Best'O Greed Part 2

And a big "Boo-Yah" to you, too
Q: I'm trying to follow Jim Cramer and Mad Money to make big money in stocks. Will it work?
A: Fans of Jim Cramer and his Mad Money stock-picking television show on CNBC call in excited about stocks, usually starting their questions with Cramer's signature "boo-yah!" yell.

For an hour, Cramer plays up his hyperactive personality, barking out buy and sell recommendations on dozens of stocks. He is the evangelist of stock pickers and market timers. Fans see him as a fountainhead of information on gems other investors, traders, fund managers and analysts have somehow overlooked.

Is Cramer really a stock-picking genius?

When I asked Cramer for his picks, CNBC, after considerable prodding, provided a spreadsheet with Cramer's picks from two of the five segments of each show, excluding the lightning round, in which he answers questions from viewers.

Based on this incomplete list, Cramer's picks have gained 16.2%, on average, from the show's launch March 14, 2005, through March 27, 2006. That makes the Standard & Poor's 500 gain of 7.3% look pretty sad. Cramer says he's made his viewers lots of money. "I'm very proud of my record," he says.

I provided CNBC's list to third-party research firm Investars.com, which said, based on the incomplete list provided by CNBC, that the S&P 500 stocks picked by Cramer have performed much better than the S&P 500 at large and his picks of stocks in the small-cap Russell 2000 index have outperformed that index. Investars also found that small-cap stocks recommended by Cramer soar after being mentioned on Mad Money.

But before you get "Boo-Yah" tattooed on your forearm, let's take a closer look:

• Tracking the right benchmark. The median market value of the 606 stocks in the Cramer list was $6.8 billion, according to S&P's Capital IQ. Morningstar considers a portfolio with a median market value between $1.6 billion and $9.3 billion to be midcap. So it doesn't really make sense to compare Cramer's performance to the S&P 500, which is heavily weighted toward large-cap stocks.

What if we compare Cramer's results to a midcap index fund such as the iShares S&P MidCap 400 index exchange-traded fund (IJH)? Had you ignored Cramer and simply bought IJH on March 14, 2005 and held it until March 27, 2006, you would have been up 16.4%. That's dead even with Cramer's performance.

But it's not quite fair to compare Cramer to the IJH either. His picks include large- cap stocks and some foreign plays. So I asked IFA.com to calculate the return of the basket of index mutual funds it recommends for risk-tolerant, results hungry "mad money" type investors. The return of this portfolio, after fees, was 21.8%, trouncing Cramer's return. You can view the IFA portfolio here.

Cramer himself has described how hard it is to beat index funds. "After a lifetime of picking stocks, I have to admit that (Vanguard Group founder John) Bogle's arguments in favor of the index fund have me thinking of joining him rather than trying to beat him," Cramer said on the dust jacket of Common Sense on Mutual Funds, Bogle's 1999 book.

• Time. Don't forget the cost of the time it take to follow Cramer. IFA.com's President Mark Hebner breaks it down this way: Imagine having $100,000 to invest in a ten-stock portfolio of Cramer's stock picks. Cramer recommends spending at least an hour a week researching each stock. That translates to more than 500 hours of homework a year. Even if all that work pays off and you beat the market by two percentage points, that's a return of $2,000 or $4 an hour. "Was it really worth it?" Hebner asks.

Time also tends to be cruel to stock pickers. The chances of a money manager outperforming the market in the long term, especially after fees and other costs, is small, says Bogle, whose Vanguard Group popularized index mutual funds and who is acquainted with Cramer. "I wish him well, but I'm not investing with him," Bogle says.

• Fees. Had you followed Cramer's advice, you would have had to buy more than 606 stocks, according to the CNBC data. Even if you use an online broker that charges just $5 a trade, you would have spent $3,030 in commissions.

In an e-mail, Cramer wrote: "Transaction costs are always a factor whether they are done within a mutual fund, a hedge fund or by an individual himself. I believe strongly that my figures clearly beat almost every relevant benchmark by a mile and that even if you put in transaction costs you would be well ahead of the game."

To be fair to Cramer, one year of performance is not adequate to judge a stock picker. And CNBC spokesman Kevin Goldman wrote in an e-mail to USA TODAY: "It is overly simplistic to measure year-to-year comparisons. Cramer can change his mind on a stock depending on a number of factors. He says each investor should do his or her own homework about a stock."

What's the lesson here? Be skeptical anytime someone claims to have the ability to predict short-term movements in stocks or the stock market and make them prove their returns to you. Almost always, the best thing to do is plug your ears and run away, fast.

Best Of Breed Part 1

Great new indexing tool just needs a better wrapper
By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- Titles and headlines sell stuff. In fact, my old marketing
professor told us that they are 88% of the reason why people read an advertisement or a column or pick
up a book. You gotta "GRAB!" your reader or customer. Make them stop in their tracks.
No grabber? No stop? No readers. No sale! Well, I just got a review copy of a new book by financial
adviser Mark T. Hebner, a colorful high-graphics beauty, loaded with fabulous charts, tables, data and
research. But the title is "Index Funds." I set it aside.
"Freakonomics!" Now that title's a show-stopper! The new "Bogleheads Guide to Investing!" Gotcha! A
must-read! But plain-vanilla "Index Funds?" Dull. Boring. A snoozer. So stick with me and read: For this
review I'm retitling Hebner's book "The Freakoindex Guide to Winning Portfolios!"
Folks, there's actually a big connection between the two: Freakonomic research says "experts" have an
"informational advantage" and use it against their clients. Which sure hints why index funds will never be
more popular than a mere 8% of the $8 trillion fund world, even though indexing consistently beats
actively managed funds. Index funds will always be the minority because the "experts" will invent jazzier
titles and headlines to sell nonindex funds that make more money for the "experts!"
So the media has a responsibility to get the indexing message out. And I believe Hebner's giving
American investors a great resource. Yet many will miss it because it lacks a jazzy "88%" title. And it's
pricey. But we've got a big surprise for you. After we review it we're going to show you how to get it for
free! So here's our summary of what we call "The Freakoindex Guide to Winning Portfolios:"
Step 1: Passive investors win
The game's fixed. Active investors try to pick the winners from among thousands of stocks and funds.
But prices are news-driven. And news is random and unpredictable. Worse yet, "experts" like Wall Street
brokers, portfolio managers and traders have an "informational advantage" that makes it impossible for
Main Street to beat them. They take advantage of naïve investors blindly throwing money at news tips.
Step 2: Nobel economists win
Hebner has the best survey I've seen of research by Nobel Prize-winning economists and other
academics. Unlike Wall Street plugging an IPO client or some brokers hustling commissions, they're
objective and unbiased. All this research proves conclusively that indexing and simple asset allocation
are the best way to win.
Step 3: Stock pickers lose
Wall Street brags about the stock-picking talents of active managers. Yet research says only 3% of them
beat their benchmark, and it's mostly luck. Stock-picking success is random. And today's winners are
rarely on top tomorrow.
Step 4: Market timers lose
Market timing is a fool's game. Over a 10-year period, 88% of your returns will come from a brief 40 up
days. Nobody can predict which 40 days. An academic study of 15,000 predictions by 237 timers
concluded: There's "no evidence that [market-timing] newsletters can time the market."
Step 5: Picking managers loses
Forget about picking next year's hot managers. You can't. The S&P 500 beat 97% of mutual fund
managers for a 10-year period ending October 2004. In two 30-year studies, the S&P 500 outperformed
97% and 94% of the managers. And only 12% of the top-100 managers repeated.
Step 6: Style drifters lose
Active managers love playing with your money, churning portfolios. They're gambling, it's fun. Their
average salary is more than $400,000 annually, even when they lose your money. One study proves that
40% of all funds drift from their stated objective. Reported holdings are months old, so you never really
know what's in any fund, or in your portfolio!
Step 7: Silent partners win
Before you make a dime invisible partners skim money off the top! They're silent because the SEC
doesn't require funds to disclose details about who's skimming: expenses, commissions, fees and taxes.
In one 15-year study of taxable accounts, actively managed funds returned 50% of the gross, while index
funds returned 85% to investors.
Step 8: Risk blindness
The sad truth is, most American investors don't know that what they're doing amounts to gambling. They
chase short-term returns, follow hot tips, never really understanding the impact that timing and risk-taking
have on their after-tax returns.
Step 9: History exposes
Managers come and go. Performance drifts unpredictably over the short term. Indexes are your only
reliable source going back 80 years. Raw indexes, not actively managed funds, are the best measure of
long-term portfolio risks.
Step 10: Risk capacity
What's your risk profile? Your risk "capacity" is a combination of five factors: Personal tolerance for risk
(anxiety level!), your investment IQ, net worth, income and savings rate, plus time to retirement or any
special withdrawal needs. This book has a ton of information on how to determine your risk profile!
Step 11: Risk exposure
Over 90% of a portfolio's returns are a function of asset allocation and not the specific funds, stocks and
bonds. Active management has a negative effect on returns, draining off a third or more. Over a 50-year
period, studies show that a diversified index portfolio will outperform the S&P 500.
Step 12: Invest and relax
Hebner says index and relax: The best way to maximize your returns is to avoid active trading, market
timing and actively managed funds. Create and build a portfolio of index funds that works for your unique
risk profile. Set it and forget it. Buy quality, rebalance periodically. And relax.
Now the best news of all: Hebner's hard copy is a museum piece, a work of art that ought to be on your
coffee table or framed on a wall. But if you think it's a bit pricey at $29.99, get it online free, right now!
See the virtual book.
You can return to this fabulous resource any time you need research, data (yes, Hebner's team does
update statistics regularily) and inspiration about investing, asset allocation and portfolio management.
So get it: "The Freakoindex Guide to Successful Portfolios" is perfect for America's 94 million Main Street
investors! Even if you only call it "Index Funds."

The Phelps Factor

Joseph E. Stiglitz

(NOBLE PRICE OF ECONOMICS)

On December 10, Edmund Phelps, my colleague at Columbia University, will receive the Nobel Prize in economics for 2006. The award was long overdue. While the Nobel Prize committee cited his contributions to macroeconomics, Phelps has made contributions in many areas, including the theory of growth and technological change, optimal taxation, and social justice.

Phelps’ key observation in macroeconomics was that the relationship between inflation and unemployment is affected by expectations, and since expectations themselves are endogenous – they change over time – so, too, will the relationship between unemployment and inflation. If a government attempts to push the unemployment rate too low, inflation will increase, and so, too, will inflationary expectations.

This insight holds two possible policy implications. Some policymakers have concluded from Phelps’ analysis that the unemployment rate cannot be lowered permanently without ever-increasing levels of inflation. Thus, monetary authorities should simply focus on price stability by targeting the rate of unemployment at which inflation does not increase, referred to as the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment” (NAIRU).

But the NAIRU is not immutable. The correct implication, which Phelps repeatedly emphasized, is that governments can implement a variety of policies, particularly structural policies, to allow the economy to operate at a lower level of unemployment.

Policies that focus exclusively on inflation are misguided for several other reasons. As a practical matter, even controlling for expectations (as Phelps’ work insists that we do), the relationship between unemployment and inflation is highly unstable. It is virtually impossible to discern the relationship from the data except in a few isolated periods.

Changes in education levels, unionization, and productivity are part of the explanation for this instability. But, whatever the reason, policymakers face considerable uncertainty about the level of NAIRU. Thus, they still face a trade-off between pushing unemployment too low, and setting off an episode of inflation, and not pushing hard enough, resulting in an unnecessary waste of economic resources.

How one views these risks depends on the costs of undoing mistakes, which in turn depends on other properties of the inflation-unemployment relationship that Phelps’ analysis did not address. The weight of evidence indicates that the cost of undoing the mistake of pushing unemployment down too far is itself very low, at least for countries like the US, where the relationship has been carefully studied. In this view, the Federal Reserve should aggressively pursue low unemployment, until it is shown that inflation is rising.

By contrast, inflation “hawks” argue that inflation must be attacked preemptively. While most central banks are inflation hawks, this stance is a matter of religion, not economic science. There is simply little or no empirical evidence that inflation, at the low to moderate rates that have prevailed in recent decades, has any significant harmful real effects on output, employment, growth, or the distribution of income. Nor is there evidence that inflation, should it increase slightly, cannot be reversed at a relatively minor cost – comparable to the benefits of additional employment and growth enjoyed in the excessive expansion of the economy that led to the increase in inflation.

In the early 1990’s, the Fed, and many others, thought that the NAIRU was around 6%-6.2%. Based on changes in the economy, I and the staff that worked with me on President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers argued that the NAIRU was considerably lower. We were right. Unemployment fell to 3.8% without any surge in inflation.

This matters because, as the great economist Arthur Okun argued, reducing unemployment by two percentage points would increase output by 2%-6%, or $0.5-1.5 trillion dollars in the case of America. Even for a rich country, that is a lot of money. It could be used to put America’s social security system on a stable footing for the next 75-100 years. It could even pay for a substantial share of the cost for a war like that in Iraq!

Phelps’ work helped us to understand the complexity of the relationship between inflation and unemployment, and the important role that expectations can play in that relationship. But it is a misuse of that analysis to conclude that nothing can be done about unemployment, or that monetary authorities should focus exclusively on inflation.

That view belongs to a school of modern macroeconomics that assumes rational expectations and perfectly functioning markets. In other words, individuals – usually assumed to be identical – fully use all available information to forecast the future in an environment of perfect competition, no capital market shortcomings, and full insurance of all risks. Not only are these assumptions absurd, but so are the conclusions: there is no involuntary unemployment, markets are fully efficient, and redistribution has no real consequence. But, while government policies, according to this school, are ineffective, that matters little. Because markets are always efficient, there is no need for government intervention. More perniciously, many supporters of this view, when confronted with the reality of unemployment, argue that it arises only because of government-imposed rigidities and trade unions. In their “ideal” world without either, there would, they claim, be no unemployment.

For more than three decades, Phelps has shown that there is an alternative approach. He has tried to understand what we can do to lower unemployment and increase the well-being of those at the bottom. But he has also striven to understand what makes capitalist economies dynamic, what lies behind the entrepreneurial spirit, and what we can do to promote it further. Phelps’ economics remains one of action, not resignation.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics. His latest book is Making Globalization Work.

4 ways you can fight greedy CEOs

( Michael Brush is doing for the individual shareholder what the SEC should be doing.)

Don't just fume about grossly overpaid execs and other corporate scams. You can make a concrete difference. Here are the people to contact and steps to take to get reforms under way.

By Michael Brush
The boss has always made a bundle. In 1940, U.S. corporations paid their chief executives 48 times as much as the average worker, on average. No small gap.

But that doesn't come close to today's great pay divide. CEOs earned $11.3 million on average last year, a 27% increase from the prior year and a huge 262 times more than the average worker. Barry Diller, the chairman and chief executive of the IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI, news, msgs), took home $295 million last year, including pay, bonus and options cashed in, according to the Corporate Library.

What's worse? The CEOs don't seem to see anything wrong with that type of compensation. Diller recently said critics of his pay and similar packages are "birdbrains."

The momentum of CEO pay, obviously, isn't headed in the right direction. But you don't have to be a Democrat to appreciate that the party about to take power may give the little guy a bit more say in how much the big guy gets paid.

In a minute, I'll give you a set of four steps you can take to help get executive compensation back under control. First, another quick look at why such action is needed.

According to the Corporate Library, a corporate governance research firm, here's what the five highest-paid CEOs made last year:

1. IAC/InterActiveCorp's Diller got $295 million.

2. Capital One Financial (COF, news, msgs) CEO Richard Fairbank got $249 million by cashing in options.

3. Nabors Industries (NBR, news, msgs) CEO Eugene Isenberg got $203 million in pay, bonus, cashed-in options and restricted stock.

4. Yahoo (YHOO, news, msgs) CEO Terry Semel pocketed $183 million in pay, cashed-in options and restricted stock.

5. KB Home (KBH, news, msgs) chief Bruce Karaz got $156 million in pay, bonus, cashed-in options, restricted stock and incentive grants.

If these kinds of giveaways to CEOs tick you off, you don't have to just sit and fume about it.

Congress, regulators and companies themselves are considering a slate of reforms that would go a long way to correct the problem -- and you can take several concrete steps to support these changes.

Here's a list of whom to contact (click a name to send an e-mail):

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox's office. (Click the name to send an e-mail to Cox.)

Your representatives in the U.S. House and Senate.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who will chair the House Committee on Financial Services, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who will head up the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs next year. (Please, e-mail MSN Money a copy of whatever you send to any member of Congress.)

And here's my quick list of reforms that you can try and do something about:

Boot the directors
The real culprits behind enormous salary increases for CEOs are boards that approve these egregious pay packages in the first place. So it's important to vote against board members on pay committees that let these bloated pay packages through. "Unless you boot off directors who agree to these outrageous pay plans, there is no way to stop it," says Nell Minow of the Corporate Library.

"Don't just discipline board members, change them," says Patrick McGurn, special counsel for Institutional Shareholder Services. Shareholders may soon get more power to do so -- but you'll need to support reform efforts aimed at getting greater "proxy access" for shareholders, as the reform effort is called.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently sided with a company that rejected a shareholder proposal which would have given shareholders holding more than 3% of its shares the right to nominate board candidates. But a federal court has told the SEC to reconsider its ruling, which may give shareholders more say in policing boards that play too loose with corporate checkbooks.

Get a clearer view
What you can do -- Step #1: Contact the SEC and tell them you support the rights of shareholders to use the corporate proxy machine to propose changes in the rules on how board members are elected. "This should be on top of the list," says McGurn. Tell your representatives in Congress, too, since they have the power to influence SEC policy. The case involves American International Group (AIG, news, msgs) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which wants the bylaws change.

The good news is that it will be much easier to see how much executives make come springtime, when companies file proxy materials -- the documents containing details of executive pay.

The SEC recently adopted rules calling for better clarity, and pay experts are expecting some big surprises. "That in and of itself will have a chilling effect," says Minow, "although these people seem incapable of embarrassment."

But there's still room for improvement in disclosure. One shortcoming is that the SEC doesn't require companies to reveal the targets (such as company profits, revenues, etc.) executives have to hit to receive performance-based pay. This is a problem, since options often account for the lion's share of bloated pay packages.

Outgoing UnitedHealth Group (UNH, news, msgs) CEO William McGuire racked up an awesome $1.6 billion worth of exercisable options and $174.9 million out-of-the-money options during his tenure at the helm. That's on top of a salary, bonus and "other pay" package worth $10.6 million in 2005 alone, according to the Corporate Library.

Unmask the consultants
What you can do -- Step #2: Tell the regulators and your representatives that you want more detail about what targets CEOs have to hit to increase the size of their paychecks.

Companies hire compensation consultants to help determine how much to pay their executives. The question is whether that advice is objective. For instance, those same consultants try to get business from the companies to advise on their employees' retirement plans. If they give the CEO a healthy pay raise, does that help them land or keep other consulting jobs?

What you can do -- Step #3: Ask the SEC and your representatives to require disclosure of all relationships between compensation consultants and the companies whose executive pay packages they design.

Fantasy shareholding
If you hold just $2,000 worth of a company's stock for over a year, you have the right to submit votes to fellow shareholders. "For $2,000 you get a seat at the table with the board of directors and the CEO," says McGurn. "It's like fantasy baseball."


You can't force companies to ask shareholders to vote on anything (see Step #1). One area that's strictly off limits: votes that would constrain management on day-to-day business decisions. (That's fair enough. You wouldn't want shareholders micromanaging companies.)

But you can get proposals that ask shareholders to vote on several changes that can improve the quality of boards and help reign in executive pay, says Charles Elson, director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

For several years, for example, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY, news, msgs) shareholder Dundas Flaherty filed proposals that asked shareholders if they wanted the office of chairman and chief executive to be split. Having the same person in both roles, some critics say, compromises board independence. About 40% of shareholders approved the proposal each time, says Cornish Hitchcock, a Washington D.C.-based attorney who helped Flaherty. In 2005, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to split the jobs.

What you can do -- Step # 4: As a shareholder, ask companies to put pay-related reforms to a vote -- or at least be sure to look for pay-related proposals from other activist shareholders and vote "yes."

For example, watch for proposals asking you to vote against excessive golden parachutes, excessive pay packages and the compensation committee reports that justify them, says Hitchcock, who also advises Amalgamated Bank's LongView index funds on how to use shareholder proposals.

Elson says proposals that require majority voting for directors are crucial. This change means that directors have to get a majority of all votes cast to win -- not just the largest number among several candidates. This makes it harder for boards and managers to get a rubber stamp on their favored candidates when the broader shareholder base is apathetic.

There are, of course, other steps to take. And anytime you go head to head with a corporation, it can be an uphill fight. But with the political winds swinging toward shareholders' favor, now's the time to give it a try.

Fear Mongering and Population Numbers

The graph below is from the Department of Labor & represents the number of Americans working from December 1948 until November 2006.
You will see the graph indicates a much larger segment of the population in the working force.
The consistent media in 55% of the working population until the Reagan revolution, in which salaries starting to feel the lack of purchasing power declining a 32% by 1986. At that point, is a clear that an increment coming from the women segment to integrate in the labor force at a much lower pay ratio.
The last ten years employment is running at 64% of the population that is a 17% increase in the labor force since 1948.
The next issue that affect employment ratios is Social Security, with a larger working population and increasingly lower pay outs from Social security it is clear that for the next 60 years, at least that is the real data at hand, Social Security has more contributors per person today that it had in 1985 with lower pay outs.
I think the present debate about teh solvency of social security has to do more with hos the contributions should be impose, managed and collected than the solvency of the Social Security system.
The proponent of Social Insecurity have a lot to gain from it but fear mongering is not a decent tool to change a system that supports our elders peace.