Archive for February, 2010

Long Bonds Test the Downtrend Again

jessefelder | February 25, 2010 in Uncategorized | Comments (0)


TLT, the Long Bond ETF, is testing the short-term downtrend once again. Earlier in the month it clearly failed as rates perked up a bit. I think it's important to note, however, that the fund didn't make a new low on this last down leg. 

With the recent punk economic numbers a 4% risk-free return is looking a bit more attractive. If I'm right about the economic challenges ahead it could look downright juicy.

Disclosure: long TLT

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


Where Is the Outrage Over Broker Bonuses?

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

While bankers have been lambasted in the press over the past year or so brokers and financial advisors at the very same institutions have been earning multiples more than their heavily criticized counterparts:

Bonus has become a bad word for traders, investment bankers and top executives at Wall Street securities firms. For thousands of brokers, though, the big bucks just keep rolling in.

Mark Curtis, one of the biggest generators of commissions in the brokerage giant formed last year by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc.’s Smith Barney unit, got a payout in 2009 that people familiar with the firm estimate at $10 million or more.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney promised top brokers like Mr. Curtis 75% of certain fees and commissions generated in 2008 as part of the pay plan agreed to by both companies as a way of enticing top brokers to stick around after the merger. A team of brokers led by Mr. Curtis has brought in more than $15 million in annual fees and commissions in recent years, these people say.

About one-third of the combined firm’s 18,000 brokers got a one-time payment, structured as a multiyear loan that is forgiven if the broker stays put. Merrill Lynch & Co.’s top brokers received a similar award last year when Bank of America Corp. acquired the securities firm.

The retention awards and similar signing bonuses for brokers exceed $10 million in some cases across Wall Street, people familiar with the matter say. At most firms, the highest producers with retention deals also get smaller payments later on that are based on future or past asset growth or revenue. The retention payments are in addition to $3 million to $5 million that top-dog brokers earn yearly through fees and commissions.

If you thought bankers were outrageously overpaid over the past few years you should take a look at broker pay over the last 100 years or so. Fred Schwed’s “Where Are the Customers’ Yachts?” was first published all the way back in 1940. “The more things change…”

For more on this topic read the February issue of The Felder Report.

Posted via web from jessefelder’s posterous


Long Bonds Test the Downtrend Again

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)


TLT, the Long Bond ETF, is testing the short-term downtrend once again. Earlier in the month it clearly failed as rates perked up a bit. I think it's important to note, however, that the fund didn't make a new low on this last down leg. 

With the recent punk economic numbers a 4% risk-free return is looking a bit more attractive. If I'm right about the economic challenges ahead it could look downright juicy.

Disclosure: long TLT

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


Where Is the Outrage Over Broker Bonuses?

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

While bankers have been lambasted in the press over the past year or so brokers and financial advisors at the very same institutions have been earning multiples more than their heavily criticized counterparts:

Bonus has become a bad word for traders, investment bankers and top executives at Wall Street securities firms. For thousands of brokers, though, the big bucks just keep rolling in.

Mark Curtis, one of the biggest generators of commissions in the brokerage giant formed last year by Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc.’s Smith Barney unit, got a payout in 2009 that people familiar with the firm estimate at $10 million or more.

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney promised top brokers like Mr. Curtis 75% of certain fees and commissions generated in 2008 as part of the pay plan agreed to by both companies as a way of enticing top brokers to stick around after the merger. A team of brokers led by Mr. Curtis has brought in more than $15 million in annual fees and commissions in recent years, these people say.

About one-third of the combined firm’s 18,000 brokers got a one-time payment, structured as a multiyear loan that is forgiven if the broker stays put. Merrill Lynch & Co.’s top brokers received a similar award last year when Bank of America Corp. acquired the securities firm.

The retention awards and similar signing bonuses for brokers exceed $10 million in some cases across Wall Street, people familiar with the matter say. At most firms, the highest producers with retention deals also get smaller payments later on that are based on future or past asset growth or revenue. The retention payments are in addition to $3 million to $5 million that top-dog brokers earn yearly through fees and commissions.

If you thought bankers were outrageously overpaid over the past few years you should take a look at broker pay over the last 100 years or so. Fred Schwed’s “Where Are the Customers’ Yachts?” was first published all the way back in 1940. “The more things change…”

For more on this topic read the February issue of The Felder Report.

Posted via web from jessefelder’s posterous


Toyoda Apologizes for His Mistresses

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)


Why We Won’t See a Normal "Tightening Cycle" for Many Years to Come

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Despite continued weak economic numbers like today's jobless claims, the financial blogosphere is buzzing with 'how to play the coming tightening cycle.'

I would humbly submit that there is a very real possibility that we won't see a full blown tightening cycle for many years to come.

Including my editorial published in today's issue of The Bulletin, I have written pretty extensively about the prospect of a prolonged "balance sheet recession" driven mainly by consumer deleveraging.

The amount of debt at the consumer level is massive. It was built up over many years by the combination of literally no savings and chasing the twin internet and real estate bubbles:

Consumers spending is by far the largest driving force of our country's economy. Understanding that consumers are both unable to take on more debt to continue their multi-decade spending frenzy AND that they are, in fact, beginning to embrace a more frugal mindset (for both environmental and socioeconomic reasons) can only lead one to expect an extended period of economic weakness.

For the Fed to pursue a normal tightening cycle in the midst of this scenario would be asinine for its detrimental effect. With his unparalleled knowledge of the Great Depression, the last major period of deleveraging, I believe Ben Bernanke understands this well and, as Paul Krugman recently suggested, may soon be known as Bernanke-san.

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


Why We Won’t See a Normal “Tightening Cycle” for Many Years to Come

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Despite continued weak economic numbers like today's jobless claims, the financial blogosphere is buzzing with 'how to play the coming tightening cycle.'

I would humbly submit that there is a very real possibility that we won't see a full blown tightening cycle for many years to come.

Including my editorial published in today's issue of The Bulletin, I have written pretty extensively about the prospect of a prolonged "balance sheet recession" driven mainly by consumer deleveraging.

The amount of debt at the consumer level is massive. It was built up over many years by the combination of literally no savings and chasing the twin internet and real estate bubbles:

Consumers spending is by far the largest driving force of our country's economy. Understanding that consumers are both unable to take on more debt to continue their multi-decade spending frenzy AND that they are, in fact, beginning to embrace a more frugal mindset (for both environmental and socioeconomic reasons) can only lead one to expect an extended period of economic weakness.

For the Fed to pursue a normal tightening cycle in the midst of this scenario would be asinine for its detrimental effect. With his unparalleled knowledge of the Great Depression, the last major period of deleveraging, I believe Ben Bernanke understands this well and, as Paul Krugman recently suggested, may soon be known as Bernanke-san.

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


Canadian Comeback

jessefelder | February 24, 2010 in Uncategorized | Comments (2)

I'm an avid hockey fan and for a guy like me it doesn't get much better than the Winter Olympics – the best athletes in the world playing for their countries. Needless to say, I was ecstatic to see the U.S. beat Canada on Sunday.

Still, this is a pretty good comeback:

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


American Funds: the Poster Child for "Legal Abuse" in the Financial Industry

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

I've written recently about the perverted financial advisory industry in a post titled, "All You Need to Know About Your Financial Advisor," and more extensively in the February issue of the Felder Report. I meet people on a very regular basis who have been working with bad advisors. Interestingly enough, nearly all of them own at least one mutual fund in the American family of funds.

American Funds, it turns out, is the poster child for all that is wrong with the industry. My twitter pal, @stockjockey, alerted me yesterday to this scathing piece over at "Tools for Money":

We pick on financial advisors using American Funds because it's the most ubiquitous "legal abuse" in the business.

American Funds is the Paris Hilton of investing – it spends the most resources on self-promotion and is only famous for being famous. It really has no special talents to speak of relative to its peers. They were worthy of note back in the 20th century, but not anymore.

From the investor's point of view, there isn't anything American Funds has or does better than any other mutual fund family. So why are they so popular? It's not because of investment performance.

They're popular because they pay big money to be popular. The one thing American Funds excels in, is doing business the "American way." Which is charging their shareholders high (semi-hidden) fees, and then spending their money on slick advertising, marketing schemes, and kickbacks to Broker Dealers and financial advisors…

Read the rest at Tools for Money.

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous


American Funds: the Poster Child for “Legal Abuse” in the Financial Industry

jessefelder | in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

I've written recently about the perverted financial advisory industry in a post titled, "All You Need to Know About Your Financial Advisor," and more extensively in the February issue of the Felder Report. I meet people on a very regular basis who have been working with bad advisors. Interestingly enough, nearly all of them own at least one mutual fund in the American family of funds.

American Funds, it turns out, is the poster child for all that is wrong with the industry. My twitter pal, @stockjockey, alerted me yesterday to this scathing piece over at "Tools for Money":

We pick on financial advisors using American Funds because it's the most ubiquitous "legal abuse" in the business.

American Funds is the Paris Hilton of investing – it spends the most resources on self-promotion and is only famous for being famous. It really has no special talents to speak of relative to its peers. They were worthy of note back in the 20th century, but not anymore.

From the investor's point of view, there isn't anything American Funds has or does better than any other mutual fund family. So why are they so popular? It's not because of investment performance.

They're popular because they pay big money to be popular. The one thing American Funds excels in, is doing business the "American way." Which is charging their shareholders high (semi-hidden) fees, and then spending their money on slick advertising, marketing schemes, and kickbacks to Broker Dealers and financial advisors…

Read the rest at Tools for Money.

Posted via email from jessefelder’s posterous