The problem I have with this dogmatic definition of a bear market rally is the following: Assuming (and this isn’t a forecast, since I really haven’t the foggiest idea where stock markets will be in six or 12 months’ time) the S&P 500 moved up to 1350 and then declined to 500, as an investor should you care if the move to 1350 — a 100% gain! — was a bear market rally?

My impression is that investors’ fixation on the recent rally being a bear market rally has actually kept most investors on the sidelines and hoarding cash. Now, put yourself in the shoes of a fund manager who, in the last 18 months, has lost 50% of his clients’ money and missed the recent rally (34% for the S&P 500). What is he likely to do? I would think that he would be inclined to purchase equities as they correct the sharp advance since early March, especially as the economic news in the near term becomes less negative.

Based on our conversations with numerous managers in recent weeks, we believe that most quantitative managers’ portfolios were not positioned in expectation of a rally. Of the nearly 80 managers we have talked to, only one manager said they were up since March 9th and the clear majority admitted to being notably down or stopped out on their positions. These managers were both long-only and long-short quant managers using market neutral and non-market neutral strategies, sector neutral and non-sector neutral strategies, longer term and intermediate-term holding periods. It is fair to say that just about everyone is bewildered and trying to understand when this rally will end.

Another factor to consider is that there has been a significant improvement in the technical position of world stock markets. In the US the largest number of new 12-month lows was reached in October. At the November 21 low at 741 for the S&P 500, the number of new lows had already contracted, and even more so at the index’s March 6 low at 666. Also, market breadth and the number of stocks moving above their 200-day moving averages have taken a decisive turn for the better, indicating that the stock market advance is broadening and that the number of stocks that have bottomed out (at least in the intermediate turn) is expanding.

I have explained repeatedly in the past that if a government is really determined to try and postpone an inevitable collapse by “printing money” in order to lift or support asset prices, it can be done. However, the result of such a monetary policy is to lower the purchasing power of its paper currency, with catastrophic long-term consequences for its economic and financial volatility.

It forces individuals and institutions with cash to buy something…anything. So, this cash is channeled into gold and/or different paper currencies, commodities, equities, bonds, real estate, and consumer goods and services, but obviously with different intensities and at different times. For instance, at some times, such as in 2008, more money will be allocated to gold; while at other times, such as since early March, more money will flow into equities and industrial commodities. It is well understood that these money flows are driven largely by speculative activity (and more than a little dose of manipulation). The result in all asset markets is very high volatility and price fluctuations that don’t appear to make any sense to most market participants and observers who don’t understand the new rules of the investment game that were brought about by “money printing”.

This is where we are today, irrespective of whether or not you and I like policies of “quantitative easing, massive bailouts, and frightening fiscal deficits” and their long-term consequences! Another positive factor for stock markets is that a large number of Asian stock markets and individual stocks in the region had already bottomed out in October and November of 2008 and didn’t confirm the new low in the S&P in early March.

In Asia, the Taiwan and Shanghai indexes, and Korea’s Kospi Index, are all up by more than 50% from their late October 2008 lows. (The Shenzhen Index is up 90%.) But it is not only the Asian equity markets that have outperformed the US and Western European markets over the last few months; since late January 2009, the RTS Russian Index is up 66% and the MSCI Emerging Market ETF is up by 55% from its early November 2008 low.

This is not to say that the global economy is about to embark on a strong and sustainable growth phase. It also doesn’t mean that a new bull market in global equities à la 1982– 2000 has begun. But I think that, at least in nominal terms (inflation-adjusted), the global printing presses being run by the world’s central banks and fiscal deficits have begun to impact asset prices positively. Therefore, in the case of resource and mining stocks, as well as Asian equities (and, for that matter, most emerging and other stock markets around the globe), the lows thatwere reached between October and March of this year are likely to hold — that is, for now.

The markets that have the highest probability of having made major longer-term lows are resource-related equities, emerging markets, and Japan. Conversely, the asset market that has the highest probability of having made a secular high (such as Japan in 1989, or the Nasdaq in March 2000) is the US long-term government bond market.

Despite a still-weakening economy and massive quantitative easing, long-term bond yields appear to be on the verge of breaking out on the upside. I have listed again below all the equity recommendations I have made since December 2008. Some of these equities have already moved up substantially (resource and mining companies, in particular) and, therefore, I would only buy most of these recommendations on a correction.

In addition, a number of BRIC and other (mostly emerging market) closed-end country funds and ETS were recommended, such as Brazil ETF (EWZ), the Templeton Russia Fund (TRF), the Greater China Fund (GCH), the Asia Pacific Fund (APB), Taiwan iShares (EWT), the Japanese ETF (EWJ), the Japan Smaller Capitalization Fund (JOF), the Morgan Stanley India Fund (IIF), the Turkish Fund (TKF), and the MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM).

In the US, late last year we recommended buying the iShares iBox Investment Grade Corporate Bond (LQD) and Nicholas Applegate Convertible & Income Fund (NCV), while earlier this year we recommended the accumulation of stocks of high-tech companies such as Cisco (CSCO), Intel (INTL), Oracle (ORCL), and Yahoo (YHOO). More recently, we recommended beaten-down insurance companies and financials as rebound candidates, including Leucadia National (LUK) and CNA Financial (CNA), Citigroup (C), the BKX, the Financial Bull 3x Shares (FAS), and the Financials Select Sector SPDR.

The market’s advance had been broadening and that more and more groups such as airlines (AMR), homebuilders (TOL, CTX, HOV), and cyclicals such as Dow Chemical (DOW), International Paper (IP), and Alcoa (AA) are showing signs of having bottomed out. Among commodities, I am particularly intrigued by natural gas. There are natural gas ETFs (UNG, GAZ), but costs are high. A better way is probably just to buy future contracts, or Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) or the First Trust ISE Revere Natural Gas Index Fund (FCG).

Source: What to Buy…or Not Buy

Take this one…

According to “new analysis” from mform.co.uk, those still mad enough to want to get on the housing ladder but finding it hard to do so “can still beat the credit crunch by teaming up” with their friends, siblings or even (via websites such as sharedspaces.com) with complete strangers to get a mortgage.

It seems that up to 42 home loan providers, i.e. around 46% of lenders, ranging from regional building societies to major names such as Abbey, HSBC, Woolwich and Cheltenham & Gloucester, are still allowing multiple borrowers to apply jointly for a loan, with four people the typical maximum. And amazingly, some lenders set no limit on how many people can make the application, says the online adviser.

We hope that anyone tempted to join in such an arrangement exercises more common sense than this mixed bag of loan providers. When everything was going well, there might have been a tenuous case for jumping on the ‘property ladder’ using the multiple application route – even if based on the greater fool theory that there’s always someone more stupid who’ll pay a higher price. At least if it all went wrong the shared space in question could have been flogged to a greater fool fast.

But now, as house prices have started to tumble…forget it! The moment that negative equity raises its ugly head how likely is it that one-time friends, let alone strangers, are going to agree to remain trapped together in a starter home? Just watch those payment defaults rise and forced sales start to mount.

And who will be the winners in the battles about when to sell, how to sell and who owns what? The lawyers, of course. Though any applicants for this kind of mortgage won’t be the only idiots in the deal: the fact that such schemes are still being touted shows that too many of our big lenders still haven’t accepted the fact that house prices are heading south in a big way, for a long time.

How to chuck the UK’s financial credibility out of the window

That is, of course, assuming the economy isn’t bailed out with huge doses of extra liquidity. The next scary story comes from Peter Spencer, chief economist of Ernst & Young’s Item Club. He’s just warned that the Bank of England will “crucify” consumers unless the Treasury lets it abandon its current 2% target for the consumer price index (CPI).

If the 2% CPI target stays in place, interest rates won’t be able to fall, the Bank won’t be able to pump any more cash into the system to bail out the multiple application nitwits and Britain, says Spencer, will face an unnecessarily deep and painful economic slump.

According to the Telegraph, Professor Spencer feels that controlling the volatile elements of the CPI is too big a task for the Bank. So it should instead be left to focus only on “core inflation”, which excludes volatile (read rising) items such as food and energy prices.

This might sound compelling – and it would certainly make the Bank’s job easier – but it isn’t. This wouldn’t just move the goalposts but relocate the whole pitch somewhere else.

That doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done before, of course. It has. Only in 2003 did the Treasury alter the target from RPIX (the Retail Price Index excluding mortgage interest payments) to the European-harmonised CPI, which doesn’t reflect housing costs.

That caused trouble enough – it set the stage for the low interest rate environment, the personal debt crisis and the house price bubble of the last few years – but to change the target again would be to just chuck what little financial credibility the UK has left out of the window. As it is, long-term index-linked bonds now imply that CPI’s heading for 3.7% and staying there. We might as well give up any pretence of trying to maintain the value of pound sterling right now.

The answer to the dodgy debt problem: rig the prices

And talking of value, here’s today’s final shocking story. Remember all those bankers who blew more billions than most people can imagine on a load of bets on dodgy debt?

Well, their spokesmen have come up with another wizard wheeze. And this time it’s to do with something called ‘marking-to-market’, in other words, the system of valuing any assets they hold at prevailing market prices rather than at their cost price.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), whose board comprises 20 Western institutions including most of the biggest losers in the crisis, says that while marking-to-market as a system has “generally proven highly valuable”, it isn’t any more. Instead it is responsible for creating a downward spiral in asset prices.

So the IIF wants to do some of its own goalpost shifting, proposing that, in “disrupted markets”, banks should be allowed to value instruments using their own models or at book value. The IIF wants “stable valuations” that “increase market confidence”. It also wants lenders to have the flexibility to move assets from trading books onto banking books, where mark-to-market rarely applies.

In short, the IIF thinks that market pricing is far too basic for the titans of high finance. So they want to ignore the market and its unstable prices, and to be able to value their mistakes at whatever figure looks best. Unbelievable! We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.

Source: Three Shocking Examples of the Financial Plight We’re In

Yet India remains one of the world’s great growth opportunities and investors at this level may well be getting in on the ground floor of a very major long-term profit play.

Let me explain …

India’s economy expanded at a breezy 9% clip last year. The rate of growth is expected to throttle back to about 8% this year, but that’s still excellent, justifying fairly lofty price-earnings ratios in the local stock market. Even so, market valuations there do not now appear excessive; the overall market is trading at about 18 times earnings, which is not particularly high given the economy’s growth potential.

As with China, if India can get its house in order – both politically and economically – we’re looking at the very real prospect of very rapid growth before that country’s standard of living starts to approach that of the West, causing India’s rate of growth to slow dramatically.

The bottom line: With 1.1 billion potential Indian consumers, we’re looking at a huge potential purchasing power for all kinds of consumer products.
Now, there are some potential pitfalls to be concerned about in the near term.

For instance, the current Indian government, in office since 2004, is a coalition between the Congress Party, which had ruled India for most of the period since independence, though without any great success, and the Communists (who are a pretty mild lot, but are nevertheless pro-government and fairly anti-market).

Although India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is a moderate, the government as a whole has seen India’s economic emergence as an opportunity to fund favorite projects and social programs. For instance, this year’s budget proposes an 18% increase in public spending for the 12 months that end next March, over and above the 24% increase in public spending for the year-to-March 2008. Even after several years of rapid growth, the state budget deficit (the federal shortfall plus the local deficit) is around 7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With any kind of downturn at all, that 7% could quickly swell to 10% – a point at which deficits become difficult to finance.

Now there is some hope on the horizon – an election is due in May 2009, at the latest, and the center-right opposition is currently leading in opinion polls. Even so, shrewd investing veterans know better than to rely on that alone for their investment profits.

The other current problem is inflation, right now running at 8% per annum, which means that it’s higher than the level of short-term domestic interest rates. Higher commodity and energy prices have affected India as they have other countries: India’s position is made more difficult by the poverty that afflicts much of the population. The Indian government, like the good socialists that they are, has seen fit to restrict exports of rice and to subsidize other foods and gasoline (the latter makes no sense socially, since automobiles are largely owned by the middle classes, not the poor). Needless to say, these subsidies and restrictions make the budget deficit worse; and they will pose an additional problem in the future, when they are lifted and consumer prices soar in response.

Having described some of the challenges that India faces, let’s be clear on a very key point: No market is perfect. Ironically, if it were, it would be a much less alluring investment opportunity. I mean, let’s face it: If India didn’t face the problems that we’ve detailed here, the market would be trading at a hefty 40 times earnings, well above its current multiple of 18.

The underlying truth remains that economic growth has achieved real momentum in India, that any government we can picture will do no more than slow the country’s economy incrementally, and that the economics of providing manufacturing and services from a base in India – especially in the era of the Internet – is so compelling from a cost and logistical standpoint that it must inevitably continue to produce huge profits for long-term investors for decades to come.

When it comes to India, it’s almost as if the central question no longer is “how much should I invest in India?” but rather “how can I afford not to invest in India?”

Let’s take a look at how best to invest in this fast-growing economy.

India Profit Plays

The simplest way to invest in India is via an Exchange Traded Note (ETN), in this case the Barclays IPath India Index ETN (INP), whose returns are linked to the Morgan Stanley Capital International India Index (unlike a conventional ETF, an ETN is technically a 30-year note, so it distributes assets to holders at the end of 30 years). In January, INP was trading at about a 15% premium to its net asset value (NAV). But now it’s trading very close to its NAV, having slipped backward.

As an alternative you might consider the Morgan Stanley India Investment Fund (IIF) or the India Fund (IFN), both actively managed funds investing in India, which currently trade at discounts to NAV of 2.0% and 0.3% respectively.

Individual shares to look at would include Infosys Technologies Ltd., (INFY) the India-based software giant, which following the fall in the Indian market has declined to a fairly reasonable 19 times earnings, or 16 times next year’s earnings.

Another possibility is the pharmaceutical company, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. (RDY), which, as a major generic drugs manufacturer, can expect to benefit from the expiration of many U.S. pharmaceutical patents in the next five years, and right now carries a P/E ratio of only 15.

Finally, you might consider an India-based automaker that’s been in the news a lot recently: Tata Motors Ltd. (TTM), which is trading at only 11 times earnings, reflecting the risk involved in a medium-sized company taking on the world automotive industry. In the luxury end of the market, Tata recently bought Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford Motor Co. (F), for $2.3 billion. At the economy end of the market, Tata has announced the Nano, a car for the Indian market that will sell for $2,500 – 40% cheaper than any other car on the world market. And that’s after Tata had a smash hit with a light truck designed for the India market, as well.

As I’ve previously articulated in several Money Morning articles, it is highly likely that – years from now – the worldwide center of auto-making will migrate from Detroit to someplace in either China or India, or both, thanks to the combined allure of low costs and potentially huge consumer markets. That means that Tata, as India’s largest manufacturer, is likely to be a key player in the global auto market of the future.

So if you know what the ultimate outcome of that global game is going to be, why not deal yourself a winning hand right now, and then sit back and wait for this scenario (and your profits) to play out?