The United States of Europe? Not!

It seems not a day goes by that we are not hearing of some new "alphabet soup" (EFSF, ESM, EU, ECB, IMF...) of entities that are having a "summit" on how to bailout Greece, or Spain, or Italy, and so on.  So much has been made of this fiasco and yet it is really not all that complicated.

For years the European welfare state, present in just about every European country including Germany, has been promising citizens what it cannot deliver: cradle to grave security and an easy life of limited work and long vacations.  This came in the form of perks like early retirement on full pension and health benefits, for life, leisurely guaranteed five week vacations, and more typically nine weeks at many large companies!  It all sounded great until the bills started coming due.  Europeans, especially those along the Mediterranean, have run out of money to pay for such excesses.

Some are in better shape than others.  Germany, for instance, had a much lesser party than Greece, for instance, and is particularly annoyed at the prospect that they could be saddled with the debts of those to their south who have "lived it up".  While Germans have not been completely innocent of embracing the welfare state, they are a very hard working and productive people who absorbed  their own profligate son (East Germany) within the last twenty years and managed to do a pretty good job of it.

Eventually, this drama may come to a head in a much different way than most expect.  The "Grexit" as many in the media have dubbed it (Greece's long awaited exit from the Euro) may give way to the "Gerxit"!  That's right, it may be that Germany is gearing up for a Euro exit which, while painful for Germany in the short run, may be the best solution for all concerned.

Frankly, while so much was made of the Greek election this past weekend, the more important election in Europe was in France, where the French have gone "all in" for the welfare state with the convincing election of Francois Hollande and his Socialist government.  This ends any possibility of coordination between Germany and France on greater Euro issues.  It is notable that Hollande campaigned on reversing the move to change French public workers' retirement age from 60 to 62.  France's finances are incapable of avoiding the inevitable day of reckoning but Hollande will have to face that reality, which will come crashing in on the French one way or another, and deal with the consequences accordingly.

Regardless, this may clear a path for Germany to say goodbye to the Euro and go back to the stability of the Deutschemark (DM).  The DM would immediately strengthen against the Euro (or more likely the Euro will collapse), giving an out to the Greece's of the world who desire devaluation so they can inflate away their debts.  Ultimately, it would free Germany from the responsibility of propping up those profligate members of the EU who have been unable to control their finances.

While we recognize this may be considered a long shot, we note that this is being discussed in other circles, as can be seen here, and here.

Over twenty years ago, we wondered about the "United States of Europe" as many were promoting its promise.  Could there be monetary union without political union?  Apparently not.
Continue Reading

Is the world economy heading for another "Lehman Brothers moment"?





















The markets have been reacting to widespread unease over Europe's economic woes, and the oft-repeated concern that the "debt crisis" there will spark another "Lehman Brothers moment," initiating a new 2008-style calamity that will engulf the US and bring on another recession (or worse).  Meanwhile, every economic report showing signs of slower growth is heralded as confirmation that such fears are about to come true.

We have written many times that we do not make our living by predicting ups and downs in the economy.  That said, we believe these fears are overwrought and that investors would do well to take a skeptical view of comparisons in the financial media to the Lehman Brothers collapse of 2008.  For a sober discussion of why the world is probably not on the brink of another "Lehman moment," we would recommend this recent article from retired economist (and prolific blogger and thinker) Scott Grannis, author of the "Calafia Beach Pundit" blog.

In that article, published last week, Mr. Grannis (referring to an article by Asia Times columnist David Goldman) notes that the significant differences between the problems in Europe today and the panic that brought down Lehman in 2008 are numerous.  Most importantly, the panic in 2008 was over liabilities that nobody knew how to value, and whose losses had not happened yet (it was the fear of future losses that started the whole vicious circle), while the full extent of the liabilities and losses in Europe are well known, and have already occurred. As Mr. Grannis explains:
back then the market found it almost impossible to value the thousands of often obscure and arcane mortgage-backed securities that were tied to many millions of homes whose prices were tumbling at different rates all over the country. With the PIIGS crisis, we are dealing with only a handful of borrowers who have issued fairly straightforward debt securities.
We recommend all investors read the blog post by Mr. Grannis (linked above) and the article he links in that post.




Continue Reading

We must get back to real investing


Back in February of 2009, in the very depths of the financial panic of 2008 - 2009, we published a post called "Managing Investments in the New Era" which discussed a video (above) of a talk that Gerry Frigon gave on January 26, 2009.  It was a very dark time -- the market would reach bottom less than a month later, on March 9 of the same year. The theme of the talk was the factors that had led up to the catastrophe on Wall Street, and what investors should focus on to move forward.  

Those two subjects are related.  We argued that the over-reliance by investment professionals on math-based systems advocated by "modern portfolio theory" had played a major role in setting the stage for the panic, and that the lesson for investors going forward should be on what we called "getting back to real investing," including a focus on businesses rather than on markets.  If you don't have time to enjoy the full 39 minute video above, at least forward to the 22-minute mark which gets down to what we mean by "real investing."

It's been over three years now since that video was published, and we would like to point out that our experience since that time has borne out the assertions that we made back then.  We said that we believed there were tremendous opportunities for investors who focused on companies providing real innovation, and we have highlighted some of those companies on this blog in the years since then (see for instance here and here).  A look at the performance of our client accounts managed in the Taylor Frigon Core Growth Strategy since that time is available here.

We continue to believe that the convictions articulated in that talk from January 2009 are as true today as they were then, and that re-watching that video can be very beneficial for investors going forward from this point as well. 

One other example of a tremendously innovative company was highlighted today at the "All Things D" D10 conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, discussed in this article entitled "OTOY takes movie production to the cloud".  Note at the bottom of that article that Taylor Frigon is listed as an investor in Otoy (which is a private company), alongside technology and innovation prophet George Gilder.
Continue Reading

Three quick hits


Above is a video clip of Gerry Frigon discussing the issues at the root of the problem in Europe.  

The points made will be familiar to readers of this blog, but bear repeating.  At the heart of the disagreement about the way forward for Europe is a truth which we believe is obvious, but which many evidently still don't accept, and that is that governments don't create growth through government spending and "stimulus."  For evidence from history see this previous post.  

Elsewhere in the news, here is an excellent article from Forbes publisher and writer Rich Karlgaard, entitled "Seven Reasons Why Facebook IPO was a Bust." 

Investors should carefully consider the points made in all three -- the article by Mr. Karlgaard, the previous blog post with its embedded video (be sure to watch the video), and the video above from Gerry Frigon.
Continue Reading

Innovation needs capital





















Tomorrow, a new company will begin trading in public markets, one that is well-known to millions (around nine hundred one million at last count, to be more precise).  Having now announced that its IPO price will be $38 per share, Facebook will be valued at roughly $104 billion and will raise roughly $18.4 billion of capital from the offering*.

The offering is being hailed as the "largest internet IPO in history"  (and in fact the highest valuation by any US company at time of offering, according to the Wall Street Journal) and receiving non-stop media coverage, with pundits opining on the things that Facebook will have to do in order to justify its lofty valuation.  

Facebook and those whose vision and hard work created the company achieved this milestone through innovation: the creation of something new (from Latin novo, meaning "new" or "fresh").  In order to create future growth that will enable its earnings to grow into its IPO valuation, it is clear that further innovation will be required from the team at Facebook.

This brings up a very important point, and one that should be very clearly understood by all investors: innovation needs capital.   In order for innovators to bring new value to others, they need capital.  Many of those who will see a payout tomorrow in the IPO are those who provided the young Facebook with capital back when it was still just getting off the ground.  Without that capital, Facebook could not have built the computer infrastructure needed to power its product, or hired the engineering talent needed to write the code, or paid for the many other people and services that it needed along the way.

Every other company whose products people enjoy needed capital as well in order to turn an innovative idea into a reality.  Most of the time, a very innovative company will eventually need levels of capital that are larger than any one family can provide.  This capital can be provided by banks, by angel investors, by venture capital firms, and ultimately by Wall Street in a public offering.

There are many voices today which vilify "bankers" and "Wall Street" as something evil or nefarious.  At the same time, many of those vilifying the forces of capitalism are happy to enjoy the fruits of the innovation that creative individuals and teams created over the years, which was watered by capital that was provided by the mechanisms that "marry up" innovation and capital.  This is a very unfortunate turn of events.

In the free world, these mechanisms allow capital to flow to innovation by free choice.  In systems other than capitalism, capital only flows to those firms connected to centralized rulers.  This alternative does not work very well at all (see, for example, the ugly example of Solyndra).  Thus, we should not be to quick to vilify the mechanisms which in a free economy allow decisions about capital flows to be made freely by private individuals (nobody is being forced to buy shares of Facebook tomorrow, for example -- that is everyone's free choice).

We need to do a better job of educating our children of the fact that innovation is a very good thing -- in fact, that it is essential -- and of the equally important fact that "innovation needs capital."



* At the time of publication, the principals of Taylor Frigon Capital Management did not own shares of Facebook (FB).
Continue Reading