Share This Story
FX Blog - A New Asset Class, Part TwoA New Asset Class, Part Two
August 8, 2008The Rise of A New Asset Class, Part 2Unrealistic ExpectationsThe Boomers Break the DealA Nation of Wal-Mart GreetersWeddings and 08-08-08
Last week's letter was the first part of a speech I have been giving
on what I think will be the rise of a new asset class. This week will
be the second and final part. Let me set up this section with a few
paragraphs from last week's letter and then a quick summary. If you
want to read the entire letter from last week, you can go to the website archives.
first, a quick note. George Friedman from Stratfor was at my daughter's
wedding rehearsal dinner last night. He had just found out about the
invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia and was keeping track of the
events over his Blackberry from his correspondents on the ground in
The media is not particularly excited over the events in
Ossetia and Georgia, and the markets seem indifferent. It's much more
important than it looks. This the first time since the fall of
Communism that the Russians have directly and openly intervened in the
former Soviet Union under the claim, made by Dmitri Medvedev, that
Russia is the guarantor of security in the Caucasus. That's what the
Russian Prime Minister Putin also said. Russia has claimed a sphere of
influence in the Caucasus. And that is of historical importance. (Think
This is payback for Kosovo. Putin didn't want
an independent Kosovo and was ignored with contempt. Payback is an
independent Ossetia, with Russian military intervention guaranteeing
it. If it's good enough for the Americans and Europeans, it's good for
the Russians too. Why the Georgians invaded Ossettia is opaque. For
some reason they felt they had to move. The Russians were clearly ready
and by dawn had armored formations in South Ossettia and air strikes in
Georgia. (The Russian army is about 40 times the size of Georgia, and
far better equipped.)
The question on the table now is whether
the Russians will stop there or are going into Georgia proper. US
embassy personnel are being evacuated - at least some of them - so the
US takes this seriously. The US has no military options at this point.
We've been talking about the window of opportunity Iraq has created by
diverting US forces. Well, the Russians just climbed through the
The important thing to watch isn't the US or Europe. It
is what the states of the former Soviet Union do, from the Baltics to
Ukraine to Kazakhstan. The Russians have announced that there is a new
sheriff in town, and this does not apply only to Georgia. These
countries hear the message - the foreign minister of Lithuania went to
Georgia this morning. All of them are calculating what this means for
them in the future. And you need to be thinking about world energy,
grain, and other primary commodity markets if Russia dominates the FSU
and starts to manage everyone's commodity production and sales. While
Georgia has little oil or gas, the pipelines from Russia go through
Ossetia is a province (country?) of 70,000. Normally, one
would think these events were of little importance. But if Russia is
making a statement of a new policy and intends to rebuild the former
empire in at least a de facto manner? The US has training troops and
personnel in Georgia. They are quite pro-American. While the world
focuses on the Olympics, the real show may be in the Caucasus. Let's
hope cool heads prevail. It is interesting to note that Bush and Putin
were meeting in Beijing over this topic. I wonder what Bush will see
when he stares into Putin's soul this time.
I asked and George
agreed to establish a free page on his web site for the next few weeks,
which they will update periodically on the situation there. This is
something we should monitor. The link is http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/intelligence_guidance_conflict_south_ossetia
This is one of the reasons why I read Friedman and Stratfor. No major
news media had eyes on the ground when the trouble broke out. George
did. In an interesting twist, the Russian news media is quoting
Stratfor as a source. The world is truly strange. And now on to my
The Rise of A New Asset Class
think we're at a watershed moment, what Peter Bernstein defines as an
"epochal event," with the very order of the investment world changing
as it did in 1929, in 1950, in 1981, where a number of things came
together - it wasn't just one thing but a number of events happening
that conspired to change the nature of what worked in the investment
world for the next period of time. It took most people a decade after
1981-2 to recognize that we were in a different period, because we make
our future expectations out of past experience. It's very hard for us
to recognize a watershed moment in the process. We're going to look
back in five or ten years and go, "Wow, things changed." As we will
see, it's going to be a change that's going to cost people in their
portfolios and in their retirement habits.
We're going to look
at a number of different concepts and separate ideas that in and of
themselves don't make that much difference. But I think their
confluence in the present moment is going to change things.
Last week I pointed out that we are in:
- A Muddle Through Economy for at least another 18 months, caused by
- the bursting of the housing bubble
the concurrent onset of the credit crisis, neither of which will really
respond to a lower Fed funds rate, but simply have to be worked through.
situation will lead to reduced growth (or even contraction) in consumer
spending, which we are seeing now, from lower mortgage equity
withdrawals, higher energy costs, rising unemployment, inflation in an
environment of lower real income growth, and less availability of cheap
and easy credit.
- I went into a detailed analysis of earnings,
showing that corporate earnings are likely to continue to drop
precipitously, which will eventually weigh upon the stock market. Price
to earnings ratios are mean reverting over long cycles, and there is no
reason to expect that not to be the case in the future. This will be a
drag on long-term growth in US stock portfolios.
offer one chart (courtesy of Vitaliy Katsenelson) from last week on
this last topic, which illustrates the problem, and then we will jump
into the final part of the speech. The current situation is worse than
the chart depicts, because on Wednesday of this week the as-reported
12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was 22.87 through the end of the
second quarter. We have a LONG ways to go to revert to the mean. The
only way for that to happen is for earnings to rise or for stock prices
to fall, or some combination of both. Otherwise, you have to suggest we
are in an era of permanently and significantly higher stock valuations.
(Remember, these cycles last an average of 17 years. We are only 8
years into this one.)
are important. They are the key to long-term returns. Your expected
returns in any one 10-year period highly correlate with where you start
investing. If you start when stocks are cheapest, you're going to
compound at about 11 percent. But if you start when they're the most
expensive, at an average PE of 22, you're going to compound at about
3.2 percent over the next 10 years. For the people and the pension
funds that are expecting to get the 8 or 9 percent that they've got
written into their returns in their equity portfolios, that's not good
news. The following chart from my friends at Plexus illustrates the
point. I should note that this calculation works not just on US stocks
but in every market that I have seen studied. This is a fundamental
principle of investing.
So, what we have is a situation where
many aging Baby Boomers and the pension funds and insurance companies
which are investing on their behalf are not likely to be able to get
the returns they need in order to meet their obligations from
traditional US equity holdings.
The Boomers Break the Deal
let's jump to another subject. Boomers (and that would be me and most
of the people in this room) are going to break the deal our fathers and
grandfathers made with our kids: that we would die in an actuarially
and statistically definable timeframe. Without being able to know how
large populations will "shuffle off this mortal coil," things like
planning for Social Security and Medicare, insurance, and pension plans
become a very dicey business.
And the news we Boomers have for
our kids and the actuaries who actually care about these things? We're
not going to die on time. We're going to live longer, and this is going
to have consequences for everyone's investment portfolios. We're not
going to get into why we're going to live longer; the simple answer is
that medicine is advancing. The boomers are going to live, on average,
about 10 years longer than they statistically should; my kids and those
under 40 are going to live, on average, a lot longer. But that is a
topic for another speech.
Simple fact: the majority of Boomers
don't have enough savings. Numerous studies show they haven't saved
enough to be able to retire. They certainly haven't saved enough if
they're going to want to live longer and take advantage of medicine to
If we start living longer, there are going to be
massive problems with pensions and annuities, because there are
actuarial tables that say people are going to die along this timeline.
If all of a sudden - and over a ten- or fifteen-year period would be
all of a sudden from an actuarial or pension fund point of view-people
start living longer, it's going to mean that those who pay will run out
of money sooner rather than later. Since they will notice the problem
long before they get to the end of the money, they will have to make
adjustments. That means they are either going to have to lower pension
payments, or they're going to have to get more money from somewhere
(either increased contributions or increased returns).
they're in a period where they're projecting 8-percent returns from
their equity funds, and they're not getting 8 percent - if they're only
getting a long-term 4 to 6 percent from here over the next ten or
fifteen years - that's a big problem in funding. Public pension funds
have the same problem, but it is much worse. They're a couple of
trillion dollars underfunded. This is why you're seeing California
cities beginning to declare bankruptcy, because they're having to tell
their firemen and policemen, "We can't pay you what we agreed to pay
you; let's renegotiate something." It's going to get ugly in a lot of
cities. For those of you who live here in San Diego, it's a huge
problem. Politicians promised the police and fire and the city people
all sorts of wonderful things, they got their votes, and they are not
going to have to be there to deal with the problem when it becomes a
crisis in a few years. Isn't politics wonderful? Promise anything for
votes today and let our kids pay for it tomorrow.
that we're projecting for Social Security and the underfunding today
are massively understated. We're going to have to pay a lot more for
Social Security than we expected, because we're going to live longer.
And the younger generation isn't going to be real happy about having to
pay a lot more money to older people who are living longer and don't
want to (or can't) go back to work. When they started Social Security,
retirement was at 65 and the average person died at 66. There wasn't a
lot of expected payout. Now people who make it to 65 will on average
live well into their 80s and are soon going to live well into their
90s. This is going to create generational issues.
It will also
demand an increase in taxes. It's coming guys, and you are the target.
You've got a big target right on your wallet. Like in California: "If
you're making over a million, we want to take an extra one percent" -
that's going to happen in so many states.
A Nation of Wal-Mart Greeters
let's look at it from another angle. Let's say you're getting ready to
retire, you're 65, and you put your money into the most aggressive
portfolio you can that historically has given the best returns - that's
the stock market - and you're going to take 5 percent out a year. That
seems a reasonable number. A lot of people say, "We can take 5 percent
of our money out every year." What would happen? Well, remember that
graph I just showed you? Depending on the P/E ratio when you retired,
if you started out when stocks were the 25 percent most expensive, over
50 percent of the time you'd run out of money in an average of about 21
years. Look at the table below from my good friend Ed Easterling of
if you started when stocks were the 25 percent least expensive, you
would run out of money before the end of your remaining 30 years about
1 out of 20 times. If I came to you and said, "You know, you got a
medical problem and we're going to have to have an operation tomorrow.
And oh, by the way, you've got a 5 percent chance of dying," you would
probably be quite nervous. What I'm telling you now is, if you get too
aggressive with your retirement and investment assumptions in a Muddle
Through World, especially at the beginning, you're going to end up with
problems. We could end up with a nation of Wal-Mart greeters. (Not that
there is anything wrong with those happy people who greet me! It is
just not the retirement many people plan for.)
But many in the
Boomer generation that is getting ready to retire have not made
adequate plans and are assuming very optimistic future returns. So are
their pension plans. You're going to be living with neighbors and
friends who have this problem. And not just neighbors and friends but
voters looking for someone to solve their financial problems with your
The Wealth of Nations
let's look at the next topic: the wealth of nations. From 1981 to 2006,
our national wealth in terms of the houses we own, stocks we own, real
estate, bonds, businesses - everything - our national wealth (or maybe
it's better to say, the prices we put on our assets) grew from $10
trillion to $57 trillion. Over very long periods of time national
wealth is by definition a mean-reversion machine. Over 40 or 50 years
national wealth has to revert to the growth in nominal GDP. That's just
the way the economics and the math work out.
principle is that trees cannot grow to the sky. Just as total corporate
profits cannot grow faster than the overall economy over long periods
of time, neither can national wealth. Think of Japan. At one point in
1989, relatively small areas of Tokyo were worth more than the total
real estate of California. And then the bubble burst and Japanese
national wealth decreased and grew much less than GDP and is now in
line with the long-term nominal growth of GDP.
In the US,
long-term growth of nominal GDP is about 5.5 percent. We've actually
grown by 7.2 percent for the last 25 years. To revert to the mean means
that over the next 15 years, maybe more if we're lucky, we're going to
see nominal wealth grow between 2.5 and 3 percent. That's a major
headwind and a major dislocation from the experience that we've had.
Investors have been expecting to get the past 25 years to repeat
themselves. The laws of economics suggest that cannot be the case.
have seen a monster growth in equities in terms of total market cap,
even given the flat growth of the last ten years. We all know about the
Remember the part above where we talked about
stock market valuations being mean reverting? We are watching housing
values come down. What we are going to see is a very difficult period
for asset growth in precisely the two areas where investors tend to
concentrate their portfolios: US stocks and housing. Using history as
our guide, that period could last for another 5-7 years.
hasten to add that I am not suggesting that the stock market will not
go up over the next seven years. What I am suggesting is that we could
be in a period like 1974 through 1982 where the stock market did indeed
go up over those eight years (in fits and starts), but profits went up
even faster. Thus, P/E ratios were in single digits by 1982.
begin to put all this together. What are the requirements of
retirement, whether for individuals or pension funds? I think I made
the case that traditional investments are going to underperform -
that's the stock markets of all the developed countries and to some
degree the emerging markets.
But, you've got to have income and
savings if you want to retire. You can't throw caution to the winds and
invest in the most risky and volatile assets in hopes of getting the
returns you need. Hope is not a strategy. You do not want to take much
risk with retirement assets, which will be hard to replace.
got to figure out, "How do I get income in an era of low interest and
low CD rates?" And, "How do I convert my savings, and what do I put
them in that will give me that income?" If you're a pension fund, if
you're expecting 8 percent from your equity portfolios and you're only
getting 2 to 3, at some point you're going to get nervous. You're going
to realize you've got to do something else. Same thing with insurance
companies and annuities. That means there's going to be a drive for
more absolute-return-type funds. The problem is, the place to go for
reliable absolute returns is smaller funds. But most large pension
funds are trying to put one or five or ten billion to work, not a few
million. And if everybody tries to get in the water at the same time,
the pond could get very crowded.
Now, full circle. This is where
I think the credit crisis is going to come to the rescue. I think we're
having a reverse-Minsky moment. Hyman Minksy said that stability breeds
instability. The longer something is stable, the more instability there
is when that moment of instability happens. The crisis period of
instability is called a Minsky moment. So we had a long period of time
of remarkable stability in the credit markets, then there were a few
cracks here and there, and now we're having the crisis which started in
July of 2007. The losses in both housing values and bonds will be in
the trillions of dollars. Why? Because stability creates an environment
for people to feel safer taking on more risk and leverage. It's just
part of human nature. Note: This is not just an American disease. It
has happened since the Medes were trading with the Persians and in
every corner of the earth.
But now I think we will get kind of a
reverse of this pattern, a reverse-Minsky moment, where instability
will breed stability, because we as investors, we as human beings,
don't like instability; and we'll do whatever it takes and whatever we
need to do to demand a return to a stable investment environment.
two forces that I have touched on in this speech are going to come
together. First, we have destroyed - we've vaporized - 60 percent of
the buyers for the structured credit market and badly wounded the
survivors. We've got to create something to substitute for that, as we
need a smoothly functioning debt market to allow for growth and a
healthy business environment. It is absolutely necessary for
individuals to have access to credit for purchases. If we all had to go
to cash, it would be a disaster of biblical proportions.
there is a need for equity-like returns on the part of investors of all
sizes, from the smallest to the largest pension funds. If you can't get
8-10% from equities over the next ten years, where do you turn?
think what we're going to end up creating, and what we're already
beginning to see happen, is going to grow into a huge wave: we're going
to see the creation of a series of absolute-return funds that I think
of as private credit funds. I don't really want to call them hedge
funds, because they're not really hedging anything.
intents and purposes they're going to look like banks. They're going to
put their green eyeshades on, and when they loan you money, they're
actually going to expect it to come back. And they're going to expect
it to come back with a level of risk return commensurate with the level
of risk they're taking. Instead of going through the messy business of
getting depositors to put money into accounts, depositors who can come
in and out, and having to service them and let them write checks and
all of that stuff, they're going to go to investors and say, "Give me
$100 million or $200 million or $500 million, and I can attack this
market and give out loans in this manner, and I can generate these
returns - 8 percent, 9 percent, 12 percent."
Maybe some of
these markets we can lever up two or three times. Two or three times
leverage sometimes sounds like a lot. But our average commercial bank
is leveraged 10 times. Our investment banks are leveraged 25 times or
more. Two to three times in a properly structured debt portfolio isn't
a lot of leverage, but it can give you high single-digit or low
double-digit, relatively stable returns.
These private credit
funds will look like private equity, in that they will have long
lock-up periods, so that the duration of the investment somewhat
matches the duration of the loans made. It is the mismatch of duration
that has created much of the problem in the current market. All sorts
of investment vehicles like SIVs, CDOs, etc. borrowed short-term money
and made long-term investments.
So, we've got demand from two
sources. We've got a demand from a retiring generation, from a pension
generation, demanding equity-like return, when they can't get
equity-like returns from the equity market. We've got a demand for
credit funds - we've got to replace the people we've vaporized.
going to see the creation, I think, of a multi-trillion-dollar
marketplace of people, pensions, and investors looking to be able to
attack those credit markets. Initially it will be for large funds and
investors, but it will eventually filter down to structures that the
average person can get into.
For a lot of us, we're going to
see the ability to find stable returns, equity-like returns, show up at
our door. And one way to attack this initially may be funds-of-funds,
where you can spread your risk over a number of these types of funds
and managers. It's going to require somebody to go in and actually
analyze the banker who's making the loans to see if he's, you know, a
real banker. Because we know we don't want the guys from Wall Street
who made the last set of loans running our funds, at least not until
they've gone back to school to learn what a loan is.
I know I
am leaving a lot to be said, but my time is coming to an end. Let me
say in closing that while a broad asset class that I call private
credit funds will share some characteristics, the individual funds
themselves will be quite different as to what type of credit they
provide (housing, commercial real estate, auto, corporate, credit card,
student, and a score of other areas), what types of returns they
target, who their customers are, and who their investors are.
while private credit will initially compete with banks, I think that at
some point banks will see this as an opportunity to return to their
recent and very profitable model, which is to originate loans and then
sell them off. Properly run, private credit will be good for the
managers as well as the investors. And there is no reason that the
management cannot be the banks. In some ways, they have an obvious
advantage in this market, as it will be easier for them to attract
large investors like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.
is a new era. We're going to have to shift from thinking that
broad-based stock funds are for the long run. Over the last ten years,
if you invested in the S&P 500, your net asset value is flat and
dividends have badly underperformed inflation. With today's high
inflation and lower earnings, that underperformance could last another
lengthy period. If your time horizon is 30 years, then maybe you can
talk about the long run. But if your time horizon is 5-10 years before
retirement, you need to think about your definition of long run.
you can buy individual stocks if you're a great stock picker or find a
manager who is rather good at picking stocks. Donald Coxe was talking
to us about agriculture, which I agree is in a bull market. There are
other types of technologies - I think the biotech world is going to be
huge, starting in the next decade. There are going to be places where
we can go into specific target areas and make equity-like returns from
equities. But I don't think we are going to be able to do it in a
cavalier, "I'm going to put my 401(k) into the Vanguard 500" manner and
walk away. It's going to be a challenge for your retirement portfolio
if you do.
Retirement in today's world is going to take
considerably more thought (and funds!) than was traditionally believed.
I encourage you to look at your own situation and carefully analyze the
assumptions you have made.
Weddings and 08-08-08
wedding in a few hours has been the occasion for friends from far and
near to gather. Most you will not know, but as noted above George and
Meredith Friedman and Paul McCulley got to town in time to have a long
leisurely lunch with us. Dr. Mike Roizen just called to say he's off
the plane. My friend from first grade, Randy Scroggins, and my first
business partner, Don Moore, have come in. It now seems there will be
150 people at the wedding. We first thought 75. Oh well, so much for my
forecasting ability. It is great to have so many friends from both
sides of the aisle here.
It is not just the Olympics that begin
on 08-08-08. In about two hours, Tiffani will be saying her wedding
vows to Ryan. They picked a most auspicious date, and I trust it will
bode well for them.
It is an interesting set of emotions I am
dealing with. I am happy for her and Ryan. It is a start of a new
chapter in their lives, and in mine. They are talking about kids, and
are committed to making me a grandfather, if Henry and Angel don't beat
them to it. (With seven kids, I will ultimately have more than my
share.) They all grow up so fast. Where did the time go?
91-year-old mother is in the hospital and can't come to the wedding. We
almost lost her last week, from an infection she apparently caught in
the hospital while there for minor surgery. She is fine now, but can't
make the wedding. The contrast of old and new, looking back and looking
forward, is food for some serious meditation.
The wedding is
going to be something special. As anyone who knows Tiffani will attest,
she cannot do anything without a serious dash of her own unique flair.
Several national TV series have asked about getting options on the
I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that there are going
to be some serious fireworks at the wedding when we do the formal
toasts. Tiffani was most insistent about having fireworks, and they
will be choreographed to music. And while we were going over the plans,
I met with the man who is directing the fireworks. For a little extra
on the side, he threw in some special effects. What Tiffani and Ryan do
not know is that when the minister says, "I now pronounce you man and
wife," there will be a round of fireworks going off, and when they kiss
an even larger display will erupt over their heads. Every woman says
they want to see fireworks when they kiss their new husband. Tiffani
will. And Dad's eyes may just get a little moist.
It is time to
hit the send button and put on my tux. I am not supposed to be late for
this one. All the best, and have a great week.
Your getting a tad sentimental analyst,
Copyright 2008 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved
If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters you must
include the source of your quote and an email address
([email protected]) Please write to [email protected]
and inform us of any reproductions. Please include where and when the
copy will be reproduced.
John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA)
which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states.
John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave
Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a
Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA)
registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB).
Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. All
material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot
attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and
readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before
making any investment decisions.
Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior
notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC
may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.
Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are
not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of
John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for
accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave
Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws
or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less
than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a
confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter
are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional
investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with
their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of
Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory
firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered
representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA
registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO)
and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well
as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of
MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the
consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other
independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return
Partners, LLP; Pro-Hedge Funds; EFG Capital International Corp; and
Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion
of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those
fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are
provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in
any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any
CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any
advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must
read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or
offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from
the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products
with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.
PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF
LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED
FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS,
YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME
PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT
PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE
ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION
INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS
IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN
MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN
ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.
Forex Trading News
Daily Forex Market News
Forex news reports can be found on the forex research
headlines page below. Here you will find real-time forex market news reports
provided by respected contributors of currency trading information. Daily forex
market news, weekly forex research and monthly forex news features can be found
Real-time forex market news reports and features providing
other currency trading information can be accessed by clicking on any of the
headlines below. At the top of the forex blog page you will find the latest
forex trading information. Scroll down the page if you are looking for less
recent currency trading information. Scroll to the bottom of fx blog headlines
and click on the link for past reports on forex. Currency world news reports
from previous years can be found on the left sidebar under "FX Archives."