What if politics was like the stock market and you could buy politicians you like and sell the ones you didn't without envelopes of sequentially numbered small money orders in the same Chinese handwriting or cold cash hidden in the freezer?

For those rich enough -- they can buy a politician or two. The rest of us probably could rent a couple minutes of time with a big campaign contribution, and get lots of promises from a politician. Knowing the integrity of politicians and the value of political promises I am not sure how good of an investment politicians turn out to be.

Maybe you are one of the people smart enough to pick up a couple of bucks around the office at election time with bets on who is going to win. I have to admit I lost the last political bet I made. Good thing it was only a buck. What if there was a stock market where you could buy and sell shares in the candidates? The candidates would move up and down every day and those of us who are financial analysts could quantify the likelihood of people winning based on how bets are placed.

Now I am not into horse racing, poker or sports betting; but I do have to check up on the political bets every once in a while. With real money on the line there is a big incentive to be right. If you do not like the odds you can jump into the market and take the other side of the action. So what do the bookies think is going to happen in the coming election? Well it appears that Clinton is the favorite for the Democratic nominee with 67.8% and the Republican Rudy Giuliani leads the GOP with 35%.

Continue reading Is President Hillary 43% likely? You can bet on it!

Is President Hillary 43% likely? You can bet on it! originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Gallery: Crocs: Love 'em or hate 'em?

Crocs banned at Massachusetts elementary school originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

MOST NOTEWORTHY:

• Armor Holdings Inc (NYSE: AH) was downgraded to Neutral from Overweight at JP Morgan based on the news that the company will be sold to BAE Systems PLC (BAESY) for $88 a share in cash. The firm expects the deal to close with no higher offers. Bear Stearns cut Armor Holdings to Peer Perform from Outperform and Friedman Billings cut shares of the vehicle armorer to Market Perform from Outperform.

• Alcan Inc (NYSE: AL) was cut to Neutral from Buy at Bank of America and DA Davidson following the Alcoa (AA) bid.

• Baird cut Advance Auto Parts (NYSE: AAP) to Neutral from Outperform following CEO Michael Coppola's resignation. Kevin Dann downgraded Advance to Hold from Buy to reflect an increased level of uncertainty following Mr. Coppola's departure.

• Lehman Brothers downgraded Reuters Group (NASDAQ: RTRSY) to Equal Weight from Overweight pending further information on the Thompson Corp (TOC) bid; Credit Suisse cut shares to Neutral from Outperform and Deutsche Bank cut shares to Hold from Buy.

• Matrix downgraded UST Inc (NYSE: UST) to Sell from Hold.

• Needham cut Entegris, Inc (NASDAQ: ENTG) to Hold from Buy.

• UBS downgraded shares of Golden Star Resources (AMEX: GSS) to Reduce from Neutral.

• Wachovia cut Rowan Cos (NYSE: RDC) to Market Perform from Outperform.

Analyst downgrades 5-08-07: AH, AL, AAP, ROC and RTRSY originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Tue, 08 May 2007 10:54:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Watching the flurry of information industry merger announcements in the last week or so, I am struck by a point that analysts seem to be missing -- it's important to know what kinds of information people are willing to pay for. In all the chatter about News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) bid for Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ), Microsoft Corp.'s (NASDAQ: MSFT) discussions with Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), and The Thomson Corp.'s (NYSE: TOC) proposed acquisition of Reuters PLC (ADR) (NYSE: RTRSY), the important point that's been lost is that people will pay up for some kinds of information and expect other types to be free.

I first began thinking about this in 1984 when I worked on a consulting project for the New York Stock Exchange on the threat it faced from electronic stock quote providers. In 1986, I published an article based on this, Strategic Developments in Investment Information. The point of that article that's still relevant today is that people will pay good money for information if it satisfies three tests:

• It's proprietary;
• It helps minimize the risk associated with a big investment; and
• The price of the information is a small proportion of that investment.

What relevance does this have for all these information industry mergers?

Continue reading Information-industry mergers: What will people pay for?

Information-industry mergers: What will people pay for? originally appeared on BloggingStocks on Sat, 05 May 2007 16:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.