Walmart's New Health Food Push: Is It Too Hard to Swallow?
Bonds Are a 'Safe' Investment: A Big Lie Gets Even Bigger
I have not decided who I am voting for yet. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say I have decided on multiple occasions only to become undecided again. While some will see me as fickle, or worse, others may be in the same boat.
I am also continuing to think about what difference any of the candidates can make on the economy, and based on these musings, where to invest. My current belief is that none of them will have a profound impact on our economy.
There are no financial wizards among them. Here is the shocker though: I like all three candidates, or at least can find some good in each of them. Each of them is a fighter, and I believe each one of them brings certain skill sets to the job. There are also things about each candidate that are inescapably negative. Clinton has so much baggage, Zsa Zsa Gabor would be jealous. Obama does not have the experience and he has a degree of arrogance (right sweetie); McCain is an old stick-in-the-mud who, as a long-time senator, has spent more hours with lobbyists than almost anybody, though he is pretending otherwise.
Where does this leave me from an investment perspective? My first choice, for stability with moderate growth and dividends, remains the defense sector. I wrote Defense sector rolls over S&P 500 for 8th straight year a while back and I still think that it is the most secure. Here's why:
A) None of the candidates will want to appear soft on defense when we are at war, and all three have made threatening remarks in some country's direction to make sure the electorate knows that.
B) The War in Afghanistan and Iraq rages on, and even the most optimist view is that a draw-down will take years.
C) Even if all war ceased immediately, the upgrading and replenishment of the hardware will cost billions of dollars and most of the defense contractors have that in their backlogs now. Chasing Value: General Dynamics & Raytheon -- The defense does not rest
Mike Huckabee made news by suggesting he would be delighted to pair up with John McCain as his VP running mate. He is another guy that has a real hunger to be heard, but has no interest in a real job. While this may strengthen the party ticket, shoring up conservative support, historically successful candidates move to the center in the general election. Huckabee would lose him as many votes as he would gain.
Nobody is more hungry to be president then Hillary Clinton, who may view this go-around as her one shot at the oval office, since the next occupant could be there eight years if they don't screw up too bad (right Dubya).
Hillary Clinton is doing some big time pandering to stay in the presidential race, and does not look like she has lost any of her fight yet. She seems to be the most polarizing of the three candidates, because there are many that simply do not trust her. Oddly, if this were any other type of race, trust might not be an issue, just success -- and an argument could be made that she might be the most successful. For all her husband's problems in office, the economy was humming and legislation was moving.
There are a growing number of hungry folk -- the continuous rise in food prices has supported one of my thesis from last December Serious Money: ADM, Bunge, Potash Corp. -- it's a hungry world and I expect, like the defense sector this is still a smart place to be investing, although these three stocks are on the pricey side. However, who is to say they have topped out. Archer-Daniels-Midland (NYSE: ADM), Bunge Ltd. (NYSE: BG) and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan (NYSE: POT) dominate a major portion of he world market in grains, oils and fertilizers.
A) Our sinking dollar makes our prices on the world market more competitive.
B) China, Russia, India, Brazil -- the whole world for that matter have been adding more meat to their diets and that is raising the price of everything. The number of capitalists has doubled!
C) Diets will change in tough economic times, but food will remain a higher priority than most everything else.
Looking beyond the economics of guns and butter for other themes and hearing every day the drum beat that change is afoot, I wonder where else things might remain stable or grow. What comes to mind is power, and I have thought this for quite some time -- Serious Money: Electric utilities are the place to be. I still like the Southeast U.S. and own stock in Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) and the Southern Company (NYSE: SO) for the long haul.
A) Power companies will be open for business every day of the year and pay solid dividends.
B) Even if housing is down and foreclosures are increasing, someone will own the homes and they will still need the power company.
C) The increase in consumer products requiring power, and the movement toward electric vehicles, will increase demand.
Speaking of a newcomer that seeks power -- Barack Obama promotes himself as the candidate of change. I ask, CHANGE WHAT? Does he think he can become more touchy-feely, like Jimmy Carter, and make nice to everyone? That did not work. He wants to bring us all together, but that's not going to happen. Some folks want to eliminate capital gains taxes and others want to raise them; some want to stop all abortions and others want a women to have a right to choose; and some want health care coverage to be provided by the private sector and others want the government to take over. There will have to be a compromise, but there will be a battle royale to get there.
The Democrats are happy to run against Bush, because even many Republicans would not like to do the Bush economy over again and economics does not seem to be McCain's strong suit anyway. If Obama is the survivor of the political process ("winner" does not seem apt), the biggest surprise will be the economy. Since he is the biggest wild-card, we may see the market go soft, at least in the short term, if he is elected.
One of the most fascinating things about the economy, reported on this site and in business journals, is that the economy often does the best when there is a log jam in Washington and nothing happens. Maybe the economy would improve the fastest if Bush left office and we had a one-year moratorium in Washington and they all just went home. There was a time, a long time ago, when that's how it was.
No matter who wins the election, I think the defense, food and energy sectors will remain strong and the housing sector, airlines, and retail remains weak for a few more years. In this case the past may be a good predictor of the future.
Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: I own shares in DUK, GD & SO.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
