Jerry Yang After Saying "No" to Microsoft's Offer

This is a guy who sucked so many eggs, that he decided to say “no” to Microsoft’s buyout offer, even though they were offering a MASSIVE premium to Yahoo’s stock price.

Just so you know, that offer was to buy Yahoo for over $40 a share. At the time of the offer, it was trading under $30 a share. Today, Yahoo trades at $12.

It’s not that shocking that Jerry Yang was compelled to give up his position at Yahoo. After all, he lost shareholders one of the most lucrative paydays ever (right as the economy was plummeting).

But believe me when I say that Jerry Yang leaving is good news. Just take a look at the chart below to see why I think that…

What’s interesting about this chart is that Yahoo prices bottomed right as Jerry Yang was leaving Yahoo (he resigned on November 18th).

After that announcement, shareholders took Yahoo stock up over 40%. And since then, Yahoo has continued to make higher lows in an attempt to rally past $14 a share.

Adding strength is the fact that the Slow Stochastic (at the bottom of the chart) is oversold right now.
Oversold means just what you think it does – something has been sold too much. And if something has been sold too much, then eventually buyers will swoop in and snatch up shares at the more attractive, lower prices.

If you notice, the previous two times Yahoo was oversold, it went on to rally at least 15%.

While it is oversold, we also see Yahoo hitting the bottom of its newly formed support channel. And lastly, we see Yahoo starting to use its 50-day moving average as a support, not resistance.

This means Yahoo shares are primed for a climb over the next two weeks. Buying shares is a great move, but buying call options is a better one.

But while Yang insists the deal will generate an extra $800 million a year in revenue, shareholders and analysts alike are skeptical the company will be worth the $33 a share Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) was offering just months ago.

In accordance with the deal reached last week, ads from both Google and Yahoo will appear on Yahoo’s search results. Yahoo has acknowledged that Google is more efficient in targeting online search audiences, estimating the larger search engine generates up to 70% more revenue per click for its ads. And it hopes that access to Google’s AdSense technology will enhance its own targeting capabilities.

According to Yahoo, the deal could boost cash flow by $250 million to $450 million in the first 12 months of implementation.

Google, on the other hand, will receive added revenue from having its ads posted on the country’s No. 2 search engine.

“Clearly, it is time to move on, and we believe that this agreement with Google does so by strengthening our competitiveness,” Yang said in a statement.

What Yang would like to move on from is a $44.6 billion failed takeover bid from Microsoft that would have netted Yahoo shareholders $33 a share.

Yahoo- which has suffered through eight straight quarters of declining profits- rejected Microsoft’s offer Feb. 11, saying it substantially undervalued the company’s worth. The original $31-per-share offer valued Yahoo at a 62% premium on Feb. 1.

After its second bid was rejected, a frustrated Microsoft turned its back and walked away. This infuriated Yahoo shareholders who had seen the bid as the company’s last chance to regain profitability. A contingent led by Carl Icahn instigated a proxy battle, seeking to oust Yahoo’s current board of directors and replace it with candidates of his choosing.

Icahn owned 10 million Yahoo shares and options to buy 49 million as of May 15, Bloomberg News reported. Investors BP Capital LLC Chairman T. Boone Pickens and hedge-fund manager John Paulson are reportedly backing his slate of nine directors, which includes himself and former Viacom Inc. (VIA) chief Frank Biondi Jr. The attempted coup has major ramifications for the Google deal in that it will be void should Icahn win the battle.

Also, if Microsoft- which Icahn has worked desperately to woo back into discussions- changes its mind and makes another off for the company, it will have to pay Google $250 million to end the partnership.

In addition to interference from activist investors, the deal will also have to clear regulatory hurdles as it couples the nations two largest search engines. Both companies have said the deal does not require regulatory approval, but that they would delay its implementation for up to three and a half months to give the U.S. Department of Justice a chance to review it.

“This collaboration between two technology giants and direct competitors for Internet advertising and search services raises important competition concerns,” Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.), chairman of the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee, said in a statement. “The consequences for advertisers and consumers could be far-reaching and warrant careful review, and we plan to investigate the competitive and privacy implications of this deal further in the Antitrust Subcommittee.”

Microsoft has said in the past that a deal between Yahoo and Google would consolidate more than 90% of the search ad market.

However, even if the deal goes through, Yahoo is basically relying on its biggest rival for growth. Both Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. (MER) and Citigroup Inc. (C) have cut their estimates on Yahoo’s stock price saying advertisers will likely shift more spending over to Google.

Yahoo’s stock fell as low as $21.83 a share, Friday, down more than 7% from Thursday’s close. Even if the deal lives up to Yang’s billing, it seems unlikely the stock will reach the $33 a share Microsoft had offered any time in the near future.

“This [deal] just reaffirms the view that Yahoo, and particularly Jerry Yang and [cofounder] David Filo, blew it,” Mark May, an analyst at Needham & Co. told Bloomberg. “It’s going to be hard for Yahoo to come back from blowing what might be, looking back, the major milestone in Yahoo’s corporate history.”

Source: Yahoo Grasping at Straws with Google Deal

According to Bloomberg: “Yahoo said yesterday it scrapped talks after Microsoft refused to pay the $47.5 billion it offered last month. Instead Yang unveiled a partnership with Google Inc. While that deal may add $800 million to annual sales, it may not be enough to revive the stock, said analyst Colin Gillis of Canaccord Adams.”

“Microsoft originally offered $31 per share in either cash or Microsoft stock, a 62% premium to Yahoo’s Feb. 3 closing price. It boosted the bid to $33 a share, appraising Yahoo at approximately $47.5 billion, but Yahoo refused to accept anything less than $37,” says Jason Simpkins of Money Morning

[In April] Yahoo reported a first-quarter profit of $542 million, or 37 cents per share, up from $142 million, or 10 cents per share last year. It was the company’s first profit increase in nine straight quarters (more than two years).

But a big reason for the jump was a one-time gain of $401 million – a windfall from the sale of Yahoo’s stake in Alibaba.com Ltd.’s (PINK:ALBCF), which came from the Asian Internet company’s initial public offering (IPO).

Excluding one-time items, Yahoo reported earnings of 11 cents a share.

Even with the profit increase, the company continued to lose market share to nemesis Google Inc. (GOOG), the leader in Internet search. Yahoo accounts for 21.3 % of all U.S. searches according to comScore Inc.

That compares with a near 60% sway for its rival, Google, which defied Wall Street’s first-quarter expectations by expanding its revenue nearly four times faster than Yahoo. While Yahoo’s sales climbed 14% last quarter, Google posted a 46% jump in revenue. In April, Yahoo all but acknowledged Google’s victory by outsourcing a small portion of its search advertising to its competitor on a two-week trial basis.

If Yahoo continues using Google’s search advertising system, it will be abandoning its own “Panama” ad system. Launched in February, the Panama initiative set the company back millions of dollars. Even so, it continues to lag behind Google’s AdSense in terms of revenue per search query.

As it worked to bulk up its search capabilities, Yahoo had earlier shelled out $1.63 billion for Overture Services and $235 million for Inktomi. That’s close to $2 billion for search engine service specialists that would for, all intents and purposes, be rendered moot should Yahoo ultimately outsource even more of its search-related business.

While some analysts believe a bigger deal with Google may already be in the works, any serious collaboration between the United States’ two largest web portals would very likely run afoul of U.S. antitrust restrictions.

Google already places ads on more than 67% of searches. The addition of Yahoo would expand its influence to 89% of searches, according to statistics from Hitwise. Microsoft said last month that Google would command more than 90% of the search advertising market.

“While Yahoo may pursue a Google search partnership as a way to appease shareholders through enhanced cash flow, we believe such a deal would face intense anti-trust scrutiny,” Clayton Moran, an analyst with Stanford Group Company, told IDG News Service. “In addition it would cede control of search to Google.”

Moran does not believe Yahoo’s stock will reach the $37 a share value over the next 12 to 18 months.

There have also been rumors that Yahoo will join forces with Time Warner Inc.’s (TWX) AOL or News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox Interactive Media business units. According to the details that have emerged so far, Time Warner would merge a large portion of AOL’s operations with Yahoo and make a cash investment in exchange for a 20% stake in the resulting company. Yahoo would use that cash infusion to buy back some of its own stock.

However, when it comes to Web-search market share, AOL currently ranks fourth, behind Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. So the company that emerged from that combination would be more of a content player than it would be a competitive Web-search firm.

“I’m looking for Microsoft to get aggressive with a buying spree,” Gartner analyst Allen Weiner told IDG. “I think Microsoft should do something quickly to show the world that [the] Yahoo bid wasn’t a setback.”

The company could try to strike a deal of its own with Time Warner or News Corp., or perhaps even with the trendy Facebook.com. Other analysts suspect Microsoft may be beckoned back to Yahoo’s rescue if the company fails to right its course by year’s end.

“Should Yahoo miss expectations in 2008, we would not be surprised to see MSFT come back to the table,” said RBC Captial analyst Ross Sandler.

Two weeks ago, Yahoo Chairman of the Board and co-founder Jerry Yang rebuffed Microsoft’ $47.5 billion (or $33 a share) bid, sending shares down $4.43 (or 15%) to $24.24. That of course didn’t bode well for Icahn, who said he owns 59 million Yahoo shares.

“The board of directors of Yahoo has acted irrationally and lost the faith of shareholders and Microsoft,” Icahn said in his letter. “I sincerely hope you heed the wishes of your shareholders and move expeditiously to negotiate a merger with Microsoft, thereby making a proxy fight unnecessary.”

If necessary, Icahn’ strategy is to seek antitrust clearance from the Federal Trade Commission to purchase up to $2.5 billion worth of shares – about a 6% stake. Also, with all of Yahoo’ 10 board members up for re-election on July 3, Icahn will move to nominate his own list of board candidates, one being Mark Cuban.

Reviving talks with Microsoft won’t be easy, as rhetoric increasingly intensified between Yang and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer during takeover negotiations.

But if anyone has the experience and moxie to push talks further, it’ Icahn, who has used his clout to push action at struggling mobile phone pioneer Motorola Inc. (MOT) and drugmaker ImClone Systems Inc. (IMCL).

Most recently, Icahn has been at the forefront of Blockbuster Inc.’ (BBI) up-to $1.35 billion bid for Circuit City Stores Inc. (CC). If that deal falls through, Icahn said he would acquire the struggling electronics retailer.

In his letter to Yahoo, Icahn said the board “completely botched” a successful merger with Microsoft and that he is acting on shareholders’ behalf to establish a new board.

Icahn also penciled his name in as one of the nominees for Yahoo’ board.
“I think he’ playing his cards pretty smart here,” Troy Mastin, an analyst at William Blair & Co., told Bloomberg Television. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see Microsoft and Yahoo together in the next few months.”

Source: Yahoo ‘Completely Botched’ Microsoft Merger 

“Give me a chance to get my coat off!” came the reply.

One de-coating and a cup of tea later, and Theo was buzzing.

“Jerry Yang just pushed his luck,” he said, referring to Yahoo’s chief executive. “Microsoft were bidding $33 a share; Yang and his board wanted $37. No dice!”

Let’s not forget, before the bid started Yahoo’s share price was below $20. The troubled courtship with Microsoft has served Yahoo shareholders well.

But yesterday the share price took a tumble when the deal looked to be dead. There’s an important lesson investors can draw from all this. It shows how a cantankerous CEO can sometimes turn down a good deal on your behalf.

Now the deal looks like it might go ahead after all. Yang is under pressure from his ultimate bosses – the shareholders. They want to know what plans he has to get the shares from where they currently are – around $25 – to the $33 they would have pocketed from Microsoft.

Theo also points out the contrast with the M&A frenzy of the last few years. When credit was cheap, speculative investors would load up on potential merger and acquisition targets, hoping to bag a nice premium from the predator firm. It was risky, but the potential rewards were worth it (witness the huge premium Royal Bank of Scotland paid for ABN Amro).

If one deal fell through, there was always a reasonable chance someone else would take the suitor’s place. But that was all pre-credit crunch. Yahoo’s share price tumble yesterday showed that such optimism has evaporated from the markets.

“This sort of M&A play is too risky now,” says Theo. “And that goes for Yahoo as well. Stay away!”

I would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky Frank Field!

Labour rebelmeister, Frank Field, is brandishing his trouble-making stick again. Get ready for round two of the 10p tax fight!

Gordon Brown must just wish this issue would go away. It was Brown who, as Chancellor last year, got rid of the rate (a move he must surely now rue). Now, as Prime Minister, he’s presiding over the farcical consequences.

It’s estimated that the change will leave 5.3 million people worse-off (incidentally Gordon the Stubborn is disputing this figure, even though both the Treasury and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have confirmed it).

The Government faced down a backbench revolt by promising to ensure the worst-affected were compensated. Alistair Darling promised to make it all good again. This placated the rebels… for about a week. Now they’ve returned to ask the inevitable question: “Hang on… what are you actually going to do?”

Ah, there’s the rub. Brown says precise measures have been announced. But the message doesn’t seem to have reached his own party. Field and other MPs are baffled by the assertion.

Recommended

Cash in on the loophole Google doesn’t want you to know about!

Imagine cash filling your bank account – on autopilot… Imagine how great life would be if you claimed a guaranteed income each month – with NO day to day work!

Now it’s possible: Just take advantage of the loophole Google doesn’t want you to know about! This is a lucrative, LEGAL ‘crack’ in the Internet… In fact, ANYONE with half a brain can cash in…

Would you like to?

Click here to find out more

And how bad will it look if the Treasury refuses to publish this data.

Brown and Darling are like schoolboys who haven’t done their homework (though, as noted above, Brown insists he has). Now they’re being asked to show teacher their sums…

It’s all just so embarrassing, isn’t it?

Recently, at a party in New York, I mentioned that I had been talking to various groups in the United States and Europe about investment opportunities in the commodities market. Before I could get out one more word, a woman interrupted me. “Commodities!” she exclaimed, with the kind of incredulity in her voice that Manhattanites reserve for people moving to Los Angeles. “But my brother invested in pork bellies and lost his shirt. And he’s an economist!”

Everyone seems to have a relative who took a beating in the commodities market, and this fact (or fiction) is considered sufficient reason that no sane person would ever risk playing around with such dangerous things. That this particular victim was also a professional economist makes the warning seem even more ominous. I, however, couldn’t help laughing.

Billions of dollars are invested in the commodities market every day. Without the commodity futures markets, many of the things that you depend on in life, from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the aluminum in your storm door to the wool in your new suit, would be either scarce or nonexistent, and certainly more expensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Millionaire’s Market Opens Up

You haven’t heard about the millionaires market on the evening news, but soon you will. And then, it’ll be too late. This is a powerful market tool that some of the richest and most successful investors have used to build fortunes. Investors like Jim Rogers.

The doors on this market are finally open for the first time, but they’ll be closing on Monday, May 12. Click here to get your foot in the door…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are several other bromides out there for why “ordinary people” should not invest in commodities, and I want to lay these myths to rest, once and for all, so that we can get on with the more interesting business of how you can begin to make some money investing in the next-generation asset class.

About That Relative of Yours Who Got Wiped Out — He was inexperienced. You can learn. Most likely, he was buying on thin margin — the minimum deposit a broker requires to take a position in a particular commodity — and when the market went against him he lost big-time.

Here’s how it happens: Like stocks, commodities can be bought on margin. Unlike stocks, however, where by law you have to put up at least 50 percent of the price of the shares, the margins on commodities can be even lower than 5 percent: You can buy $100 worth of soybeans for $5. If soybeans go up to $105, you’ve doubled your money. Beautiful. But if soybeans go down $5, you’re wiped out. Not so beautiful.

Experienced, smart speculators can make tons of money buying on margin. They also know that they can lose tons, too. But they can usually afford it. Your relative was in over his head. If he had bought $100 worth of soybeans in the same way that he can buy IBM — for $100 (or maybe even $50) — he would be happy when it goes up $5 and a lot less sad should it go down $5.

Whenever I mention commodities in public, someone always points out that we now live in a high-tech world where natural resources will never be as valuable as they were when we had a smokestack economy. But if you read your history you’ll discover that technological advances are as old as history itself: The introduction of the sleek and beautiful Yankee clipper ship dazzled the world in the mid-nineteenth century, loaded with cargo, sailing down the trade winds at 20 knots and more, averaging more than 400 miles in 24 hours and able to make it from U.S. ports around Cape Horn to Hong Kong in 80 days; within a decade, the clippers had been replaced by the steamship, no faster but not dependent on wind power; and before long the next big thing in transport had taken over, the railroad, which, of course, was the original Internet — and prices in the commodities market still went up.

In the twentieth century came electricity, the telephone, and radio (three more Internets) and then television (a fourth Internet). There was also the automobile, the airplane, the semiconductor — and in the midst of all of these truly revolutionary technological breakthroughs came periodic, multiyear commodity bull markets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~Special~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hedge Against a Recession — And Make up to 286% Gains

By simply placing your money in some specific companies, you can make impressive gains, even as the economy falls apart. You see, some companies actually do better during a recession. Can you pinpoint which ones?

We’ll help you by clicking here. Don’t be the last one on a sinking ship…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the supply and demand in raw materials is seriously out of whack, the emergence of new technology will not necessarily restore the balance quickly. To be sure, changes in technology, for example, have made the economy less dependent on oil. But we still use plenty of it, and whenever there isn’t enough prices will rise. Computers or robots may do amazing things, but they cannot find oil or copper where there is none or make sugar, cotton, coffee, or livestock grow faster than nature allows. We can put in orders all day long on our computers for lead, but all that Internet technology will be in vain if there are no new lead mines. Technology can neither feed us nor keep us warm, and the demand for commodities will never disappear.

“But My Stock Broker Tells Me That Investing in Commodities Is Risky.”

Tell me again about all those Cisco shares you owned back in 2000. Or JDS Uniphase, or Global Crossing? So many risky stocks made the turning of the new millennium a not so happy time for many, who watched their portfolios evaporate.

If you do your homework and remain rational and responsible, you can invest in commodities with perhaps less risk than playing the stock market. You don’t need me to emphasize that investing in anything is a risky business. But let me point out something that you might not have realized: There has been more volatility in the NASDAQ in recent years than in any commodities index. Cisco, Yahoo! and even Microsoft have been much more volatile than soybeans, sugar, or metals. Compared with the risk record of most tech stocks, commodities look safe enough to be part of any organization’s “widows and orphans fund.”

And let me remind you of one more important difference between commodities and stocks: Commodities cannot go to zero, while shares in Enron can (and did).

Regards,
Jim Rogers

But with Yahoo! stock tanking and rival search engine company Google continuing to out pace Yahoo! the question is whether Yang’s “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is enough to revive the flagging internet giant.

Jerry Yang, who co-founded Yahoo! with David Filo, did at least say something about the failed Microsoft bid. He said:

The last 13 weeks have been a remarkable time here at Yahoo!. We’ve been living under the microscope in a way we never have before. There has been greater attention than ever on our strategy and our ability to execute against it. Some even questioned whether Microsoft’s unsolicited proposal would distract us from our mission, just as we were beginning to really push the pedal on our strategy.

Those people underestimated the determination of Yahoo!’s incredible people, spirit and culture.

But Yahoo! watchers note that “spirit doesn’t keep your stock around $30.”

The bottom line is that Jerry Yang and Yahoo! are facing some painful realities this morning after spurning Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

According to Bloomberg, “Citigroup Inc. and ThinkPanmure LLC analysts cut their ratings on Yahoo’s stock to “sell” after Microsoft withdrew its offer. Microsoft said this weekend it walked away when Yahoo demanded $37 a share after the $44.6 billion bid was raised by about $5 billion to $33 a share.”

It’s important to remember that Yahoo’s troubles didn’t start with the failed Microsoft bid. Yahoo! shares fell 32% on the Nasdaq in the year before Microsoft’s offer. And rival Google expanded revenue more than three times faster than Yahoo last quarter.

Click here for a in-depth analysis of Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo!

In a statement, the software giant said it failed to win over Yahoo’s board of directors – even after boosting its bid by $5 billion. To move forward from here would require a shift into hostile mode, Microsoft said, a time-consuming and uncertainty filled process that would make Yahoo “undesirable as an acquisition candidate.”

“After careful consideration, we believe the economics demanded by Yahoo do not make sense for us, and it is in the best interests of Microsoft stockholders, employees and other stakeholders to withdraw our proposal,” Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steven A. Ballmer said in a statement.

It’s only been three months after heavyweight Microsoft launched its half-stock, half-cash buyout offer for Yahoo, offering a 62% premium over Yahoo’s market price. Microsoft had offered to boost its bid for Yahoo from $31 a share to $33 a share – adding that afore-mentioned extra $5 billion.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, even that higher price was nowhere near the $37-a-share offer that Yahoo co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang said it would take to get the deal done.

The details of the negotiations were contained in a letter that Ballmer sent to Yang; Microsoft released the letter to the media over the weekend. According to the letter, that extra $4 per share would have increased the cost of the deal by another $5 billion – bringing the total to nearly $55 billion.

Yahoo rejected Microsoft’s first $44.6 billion takeover offer Feb. 11, saying the bid substantially undervalued the company’s worth. The $31-per-share offer valued Yahoo at a 62% premium on Feb. 1, but Yahoo has traded as high as $31 a share as recently as November. Yang feels Yahoo is worth more than Microsoft is offering, even though the $33 per share offer is only about a dollar off of Yahoo’s 52-week high of $34.08.

Yahoo has consistently been losing market share to Google Inc.’s (GOOG) market dominance and tried to engage a number of other competitors such as Time Warner Inc. (TWX) and News Corp. (NWS) about possible partnerships, but with little success.

“This process has underscored our unique and valuable strategic position,” Yang said in the statement, MarketWatch reported. “With the distraction of Microsoft’s unsolicited proposal now behind us, we will be able to focus all of our energies on executing the most important transition in our history so that we can maximize our potential to the benefit of our shareholders, employees, partners and users.”

As late as Friday, Yahoo shares jumped 7% with a gain of $1.86 to close at $28.67 on reports of “intensifying” talks with Microsoft and an expected deal. But with the announcement on Saturday, some analysts feel the formal rescinding of the offer and the fact that Microsoft seems unwilling to resort to a proxy contest could put downward pressure on Yahoo shares, sending the stock back down towards its 52-week low of $18.58. If that happens, Yang and Yahoo’s board of directors could find themselves with a slew of lawsuits filed by angry Yahoo shareholders.

Everyone seems to have a relative who took a beating in the commodities market, and this fact (or fiction) is considered sufficient reason that no sane person would ever risk playing around with such dangerous things. That this particular victim was also a professional economist makes the warning seem even more ominous. I, however, couldn’t help laughing.

Billions of dollars are invested in the commodities market every day. Without the commodity futures markets, many of the things that you depend on in life, from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the aluminum in your storm door to the wool in your new suit, would be either scarce or nonexistent, and certainly more expensive.

To be sure, investing in anything has its risks. A lot of Ph.D.s in economics lost money in the dot-com debacle, too. (On New Year’s Day in 2002, the Wall Street Journal published its annual survey of economists for the upcoming year. Although the economy had been sagging for almost a year, not one of the 55 economists thought that it was in for a serious decline. One hundred percent were wrong – and proof that Ph.D. economists are as prone to mob psychology as the rest of us.)

There are several other bromides out there for why “ordinary people” should not invest in commodities, and I want to lay these myths to rest, once and for all, so that we can get on with the more interesting business of how you can begin to make some money investing in the next-generation asset class.

About That Relative of Yours Who Got Wiped Out – He was inexperienced. You can learn. Most likely, he was buying on thin margin – the minimum deposit a broker requires to take a position in a particular commodity – and when the market went against him he lost big-time.

Here’s how it happens: Like stocks, commodities can be bought on margin. Unlike stocks, however, where by law you have to put up at least 50 percent of the price of the shares, the margins on commodities can be even lower than 5 percent: You can buy $100 worth of soybeans for $5. If soybeans go up to $105, you’ve doubled your money. Beautiful. But if soybeans go down $5, you’re wiped out. Not so beautiful.

Experienced, smart speculators can make tons of money buying on margin. They also know that they can lose tons, too. But they can usually afford it. Your relative was in over his head. If he had bought $100 worth of soybeans in the same way that he can buy IBM – for $100 (or maybe even $50) – he would be happy when it goes up $5 and a lot less sad should it go down $5.

Whenever I mention commodities in public, someone always points out that we now live in a high-tech world where natural resources will never be as valuable as they were when we had a smokestack economy. But if you read your history you’ll discover that technological advances are as old as history itself: The introduction of the sleek and beautiful Yankee clipper ship dazzled the world in the mid-nineteenth century, loaded with cargo, sailing down the trade winds at 20 knots and more, averaging more than 400 miles in 24 hours and able to make it from U.S. ports around Cape Horn to Hong Kong in 80 days; within a decade, the clippers had been replaced by the steamship, no faster but not dependent on wind power; and before long the next big thing in transport had taken over, the railroad, which, of course, was the original Internet – and prices in the commodities market still went up.

In the twentieth century came electricity, the telephone, and radio (three more Internets) and then television (a fourth Internet). There was also the automobile, the airplane, the semiconductor – and in the midst of all of these truly revolutionary technological breakthroughs came periodic, multiyear commodity bull markets.

Even a revolutionary technological breakthrough in a particular commodity-related industry will not necessarily lower prices. For decades, drilling below 5,000 feet or offshore was virtually impossible. Then in the 1960s the Hughes diamond drill bit was invented and an explosion of technological advances in oil drilling and exploration followed. Drilling efficiency – and oil deposits – were available that had been unthinkable before this technological breakthrough. Soon there were wells 25,000 feet deep and offshore oilrigs multiplied around the world. Yet oil prices went up more than 1,000 percent in the 15-year period between 1965 and 1980.

When the supply and demand in raw materials is seriously out of whack, the emergence of new technology will not necessarily restore the balance quickly. To be sure, changes in technology, for example, have made the economy less dependent on oil. But we still use plenty of it, and whenever there isn’t enough prices will rise. Computers or robots may do amazing things, but they cannot find oil or copper where there is none or make sugar, cotton, coffee, or livestock grow faster than nature allows. We can put in orders all day long on our computers for lead, but all that Internet technology will be in vain if there are no new lead mines. Technology can neither feed us nor keep us warm, and the demand for commodities will never disappear.

“But Isn’t It Only Speculation and the Lower Dollar That Are Inflating Prices?”

Certainly, speculators who jump in and out of commodities can push up prices. And the dollar has been a pale remnant of itself – down against the euro almost 40 percent from the beginning of 2002 until the start of 2004 and at a three-year low against the Japanese yen. Since commodities are traded in dollars, a weak dollar will make prices appear higher. Crude oil rose 64 percent in dollars over that two-year period, but only 16 percent in euros.

But the dollar strengthened in the spring of 2004, and a funny thing happened: Commodity prices kept going up. The global recovery, particularly in Asia, was for real. We are now watching a fundamental structural shift in commodities markets, and it is called “supply” – and “China,” a nation that will be consuming extraordinary supplies of all kinds of commodities for years to come. I will explain why in more detail in a later chapter. For now, however, here’s the story: dwindling supplies and increasing demand.

And the dollar has nothing to do with either. Let me also re-mind you of the 1970s, when inflation in the U.S. was about 10 percent a year, the dollar wasn’t buying anywhere near what it used to, and the economy was in a major recession – and commodity prices kept rising. We’re talking another long-term bull market in commodities, and neither speculators nor a weak dollar can make that happen. Speculators can have a short-term effect only. For example, if they drive up the price of oil artificially, oil producers with excess supplies will gleefully dump their oil on the market driving the price back down. Both the dollar and speculation can have a marginal effect, but the market itself is bigger than they are.

A few months ago, I said this simply couldn’t last. The market always goes back to the norm. So either government yields would drop, corporate yields would rise, or both would happen.

Well thanks to the credit crunch, corporate bond yields are much higher now. A quick search through Yahoo finance was showing bonds from strong companies paying out yields of seven to eight percent.

Seven to eight percent!

And if you want to take on some risk, you can easily find bonds (non-junk) trading as high as ten percent.

If you’re a bond investor, now is one of the best times to get into some high yielding bonds. But you should hurry. After the market calms down again, yields should move lower once again.