Maybe I Should Apply For Bank Holding Company Status

I mean, everybody else is, right? Now that many short-term funding sources have dried up it is amazing to see how many different types of companies are applying to become banks. First it was the investment banks (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley), then credit card companies (American Express), and today we can add insurance companies (Hartford) to the mix. Who knew?

Well, Capital One (COF) for one. You may remember that COF bought Hibernia Bank of Louisiana right after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast (and North Fork Bank of New York after that). Many analysts questioned the move, even before the storm forced COF to renegotiate the purchase lower, citing the riskiness of a pure credit card company venturing out into waters it was less familiar with (retail banking). Capital One management insisted, though, that deposits were a less risky and cheaper funding source that would allow them to more easily expand their financial service product offerings nationwide. And these conversations were taking place way back in 2005.

Now I am talking my own book here, as Peridot owns shares of COF in client accounts, but I think the company deserves kudos for being years ahead of this trend. Rather than needing to become a bank out of necessity, they did it because they saw the need to sure up their funding sources in a world awash in structured products.

Not surprisingly, Capital One has weathered the credit crisis far better than most. COF's earnings should come in around $4 per share in 2008, on par with 2007 levels. Tangible book value per share has risen from $28 in 2006 to $30 in 2007 and to $32 today. COF shares have fallen along with the entire sector, but that has been due to multiple compression (they now trade slightly below tangible book value) not a deterioration in shareholder value.

The consumer credit environment will undoubtedly be rough in 2009 as the unemployment peaks for this cycle, but with a strong management team, there is little doubt that COF will be a long term winner when the storm passes.

Full Disclosure: Peridot was long COF at the time of writing but positions may change at any time

"Buy & Hold" Is Dead? I Think Not.

I find it rather amusing that six weeks of a horrendous market can lead so many people to declare that a "buy and hold" investment strategy is no longer viable. The evidence for such a claim is quite unimpressive, in my view. They assert that people who invested in the broad U.S. equity ten years have lost money so far, so "buy and hold" doesn't work.

Seriously? Yes, if you made a lump sum index fund investment in November 1998, waited a decade, never invested another penny, and sold today, you would have lost money over that time. "You would have made more by putting your money in the bank!" True again, but none of these arguments are very convincing. Let me explain why.

The stock market in the late 1990's traded at the highest valuation ever recorded. That was not a good time to invest in the market with only a lump sum. Conversely, today stocks are trading at the lowest relative valuation since the early 1980's. Those who use the last decade as evidence that "buy and hold" does not work anymore are simply telling us that buying high and selling low is a losing strategy. We already know that.

How many investors invested a lump sum in the late 1990's, never added to their investment, and sold recently? I don't doubt that some people did that (because they traded on emotion, not analysis) but to conclude that those few instances prove that a long term passive investment strategy is a bad idea is nonsense.

One way to avoid buying high and selling low is by dollar cost averaging into the market by adding to one's investments over time. 401(k) investors contribute a certain percentage of their income to their plans in equal (typically bi-weekly) amounts. Other investors try to max out an IRA every year to ensure they are always adding to their investments in order to build wealth faster over time. For people who follow those investment principles, even if they choose an index fund rather than active portfolio management, the fact that the market trades lower today than it did in November 1998 is irrelevant.

People are misguided if they believe they will always get rich by investing a lump sum of money in the market, regardless of price, by not following the investment or adding to it over time. Just because some investors have learned that lesson the hard way, it certainly does not mean we should proclaim that "buy and hold" is dead.

One final point. Unlike ten years ago, stocks today are quite cheap on a historical basis. As a result, I would be willing to bet that ten years from now the market will be meaningfully higher than it is today. Ironically, naysayers are out there advising people against doing just that.

Readers Were Right, Paulson Nixes Asset Auctions

Has anyone else noticed that whenever Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson speaks the market goes down? Today is no exception, as we learned that Paulson has abandoned the idea of using the TARP funds to buy bad assets from banks using a reverse auction process. When the idea of auctions first came to light I was very keen on the idea, but others preferred direct capital injections into the banks, in return for preferred shares as well as common stock warrants. Readers pointed out that there was no assurance that an auction would actually happen. They were right.

Instead, TARP money was used to buy stakes in banks and now Paulson says the auctions are no longer a priority. I still believe that auctions address the core problem far better than direct capital injections. As we have seen, the financial institutions can do whatever they want with money if you just hand it to them. Heck, they might even use it to buy other banks or invite their top salespeople on expensive resort getaways. That wouldn't go over too well, would it?

The root cause of the problem, huge losses resulting from bad loans (and the need to raise more capital after losing much of what they had), could be addressed by buying the assets from the banks for pennies on the dollar. Future bank losses would be reduced because the assets causing the largest losses would be jettisoned, and the banks would have cash to make new, hopefully better, loans. The direct capital injections have done nothing to reduce bank losses or help the housing market.

At this point, the remaining TARP money would be best-served by tackling the problem directly. If the Treasury prefers not to go the auction route, then you have to do something to address the home foreclosure problem. On that front, why don't we just use the money to pay mortgage servicers a fixed amount for each loan they modify for borrowers who are struggling to make their monthly payment? Such a move would incentivize the lenders to work with their customers and stem the housing downturn, which is a major impediment to financial stability in the system.

It is in the best interest of everyone involved if the banks agree to take a little less money back on their loans rather than become a real estate developer by foreclosing on properties. If home supply and demand imbalances are corrected, and home prices stabilize, the economy would benefit tremendously.

Circuit City Bankruptcy Is Great News For Competitors

A week after announcing it would close 20% of its stores, electronics retailer Circuit City (CC) has announced it will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. While that really is no surprise (retailers can't operate in the red forever), investors should consider who wins from this development.

The most obvious choice is Best Buy (BBY), the leader in the space. Although CC is a weak player, there are many places where Best Buy and Circuit City locations are very close to each other. Given the store closings, plus the stigma of Chapter 11 with the stores that will remain open, BBY should see some incremental benefit. BBY trades at 8-9 times earnings, quite a low price for the best managed consumer electronics retailer.

Full Disclosure: Peridot Capital was long BBY at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

With Share Prices Depressed, Dividend Yields Highest Since 1994

During the last couple of decades dividends have not really been a core focus for investors. That has been partly due to the fact that companies have been paying them out at historically low rates. Did you know that over the very long term dividends have represented about 40% of an investor's total return in the equity market? With the average large cap dividend rate below 2% for much of the last decade or two, many investors probably were not aware of that.

With stock prices down so much in the last year, dividend yields are creeping back up. The indicated rate on the S&P 500 today is about 2.8%, the highest since 1994 when the index was paying out 2.9%. We are still below the historical average for payouts (about 4%) but the trend is in the right direction.

I bring this up because as contrarian value investors add fresh funds to their portfolios and hunt for bargains in this market, dividends could very well play a bigger role than they have in recent years. Getting paid to wait for stock prices and the economy to recover (by collecting meaningful dividend payments along the way) is another way for investors to capitalize on the value in this market.

During the most recent bull markets, a yield of 3% was considered pretty darn good, but now investors can find much better payouts and do not always have to sacrifice the quality of company they invest in to secure above-average dividend yields. As you search for value during this bear market, keep in mind that dividends can significantly boost total equity market returns and such yields are getting easier to find nowadays.

Why An Obama Victory Does Not Foretell Economic & Market Gloom

I rarely blog about politics here, but it is very difficult to get the full truth (from either party) during a presidential campaign. Since I started this blog in 2004 I have commented once each election cycle on a certain lie that always makes the rounds before we head to the polls. Most of you have probably heard from partisan people that an Obama victory tonight would kill the economy and the stock market. After all, isn't it true that Democratic administrations are known for taxing and spending, which wrecks our country's economy?

One of my favorite quotes goes like this, "Numbers don't lie, people do." It fits perfectly here, as the numbers provided below will show. The truth is, most meaningful economic statistics (GDP growth, unemployment rate, inflation rate, growth in federal spending, budget deficit level, to name some of the big ones) have historically been stronger under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. You can refer to my October 2004 post entitled "Do Elections Affect the Stock Market?" for the detailed statistics.

As goes the economy, so goes the stock market. This is not only a recent trend (8 years under Clinton, market up 203%, 8 years under Bush, market down 28%). According to Ibbotson Associates (a market research firm), inflation-adjusted stock market returns have been 100% higher under Democrats since 1926:

I point this out not to insist that an Obama presidency assures the market will be strong, but simply so investors know the truth, in case they are partly basing their vote for president on economic data. It is important to note the common statistical mantra "correlation does not equal causation." These numbers do not mean that a Democratic president causes the market to go up twice as much as a Republican president (it could be any number of factors, or a combination of them). What it does mean, however, is that the common contention that the economy and stock prices do better under Republicans is actually completely backwards.

Regardless of historical statistics and putting your political allegiances aside, remember one thing. It's your right to vote, so be sure to go to the polls today if you haven't voted already.

Why Perma-Bears Are Coming Out Of Hibernation

Well, aren't you glad October 2008 is over? After all, the 17% drop in the market was the worst month in 21 years (Crash of 1987). Given the tremendous drop in stock prices, we are beginning to read about many perma-bears who have turned bullish, which is quite a good sign for investors (this week's Barron's includes an interview with Steve Leuthold of Leuthold Group, another so-called perma-bear who is bullish on stocks).

First, what is a perma-bear? The nickname has been given to investment strategists and managers who seem to be permanently bearish. Why do they rarely sing the praises of the stock market's prospects? Did they have a bad experience and simply have yet to get over it? Hardly.

Actually, perma-bears do turn bullish every so often, it just takes a lot for that to happen. The reason is because perma-bears typically only want to invest heavily in stocks when prices are extremely cheap, typically in bear markets. You see, outsized market returns are attained the easiest when prices are depressed, so perma-bears are more than willing to forgo owning stocks in size until prices are dirt cheap. As a result, they are not bullish very often because bull markets last far longer than bear markets and economic expansions last far longer than recessions.

Since investing when stocks are dirt cheap is a proven winning strategy, why do perma-bears get so much heat? Well, the simple explanation is because since the first stock market opened for trading, in any given year stocks have risen about 80% of the time. So, if four years out of every five are going to see stock prices go up in value, perma-bear detractors would argue that only investing during the depths of bear markets, while a profitable strategy, misses out on many years of market gains.

Fair criticism? Sure, but it depends on your viewpoint. Proponents of long term investing would argue that one would be better off not trying to time the market and accept that during any five year period, they expect to make money during four years and lose money during one. Statistics have shown that strategy pays off handsomely over the long term.

Perma-bears are a little more difficult to please. They realize that the average bear market results in a 30% loss, and such a hit requires a 43% rise just to get back to where they were before the drop, so they prefer to try and avoid such a painful decline, despite it being temporary in nature. By only investing when stocks are dirt cheap, they are able to reduce the chances they incur sizable losses. As a result, the perma-bears missed much of the last bull market (stocks rose for four straight years heading into 2008, just as market history would have predicted).

So, what should we conclude when the worst month for stocks in 21 years has resulted in several well-known perma-bears coming out of hibernation and recommending investors buy stocks? It means that for the first time in a long time, stocks are at the low end of their historical valuation range, which usually equates to an excellent buying opportunity. The perma-bears are getting another opportunity to come out of hibernation and play, which bodes well for all of us.

Insane Valuation Case Study: Valero Energy

It is pretty easy to find ridiculously low stock valuations in today's market, but here's an example of the value present in the current bear market. Valero Energy (VLO) this morning reported third quarter earnings of $1.86 per share, well above estimates. The stock closed yesterday at $15 per share, which gives it a P/E ratio of 8 based solely on one quarter's worth of earnings! Insane.

Full Disclosure: Peridot was long VLO at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Part of TARP Finally Ready To Go

In recent weeks there has been plenty of talk about the Treasury's TARP initiative, but little progress on its actual implementation. On Friday we got news that PNC Financial (PNC) was the first bank to get a capital infusion from the TARP, and would use much of the cash to help fund its acquisition of troubled banking competitor National City (NCC).

I have previously written highly of PNC stock and this deal only furthers my bullish long-term view on the company. They are paying about $2 per share for a bank that traded at nearly $40 last year and fits their geographical footprint very well. PNC's track record on successful acquisition integration is outstanding. As with the other strong banks buying weaker ones, loan losses will rise with the deals and that trend will continue for a while, but long term the buyers will only enhance their competitive positions in a marketplace that will have far fewer players overall when the dust settles.

Today we are learning about more banks raising capital through the TARP, Capital One (COF) and SunTrust (STI) among them. Don't be surprised if Capital One makes an acquisition in coming months as well. They have indicated they are looking at potential deals and have raised money twice in recent weeks.

Hopefully the equity market can begin to gain some traction as some of these plans are not just announced, but more importantly, actually implemented.

Full Disclosure: Peridot was long shares of COF and PNC at the time of writing, but positions may change at any time

Watch the 2002, 2008 Intra-Day S&P 500 Lows

The forced selling and mass liquidations are continuing, with the pre-market futures trading limit down this morning. October has always been the most volatile month of the year, and investment fund fiscal years end a week from today (as opposed to a normal December year-end).

Don't fool yourself into thinking the market action here is based on fundamentals, because everything we are seeing is simply irrational behavior based on forced selling. Buyers are balking because once things become irrational, there is no inherent floor to prices.

If you want to watch specific levels, the 2002 S&P 500 low was 768. The 2008 low so far was 839. The S&P 500 closed at 908 yesterday, and traded limit down (60 points) to 855 this morning. If we don't hold those levels, another round of computerized sell programs will likely hit the market. The support there should be strong, but in this market, who knows what will happen.

Update: 10:00am -- Here is a graphical representation of the last two decades: