The odds that you'll have a long, healthy life are better than ever ... and that creates a pretty hefty problem for pension funds. They need to find new ways to meet their obligations in a turbulent market, and the risk that you'll hang on forever is approaching every day. So, unless we're able to pass legislation encouraging mass suicide among the Baby Boomers (it's a joke, people, read Christopher Buckley's Boomsday to see how it shakes out), pension fund managers have a hefty dose of risk to offload -- fast. They're looking at the insurance-linked securities market as a way to handle the problem.

All joking aside, pension funds and insurers are translating to total pension liabilities of $19 trillion in the U.S. and $3 trillion in the UK, according to a Reuters report using data from International Financial Services London. And, an increase in longevity by one year could translate into a 3% jump in liabilities. Put simply, the IFSL's data means another $600 billion in the U.S. and $90 billion in the UK. Basically, everything we do to stick around longer (not that I'm discouraging it) leads to a higher and higher price tag.

After months of speculation and years of underperformance, the New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) has decided not to sell the Boston Globe and related businesses. The company claims that the changes made at the Globe to slash expenses and right the ship financially have made it worth holding on to the newspaper. This comes after two parties submitted their final bids (similar financially) for the beleaguered 137-year-old property.

The NY Times Co. picked up the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion. Since then, it's watched the paper's revenue and circulation plummet, a situation worsened by the advent of the internet and the newspaper industry's generally slow response to it. Now, it's apparently worth just under 10% of NYT's original purchase price, with the offers pushed higher by both parties' willingness to assume $59 million in pension liabilities.

Those with aspirations of unfettered wealth look for clues everywhere. From top schools to unique talents, they build profiles of what it takes to become absurdly wealthy ... as though the process can be blueprinted. Well, if you're looking for answers, the Forbes 400 list is a great place to start. If anyone has mastered the art of making money, it's this collection of billionaires. They have the answers, and you are ready to learn.

A look at the lives of the Forbes 400 implies that the most important attribute is the ability to sift through ambiguity. Contradictions abound, meaning that shades of gray hold the answer to your burning desire for riches. Should you go to a great school? Well, yes ... but only if you're going for an MBA and plan to work for a major financial firm. But, you can still go to an Ivy League school if you're not studying finance but join Skull and Bones. Of course, dropping out of Harvard can be a great way to launch a career in the technology field.

It's tricky. There are no easy answers. But, the road to billions is littered with the corpses of aspiring magnates who thought it wouldn't be difficult. So, don't just read the seven attributes after the jump. Understand them. Read them twice. Then, your future financial situation will be assured.

Or, you can just do one of those chain e-mails and wish for wealth.

[Thanks, Forbes and MSNBC]

Stephen Friedman, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, stepped down from his post late Thursday. The 71-year-old came under fire when a regulatory filing revealed that he upped his stake in Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) during late 2008, when the bank holding company was under the New York Fed's supervision.

"Today, although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper," wrote Friedman in his letter of resignation. "The Federal Reserve System has important work to do and does not need this distraction."

Late last year my colleague Joseph Lazzaro posted a story about NYU's 'Dr. Doom' Roubini: Stocks may fall another 20% during recession. That has to make one take pause when considering an investment in the stock market today, even after a major drop retesting November lows this week. On the other hand, Warren Buffett went out of his way to encourage the investing public and money managers alike that it was safe to go back into the market.

However, today it has been widely reported that Buffett sold off half of his holdings in Johnson & Johnson and trimmed his stake in Procter & Gamble.

Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski had some harsh words this morning for Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS). Rather than a fourth-quarter profit of $2.98 per share, the analyst now expects Goldman to lose 49 cents per share during the quarter. If his prediction comes to pass, it will mark the bank holding company's first-ever quarterly loss as a public company.

While Moszkowski razored his price target on GS from $159 to $100, he maintained his Neutral opinion on the stock. The new target represents a premium of 8.1% to the stock's closing price last Friday. The analyst cites the "stressed" equities market as the primary driver behind his dramatically reduced outlook on Goldman.

In a note to clients, Moszkowski explained that Morgan Stanley's (NYSE: MS) business mix should allow it to weather the choppy market conditions better than Goldman. He trimmed his fourth-quarter earnings forecast on Morgan as well -- dropping his estimate from 72 to 36 cents per share -- but considers the stock a Buy.

The analyst stated, "We still think GS remains in many ways at the forefront of the capital markets industry, but if it can't consistently produce a premium return on equity, it's not going to be able to continue to have the premium valuation multiple that it has enjoyed." As of last Friday's close, Goldman's forward price-to-earnings ratio of 7.63 dwarfed Morgan's ratio of 4.03.

In today's session, MS is up about 5%, compared to Goldman's gain of about 1.2%.

Elizabeth Harrow is an analyst and financial writer in the research department at Schaeffer's Investment Research. She is featured in the video series Schaeffer's Daily Q&A on SchaeffersResearch.com.

This morning, I speculated that Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) might reunite with its former parent -- JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM). It looks like I was wrong about that. But the basic idea of finding a merger partner for Morgan Stanley is still alive. The New York Times reports that Wachovia (NYSE: WB) has been in talks with Morgan Stanley about a possible combination.

Morgan Stanley's stock fell another 24% today and Washington Mutual (NYSE: WM), about which I posted this morning, hired Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) to find a buyer. So it could be that less than a decade after Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall act -- which prohibited investment and commercial banks from combining -- we will solve our current catastrophic financial problems by reconstituting the very thing that contributed so heavily to the Great Depression.

This looks to me like a desperate move that is only possible because commercial banks were required -- due to their regulations -- to hold more capital than investment banks. The investment banks were vulnerable because they bought such a huge volume of complex securities that nobody now wants to buy. And the decline in the value of these securities is wiping out the slim sliver of capital that they held.

BBC News reports that another hedge fund has closed down thanks to its failure to bail out of the oil speculation trade that boosted oil to a peak of $147 in July. This is yet another piece of evidence that people like Hank Paulson, who insisted that record oil prices were due to supply and demand, were either being less than honest -- particularly since his former employer Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) was a big beneficiary of this speculation -- or ignorant of reality.

The hedge fund in question this time is Ospraie Fund, which invested in commodities like oil and gold. It "has lost 38% of its value since the start of the year." Gold is down 22% to $800 from its $1,030.80 an ounce high in March. Oil has tumbled 25% to $109 since peaking in July, according to BBC News. But 1440 Wall Street suggests that the biggest commodity culprit in Ospraie's demise was copper's tumble. The lesson here is that if a sufficient number of big money speculators get together and decide to, say, short the dollar and go long commodities, there will seem to them to have safety in numbers.

But when the government started investigating the cause of spiking oil prices, the trade got very unprofitable very fast. As I posted, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) recently found that 81% of oil trading volume was driven by speculation. Then we witnessed the failure of SemGroup and the indictment of Optiver Holding for manipulating energy prices -- those funds who were too slow to reverse their positions and got creamed.

Now eight large brokerage firms have settled with Auction Rate Securities (ARS) investors. This afternoon Bloomberg News reports Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Deutsche Bank settled with state regulators. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MER) announced another prong of its settlement earlier in the day.

What are the terms of the settlement for the latest two? Bloomberg writes that "Goldman will buy back $1.5 billion of the securities and pay a $22.5 million fine. Deutsche Bank will redeem $1 billion of debt and was fined $15 million." In addition to the rogues gallery of big ARS issuers who have yet to settle, investigators are targeting medium-sized brokers -- Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW), Fidelity Investments and E*Trade Financial Corp. (NYSE: ETFC).

This leaves major ARS issuers lagging behind their peers. Here are three holdouts (with their 2007 municipal ARS issuance in parentheses):

• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) ($3.7 B)
• RBC Capital Markets ($1.2 B)
• Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) ($1.1 B)

What are they waiting for?

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

Upset about paying $3.80 a gallon for gasoline? Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs Group (NYSE: GS) CEO, argued that it was all supply and demand so quit your bellyaching. I thought speculation was playing a big part -- traders who bought oil and sold the dollar to drive up the price. Indeed, a few months agao I found a source who thinks 60% of the volume was from speculators.

Seems even that was too low an estimate. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has analyzed the books of oil traders and calculated that 81% of oil trading volume was conducted by speculators.

Guess who broke open the opportunity for oil speculators to trade oil in a loosely regulated fashion? Goldman. The Post reports that In 1991, its J. Aron unit argued that "it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms."

Bloomberg News reports that two more big banks -- JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) have made offers of $7 billion to 30,000 holders of Auction Rate Securities (ARS) -- those long-term securities whose yields reset in weekly auctions until the auctions failed this February. JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley also agreed to $60 million worth of fines. This brings to five the number of large firms that have settled so far. The Wall Street Journal reports that of the big firms that have yet to settle, Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) is proving to be among the most unhelpful to its clients.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal's James Stewart, who first got me writing about the ARS catastrophe, has finally broken his silence. And he seems to think that the ARS mess is much worse than he originally thought back in February. Stewart was shocked that brokers were unloading this toxic waste on customers so they could get it off of their books and out of the accounts of their executives. Stewart's reaction struck me as surprisingly naive -- particularly considering his long track record of reporting on Wall Street misdeeds.

Nevertheless, the problems with the frozen ARS continue to stress out investors who fell victim to Wall Street's chicanery. Among the top 10 municipal ARS issuers, the following have yet to offer any restitution to ARS holders (the value of their 2007 ARS issuance is in parentheses):

• Goldman Sachs ($4.3 B)
• Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) ($3.7 B)
• RBC Capital Markets ($1.2 B)
• Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) ($1.1 B)
• Wachovia (NYSE: WB) ($0.6 B)

Wall Street has a habit of riding its booms a bit too long. And that leads to collapse, layoffs, and hand wringing about the future. But it looks like Wall Street is already moving forward. And that means exporting its future by taking its finance franchise to cash rich countries and out of the canyons of Wall Street.

Wall Street's boom and bust cycles tend to eclipse a decade. In the 1980s, junk-bond fueled takeovers created massive amounts of wealth -- and also led to the collapse of junk-bond issuer Drexel Burnham. Wall Street licked its wounds for a few years and by the mid-1990s it had reinvented itself as the headquarters for Internet initial public offerings. That bubble burst in 2000. Then the Fed cut rates to 1% and Wall Street reemerged as a packager of mortgages -- along with servicing hedge funds and private equity moguls.

That all ended last August and the collapse of that bubble led to the demise of Bear Stearns and Countrywide and the loss of about $8 trillion worth of wealth. The New York Times reports that the latest collapse has cost 80,000 finance jobs as well. But Wall Street is already mapping out its future by following the money. And the Times pinpoints where Wall Street thinks that money resides -- based on the growth in the number of Wall Street people moving to various global money centers.

BusinessWeek reports that Wall Street has its eye on a new pot of cash -- your pension. And it's a mighty big pot -- $2.3 trillion. But Wall Street is not looking at the entire pension industry, just a $500 billion portion known as "frozen plans" that are closed to new employees and whose benefits are capped. McKinsey forecasts that frozen plans will triple to a hefty $1.5 trillion by 2013.

As usual, Wall Street's plan to buy these frozen pensions will line its own pockets and it will help companies as well. For example, if Wall Street charged a 2% management fee, that alone would generate $30 billion in revenues by 2013 if it bought all the frozen plans, but that fee income is probably the tip of the iceberg.

Companies are eager to dump their frozen pension plans. Why? These limping plans weigh down corporate balance sheet and new accounting rules will require companies to mark the value of their pension assets to market each quarter. In a down market, that could wipe out a company's operating profits.

Does America really need an economy that depends on creating new bubbles to get us out of the mess caused by the bursting of old ones? Is it possible to replace this with an economic system that generates growth without bubbles? I think the answers to these questions are No and Yes.

The most recent example of this bubble economy is the way the dot-com frenzy's aftermath was replaced by a debt bubble, which was focused heavily on a now-imploding mortgage-backed securities (MBS) industry. The dot-com bubble expanded thanks to the public's insatiable appetite for dot-com IPOs, regardless of whether the issuer was or could become profitable. The MBS bubble grew thanks to rock-bottom interest rates, rising housing prices and institutional investor demand for higher "risk-free" yields, all of which ignored the cost of a market reversal.

But the MBS part of the current bubble may not be the last to burst. There are also the leveraged loans that fueled a boom in private equity -- a market which has lost 70% of its business in the last year. Thankfully, massive defaults in such loans have yet to occur. The New York Times reports that capital-starved banks are starting to limit commercial and industrial loans that fuel normal business expansion. It reports that such loans have dropped 3% since 2007, from $3.36 trillion to $3.27 trillion.

Six months of 2008 are now behind us and the stock market has not been a friendly place to most investors. Stability that was once found in household names that were industry giants is gone, and they have now been brought to their knees.

Many of them were the stocks we might have looked to in the past for stability, so you can be sure I put forward my five candidates with a little trepidation, but forward I go anyway. First a little review is in order.

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) dropped from around $53 per share last year to around $30 in January and we can buy it today for around $17. Even at that price Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) has downgraded it to a sell and thinks there is more bad news to come. Citigroup was the largest bank in the world. Not any more.

General Motors (NYSE: GM) was the largest car maker in the world. That was before the stock tumbled from $43 to its current $11 range. A crushing blow to long time investors hoping that someone in the company could stop the ship from sinking.