Rigged Money

Beating Wall Street at Its Own Game

Lee Munson

• Publisher: Wiley
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9781118099681
• eBook ISBN: 9781118171141
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Finance
• Index: Business

Today's financial landscape and what Wall Street doesn't want you to know

Rigged Money is based on one simple truth: Wall Street needs money from Main Street, not the other way around. The financial industry has convinced the general public that investing across different asset classes is the only way to protect wealth, but this is an outdated rule that no longer applies.

Since asset classes—small caps, large caps, international investments, gold, and bonds—now overlap when it comes to risk and volatility parameters, the diversification effect is gone. That's exactly what Wall Street doesn't want you to know—that the rules of the game have changed.

• Risk Isn't Constant: Pie charts lie when it comes to accurately describing the risk of stocks and bonds
• Dividends Are No Silver Bullet: They are designed to entice investors rather than to increase a company's value or your net worth
• Buy and Hold is Dead: The financial world (and all the companies and securities in it) moves too quickly and is changing too often for this theory to hold true today
• Gold Is Not an Investment: Gold is today's currency of fear, and this fear is driven by escalating government debt

An unflinching look at this new financial world, Lee Munson's Rigged Money arms today's investors with the simple, smart, and clear advice needed to level the playing field.

PART I

OLD SCHOOL . . . OF THOUGHT

CHAPTER 1

Buy and Hope: The Scam?

Over the years there has always been a debate over whether investors should buy and hold stocks and never sell them versus the active pursuit of trading stocks to earn profits. I have no idea why anyone would take the risk that a corporation will last longer than you will or for that matter what buy and hold means. Why would anyone purchase a stock, and then never sell it? One common reason is that if the stock pays a dividend—the earnings of a corporation paid out to its shareholders—you can get cash flow just for holding the shares. Some people just want to accumulate wealth and hold onto stocks forever, but even the desire for endless fortune doesn’t mean an endless holding period. Would you still want to own shares of a typewriter company?

Of course the basic assumption of buying and holding a stock is a better bet than the old adage of buy low sell high. The concept we are exploring here is buy and never sell. Who would want to sell a company that is supposed to make profits over the long haul? Plus, how would you know when to sell? If you hold a stock forever, it shouldn’t matter when you buy it since it will be a one-time transaction. This would be fine if most corporations made money in large amounts forever and paid out the profits to you. If you suffered the horror of a basic finance class in college, the value of a company was determined by looking at the long-term earnings or cash flow of a firm if you wanted to answer the test questions correctly. That would be fine if the world had no shares traded on public exchanges where the price to buy and sell is determined each day by supply and demand, not rational analysis of a firm’s true value. Plus, I have no idea how people in a public market would ever come to a consensus to figure out the value of a big company like General Electric (GE). Even the executives at GE can’t tell you the real value of the company. This is because there is no real value, only the price a buyer and seller can agree on at that moment in time in which the stock trades hands.

Holding a stock has to have some purpose to the buyer. Is the collection of dividends over time the motivating factor? What if the company stops paying dividends, do you continue to hold the stock? We could spend a lot of time discussing the matter, but buy and hold is simply an observation of what one does, not a strategy. If you owned stock in Philip Morris and held it for 50 years, people would have told you your stock was doomed to fail in light of the company’s continuous legal litigation. In fact, it was one of the best performing stocks of the last 50 years, but you would have had to hold it a long time against the best advice of experts. On the other hand, you could have gone with the crowd and purchased stock in a good old-fashioned company that made a product that wasn’t going to go away. You could have bought stock in General Motors, only to have your investment go belly up in the recent financial crisis. Nobody back in the 1950s could predict what would be around today, nor should we try to make guesses about how the world will be in 50 years. Let’s leave that to shows like NOVA or to Hollywood. It’s more fun and cool to watch years later when we see how far off we were. The question is not whether to buy and hold. By getting you to ask if you should buy and hold, Wall Street has tricked you into thinking about it as if it is a strategy. No reasonable person would bet that anything is a sure thing for 50 years, so we need to start off with the first insight on Wall Street: Buy and hold is dead. But the truth is, it never really existed.

I think the first person to say this was a stockbroker. Wall Street manufactures publicly traded securities for people to consume. Some work, most don’t. Do you want someone to buy a product from your store only to have it returned? No. So why would you think Wall Street would ever want their goods returned? Sure, money is made when people buy and sell shares, but they never end up back on the same shelf they came from.

We will all die sometime, and the desire to make money during our lifetime is just human nature. Why not accept this fact and move on? Wall Street knows this is how people feel, and they provide the public with limitless ways to engage the markets. The problem is that each idea is presented as if there is only one solution to choose. Think about it; everyone is looking to make easy money. If you had “the answer,” why would you need to look anywhere else? That is what this buy-and-hold thing is all about. You make a smart decision one day and never look back. Many people, especially after the dot-com crash, and definitely after the 2008 financial crisis, found out that buy and hold was not a successful strategy. And there are other similar scams that resemble this perennial idea. I use the term scam not in the sense that something doesn’t work, but that it is presented as the eternal system. You can’t beat the system unless you know the game.

Blame the Dutch!

Forget blaming the French for socialism or Wall Street fat cats for financial meltdowns. It was the Dutch that got us into this mess more than 400 years ago. While trade and commerce is an ancient practice, the first stock didn’t spontaneously generate until 1602, when the Dutch East India Company was founded. Why was this important, outside of being the first stock? First of all, this was the first joint-stock company, meaning regular people like middle class merchants were able to invest in a public company. On September 1 the public subscription period was over. Five hundred thirty-eight subscribers, including craftsmen and small entrepreneurs, were given shares that were freely transferable.1 Before this there was a barrier to entry for investments. The idea of selling a piece of a company in order to lower the risk to any one person was not new, but allowing anybody with the money to buy shares was ground breaking. The Amsterdam Stock Exchange was established the same year just so people could trade shares of this new corporation.

Why did it take so long for the madness to start? First off, you can’t sell stock to those that have no money, freedom, or laws protecting ownership. The feudal system of a Lord owning the land and you working on it doesn’t cut it. Starting around 1433 the Duke of Burgundy, having won the genetic lottery, decided to unite towns previously under no rule into a cohesive sovereign nation. Amsterdam was one of those towns that became quite wealthy as the shipping business with Asia boomed. Despite a war with Spain that lasted 80 years and independence that wasn’t official until 1648, the Dutch Republic managed to become one of the first free economies. It worked. While Portugal and Spain were used to the limelight of international trade, they lacked property rights and contractual obligations. Remember that the Dutch were a republic, and while there was not the same personal freedoms we think of today, not having to deal with monarchs who held ultimate power was good for business. It was this ability to make contracts with laws and enforce them that allowed corporations to open up to the general population of wealthy merchants. In the end it was the rule of law that gave rise to what we think of as economic freedom. It helped that the Dutch had one of the strongest navies in Europe at the time. When the Dutch East India Company started to take control of East Asian trading routes, it was met with strong opposition from Portugal and England.

While this is all very interesting, how did the stock do? Investors received an average 25 percent return on their money during the first 15 years.2 Eventually creating monopolies, the company dominated trade with Asia and at one point paid out a 40 percent dividend to shareholders.3 Does this sound like a stock you would like to own? With a return so rich and dividends paying you to stick with it, nobody would look this gift horse in the mouth. This was the first buy-and-hold stock—no hope needed. At the peak, the company even had 40 warships and 10,000 soldiers on the payroll to keep market share. At the time I guess people were not worried about socially conscious investing. Also, it wasn’t just great management or a business idea that helped its track record. For the first 21 years the company had a monopoly from the government on colonialism. It took a few years for operations to become profitable enough to pay a dividend, starting in 1610. After priming the pump with a government monopoly and borrowed money it was not hard for a whopping 18 percent average annual dividend to be paid for most of the 200 years it was around.

So, what happened to the first great and powerful multinational corporation? After almost 200 years of making money for shareholders, inefficiencies and corruption sank the ship. The industry was changing and the ability of the firm to keep up was challenged. While many reasons are given, the one I find most fascinating was the dividend policy. Starting around 1730, the dividends paid by the company exceeded the earnings.

earnings An actual profit, the fundamental point of capitalism, and a key pressure point between shareholders and corporate management. When earnings exist, shareholders generally tend to nag companies to share the wealth. After all, shareholders by definition have a claim on earnings. However, just because earnings exist doesn’t mean you will get your hands on them. In some cases, the desire for management to pay and shareholders to receive earnings are so strong, dividends are paid out without actual earnings to cover it. This is called denial. Generally denial ends in bankruptcy.

Only by borrowing money short term against future income was the company able to continue. (This sounds a lot like companies that go out of business today.) Nationalized in 1796 and officially shut down in 1800, the company left shareholders with nothing in the end. Sure, if you had put money down in 1602 and never sold there were no complaints, but by 1800 you would be on the sixth generation of stockholders. Your great- great- great- grandkid would not be happy. Obviously, despite the loss of value in the end the company was a huge success. You can see why investors would spend the next 400 years trying to find the next Dutch East India Company. All your family would need to do is establish a legacy of wealth.

The bottom line is the system worked out well. It was the beginning of convincing the uneducated public to put up money to capitalize a shaky operation and strip out the value using borrowed money until the entire organization fell apart. Paying a dividend kept investors holding onto shares, at least until the dividend became a liability that eroded the assets and blew up the company. Democratizing wealth for those that took the risk was here to stay.

All the Wrong Moves?

As we learned from the Dutch East India Company, a long-term track record of good investor returns doesn’t ensure success over the long haul. So, if one of the most successful companies in history can go bust, what about the worst companies? What if a company was in a constant state of being sued, sold a product that killed people, and had a rich dividend payout that was anything but safe? Just to be clear, my father is a lung cancer survivor. He smoked for most of his life until the day he was diagnosed. At our firm, I recently made the decision to not invest money in tobacco companies. This was easy to do and I don’t have a strong opinion about it, but when there are thousands of companies to invest in, why worry about a client who may be offended by it? Also, I find that people who are okay buying tobacco companies can change their minds when a loved one is affected. Now that I have disclosed my biases, let’s let the numbers speak.

People hate tobacco companies, and Philip Morris is the biggest around. While smoking may not be great for your health, a portfolio that had the advantage of a crystal ball would have profited from investing in Philip Morris. It was not always the big dog of death. Back in the 1960s the firm was the underdog until the Marlboro Man took pole position and led the company to cigarette heaven in 1983. Think about it: You are an investor looking at buying the sixth largest cigarette company back in 1960. Would you be thinking to yourself that this is a great long-term investment? What about buying the leader, or at least the top three? Twenty-three years later it would be number one, but only because it changed the way it operated along the way. You would have known none of this back then. Believing that management would pull through over decades of adversity would require ignorance or a leap of faith. How could you have known that the tobacco giants would be sued by states and a slew of people? But to make an investment that they would lose and rise again would be wishful thinking. It happened over and over again.

Investors don’t like when the government sues their companies. Share prices tend to go down if you can’t figure out the future liability of a lawsuit. When the aim of suing the company is to put it out of business, or effectively damage it permanently, shareholders tend to exit. So, with the tobacco companies being sued all the time, why would you want to take the risk? For starters, tobacco companies didn’t lose cases until their luck ran out in the 1990s when individual states ganged up and filed the largest suit in the industry. It was called the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). In 1998, 46 states settled for a total of $206 billion over the course of the 25-year agreement. Of course, the irony is that the companies will have to stay in business in order for th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Contents
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part I: Old School . . . of Thought
• Part II: Wall Street: The Set Up
• Part III: Surviving the Rigged Game
• Afterword
• About the Author
• Index