Understanding the Payment Players - Fraud Library
Unrated
eCommerce Fraud Consulting Services
Each of the players in the payment process has a role to fulfill. They are performing these roles to make money. Understanding this will help you in working with them. In this section we will discuss each of the major players in terms of what their role is, which other players they associate or represent and how they make money.
There are seven major players in the payment process: consumers, merchants, issuing banks, acquiring banks, payment processors, gateway services and card associations.
Enter your search terms Submit search form
Web
www.fraudpractice.com
Understanding the payment players: Associations, Banks, Payment Processors, Gateways, Merchants and Consumers
Consumers & Merchants
Let’s start with two everyone is familiar with, the “consumer” and “merchant.” The consumer is an individual or organization that has the intent of making a purchase. They have money or credit and they desire goods and services. The merchant is the one with the goods and services and is looking to sell them to consumers.
Now the consumer can be motivated to select a particular merchant by several things: price, service, selection or preference. But the merchant’s main motivation is to make money. The merchant is in business to make money and they do so by selling the goods or services for more money than they bought them. This money between what they bought it for and what they sold it for is called their margin.
There are a lot of different ways to exchange money for services, bartering, cash, checks, debit cards, installment payments or credit cards. Our focus is on credit cards and with credit cards, the consumer and the merchant both have banks that they are working with that manage the credit card payment transactions.
Issuing Bank
The consumer got his credit card from a bank or credit union, called the “issuing bank.” Sometimes you may hear an issuing bank being called an “issuer,” which means the same thing. The issuing bank is not just associated with major credit card brands such as American Express, MasterCard and Visa, but also with credit cards called “private label credit cards.” These are the ones that department stores or shops offer, such as Sears and Target cards.
Issuing banks are lending institutions that work behind these credit cards to grant and manage the extended credit. Some examples of these are Bank of America, Citibank, MBNA, Household Financial, GE and Wells Fargo.
The purpose of the issuing bank is to grant credit directly to a consumer. They are the ones that have a consumer fill out an application, check a consumer’s credit history and maintain their account. The issuing bank is the one that decides what a consumer’s credit limit is, based on credit history and current debt load. There are literally thousands of issuing banks in the United States — any bank or credit union you see on the corner could be an issuer. In Canada and the United Kingdom there are far fewer banks, so the number of issuing banks is much smaller.
What motivates the issuing bank? They are in it for the money as well. They make money on the interest the consumer pays on outstanding balances from previous purchases, and they get a part of every purchase a consumer makes with the card from a merchant.
Acquiring Bank
The acquiring bank represents the merchant. They process all of the merchant’s credit card payments with the associations (American Express , MasterCard, Visa..), and provide the merchant with reconciliation tools. The acquiring bank makes money on every transaction a merchant processes.
There are number of acquiring banks in the United States and abroad, and merchants are free to move from one acquirer to another. Merchants typically select their acquiring bank based on the amount of money, called basis points, they charge per transaction.
Payment Processors & Gateway Services
There is nothing stopping a merchant from directly connecting to their acquiring bank, but there are a number of reasons why they may not want, or be able, to. There are technical and business requirements in conducting the payment process for credit cards, and most merchants don’t want to have to worry about these requirements. Instead they choose to use a third party between them and their acquiring banks. These third parties are called payment processors and gateway services.
Payment processors offer the physical infrastructure for the merchant to communicate with the acquiring banks and the associations. They are the ones that connect everyone together. This allows some very small banks to offer merchant services that they could not provide on their own. Payment processors make their money by charging a flat transaction fee or by charging basis points to the merchant. Some payment processors also provide acquiring bank services directly.
Gateway services offer merchants physical infrastructure as well. They typically offer technology and integration services that are faster, easier and less expensive to get started. They also give the merchant the freedom to move between acquiring banks so they can negotiate better rates without having to make changes to their production systems. The gateway service provider will charge a transaction fee or basis points for their services. These fees are on top of the payment processor fees the merchant is already paying.
If a merchant decides to use a gateway service provider they will still have to set up accounts with an acquirer. The acquirer could be an acquiring bank or a payment processor that offers acquiring.
Card Associations
Finally there are card associations, such as Visa , MasterCard International, American Express and Discover. There are a lot more — this is just a sampling. The card associations are responsible for setting up the guidelines on how transactions, services and disputes are to be handled. They interface with national banking laws and provide the money that covers some of the fraud that occurs within the membership. Each association runs a little differently, so one size does not fit all.
Visa has regions that operate pretty much autonomously. There is Visa U.S.A., Visa Europe, Visa Asia, etc. Each of these regions may have slightly different rules, tools and services they offer. Visa does not actually issue credit cards to consumers; they use issuing banks to issue credit cards that are branded as “Visa.”
MasterCard International is a little different from Visa in that it is one association for the entire globe: all regions go into the same structure. This has some benefits when it comes to regulations and tools. MasterCard International also uses issuing banks to issue credit cards to consumers that are branded as “MasterCard.”
American Express differs even more by acting as the issuer for all American Express branded credit cards. American Express is one global organization with regional coverage. American Express also differs from Visa and MasterCard in allowing merchants to set up direct connections for performing the acquiring functions.
One of the side notes that should be understood is the concept of “co-branding.” Today consumers have credit cards that are being sponsored by airlines, car companies, local clubs, etc. These organizations get a little of the money for each purchase. In some cases it may be that the organization is actually the Issuer, but in a lot of cases it is an actual issuing bank that is offering a number of co-branded credit cards for consumers to choose from. The card is still an American Express, Visa or MasterCard.
Each of these credit card associations has their own network of systems, policies for use and payment processing. Each of these associations develops new fraud-prevention tools and tries to get merchants to adopt them. These fraud-prevention practices are only good for that type of card. Usually if good market adoption occurs, the other cards will adopt a similar technology.
The actual fraud programs and services an association offers changes often, and you should check out their websites often to learn more about the types of fraud-prevention services and solutions they are endorsing.
Conclusion
Aside from the consumers, all of the players we have discussed rely on consumers to make purchases; because they make their money each time the consumer makes a purchase. For each consumer purchase the merchant is trying to make profit from a percentage of money called their margin, which represents the difference between what it cost them to buy and sell the goods and what they sold it for to the consumer.
In that margin the merchant has to pay for all of their overhead, staff, utilities, property, loss, insurance etc.… Profit comes from the margin and the merchant needs that margin to go a long way before they actually make profit, so every penny of it counts.
There is no denying that a merchant makes less profit on an order paid by credit card than by cash. But all merchants understand that having the ability to take credit cards means there are a lot more potential sales that would have never been possible as strictly cash deals. The merchant’s additional costs for credit card transactions come from interchange rates and basis points.
The issuing banks, acquiring banks, associations, and sometimes the payment processors, all get their money from the merchant in terms of basis points paid by the merchant. Basis points are percentage points of a sale a merchant pays on every purchase made with a credit card to the acquiring bank. Merchantsnegotiate with their acquiring banks, and sometimes the associations, to get the best possible interchange rates and basis points. The key point to understand is all of the players, aside from the consumer, have a vested interest in each consumer purchase.
Another key take-away from this section is to really understand that fraud is not defined or felt the same by all players in the payment process. Consumersworry about identity theft and having to rebuild their credit, while merchants worry about losing goods and having to pay fines. Acquiring banks worry about collusive merchants working with fraudsters to defraud the banks. Issuers worry about fraudulent applications, counterfeit cards and stolen cards. Associations worry about how fraud will impact their brand name to consumers, merchants and banks. So when talking, reading or evaluating fraud-prevention techniques remember to check whose perspective you are getting.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Are we heading towards a gold bubble?
BS Reporter / Mumbai April 12, 2009, 0:52 IST
A couple of reports in the American press revealed that more individuals are selling their broken and unwanted gold jewellery as the yellow metal’s price soared, while the recession blues refuse to go away. Back home, we have had a number of queries from investors considering whether or not to invest in gold via exchange-traded funds (ETFs).
Such queries are not surprising at a time when gold is selling near $900/ounce (six years ago it sold for around $325/ounce). Not to mention the leap to over $1,000 an ounce in February. But it is not as if investors are minutely tracking the gold price. It is the presence of Gold ETFs and gold stock funds that makes them all the more aware of the performance of gold.
As on April 2, 2009, Gold ETFs delivered a one-year return of 27.01 per cent as against the diversified equity fund category return of -36.76 per cent. Currently, gold ETFs lie at the top of the heap on just about every performance table other than 1-month: 3-month, 6-month and 1-year. So even if one does not track the precious metal, just looking at the performance of these funds gives you a clear indication of the price. The failure of gold ETFs in the 1-month returns was due to the recent correction of 7.16 per cent (Mar 20, 2009 – Apr 6, 2009).
But still the allure of gold has never been more tempting as in today’s volatile markets. The more important issue isn’t whether an investor should consider investing in gold, but rather the logic behind doing so.
Gold has been historically viewed as a safe haven. But that bit of wisdom does not seem to hold ground anymore. Thanks to Gold ETFs, the metal is now more of a paper asset whose value is increasingly driven by the demand and supply of paper gold on financial markets.
Consider this: In March 2009, NASDAQ Dubai launched the region’s first Sharia-compliant tradable security backed by gold. Named Dubai Gold, it is the first ETF to list on NASDAQ Dubai.
Meanwhile, reports state that in the first six weeks of the year, the buying by gold chasers drove more than 200 tons of gold bullion into SPDR Gold Shares, the world’s largest gold-backed ETF representing more than 1,000 tons of gold.
Gold ETFs have driven up investment demand because of the ease with which individuals may invest in the commodity. As a result, gold is now clearly subject to the same volatility as other financial assets, as investors’ interest flows in and out.
COMPARATIVE PERFORMANE
Category
1Mth
3Mth
6Mth
1Yr
Gold ETFs
-6.38
7.9
11.11
27.01
Medium & Long-term Gilt Funds
-2.02
-10.79
9.36
12.11
Medium-term Debt Funds
-0.6
-3.6
6.5
9.05
Cash Funds
0.5
1.5
3.5
7.74
Balanced Funds
10.5
-0.6
-13.9
-24.21
Diversified Equity Funds
14.6
-1.4
-22.3
-36.76
As on April 2, 2009 (All figures are in %)Moreover, gold certainly did not appear to be a great hedge against falling stock prices. Remember, when the global financial panic was at its peak in October 2008, gold prices were at their recent lows. International gold prices peaked in March 2008 and, from then till the end of October, gold fell by about 25 per cent.
Gold is no longer physical wealth but a paper asset whose value can fluctuate widely. No doubt, gold does have its value as a hedge against the dollar and a great option in a worldwide monetary collapse, but it does appear to a lot of market watchers that the price is currently overvalued. We could well be in a gold bubble, which is just as ephemeral as the stock or oil or real estate bubbles were. Waking up to gold one of these days could be like waking up to stocks or real estate in 2007.
Gold ETFs
Scheme
1Mth
3Mth
6Mth
1Yr
Gold Benchmark ETF
-6.38
8.05
11.38
27.48
Quantum Gold
-6.39
7.89
11.18
27.42
Kotak Gold ETF
-6.4
8.0
11.3
27.39
UTI Gold ETF
-6.4
7.9
11.2
27.31
Reliance Gold ETF
-6.4
7.6
10.4
25.45
As on April 2, 2009 (All figures are in %)c
But for every cautious or cynical observer, there are plenty of optimists making predictions of the highs that gold could reach. U.S-based Swiss America Trading Corporation (SATC) came out with an editorial piece in March which listed 70 economists who, on an average, predict that gold is poised for a dramatic surge and could touch $2,000 an ounce.
The justifications varied, the most common being gold as a hedge against anticipated inflation and gold being globally liquid which is of paramount importance with the debasing of currencies in developed economies.
But as a coin dealer in the US was quoted as saying: “If someone says he knows whether it’s a good or bad time to buy gold – run away. Because if he knew that answer, he wouldn’t be working for a living.”
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
6 reasons I'm calling a bottom and a new bull
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- OK, so you're one of millions of investors impatiently waiting on the sidelines, sitting with $2.5 trillion cash under your mattress, waiting for the right moment, that signal screaming: "Bottom's in, start buying!" Yes, it'll go down again, but the bottom's in, thanks to a great March, possibly the third best month since 1950, so it's time to jump back in and buy, buy, buy!
You heard me, I'm calling the bottom, beating Dr. Doom to the punch again (yes, again). Last time we were predicting the recession. This time we're calling the market bottom and a new bull.
Video: Market recovery or head fake?
Barron's Bob O'Brien says that after the S&P 500 fell to a 12-year low on March 9th, it then experienced a v-shaped recovery shooting 23% off the March Lows. Is this a true rally with staying power, or is the data a fake to the head?Dr. Doom? Of course I'm referring to you-know-who, Nouriel Roubini, the notorious "party-boy economist," as Portfolio magazine calls him, the ubiquitous New York University professor with his well-oiled PR hype machine (and bon vivant lifestyle) that's made him the "go-to" media darling with endless economic predictions.
Portfolio pinpoints Roubini's claim to fame in his February 2008 blog, "The Rising Risk of Systemic Financial Meltdown: The 12 Steps," where he announced the recession actually started in December 2007. We also covered it as a 12-act Shakespearean tragedy.
But today Roubini's got a huge problem, one that'll hurt his fans, investors and credibility.
Last December, Newsweek reported Roubini was predicting "the recession will last until the end of 2009," about nine more months. He also boasted that "eventually, when we get out of this crisis, I'll be the first one to call the recovery ... Then maybe I'll be called Dr. Boom." He made the same boast in Portfolio.
Roubini is a great showman. A century ago he would have outdone P.T. Barnum with his incredible boast, a prediction rivaling historic ones made by other well-known New Yorkers: Babe Ruth's famous home run in the 1932 World Series after pointing his bat into the center field bleachers and Joe Namath's prediction of an upset win over the heavily favored Colts in the 1969 Super Bowl.
Warning: Here are 6 reasons why Roubini can never fulfill his promise ... why he may go down in history, as Portfolio suggests, as the designated "one-hit wonder" ... but worse, any investor waiting for a Roubini "call" is playing Russian roulette, a loser's game ... you will miss the market's real turning point:
1. The stock market turns before the economy bottoms
Regardless of what Dr. Doom or any economist boasts, the stock market has a mind of its own, it's a leading indicator. Stocks historically kick into action earlier than the economy recovers, often six months ahead of the economy's bottom. Witness March.
So while economists' predictions pinpointing a recession may appear earlier than bear market predictions by the notoriously optimistic Wall Street pundits, the cycles work the other way in a recovery: A stock market bottom and new bull may occur six months before the economists call the ending of a recession and an economic recovery. So Dr. Doom's "call" will naturally come months after the stock market in fact turns.
2. Stocks make big money fast then go to sleep
Back in January, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig reported on some fascinating research: "History shows that the vast majority of the time, the stock market does next to nothing. Then, when no one expects it, the market delivers a giant gain or loss -- and promptly lapses back into its usual stupor."
And the numbers back it up: "Javier Estrada, a finance professor at IESE Business School in Barcelona, Spain, has studied the daily returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to 1900." He "found that if you took away the 10 best days, two-thirds of the cumulative gains produced by the Dow over the past 109 years would disappear. Conversely, had you sidestepped the market's 10 worst days, you would have tripled the actual return of the Dow."
3. No one can predict the next big move
Unfortunately, markets are notoriously unpredictable, ruled by mobs of irrational investors who are all bad guessers, No one can predict in advance when those "10 worst" or "10 best" days will actually occur. Not on Main Street. Certainly not on Wall Street.
Why? In his classic, "Stocks for the Long Run," Wharton economics Prof. Jeremy Siegel studied all the big market moves between 1801 and 2001. Two centuries of data. Siegel concluded that 75% of the time there was no rational explanation for big moves up in stock prices or big moves down. Lesson: Market timing is a loser's game.
4. Famous media-darling pundits inevitably flameout
A month ago Newsweek's science columnist and former Wall Street Journal legend Sharon Begley wrote a fascinating piece, "Why Pundits Get Things Wrong." Her opening: "Pointing out how often pundits' predictions are not only wrong but egregiously wrong -- a 36,000 Dow! euphoric Iraqis welcoming American soldiers with flowers! -- is like shooting fish in a barrel, except in this case the fish refuse to die. No matter how often they miss the mark, pundits just won't shut up."
Think of all the media darlings you know as Begley reviews the data: And "the fact that being chronically, 180-degrees wrong does not disqualify pundits is in large part the media's fault: cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere need all the punditry they can rustle up, track records be damned."
The data comes from Philip Tetlock, a research psychologist at Stanford University: "Tetlock's ongoing study of 82,361 predictions by 284 pundits" concludes that their accuracy has nothing to do with credentials such as a doctorate in economics or political science, or on "policy experience, access to classified information, or being a realist or neocon, liberal or conservative."
What matters? "The best predictor, in a backward sort of way, was fame: the more feted by the media, the worse a pundit's accuracy. ... The media's preferred pundits are forceful, confident and decisive, not tentative and balanced. ... Bold, decisive assertions make better sound bites; bombast, swagger and certainty make for better TV."
They can be totally wrong, so long as they're assertive and entertaining. "The marketplace of ideas does not punish poor punditry. Few of us even remember who got what wrong. We are instead impressed by credentials, affiliation, fame and even looks -- traits that have no bearing on a pundit's accuracy."
5. Even the best economists make huge errors
Go back a decade to that classic article in BusinessWeek, "What Do You Call an Economist With a Prediction? Wrong." Four years later in "So I Was Off by a Trillion," BusinessWeek punctuated the message, reporting on Michael Boskin's classic error. Boskin, a Stanford economist and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush 41, "circulated a startling paper to fellow economists. In it, he argued that the future tax payments on withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement accounts ... were being drastically undercounted. That meant federal budget revenues could potentially be in for a huge, unforeseen windfall ... of almost $12 trillion."
That also meant a political boost for Bush 43: "Larger than the sum of the 75-year actuarial deficits in Social Security and Medicare plus the national debt." Later, however, Boskin checked his numbers and "concluded that he had made a serious mistake: A key term had been left out ... possibly wiping out most of the estimated $12 trillion in savings."
No surprise: Political ideologies often motivate "objective" economists.
6. Will the real Dr. Doom please stand up?
Roubini actually shares the Dr. Doom title with many others, including Hong Kong economist Marc Faber who publishes the "Gloom Boom Doom Report;" legendary Salomon Bros. strategist Henry Kaufman; and Houston billionaire Richard Rainwater, whom Fortune mentioned as Dr. Doom.
In addition, in one of our columns last summer, we reported on many others whose predictions of a coming recession predated Roubini's claim, though not called "Dr. Doom." They include: Pete Peterson, a Blackstone Group founder; Pimco's Bill Gross; Harvard financial historian Niall Ferguson; Warren Buffett; former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt; Jeremy Grantham whose GMO firm manages $100 billion; "Black Swan" author Nassim Nicholas Taleb; and long-time Forbes columnist, economist Gary Shilling.
Noteworthy, way back in 2004 Shilling specifically warned: "Subprime loans are probably the greatest financial problem facing the nation in the years ahead." And later in June 2007 Shilling said: "Just as the U.S. housing bubble is bursting, speculation elsewhere will come to a violent end, if history is any guide. Some astute pioneers, including Richard Bookstaber, who designed various derivative-laden strategies over the years, now fear that financial derivatives and hedge funds -- focal points of today's huge leverage -- will trigger financial meltdown." Then in a November 2007 column, "17 Reasons America needs a recession," Gross predicted a bailout of "Rooseveltian proportions" ahead.
Yes, we were warned. In fact, seems everyone knew. But our denial was too powerful, hidden under our new culture of infectious greed.
The examples go on and on ... strongly suggesting that the "Roubini Hype Machine" may well be the "one-hit wonder" Portfolio calls him. He was not ahead of the competition with his December 2007 recession call. So if you're one of America's 95 million investors waiting for Roubini to call a bottom before getting back in the market, you'll miss the real turning point.
One final, crucial warning: This next bull will be short. First, it will suck money out of the mattresses of investors who are sitting on cash. Then Wall Street will recreate the insanity of the '90's dot-coms and the recent subprime-credit mania.
But underneath it all, Wall Street's bulls will be setting the stage for yet another catastrophic bubble and meltdown. So please be careful when "Dr. Doom's PR Hype Machine" proclaims that Roubini's finally morphed into "Dr. Boom" later this year. It'll be too late.
You heard me, I'm calling the bottom, beating Dr. Doom to the punch again (yes, again). Last time we were predicting the recession. This time we're calling the market bottom and a new bull.
Video: Market recovery or head fake?
Barron's Bob O'Brien says that after the S&P 500 fell to a 12-year low on March 9th, it then experienced a v-shaped recovery shooting 23% off the March Lows. Is this a true rally with staying power, or is the data a fake to the head?Dr. Doom? Of course I'm referring to you-know-who, Nouriel Roubini, the notorious "party-boy economist," as Portfolio magazine calls him, the ubiquitous New York University professor with his well-oiled PR hype machine (and bon vivant lifestyle) that's made him the "go-to" media darling with endless economic predictions.
Portfolio pinpoints Roubini's claim to fame in his February 2008 blog, "The Rising Risk of Systemic Financial Meltdown: The 12 Steps," where he announced the recession actually started in December 2007. We also covered it as a 12-act Shakespearean tragedy.
But today Roubini's got a huge problem, one that'll hurt his fans, investors and credibility.
Last December, Newsweek reported Roubini was predicting "the recession will last until the end of 2009," about nine more months. He also boasted that "eventually, when we get out of this crisis, I'll be the first one to call the recovery ... Then maybe I'll be called Dr. Boom." He made the same boast in Portfolio.
Roubini is a great showman. A century ago he would have outdone P.T. Barnum with his incredible boast, a prediction rivaling historic ones made by other well-known New Yorkers: Babe Ruth's famous home run in the 1932 World Series after pointing his bat into the center field bleachers and Joe Namath's prediction of an upset win over the heavily favored Colts in the 1969 Super Bowl.
Warning: Here are 6 reasons why Roubini can never fulfill his promise ... why he may go down in history, as Portfolio suggests, as the designated "one-hit wonder" ... but worse, any investor waiting for a Roubini "call" is playing Russian roulette, a loser's game ... you will miss the market's real turning point:
1. The stock market turns before the economy bottoms
Regardless of what Dr. Doom or any economist boasts, the stock market has a mind of its own, it's a leading indicator. Stocks historically kick into action earlier than the economy recovers, often six months ahead of the economy's bottom. Witness March.
So while economists' predictions pinpointing a recession may appear earlier than bear market predictions by the notoriously optimistic Wall Street pundits, the cycles work the other way in a recovery: A stock market bottom and new bull may occur six months before the economists call the ending of a recession and an economic recovery. So Dr. Doom's "call" will naturally come months after the stock market in fact turns.
2. Stocks make big money fast then go to sleep
Back in January, Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig reported on some fascinating research: "History shows that the vast majority of the time, the stock market does next to nothing. Then, when no one expects it, the market delivers a giant gain or loss -- and promptly lapses back into its usual stupor."
And the numbers back it up: "Javier Estrada, a finance professor at IESE Business School in Barcelona, Spain, has studied the daily returns of the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to 1900." He "found that if you took away the 10 best days, two-thirds of the cumulative gains produced by the Dow over the past 109 years would disappear. Conversely, had you sidestepped the market's 10 worst days, you would have tripled the actual return of the Dow."
3. No one can predict the next big move
Unfortunately, markets are notoriously unpredictable, ruled by mobs of irrational investors who are all bad guessers, No one can predict in advance when those "10 worst" or "10 best" days will actually occur. Not on Main Street. Certainly not on Wall Street.
Why? In his classic, "Stocks for the Long Run," Wharton economics Prof. Jeremy Siegel studied all the big market moves between 1801 and 2001. Two centuries of data. Siegel concluded that 75% of the time there was no rational explanation for big moves up in stock prices or big moves down. Lesson: Market timing is a loser's game.
4. Famous media-darling pundits inevitably flameout
A month ago Newsweek's science columnist and former Wall Street Journal legend Sharon Begley wrote a fascinating piece, "Why Pundits Get Things Wrong." Her opening: "Pointing out how often pundits' predictions are not only wrong but egregiously wrong -- a 36,000 Dow! euphoric Iraqis welcoming American soldiers with flowers! -- is like shooting fish in a barrel, except in this case the fish refuse to die. No matter how often they miss the mark, pundits just won't shut up."
Think of all the media darlings you know as Begley reviews the data: And "the fact that being chronically, 180-degrees wrong does not disqualify pundits is in large part the media's fault: cable news, talk radio and the blogosphere need all the punditry they can rustle up, track records be damned."
The data comes from Philip Tetlock, a research psychologist at Stanford University: "Tetlock's ongoing study of 82,361 predictions by 284 pundits" concludes that their accuracy has nothing to do with credentials such as a doctorate in economics or political science, or on "policy experience, access to classified information, or being a realist or neocon, liberal or conservative."
What matters? "The best predictor, in a backward sort of way, was fame: the more feted by the media, the worse a pundit's accuracy. ... The media's preferred pundits are forceful, confident and decisive, not tentative and balanced. ... Bold, decisive assertions make better sound bites; bombast, swagger and certainty make for better TV."
They can be totally wrong, so long as they're assertive and entertaining. "The marketplace of ideas does not punish poor punditry. Few of us even remember who got what wrong. We are instead impressed by credentials, affiliation, fame and even looks -- traits that have no bearing on a pundit's accuracy."
5. Even the best economists make huge errors
Go back a decade to that classic article in BusinessWeek, "What Do You Call an Economist With a Prediction? Wrong." Four years later in "So I Was Off by a Trillion," BusinessWeek punctuated the message, reporting on Michael Boskin's classic error. Boskin, a Stanford economist and former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush 41, "circulated a startling paper to fellow economists. In it, he argued that the future tax payments on withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement accounts ... were being drastically undercounted. That meant federal budget revenues could potentially be in for a huge, unforeseen windfall ... of almost $12 trillion."
That also meant a political boost for Bush 43: "Larger than the sum of the 75-year actuarial deficits in Social Security and Medicare plus the national debt." Later, however, Boskin checked his numbers and "concluded that he had made a serious mistake: A key term had been left out ... possibly wiping out most of the estimated $12 trillion in savings."
No surprise: Political ideologies often motivate "objective" economists.
6. Will the real Dr. Doom please stand up?
Roubini actually shares the Dr. Doom title with many others, including Hong Kong economist Marc Faber who publishes the "Gloom Boom Doom Report;" legendary Salomon Bros. strategist Henry Kaufman; and Houston billionaire Richard Rainwater, whom Fortune mentioned as Dr. Doom.
In addition, in one of our columns last summer, we reported on many others whose predictions of a coming recession predated Roubini's claim, though not called "Dr. Doom." They include: Pete Peterson, a Blackstone Group founder; Pimco's Bill Gross; Harvard financial historian Niall Ferguson; Warren Buffett; former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt; Jeremy Grantham whose GMO firm manages $100 billion; "Black Swan" author Nassim Nicholas Taleb; and long-time Forbes columnist, economist Gary Shilling.
Noteworthy, way back in 2004 Shilling specifically warned: "Subprime loans are probably the greatest financial problem facing the nation in the years ahead." And later in June 2007 Shilling said: "Just as the U.S. housing bubble is bursting, speculation elsewhere will come to a violent end, if history is any guide. Some astute pioneers, including Richard Bookstaber, who designed various derivative-laden strategies over the years, now fear that financial derivatives and hedge funds -- focal points of today's huge leverage -- will trigger financial meltdown." Then in a November 2007 column, "17 Reasons America needs a recession," Gross predicted a bailout of "Rooseveltian proportions" ahead.
Yes, we were warned. In fact, seems everyone knew. But our denial was too powerful, hidden under our new culture of infectious greed.
The examples go on and on ... strongly suggesting that the "Roubini Hype Machine" may well be the "one-hit wonder" Portfolio calls him. He was not ahead of the competition with his December 2007 recession call. So if you're one of America's 95 million investors waiting for Roubini to call a bottom before getting back in the market, you'll miss the real turning point.
One final, crucial warning: This next bull will be short. First, it will suck money out of the mattresses of investors who are sitting on cash. Then Wall Street will recreate the insanity of the '90's dot-coms and the recent subprime-credit mania.
But underneath it all, Wall Street's bulls will be setting the stage for yet another catastrophic bubble and meltdown. So please be careful when "Dr. Doom's PR Hype Machine" proclaims that Roubini's finally morphed into "Dr. Boom" later this year. It'll be too late.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Central banks sit on their bullion reserves
Central banks sit on their bullion reserves
Falling gold sales and loans provide price support; IMF has 400 tons to unload
By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch
Last update: 5:04 p.m. EDT March 24, 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The world's major central banks, which hold more than 15% of global gold stockpiles, are expected to reduce their sales or lending of their bullion reserves this year, potentially restricting supplies and putting a floor under gold prices.
Several precious metals consultancies and the industry's main trade group anticipate total sales from major central banks such as France and Switzerland will decline again this year. One estimate projects sales could tumble to their lowest level in at least a decade.
Fewer sales mean gold supplies, which have been retreating in recent years as mining production has weakened, are likely to keep falling short of demand.
As long as investor appetite stays strong - and that's a big question mark, of course - this trend should support prices over the long term.
"Falling central bank sales have been a part of the gradual improvement in the overall balance between demand and supply in the gold market," said George Milling-Stanley, managing director of the official sector at the producer-funded World Gold Council.
"There are a whole bunch of reasons why the [gold] price has been going up, and I think that lower supply has been one of those reasons," he added.
Jon Nadler, senior analyst at Kitco Bullion Dealers, said falling central bank sales "might put a floor of some kind under gold, near $500 or so."
Analysts also anticipate official holders such as central banks will lend less of their reserves, keeping with a trend of recent years. Some analysts say central banks' loans of their reserves to mining companies and private banks contributed to a slump in gold prices in the second half of last year.
Another important milestone for the supply of official gold this year is the International Monetary Fund. The organization has said it plans to sell more than 400 tons of gold to diversify its revenue and strengthen its balance sheet.
Some investors are worried that the IMF sales could pressure gold prices, although the fund has said it plans to coordinate closely with central banks to minimize the impact of this large gold sale.
The IMF's plan could provide a boost in getting central banks to extend an agreement expiring in September to limit how much gold they will sell every year. That deal, called the Central Bank Gold Agreement, has helped restrain central bank gold supplies over the past decade.
In Tuesday's trading, the London afternoon gold fixing, an important benchmark for gold prices, stood at $923.75 an ounce. That's $88 lower than the record high above $1,000 hit about a year ago.
Bank of England's shocker
Central banks sell gold to rebalance their reserves portfolio by reducing the portion of gold. By selling gold, a country can switch into assets with higher return and better liquidity.
For example, Switzerland, which had held the most gold reserves per capita in Europe in 1999, has sold more than 1,300 tons of its gold reserves. Other major sellers in the past 10 years included France, the Netherlands, and the U.K.
Countries like France, where monetary policy is now set by the European Central Bank, still maintains its own central bank. The U.S. hasn't sold gold.
In the past, abrupt selling has sometimes depressed gold prices. The Bank of England's announcement in early 1999 that it was selling part of its reserves helped gold prices slump to a 20-year low. Gold traded at just above $250 an ounce by the summer of that year.
But efforts to coordinate those sales have reduced those shocks. On Sept. 26, 1999, 15 European central banks, led by the ECB, signed the first CBGA to take concerted moves on gold sales.
The banks agreed that in a five-year period, they will cap their total gold sales at around 400 tons a year, with sales in five years not exceeding 2,000 tons. The CBGA was renewed in 2004 for another five-year period. The second CBGA raised annual ceiling to 500 tons and the five-year limit to 2,500 tons.
"There is a general consensus in the gold market that the two successive CBGAs have been a success for the whole market and for central banks in particular," said WGC's Stanley.
Sales slip, slip some more
In the past 10 years, almost all the official gold sales have been from signatories of the CBGA. Their sales have fallen in recent years and are likely to fall further this year, analysts say.
VM Group, a precious metals consultancy based in London, estimated that selling under the CBGA will fall to 150 tons in the year ended Sept. 26. If realized, this will be the lowest number since 1999, when the first CBGA was signed.
The World Gold Council and CPM Group, a New York-based precious metals consultancy, also anticipate official gold sales will fall this year.
Central bank gold sales declined to 279 tons in the 2008 calendar year, more than 200 tons, or 42%, lower than a year ago, according to data collected by GFMS, a London-based precious metals consultancy.
The fall in official sales is a major contributor to the decline in global gold supply in 2008, GFMS data showed. Meanwhile, the portion of official sales in total gold supply also fell to 8% in 2008 from 14% a year ago.
"Central banks that wanted to reduce their gold holdings have sold most of the gold they wanted to sell by the middle of this decade," said Jeffrey Christian, managing director at CPM Group.
But further selling could come from countries that still hold a big portion of gold in their reserves, such as Germany and Italy, according to analysts at VM. Earlier this year, politicians in Germany were talking about selling gold to fund the country's stimulus package.
Borrowing and hedging
Aside from selling gold, some central banks also lend the metal to miners, big banks and funds. Miners borrow gold to sell forward in order to lock in their future revenue. Funds and banks sometimes sell borrowed gold to invest the proceeds in other markets.
Gold borrowed for these two purposes used to have a dramatic impact on the market because it was immediately sold in spot markets, said WGC's Stanley.
VM estimated that total outstanding balance of central bank gold lending was at 2,345 tons at the end of 2008. That's more than the year's total mining production, the major source of gold supply.
Nonetheless, this balance has shrunk consistently since the late 1990s, reducing its impact on the markets. The balance in 2008 fell almost 50% from 2004's more than 4,300 tons, according to VM.
"Gold mining companies have largely stopped selling production as a hedge, and the hedge funds have largely abandoned the practice of selling gold forward as a speculation," said Stanley.
Miners reduced forward sales by 1.54 million ounces in the fourth quarter, the smallest amount for the year, according to GFMS. Gold producers still had 15.52 million ounces left in hedging at the end of the year.
Still, in the short term, gold borrowing can make a shift in prices.
From last August, when the global credit crunch hit the financial industry, bullion banks borrowed "as much gold as was available and executed gold swaps to raise liquidity," VM analysts led by Carl Firman pointed out in a yearly report released earlier this month.
The activity had an "immediate and very marked affect" on gold by holding prices back, even in the wake of strong retail demand for physical metal, Firman wrote in a report.
Gold prices slumped nearly 30% from July's high to below $700 in November. See related story.
By lending gold, central banks can earn interest on it. Unless central banks can lend out their gold, it earns nothing, and the stockpile in fact is a cost in terms of storage and insurance, said VM's Firman in a telephone interview.
Despite some wild speculations, all evidence indicates that the U.S., the biggest gold holder, is not lending gold, said CPM's Christian.
"The people, the gold conspiracy theorists who claim evidence, twist the truth like Uri Gellar twists spoons," said Christian.
More than half of the 8,133.5 tons of gold held by the U.S. is stored in Fort Knox, Ky., according to the Treasury Department. Gold is also stored in West Point, N.Y., and Denver, Colo.
IMF has 400 tons to unload
The second CBGA is expiring in September. Stanley said he expected a new agreement will be signed. William Lelieveldt, an ECB spokesman, declined to comment on the potential renewal of the agreement.
One of the beneficiaries of a third CBGA will be the IMF, which is considering coordinating with central banks to sell 403 tons of gold.
The fund, which holds more than 3,200 tons of gold, ranking the third in the world after the U.S. and Germany, is facing a widening deficit. With the majority of its income coming from interest payment of the fund's loans, the IMF has been looking for other revenue sources.
One of the plans is the creation of an endowment, with major financing for the endowment coming from the proceeds of gold sales.
The IMF acknowledged drawbacks of gold sales, but also said that the sales could "form part of a package approach" and should "subject to strong safeguards to limit their market impact," according to the plan.
The sales "need to be coordinated with the existing and possible future central bank gold agreements," the committee said in the report. By coordinating with the CBGA framework, IMF gold sales "should not add to the announced volume of sales from official sources."
The WGC's Stanley said the IMF is likely to help push through a third CBGA.
"The proposal was designed not just to plug the income gap, but also to put the IMF's finances on a more diverse, sustainable and stable footing for the longer-term, and less subject to the ups and downs of the world economy," wrote Matthew Turner, an analyst at VM, in a report.
Moming Zhou is a MarketWatch reporter based in New York.
Falling gold sales and loans provide price support; IMF has 400 tons to unload
By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch
Last update: 5:04 p.m. EDT March 24, 2009
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The world's major central banks, which hold more than 15% of global gold stockpiles, are expected to reduce their sales or lending of their bullion reserves this year, potentially restricting supplies and putting a floor under gold prices.
Several precious metals consultancies and the industry's main trade group anticipate total sales from major central banks such as France and Switzerland will decline again this year. One estimate projects sales could tumble to their lowest level in at least a decade.
Fewer sales mean gold supplies, which have been retreating in recent years as mining production has weakened, are likely to keep falling short of demand.
As long as investor appetite stays strong - and that's a big question mark, of course - this trend should support prices over the long term.
"Falling central bank sales have been a part of the gradual improvement in the overall balance between demand and supply in the gold market," said George Milling-Stanley, managing director of the official sector at the producer-funded World Gold Council.
"There are a whole bunch of reasons why the [gold] price has been going up, and I think that lower supply has been one of those reasons," he added.
Jon Nadler, senior analyst at Kitco Bullion Dealers, said falling central bank sales "might put a floor of some kind under gold, near $500 or so."
Analysts also anticipate official holders such as central banks will lend less of their reserves, keeping with a trend of recent years. Some analysts say central banks' loans of their reserves to mining companies and private banks contributed to a slump in gold prices in the second half of last year.
Another important milestone for the supply of official gold this year is the International Monetary Fund. The organization has said it plans to sell more than 400 tons of gold to diversify its revenue and strengthen its balance sheet.
Some investors are worried that the IMF sales could pressure gold prices, although the fund has said it plans to coordinate closely with central banks to minimize the impact of this large gold sale.
The IMF's plan could provide a boost in getting central banks to extend an agreement expiring in September to limit how much gold they will sell every year. That deal, called the Central Bank Gold Agreement, has helped restrain central bank gold supplies over the past decade.
In Tuesday's trading, the London afternoon gold fixing, an important benchmark for gold prices, stood at $923.75 an ounce. That's $88 lower than the record high above $1,000 hit about a year ago.
Bank of England's shocker
Central banks sell gold to rebalance their reserves portfolio by reducing the portion of gold. By selling gold, a country can switch into assets with higher return and better liquidity.
For example, Switzerland, which had held the most gold reserves per capita in Europe in 1999, has sold more than 1,300 tons of its gold reserves. Other major sellers in the past 10 years included France, the Netherlands, and the U.K.
Countries like France, where monetary policy is now set by the European Central Bank, still maintains its own central bank. The U.S. hasn't sold gold.
In the past, abrupt selling has sometimes depressed gold prices. The Bank of England's announcement in early 1999 that it was selling part of its reserves helped gold prices slump to a 20-year low. Gold traded at just above $250 an ounce by the summer of that year.
But efforts to coordinate those sales have reduced those shocks. On Sept. 26, 1999, 15 European central banks, led by the ECB, signed the first CBGA to take concerted moves on gold sales.
The banks agreed that in a five-year period, they will cap their total gold sales at around 400 tons a year, with sales in five years not exceeding 2,000 tons. The CBGA was renewed in 2004 for another five-year period. The second CBGA raised annual ceiling to 500 tons and the five-year limit to 2,500 tons.
"There is a general consensus in the gold market that the two successive CBGAs have been a success for the whole market and for central banks in particular," said WGC's Stanley.
Sales slip, slip some more
In the past 10 years, almost all the official gold sales have been from signatories of the CBGA. Their sales have fallen in recent years and are likely to fall further this year, analysts say.
VM Group, a precious metals consultancy based in London, estimated that selling under the CBGA will fall to 150 tons in the year ended Sept. 26. If realized, this will be the lowest number since 1999, when the first CBGA was signed.
The World Gold Council and CPM Group, a New York-based precious metals consultancy, also anticipate official gold sales will fall this year.
Central bank gold sales declined to 279 tons in the 2008 calendar year, more than 200 tons, or 42%, lower than a year ago, according to data collected by GFMS, a London-based precious metals consultancy.
The fall in official sales is a major contributor to the decline in global gold supply in 2008, GFMS data showed. Meanwhile, the portion of official sales in total gold supply also fell to 8% in 2008 from 14% a year ago.
"Central banks that wanted to reduce their gold holdings have sold most of the gold they wanted to sell by the middle of this decade," said Jeffrey Christian, managing director at CPM Group.
But further selling could come from countries that still hold a big portion of gold in their reserves, such as Germany and Italy, according to analysts at VM. Earlier this year, politicians in Germany were talking about selling gold to fund the country's stimulus package.
Borrowing and hedging
Aside from selling gold, some central banks also lend the metal to miners, big banks and funds. Miners borrow gold to sell forward in order to lock in their future revenue. Funds and banks sometimes sell borrowed gold to invest the proceeds in other markets.
Gold borrowed for these two purposes used to have a dramatic impact on the market because it was immediately sold in spot markets, said WGC's Stanley.
VM estimated that total outstanding balance of central bank gold lending was at 2,345 tons at the end of 2008. That's more than the year's total mining production, the major source of gold supply.
Nonetheless, this balance has shrunk consistently since the late 1990s, reducing its impact on the markets. The balance in 2008 fell almost 50% from 2004's more than 4,300 tons, according to VM.
"Gold mining companies have largely stopped selling production as a hedge, and the hedge funds have largely abandoned the practice of selling gold forward as a speculation," said Stanley.
Miners reduced forward sales by 1.54 million ounces in the fourth quarter, the smallest amount for the year, according to GFMS. Gold producers still had 15.52 million ounces left in hedging at the end of the year.
Still, in the short term, gold borrowing can make a shift in prices.
From last August, when the global credit crunch hit the financial industry, bullion banks borrowed "as much gold as was available and executed gold swaps to raise liquidity," VM analysts led by Carl Firman pointed out in a yearly report released earlier this month.
The activity had an "immediate and very marked affect" on gold by holding prices back, even in the wake of strong retail demand for physical metal, Firman wrote in a report.
Gold prices slumped nearly 30% from July's high to below $700 in November. See related story.
By lending gold, central banks can earn interest on it. Unless central banks can lend out their gold, it earns nothing, and the stockpile in fact is a cost in terms of storage and insurance, said VM's Firman in a telephone interview.
Despite some wild speculations, all evidence indicates that the U.S., the biggest gold holder, is not lending gold, said CPM's Christian.
"The people, the gold conspiracy theorists who claim evidence, twist the truth like Uri Gellar twists spoons," said Christian.
More than half of the 8,133.5 tons of gold held by the U.S. is stored in Fort Knox, Ky., according to the Treasury Department. Gold is also stored in West Point, N.Y., and Denver, Colo.
IMF has 400 tons to unload
The second CBGA is expiring in September. Stanley said he expected a new agreement will be signed. William Lelieveldt, an ECB spokesman, declined to comment on the potential renewal of the agreement.
One of the beneficiaries of a third CBGA will be the IMF, which is considering coordinating with central banks to sell 403 tons of gold.
The fund, which holds more than 3,200 tons of gold, ranking the third in the world after the U.S. and Germany, is facing a widening deficit. With the majority of its income coming from interest payment of the fund's loans, the IMF has been looking for other revenue sources.
One of the plans is the creation of an endowment, with major financing for the endowment coming from the proceeds of gold sales.
The IMF acknowledged drawbacks of gold sales, but also said that the sales could "form part of a package approach" and should "subject to strong safeguards to limit their market impact," according to the plan.
The sales "need to be coordinated with the existing and possible future central bank gold agreements," the committee said in the report. By coordinating with the CBGA framework, IMF gold sales "should not add to the announced volume of sales from official sources."
The WGC's Stanley said the IMF is likely to help push through a third CBGA.
"The proposal was designed not just to plug the income gap, but also to put the IMF's finances on a more diverse, sustainable and stable footing for the longer-term, and less subject to the ups and downs of the world economy," wrote Matthew Turner, an analyst at VM, in a report.
Moming Zhou is a MarketWatch reporter based in New York.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Newsletters Performance
Newsletter Listing
Alert me if this list changes
Newsletters that meet your criteria
Further filter the Newsletters that meet your criteria using these controls.
Organize listing by:Alphabetical Analytic Portfolio
View Gain over the timeframe of:1 year3 years5 years10 years15 years20 yearsYTD
Show Newsletters that focus on:All asset typesU.S. EquitiesInt'l EquitiesU.S. Fixed IncomeInt'l Fixed IncomeGold
function nextPrev(nSR)
{
var theForm = document.frmMaster;
theForm.sr.value = nSR;
doPostBack("", "")
}
57 Newsletters
Key: U.S. Equities Int'l Equities U.S. Fixed Income Int'l Fixed Income Gold
Click on column header to sort data
Seq. #
Gain*
Peter Eliades' Stockmarket Cycles
Peter G. Eliades
25.9%
Jan 1985
2
National Trendlines
Douglas Jimerson
0.5%
Jan 1992
3
Mutual Fund Strategist (The)
Holly Hooper-Fournier
-0.6%
Jan 1985
4
Doug Fabian's Successful Investing
Doug Fabian
-0.9%
Jul 1980
5
Sy Harding's Street Smart Report
Sy Harding
-3.1%
Jan 2002
6
Martin Weiss' Safe Money Report
Martin D. Weiss
-5.2%
Apr 2001
7
Coolcat ETF & Fidelity Select Report
Kevin Kennedy
-6.7%
Jan 2003
8
Nasdaq Wizard Long-Term Model
Stephen Brown
-6.8%
Jan 2006
9
Nasdaq Wizard Mid-Term Model
Stephen Brown
-7.0%
Jan 2006
10
TimingCube
F. Minssieux
-7.5%
May 2003
11
No-Load Mutual Fund Selections & Timing Newsletter
Stephen L. McKee
-8.7%
Jan 1990
12
Doug Fabian's ETF Trader
Doug Fabian
-12.7%
Jan 1999
13
Growth Fund Guide
Walter Rouleau
-13.5%
Jul 1980
14
Personal Finance
Elliott Gue
-14.3%
Jan 1984
15
TurnerTrends
Mike Turner
-15.4%
Apr 2004
16
Roger Conrad's Utility Forecaster
Roger S. Conrad
-16.5%
Jan 1993
17
Real Wealth Report
Larry Edelson
-17.5%
Jan 2005
18
Todd Market Forecast
Stephen Todd
-20.2%
Jan 1992
19
Investors Intelligence
Michael L. Burke
-20.7%
Jan 1985
20
Professional Timing Service
Curtis Hesler
-21.1%
Jul 1980
21
Contrarian's View (The)
Nick Chase
-22.7%
Jan 1991
22
Aden Forecast (The)
Mary Anne Aden
-23.6%
Jan 1996
23
All Star Fund Trader
Ronald E. Rowland
-24.6%
Jan 1993
24
Cycles Research Early Warning Service
Bill Meridian
-28.5%
Jan 2007
25
CurrinResearch.com
Rick Currin
-29.8%
Jan 2004
26
Systems and Forecasts
Gerald Appel
-29.9%
Jan 1983
27
Investor's Intelligence ETF Review
Tarquin Coe
-30.2%
Mar 2005
28
Moneyletter
Walter S. Frank
-31.6%
Jan 1987
29
FundAdvice.com
Paul A. Merriman
-31.7%
Jan 1984
30
Peter Dag Portfolio Strategy & Mgmt (The)
George Dagnino
-32.0%
Jan 1983
31
Eric Kobren's Fidelity Insight
Eric Kobren
-32.1%
Jan 1988
32
Fosback's Fund Forecaster
Norman G. Fosback
-32.2%
Jan 2003
33
Michael Murphy's New World Investor
Michael Murphy
-33.6%
Jan 1999
34
Morningstar Mutual Funds
Patrick Dunn
-34.1%
Jan 1991
35
Almanac Investor Newsletter
Jeffrey A. Hirsch
-34.4%
Jan 1994
36
Fidelity Monitor
Jack Bowers
-35.8%
Jan 1987
37
No Load Fund*X
Janet Brown
-37.8%
Jul 1980
38
Richard C. Young's Intelligence Report
Richard C. Young
-38.1%
Jan 1998
39
Fidelity Independent Adviser Sector Momentum Tracker
Donald R. Dion, Jr
-38.3%
Aug 2004
40
ETF Trader
Jim Lowell
-40.9%
Sep 2004
41
Successful Investor (The)
Patrick McKeough
-40.9%
Jan 2002
42
Global Investing
Vivian Lewis
-41.1%
Jan 1994
43
AlphaProfit Sector Investors' Newsletter
Sam Subramanian
-41.4%
Jan 2004
44
Richard Schmidt's Stellar Stock Alert
Richard Schmidt
-42.1%
Jan 1999
45
Forbes/Lehmann Income Securities Investor
Richard Lehmann
-43.9%
Jan 2004
46
Fredhager.com
Rick Currin
-44.3%
Jan 2000
47
Investment Reporter (The)
Marc Johnson
-45.5%
Jan 1984
48
Carla Pasternak's Hi-Yield Investing
Carla Pasternak
-45.8%
Mar 2006
49
Mark Skousen's Forecasts & Strategies
Mark Skousen
-48.0%
Jan 1994
50
Outstanding Investments
Byron King
-50.1%
Jan 2000
51
AI Stock Forecast
Michael Henry
-50.6%
Jan 2000
52
Dines Letter (The)
James Dines
-52.3%
Jul 1980
53
Ruff Times (The)
Howard J. Ruff
-54.1%
Jul 1980
54
International Harry Schultz Letter (The)
Harry Schultz
-59.2%
Jul 1980
55
Charlie Buck's Win Before You Buy
Charlie Buck
-81.1%
Jan 1997
56
Fidelity Independent Adviser Dynamic Global ETF Service
Donald R. Dion, Jr
n/a
Jul 2008
57
P. Q. Wall Forecast, Inc.
P. Q. Wall
n/a
Jan 1990
* Cumulative 1yr performance through Jan 2009
Alert me if this list changes
Newsletters that meet your criteria
Further filter the Newsletters that meet your criteria using these controls.
Organize listing by:Alphabetical Analytic Portfolio
View Gain over the timeframe of:1 year3 years5 years10 years15 years20 yearsYTD
Show Newsletters that focus on:All asset typesU.S. EquitiesInt'l EquitiesU.S. Fixed IncomeInt'l Fixed IncomeGold
function nextPrev(nSR)
{
var theForm = document.frmMaster;
theForm.sr.value = nSR;
doPostBack("", "")
}
57 Newsletters
Key: U.S. Equities Int'l Equities U.S. Fixed Income Int'l Fixed Income Gold
Click on column header to sort data
Seq. #
Gain*
Peter Eliades' Stockmarket Cycles
Peter G. Eliades
25.9%
Jan 1985
2
National Trendlines
Douglas Jimerson
0.5%
Jan 1992
3
Mutual Fund Strategist (The)
Holly Hooper-Fournier
-0.6%
Jan 1985
4
Doug Fabian's Successful Investing
Doug Fabian
-0.9%
Jul 1980
5
Sy Harding's Street Smart Report
Sy Harding
-3.1%
Jan 2002
6
Martin Weiss' Safe Money Report
Martin D. Weiss
-5.2%
Apr 2001
7
Coolcat ETF & Fidelity Select Report
Kevin Kennedy
-6.7%
Jan 2003
8
Nasdaq Wizard Long-Term Model
Stephen Brown
-6.8%
Jan 2006
9
Nasdaq Wizard Mid-Term Model
Stephen Brown
-7.0%
Jan 2006
10
TimingCube
F. Minssieux
-7.5%
May 2003
11
No-Load Mutual Fund Selections & Timing Newsletter
Stephen L. McKee
-8.7%
Jan 1990
12
Doug Fabian's ETF Trader
Doug Fabian
-12.7%
Jan 1999
13
Growth Fund Guide
Walter Rouleau
-13.5%
Jul 1980
14
Personal Finance
Elliott Gue
-14.3%
Jan 1984
15
TurnerTrends
Mike Turner
-15.4%
Apr 2004
16
Roger Conrad's Utility Forecaster
Roger S. Conrad
-16.5%
Jan 1993
17
Real Wealth Report
Larry Edelson
-17.5%
Jan 2005
18
Todd Market Forecast
Stephen Todd
-20.2%
Jan 1992
19
Investors Intelligence
Michael L. Burke
-20.7%
Jan 1985
20
Professional Timing Service
Curtis Hesler
-21.1%
Jul 1980
21
Contrarian's View (The)
Nick Chase
-22.7%
Jan 1991
22
Aden Forecast (The)
Mary Anne Aden
-23.6%
Jan 1996
23
All Star Fund Trader
Ronald E. Rowland
-24.6%
Jan 1993
24
Cycles Research Early Warning Service
Bill Meridian
-28.5%
Jan 2007
25
CurrinResearch.com
Rick Currin
-29.8%
Jan 2004
26
Systems and Forecasts
Gerald Appel
-29.9%
Jan 1983
27
Investor's Intelligence ETF Review
Tarquin Coe
-30.2%
Mar 2005
28
Moneyletter
Walter S. Frank
-31.6%
Jan 1987
29
FundAdvice.com
Paul A. Merriman
-31.7%
Jan 1984
30
Peter Dag Portfolio Strategy & Mgmt (The)
George Dagnino
-32.0%
Jan 1983
31
Eric Kobren's Fidelity Insight
Eric Kobren
-32.1%
Jan 1988
32
Fosback's Fund Forecaster
Norman G. Fosback
-32.2%
Jan 2003
33
Michael Murphy's New World Investor
Michael Murphy
-33.6%
Jan 1999
34
Morningstar Mutual Funds
Patrick Dunn
-34.1%
Jan 1991
35
Almanac Investor Newsletter
Jeffrey A. Hirsch
-34.4%
Jan 1994
36
Fidelity Monitor
Jack Bowers
-35.8%
Jan 1987
37
No Load Fund*X
Janet Brown
-37.8%
Jul 1980
38
Richard C. Young's Intelligence Report
Richard C. Young
-38.1%
Jan 1998
39
Fidelity Independent Adviser Sector Momentum Tracker
Donald R. Dion, Jr
-38.3%
Aug 2004
40
ETF Trader
Jim Lowell
-40.9%
Sep 2004
41
Successful Investor (The)
Patrick McKeough
-40.9%
Jan 2002
42
Global Investing
Vivian Lewis
-41.1%
Jan 1994
43
AlphaProfit Sector Investors' Newsletter
Sam Subramanian
-41.4%
Jan 2004
44
Richard Schmidt's Stellar Stock Alert
Richard Schmidt
-42.1%
Jan 1999
45
Forbes/Lehmann Income Securities Investor
Richard Lehmann
-43.9%
Jan 2004
46
Fredhager.com
Rick Currin
-44.3%
Jan 2000
47
Investment Reporter (The)
Marc Johnson
-45.5%
Jan 1984
48
Carla Pasternak's Hi-Yield Investing
Carla Pasternak
-45.8%
Mar 2006
49
Mark Skousen's Forecasts & Strategies
Mark Skousen
-48.0%
Jan 1994
50
Outstanding Investments
Byron King
-50.1%
Jan 2000
51
AI Stock Forecast
Michael Henry
-50.6%
Jan 2000
52
Dines Letter (The)
James Dines
-52.3%
Jul 1980
53
Ruff Times (The)
Howard J. Ruff
-54.1%
Jul 1980
54
International Harry Schultz Letter (The)
Harry Schultz
-59.2%
Jul 1980
55
Charlie Buck's Win Before You Buy
Charlie Buck
-81.1%
Jan 1997
56
Fidelity Independent Adviser Dynamic Global ETF Service
Donald R. Dion, Jr
n/a
Jul 2008
57
P. Q. Wall Forecast, Inc.
P. Q. Wall
n/a
Jan 1990
* Cumulative 1yr performance through Jan 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Coupon Web Sites: Never Pay Full Price Again?
Coupon Web Sites: Never Pay Full Price Again?
by Melissa Korn
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
provided by
These days, it seems there’s no sense buying something unless you can get at a steep discount. That goes for big-ticket items like houses and cars, down to such smaller purchases as vacation packages, electronics and clothes.
More from WSJ.com:
• Mobile Banking Finds New Users
• Travel, Debt and SATs
• The Urge to Splurge: Don't Worry, It'll Pass
According to research group comScore Inc., 27 million Americans visited coupon sites in October, up 33% from a year earlier. And from last January to September, the number of coupon-related Web searches doubled. So it’s clear more of us are hunting for deals.
Scores of Web sites aggregate coupons and promotional codes that help people shop online without ever having to pay full price. Some, like Coupons.com, are geared toward grocery and drug store staples. (Today, that site is featuring $1 off Velveeta cheese and $2 off Perdue Frozen Fully Cooked Chicken on its home page.)
But others, like CouponCabin.com and RetailMeNot.com, offer a wider array of discounts for popular retailers, usable in-store and online. CouponCabin claims to have more than 100,000 discounts from more than 20,000 merchants.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• As Prices Rise, Some See $2 Gas
• Celebrity Charity Auctions
• More Travelers Redeeming Miles for Merchandise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Family & Home Center
While some sites require subscriptions to get at the good stuff, most offer coupons for free. The sites make money by selling ad space or offering “featured discount” status to stores for a set fee.
Here’s how it works: I happen to be in the market for a new comforter, as mine was mauled by a pair of scissors (an arts and crafts project gone bad). At CouponCabin.com, I found a discount code for $15 off any order over $75 at Macy’s, which is having its own sale. I click the coupon link, which takes me to Macy’s site, find the item I want, enter the code upon checkout, and, voila — a new comforter for Melissa. CouponCabin.com even shows a screen shot of where to enter the promotional code on a store’s Web site.
Most coupon sites allow you to sort discounts by retailer, so if my comforter didn’t qualify for the minimum dollar amount of one Macy’s coupon, I could always check to see if it made the cut for another.
Coupon sites vary in breadth of offerings, but also in practicality. Users should scour these sites after picking out a specific item on a store’s Web site or when they want a certain item (say, a just-released DVD) but don’t care where they buy it. But if you’re tempted to buy things just because they’re on sale, steer clear, as these sites can turn your computers into a money pit.
RetailMeNot.com, for example, has shopping tips for certain stores, as well as a separate forum for shoppers to trade details on one-day sales and new markdowns. Sensible for people who have been eyeing those fabulous but otherwise too-expensive jeans. Not so much for people who just like to browse.
One nifty thing RetailMeNot.com does have is a downloadable browser application that alerts you to promotions and coupons when you are on a retailer’s Web site. If you don’t mind the extra software, it may be a good way to ensure savings even if you forget to consult a coupon site pre-checkout. RetailMeNot.com also provides success rates for coupon codes so you know whether that hot 30% off code at J.Crew is likely to work when it comes time to check out.
Of course, coupon sites aren’t always all they’re cracked up to be in terms of actual bargains. Some ask contributors to send in those alphanumeric codes they get after making purchases, the ones that promise a percentage off the person’s next purchase above and beyond other promotions. But they also include nothing-special “savings.” Right now, AnyCoupons.com (along with a half-dozen other sites) lists free shipping on purchases totaling $150 or more at Banana Republic. But the store’s own Web site advertises that one, and has done so for at least a few weeks. Because so many stores are discounting deeply and offering incentives, make sure to check out the sidebars on retailers’ own sites for discount codes.
by Melissa Korn
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
provided by
These days, it seems there’s no sense buying something unless you can get at a steep discount. That goes for big-ticket items like houses and cars, down to such smaller purchases as vacation packages, electronics and clothes.
More from WSJ.com:
• Mobile Banking Finds New Users
• Travel, Debt and SATs
• The Urge to Splurge: Don't Worry, It'll Pass
According to research group comScore Inc., 27 million Americans visited coupon sites in October, up 33% from a year earlier. And from last January to September, the number of coupon-related Web searches doubled. So it’s clear more of us are hunting for deals.
Scores of Web sites aggregate coupons and promotional codes that help people shop online without ever having to pay full price. Some, like Coupons.com, are geared toward grocery and drug store staples. (Today, that site is featuring $1 off Velveeta cheese and $2 off Perdue Frozen Fully Cooked Chicken on its home page.)
But others, like CouponCabin.com and RetailMeNot.com, offer a wider array of discounts for popular retailers, usable in-store and online. CouponCabin claims to have more than 100,000 discounts from more than 20,000 merchants.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• As Prices Rise, Some See $2 Gas
• Celebrity Charity Auctions
• More Travelers Redeeming Miles for Merchandise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Family & Home Center
While some sites require subscriptions to get at the good stuff, most offer coupons for free. The sites make money by selling ad space or offering “featured discount” status to stores for a set fee.
Here’s how it works: I happen to be in the market for a new comforter, as mine was mauled by a pair of scissors (an arts and crafts project gone bad). At CouponCabin.com, I found a discount code for $15 off any order over $75 at Macy’s, which is having its own sale. I click the coupon link, which takes me to Macy’s site, find the item I want, enter the code upon checkout, and, voila — a new comforter for Melissa. CouponCabin.com even shows a screen shot of where to enter the promotional code on a store’s Web site.
Most coupon sites allow you to sort discounts by retailer, so if my comforter didn’t qualify for the minimum dollar amount of one Macy’s coupon, I could always check to see if it made the cut for another.
Coupon sites vary in breadth of offerings, but also in practicality. Users should scour these sites after picking out a specific item on a store’s Web site or when they want a certain item (say, a just-released DVD) but don’t care where they buy it. But if you’re tempted to buy things just because they’re on sale, steer clear, as these sites can turn your computers into a money pit.
RetailMeNot.com, for example, has shopping tips for certain stores, as well as a separate forum for shoppers to trade details on one-day sales and new markdowns. Sensible for people who have been eyeing those fabulous but otherwise too-expensive jeans. Not so much for people who just like to browse.
One nifty thing RetailMeNot.com does have is a downloadable browser application that alerts you to promotions and coupons when you are on a retailer’s Web site. If you don’t mind the extra software, it may be a good way to ensure savings even if you forget to consult a coupon site pre-checkout. RetailMeNot.com also provides success rates for coupon codes so you know whether that hot 30% off code at J.Crew is likely to work when it comes time to check out.
Of course, coupon sites aren’t always all they’re cracked up to be in terms of actual bargains. Some ask contributors to send in those alphanumeric codes they get after making purchases, the ones that promise a percentage off the person’s next purchase above and beyond other promotions. But they also include nothing-special “savings.” Right now, AnyCoupons.com (along with a half-dozen other sites) lists free shipping on purchases totaling $150 or more at Banana Republic. But the store’s own Web site advertises that one, and has done so for at least a few weeks. Because so many stores are discounting deeply and offering incentives, make sure to check out the sidebars on retailers’ own sites for discount codes.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)