Trader’s Narrative

Somehow, for some strange reason a progressive tax system which is what the US has had and which it will continue to have, has been called a “socialist” system by the McCain campaign:

“His (Obama’s) plans are redistribution of wealth.. that is one of the tenets of socialism.”

But as anyone will readily attest, a progressive tax system does exactly that, it “spreads the wealth around”. The only question which the government and candidates haggle over is not if wealth will be spread around, but how much.

By now Obama and McCain’s tax plans have both been picked cleaner than a carcass by a pack of economists from both sides of the spectrum. There is unanimous consensus that Obama’s tax plans will give more money to lower income earners and tax the wealthy a little more. Take a look at this excellent visualization for more details (courtesy of ChartJunk)

So is taxing the wealthy a tad more a bad thing?

John McCain doesn’t think so. Or at least, didn’t used to think so.

Listen as he answer’s a young woman’s question in this following video. She even brings up the “S” word (socialism) and McCain rightfully bats it down graciously.

“When you reach a certain level of comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more”

“I think the first people that deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children…”

Where did this McCain go? This version would have stood a chance of actually winning against Obama. This version wouldn’t have given more tax cuts to millionaires while ignoring “working Americans” as his current tax plan does.

Look, I consider myself a capitalist through and through. Having said that, it doesn’t take a genius to see the inherent problem that concentration of wealth presents to any society. We are not a collection of individuals, we are a community, a society and we need to understand that. What is best for 0.1% of the wealthiest shouldn’t be ahead of what is best for the 99% of the rest of society.

For this and (many) other reasons, I’m saddened that as a non-US citizen I can not take part in this US election and vote for Barack Obama.

Here’s another indicator which dovetails nicely with everything else we’ve seen measuring the sentiment of the US consumer:

Source: Gallop Poll

First of all, who exactly are these people that are satisfied with things now? 7% is 21 million people!

In any case, the last two times that American’s were this unhappy during election time, the results were bad for the incumbent party. Change is a tough proposition for us humans. We much prefer the status quo. But when times are really tough, then we begrudgingly accept the need for change.

I was in Spain (but not in Madrid) when they had their version of 9/11. That tragedy totally changed the outcome of the elections. Before that day the polls were expecting a total crushing defeat for Zapatero but in less than a week it was the opposite.

Getting back to the chart, in 1980 Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter and in 1992 Bill Clinton defeated George H. Bush. You can already see this reflected in polls which put Obama way ahead of McCain.

Did you watch the third and final US presidential debates? To me it was just a replay of the other two. Each camp tried to score points by following a strategy. Obama by talking about issues and coming across as unflappable. McCain by attacking his opponent and coming across as angry and petulant. Unfortunately the issues matter very little because we aren’t robots but humans.

Without even realizing it, our subconscious makes a choice and we “like” a candidate more than the other. Then our conscious mind scrambles to find a rationale. Believe it or not, that’s how we make choices in life. Scary. But true.

Getting back to this election, did you notice how much McCain blinked? I’m bringing this up not to pick on the poor old man but because the blink rate is actually a very important social cue. And one which is instantly recognized by people even if they aren’t conscious of it as I was with McCain.

In a social setting non-verbal communication is more important than the actual message. McCain was sending a message that he is under stress and of a lower standing in the social hierarchy. This may explain why people see Obama as more “presidential” than him. You know the cliche of a “stare down”? This subconscious cue explains it as well. And this is why women generally blink more, especially when they are trying to attract a mate. Their body language is saying, “I’m docile, I’m gentle, come closer”.

Obama is lucky Gen. Wesley Clark isn’t sitting opposite him because he is a true outlier, with one of the lowest blink rates. If only it wasn’t blinking but winking… You betcha! Gosh Darn it by golly gee willikers (wink)…Palin would already be POTUS.

This is not photoshopped!

What the heck happened to McCain? was he trying to be goofy on purpose?

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you know that there is total carnage in the stock market, especially within the financial sector. By the way, if you have been living in a cave, congratulations on a very astute real estate investment.

Anyway, bank and investment bank stocks are trading at empty shadows of their glorious past. It almost makes you pine for the dot com bust. Almost. But even amid all this mayhem, are there financial stocks which are left standing, more or less unhurt? or dare I say it, strong?

It turns out, yes, although you have to sift through a lot of muck. And what you do find are small to medium capitalization stocks. The fact that these stocks have held up and are actually going up in some instances while the market as a whole craters is a huge sign.
Continue reading ‘Are There Any Strong Financial Stocks Left Standing?’