Dow+121.83up+1.18%
10,439.99
Nasdaq+25.92up+1.21%
2,171.96
S&P+13.38up+1.23%
1,104.76

MSN Money Video

Video on MSN Money
This video requires an updated version of the free Adobe Flash Player.
More video on MSN Money . . .
Jon Markman

SuperModels9/2/2009 12:01 AM ET

The real lesson of Lehman's demise

Expect to hear lots of anniversary analyses on what government should (or should not) have done last year. It's interesting, but it won't make you any money.

By Jon Markman
MSN Money

In a couple of weeks you are going to hear a hundred analysts argue that the U.S. government made a multitrillion-dollar blunder in forcing Lehman Bros. (LEHMQ, news, msgs) to declare bankruptcy last September, complaining that policymakers turned a smoldering credit crisis into a wildfire.

And you will hear another hundred analysts explain that the U.S. government made exactly the right decision, arguing that by making a rogue institution pay the ultimate price for its sins of overleverage and overexpansion they crushed a moral hazard and saved the nation from worse ruin.

Neither of these retrospective arguments is going to help you make a dime, though. Or help you prepare for the next time this happens. That's my job.

You see, the reality is that neither you nor I was consulted on whether to put a pillow over Lehman Bros.' face and snuff out its life the weekend before Sept. 15, when Lehman filed for bankruptcy. And frankly, I don't have the slightest idea what I would have decided given the same array of fast-shifting data, politics, personal enmities, lies and moral biases, not to mention a burning desire not to look like an idiot to history.

But what we could have controlled were our own reactions to that event. And that's why the anniversary of the Lehman collapse is not a time for individual investors to mull the imponderables of the case, which will be sorted out years from now after all the facts have been laid bare, but to consider exactly how we acted on our own behalf.

Did we act like cowards last winter, withdrawing to the safety of Treasury bills? Did we act like mercenaries, short-selling the weakened banks' securities for our own benefit? Did we just stand to the side in speechless awe, feeling helpless and dumbfounded?

Or did we have a plan to act at a time of crisis with mindful sobriety, waiting for a moment of maximum pain to arise to buy securities at their greatest discounts of the past three generations and make fortunes for our families?

The old fellows' march to profit

One would hope that it was the last, but after talking to a dozen professionals this week and reflecting on my interviews with fund managers at the time, I haven't found anyone who feels that he or she did exactly the right thing after the Lehman collapse and the crisis that followed. And that just goes to show how important it is that we lay plans now for next time, whether that's three months, three years or 30 years from now.

Of course, this is not exactly the first time in history that financial collapse has brought opportunity, yet each generation fails to learn the lessons of the past and needs to experience those lessons anew. Back in the Wall Street of the 1800s, an era that was a lot more like the present than you might think, depressions and panics occurred with regularity, and making a plan for them was discussed often.

Inside the Lehman collapse

The most delightful, if impractical, plan is described in the classic financial autobiography "Twenty-Eight Years in Wall Street" by Civil War-era financier Henry Clews. In 1888, he wrote:

"Few gain sufficient experience in Wall Street until they reach that period of life in which they have one foot in the grave. When this time comes these old veterans usually spend long intervals of repose at their comfortable homes, and in times of panic, which recur oftener than once a year, these old fellows will be seen in Wall Street, hobbling down on their canes to their brokers' offices. Then they always buy good stocks to the extent of their bank balances, which have been permitted to accumulate for just such an emergency. The panic usually rages until enough of these cash purchases of stock is made to afford a big 'rake in.' When the panic has spent its force, these old fellows, who have been resting judiciously on their oars in expectation of the inevitable event, quickly realize, deposit their profits with their bankers, or the overplus thereof, after purchasing more real estate that is on the upgrade, for permanent investment, and retire for another season to the quietude of their splendid homes and the bosom of their happy families."

It sounds so simple, does it not? Clews figured it out over 100 years ago. Pile up cash. Wait for financial panic. Buy good stocks coolly until the commotion peaks. Wait awhile as the panic subsides and the stocks appreciate. Use part of the profits to buy some cheap real estate on the rise, and deposit the rest in the bank for next time.

Continued: How to avoid the bear

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 13
Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:09:23 PM
Can someone help me out here. What does Jon mean by"12 month average". Is he talking about the 365 day simple moving average? Exponential moving average?
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 5:29:16 AM

Cash is king during any recession for a lot of reasons; not least being that it provides a welcome cushion for any temporary loss of income. If you've lost your job, or might, this is no time to go on a shopping spree. But if you feel secure at work and have a little spare cash, you can indeed be treated like royalty in these difficult times.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:51:49 AM

An interesting read, but, still largely based on hindsight and back-trading, which is another way to never make any money.

 

The problem is always that we don’t know where we are, let alone where we’re going. Take the 50% rise in the stock market this year for example. What is it really? A dead cat bounce, real recovery growth, or another bubble ready to burst. Based on everything I’ve read, and every opinion I can muster, each seems equally plausible to me.

 

What we do know of course is that it was a swing of 50% in less than a year . That’s a lot. It contributes to my strong belief that the behavior of trading firms and hedge funds like Lehman has a lot to do with how wide bull and bear markets swing. It’s the additional volatility and uncertainty that these firm’s practices bring to the market that’s the biggest threat to long-term investors. Perhaps the real debate should not be about whether market indices are going up or down next year, or what level they will achieve. What we should be concerned about is how much noise and volatility we will have to tolerate along the way.

 

Unfortunately, the power players on Wall Street and in government seem to be pushing ever harder for more noise and confusion, not less. Just when one might have expected the financial industry to focus on cleaning up the mess they made in the mortgage markets, we find out they have actually been rolling out more untested schemes with a vengence, like High Frequency Trading and Carbon Credit markets. This stuff seems to be coming faster than the SEC can even catalogue it. Not even the developers fully understand the long term implications. All that they really know is that they can make a fast buck off it now. Consequently for me, the leading question about markets isn’t up or down, it’s whether I should be in or out.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:52:34 AM

Hahahaha!!!!!! What a joke of an article!  Lehman went down because they wouldn't go into bed with governmnet way back when.  This was the perfect opportunity for government to "take em" out!  They don't want competition against Goldman or hmm, say AIG, or hmm say Bank of U.S.S. of America, or hmm say Citi...., or hmm say FNMA, or hmm say GMC, or hmm say.....what a joke our country is now!!!! You actually try to predict "productive" stocks on something other than the common logic or sense - What companies are in bed with our elected officials, and there are a lot, and I'll buy that stock!

 

On a more serious note and from the article:

"Robert Drach, a veteran analyst who has been researching these cycles for the past 40 years from his base in Florida, believes that the current monetary infusion cycle will exceed the last similar one that extended roughly from 1991-99. He's expecting that the major indexes will ultimately advance at least 450% from their lows, which would put the S&P 500 at 3,000 in the next 10 years."

 

Are you freakin kidding me..."ultimately advance 450%", cough cough inflation of 450%.  Um, what was the 40 year cycle from say 1939 to 1979, I think that is a better indicator as history repeats itself...and we are only in the year, hmm....1934 or 1935????

 

Good luck sheeple, now get back to work and make money so it can be overtaxed for the cash infusion of large corporations and illegal immigrants. 

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:56:03 AM

Where am I? Where are We? When? Excellent rejoinder MESIMPSON. Volatility in a relatively stable regulation-rein dark pool is where moral miscreants trade. Two trillion dollars added to our debt is the "opm" opium other people's money concentrated in fewer hands with which to speculate at relatively no risk. Billionaires & multi-millionaires bailed out by Bernanke can now afford to gamble on new derivatives coming out as we speak simply because they can & can afford to lose money.

 

Target the pigs. Contact your Senators and ask for NO on Bernanke.

This is a symbolic and meaningful beginning to radical reform. Banks too big to fail must be broken up to hedge against the certainty of a future bubble currently fueled by low interest rates and Bernanke's desire to inflate the phoney derivative debt machine that is killing us.

 

Claw back the illicit earnings & egregious consumption of global pigs by forcing a choice between a surtax on excessive income and below market rate treasuries. Productive capacity that educates humans to be & become healthy, civic-minded, law-abiding, thoughtful, tolerant American citizens can then be properly funded. The economic system now configured by a government captured by these pigs must reform

because private debt will otherwise always overwhelm our public will to finance public goods. The alternative is status quo and violence.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 9:56:45 AM

This is a kind of index trend following that has been out there quite a while. Usually it is the 200-day trend on the S&P 500 that is most followed. Sometimes people follow this model for individual ETFs for sector indexes, which may work better because there are more trends up and down and more severe ones.

 

From experience I can tell you there are a couple of problems with this. First is the sideways market, or mostly sideways market, like we had from about 2004 to 2007 (at least as far as the S&P500 was concerned). In this situation you get lots of signals for going in and going out and you tend to lose money because you never exactly hit the signal unless you have it automated. One way of getting around the sideways market is not to buy or sell until it is 3 days under or over the trend line, but you run the risk of being in for a crash. An example of this would be 1987, where if you didn't do the switch on Friday when it crossed the line, you were dead on Monday. But generally the 3-day rule is more than good enough. Perhaps you need to be concious of how fast the drop over the trend line occurred.

 

The problem with individual sector index ETF approach is the volatility won't let you get out or in at a good price. Also, index ETFs are supposed to be arbitraged to to their NAV but this is over the long run, and you'll wind up buying higher than NAV and selling lower than NAV on these signals, because buy volume is growing at the buy signal and sell volume is growing at the sell signal.

 

In any event, there are times when bonds present more opportunities for profit than stocks, considering the risks. It may be that we are in such a time now. A good bond fund manager like Bill Gross may make more money over the next few years than any stock investments. So I'd keep something in bonds regardless of the current trends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:03:26 AM
The 12-month moving average he's talking about is the 12-period simple moving average on a monthly chart.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:36:34 AM
Ahh yes, the old men with their canes wobbling down to Wall St. -- shades of Vic and Laurel's articles several years ago.  I miss their input.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:50:29 AM

Me, I'm partial to the 50 day Exponential Moving Average, though there isn't much difference between it and the Simple Moving Average.

I also use four week trailing returns.

 

I generally stay at least partially invested in my funds, and only buy to where they are at target weight, and sell to target weight.

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 11:56:26 AM

I also want to take not so cheap a shot at Carnegie Fed scholar WSJ

opinion piece author Meltzer who opines "worst" mistake not to bail

out Lehman Bros. Why? The American people (did not give informed

consent) by their elected leadership bailed out eg. LTCM with "opm"

over the last 30 years - creating an immoral expectation - and thus,

according to Meltzer, Rivlin, etal., Lehman too should have received

morally hazardous money again from an uniformed electorate. So ....

 

Do the wrong thing long enough, create an (un)reasonable reliance,

and so to avoid an economic calamity (would someone spell out that

counterfactual history that I believe would not have occurred), moral

hazard compels action by the real creditor/debtor of last resort - US.

 

Reasoning like that is specious & pernicious just to get to where one

wants to go rather than where we US should go in ordering our lives.

 

Contact your Senators and request a NO vote on Ben Bernanke.   Nerd

1 - 10 of 13
To add a comment, pleasesign in