity, and business
> values as US companies. Their objectives can align more with their
> country government than with the investors.