goog

Pending home sales were up again last month for a sixth month in a row. The housing market has been a significant drag on the economy and may be one of the root causes of the crises of the last two years, so good news continues to be very welcome.

When you consider this week's pending home sales numbers in combination with the recent uptick in housing price indexes there seems to be reason for optimism. Homebuilding stocks are also up significantly since the bottom earlier this year and real estate in general seems like it may be turning into a profitable asset class again.

Is this science or science fiction? That thought came to mind when I read that traders who were exposed to more testosterone in the womb made six times more money than their low-testosterone-level peers on very volatile trading days. So if you want to breed a trader, expose him to lots of testosterone in the womb. How do you do that? Beats me.

To determine the traders' prenatal testosterone exposure, University of Minnesota researchers measured their "2D:4D ratio" which is the relative lengths of the index and ring fingers on the right hand. Those exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb tend to have relatively longer ring fingers.

Based on the 2D:4D measure, researchers who studied the traders' profits over a 20-month period between 2004 and 2007, found that those with the highest in-womb testosterone exposure in the womb earned six times more than those exposed to the least. They also tended to have the longest careers, surviving about three years longer on average.

I have been posting so much bad news over the last couple of years that I thought it would be interesting to try something different for a change: look for something that's truly good. If I can find it, I'll tell you what the good news is, why it's important, and what it means for the rest of the world.

The SEC has a big share of the responsibility for the financial catastrophe greeting our 44th president. For example, in 2004 it passed a ruling which allowed financial institutions (FIs) to borrow as much money as they wanted -- which leveraged them up to $30 of debt for every dollar of capital -- and it repeatedly missed opportunities to shut down Bernie Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

So it may come as a surprise to note that the SEC has done something right. What's that? It elected to keep an accounting rule that the banking industry was trying to get repealed. It is called mark-to-market and it requires FIs to adjust the value of their assets to reflect those assets' current market value even if they plan to hold them for years. (Ironically, mark-to-market meant the opposite to Enron which used a rule with the same name to record as current revenues potential gains it might make in energy trades 20 years in the future.)

So spooked by the market that you've withdrawn cash from your investments to stuff beneath your mattress? Or do you simply crumple every mutual fund statement without opening?

Yesterday as I sipped my coffee, Payson Swaffield, vice president and chief income investment officer of Eaton Vance of Eaton Vance (NYSE: EV) in Boston, shared with me by phone some current alternatives in fixed-income investments. There are two worlds of fixed-income investments (bonds, essentially), according to Swaffield. One is very low risk and low return. The other is slightly higher risk but has equity-like return possibilities.

First some definitions: A fixed-income instrument is an investment in a bond or another debt security issued by a government or government agency, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, a municipality, or a private enterprise. Fixed-income investments have traditionally provided lower volatility than equity investments as well as risk diversification, Swaffield says.

WIth the market tanking, short sellers have become a popular scapegoat. Some observers whine about naked short selling while others lament the end to the uptick rule, suggesting that that has been a driving force behind the market turmoil.

Vanguard Group founder John Bogle, one of the few heroes in a financial services industry filled with villains, has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal explaining why the "blame the shorts!" explanation is wrong. He states it simply:

The uptick rule will not prevent price declines or bear raids. These events can and will continue to occur when security prices are too high compared with a company's earning prospects and risk.

Exactly!

The reality is that bubbles in equities form, and policies that make short-selling more difficult allow markets to overheat and inflate. Now that the party is over, angry investors are lashing out at short sellers.

The airwaves are full of talk about volatility. But what does volatility mean? It refers to wide up and down swings in the market -- for instance, last Thursday the Dow swung 759 points from its low point to its close. At 11:10 AM it traded as low as 8220 but it closed at 8979. A measure of how big investors think the swings will be is the Volatility Index (VIX) which closed Friday at a record 70.33.

If you believe that the VIX is likely to remain high or get even higher, there is a way to profit from the volatility. That's by creating a trade called a straddle. Before getting into the details of a straddle, here are its payoffs:

• The most you can lose is the price you paid for the calls and puts -- called the net debit;
• There is no limit to how much you can gain;
• The trade breaks even if the stock falls to the strike price minus net debit; and
• The trade also breaks even if the stock price rises to the strike price plus the net debit.

So how does a straddle work?

With the S&P 500 down 13% so far this year, the market has been terrible. But most people are suffering so much from the middle class squeeze that they lack the discretionary cash to invest in stocks. For those who do have cash on the sidelines, there is a strategy they might consider that could yield big profits in the future: sift the downtrodden industries for survivors and buy their stocks as their prices fall.

The best opportunities for this strategy are in banking, home building, automobile and oil refining stocks. I would look for companies whose stock prices have been beaten down the most but that are not likely to file for bankruptcy.

How should investors evaluate whether a company in a suffering industry is likely to avoid bankruptcy? One way is to analyze all the companies in the industry based on how much money they need to pay back over the next several years and compare that figure to the amount of cash they have on hand now and whether that cash is likely to rise or fall over the next few years.

Firms that appear to have the most potential cash available to repay their obligations are the ones most likely to survive. There is more pain ahead for each of these industries, but at some point in the future, they are likely to come back. The challenge is to buy at the bottom, and the bottom is impossible to predict. Therefore, one strategy is to start buying now and if the stocks fall further, buy more to achieve a lower cost basis.

If you're interested in specific names, please comment below.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

This is the part of a series of columns called "The Naked Truth," by retirement expert Dan Solin. Please bring him your questions, in the comments box, and he will answer as many as he can.

Your broker talks. You listen. At least that is the way it is for most investors. You assume (and she definitely assumes!) she has an expertise that will help you maximize your returns. Sometimes, you almost feel like you should be taking notes.

Based on my experience, this is often not the case. Brokers are not required to have any background in finance or economics and their training is focused primarily on sales.

I thought it might be interesting to turn the tables. Here are some questions you should ask them.

Question #1: What is the most important factor that will affect my returns?

Answer: Your asset allocation, which is the amount of your investments allocated to stocks, bonds and cash. Not stock picking; not mutual fund selection and not market timing. If your broker gets this wrong, get a new broker.

The energy debate rages on as oil and gas futures bounce around with 30% corrections. Which side of the energy debate are you on? Bears say that oil and gas prices are coming back down to earth. Speculators and hedge funds bid them up, global demand is slowing and alternative forms of energy will soon replace the fossil fuels we've come to depend upon. Bulls argue that oil and gas supplies are dwindling at the same time that the emerging market economies (China, India, Brazil and 20 others) need more. As their middle class population builds they too will want cars, air conditioning and electricity and demand will increase. Most oil reserves are in countries with unstable governments and when geopolitical events get ugly, prices tend to skyrocket.

I'm a long term energy bull -- 10% of my money has been in energy stocks for the last several years and today I maintain that allocation for two reasons. First, I believe in five years, oil and gas prices will be higher than they are today. Second, owning energy is a great hedge against other asset classes like stocks, the US dollar, and inflation.

No one knows which way energy prices will go next week or month so I continually rebalance my portfolio. As my energy stocks rise, I trim them and when they fall, I add to them. If my portfolio goes to 12% energy, I sell them back down to 10% and vice versa.

Now comes the easiest part – which stocks do I pick? Easy you say? Yes – because I don't worry about stock picking due to a miraculous new invention I'll discuss below. I own three energy stocks: the U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index (NYSE:IEO), the U.S. Oil Equipment & Services Index (NYSE:IEZ), and S&P Global Energy (NYSE:IXC). Through these three stocks, I own about 200 energy stocks in precise allocation percentages to parts of the energy sector, weighted according to my own preferences – 60% is in IEO, 30% is in IEZ and 10% is in IXC. Why pick stocks when I can own them all? Here's what I mean.

Investors looking for good news today can take solace knowing that Friday the 13th is not especially unlucky.

Indeed, researchers in the Netherlands have determined that fewer accidents and reports of fire and theft occur on Friday the 13th than other Fridays. And stocks are actually trading up in early market action. Still, some people won't care. About $800 million to $900 million will be lost in business today because people will not do things they normally do.

Investors need to remember that there are many ludicrous theories about the stock market. There is the Super Bowl Indicator where people figure that if a team from the old American Football Conference (now the American Football Conference) wins, the market is headed down, while a win for the old NFL (now the National Football Conference) means good times are ahead. People believe that bad things happen in October and that May is the time to sell and go away.

Sometimes these theories "work." Other times they don't. None of them should serve as the sole basis for any investing decision. I understand their appeal because they seem to take the guesswork out of figuring out the gyrations of the market. Real life, though, does not always fit into theories.

The Dow Jones industrial average and the NASDAQ Composite Index are both down more than 8% this year. Gasoline prices have topped $4, sending many trucking companies to the brink of bankruptcy. Soaring commodity prices have squeezed profits of businesses ranging from Dow Chemical Co. (NYSE: DOW) to the local pizzeria.

If you want to invest, do your homework. Of course, people still need to avoid black cats crossing their path, stepping on sidewalk cracks and breaking mirrors.

Judging from previous articles like this, can you guess what I'm going to write about? By now I think you should know my core beliefs-while everyone and their mother is covering the wheeling and dealings of hugely important corporations hence efficient stocks like Google Inc (NASDAQ: GOOG), Yahoo Inc (NASDAQ: YHOO) and Microsoft Corp (NASDAQ: MSFT), my blog's readers and I are having much more fun profiting from trading mostly short selling...well actually all short selling-smaller infinitely more inefficiently priced companies like GRO, PTEK and STXX, all of which were "pumped up" by various temporary catalysts.

For Agria Corp (NYSE: GRO), it was message board hype, PokerTek Inc (NASDAQ: PTEK) had a combination of message board hype, rumors and press coverage and South Texas Oil Co (NASDAQ: STXX) got a stock promoter mention, and now that those temporary catalysts have come and gone, all three have reversed hard off their highs. And mind you, while many pumps are accomplished on the infinitely ore sketchy OTCBB and Pink Sheet exchanges, all three of these companies are trades on more reputable markets like the NYSE and NASDAQ. And yes, I profited solidly on all three, increasing my yearly gain to around 40%.

Now I'm looking at stocks like Source Interlink (NASDAQ: SORC) as a potential short, which is up on insider buying, a catalyst I don't respect, but since there's not enough space for me to cover all the details of exactly what I look for here--it's about chart patterns, price action and volume. Today, I am doing a special Friday the 13th marathon episode of my LiveStock show. To the untrained eye, I know these small stocks seem scary, but maybe after this journey, I can help you better understand them.

Timothy Sykes writes the blog timothysykes.com, is a former hedge fund manager, star of the TV show Wall Street Warriors and author of the book, An American Hedge Fund: How I Made $2 Million as a Stock Operator & Created a Hedge Fund

This is the part of a new series of columns called "The Naked Truth," by retirement expert Dan Solin. Please bring him your questions, in the comments box, and he will answer as many as he can.

Among those who study the financial markets, Eugene F. Fama, the Robert R. McCormick Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business, is an icon.

He is a major proponent of the "efficient markets" theory which holds the well documented view that stock prices are random and efficient.

Professor Fama believes that analysts are unlikely to find profitable anomalies in stock prices on any consistent basis and he rejects the notion that past performance is a predictor of future performance.

Based upon his exhaustive research, Professor Fama believes investors would be well advised simply to capture market returns, by investing in low cost index funds, rather than paying brokers and advisors to select stocks or actively managed mutual funds, in an effort to "beat the markets."

At the other end of the investing spectrum is Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS), a purveyor of the daily Wall Street grist, which advises its clients to rely on the expertise of its analysts in making decisions about what stocks to buy or sell and which actively managed mutual fund---and fund manager----is likely to outperform the markets or other funds.

This is the part of a new series of columns called "The Naked Truth," by retirement expert Dan Solin. Please bring him your questions, in the comments box, and he will answer as many as he can.

Question: Can I find inefficiencies in the pricing of small and microcap stocks?

Answer: A common misconception is that small cap and small value stocks provide fertile territory for "making a killing" by finding mispriced stocks. However, the data tells a different story.

One study of the performance of 157 small cap value funds over a five -year period found that almost 90% of them under performed a small cap value index.

Another study of 53 small value mutual funds over a 15-year period found that 89% of them under performed a small cap value index.

If the highly paid managers of these funds, with all the resources available to them, can't out perform the index, what are the chances that individual investors will be able to do so?

A more intriguing question is: Why are you doing this?

The volatility of a small value stock (as measured by standard deviation) is about 75%. But its expected return is roughly the same as the index, which has a risk of only 30%. Why would you take significantly more than twice the risk to achieve the same expected return? You would be much better off just buying the index.

I understand the lure: You might hit it big with a huge return. If this is what motivates you, go ahead and take a shot, but realize that you are speculating, with an expected return of zero, minus costs.

Dan Solin is the author of The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read (Perigee Books 2006) and The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read (Perigee Books, June 24, 2008). Visit his website at Smartestinvestmentbook.com.

This is the part of a new series of columns called "The Naked Truth," by retirement expert Dan Solin. Please bring him your questions, in the comments box, and he will answer as many as he can.

There is no doubt that the coming retirement tsunami will make $4.00 a gallon gas look cheap.

In a thought provoking article, entitled Common Cents, by benefits consultant, Brooks Hamilton, the author notes these signs of impending crisis:

• The majority of American either have no retirement plan or don't participate in the one they have;
• Those that do participate, don't contribute early enough and don't make adequate contributions;
• The returns earned by participants are dismal.

This perfect storm for retirement disaster is exacerbated by longer life expectancy and sharply increasing health care costs.

These past weeks, the deteriorating stock market that responds to expectations of slower or no economic growth in 2008, continued high oil prices, sagging housing market, high debt consumers and the financial industry quagmire, got me thinking about "my pal Warren" again.

It's times like these, when we are looking for a solid footing in the investment world, the few people with positive track records -- measured in decades, not years -- are worth examining once more.

Last year I started a series of stories on Warren Buffett's very basic investment cornerstones. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) has such a track record. Today, given how many companies are up to their penthouse executive suites in debt, I thought I would continue.

The subject of debt is a simple one. Companies that carry excessive debt on their books are not as good as companies that have cash sitting around. Debt can be a drag on earnings, reduce the company's flexibility and opportunity in a slowing economy, and has all the negative impacts to a company that it does to an individual household.