bkc

Since China owns $1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds and $340 billion of mortgage-backed debt, when China gets a cold, the U.S. catches pneumonia. And -- as I posted -- when we think about the $800 billion bailout bazooka for Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), we should remember that our money is going to help China out of an investment jam. But since we are at China's mercy, it may be self-help.

This comes to mind in reading the New York Times, which reports that China's central bank, the People's Bank of China, has kept its capital modest as it has gobbled up assets. Now it seeks a bailout from China's finance ministry. According to the Times, "those [$1 trillion worth of U.S.] investments have been declining sharply in value when converted from dollars into the strong yuan, casting a spotlight on the central bank's tiny, [$3.2 billion] capital base [that] has not grown during the buying spree, despite private warnings from the IMF."

This need to replenish capital puts the U.S. economy in the middle of a bureaucratic battle on the other side of globe. The People's Bank wants a stronger yuan while the finance ministry wants a weaker yuan. The Times writes that "as the yuan slips in value, China's exports gain an edge over the goods of other countries." Treasury Secretary Paulson has been on the side of the People's Bank, advocating for a stronger yuan, so his push to bail out Fannie and Freddie can be seen as using U.S. taxpayer money to help it in its battle with China's finance ministry.

BusinessWeek reports that Boeing Inc.'s (NYSE: BA) 27,000 workers in the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union are eager to strike and they don't want to wait. Their anger is a microcosm of all those in America who feel that they have paid the price for globalization. Unfortunately, for Boeing and IAM, there is no contract that can relieve their anger.

BusinessWeek reveals six sources of IAM worker rage:

• Requiring workers to pay more of their health care costs - Boeing "is demanding that workers pick up more of the tab for their health-care costs. Some workers argue that a few visits to the hospital would instantly eat up any wage gains," according to BusinessWeek.
• Limiting death benefits for IAM members' families - Boeing wants to "limit death benefits for survivors, giving spouses of deceased Boeing workers a flat $4,000 payment instead of guaranteed monthly payments for life," according to BusinessWeek.
• Outsourcing - Workers believe that Boeing's decision to outsource much of the work on the 787 is responsible for production delays and that the program would have gone more smoothly if they had done more of the work in the U.S.

The U.S. market is driving the world -- whose stock indices plunged after yesterday's 345 Dow rout. But what does today bring? A chance for recovery or further devastation depending on whether reported economic statistics are better or worse than economists expect. Early reports are bad.

Here are the reports to watch, and what analysts had been expecting according to CNNMoney:

• Job cuts - Economists expected 75,000 lost jobs, but the 8:30am report was 84,000 lost jobs -- worse than expected.
• Unemployment rate - They had forecast the jobless rate to stay the same at 5.7%, but economists were wrong on this one too and unemployment rose to 6.1%.
• Hours worked - Economists anticipated the hour work week wouldn't change from July at 33.7, and they were right.
• Change in hourly earnings - Economists saw a 0.3% increase in the hourly wage, the same as July, but hourly wages rose 0.4%. Some may interpret this as inflationary pressure, but the increase is likely not enough to increase consumer spending either.

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

Nobody ever knows why the stock market goes up or down every day. But that doesn't stop people from offering reasons. For instance, people used to say that if oil prices fell, stocks would rise. They said that if the government came to the rescue of troubled financial institutions, that would boost stocks. And they suggested that if the Fed cut interest rates more than expected, investors would buy stocks.

But today, The New York Times decided not to even offer an explanation. It suggested that nobody knows. And I agree with the Times -- I just disagree on all the other days when the media does offer an explanation for the daily movement of the stock market. Here are some of the discredited means of explaining today's move.

• Oil. Today oil fell $1.70 which normally makes stocks go up.
• Retail sales. As I posted, Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) did well and so did other discount stores. But that's been true for a year so there is no market-moving news here.
• Jobless claims. The number of people claiming "unemployment benefits last week rose to 444,000, near a five-year high," according to the Times. But those numbers have been rising all year.

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.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Boeing Inc. (NYSE: BA) factory workers who belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) have voted to strike by a wide margin. However, thanks to the intervention of a federal mediator, the two sides have 48 hours to try to work something out. I cannot tell whether they will be able to find common ground.

Eighty-seven percent of IAM's "26,800 machinists rejected a proposed three-year contract that would have given members raises and bonuses totaling $34,000," according to the Journal. Boeing offered each union member a $2,500 signing bonus only if "the contract was ratified on the first vote." IAM's decision not to ratify costs workers that bonus. Boeing proposed an "11% pay raise over the life of the contract, as well as boosting pensions by 14% to $80 a month for each year of service. [The contract would pay the average union member] roughly $65,000 a year before overtime that averages $10,000 a year or more," according to the Journal.

IAM wants a bigger raise, more pension contributions, and lower health care payments. As the Journal wrote, IAM wants "pay raises of at least 13% and a larger pension amount. It also wants Boeing to abandon plans to have workers take on a greater share of certain health-care costs."

The New York Times reports that two Credit Suisse brokers took Auction Rate Securities (ARS) fraud to a new level. They fabricated an ARS-issuing agency -- a made up student loan securitizer -- as they sold investors their most toxic Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) backed by subprime mortgages and mobile home loans. Their deception is not new in concept -- evidence of ARS fraud has already emerged -- but the scope of the fraud is noteworthy.

Since I first began writing about the $330 billion ARS market -- long-term securities whose rates were reset in weekly auctions until they failed -- 6,162 comments have appeared from people trying to get their money back. And many of the issuers have announced settlements with authorities because investigators have found evidence that many of them were actively trying to dump the ARS from their own books into those of unsuspecting individual investors by telling them the ARS were safe and offered slightly higher-than-money-market yields.

But this Credit Suisse fraud reaches a different level. According to the Times, "Eric Butler, [who] sold customers some of the most toxic investments of the subprime age - [CDOs] - in what federal prosecutors characterize as a $1 billion bait-and-switch -- told those investors that they were getting "securities [that] were as safe as cash." The Times wrote that Butler "claimed, [that] the outfit that issued them, Glacier Education Loan, bought student loans guaranteed by the federal government. The problem: there is no such thing as Glacier Education Loan."

Reuters reports that Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) saw its same-store sales grow by 3% in August -- almost double the 1.6% increase analysts were expecting. Reuters wrote that its "net sales in the month, ended August 29, rose 8.7 percent to $30.67 billion." Customers are rewarding Wal-Mart for sticking with its strategy of offering everyday low prices. As the middle class squeeze tightens its grip, investors are anticipating more such growth.

Tuesday night I taught a business school case written in the 1990s on Wal-Mart. The lesson of the case is that Wal-Mart understood that its customers wanted low prices and wide selection so it built a system for getting discounts from suppliers and keeping its shelves stocked with the items customers wanted to buy in each of its stores. But this system stopped working as well through much of the last seven years.

That's partially due to people borrowing against the rising value of their homes to shop at more upscale retailers. In the last year, however, more people have suffered as their incomes declined, the cost of food and fuel has hit record levels, and the value of their homes has plummeted. This middle-class squeeze pushes more and more people back to Wal-Mart since it provides the lowest prices on the items they need to keep their families functioning.

Investors have noticed -- driving its stock up 37% in the last year. As the economy worsens, Wal-Mart investors are likely to benefit -- its stock is up 1.1% in pre-market.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Wal-Mart securities.

BBC News reports that another hedge fund has closed down thanks to its failure to bail out of the oil speculation trade that boosted oil to a peak of $147 in July. This is yet another piece of evidence that people like Hank Paulson, who insisted that record oil prices were due to supply and demand, were either being less than honest -- particularly since his former employer Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) was a big beneficiary of this speculation -- or ignorant of reality.

The hedge fund in question this time is Ospraie Fund, which invested in commodities like oil and gold. It "has lost 38% of its value since the start of the year." Gold is down 22% to $800 from its $1,030.80 an ounce high in March. Oil has tumbled 25% to $109 since peaking in July, according to BBC News. But 1440 Wall Street suggests that the biggest commodity culprit in Ospraie's demise was copper's tumble. The lesson here is that if a sufficient number of big money speculators get together and decide to, say, short the dollar and go long commodities, there will seem to them to have safety in numbers.

But when the government started investigating the cause of spiking oil prices, the trade got very unprofitable very fast. As I posted, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently found that 81% of oil trading volume was driven by speculation. Then we witnessed the failure of SemGroup and the indictment of Optiver Holding for manipulating energy prices -- those funds who were too slow to reverse their positions and got creamed.

Since July 11, the price of oil has fallen 25% from $147 to $110. This has been terrible news for holders of energy stocks -- which have nosedived. But for people who need to fill up their tanks, prices at the pump remain relatively elevated -- having fallen about 10% (I remember paying $4.11 at the peak and now pay $3.69 a gallon).

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that companies using oil in their products are keeping their prices high despite the oil price drop. These companies seem to be acting in unison to raise prices -- suggesting there is not enough competition in their markets.

Which companies are raising prices still? Those who believe they can get away with it as they try to recoup the lost profit resulting from the recent increase in the price of oil -- which is an important raw material in their products..

• Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) increased prices to retailers up 7% to 10% "for items made with ingredients derived from oil to 'recover costs already incurred,'" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.
• Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) raised prices by 50% for the oil-based raw materials that go into diapers and polystyrene. It "does not want to give up those increases until the company recovers its old profit margins since '[its] prices continue to lag [its] cost increases,''" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.
• Goodyear Tire and Rubber (NYSE: GT) has raised tire prices by 15% and is "still making synthetic rubber tires from oil-based feed stocks bought at relatively high prices more than three months ago [and it] 'could not consider canceling the price increase until it knew whether oil prices were going to stay down,'" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.

The New York Times reports that Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) will introduce its own browser -- named Chrome -- but will it cost Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) any revenues? Since Microsoft gives away its browser, the answer is no. However, Google's move may force Microsoft to divert resources to upgrade its browser to avoid losing market share.

And Microsoft' still dominates the browser market. The Times reports that Microsoft "still holds 73 percent of the browser market. [Open-source browser] Firefox's [share] has climbed to 19 percent, while Apple Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AAPL) Safari has 6 percent." And Google's Chrome introduction marks "a shift for Google, which has strongly backed Firefox."

So why is Google doing this? It could be so that as Google develops applications -- such as search, word processing, spreadsheets, presentation and e-mail programs -- designed to run on browsers for PCs and handheld devices it wants to avoid being so dependent on Microsoft. InfoTech reports that a "new feature in the latest beta of Microsoft IE 8 makes it easier for users to block information about their browsing habits, a move which could hamper Google's interests in display advertising." And while Firefox keeps pressure on Microsoft to upgrade its browser, Google has far more resources to threaten Microsoft's share. So Chrome could divert more Microsoft cash and staff.

The Associated Press reports that the head of Korean Development Bank (KDB) has revealed that he and a consortium of other Korean investors are in talks to acquire Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (NYSE: LEH). Rumors of a KDB deal were floated last month, but KDB refused to confirm them. Now, perhaps talks are further along.

Where do such talks stand now? AP quotes KDB Governor Min Euoo-sung who "said that discussions were under way to form a consortium with private banks as (we) believe it is more desirable to acquire Lehman Brothers jointly rather than alone." Min is no stranger to Lehman -- AP reports that Min was "CEO of Lehman Brothers' South Korean operations until taking the helm of KDB earlier this year."

These talks come as Lehman reportedly is in talks with China's CITIC Securities or sovereign wealth funds from Abu Dhabi and Qatar to inject $6 billion in capital into Lehman. With all this smoke, could there be fire? We'll soon see. But the odds that Lehman will remain independent continue to tumble.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Since Friday's surprise announcement that John McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his VP, numerous unpleasant facts have emerged which may make McCain regret his hasty choice. And since she has not been officially nominated by the Republican convention, it's not too late for McCain to pick Karl Rove favorite Mitt Romney instead.

Here are some of the reasons that McCain should reconsider his decision:

• Hearbeat away. She has had very little experience governing and none with foreign policy. This would be fine if McCain was in robust good health. Unfortunately, that is not the case. She could actually become President and it is far from obvious that she has the most executive experience among all the potential VP candidates that might need to step in if McCain could no longer do the President's job.
• No longer a shoe-in for Evangelical vote. She was strongly supported by the Evangelical wing of the Republican party due to her religious beliefs and her decision to keep her fifth child after she learned it would have Down syndrome. But with her 17-year old daughter having a child, some might question how strongly Palin believes in abstention until marriage.
• Corruption concerns. It is not clear whether McCain knew that Palin was under investigation for firing a public safety commissioner who refused to fire her brother-in-law. And did he know that she denied involvement with lobbyists in an interview with Maria Bartiromo, even though a TransCanada lobbyist played a central role in getting a $500 million subsidy for that Canadian company to build a gas pipeline she was pushing?

Our government has been doing its share of bailouts in the last year. It put $29 billion of taxpayer money at risk to finance the takeover of Bear Stearns. It stands ready to use $800 billion to bailout Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE). And now General Motors (NYSE: GM) wants $50 billion in government guarantees to finance fuel efficient cars. I have been looking into the bailout issue and whether it is beneficial or a misuse of funds - and there is a lot of debate about this issue. These bailouts may make political sense but are they in the long-term economic interests of the country?

A colleague of mine who was a Budget and Cost Analyst for a top government agency has been thinking about the political aspect of bailouts and shared his thoughts with me. As he wrote, "It is a sure thing that either party could get votes from a bailout, but they might loose some as well. Where a party could really improve its position would be to support a bailout, but lose."

He suggests that this outcome would pay off in the short-run but could damage long-term economic outcomes. As he suggested, If the party supported a bailout but lost, "it could claim that it was trying to support the victims, but had been frustrated by the other party. And this could be used to promote the party for many years in efforts to get votes. While maneuvers of this sort may get short run votes, over the long term they might be hurtful of sound economic growth and performance."

The New York Times reports that a new book -- Unequal Democracy by Larry M. Bartels, a Princeton economics professor -- contains statistics that demonstrate an important historical pattern -- the U.S. economy does better under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. That is, the last eight years -- in which the median income shrank while consumer prices rose -- is just an extreme example of the economic impact of Republican presidencies.

And based on statistics from Forbes, the stock market also does better under Democratic presidents. Forbes "found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans. The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results."

How much better does the economy do under Democrats? The Times reports that between 1948 and 2007, Gross National Product (GNP) growth per capita was 1.14 percentage points higher under Democrats (2.78%) compared to 1.64% for Republicans. The Times reports "that 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut."