Financial Markets Explained
Dec 15, 2008 General Nonsense |
In my capacity as cartoonist, I feel an obligation to simplify complicated discussions until two things happen simultaneously:
1. Absurdity is achieved.
2. The reader feels as if it all makes sense.
My comic from Saturday illustrates that principle.
According to Google Alerts that comic has been posted to more blogs than any comic I have ever created. It inspires me to more fully explain the theory of finance in this blog.
Think of financial theory as a stool. The stool is supported by three legs, or truisms.
- History always repeats.
- Past performance is no indication of future returns.
- Asshats are trying to steal your money.
These three truisms can explain any financial phenomenon. For example, if your financial advisor suggests that you invest in a market bubble that is about to burst, he will explain that the past is no indication of future results. Just because a Price/Earnings ratio of 45 has never been sustainable in the past doesn't mean it won't be perfectly safe in the future.
And when the bubble bursts and you lose half of your money, your advisor will explain it's because history always repeats. In other words, he's an asshat trying to steal your money.
This stool also explains the housing situation. Financial experts knew that making loans to hobos had never been a good idea in the past. On the other hand, past performance is no indication of future returns. Maybe this time would be different. Then history repeated and asshats stole your money. As a bonus, they even stole each other's money this time. You have to admire their thoroughness.
One last thing you need to know: People who say it is a good time to invest are called bulls. The bulls are at the center of all financial problems.
In summary, if you want to understand financial markets find a bull and look at his stool.
Votes: +9
Comments
User Name: orwell
Dec 23, 2008
-1
uh a pe of 45 is sustainable when your computer os or coffee stand is expanding exponentally.
schwab pobably has a bunch of notes outstanding, asshat. thats where the extra capital came from.
the value of a company's assets = equity plus liability. finance 101. they dont teach economists that. called leverage. man you are a big d....ss
most companies cant borrow hence they are jammed up
gm has assets of about 150b but a market cap of only 1.8b hence they are going bankrupt. got no cash either.
you really dont have a clue about finance, do you?
schwab pobably has a bunch of notes outstanding, asshat. thats where the extra capital came from.
the value of a company's assets = equity plus liability. finance 101. they dont teach economists that. called leverage. man you are a big d....ss
most companies cant borrow hence they are jammed up
gm has assets of about 150b but a market cap of only 1.8b hence they are going bankrupt. got no cash either.
you really dont have a clue about finance, do you?
User Name: Detton
Dec 16, 2008
0
I can't help but think that investor expectations play a large part in why companies are flopping and firing off employees as fast as they can to get stock prices up. (Which is just a stupid idea when you look at it no matter what - Whose going to run the machines when all you have left is a CEO and a diversity director? - to paraphrase a previous Dilbert book)
All the investing is being controlled by one guy - whose getting downsized because the computer asks fewer questions - and he works(worked) for an investment company that represents tens of thousands or more people, and unlike the now-extinct individual investor, doesn't give a rat's ass about market fluctuation. Your stock dropped by one tenth of a percent, we're moving on! Sell sell sell!
WHEN the economy turns back upwards (i'm cynically optimistic about that, and if you don't know what I mean, I expected as much) I'm hoping that companies return to the ideal of customer service that actually involves having employees around to do stuff. I'm stick of this "U Scan" crap at retail stores, all the while hearing managers !$%*! and moan that customers are leaving and theft is on the rise, after they fired everyone in the front to make ME do their old work.
(On an unrelated note, when a store manager asked why I wasn't using the U Scan lanes, that they were there for my convenience, I responded: "If you cared at all about my convenience, you would have taken my shopping list at the front of the store, picked up everything, ran it through the checkout lane yourself, while the cute girl at the front desk gave me a back massage. You fired the cashiers to make more money for the owners, you don't care about the customers." - Several people left the self-scan lanes for the regular ones. It may have been annoying for the cashiers still employed, but it might have helped save their job for another week or two. I encourage everyone who reads this to give this same treatment where ever you go that has 'U Scans'.
Maybe if enough of us rebel, it might get a couple more jobs back, even if they're crummy minimum-wage deals. It's not like it's convenient for you to use those lanes, except in very limited situations where you only need to buy a pack of condoms, a gallon of bleach, an economy sized pack of toilet paper, and you don't want to have a person watch you buying it.)
All the investing is being controlled by one guy - whose getting downsized because the computer asks fewer questions - and he works(worked) for an investment company that represents tens of thousands or more people, and unlike the now-extinct individual investor, doesn't give a rat's ass about market fluctuation. Your stock dropped by one tenth of a percent, we're moving on! Sell sell sell!
WHEN the economy turns back upwards (i'm cynically optimistic about that, and if you don't know what I mean, I expected as much) I'm hoping that companies return to the ideal of customer service that actually involves having employees around to do stuff. I'm stick of this "U Scan" crap at retail stores, all the while hearing managers !$%*! and moan that customers are leaving and theft is on the rise, after they fired everyone in the front to make ME do their old work.
(On an unrelated note, when a store manager asked why I wasn't using the U Scan lanes, that they were there for my convenience, I responded: "If you cared at all about my convenience, you would have taken my shopping list at the front of the store, picked up everything, ran it through the checkout lane yourself, while the cute girl at the front desk gave me a back massage. You fired the cashiers to make more money for the owners, you don't care about the customers." - Several people left the self-scan lanes for the regular ones. It may have been annoying for the cashiers still employed, but it might have helped save their job for another week or two. I encourage everyone who reads this to give this same treatment where ever you go that has 'U Scans'.
Maybe if enough of us rebel, it might get a couple more jobs back, even if they're crummy minimum-wage deals. It's not like it's convenient for you to use those lanes, except in very limited situations where you only need to buy a pack of condoms, a gallon of bleach, an economy sized pack of toilet paper, and you don't want to have a person watch you buying it.)
User Name: sjanlaird
Dec 16, 2008
+1
Great post and one with alot of comedy mileage I imagine. It also explains pretty much every bad decision I've made in the past 5 years. Still, not to worry- I've wired the release funds to the Nigerian finance minister so I'm expecting the cash in my bank account any day now.
User Name: KevinKunreuther
Dec 15, 2008
0
From now on, when my spidey senses start tingling, indicating someone very much wants to rip me off, I'm going to imagine this thought bubble emanating from their head: "I'm an ass-hat. I'm here to steal your money!" When the con artist asks me what's so funny, I'll excuse myself and run backwards very quickly.
Here's a thing:why is it when our inner alarms go off, warning we are going to ripped off, we ignore the inner warning like we are helpless souls watching this occur to somebody else? We know the smiling fellow we about to hand over the retirement fund is a snake in the grass who has no intention of growing our nest egg, is merely salivating over the thought of spending it on showgirls, booze, fine clothes and expensive cars, yet we surrender like we are hypnotized, fully cognizant we'll never see a dime of our earnings again.
I mean take the recent Ponzi scheme scandal. Bernie Madoff lived up to his name and "made off" with fifty billion big ones. He might as well as renamed himself, "Theeven-B'Stardh", that obviously wouldn't have stopped people from falling over themselves giving Madoff their hard earned cash. Has their ever been a study as to why people willingly hand over their money to obvious grifters and con artists, knowing they are obvious grifters and con artists? Could the Dilbert three legs of financial planning be at play here?
Here's a thing:why is it when our inner alarms go off, warning we are going to ripped off, we ignore the inner warning like we are helpless souls watching this occur to somebody else? We know the smiling fellow we about to hand over the retirement fund is a snake in the grass who has no intention of growing our nest egg, is merely salivating over the thought of spending it on showgirls, booze, fine clothes and expensive cars, yet we surrender like we are hypnotized, fully cognizant we'll never see a dime of our earnings again.
I mean take the recent Ponzi scheme scandal. Bernie Madoff lived up to his name and "made off" with fifty billion big ones. He might as well as renamed himself, "Theeven-B'Stardh", that obviously wouldn't have stopped people from falling over themselves giving Madoff their hard earned cash. Has their ever been a study as to why people willingly hand over their money to obvious grifters and con artists, knowing they are obvious grifters and con artists? Could the Dilbert three legs of financial planning be at play here?
User Name: quantum_flux
Dec 15, 2008
+1
Giving money to hobos? This looks like a good opportunity for me to promote my idea about what would happen if Ayn Rand had a baby with Carl Marx.
Redistribute the Wealth Investor's Charity:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Redistribute_20the_20Wealth_20Investor_20Charity
Redistribute the Wealth Investor's Charity:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Redistribute_20the_20Wealth_20Investor_20Charity
User Name: hbmindia
Dec 15, 2008
0
As its said, "Take your money to an experienced financial advisor, and he gets your money and you are left with the experience.
User Name: Mokkery
Dec 15, 2008
0
I can accept that we all need to sit on the stools of global finance, but why are the middle class stools always turned upside down?
User Name: charlesfunnish
Dec 15, 2008
+1
Due props: Top 10 post, sir.
However, I echo Jim Pope's commentary on your omission of the democrat-mandated lower standards for lending.
Now, on to the other part:
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, I BEG OF YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SPEED OF YOUR WEBSITE. IF NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE POST THAT LINK FOR THE "BASIC SITE" THAT YOU DID WHEN YOU LAUNCHED THIS FORSAKEN BETA FORMAT. AT THE VERY LEAST, GET IT UP TO CIRCA 1998 SPEED. FRIGGIN KILLING ME. AND BRING BACK TOPPER.
However, I echo Jim Pope's commentary on your omission of the democrat-mandated lower standards for lending.
Now, on to the other part:
FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, I BEG OF YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SPEED OF YOUR WEBSITE. IF NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE POST THAT LINK FOR THE "BASIC SITE" THAT YOU DID WHEN YOU LAUNCHED THIS FORSAKEN BETA FORMAT. AT THE VERY LEAST, GET IT UP TO CIRCA 1998 SPEED. FRIGGIN KILLING ME. AND BRING BACK TOPPER.
User Name: tartanmarine
Dec 15, 2008
0
Great cartoon, which I circulated to friends to illustrate the subprime crisis.
I believe that government asshats, buying votes, started the problem, through the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie. I also believe that the financial industry Asshats, seeing wealth created from spun air, piled on. And other countries, beyond our regulation, were more "leverged" than we were. That is, their private asshats were spinning money from thinner air, while their government asshats took their share and looked away.
But if giving mortgages to hobos was bad policy, wouldn't the government be repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, and moving to privitize/eliminate Fannie and Freddie? They're not doing it, because "affordable housing" buys votes in the next election, and the hobo doesn't lose his house until later on. And the politician Asshats blame that on greedy bankers wanting their investment back.
Nice to know my IRA went to fund a million dollar mortgage for a guy who makes $13k a year recycling cans he finds along the highway. Happy to help with affordable housing, even though I took a small mortgage on a small house and paid it off. And probably won't be able to afford the taxes on it when I retire, so the government Asshats will get it anyway.
If you want to know why government stimulation doesn't revive the economy, here's an economist explaining it:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/just-say-no-to-keynesian-leaky-bucket.html
And if you want to know why having politicians make capital allocation decisions isn't great for the economy either, here's an explaniation:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/bailout-nation-and-dangers-from.html
I believe that government asshats, buying votes, started the problem, through the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie. I also believe that the financial industry Asshats, seeing wealth created from spun air, piled on. And other countries, beyond our regulation, were more "leverged" than we were. That is, their private asshats were spinning money from thinner air, while their government asshats took their share and looked away.
But if giving mortgages to hobos was bad policy, wouldn't the government be repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, and moving to privitize/eliminate Fannie and Freddie? They're not doing it, because "affordable housing" buys votes in the next election, and the hobo doesn't lose his house until later on. And the politician Asshats blame that on greedy bankers wanting their investment back.
Nice to know my IRA went to fund a million dollar mortgage for a guy who makes $13k a year recycling cans he finds along the highway. Happy to help with affordable housing, even though I took a small mortgage on a small house and paid it off. And probably won't be able to afford the taxes on it when I retire, so the government Asshats will get it anyway.
If you want to know why government stimulation doesn't revive the economy, here's an economist explaining it:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/just-say-no-to-keynesian-leaky-bucket.html
And if you want to know why having politicians make capital allocation decisions isn't great for the economy either, here's an explaniation:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/bailout-nation-and-dangers-from.html
User Name: tartanmarine
Dec 15, 2008
+1
Great cartoon, which I circulated to friends to illustrate the subprime crisis.
I believe that government asshats, buying votes, started the problem, through the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie. I also believe that the financial industry Asshats, seeing wealth created from spun air, piled on. And other countries, beyond our regulation, were more "leverged" than we were. That is, their private asshats were spinning money from thinner air, while their government asshats took their share and looked away.
But if giving mortgages to hobos was bad policy, wouldn't the government be repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, and moving to privitize/eliminate Fannie and Freddie? They're not doing it, because "affordable housing" buys votes in the next election, and the hobo doesn't lose his house until later on. And the politician Asshats blame that on greedy bankers wanting their investment back.
Nice to know my IRA went to fund a million dollar mortgage for a guy who makes $13k a year recycling cans he finds along the highway. Happy to help with affordable housing, even though I took a small mortgage on a small house and paid it off. And probably won't be able to afford the taxes on it when I retire, so the government Asshats will get it anyway.
If you want to know why government stimulation doesn't revive the economy, here's an economist explaining it:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/just-say-no-to-keynesian-leaky-bucket.html
And if you want to know why having politicians make capital allocation decisions isn't great for the economy either, here's an explaniation:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/bailout-nation-and-dangers-from.html
I believe that government asshats, buying votes, started the problem, through the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie and Freddie. I also believe that the financial industry Asshats, seeing wealth created from spun air, piled on. And other countries, beyond our regulation, were more "leverged" than we were. That is, their private asshats were spinning money from thinner air, while their government asshats took their share and looked away.
But if giving mortgages to hobos was bad policy, wouldn't the government be repealing the Community Reinvestment Act, and moving to privitize/eliminate Fannie and Freddie? They're not doing it, because "affordable housing" buys votes in the next election, and the hobo doesn't lose his house until later on. And the politician Asshats blame that on greedy bankers wanting their investment back.
Nice to know my IRA went to fund a million dollar mortgage for a guy who makes $13k a year recycling cans he finds along the highway. Happy to help with affordable housing, even though I took a small mortgage on a small house and paid it off. And probably won't be able to afford the taxes on it when I retire, so the government Asshats will get it anyway.
If you want to know why government stimulation doesn't revive the economy, here's an economist explaining it:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/just-say-no-to-keynesian-leaky-bucket.html
And if you want to know why having politicians make capital allocation decisions isn't great for the economy either, here's an explaniation:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/12/bailout-nation-and-dangers-from.html
User Name: Zuluwarrior
Dec 15, 2008
0
Best cartoon, best post in a long time, Dilbert Dude.
Now you need to publish this financial theory and watch it soar to #1 on the NYTimes bestseller list.
Now you need to publish this financial theory and watch it soar to #1 on the NYTimes bestseller list.
User Name: rozwarren
Dec 15, 2008
0
It would be incredibly funny if it weren't my life's savings going into the crapper...
Oh what the hell -- it's incredibly funny anyway.
Oh what the hell -- it's incredibly funny anyway.
User Name: Nesser
Dec 15, 2008
0
Pretty lofty commentary here. I just wanted to say that I have to love anyone who uses the word "asshat." It's one of my personal favorites.
User Name: dfg4385525
Dec 15, 2008
0
@Phantom II
I am not sure where you are getting your financial information from. The balance sheet for Charles Schwab indicates only 5.3 billion in cash, and google shows a market cap of 16.97 billion. The bottom line of the balance sheet shows an equity of 4 billion... so if you did as you suggest (buy all the shares for 17 billion) and totally liquidate the assests and pay the liabilities, you would be left with four billion in your pocket... and 1.16 billion shares in an empty shell of a company that you paid 17 billion for.... a net loss of 13 billion dollars.
http://finance.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:SCHW
and
http://finance.google.ca/finance?fstype=bi&q=NASDAQ:SCHW
I am not sure where you are getting your financial information from. The balance sheet for Charles Schwab indicates only 5.3 billion in cash, and google shows a market cap of 16.97 billion. The bottom line of the balance sheet shows an equity of 4 billion... so if you did as you suggest (buy all the shares for 17 billion) and totally liquidate the assests and pay the liabilities, you would be left with four billion in your pocket... and 1.16 billion shares in an empty shell of a company that you paid 17 billion for.... a net loss of 13 billion dollars.
http://finance.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:SCHW
and
http://finance.google.ca/finance?fstype=bi&q=NASDAQ:SCHW
User Name: mrLupin
Dec 15, 2008
0
Which leg of the stool would the federal monetary policy fall under? I am unsure about the US system but in Canada inflation figures do not take into account housing and oil prices. That being said, lowering the federal lending rate(like what was done in 2001) lowers bank mortgage rates(and therefore mortgage payments so now more people have access to property) the prices of housing goes up and inflation figures do not detect that rise....
The lower interest rates are a major contributing factor in this housing bubble.... Alan Greenspan share the blame with many others who contributed.
The lower interest rates are a major contributing factor in this housing bubble.... Alan Greenspan share the blame with many others who contributed.
User Name: Dal_Tiger
Dec 15, 2008
0
So I guess the old saying is true, if you try to milk the bull, you get the horns...
If you want to play in the stock market, the only thing you have to remember is: Buy low, sell high.
If you want to play in the stock market, the only thing you have to remember is: Buy low, sell high.
User Name: mobydisk
Dec 15, 2008
+1
jimpope, you have followed Scott's advice to oversimplify things, and so managed rule #1 (absurdity) but not #2 (making sense).
You are correct that during Clinton's tenure, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "pressured" to make loans in a politically correct way (AKA - give more loans to minorities) but that does not excuse the entire financial market from following suit and competing absurdly for loans that a below-average monkey could see were bad. As for regulation, government cannot regulate away stupidity since they are much better at creating it.
This crisis was indeed created by asshats trying to steal your money, but for the first time in human history, those asshats were not the politicians.
You are correct that during Clinton's tenure, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were "pressured" to make loans in a politically correct way (AKA - give more loans to minorities) but that does not excuse the entire financial market from following suit and competing absurdly for loans that a below-average monkey could see were bad. As for regulation, government cannot regulate away stupidity since they are much better at creating it.
This crisis was indeed created by asshats trying to steal your money, but for the first time in human history, those asshats were not the politicians.
User Name: Phantom II
Dec 15, 2008
0
That is, undoubtedly, one of your best Dilberts. It points out that there is no strategy of financial planning that can keep your money safe when there is a general downturn. It's true that this period is virtually unprecedented; every asset class has gone down in value. The usual hedges (those things that go up when another asset class goes down) are not working. Gold is down at the same time as stocks. Bonds are also down at the same time as stocks - very unusual. Real estate is down, again contrary to what happens when stocks go down.
The hope is that our economy is fundamentally sound, and the recession will be short-lived and matched by a commensurate rise in all sectors. If you look at P/E ratios, they're ridiculous right now. Take Charles Schwab, for example. The market cap of Schwab is now down to about $24B. However, the company has $27B in cash. That means if you could somehow buy all the company's stock, and then shut it down, you'd walk away with $3B for your efforts. That's insane.
One can only hope that the government's recent inventing of $700B to give to financial institutions will be ignored by the market. Otherwise, belief in anything financial will be a fairy tale - inflation in the medium term will make the Carter administration's look like a walk in the park.
We shall see.
The hope is that our economy is fundamentally sound, and the recession will be short-lived and matched by a commensurate rise in all sectors. If you look at P/E ratios, they're ridiculous right now. Take Charles Schwab, for example. The market cap of Schwab is now down to about $24B. However, the company has $27B in cash. That means if you could somehow buy all the company's stock, and then shut it down, you'd walk away with $3B for your efforts. That's insane.
One can only hope that the government's recent inventing of $700B to give to financial institutions will be ignored by the market. Otherwise, belief in anything financial will be a fairy tale - inflation in the medium term will make the Carter administration's look like a walk in the park.
We shall see.
