A 1-In-100 Blogger: February 2010

Saturday, February 20, 2010

How I Got My Name

I have to admit, the blog title “A 1-In-100 Blogger” is not the most SEO friendly name. So why did I choose it? Two reasons: first, at the time of creating my blog there weren’t very many Conservative voices in the blogosphere that I knew of; I felt it was reasonable that my name portrayed that of a silent majority. Secondly, before Obama lied and the economy died, I was very much interested in stocks. Learning how to make money in the stock market can bring great profits, and of course it can be fun.

I didn’t know too much about the stock market when I first started to take notice. The only reason I began to focus more on stocks is because of series of events that led to the rapid fall of a stock market crash. I remember watching CNBC’s Squawk Box, and on live TV Jim Cramer ranted about the Fed and of the banks over-inflated stock prices.

Cramer’s rant was on August 3rd, 2007. At the time, due to my lack of knowledge on how to best approach the stock market, I was not very diversified in the number of stocks I owned. I had too much money stuck in one stock. I also didn’t listen to Cramer following his rant, instead I kept my money in a stock that ultimately suffered terrible losses.

Since then, I decided to do something about it rather than write the losses off and wither on. I wanted to earn my money back. So I joined Motley Fool CAPS under the name tycoonbull, started to watch Mad Money and other business news sources, and I paid more attention to stocks and what the best practices are on how to make money in the stock market. I did a lot of research and a lot of reading on it, and eventually I found my groove.

One of the cool parts about becoming a Motley Fool CAPS investor and member is that they keep an eye on what is called a player’s “100-day mark.” After all, Presidents are often measured by what they achieve during their first 100 days in office. So it only makes sense that CAPS Fool players be held to the same level of accountability – especially if others may or may not invest in a stock based on the recommendation of others. Therefore, Fool contributors watch the performance of some of the best CAPS Fool investors – called All-Stars – who have achieved top-player ratings after garnering a score of 100 in their first 100 days on CAPS.

During one of the most volatile times in the history of the stock market, I managed to make some pretty amazing stock picks. I also made a few risky but potentially gratifying stock picks. Something I learned about diversification is that, if your portfolio is diversified, allocating about 10% of your portfolio in risky stocks for someone my age isn’t necessarily a bad thing. One of those risky stock picks for my Motley Fool account was for private student loan provider First Marblehead.

Prior to picking First Marblehead (NYSE: FMD) it had suffered a series of misfortunes that were not of its own making, and its stock had suffered a meltdown in the process.

At Motley Fool CAPS, contributor Rich Duprey wrote an article on “A 1-In-100 Investor,” featuring a stock considered, by me, to be “A 1-In-100 opportunity.” Duprey wrote the following about my stock pick.

“Even though [First Marblehead’s] stock had been beaten down and it has a seemingly solid balance sheet – along with backing from none other than Goldman Sachs, though the final amount will undoubtedly be much less than originally anticipated – those two news items sent shares down 17% and 35%, respectively, in response.

The risk of not being able to securitize student loans in a credit market where there is little demand these days for such investments weighs on investors like CAPS player tycoonbull, who realizes the short-term outlook isn't bright, but if you have a long-term horizon, First Marblehead might make sense.”

Deprey also added a quote in there from me, as tycoonbull, on First Marblehead and its future for shareholders. Despite my 65-ish percent accuracy rating picking stocks, ironically, thus far, the First Marblehead pick hasn’t turned out to be right – yet. Luckily, as my quote and prediction says from the article, “I'm standing firm; a risky outperform with a 3 year time-line, my prediction remains as is.” I’ve still got over a year before my 3 year time-line ends, so I could still be right!

Going back to how I got the name for my blog, in spite of incorrectly (thus far) picking First Marblehead to turn around within three years of its fall, I like the sound of “A 1-In-100 …” so I ultimately chose to go with A 1-In-100 Blogger.

Since then, I’ve learned a lot more about better SEO practices and now realize the name might not be the best URL to get found by Googlebots and other Internet search spiders. But it still works for me as a unique name. So that’s the story on how I got my name and blog title, A 1-In-100 Blogger.

Related Article
A 1-In-100 Blogger: The Humor of Fantasy Football Trash Talking
* How I got my blog picture logo.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Mitt Romney For 2012? Why He Makes Sense.

Is Mitt Romney a good choice for President in 2012? Absolutely, I hope to see it happen. Here's why Romney running for the 2012 presidential election makes sense.

Romney makes sense because he upholds Conservative values, and he’s business-savvy and understands the implication of higher taxes on small businesses. Mitt Romney certainly does not share the same vocal support or spotlight in the media as his counterpart, Sarah Palin. But they share conservative political values, and both Romney and Palin have publicly applauded the Tea Party Movement. While Sarah Palin is more actively involved spreading the Tea Party message, especially after stepping down as governor of Alaska, I cannot help but like the idea of a Mitt Romney/Sarah Palin or Sarah Palin/Mitt Romney ticket for the 2012 elections for President.

On the economy, Mitt Romney has what it takes to help get businesses back up and running efficiently. Efficiency equals more job creation in the private sector. Romney can help the economy with fiscal conservatism in mind. He knows that with fewer taxes, we can move the country in the right direction by helping balance the budget and improve the economy at the same time. I have utmost confidence that his tax policies will drastically lower the unemployment rate, too.

Best of all: Romney’s tactics won’t require a bogus “stimulus” plan, a fake “jobs” bill and increased taxes for all, Obama. Barack Obama, that's you. Mitt Romney is a man who can fix the irresponsible spending in Washington quicker than Obama can say "there's a tax for that!"

I won’t dive too far into the religious aspect on the fact that Romney is Mormon. After all, the truth of the matter is that Mitt Romney is religious; therefore, he is a man who follows the Ten Commandments. In my opinion, anyone who doesn’t follow—at a very minimum—five of the Ten Commandments probably doesn’t have the integrity to be President of the United States. Case in point, Mitt Romney passes the integrity test right off the bat.

The idea of Mitt Romney as a candidate for the 2012 elections makes sense. Both Conservatives, Romney and Palin, are a favorite of mine. In my view, it makes sense to keep the best-of-the-best conservative possibilities in mind for the 2012 elections. It's far too early to choose one over the other. I know I'm jumping ahead right now and too eager for positive change, but I can't help it. Especially when, until 2012, America has three more years of the Obama-storm doing everything he can to faceplant the economy.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Politically In Love with Sarah Palin

I've fallen in love with Sarah Palin, politically speaking. Sarah Palin is winning the hearts of many Americans, including myself. Palin is so easy to connect with, and she is always so sincere! Her emotions are real; her most powerful character traits, among the many values she and I share, reflect a deep love for country, freedom and prosperity. Mrs. Palin believes wholeheartedly every word she says -- and in all context, every time she speaks it's always about upholding the U.S. Constitution. She speaks to the American people like she is on our same level, and it's comforting to hear from her.

Even more appealing too, she sounds like a leader; and more importantly, a regular, every day proud American citizen. She loves America! Just listen to the first 01:35 minutes of Sarah Palin's Tea Party speech at the National Tea Party Convention. She turns me on politically, something Obama has never done! For almost two minutes, to begin her Tea Party speech, Palin dedicated the time to express how much she loves the United States. Now that's inspiring to hear!



How she ends her hour long speech is all the more amazing. What Palin says is through the voice of all tea partier's who she is speaking on behalf of.

"This movement is about the people, and for the people; that is what this movement is about. Tea Party nation, we know that there is nothing wrong with America that together, we can't fix, as Americans. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for being part of the solution! God bless the tea partier's and, God bless the U.S.A.!"

For me personally, it's so inspiring when I hear a political leader who not only listens to America, but she is speaking for us -- not to us, which is a radical communication tactic the Obama administration seems to have perfected.

The best part about Sarah Palin is that we're beginning to gain a pretty good sense for who she is. Mrs. Palin has been an active, powerful voice in the growing Tea Party Movement. She is the 2008 Vice Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, and is the former Alaska Governor from 2006 to 2009. That's, like, way more experience and a more successful biography about a potential Presidential candidate than what we knew about Barack Obama before electing him President of the United States.

Sarah Palin has a voice that connects with the American people, especially the tea partier's! So I'll be the first to admit it. I'm politically in love with Sarah Palin.

Proof Obama's Spending is Not Working

The proof was right in front of us the whole time. Obama's spending bills, his first Stimulus bill and now the Jobs bill, are not working. I blogged earlier about the M1 Multiplier and its effects on the the U.S. Dollar. To the best of my abilities, it was an in depth look at how the recent drop in the multiplier below 1.0 will impact the economy. As it turns out, CNBC's veteran trader and financial executive, Rick Santelli, had mentioned the M1 Money Multiplier during his famous Tea Party rant and outrage about the bailouts.

During Santelli's Tea Party declaration, he said this about the M1 Multiplier.

"...These guys are pretty straightforward and, my guess is, a pretty good statistical cross section of America, the silent majority. They're pretty much of the notion that you can't buy your way into prosperity, and if the multiplier that all of these Washington economists are selling us is over one, that we never have to worry about the economy again, the government should spend a trillion dollars an hour because we'll get $1.5 trillion back..."

So, at a time when, before Obama's first Stimulus bailout, the M1 Multiplier was above one. This was said to be the reason Washington was confident in Obama's "Stimulus" bill, because the multiplier was above one. The theory that the Obama administration used is that by printing more money and spending $1 Trillion will help because it will in turn create $1.5 Trillion in the economy.

The problem is that the stimulus bill and Obama's continuous printing of money has caused the M1 Multiplier to wildly tank fast, dropping below one! This means that for Obama's recent "Jobs bill," (aka. Stimulus 2.0) and the Federal Reserve printing more U.S. Dollars, from each $1 printed, only $0.81 cents is actually making it into the economy.

If Obama irresponsibly spends another $1 Trillion it's only going to create about $810B in the economy. That's a monumental loss of monetary value and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. So there it is, the M1 Multiplier dropping below 1.0 is proof that all of Obama's increases in spending and printing more money is actually hurting the economy -- and it's certainly not helping it.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Obama's SEIU Shock Troops on Patrol

When the opportunity presents itself, leave it to Obama's shock troops to want more power, and to take advantage of a poor 'security' policy recently seen in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel as security personnel watched a 15 year old girl get beaten and mugged -- all caught on video.



The footage has inspired public disgust since it was first aired by KING-TV news. Rightfully so, too. But can you guess who wants to replace Olympic guards as a new security for Metro? Here's a hint from Barack Obama:


Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Which union was it that Obama has very close ties with? It's a union that Barack Obama has made a pledge to help, to give them more power and strength to eventually "Paint the nation purple." It's big government, union corruption at its finest: 'SEIU! SEIU! SEIU!'

The Seattle Times reported, "The Service Employees International Union Local 6 issued a statement Wednesday framing the attack as a reason SEIU should represent the Olympic guards. It already represents Securitas."

SEIU researcher Emily Sokolski made the following statement.

"Security guards this week have mentioned their frustration at standing back. [Metro guards] don't have the tools to intervene, at this point. They don't have self-defense training in how to intervene in a physical altercation. They would not only be in danger, but they would be in danger of losing their jobs."

Now, I'll let you decide what to make of this clear push for more power. I would like to ask, however, the same question that Glenn Beck pointed out: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

What's wrong with a simple policy change to the current private security force already in place? Why does the SEIU (the image of corruption) need to be a civilian military force? If the SEIU Local 6 gets their wish and takes over to represent the Olympic guards for Metro, the system is doomed to fail. Something will be clearly wrong. It will cause more problems than solutions. That's a promise Obama will never admit.

Being that I live in Seattle, which is basically in the heart of the Pacific coasts' movement toward socialism, it's like I get a front row seat to watch and experience the slow dismantling of freedom and liberty, massive increases in taxes and debt, and of course the SEIU and other unions soaking up more power to fight against capitalism.

I remember when it used to be, "If you don't like America, go live somewhere else." But, unfortunately, it's gotten so bad here in Seattle, Washington that I now consider, "Since I don't like living in a socialist state, should I move elsewhere?" I do love Texas.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Go Daddy's Super Bowl Ad Wins!

Last year I offered my take on the six best Super Bowl Ads, and then offered my input on a seventh Ad that "almost made the cut." In the spirit of pro football tradition, here's my take on the 2010 best Ads from the 'Big Game'.

This year I'll actually focus on what I think is the most improved advertisement. Bob Parsons, the CEO and Founder of GoDaddy.com, consistently and gloriously resurfaces the company's now trademark 'too hot for TV' commercials. Go Daddy's 2010 advertisement campaign was a huge improvement over their Super Bowl commercial from 2009!

Go see Go Daddy's 2010 Super Bowl® Commercials if you missed them during the Big Game.

Finished?

Good! Here's my take on the Ads.

From last year, I mentioned how the 2009 Super Bowl advertisement lacked attitude and an objective goal for its intended audience. Many viewers were left laughing but still somewhat unsure what Go Daddy's commercial wanted them to do. The question remained, what were viewers suppose to think after watching the Ad?

This year, for Go Daddy's first 2010 Super Bowl commercial, the overall message was much clearer and the advertisement provides a means to an end that viewers need. Sure, Bob Parsons hilariously created a "BANNED" TV commercial that was deemed "politically incorrect" for CBS viewers. But it still didn't stop Go Daddy from developing other creative and informative commercials -- TV ads which were allowed to air during the Super Bowl.

The start of the commercial was great. While rubbing Danica Patrick's back, who in appearance looks stressed and is physically "so tight," the amazingly beautiful spa girl then notices who it is and excitingly proclaims, "I love GoDaddy.com! I mean, Web sites, domain names, hosting," and Danica Patrick adds, "All for less than a dollar a month. Yeah."

This is excellent in terms of Marketing because it gets straight to the point, informatively, and then moves to fulfill the men-loving thrill of the hotness we expect from Go Daddy's commercials. The scene that followed was 'too hot for TV' so it was clear where interested viewers were to go next. I love it!

The actual Super Bowl commercial tells its intended audience what they need to know about GoDaddy.com, and the high level of interest it creates led many wondering why the rest of the advertisement is too hot for TV. For me, and likely many others, I did some further investigation into to the source of the hotness, closely examining why it was too hot for TV. *Ahem* ...For research purposes.

It totally worked; the aired Super Bowl Ad was great, and the rest of the Internet only commercial was totally hot!

If it's true that failure is also the driver of success, Go Daddy's resilience on perfecting its Super Bowl marketing strategy proves this to be true. Semper Fi, Bob Parsons!



Update: Bob Parsons had this to say after Akamai declared the GoDaddy.com Super Bowl Ad the undisputed Web traffic Winner:

“Everything came together beautifully this year,” said Go Daddy CEO and Founder Bob Parsons. “We had a tremendous surge in Web traffic, sustained the spike, converted new customers and shot overall sales off the chart. This is a textbook Super Bowl campaign for Go Daddy!”

Monetary Base VS M1 Multiplier

Earlier I wrote a quick blurb on the M1 Money Multiplier, noting my surprise that the M1 multiplier declined to 0.811. Before the year 2009, since 1959, it had never dropped below 1.0; a key signal that indicates the money the Fed is printing is not making it into the economy. For example, a multiplier reading of 2.0 would indicate that for every dollar the Fed puts into the system two dollars are created in the economy. In this way, we can begin to see the impact of monetary policy under the Obama administration.

Economic research at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis notes, "[t]he M1 multiplier is the ratio of M1 to the St. Louis Adjusted Monetary Base." Currently, the latest observations hold the value of the multiplier at 0.811, a rate that has fluctuated below 1.0 since December of 2009, valuing at somewhere between 0.810 and 0.852. The following charts show the monetary base vs the M1 multiplier (M1/monetary base), with the second chart more clearly defining the recent plunge in economic value created for every dollar the Federal Reserve prints.


What this means is that, for every dollar the Fed puts into the system, only .81 cents of economic value is created.



In the past, since 1959, for every dollar banks lent to the private sector, through various means of debt creation, interest rates and other transfer mechanisms the dollar went through, it has created up to $3.50 of economic value. That would indicate a healthy, growing economy and positive growth of value from the U.S. Dollar. One can easily begin to imagine the negative impact the M1 Multiplier resting below 1.0 will have on our economy, especially in the long run.

The most concerning issue is that this has never happened in the past, so we don't really know what to expect if the M1 Multiplier remains below 1.0 for extended periods of time. All we know is what we see: we're witnessing the Obama administration print so much money that for every dollar printed, it is only creating .81 cents worth of economic value.

Now, although I'm not a mathematician and could very well be wrong, the M1 Multiplier suggests that our economy is not just deflationary but going through a hyper-deflationary period. What's odd to me is that we've already felt and seen a rise in the price for consumer goods, which seems to suggest inflationary. What's worse than two uncertain reflections of our economy?

We also have an Obama problem. Obama is recklessly bailing out failed industries caused by the Unions sucking the life out of profits because of their entitlement pension plans, and he is printing money faster than anyone America has ever witnessed in the past. This would suggest we're going to experience inflation (or hyper-inflation?) at some point or another, and it points to Obama aggravating our economy instead of actually solving its problems. It also points to the fundamental problems that the Unions have created over the years -- seriously guys, why not just move to a 401K plan and grow the economy instead of taking from it? You're doing it wrong.

Because I'm not an expert by any means, I'm just not sure what it means or why we're seeing a deflationary chart from the M1 Multiplier. Nor do I understand enough about the long-term problems that will be created as a result of the M1 Multiplier resting below 1 for extended periods of time. At times I feel like we're in the economic eye of a hurricane, but at the same time being told by Obama that the storm has passed.

References

Brian Kelly. M1 Multiplier Indicates The Fed’s Gas Pedal Is Broken, iStockAnalyst, Wednesday, March 11, 2009.

Velocity of Money vs. M1 Multiplier: Mixed Signals, Seeking Alpha, May 04, 2009.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Surprise!? I Found the Hidden Decline.

Is ClimateGate the biggest issue Americans face today? We've all seen the YouTube video 'hide the decline' and many have viewed some or all of the emails and other document. But let's just say for a moment, in the midst of it all, there's still other people working hard with the Obama administration to faceplant the economy.

Surprise!

...Look!

Our favorite Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke.

Now, all of this this is very likely to be a simple, ironic. mishap. None the less, I stumbled on a forum post started by someone named jasonkolb. He posted an image of a graph. It's almost a mirror image of the Climategate hockey stick chart. It's showing us what appears to be something in a sharp decline.


My first question is, what is an M1 Multiplier?

What is the M1 Multiplier?



My second question is, what does this mean for the economy?

Originally I was planning on writing a little bit here to explain, in my own words, what the decline of a/an M1 Multiplier means. Then I was going to wittingly connect it to the ironic? mirror image of the hockey stick; they are both a well hidden decline -- zero media coverage. Most likely because of the complexity of each situation.

But, since jasonkolb already asked this topics most important question in a forum on December 11, 2008;
" M1 Multiplier goes BELOW 1.0 - WTF?? "

And as of writing this there is now 36+ pages of ongoing discussion at tickerforum.org, there's no need for me to elaborate.

For PG-13 purposes, I'm simply going to define the acronym 'WTF' as "Wildly Tanking Fast," that's W.T.F. So, like, I could ask, "why is the M1 Multiplier W.T.F.?!" and it would make sense... Yep...

Source(s) for graph: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Smelling the ClimateGate data

Danny, a good friend of mine from high school and a guy that I have a lot of respect for, and I are having a conversation about a 'hot button' topic, "ClimateGate." It's interesting, because we have quite different viewpoints; we're both pretty uninformed, but Danny will usually take the side of the scientists who claim anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is real. I, on the other hand, am a little more skeptical after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public.

The release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit is calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic global warming. My goal talking with Danny is to help clear up some much-needed, unanswered questions that he may know a little more about than I do.

As I said before, I have utmost respect for Danny Tarlow. So much so that I virtually used the same introduction (Heh) that he did when introducing his own blog entry on our Climategate discussion. I'm his biggest fan! He's probably the smartest guy I know, so his input is invaluable to me.

Like Danny said, the bigger issue on Climategate is really how we as non climate experts can make sense out of so many conflicting stories. Where there is bias and politically-charged agendas looming at every turn, there will always be controversies. In our ongoing discussion, I think we're both seeking the truth; finding common ground in an uncommon scandal, and with civility and respect.

To me, this is one of the most enlightening and fun conversations I've had on the issue of Climategate. While I cannot say the end will result in us seeing eye-to-eye, hopefully we can both learn something new. I know Danny can teach me a lot, so I'm trying to learn as much as I can from his opinion on the issue.

For my readers who are just as confused about Climategate as I am, but who seek the opinion of others from both sides of the issue, I highly recommend heading over to our discussion! And of course, with civility in mind, feel free to comment as we go:

Hot Button Issues Part 2: ClimateGate | This Number Crunching Life

I'm not a number cruncher myself, but through my questions and the enlightening responses from some very intelligent friends, I'm smelling the ClimateGate data... so to speak, you know, like, twisting words and stuff... I'm done.