Another 3 Bite the Dust

 

That is one eye-catching logo

That is one eye-catching logo

 

The Dow. Or, in metonymic fashion, simply “the market”. The single quantity most identified with the strength or potency of the economy, particularly its investing arm. We’ve discussed before what exactly the Dow Jones Industrial Average is and how to calculate it, but that was 4 years ago and it’s time for a freshening.

In one sentence, if you’re too lazy or burned out to read the linked article above: Add the stock prices of 30 particular large companies, multiply the sum by a constant, and there’s your Dow index. Mindlessly simple, and either in spite or because of that it’s managed to burrow itself into the collective consciousness. The companies have changed throughout the years, U.S. Leather having less impact on the economy today than it did in 1899, but here are the 27 oldest constituents of the Dow:

3MAmerican ExpressAT&T
BoeingCaterpillarChevron
CiscoCoca-ColaDuPont
ExxonMobilGeneral ElectricWalmart
Home DepotIntelIBM
Johnson & JohnsonJPMorgan ChaseMcDonald’s
MerckMicrosoftDisney
PfizerProcter & GambleTravelers
UnitedHealth GroupUnited TechnologiesVerizon

 

Earlier this month, the 3 remaining slots were occupied by Bank of America, Alcoa, and Hewlett-Packard. Last year the Dow traded out one of its components for another, and this is the first time in 9 years that it’s traded out 3 simultaneously. We’ll get to the newcomers in a minute.

Bank of America, as you may remember from our haranguing of a couple years back, received a direct $45 billion in taxpayer cash, and $5 billion more via equally culpable straw purchaser intermediary American International Group to avoid what 2 presidential administrations feared would be the collapse of the economy. We weren’t close to having that happen, and the bailout did thousands of times more harm than good, but Bank of America has a more effective public relations department than we do. 6 weeks after the cash infusion, B of A stock hit a nadir of $3.14. Within a year the stock price had sextupled, leading B of A management to issue pronouncements; of perfunctory thanks to the helpless taxpayers, and of the promise of happy days ahead to investors and borrowers. Long story short, by the end of the next year the stock had again lost 2/3 of its value. A consistent non-performer drags the value of the index down, so Dow Jones & Company said “enough” and went looking for suitable replacements.

Same deal, to a lesser extent, for Alcoa and Hewlett-Packard. The former is profitable but dwindlingly so, and revenue is down year-to-year for the first time in a long time. Alcoa is an acronym for Aluminum Corporation of America, and aluminum prices have been dropping steadily for the last 2 years. Alcoa isn’t diversified enough to make up for the commodity price drop, and so it did do the Dow adieu.

Did do the Dow adieu. Did do the Dow adieu. In other news, the 6th sick sheik’s 6th sheep’s sick.

Finally, the titan-cum-laughingstock Hewlett-Packard. For those of you either too young to know or too well-balanced in your daily lives to care about this stuff, Bill Hewlett and David Packard were the original Jobs & Woz. H & P started their company in a garage in Palo Alto, the Steves in a garage in Los Altos, 8 miles away.

But a lot has changed since 1939. By the 2010s, Hewlett-Packard was making mistakes almost for the fun of it. The company spent $1.2 billion to buy Palm, and basically wrote the purchase off a year later. They hired an overmatched CEO who didn’t even last a year. He authorized the purchase of Autonomy, and if you think the Palm purchase was stupid at least Palm didn’t publicly overstate its value by $9 billion. Yeah, that was another writeoff. Hewlett-Packard stock free-fell last fall, bounced back this year (doubled, in fact), but that wasn’t enough to keep it in the Dow.

The replacement stocks fit the index as well as any, given the Dow’s implied goals of reflecting the diversity and breadth of the economy. The committee traded out a tech company, a mining company and a bank and replaced them with…a shoe company and 2 more banks.

Notice something about the list of 27? Relatively few of them are full-on consumer companies, selling something you can buy in a store. Thus Nike joined the mix. Not coincidentally, Nike stock is at an all-time zenith. Revenue is growing – arithmetically rather than geometrically, but Nike has been around for a few decades. Add healthy profit margins and a price/earnings ratio with room for growth, and Nike was an easy choice.

Goldman Sachs, profiteers of the 2008 mortgage crisis and beneficiaries of the infamous Troubled Asset Relief Program, replaced Bank of America. An exchange of scoundrels? Perhaps, but the former’s financial statements are far more attractive than the latter’s. Goldman Sachs’s earnings per share is at a record high. Also, it’s the most juiced company in America. Its CEO seems to spend more nights at the White House than Michelle Obama does, and the list of recent Treasury Department upper-level hires reads like the 2002 Goldman Sachs internal phone directory.

That leaves Visa which, curiously, began to trade publicly only in the spring of 2008. (Prior to that Visa was more an agglomeration of companies, more of a “membership association” than a standard stock issuer.) At its initial public offering the stock traded at $44. It’s now within a gallon of gas of $200, and the company enjoys a market capitalization of $125 billion. (Fun Fact: Visa cards debuted in 1958, under the name BankAmericard. A service of…Bank of America. B of A licensed the card to other banks, and by 1970 had effectively ceded control to the entity that would become Visa.)

How does this affect you, the ordinary investor (assuming you’re an ordinary investor)? Minimally, unless your investments’ value derives from the value of the Dow. Or, of course, if you’re long into any of these 6 companies. If your mutual funds are tied to an index, chances are pretty good that it’s the 17-times-broader S&P 500, whose makeup remains unchanged.

Goldman Sachs, and why should I give a damn?

Lloyd Blankfein, exhibiting the kind of manicure most of us can only dream of.

If you work for a living, especially if you do anything that gets your fingers calloused or makes you sweat, it’s easy to wonder what a financial services firm does aside from employ well-dressed people to shuffle paper.

Goldman Sachs is a financial services firm, one of the world’s biggest. An investment bank, if you want a slightly more limiting but descriptive term.

You have a neighborhood bank – e.g. Chase, SunTrust, BB&T. You deposit your paychecks there, withdraw cash, earn interest, maybe borrow money to buy a house or start a business. The bank makes money by charging more interest on its loans than it pays out to its accountholders.

Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs have better, more lucrative ways to occupy their time. Say a medium-to-large firm wants to buy another, or sell itself or a piece. The firm hires an investment bank to value the assets and liabilities involved, help with pricing and look for contingencies that the parties involved in the transaction might have missed (e.g. determining the rightful owner of certain assets, making sure that a legal transgression doesn’t render a transaction void.)

Investment banks do more than that, too. You probably know that some companies issue bonds to raise money – in other words, they borrow it from whoever’s willing to lend it. You can buy a bond issued by Johnson & Johnson for a little over $100, and receive 4.061% annually until the bond matures 13 years from now. It’s an investment bank that underwrites that issue of bonds – figuring out how much Johnson & Johnson should borrow and what rate to offer, then selling the bonds to brokerage houses that will in turn sell said bonds to their clients. The same goes for issuing stock, only in that case the investment bank helps determine the initial market price and the volume of the issue. After that point market forces (and in 2010 America, governmental suasion) take over.

Banks like Goldman Sachs also exchange currencies, millions of dollars (or pounds or pesos) worth at a time, to keep their clients liquid and protect them from inflation in whichever nation they happen to be conducting business. Of course, said banks take a cut. An investment bank’s clients also trust it to buy equities, bonds and commodities on its behalf, putting the clients’ assets to (presumably) efficient use instead of just having them sit around in cash that doesn’t earn interest.

Investment banks also create and manage mutual funds and pension funds, pooling different investments to create a meta-investment that you can buy into and hopefully preserve your assets in. Investment banks also manage assets for foundations, colleges and universities, and rich individuals and families. And occasionally, an investment bank will invest in a business itself. In Goldman Sachs’ case, everything from Las Vegas casinos to Chinese meat processing.

So while what investment banks do isn’t as tangible as what engineering firms or agribusinesses do, investment banks still serve a clear purpose that helps resources find their most efficient use, which is the whole point of capitalism and progress. This takes skill and experience. You wouldn’t hire a bunch of teenagers and pay them minimum wage to underwrite your next bond issue.

Investment banking is intellectually challenging, risky, and should offer commensurate rewards. And when the bankers make the wrong decisions – charging too low a rate of interest, buying a security whose price then tailspins – they should eat the losses.

Should.

In 2007 Goldman Sachs made huge profits on mortgage-backed securities, the investments made up of mortgage debt pooled and sold with the promise of interest. Lots of people defaulted on their mortgages, which made the mortgage-backed securities lose money. A couple of Goldman Sachs employees predicted this, sold short all the mortgage-backed securities they could find, and the company profited while other Wall Street firms got burned. However, Goldman Sachs created securities of its own that were dubious and difficult to value – including several whose underlying investment was home equity loans, which are always at a relatively high risk of default. Goldman Sachs stock went from a high of $234 in October of 2007 to $52 in November of 2008.

Around the same time, you helped out by buying $10 billion worth of Goldman Sachs stock. Because it’s your federal government’s job to keep investment banks viable, for some reason.

Greece is bankrupt, or close to it. For 11 years Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government fudge its numbers, allowing the nation to pile up debt that it now has to refinance to the tune of $11,500 per citizen. In 2009, Goldman Sachs received cash from U.S. government ward AIG in return for even more dubious securities. That’s cash that originated with American taxpayers. Goldman Sachs sold further securities (collateralized debt obligations) to investors, then bet short against them, the equivalent of Los Angeles Lakers owner Jerry Buss wagering on the Utah Jazz in their current NBA playoff series against the Lakers (which would pay 17/4 had he wagered before the series began.)

It’s those collateralized debt obligations that are the primary reason why Goldman Sachs is in the news. Goldman Sachs hired an independent firm (ACA) to review them, but allegedly never informed ACA about a hedge fund (Paulson) that wanted to short the collateralized debt obligations. Which would be fine, except Paulson helped select the underlying mortgages. Continuing with the Jerry Buss analogy, it’d be as if Buss hired a new general manager to release his entire starting 5 of Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, Ron Artest, Derek Fisher and Andrew Bynum, then signed 5 random New Jersey Nets to replace them.

The 2 Dutch firms on the other side of what became a billion-dollar loss are understandably miffed, and have taken their case to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Goldman Sachs argues that hey, we just bring buyers and sellers together and what happens after that is up to the market.

In a completely unrelated and independent development, Goldman Sachs employees and family members contributed more money to the president’s election campaign than any firm but one. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 4 times, which is 4 times more than you. Enjoy your work week.