Weekend Reading.

Posted on FinanceAsia: Malaysia rating and outlook:

• A Calyon report released yesterday predicts that although Barisan Nasional has retained its parliamentary majority, the possibility of a loose alliance between the remaining parties may lead to a lengthier decision-making process, as any Barisan Nasional-led legislation will be forcefully challenged in parliament.
  
  The opposition has won five states, four of which will rely on considerable federal government grants which may come under greater scrutiny. However the coalition has announced that it won't block infrastructure projects already approved, continues the Calyon report.
  
  Although political risks have increased, Moody's notes that Malaysia enjoys a relatively strong growth and external payments position as well as a high savings rate and well-developed regulatory and financial institutions. But this has been supported by a pro-cyclical fiscal policy that has maintained key government debt ratios above those of its peers, continues the agency.
  
  But Moody’s also states that, in the medium-term, the election results could engender a more competitive political environment and help develop the political system away from the country’s ethnic-based system. A shift to market mechanisms for the allocation of resources and public goods could then spur the private sector and reduce the government’s role in the economy.
  
  In terms of the impact on spreads, Malaysia’s five-year CDS underperformed Korea’s by about 4bp immediately after the election. Although it’s too early to draw a definitive conclusion, this underperformance against comparable credits could potentially continue if the rise of the opposition begins to have an economic impact, says Calyon.

John Mauldin's piece is worth a read: Muddle Through and Your Long Term Returns (do subscribe to his works!). The following section is worth noting.

• Honey, I Vaporized My Customers
  
  By now, everyone knows that the subprime crisis started with non-existent lending standards which resulted in the large numbers of foreclosures we are seeing today. Those foreclosures will be rising throughout the year. We are not near anything like the top of the rising number of foreclosures. Ben Bernanke said last July that losses from the subprime would be in the $100 billion dollar range. True confession. I think I wrote six months earlier that it would be $200 billion. I point that out to make the point that I am an optimist by nature. The latest "bidding war" number for the amount of total losses is about $500 billion from Goldman Sachs, and a neat $1 trillion from uber-bear Nouriel Roubini.
  
  Add in hundreds of billions from losses which are piling up in other credit markets and you can easily get to $1 trillion in losses which are going to have to be eaten by all sorts of financial institutions, without being all that pessimistic.
  
  Banks are being forced to reduce their loan and margin books in order to get the necessary capital required by regulatory authorities. Plus, credit is now more expensive as risk premiums rise from absurdly low levels in what more than one authority called a "new era of finance." Turns out it was just normal old era greed.
  
  It is not just the mortgage market. It is commercial mortgages, safe municipal bonds, credit card debt, student loans and a host of credit that is under fire and cannot find a buyer at what should be a realistic price.
  
  We should not be surprised at the lack of liquidity in the credit markets. We have essentially vaporized 60% of the buyers of debt in the last six months. The various alphabet of SIVs, CLOs, CDO, ABS, CMBS, and their kin that were the real shadow banking system are either gone or on life support. It took decades to build these structures and it is not realistic to think we can replace them in six months. This is going to take some time.
  
  And time is what the Fed has bought this week by offering to take AAA mortgage paper and swap it for T-bills. They will start with $200 billion on offer. Remember you read it here first that that number will be increased and increased again. From the markets initial euphoric response, you would think the problems have been solved and banks will once again start lending. Sadly, this is probably not true.
  
  This is similar to the action by the bank regulators in 1980, when nearly every major bank had losses that were greater than their capital on Latin American loans which had defaulted. The Fed, with a wink and a nod, allowed the banks to carry these worthless loans on their books at full face value. It took six years before they started to actually write them down. But without that measure, every major bank in the US would have gone bankrupt. And technically, they were for several years. But the Fed action simply bought the banks time to re-liquefy. It was the right thing to do.
  
  This week's action by the Fed is essentially the same thing. It buys time. This 28 day auction will be around for a long time. If the banks had to write down the potential losses on their AAA Fannie Mae paper and other similar assets, it could have brought the banking system to its knees. Eventually, we will get a market clearing price for all this paper, but the key word here is eventually. We are going to see foreclosures and losses for another 18 months. It is going to take a long time to know exactly what the losses will be.
  
  I think the losses on many of the various forms of debt have been marked down way too far by the various derivative markets. (I would hasten to add this does not include the subprime markets, as many of those assets are going to zero.) I doubt the loss in a lot of the debt paper will be nearly as much as the current credit default swaps prices indicate. For instance, some municipal bond debt is priced for 10-15% losses, when losses of less than 0.5% are normal. When there is a buyers strike, prices fall, and sometime to quite low levels. In the fullness of time, the price of these bonds will rise back to "normal" levels. There is a reason Bill Gross is buying municipal bonds by the train car load. Many are simply at the best prices we will see in my lifetime.
  
  But if that debt is now on a bank's capital books, they have to write it down to the latest mark-to-market. The Fed's move simply allows the banks to move what will eventually (or maybe the better word is should eventually) be marked back to reasonable values. It avoids a crisis today.
  
  The next crisis? I read a very chilling piece from Michael Lewitt this morning. He speculates on what if the rumors were true that Bear Stearns is basically bankrupt. Bear is in the too big to fail category. They are at the heart of the chain of Credit Default Swaps which run like fault lines throughout the world's financial system. If Bear were allowed to collapse, it would simply cascade throughout the world so fast it would truly make the current level of the credit crisis seem small potatoes.
  
  So, why can I be so sanguine? Because the regulators (the Fed and the SEC) would step in and whatever large bank was failing would be merged or bought very fast. Liquidity and assets would be provided. The Fed and the rest of the world's central banks get that we are in a crisis. They will do what is necessary. Those of us sitting in the cheap seats in the back of the plane may not like it, as it will look like a bailout of the big guys who caused the problem, but you have to maintain the integrity of the system. A hedge fund here or there can go, but not one of the world's premier banks.
  
  I wrote the above paragraphs on Thursday, and sure enough, the NY Fed and JP Morgan stepped in to bail out Bear. This will not be the only time or bank. The regulators may have been asleep, but the depth of this crisis has awakened them.
  
  But this is a boost for my contention that we will be in a Muddle Through Economy for a long time. This latest Fed actions simply draw out the time over which the market will correct. But that is a good thing, as a too swift, dead drop correction could spawn a very deep recession, destroying vast amounts of capital, which would take much longer to come out of.

I enjoyed reading Dr.Brett's posting, Using Trading Journals to Identify and Change Your Patterns

• 1) Patterns of Negative Self-Talk: These occur during frustrated moments in markets. We miss a trade, a trade blows through our stop, we give back our money on the day: all of these create frustration. This frustration then triggers an anger response that we direct toward ourselves. For example, we might find ourself saying, "Here it goes again! Other people are killing these markets, and I can't get it going." At that point, your frustration is no longer about the specific trade or market event, but is directed to *you as a person*. Trading should be about trading; not about you. After all, you wouldn't be boasting and crowing in the journal if the trade went your way. If you wouldn't like to hear your message coming from someone else (imagine your buddy at the workstation next to yours saying, "Whoa, dude, other people are killing these markets, and you can't get it going!") and if you wouldn't be speaking that way to your trading buddy, then you shouldn't be speaking that way to yourself. Interrupting that negative self-talk and turning your frustration toward a constructive kick in the pants ("C'mon, Brett, you know you shouldn't be trading so large in the chopfest. Let's stick with the rules!") can be very helpful in preventing frustration from snowballing.

PeG suggested the following piece: The Holy Grail of Trading: It’s not your System

• Investors also debate systems within a market such as: trend trading, swing trading, scalping, shorting, day trading, buy and hold, fundamental trading, technical trading, Elliot wave theory, moving average crossovers, etc… They all work if the “person” understands the holy grail of trading. And that is being able to understand YOU and how your mind works.
  
  However, it is not the system that makes one successful. It is YOU that makes the system work properly. What do I mean? Each individual must master their own personal psychological impacts on their trading results. You must work on YOU to become consistently successful!

And How to Create a Successful Stock Watch List

• I encourage all investors in all time frames to evaluate stocks for investment using both fundamental and technical analysis. A day trader and even a swing trader can get away with avoiding fundamental analysis but I highly recommend both methods of analysis for intermediate and longer term trend traders. Both tools are equally important in making serious decisions with your hard earned CASH!
  
  If you wish to invest in stocks, treat it like a business, NOT A HOBBY. You need rules and you need to follow these rules or money WILL be LOST. Once proven rules have been established, they cannot be broke or you will lose money. Everyone loses money in investing but we must learn to cut losses quick and allow gains to develop. Small losses are acceptable because they teach us lessons that allow us to win big. Think of losses as part of doing business and focus on the long term success of the system and not each individual trade. As long as you have a positive expectancy, the winners and losers will equal out over time to make you consistently profitable.

Chris's stock watch method mentioned is pretty darn good, yes?

Last but not least, there's Dali's piece Market timing – fool’s gold, which I thought is rather good too.

• The problem is that there is evidence to show that market timers do not do well.
  
  An annual study by DALBAR, a research firm, showed that the average investor in equity funds has averaged only 4.3% per year in returns over the most recent 20-year period in which the S&P500 averaged 11.8% per year – and DALBAR finds that most of this under-performance of the basic market index is due to attempts to time the market.
  
  There are a host of other studies that show that market timing leads to returns that substantially lag the market.
  
  Even if there were a few funds out of the thousands that have proven to market time successfully and outperform consistently over a 5 or ten-year period, would it be smart to give them your money?
  
  Essentially, you have to bet on these funds' ability to maintain their track record or on the long-term evidence pointing to the low success rate of market timing.
  
  There is a large body of research, which concludes that actively-managed funds that beat the market in some period are not likely to continue to out-perform over any extended period.
  
  In 1975, William Sharpe published a seminal article on this topic: “Likely Gains from Market Timing”.
  
  In this article Sharpe demonstrated statistically that in order to benefit from a market timing strategy you had to guess right 74% of the time. Hence it is possible, but very arduous indeed.
  
  Alpha is a definition only; it may or may not exist. For people to get alpha, they need to be better at market timing and price timing.
  
  Warren Buffett obviously does not believe in market timing or price timing. He sees them as businesses, and for the right price he will buy the business regardless of sentiment.
  
  He may even suffer short-term weakness or short-term losses holding these businesses, but he does not market time or price time his purchases. To him, if the price is cheap relative to future value, then it's good enough.
  
  If market timing and price timing works for only 5% (1 person in 20 is about right) of participants (or even just 1%), all studies would reveal that market timing and price timing does not work as the results are not substantiated – hence the random walk theory.
  
  Suffice to say that even if the 5% or 1% do make it work (which is what I strongly believe), it's just that much harder.
  
  When things are that much harder, many will opt for easier routes such as buy at good price and hold, or buy the business and forget the volatility.
  
  I am not saying I can do this well. I am not saying anyone can do this well. I am suggesting that one can do market timing and price timing well provided they get two things right – the big picture and the catalysts.