Harry Newton's In Search of The Perfect Investment
Technology Investor. Harry Newton
AM EST, Friday, July
24, 2009. I like what the market is doing, i.e. going
up. But the fundamentals don't support this heady action. I'm not making
a call, simply being cautious.
earnings into focus: From Chart
of the Day.
companies (i.e. Ford, eBay and AT&T) reported better than expected earnings
and as a result the stock market rallied on the news. While some companies
have reported better than expected earnings for Q2 2009, others have struggled.
Today's chart provides some perspective on the current earnings environment
by focusing on 12-month, as reported S&P 500 earnings. Today's chart illustrates
how earnings are expected (38% of S&P 500 companies have reported for
Q2 2009) to have declined over 98% since peaking in Q3 2007, making this by
far the largest decline on record (the data goes back to 1936). In fact, real
earnings have dropped to a record low and if current estimates hold, Q3 2009
will see the first 12-month period during which S&P 500 earnings are negative.
healthcare battle continues. Doctors and hospital
search for ways to make a living. Insurance companies (especially Medicare,
the biggest) search for ways to slice and dice. In the end, fees and billing
are nightmare. And the whole thing is a continuing mess -- though, the irony
is, for most of us, our healthcare is good.
Ever since I stated
my concern that Obama's healthcare plans were being pushed through without sufficient
mulling (see yesterday)
I've been flooded with emails. Sample from reader Lucky Marr:
wife is from Canada. We go there nearly every year to our summer cottage in
Nova Scotia...we have seen many examples of delayed health care in Canada
and many times the fatal results. For example, Lorette's sister-in-law was
diagnosed with breast cancer...it took 3 months to schedule surgery (US 3
days max). Within one year she was dead. If you are under 65 in NS you must
have private insurance or through your employer to pay for anything serious.
You must also pay for prescription drugs. Many hospitals have made drastic
cuts. Canadians pay through the nose in taxes to cover their "free"
health care yet they still support it...out of national pride. I know we need
improved health care...the Canadian way is not the solution.
This is a piece
posted by Paul Howard, director of Manhattan
Institutes Center for Medical Progress.
Preventing disease is praiseworthy, but it may not reduce healthcare costs.
President Obama has made many promises about his health-reform agenda, but
none looms larger than: You will save money. Not only has the
president promised to lower consumers health-insurance bills; he says
his plan will trim federal spending as well. Thus, when the head of the Congressional
Budget Office (Congresss fiscal watchdog) testified last Friday that
none of the bills under consideration in the House or Senate would rein
in spendingand that all would likely increase itthe
presidents reform push took a heavy hit. The CBOs assessment underscored
an important reality about health care. Lowering healthcare costs (which have
been rising faster than inflation for decades, except for a brief period in
the 1990s) while improving quality is possible, but its awfully hard,
for one simple reason: when it comes to healthcare spending, death is the
only really cheap option.
a renowned nineteenth-century doctor and the first physician-in-chief at Johns
Hopkins Hospital, once remarked, Pneumonia may well be called the friend
of the aged. Taken off by it in an acute, short, not often painful illness,
the old man escapes the cold gradations of decay, so distressing
to himself and to his friends. If Osler were alive today, he might call
pneumonia the friend of Medicare accountants, since it kills victims quickly,
in contrast with the lingering and expensive chronic illnesses that account
for about three-quarters of all Medicare spending.
working on healthcare reform in Washington stop to consider the obvious corollary:
dying early is cheap, and keeping people alive long enough to collect Medicare
is expensive. Instead, experts talking about health spending promulgate
what I call the Eat Your Vegetables Theory: we can save gobs
of money by focusing on technological fixes (like electronic health records)
and disease prevention, which will yield a healthier population that is cheaper
to treat. The savings generated can then be used to subsidize coverage for
millions of the uninsured. But this approach is unlikely to work as advertised:
as Oslers dictum suggests, increasing prevention efforts may wind up
We have relatively cheap and effective treatments for it, especially vaccines
and antibiotics. As a result, many older Americans who might have died from
pneumonia in Oslers day now live years or decades longerlong enough
to qualify for Medicare and then develop much more expensive ailments like
diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimers. Researchers at the RAND Corporation
noted the conundrum across several studies and came to roughly the same conclusion:
Medical innovations will result in better health and longer life, but
they will likely increase, not decrease, Medicare spending.
In one study,
the researchers postulated three different scenarios for the health costs
of seniors entering Medicare from 2002 to 2030. Scenario A took into account
everything that we know today about the health of the current cohort of seniors
entering Medicare and future enrollees, up to 2030. (This is a mixed bag.
Seniors health started improving in the 1980s, but rates of chronic
diseases have been increasing rapidly in recent years, and newer enrollees
are likely to be sicker and thus more expensive.) Scenario B assumed that
future cohorts would be as healthy as those in the 1990s. And Scenario C (the
most optimistic) assumed that seniors health would continue to improve.
Under rosy Scenario C, the researchers found, health spending would be $10,275
per Medicare enrollee in 2030just 8 percent lower than under Scenario
A. Why? Healthier seniors live longer and accumulate more costs; also, costs
are rising faster among less disabled seniors, presumably because they use
more new drugs and devices that prevent them from becoming disabled (knee
replacements, for example).
In another study,
RAND researchers looked at how ten important medical innovations likely to
emerge in the near future might affect Medicare spending in 2030. These included
anti-aging compounds for healthy people, cancer vaccines, tiny defibrillators
implanted near the heart, better treatments for stroke and cancer, and Alzheimers
prevention. Every hypothetical innovation, the researchers found, would increase
Medicare spending. Even the cheapest, an anti-aging compound taken by healthy
people that would cost just $11,245 per life-year saved, would increase healthcare
spending by 14 percent in 2030because there would be 13 million more
beneficiaries collecting benefits.
examined the effects of fighting four risk factors for heart disease. If we
could get all the elderly to stop smoking and control their diabetes, their
health would improve, of course, but costs would rise, again because those
ex-smokers and diabetics would eventually be vulnerable to other health problems.
If we effectively treated hypertension and slashed obesity rates by 50 percent,
however, health would improve and costs would fall. Reducing obesity produced
the clearest gains because obesity, though it sharply increases costs, doesnt
reduce longevity significantly.
What all three
studies suggest, then, is technological innovations or disease prevention
will likely result in slight savings or even increased costs (though obesity
may be the exception to this trend). This doesnt mean, of course, that
we shouldnt keep inventing drugs and devices to keep people alive longer,
or that we shouldnt develop better prevention strategies. It just means
that we should stop pretending that good health is always cheaper. Sometimes,
you really do get what you pay for.
The most devastating
piece is from the Wall
Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income
and business in American history.
Say this about the 1,018-page healthcare bill that House Democrats unveiled
this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at
least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government.
With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity
of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style
welfare state in a matter of weeks.
February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the
details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than
most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the
$1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile,
the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private
insurance and lead to a government-run system.
what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal
Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness
of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:
new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax
increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's
budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income
above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at
incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage
points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
This would raise
the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you
include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions.
With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase
outside the Great Depression or world wars.
U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This
would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30
countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by
the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay
higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry
is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest
rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.
say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to
fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise
$544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that
stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They
will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply
working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift
to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats
will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.
numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because
even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing.
The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and
the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start
in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able
to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere
of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in
yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug
Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr.
Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr.
Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation
that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would
be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant
amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal
responsibility for healthcare costs."
Further on the
public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this
No matter, Speaker
Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO
has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan
put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score
of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."
payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will
nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who
don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current
15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals
who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than
$400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire
someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate,
much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.
Other new taxes,
including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which
Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for
private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit
from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House
bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate
We could go
on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this healthcare
exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the
economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly
$2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest
raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking
on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off
software I like: There are free trial versions.
You can play before you buy.
MagicDVD Ripper. This thing copies a DVD to your computer's hard disk.
You can watch a movie in bed, on a plane, on a train. Useful if you have one
of those new laptops which don't have a DVD player. Click here.
Microsoft's OneNote. This thing is an elegant note-taking and note-filing
software.. It has a devoted and growing following. Click here.
Copernic Desktop Search Professional. This is the best search engine
for your PC laptop or desktop. It will allow you to find anything lickety-split.
Make sure you put what you search for in quotation marks, i.e. search for
"John Harold Smith." Otherwise you'll find zillions of Johns you
a watch freak. I have a collection of cheap
watches -- nothing over $200. Sometimes I fantasize that if I weren't cheap,
what would I buy? Here for your viewing pleasure are my favorite watches:
This is a Baume & Mercier. It's actually quartz, which makes it reliable
and accurate. Most pricey watches are mechanical, not reliable, not accurate
and require too much maintenance. Retail, you can get this for under $2,000.
This watch says "classy success." For one retailer, click here.
Brequet watches have distinctive hands. No other watchmaker has such beautiful
hands. A watch with lots of junk, like this one, is called "complications."
It is thick. It's also mechanical which means it's unreliable and inaccurate.
It's also hideously expensive.
This watch looks
great in photographs. Most watches do. But in person, it's clunky. It's designed
to look like an aircraft gauge.
This is the watch
I wear every day. It's a Timex Expedition. It cost $20 or so. It has three advantages:
It's quartz, accurate and reliable. It's light. I hate heavy watches. It's hard
to type with them. Third, and most important, it has Indiglo. Push the button
and you can read the time in the theater or in bed, without turning on the light
and upsetting you-know-who. I bought the watch on eBay. I took the photo with
my Canon G10 on manual focus. Pretty good?
North-East won't stop raining. But apply some Rainx to your car's
front windshield and watch magic. Suddenly rain beads up and rolls off. Your
old wipers will act like new. Don't put this stuff on painted surfaces or plastic.
positive that too much beer...
this weekend's festivities.. a portable outdoor
is an addiction. The more you get, the healthier you feel. But ...
at my age, skip a day and your body becomes like cement and your back aches..
That's the bad the news. The good news is that you can fix the aches and pains
with stretching and heavy exercise. Which is why I'm off to play this afternoon.
Meantime, our local club is abuzz with the comfort of new sneakers from Adidas
called CC Genius.
This blue color
is Novak Djokovic's first signature shoe, It also comes in silver and white/black
(which is the color I'm getting). They're on sale for $79.95 at TennisWarehouse.
recent New Yorker cartoons:
your congressperson: "What's the rush on healthcare? Let's mull
it over a little longer."
Have a great weekend.
This column is about my personal search for the perfect
investment. I don't give investment advice. For that you have to be registered
with regulatory authorities, which I am not. I am a reporter and an investor.
I make my daily column -- Monday through Friday -- freely available for three
reasons: Writing is good for sorting things out in my brain. Second, the column
is research for a book I'm writing called "In Search of the Perfect
Investment." Third, I encourage my readers to send me their ideas,
concerns and experiences. That way we can all learn together. My email address
is . You can't
click on my email address. You have to re-type it . This protects me from software
scanning the Internet for email addresses to spam. I have no role in choosing
the Google ads on this site. Thus I cannot endorse, though some look interesting.
If you click on a link, Google may send me money. Please note I'm not suggesting
you do. That money, if there is any, may help pay Michael's business school
tuition. Read more about Google AdSense, click
here and here.