abt

Three weeks after Barron's reported that a senior administration official -- my guess is it was Hank Paulson -- leaked details of a "rescue" plan for Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) -- Bloomberg News reports that its implementation could be imminent. And in after-hours, shares of both companies are down 20%. If what Barron's reported -- wiping out common shareholders and slashing preferred dividends -- proves prescient, both stocks have further to tumble -- as in all the way to 0.

Bloomberg reports that Paulson met with Ben Bernanke and the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency which oversees the two. And they have catering set for the entire weekend. I wonder what they are serving? I think PIMCO bond guru Bill Gross knows. He said, "There's probably a 95 percent chance that the moment that something will happen is Sunday or Saturday," according to Bloomberg.

Yesterday Gross called for the government to use $500 billion to bail out the real estate market. As I posted yesterday, this bailout is for the benefit of people like Gross and China's central bank which owns $340 billion worth of Fannie and Freddie mortgage-backed securities. If you happen to be among the holders of their common or preferred stock -- you are going to lose it all. As I suggested this morning, after the market lost 345 points yesterday, the government needed to announce another rescue plan by Sunday night.

At 3 a.m. Eastern Time tomorrow, 27,000 members of Boeing International Association of Machinists (IAM) will strike Boeing Inc. (NYSE: BA) according to Bloomberg News. As I posted this morning, IAM member anger is so deep that I was not surprised to learn that the federal mediator called in to find a solution could not avert a strike. The cost to Boeing is estimated to total $100 million a day -- reducing its Earnings Per Share (EPS) by a penny a day.

IAM's web site said, "Despite meeting late into the night and throughout the day, continued contract talks with the Boeing company did not address our issues," according to Bloomberg. And it quotes a Boeing spokesperson as saying, "We worked hard with the union and mediator. We pursued different options, but in the end we were too far apart to reach an agreement. We're open for further discussion but no talks are scheduled."

No details have emerged about whether Boeing changed the terms of its proposed contract. However, it appears likely that given the six points of disagreement about which I posted this morning, this strike could last a long time. Bloomberg quotes one Wall Street analyst who calculates that "a month-long strike would shave 31 cents a share off Boeing's EPS and cost $2.8 billion in lost revenue."

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is known for supporting big business. So it pays to elect Republicans to the White House, right? If you analyze the stock market performance under Republican and Democratic presidents, the answer is a resounding NO. Democratic presidents generate average stock market returns in excess of the risk-free rate of 10.69% -- roughly six times the 1.69% earned under Republican administrations.

Investopedia describes the research of Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov who analyzed the value-weighted returns on stocks between 1927 and 1998 under Democratic and Republican presidents. And they found that the excess returns of stocks over the risk-free rate of return -- as measured by the Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) indexes versus three-month Treasury bill rates -- were far higher for Democratic presidents (10.69%) than for Republican ones (1.69%).

Of course, these are just long-term statistics. Under the last Democratic president, stocks rose an annual average of 17.4%. The current Republican White House occupant has presided over an average annual decline of 1.1% -- the S&P 500 was 1,342 when he took over and stands at 1,233 today -- the only president of either party of the last 11 to oversee a decline in stocks.

The New York Times reports that one of the co-authors of a very popular and influential management book, Reengineering the Corporation, has died. Michael Hammer, a former MIT professor, helped popularize the idea that managers should view their organizations as a "clean sheet of paper" and make them work more effectively for their customers. In the 1990s, the idea of Reengineering a company took over the thinking of managers around the world and led to billions of dollars worth of consulting work.

As it turns out, I have a professional connection to Hammer and his co-author, James A. Champy. Hammer taught me at MIT -- I took a course called Office Automation Systems from him in which he talked about the importance of imagining how a process would work if it could be re-imagined from scratch. And Champy hired me to work for the firm he co-founded with several MIT Sloan School professors -- Index Systems -- which grew dramatically after the Reengineering book was published. Index was ultimately acquired by Computer Sciences Corporation (NYSE: CSC).

Like many management ideas, its period of wild popularity lasted a few years and then faded. But what has stayed with me about the concept of Reengineering is the notion that a business needs to work not to satisfy the needs of its internal fiefdoms, but to make life better for its customers. And that is a legacy of which Hammer might be proud.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Computer Sciences Corp securities.

Another shoe is dropping in the ongoing credit collapse here in this nation of whiners. According to the New York Times, the default rate on so-called Leveraged Loans -- (a very strange name if you ask me since a loan is leverage) that refers to loans used to finance corporate takeovers -- climbed fast from 0.24% in August 2007 to 3.3% in August 2008.

The loans that have gone bad so far are not big ones -- they are more like the canary in the coal mine -- hinting at bigger problems to come. The Times says, "the loans that have gone bad have been concentrated in two industries - real estate and auto parts. S.& P. calculates that they have accounted for almost half of this year's defaults. Gambling has also had problems, as it turns out that there are too many casinos in some places."

The biggest loans have yet to default. But their collapse is inevitable. That's because banks are scrambling to raise capital and shore up their balance sheets. And the leveraged loans were structured to benefit from a lending market in which the name of the game was to keep from losing market share by making it ever easier to borrow. Thus the terms of leveraged loans were easy -- featuring, as the Times reported, a "flood of 'covenant-lite' and 'toggle-[Payment in Kind] PIK' loans."

Since China owns $1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury bonds and $340 billion of mortgage-backed debt, when China gets a cold, the U.S. catches pneumonia. And -- as I posted -- when we think about the $800 billion bailout bazooka for Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE), we should remember that our money is going to help China out of an investment jam. But since we are at China's mercy, it may be self-help.

This comes to mind in reading the New York Times, which reports that China's central bank, the People's Bank of China, has kept its capital modest as it has gobbled up assets. Now it seeks a bailout from China's finance ministry. According to the Times, "those [$1 trillion worth of U.S.] investments have been declining sharply in value when converted from dollars into the strong yuan, casting a spotlight on the central bank's tiny, [$3.2 billion] capital base [that] has not grown during the buying spree, despite private warnings from the IMF."

This need to replenish capital puts the U.S. economy in the middle of a bureaucratic battle on the other side of globe. The People's Bank wants a stronger yuan while the finance ministry wants a weaker yuan. The Times writes that "as the yuan slips in value, China's exports gain an edge over the goods of other countries." Treasury Secretary Paulson has been on the side of the People's Bank, advocating for a stronger yuan, so his push to bail out Fannie and Freddie can be seen as using U.S. taxpayer money to help it in its battle with China's finance ministry.

BusinessWeek reports that Boeing Inc.'s (NYSE: BA) 27,000 workers in the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union are eager to strike and they don't want to wait. Their anger is a microcosm of all those in America who feel that they have paid the price for globalization. Unfortunately, for Boeing and IAM, there is no contract that can relieve their anger.

BusinessWeek reveals six sources of IAM worker rage:

• Requiring workers to pay more of their health care costs - Boeing "is demanding that workers pick up more of the tab for their health-care costs. Some workers argue that a few visits to the hospital would instantly eat up any wage gains," according to BusinessWeek.
• Limiting death benefits for IAM members' families - Boeing wants to "limit death benefits for survivors, giving spouses of deceased Boeing workers a flat $4,000 payment instead of guaranteed monthly payments for life," according to BusinessWeek.
• Outsourcing - Workers believe that Boeing's decision to outsource much of the work on the 787 is responsible for production delays and that the program would have gone more smoothly if they had done more of the work in the U.S.

The U.S. market is driving the world -- whose stock indices plunged after yesterday's 345 Dow rout. But what does today bring? A chance for recovery or further devastation depending on whether reported economic statistics are better or worse than economists expect. Early reports are bad.

Here are the reports to watch, and what analysts had been expecting according to CNNMoney:

• Job cuts - Economists expected 75,000 lost jobs, but the 8:30am report was 84,000 lost jobs -- worse than expected.
• Unemployment rate - They had forecast the jobless rate to stay the same at 5.7%, but economists were wrong on this one too and unemployment rose to 6.1%.
• Hours worked - Economists anticipated the hour work week wouldn't change from July at 33.7, and they were right.
• Change in hourly earnings - Economists saw a 0.3% increase in the hourly wage, the same as July, but hourly wages rose 0.4%. Some may interpret this as inflationary pressure, but the increase is likely not enough to increase consumer spending either.

In general, these statistics suggest consumers are less able to spend money. Since initial numbers suggest things are worse than had been anticipated, stocks could plunge, causing policymakers to meet this weekend to try to hatch another plan to boost investor confidence for announcement on Sunday night.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

Nobody ever knows why the stock market goes up or down every day. But that doesn't stop people from offering reasons. For instance, people used to say that if oil prices fell, stocks would rise. They said that if the government came to the rescue of troubled financial institutions, that would boost stocks. And they suggested that if the Fed cut interest rates more than expected, investors would buy stocks.

But today, The New York Times decided not to even offer an explanation. It suggested that nobody knows. And I agree with the Times -- I just disagree on all the other days when the media does offer an explanation for the daily movement of the stock market. Here are some of the discredited means of explaining today's move.

• Oil. Today oil fell $1.70 which normally makes stocks go up.
• Retail sales. As I posted, Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) did well and so did other discount stores. But that's been true for a year so there is no market-moving news here.
• Jobless claims. The number of people claiming "unemployment benefits last week rose to 444,000, near a five-year high," according to the Times. But those numbers have been rising all year.

With the S&P 500 down 13% so far this year, the market has been terrible. But most people are suffering so much from the middle class squeeze that they lack the discretionary cash to invest in stocks. For those who do have cash on the sidelines, there is a strategy they might consider that could yield big profits in the future: sift the downtrodden industries for survivors and buy their stocks as their prices fall.

The best opportunities for this strategy are in banking, home building, automobile and oil refining stocks. I would look for companies whose stock prices have been beaten down the most but that are not likely to file for bankruptcy.

How should investors evaluate whether a company in a suffering industry is likely to avoid bankruptcy? One way is to analyze all the companies in the industry based on how much money they need to pay back over the next several years and compare that figure to the amount of cash they have on hand now and whether that cash is likely to rise or fall over the next few years.

Firms that appear to have the most potential cash available to repay their obligations are the ones most likely to survive. There is more pain ahead for each of these industries, but at some point in the future, they are likely to come back. The challenge is to buy at the bottom, and the bottom is impossible to predict. Therefore, one strategy is to start buying now and if the stocks fall further, buy more to achieve a lower cost basis.

If you're interested in specific names, please comment below.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Boeing Inc. (NYSE: BA) factory workers who belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) have voted to strike by a wide margin. However, thanks to the intervention of a federal mediator, the two sides have 48 hours to try to work something out. I cannot tell whether they will be able to find common ground.

Eighty-seven percent of IAM's "26,800 machinists rejected a proposed three-year contract that would have given members raises and bonuses totaling $34,000," according to the Journal. Boeing offered each union member a $2,500 signing bonus only if "the contract was ratified on the first vote." IAM's decision not to ratify costs workers that bonus. Boeing proposed an "11% pay raise over the life of the contract, as well as boosting pensions by 14% to $80 a month for each year of service. [The contract would pay the average union member] roughly $65,000 a year before overtime that averages $10,000 a year or more," according to the Journal.

IAM wants a bigger raise, more pension contributions, and lower health care payments. As the Journal wrote, IAM wants "pay raises of at least 13% and a larger pension amount. It also wants Boeing to abandon plans to have workers take on a greater share of certain health-care costs."

The New York Times reports that two Credit Suisse brokers took Auction Rate Securities (ARS) fraud to a new level. They fabricated an ARS-issuing agency -- a made up student loan securitizer -- as they sold investors their most toxic Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) backed by subprime mortgages and mobile home loans. Their deception is not new in concept -- evidence of ARS fraud has already emerged -- but the scope of the fraud is noteworthy.

Since I first began writing about the $330 billion ARS market -- long-term securities whose rates were reset in weekly auctions until they failed -- 6,162 comments have appeared from people trying to get their money back. And many of the issuers have announced settlements with authorities because investigators have found evidence that many of them were actively trying to dump the ARS from their own books into those of unsuspecting individual investors by telling them the ARS were safe and offered slightly higher-than-money-market yields.

But this Credit Suisse fraud reaches a different level. According to the Times, "Eric Butler, [who] sold customers some of the most toxic investments of the subprime age - [CDOs] - in what federal prosecutors characterize as a $1 billion bait-and-switch -- told those investors that they were getting "securities [that] were as safe as cash." The Times wrote that Butler "claimed, [that] the outfit that issued them, Glacier Education Loan, bought student loans guaranteed by the federal government. The problem: there is no such thing as Glacier Education Loan."

Reuters reports that Wal-Mart Stores (NYSE: WMT) saw its same-store sales grow by 3% in August -- almost double the 1.6% increase analysts were expecting. Reuters wrote that its "net sales in the month, ended August 29, rose 8.7 percent to $30.67 billion." Customers are rewarding Wal-Mart for sticking with its strategy of offering everyday low prices. As the middle class squeeze tightens its grip, investors are anticipating more such growth.

Tuesday night I taught a business school case written in the 1990s on Wal-Mart. The lesson of the case is that Wal-Mart understood that its customers wanted low prices and wide selection so it built a system for getting discounts from suppliers and keeping its shelves stocked with the items customers wanted to buy in each of its stores. But this system stopped working as well through much of the last seven years.

That's partially due to people borrowing against the rising value of their homes to shop at more upscale retailers. In the last year, however, more people have suffered as their incomes declined, the cost of food and fuel has hit record levels, and the value of their homes has plummeted. This middle-class squeeze pushes more and more people back to Wal-Mart since it provides the lowest prices on the items they need to keep their families functioning.

Investors have noticed -- driving its stock up 37% in the last year. As the economy worsens, Wal-Mart investors are likely to benefit -- its stock is up 1.1% in pre-market.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Wal-Mart securities.

BBC News reports that another hedge fund has closed down thanks to its failure to bail out of the oil speculation trade that boosted oil to a peak of $147 in July. This is yet another piece of evidence that people like Hank Paulson, who insisted that record oil prices were due to supply and demand, were either being less than honest -- particularly since his former employer Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) was a big beneficiary of this speculation -- or ignorant of reality.

The hedge fund in question this time is Ospraie Fund, which invested in commodities like oil and gold. It "has lost 38% of its value since the start of the year." Gold is down 22% to $800 from its $1,030.80 an ounce high in March. Oil has tumbled 25% to $109 since peaking in July, according to BBC News. But 1440 Wall Street suggests that the biggest commodity culprit in Ospraie's demise was copper's tumble. The lesson here is that if a sufficient number of big money speculators get together and decide to, say, short the dollar and go long commodities, there will seem to them to have safety in numbers.

But when the government started investigating the cause of spiking oil prices, the trade got very unprofitable very fast. As I posted, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently found that 81% of oil trading volume was driven by speculation. Then we witnessed the failure of SemGroup and the indictment of Optiver Holding for manipulating energy prices -- those funds who were too slow to reverse their positions and got creamed.

Since July 11, the price of oil has fallen 25% from $147 to $110. This has been terrible news for holders of energy stocks -- which have nosedived. But for people who need to fill up their tanks, prices at the pump remain relatively elevated -- having fallen about 10% (I remember paying $4.11 at the peak and now pay $3.69 a gallon).

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that companies using oil in their products are keeping their prices high despite the oil price drop. These companies seem to be acting in unison to raise prices -- suggesting there is not enough competition in their markets.

Which companies are raising prices still? Those who believe they can get away with it as they try to recoup the lost profit resulting from the recent increase in the price of oil -- which is an important raw material in their products..

• Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) increased prices to retailers up 7% to 10% "for items made with ingredients derived from oil to 'recover costs already incurred,'" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.
• Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) raised prices by 50% for the oil-based raw materials that go into diapers and polystyrene. It "does not want to give up those increases until the company recovers its old profit margins since '[its] prices continue to lag [its] cost increases,''" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.
• Goodyear Tire and Rubber (NYSE: GT) has raised tire prices by 15% and is "still making synthetic rubber tires from oil-based feed stocks bought at relatively high prices more than three months ago [and it] 'could not consider canceling the price increase until it knew whether oil prices were going to stay down,'" according to a Times interview with its spokesman.