Since President Obama's State of the Union Address Tuesday night, there have been a lot of articles dissecting his remarks and picking his proposals apart. As you might suspect, the vast majority have been politically charged by one side of the aisle or the other.
As Chief Investment Strategist for Money Map Press, I can't afford the luxury of taking sides. It's my job to help the hundreds of thousands of investors who are part of our family with their money...politics aside.
If you're with me, then I've got five bullet points - key takeaways really - from the president's speech that can help you grow your money this year and for the remainder of President Obama's second term.
1) We're in line for more "accommodative spending."
You hear that term a lot in the media but very few people have thought about what it actually means - more bailouts, more Fed meddling and more handouts.
No question the president's intentions are good; it's his execution that's problematic. Accommodative spending means more debt piled on top of the trillions we are already in the hole. It means low rates and the Fed's meddling to keep them that way. It means more artificial manipulation in Treasury markets and continued debt purchases.
Team Bernanke has made it very clear that the Fed will support low interest rates until employment recovers which, not surprisingly, dovetails with the president's policies as he discussed them Tuesday night. Never mind that the Fed is supposedly an independent, apolitical entity.
To me this is a little like saying they'll ring the bell until the cows come home. The more logical thing to do is to prepare for what happens after they get back in the barn instead of looking into the darkness for lost animals.
For investors, an inflation-sensitive investment choice like iShares Barclays TIPS (NYSEARCA: TIP) is very logical and appealing under the circumstances.
2) More offshore asset flows.
The president's speech, while filled with lots of interesting concepts, was very Pavlovian. He used all the right buzzwords as he outlined his priorities hitting on national defense, budgets, health care, wages, taxation, spending, education, and international policy, among other things. He even played to gun control.
What I heard was very simple: Bigger government + smaller wallet = greater uncertainty. So did the many executives I've talked with over the past few days, and that points to more money moving overseas.
Apple, which is in the press a lot recently for supposedly "hoarding" $137 billion worth of cash, is the poster child for what I am talking about. Some 70% of its stockpile is offshore thanks to punitive U.S. tax policies and loopholes and CEO Tim Cook's desire to save money for a rainy day (or future spending). Other companies are in similar positions.
Barring any changes from Washington, that means choices with high offshore sales contributions are more logical than U.S.-only alternatives because they indirectly capture the higher returns associated with that money.
McDonalds (NYSE: MCD) is a superb example of what I am talking about. With more than 34,000 restaurants in 120 countries, the company is aggressively diversifying its revenue stream to build in defenses against just the sort of stuff the president is pushing.
Frankly, I'd like to buy all-American as much as the next guy, but with very few exceptions the reality is that's simply not where the money is nor where it will be for the foreseeable future.
3) Hiring will slow.
President Obama spent a fair amount of time pitching a minimum wage hike to $9 an hour. That's below the $9.50 he targeted on the campaign trail, but right in the neighborhood.
I think it's going to backfire. Don't get me wrong, raising the minimum wage sounds great and is needed. In fact, I believe everybody should be paid as much as they can at every stage of the job chain.
But here's the thing. Raising minimum wage levels will be an example of the law of unintended consequences at its finest.
Unemployment and underemployment will rise if this gets inked. That's because companies will not hire more expensive employees during uncertain economic times. Instead, they will further offshore critical manufacturing and opt instead for solutions that do more with less.
I believe that technology companies selling processes and raw computing power capable of compensating for the transition are appealing, especially when it comes to cyber defense. People hear that term - cyber defense - and they think terrorism. What they forget is that distributed companies have plenty of intellectual property, too.
I particularly like CommTouch Software Ltd. (Nasdaq: CTCH) at the moment. It's small, agile, growing quickly and has a who's who of clients despite its small size and relative youth in the sector.
4) Resources.
The president has hammered on energy for a while now so Tuesday's speech was really just a warm up -- or a reminder, depending on your perspective. It was also a glaring signal that energy is going to be the place to be. But, as usual, there's a twist.
Nobody needs another Solyndra, so take direct investing out of the equation. The government has never, ever spent money more efficiently than the private sector, nor has it earned better returns. And forget about the jobs everybody is concentrating on as part of the pipe dream of energy independence.
The real secret is in the picks, shovels and transportation needed get it out of the ground and move energy (in all its various forms) from one place to another.
Pipeline, oil services, and shipping firms are especially appealing under the circumstances. Many, like Teekay LNG Partners LP (NYSE: TGP) pay high dividends, too.
5) Expectations.
The longer Washington keeps meddling with things, the lower returns are going to be over time. That's because the government cannot ever invest more effectively than the private sector. In fact, study after study shows that the opposite is true. Every dollar the government spends is money that has been quite literally stripped from the private sector...which can actually create a recovery.
This means that investors are going to have to contend with lower rates of return and lower interest rates for the foreseeable future. The surest way to combat this is through a renewed focus on income rather than speculation.
You and I may not benefit from "trickle-down economics" any time soon because Bernanke and his minions have sold Middle America down the river, but there are plenty of big companies that will -- especially if they're operating in sectors that the world needs, like energy, geriatric medicine, and defense tech. That's as opposed to what the world "wants."
Zurich-based ABB Limited (NYSE: ABB) is the quintessential example here because it's poised to capitalize on literally trillions of dollars in infrastructure repair and new investment over the next decade.
Now where did I put that $100 trillion note from the Bank of Zimbabwe?
Featured Video: Keith's Take on the State of the Union Address
>>Now read Obama's State of the Union Speech Was Short on Math.
>>Check out Why Minimum Wage Represents Maximum Stupidity.
>>Don't miss As Insiders Head For the Exits, Do They Know Something "We" Don't Know?
>>You may also like The Real Cost of Obamacare.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that some of the country's biggest hedge-fund players have reaped billions by betting against the Japanese yen. Investor George Soros has made nearly $1 billion since November.
But here's the thing: Keith was eight months ahead in identifying this profit opportunity for you. In the Feb. 3, 2012, issue of Private Briefing, he predicted that Tokyo would have to weaken its currency in order to save its economy - and recommended an ETF that would let subscribers profit. It has so far reaped a 44% windfall - more than double the 20% yen decline the hedge-fund Johnny-come-latelies profited on.
We hope you made a bundle on this one.





What do you mean… "No question the President's intentions are good."
He's a stooge for the bankers and other corporatist interests. Good for them, yeah.
Good for us? Not a chance. The President is a destroyer, just like his predecessor.
Anyone who proposes an increase to the minimum wage is either simply stupid or evil? So, which is it? I don't think he fails to understand the consequences, so that leaves…
@fallingman: your ignorance and bigotry are showing. Increasing the minimum wage provides the people who are at the bottom of the pay scale more cash in their pocket and every bit of it is spent. Consumption increases. Velocity of money increases. This is a good thing. Unless you like having people unable to consume, which makes you evil or stupid, or both
M-thing
My ignorance? Really. If you really care to engage on this subject, you'd better be conversant with the economics of the issue and the real world effects.
I will offer below what I offered in response to Mr. Gersten's column today.
I care about what's being done to black kids and the unskilled. It's criminal. You obviously don't or you're too easily duped to understand what's really going on.
***
Well, given that a minimum wage increase will now, as it always has, reduce the prospects for black youth employment more than any other group, I have to conclude that Obama is a racist. And this is hard core racism…the deliberate denial of opportunity.
Before we had wage minima, black youth unemployment was LOWER than white youth unemployment and youth unemployment in general was much lower than it was after the laws were passed. Milton Friedman laid the problem with wage minima out in chapter and verse 50 years ago. It's an irrefutable argument. Has no one learned?
Do we want young kids and others with minimal skills to be employed at a wage level commensurate to those skills and have some chance at upward mobility or do we want to shut them out?
Do we want to force employers to automate or get by in other creative ways with fewer staff in order to survive? This is crazy.
The President isn't stupid from an IQ perspective. He must know the problems with the minimum wage. For god's sake, even Janet Yellen does! And he doesn't care. All he cares about is scoring political points.
Is it better to be employed at $7 an hour if that's what your current skills are worth to employers or unemployed at $9? That's what it comes down to. Hey, if it's such a great idea, why not boost it to $100 an hour?
But we get it because the unions want it. You might be able to have three $7 an hour folks do the same amount of work as one $23/hr union guy using a machine..and save some money. That won't work with three guys at $9/hr. Union job saved.
As if that extra money to pay the additional $1.75 doesn't come from somewhere. It comes from the pockets of customers and thinner margins for business owners. Actions have consequences. We'll all pay for this stupidity in the form of higher prices AND higher unemployment. As usual, the government comes in the guise of helper only to inflict more damage. But try to explain that to somebody who knows nothing of economics, because he or she went to a publik skool. That person just wants a fatter paycheck. Can't blame 'em. Something for nothing…who doesn't want that? Never mind the consequences.
Just give people stuff you've taken from other people…in this case an extra $1.75 an hour…or borrowed to get…until you can borrow no more and other people are squeezed dry. Thanks Mr. O. Great plan. Thanks for nuthin'.
***
And you think it's a good thing, because the recipients will consume. Well, they will, but those from whom that money was taken NO LONGER CAN…and more go unemployed in the balance. Yippee.
You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
This beautifully written and touching piece by Jeffrey Tucker brings the human costs of the minimum wage home in a touching and very sad way.
http://lfb.org/today/
What our author very accurately forecasts is that the opposite of the desired result will occur when the minimum wage is increased to $9…fewer people will actually make $9 p/ hr. Same thing happens with raising taxes…fewer people will actually pay the higher rates. Why is it our politicians won't pass true legislation to end our taxation woes? Because it's a power issue they cant let go of. It's why we wont get a tax bill like The Fairtax or even a true flat tax. The people have to revolt again to get our relief from the new oligarchy , and the "unintended consequences" of their clinging to issues that keep them in power.
m-girl: your ignorance and bigotry are showing. Increasing the minimum wage provides a little more money into the pockets of the people who get and keep a low wage job. But what about the many who will not be able to get or keep a job because the $9 an hour is not affordable to the owners? You are not understanding the real world economics. You are caught up in socialist soundbites not reality. In reality you are bigoted against the poor.
Many people will be shut out of the working world and will be forced into welfare or crime because they can't get a starter job. A minimum wage job is not a career. It is a start from which someone will move up. A concept the left refuses to believe, because it does not fit their agenda.
@ m-girl. Ever thought about where that money comes from? Do you think it passes through a membrane fom another world? It doesn't and the companies that have to pay it don't just eat it, they pass it on. It's just one more inflationary policy, one more insidious inflation tax on everybody to pay for the governments inability to keep its house in order.
Good article. I am in agrement with the writer. Make good sense to me.
I tend to think of minimum wage as a reflection of the true cost (food stamps, law and order etc) of putting an otherwise unemployed to subsistance level. Obviously, this varies in different locations or communities.
When inflation rate picks up, the wage earner will treat it as a joke. During deflation, this becomes a heavy yoke on businesses. This is one thing which should not be made into law by a federal government; unless it is tied to pages of complicated formulae, which may be a bureaucratic nightmare.
On the other hand if an important business finds it difficult to make ends meet, the local authority can consider giving it a charity status.
COMPLEMENTARY REBUTTAL ON STATE OF THE ECONOMY
Mohamed El-Erian, CEO and co-CIO of PIMCO on State of the Union Speech:
1.) Obama Gets "Real": The president was very realistic in where the economy stands," says El-Erian. "He basically said we have overcome the crisis phase and now we have to get into the growth phase."
2.) The Roadmap: "[Obama] set out conditions we need in order to [grow] and they basically come down to investing in education, infrastructure, private-public partnership and also dealing with promises that unfortunately we can no longer meet as a society because the world has changed," he says. "He was very explicit on what is at stake."
3.) Accountability: "[Obama] made it very clear who is accountable for what. Now the hope is that Congress responds," says El-Erian. "The image I have of Congress is they go from doing nothing to doing something because they fall to brinksmanship for doing nothing, once again.
My take is, we are creating unnecessary extra political uncertainty and resultingly slower economic growth ( 1.5% GDP) because of the continuing inability of this Congress and this President (Obama) to work together and forge the necessary policy compromises that do not create additional headwinds such as fiscal cliff, sequestration, debt limit increase, continuing resolutions, entitlement reform, tax increases, budget cuts. (Stop digging a deeper hole).
( Yes, real cuts- not just less growth in spending, as usual). In other words, so far, Federally elected officials don't take the situation seriously enough and neither do most Americans as far as I can tell. (Clue: Its Way more than JUST personalities at work). Stupid is a birth defect and unfortunately, no known medical procedure can cure stupid voters.