Jackass Investing “Poor-folio” Award to President Obama and other Critics of Speculation

In this political environment, high energy prices remain a hot issue. Policy-makers, often driven by politics and emotion, are once again ramping up their attacks on “evil” speculators for driving up the price of oil and gas.

In fact, President Obama, in a Rose Garden press conference on April 17, 2012, along with certain members of Congress, has blamed high oil prices on “speculation” and called for greater federal oversight of oil markets. The President’s proposal is intended to root out market manipulation and speculation. After all, we need to blame somebody for such high energy prices. Right?

Well, if speculators are to blame for high prices, then they must also be praised when prices are low; but you will never see a politician taking such a stance. Why not? Because an attack on speculators for low energy prices obviously does not fit their political agenda.

President Obama’s proposal to increase CFTC enforcement of the energy markets due to high gas prices is at best silly political pandering, and at worst, creates divisiveness and encourages attacks against market participants. It’s as ridiculous as if he asked for an increase in the budget of the SEC in order to clamp down on “investors” who have earned profits in their 401(k)’s over the past couple of years as a result of the bull market in stocks. It just doesn’t make sense.

A primary purpose of markets is to allow participants to hedge or transfer the risk of price changes. Functioning energy markets require the participation of both hedgers (such as the large oil companies or the airlines) and speculators. Without speculators, the hedgers would be subjected to the risk of extreme price swings, which would adversely affect many businesses. The bottom line is that markets benefit from the participation of speculators.

As I discuss in Myth #11 of Jackass Investing, commodity prices are no more volatile than stock prices, and many commodities are much less volatile than many stocks. In fact, most commodities (including crude oil) are less volatile than many stable, large cap stocks, such as Exxon Mobil, Berkshire Hathaway, and GE. Speculation serves to reduce market volatility.

One prior ill-conceived politically-inspired regulation was the U.S’s ban on the short-selling of financial stocks in 2008. As I show in Myth # 10 of Jackass Investing, this resulted in both greater volatility and lower prices for those stocks relative to the market during the period the ban was in effect.

President Obama today is attempting to portray speculators as wild gamblers driving up the price of oil for their personal gain and at the expense of the “American People.” This is no different from regulators who in 2008 blamed speculators for driving down the price of financial stocks. Neither argument is based on fact. Speculation cannot affect the long-term price of markets. That price is set by end user supply and demand. If those end users think speculators have temporarily pushed prices out of line, they can take advantage of that “artificial” mispricing; much like Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV) did by locking in low fuel costs prior to the run-up in prices in 2008.

As I mention in Myth #14 of Jackass Investing, government regulations will NOT protect you. The road to a “poor-folio” is often paved with good intentions; however, the “best intentions” of politicians are intended to benefit them, not you, the rational investor.

As a result of their political pandering and blatant mistrust of free markets, I am awarding a Jackass Investing “Poor-folio” Award to . . .

  • President Obama
  • Members of Congress who support his politically-motivated call to, essentially, criminalize speculation
Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
Permalink

Another Jackass Investing “Poor-folio Award”

This award goes to Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, the three credit rating agencies whose incompetence contributed to one of the greatest destructions of wealth and confidence in the global financial system ever, and helped precipitate the financial crisis of 2008.

The greed and incompetence of the credit ratings agencies is now well-known.  I first described this and their conflict-of-interest addled ratings process in Myth #13: “It’s Best to Follow Expert Advice” of my book Jackass Investing: Don’t do it. Profit from it. You can read the full text of that chapter here: Myth #13. (The chapter also weaves in interesting references to stock market gurus, financial analysts, ways that rats outsmart humans, and the Apollo moon landings.)

But now it becomes apparent that the greed and incompetence of the ratings agencies were built on a foundation of corruption. The disturbing case of corruption was reported in a 78-page “comment” made by William J. Harrington, an 11-year employee and Senior Vice President of Moody’s, one of the big three ratings agencies. The story was reported by Henry Blodgett here: http://www.businessinsider.com/moodys-analyst-conflicts-corruption-and-greed-2011-8. (And Blodgett certainly knows corruption and conflicts-of-interest. He was sanctioned for putting public buy ratings on stocks that his employer was underwriting, when he personally believed them to be “dogs.”)

Harrington wrote that – surprise – Moody’s often gave out ratings that its clients wanted, against the private conclusions of its analysts; and that Moody’s product managers, those who were responsible for growing business and keeping clients happy, also voted on ratings decisions. You can read Harrington’s comments in their entirety here: http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-18-11/s71811-33.pdf.

It would have been justification enough to issue this award on the basis of greed and incompetence alone, the charge of corruption makes Moody’s more worthy yet.

Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
Permalink

New Jackass Investing “Poor-folio Award”

A Jackass Investing “Poor-folio Award” goes to…

European Securities and Markets Authority

Last Thursday, August 11th, four European countries banned or restricted short-selling in stocks. The bans were imposed in reaction to the sizable stock market losses recently suffered across global markets. This is a political move, not a logical financial one, and history shows it will be counter-productive.

In my book Jackass Investing: Don’t do it. Profit from it., I discuss the attempts that have been made by governments over the centuries to manipulate markets by banning the short-selling of stocks. They do not work. The most recent widespread ban of short-selling – that imposed during the financial crisis in 2008 – resulted in losses in the banned stocks that exceeded the losses on stocks for which short-selling remained permissible. The chapter in which this is covered, “Myth #10: Short Selling is Destabilizing and Risky,” can be read here in its entirety: Myth #10.

The reason short-selling bans are counter-productive is simple: free markets hate inconsistency. Knee-jerk rule changes wreak havoc on investor confidence. What greater statement is there to show a lack of confidence in the markets than to restrict people from selling stocks! Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard states the issue clearly, “The short-sale ban really smacks of desperation.”

Because of their panic in the face of adversity, their lack of confidence in free markets and their signal of desperation to financial market participants, I’m awarding this Jackass Investing “Poor-folio Award” to the “European Securities and Markets Association.” Congratulations!

——————————————

The Jackass Investing Poor-folio Awards are given out to those who sink below the crowd by taking actions that contribute to the creation of “Poor-folios.” For more information about Jackass Investing and how to avoid a Poor-folio and create “Free Lunch” portfolios that earn greater returns with less risk, go to www.JackassInvesting.com.

Share this post:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • email
Permalink