What happened to risk?

What happened to risk?

A question no doubt in some of my readers minds.

In relation to financial markets, investing and business it seems to be an archaic concept only seen as a entry in the Oxford dictionary.

The market turmoil that started with the Sub Prime fallout and associated credit crunch, several months ago, has highlighted what has been going on for many years, those that take risks in business and investing no longer seem to suffer consequences when the risk that they took doesn't quite give the expected payoff.

After global State bailouts of banks with "liquidity" problems and talk of sub prime borrowers being bailed out or their bad decisions to buy houses they could ill afford, the latest avoidance of risk involves the insurance companies that insured sub prime bonds against collapse.

For goodness sake you want to remove risk from insurance?

Let me borrow and modify a classic Tom Cruise flick, insurance is risky business!! Please don't sue me Tom.

The talk of a bailout last week led to US markets doing a Lazarus and finishing up by around 2.5%.

It ain't a positive investors, its a pure unadulterated negative.

The investing world isn't the only place risk and consequences has been removed from life, Governments worldwide have been trying to do this for years.

In New Zealand Helen Clark, and her merry bunch of Labour Party socialist risk aversionists have recently passed a law to allow citizens to easily declare bankruptcy and come out of it without paying back debtors. This is linked to student loans that don't attract interest and therefore students have no incentive to pay them back.

All risk taken and no consequences for that risk.

Over the last 9 years Aunty Helen has bubbled wrapped an entire nation so much so that the risk that she talked about when she gave a eulogy at Sir Edmund Hillary's Funeral has almost been completely removed.

When we remove consequences for risk though, we increase the risk that mistakes will continue to occur.

Those in the financial industry being bailed out, institutionally and individually are simply going to continue to do what they have done if there are no brakes on their behaviour.

The looming danger is ironically low interest rates, what led us into the whole sub prime fallout and reckless borrowing and lending in the first place.

Record low rates after 9-11 led to a frenzy of cheap credit and with similar low rates coming down the pipeline one doesn't have to be a Warren Buffett to figure out that this is not such a good thing at all.


Related Share Investor Blog Reading

Leaders must come clean over losses
Credit Crunch a blessing in disguise
Global Credit Squeeze: There is no free lunch


Related Political Animal Blog Reading

Labour's Socialist Peril


C Share Investor 2008

Warehouse Court of Appeal case could be dismissed next week

The Commerce Commission will need new evidence to
prove their claims of lessened competition in supermarkets
in the Court of Appeal.


Foodstuffs, the owner of the Pak 'n Save Supermarket chain, has just been given approval to open an outlet on Auckland's North Shore after 17 years of trying. Opposition to the company's plans were put up by Woolworths Australia [WOW.ASX] Foodstuffs opposition in New Zealand.

The battle by Foodstuffs to get this market up and running has been intense, sometimes underhanded and cruel. It has cost Foodstuffs and the North Shore millions of dollars in lost revenue and wages from the 300 hundred jobs that the supermarket will bring to the shore.

Woolworths as a foe has been a hard nut right to the end.

Foodstuffs and Woolworths are currently in a fight to win control of The Warehouse Group [WHS.NZ] and the High Court in November overturned a ruling by the Commerce Commission which prevented Woolworths and Foodstuffs bidding for The Warehouse.

The court will hold a hearing on Jan. 29 to decide whether the regulator is allowed to challenge the ruling in the Court of Appeal.

The obvious link to the two battles is clear.

None of these two retail chains are going to give up the fight for the Warehouse until all resources are exhausted.

The battle for control or to buy the Warehouse has been going for almost 2 years. There have been endless appeals by the two companies (as well as the Warehouse itself) and a denial by the Commerce Commission for a deal to go ahead. There will be more legal challenges if there is first a Court of Appeal case after the Jan 29 decision, and these will go as far as New Zealand's new Supreme Court, if the two appellants don't get their way and are not allowed to bid for The Warehouse.

In order for the Appeal Court to accept the Appeal by the Commerce Commission, they will have to furnish new information to the case to prove their point that if either of the two supermarket companies buy the Warehouse, competition or potential competition in the supermarket sector will be severely diminished.

This was the CC argument in the High Court and they lost on that point, so on that basis alone the Court of Appeal shouldn't hear the case.

If a case is to be heard with new evidence furnished, I cant figure out what that evidence could possibly be.

Given the preponderance of fact that seems to be on the side of the defendants, at this stage, I don't see the Court of Appeal giving approval for a hearing before their court on Jan 29.

Disclosure: I own WHS shares


The Warehouse Group @ Share Investor

Long vs Short: The Warehouse Group
Warehouse bidders ready to lay money down
The Warehouse set to cut lose "extra" impediment
The Warehouse sale could hinge on "Extra" decision
The case for The Warehouse without a buyer
Foodstuffs take their foot off the gas
Woolworths seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court
Warehouse appeal decision imminent
Warehouse decision a loser for all
Warehouse Court of appeal decision in Commerce Commission's favour
MARKETWATCH: The Warehouse
The Warehouse takeover saga continues
Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse]
History of Warehouse takeover players suggest a long winding road
Court of Appeal delays Warehouse bid
The Warehouse set for turbulent 2008
The Warehouse Court of Appeal case lay in "Extras" hands
WHS Court of Appeal case could be dismissed next week
Commerce Commission impacts on the Warehouse bottom line
The Warehouse in play
Outcomes of Commerce Commission decision
The fight for control begins soon

Share Investor Forum-Discuss this topic


Related Links

The Warehouse Financial Data

• Summary
• Charts
• Dividends
• News
• Announcements
• Price History
• Related Securities

Related Amazon reading




The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and How It's Transforming the American Economy by Charles Fishman
Buy new: $10.20 / Used from: $8.50
Usually ships in 24 hours



c Share Investor 2008 & 2009

Mr Market gets his Groove on

I have commented over the last week or so on the irrational selling of most of the stocks on global sharemarkets. Stocks have gotten cheaper and yet people still continue to dump good stocks for no other reason than because others have sold and presumably because they might be lonely so they join the flock.

I found this reasoning strange. Why would you sell a company that was providing a good financial return, cheaply simply because your neighbour was selling his?

Dumb right?!

I would have to answer yes and then add further elucidation regarding the "spectacular" 180 degree turn in the US markets Wednesday 23 and say that I find the US market rise and frenzied buying as even more bizarre than the selling frenzy of the weeks and days before.

Why would you buy today as stocks are going up in price, while you were selling yesterday as stock prices slumped?

What has actually changed in one day to turn the market around?

Nothing folks!!

The reason the Dow did an impression of a roller coaster was simply talk of a bailout of US sub prime bond insurers, nothing really material at all except on the negative side.

With this latest depression and irrational exuberance of global markets I am reminded instantly of Benjamin Graham's "Mr Market" parable:

Think of yourself as owning a share in a business in partners with others. One of your partners, say Mr Market, is somewhat of a neurotic who on any given day will offer to buy your share or sell you his at a specific price. His moods can fluctuate anywhere between incredible optimism and overwhelming depression. One day he will nominate a higher price to buy or sell, the next day he might increase it, lower it, or even appear uninterested in whether he buys or sells.

Ben Graham, The Intelligent Investor

The point that Graham makes is that Mr Market’s judgment is formed more by mood swings that by rational thought and that this gives the wise investor buying and selling opportunities. If Mr Market’s price is unreasonably high, then wise investors have the opportunity to sell. On the other hand, if it is unreasonably low, then they have the opportunity to buy.

Right now Mr Market is in a schizophrenic mood and his intentions are not necessarily to be trusted. The important thing is that a successful and careful investor makes her or his own decision, based on their own ideas of the worth of the investment.

I'm still amazed at the utter stupidity of some people who ignore what they have bought when they buy a share in a company. You are buying part or a business, that you own.

You don't buy and sell your business on a day to day basis otherwise you would drive yourself mental and you certainly don't sell it because there are outside negative influences (like the subprime mess and associated credit crunch) that are beyond your control and wont impact on the business to any large effect.

It is time to start thinking clearly before pushing that button.

Related Share Investor Reading

"Mr Market" gets his groove on
A sensible approach to global market volatility
Global Market's dropping and your portfolio
Research, research, research
Watch for dead cats bouncing

From Fishpond.co.nz - Buy Toughen Up: What I've Learned About Surviving Tough Times



Toughen Up - Fishpond.co.nz

c Share Investor 2008

Helen Clark's words ring hollow

Dear old Sir Ed was buried on Tuesday and it is now time to get out the knives and stick them firmly where they belong, in Helen Clark's back.

Sure, the Prime Minister had a job to do in the State Funeral for Sir Ed and she executed her part in an adequate manner.

What wasn't appropriate though was her use of the occasion to make political capital for the sake of polishing her highly tarnished image.

In her eulogy, she mentioned Sir Ed's individualism, his tenacity in the face of adversity, and his ability to take risk, and responsibility for that risk.

Was I listening to a new Helen Clark, one who has turned over a new leaf in the holidays and one who has done a complete 180 degree turn and become a rational, free thinking, truthful, moral, aspirational individual?

I don't think a mangy leopard can change its spots, let alone a collective freedom basher like our dear Prime Minister.

Can you?

Sir Edmund Hillary stood and his achievements still stand for excellence and he achieved his goals in a society that embraced risk, and rewarded those who took those risks.

Clark and her merry band of Socialists punish those who would put their heads above the masses and try to reach their goals, while mediocrity is rewarded to stop feelings being hurt.

One could be forgiven for a slip of the memory by Clark during her eulogy yesterday but it must be remembered that Sir Ed stood for truthfulness, a moral compass that led him in the right direction and a firm handshakes that meant an agreement was adhered to.

Clark's hypocrisy in the face of her empty words filled my bones with a cancerous bile thick with her lies, broken promises and moral free conscience.

Perhaps the largest legacy that Sir Ed leaves behind is his spirit of freedom, the ability to do and say what he wanted, within the bounds of being a gentleman, without the repercussions of the State apparatus coming down on him to put a stop to it.

Helen Clark and the sisterhood put everything in the way of freedom that they possibly can, the epitome of their stomp on the head of freedom being the passing of the fascist Electoral Finance Act, rushed through without multi party consultation at the end of 2007.

I would go as far to say that if Sir Ed was educated in today's education system and our politically correct straight jacketed ways, it would have damped his spirit to such an extent that the individualism and freedom that he was famous for would have been stomped out before he turned 10 years old.

I mourn the loss of a great man, and the passing of all the great things that he stood for.

A collective such as Helen Clark, even though she was a friend of his, is an enemy of all Sir Ed will be remembered for.


Related Political Animal Articles

Electoral Finance Bill: The purpose is clear
Labour's State control out of control
Labour's Socialist peril
Pointing fingers in the playground


C Political Animal 2008