My message to you for the last few weeks has been this:

We are witnessing the best buying opportunity in over a decade, and quite possibly the best opportunity in our lifetimes. This may be the last time we see many stocks at these prices.

Historys record is unblemished: From crisis arises opportunity.

This country and the world have dealt with pandemics in the past, and weve recovered every single time.

We have dealt with world wars, terrorist attacks, oil shocks, tech bubbles, and many other crises and recovered every single time.

Buying when everyone else is selling has minted millionaires and even billionaires over the years.

But there is one big caveat

Taking advantage of these once-a-decade or even once-in-a-lifetime opportunities is the whole reason behind my newCrisis and Opportunity Portfolio. Yes, now is the time to be buying stocks but how you do that is important.

Theres actually one huge mistake many investors will make when getting back in. They will invest all of their available cash at once.

I strongly recommend that you NOT do this for a few important reasons.

First, I dont know if the market has bottomed or not. I believe there is a 50% chance that the bottom is in.

Weve seen a big bounce, but markets often retest lows before breaking out firmly. I do know that we are in a sweet spot where stock prices are so attractive that theyre worth buying whether weve seen the bottom or not.

Its much better to start buying now, and then continue to spread your cash into stocks over the coming weeks.

One easy and solid strategy to consider is taking the amount you want to put into stocks and dividing it by five or 10. If you have $20,000 earmarked for stocks, you could buy in $4,000 chunks over five different dates. You could also buy in $2,000 chunks over 10 dates. And you could do this weekly or even every two weeks.

There is no perfect way to do this because that would require knowing the exact day the stock market will bottom or if it already has. Spreading out your stock purchases is smart because you keep some cash in the event there is another downdraft.

At that point, you could buy at even better prices with more upside potential. And if there isnt, you will still have plenty of opportunities in the weeks ahead. Think of buying in right now as a process and not a single moment.

Another mistake too many investors make is picking only one or two stocks they believe will hit it big. A much better approach that reduces risk, lets you be wrong once in a while and can still make you a fortune is what I call thebuy a basketapproach.

I do this even in bull markets. During the early stages of an industry, its virtually impossible to consistently pick the one or two companies out of dozens that will emerge as the winner(s) in 10 years time. Placing all your chips on just one or two companies is often an extremely risky way to invest.

When I say buy a basket, I mean pick several of the best companies in a sector and buy all of them. Or, in this case, pick six to 10 of the best buying opportunities to come out of the sell-off and spread your capital among them.

This is exactly why were doing in theCrisis and Opportunity Portfolio. Our first three stocks are up 21.5% on average in a little over a week, and we just added our fourth stock yesterday. Im lining up additional opportunities for future buys. Through this basket approach, we focus on the top small cap hypergrowth opportunities across the converging technologies of the Roaring 2020s.

Think 5G, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, genomics, precision medicine, and more.

These are the technologies of the future.These are the stocks you want to buy at beaten-down prices.

These companies could very well be the nextNetflix (NASDAQ:NFLX), Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL), or Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN). And theyre selling right now at fire sale prices.

Its time to start taking therightsteps to get back into the market today. These are the times when fortunes are made.

Matthew McCall left Wall Street to actually help investors by getting them into the worlds biggest, most revolutionary trends BEFORE anyone else. The power of being first gave Matts readers the chance to bank +2,438% in Stamps.com (STMP), +1,523% in Ulta Beauty (ULTA) and +1,044% in Tesla (TSLA), just to name a few. Click here to see what Matt has up his sleeve now.Matt does not directly own the aforementioned securities.

See original here:
The #1 Investing Mistake to Avoid Now - Investorplace.com

I've noticed something with this bear market. Most of the people that I've interacted with (not in person, of course, but via phone, text, or videoconference) aren't fleeing from the stock market in panic. Instead, they're viewing the coronavirus-caused market crash as an opportunity. And for those with some available cash, they're wondering which stocks are great picks to buy right now.

The best stocks to buy vary by individual. A given stock could be well suited for one type of investor but not for another. But I think that there are some stocks that are smart alternatives for nearly any kind of investor. If you've got $3,000 to invest, or even less, here are three stocks that could be just what you're looking for.

Image source: Getty Images.

Whether you're a growth investor, an income investor, or a value investor,Bristol Myers Squibb (NYSE:BMY) should be right up your alley. The big pharma stock fell hard during the market meltdown last month, but it's bouncing back in a big way as well.

The consensus among Wall Street analysts is that BMS will grow its earnings by an average of more than 18% annually over the next five years. Bristol Myers Squibb's blockbuster drugs Eliquis and Opdivo are both projected to rank in the world's five top-selling drugs in 2024. With the acquisition of Celgene, the company now has even more growth drivers, such as multiple myeloma drug Pomalyst, blood disease drug Reblozyl, and multiple sclerosis drug Zeposia.

Bristol Myers Squibb's dividend should also appeal to income investors. Its dividend currently yields over 3%. The company has increased its dividend payout every year since 2008.

Despite its strong growth prospects and attractive dividend, BMS stock is a bargain. Its shares trade at less than nine times expected earnings. With a solid product lineup and a pipeline loaded with potential winners, Bristol Myers Squibb should deliver outsized total returns over the next decade.

For investors looking to buy a stock that got hammered more than was warranted during the market sell-off, I think thatMastercard (NYSE:MA) should be a top choice. Shares of the payment processor tanked as much as 41% from previous highs at one point in March. Even though Mastercard has rebounded somewhat, the stock is still well below where it traded prior to the coronavirus crisis.

Mastercard is one of the top stocks that I personally bought in recent weeks. I like this stock for two primary reasons -- its business moat and its tremendous growth prospects.

If you're not familiar with what a business moat is, think about the castles of medieval times. They had a moat surrounding them to protect against invasion. Businesses also have moats that protect their market share against competition. Mastercard's moat is its vast payment processing network. It enjoys a duopoly with Visa that isn't likely to be toppled.

As for Mastercard's growth prospects, I view the company as a key beneficiary of the "war on cash."This term refers to the massive shift from physical currency such as cash and checks to electronic forms of payment. The social distancing and quarantines during the COVID-19 outbreak have intensified the war on cash as consumers turned even more to online purchases. I think the trend is an unstoppable one -- and I think Mastercard will be a big winner from it.

Some investors might prefer to buy a stock that has performed well during the stock market crash and is positioned to keep its momentum going once things return to normal.Teladoc Health (NYSE:TDOC)is a great example of just such a stock.

Shares of Teladoc have soared while most stocks sank. Telehealth quickly became a must-have with people seeking to visit healthcare professionals remotely instead of risking the possibility of being infected with the novel coronavirus while waiting in a doctor's office.

I suspect that a lot of people will like the convenience of using telehealth and want to continue even after the COVID-19 crisis is in the rearview mirror. Teladoc is an obvious winner if I'm right. The company ranks as the largest telehealth services provider in the world and offers the widest range of services in the industry.

Teladoc Health could more than double its number of users simply by capturing more business with its existing clients, which include 40% of the Fortune 500. Even though it's the biggest player in the telehealth field, Teladoc still has only around 1% of the addressable market in highly developed countries.

I think that the adoption of telehealth will increase significantly, with Teladoc Health's growth shifting into a higher gear over the next few years. Buying the stock of a leader in a fast-growing sector is a smart move for any investor.

Visit link:
Got $3,000 to Invest? These 3 Stocks Could be Just What You're Looking For. - Motley Fool

In the decade before Michigan and its largest city became the latest hot spot for the deadly coronavirus , officials were steadily, and at times dramatically, cutting back on their first line of defense against pandemics and other public health emergencies.

Approaching bankruptcy, Detroit disbanded most of its public health department and handed its responsibilities to a private nonprofit. When the department reopened in 2014 in the back of the municipal parking office, its per capita budget was a fraction of other big cities, to serve a needier population.

In Ingham County, home to the capital city of Lansing, then-Public Health Director Renee Branch Canady sat down at budget time every year for seven straight years to figure out what more to cut.

It was just chop, chop, chop, Canady said. By the time she left in 2014, all the health educators, who teach people how to prevent disease, were gone.

What happened in Michigan also played out across the country and at the federal level after the 2008 recession, which caused serious budget problems for governments. But as the economy recovered, public health funding did not, a review of budget figures and interviews with health experts and officials shows.

A shortfall persisted despite several alarming outbreaks, from H1N1 to Ebola, and has left the U.S. more vulnerable now to COVID-19, experts say. In normal times, public health workers are in the community, immunizing children, checking on newborns and performing other tasks. In a health emergency, theyre tracing outbreaks, conducting testing and serving as first responders when people fall sick efforts that are lagging in many states as the coronavirus spreads.

Our funding decisions tied their hands, said Brian Castrucci, who worked with health departments in Philadelphia, Texas and Georgia and is now president of the de Beaumont Foundation, a health advocacy organization.

The cuts came under both Democratic and Republican administrations. While there is no single number that reflects all federal, state and local spending, the budget for the federal Centers for Disease Control, the core agency for public health, fell by 10 percent between fiscal year 2010 and 2019 after adjusting for inflation, according to an analysis by the Trust for Americas Health, a public health research and advocacy organization. The group found that federal funding to help state and local officials prepare for emergencies such as the coronavirus outbreak has also fallen from about $1 billion after 9/11 to under $650 million last year.

Between 2008 and 2017, state and local health departments lost more than 55,000 jobs one-fifth of their workforce, a major factor as cities struggle to respond to COVID-19.

It definitely has made a difference, said John Auerbach, Trust for Americas Health CEO and a former public health director in Massachusetts.

New York has seen the most COVID-19 cases in the U.S., but numbers are surging in places such as Detroit, where those testing positive nearly tripled in the week between March 28 and Saturday, when officials said the city was approaching 4,000 cases, with 129 deaths. A more robust health system could have done more earlier to track down and isolate people who were exposed, said the citys former health director, Abdul El-Sayed.

State spending on public health in Michigan dropped 16% from an inflation-adjusted high point of $300 million in 2004, according to a 2018 study.

Some of the funding problems, Canady and other public health advocates believe, stem from a fundamental belief in smaller government among Republican governors, including former Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, who called for shared sacrifice after the states auto-dependent economy was battered by the recession.

In Kansas, then-Gov. Sam Brownback ran what he called a red-state experiment to cut taxes. State spending on its Public Health Division, outside of federal funds, dropped 28% between 2008 and 2016.

The cuts meant a shifting of responsibility for services from the state level to the county level, Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly said in an interview. And we saw that in public health.

In Maine, then-Gov. Paul Le Pages administration stopped replacing public health nurses who were dealing with families in the opioid crisis. The number of nurses fell from around 60 to the low 20s before the Legislature tried to reverse the action.

Although agencies often receive emergency funding when a crisis strikes, the infusion is temporary.

Decisions are made politically to support something when it becomes an epidemic, said Derrick Neal, a public health official in Abilene when Ebola surfaced in Texas. And then as time passes, the funding shrinks.

In Oklahoma, state funding for the Department of Health still hasnt returned to its levels of 2014, when a combination of slumping oil prices, tax cuts and corporate breaks punched a giant hole in the states budget. When state revenues later improved, the money went to other priorities.

Its much easier to cut funding for public health than it is to start taking away benefits from people or access to care for people, said former state Rep. Doug Cox, an emergency room doctor.

Castrucci said the problem with providing more money only at times of emergency is it doesnt allow time to recruit and train new workers.

We waited until the house was on fire before we started interviewing firefighters, he said.

For most people, the new coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, and death.

___

Associated Press reporters David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan, Paul Weber in Austin, Texas, John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, and Sean Murphy in Oklahoma City contributed to this report.

Read the original:
In years before outbreak, investment in public health fell - The Associated Press

Wednesday, April 15 at 8 am Pacific

Register here

Join host John Cumbers for the latest developments from the synthetic biology industry, and these in-depth conversations:

As biotech founders attempt to inoculate their teams against the economic and social upheaval of SARS-CoV-2, what is the investment community doing? As the world turns attention toward biotech companies to solve this pandemic, does the synthetic biology industry represent an even richer opportunity? Or will the funding frenzy cool off? SynBioBeta founder John Cumbers talks with four investors at the forefront of synthetic biology:

The brain is central to our humanity, but when problems arise, we dont have good tools to work with it. Brain-computer interfaces represent a new class of digital therapeutics, allowing access to the brain in areas like sensory and motor prosthetics, monitoring neuropsychiatric conditions, and smart pharmaceutical delivery. Join SynBioBeta founder John Cumbers for a conversation with Matt Angle, CEO of Paradromics, who will share his companys technology for helping as many as 10 million paralysis patients in the US alone. Well be joined by Dr. Loretta Bruening of the Inner Mammal Institute, who will describe the neurochemical basis for happiness, and how each of us can more efficiently interact with our deeper mammalian brain to guide our neurochemistry toward more pleasurable states. We will also be joined by Mark Bunger, Lab Agent at Innovation Labs, who will discuss the neurotech entrepreneurial ecosystem and provide context for the interplay of neurotech, synthetic biology, and other deep tech fields.

Register here:

See original here:
SynBioBeta Live: Investing in times of turmoil, neurotech and happiness - SynBioBeta

These are uncertain times we're experiencing, and nearly everyone has had their lives disrupted in some way as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. More than 90% of Americans are worried about the effectCOVID-19 will have on the U.S. economy, according to research from SurveyMonkey, with millions of workers watching their retirement savings plummet.

When the market is in a free fall, it can be tempting to pull all your cash out of your retirement fund in an attempt to salvage whatever money you have left. However, right now it may be a smart move to do the opposite and actually invest more in the stock market.

Of course, not everyone can afford to invest right now. If you've lost your source of income and are simply trying to keep your head above water, it might be better to focus on paying the bills and establishing an emergency fund. But if you have cash to spare, investing it may be a wise move for these three reasons.

Image source: Getty Images.

When the market falls, so do stock prices. That means that by investing during a market downturn, you can get more for your money because stock prices are at rock bottom. You've probably heard about the concept of buying low and selling high, and right now is the perfect opportunity to buy low.

It may take a while before the stock market fully recovers, but it should bounce back eventually. The economy will always experience ups and downs (some worse than others), but if history shows us anything, it's that the market will recover given enough time.

By investing now when prices are low, you'll be setting your savings up for significant gains when the stock market does eventually recover. And hopefully by the time you're ready to retire and withdraw your cash from your retirement account, your investments will be worth much more than they are now. In other words, buy low now so you can sell high later.

One of the most challenging aspects of investing is sitting on the sidelines watching your savings take a nosedive and knowing there's nothing you can do about it. It's human nature to want to do something to help your investments, but unfortunately, sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing.

If you let your emotions fuel your decisions, there's a chance that could end up doing more harm than good. You might choose to withdraw your savings from your retirement fund or quit investing altogether because it feels less risky than continuing to invest, but in reality, those could be costly mistakes.

Instead, convince yourself to keep investing consistently no matter what the market does. Delete your retirement account app from your phone or log out of the website to avoid feeling disheartened about your account balance, and keep reminding yourself that although things may not look pretty now, they will get better.

As you get closer to retirement age, you should be adjusting your asset allocation to ensure your investments align with your risk tolerance. Older workers should be investing more heavily in conservative investments like bonds rather than riskier assets such as stocks, because you never know when a recession will strike, and you want your savings to be protected before the stock market crashes.

But what should you do when the market has already crashed and you're realizing you haven't been conservative enough with your investments? For right now, the best option may be to simply stay the course. Adjusting your portfolio to ultra-conservative investments now would potentially leave you never seeing your savings bounce back from its losses. Once the market does start to recover, though, it's better to start investing more conservatively than to stop investing altogether. That way, your money will be as protected as possible against future market downturns, but you'll still be building wealth.

Keep in mind, though, that even older investors should usually invest at least some money in stocks. Even if you're in your 60s, you'll still want your investments to continue growing for at least a couple more decades throughout retirement. While it may be ideal to have most of your money in more conservative investments, it's wise to avoid giving up stocks altogether if you want to continue seeing long-term growth.

If you're feeling worried about your retirement investments, that's perfectly normal. But remember that historically, the market has always bounced back after even the worst recessions. It will recover this time too. And by continuing to invest now, you'll reap the rewards later.

See the rest here:
3 Reasons to Keep Investing Even When the Market Crashes - The Motley Fool

When John Bogle died last year, at the age of 89, the investing world lost a hero. Most investors may not know his name, but he's the founder of Vanguard, one of the most respected financial services companies, known in part for low fees. That's not even his most important accomplishment; he's also known as the father of index funds, and advocated for them for many decades.

Here's a look at nine smart things Mr. Bogle said, along with a little commentary about each.

Image source: Getty Images.

The recent stock market crash has made this abundantly clear. It's important, if you're going to invest in stocks, to understand that the market drops by about 20% or more every few years -- and that after each such drop, it has always recovered and gone on to new highs -- eventually. That sometimes happens within a matter of months, but it might also take years. That's why you only want to invest in stocks with money you won't need for at least five (or more) years.

Consider this: As ofthe middle of 2019, the S&P 500 index of 500 of America's biggest companies outperformed fully 90% of large-cap stock mutual funds over the previous 15 years, according to the folks at Standard & Poor's. In other words, only about 10% of mutual funds run by financial professionals who carefully decide what to buy and sell and when and who focus on large companies are able to deliver above-average results. This is largely due to the fees that they charge. It's common for actively managed stock mutual funds to charge around 1% or more annually, while many index funds that track the S&P 500 charge 0.20%, 0.10%, or even less.

In other words, be a long-term adherent of fundamental investing, where you focus on the companies in which you're a part-owner through your shares, keeping up with their progress and assessing factors such as their market share, profit margins, track record of growth, prospects for further growth, sustainable competitive advantages, debt and cash levels, and so on.

The opposite of this would be jumping in and out of stocks without ever having a solid understanding of the underlying companies, and checking how the stock market and your holdings are doing every day or even every few hours. (I'll concede that when the market has been as volatile as it has been recently, it can be more understandable to take a look more often.)

This is a common mistake that mutual fund investors make, and stock investors make it, too. If you see a mutual fund that soared more than, say, 50% last year, you might jump in, wanting to collect a 50% return yourself. (I made precisely this error once -- and, fortunately, only once.) Well, that's not how it works. Any fund or stock can have an amazing year -- perhaps partly due to investor euphoria and optimism or due to a truly impressive performance. But it doesn't happen every year. And when stocks and funds get ahead of themselves, they're very capable of falling back to more reasonable levels.

Focus on long-term results -- and put more weight on what you expect the company or fund to do in the future than on what it has done in the past.

Image source: Getty Images.

It's underappreciated how important it is to favor mutual funds and other investments with low fees. Here's an example. Imagine three stock mutual funds. One is an index fund charging an annual fee of 0.10%, while the other two charge 1% and 1.5%. If the stock market averages 10% growth over a given period, you'll end up with average annual gains of 9.9%, 9%, and 8.5%, respectively, with those funds. Here's how $10,000 annual investments would grow over time at those rates:

Investing Period

Balance Assuming 8.5% Growth

Balance Assuming 9% Growth

Balance Assuming 9.9% Growth

10 years

$160,961

$165,603

$174,315

20 years

$524,891

$557,645

$622,348

30 years

$1.35 million

$1.49 million

$1.78 million

Source: Calculations by author.

The cost of expenses is clear in the table above -- and remember that some funds or investments charge significantly more than 1.5% annually, too. Emotion, though, is another challenge for investors to overcome. Think about the recent big market drops. They tend to lead many people to panic and sell their stocks (which causes the stock prices to fall further). Market drops are actually great buying opportunities for long-term investors.

As Warren Buffett has explained about his own (wildly successful) investing style: "We simply attempt to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful."

Simplicity is often best. Many people think about investing and assume they need to learn all about commodities and futures and options and that they have to become experts at reading financial statements in order to study many companies. Instead, think back to Bogle's simple index funds. You can just park money in one or more index funds regularly for many years and do very well -- without becoming a stock market expert.

When you invest in a broad-market index fund, such as one that tracks the whole U.S. stock market, as the ultra-low-fee Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF(VTI)does, it lets you skip looking for the most promising stocks among thousands -- because you just buy into all the thousands.

Finally, if you become an index investor, you just have to stick to the plan. Keep investing in it for many years, without panicking and selling.

There's a lot more we can learn from John Bogle -- and we have a lot to be grateful to him for, as well.

View post:
9 Investing Tips from Investing Icon John Bogle That You Shouldn't Ignore - The Motley Fool

Jayendra Naidoo. (Photo: Qilai Shen / World Economic Forum)

The findings and recommendations of the Mpati Commission of Inquiry into the Public Investment Corporation has generated much media coverage, including several articles which appeared in Daily Maverick. The Lancaster Group, Lancaster 101 (the entity in which the PIC invested in 2016), and I, have been on the receiving end of much undeserved adverse comment. I write this article to clarify issues and place the facts on record relating to the PIC investment in Lancaster 101 (L101).

Ex-unionist Jayendra Naidoo owes PIC R11bn for dodgy Steinhoff BEE deal, inquiry reveals

By way of background, I am the sole shareholder of Lancaster Group, a company I formed in 2014. In 2015, Lancaster Group was invited to acquire a significant block of shares in Steinhoff. This was the result of two years of negotiation. Having had a prior business relationship with Dr Christo Wiese as an investor in Pepkor Holdings between 2003 and 2011, I approached Dr Wiese with a proposal to acquire a shareholding in Pepkor once again.

However, at a point when our discussions were quite advanced, he sold his entire shareholding in Pepkor to Steinhoff, and subsequently arranged for the then Steinhoff CEO, Markus Jooste, to continue the discussion with me. This led ultimately to an offer from Steinhoff to Lancaster Group to acquire shares in Steinhoff. It was a purely commercial transaction, with shares offered at market value, based on the notion of working together as value-adding business partners.

At the time, Steinhoff was a highly regarded blue-chip company listed on the JSE. Many international investment banks had a relationship with Steinhoff as a result of its international operations. To raise the funding for the investment opportunity, I approached several international and local banks, as well as the PIC. I appointed an advisory company who developed an innovative proposal for funding the transaction. In addition, they secured a guarantee from an international investment bank to protect up to R10-billion of investment in Steinhoff shares.

With this capital protection mechanism available, several reputable banks became interested to provide funding, and provided indicative funding term sheets. However, it would have required several banks working together to provide such a large quantum of funding. I was cognisant of the risk of working with a large consortium of banks. At the time the PIC, who had an extensive track record of private investments through their Strategic Investment Portfolio, also indicated their interest in the proposal and saw the possibility of using this transaction to work more actively with Steinhoff to promote broader economic transformation, advancing black management, and creating benefits for black suppliers and local producers.

The prospect of a stronger relationship with the PIC was welcomed by Steinhoff as well, so I elected to work with the PIC on this transaction. Bear in mind that the PIC was already invested in Steinhoff and was interested in increasing its association with Steinhoff.

Once the engagement began, the PIC appointed a deal team that engaged intensively with our advisers. The original proposal submitted by Lancaster Group was explicitly on the basis, which is the commercial norm, that it was open for negotiation. The negotiation between the PIC deal team and our advisers resulted in several amendments. The changes that the PIC secured included the PIC acquiring a direct 50% shareholding in the equity of the special purpose company to be created (which was a new company created for the transaction, namely L101), an allocation of 25% of the L101 shareholding for the benefit of a B-BBEE Trust (to be established by Lancaster Group in accordance with an agreed scope), a reduction in the transaction size to R9.35-billion, an obligation on Lancaster Group (and Steinhoff) to undertake specific transformation activities such as developing black suppliers, and several other points.

During this process the PIC deal team demonstrated themselves to be knowledgeable, professional, and clearly experienced in sophisticated financial transactions. I must emphasise that this was a robust and commercial engagement. The narrative that the PIC deal team was grossly inferior to the Lancaster Group advisers is completely unfair to the skill and expertise of the senior PIC team members who were involved.

Despite the commercially demanding terms, the transaction made sense to me given the PICs interest to partner and further invest in Steinhoff-related initiatives. The PIC approval was granted by their Investment Committee, not by their CEO, Dr Matjila. The inference by the PIC Commission that the reduction of the size of the transaction from R10-billion to R9-billion may signify collusion between myself and Dr Matjila is totally unfounded given that it was simply one of many requirements imposed by the PIC deal team to adapt the transaction to the requirements of their Investment Committee.

Pursuant to this agreement, the PIC entered into a loan agreement with L101 constituted as described above, not with Lancaster Group, nor with me personally. Lancaster Group is a 25% shareholder in L101 and is only entitled to 25% of any benefit which would accrue to L101.

The L101 shareholders agreement entitled the PIC to nominate two directors, and they duly nominated one full-time employee who was part of their deal team, and one of their non-executive board members who was part of their Investment Committee. In my view it is quite normal for an investor to nominate directors to the board of a company it invests in, and it is also quite standard to source people for these roles from within its own ranks.

To the best of my knowledge I understand that the PIC determines nominations to investee companies at its Board, via a formal process. The suggestion that the member of the PIC Investment Committee who was nominated as a director of L101 had a conflict of interest is at odds with standard commercial practice, and frankly unfair to the individual concerned, and to the other members of the Investment Committee who approved the transaction.

I have noted the commission recommendation that the PIC obtain a legal opinion regarding fees paid to the Lancaster Group by Steinhoff pursuant to this transaction. The fee was publicly disclosed at the time of the transaction, as mentioned in the Commission Report itself. I am advised it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this issue at this time.

The shareholders agreement of L101 tasked Lancaster Group to create a B-BBEE Trust after the completion of the transaction and to transfer 25% of Lancaster Groups shareholding in L101 to the B-BBEE Trust. The Trust was specifically designed to be a means of funding social and enterprise development activities that promote the interests of black people. The Trust was not intended to provide benefits to any individuals nor to serve as an investment vehicle for any BEE groups. In the course of establishing the Trust, the lawyers of L101 highlighted the financial and administrative challenges of current legislation regulating trusts, including the very unfavourable tax treatment afforded to trusts.

They proposed the alternative of establishing the entity, with the same scope and principles, as a non-profit company which would thus enable the entity to retain a greater proportion of its income for its developmental activities. Their proposal was duly considered by the L101 board and shareholders (including the PIC) and approved, with amendments then made to the companys shareholder agreement. As I indicated in my statement to the commission last year, all obligations in respect of the B-BBEE Trust have been fully and properly dealt with in accordance with the Shareholder Agreement.

As part of the transaction, Steinhoff had invited Lancaster Group to become part of a voting pool arrangement, which I had accepted prior to engaging with the PIC. However, at an advanced stage of discussions it was discovered by Steinhoff that the Dutch regulations under which Steinhoff now operated restricted the entry of new members into the voting pool. Accordingly, Steinhoff proposed an alternative, namely, to establish a joint Strategic Forum between Steinhoff, its controlling shareholder, Lancaster Group and the PIC. After careful discussion this was agreed upon, recognising that the Forum could in fact allow for a higher form of strategic participation than may have been available in the existing Steinhoff voting pool.

It was at a meeting of this Strategic Forum that the idea to list Steinhoffs retail assets, acquire Shoprite, and to create an African retail champion, was discussed and supported. This eventually led to the formation and listing of Steinhoff African Retail (STAR).

Pursuant to this decision there was an opportunity to make a further investment in STAR. In order to finance the investment, the Board and shareholders of L101 (obviously including the PIC) proposed that L101 raise new funding from a third party bank. To facilitate that and given the manifest benefits for its stake in Steinhoff, the PIC agreed in its capacity as senior lender to L101 to amend its security arrangements in respect of its loan.

As history records, the underlying assumption of continued high growth in Steinhoff did not materialise. Unbeknown to all including the PIC who had been an investor in Steinhoff for 20 years, those who had sold assets to Steinhoff, myself, many individual investors, sovereign wealth funds, private asset managers, banking institutions and others who invested in it, Steinhoffs apparent stellar track record was in reality a fiction and the result of a long-running fraud.

The Steinhoff share price plummeted as a result of the revelations in December 2017 about Steinhoffs financial misrepresentations. Neither the PIC nor the Lancaster Group were responsible for this state of affairs, and in fact, together with so many other investors, we are also the victims of this financial misrepresentation. As a result, in April 2019, after the publication by Steinhoff of the summary of the findings by the PWC forensic investigation, L101 instituted legal action against Steinhoff for the recovery of the investment made.

PIC has similarly instituted action against Steinhoff for recovery of its direct investment in the company via its Listed equities portfolio. We are engaging with the PIC with a view to recovering what we can under the circumstances.

Whatever else may validly be said, I am comfortable that the transactions described above between the PIC and Lancaster were not only opportune at the time, but also, certainly from my side, entirely above board and at arms length. DM

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or if you are already an Insider.

Read more:
My view of the PIC/Lancaster investment in Steinhoff - Daily Maverick

U.S. dollar banknotes.

Liu Jie | Xinhua via Getty

In the age of coronavirus, cash is indeed king.

That's the view, at least, of many major investors, who are selling everything from stocks to bonds to gold in order to raise cash.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch in its March Fund Managers' Survey indicated that month over month, cash among funds has seen the 4th largest monthly jump in the survey's history, from 4 percent to 5.1 percent. Like buy-side fund managers, sell-side advisors also feel the need to be conservative, waiting on the sidelines for the market selloff to settle.

Jonathan Pain of the Pain Report markets newsletter, who called the selloff on February 24, told CNBC on Monday that he is seeing "a mad rush for cash." The spike in bond yields, with 10-year rising above 1.2% and the 30-year more than doubling in the last few days, marks only the latest way that the typical correlations between assets are breaking down.

"Whatever number you have got, double it. If you are at 10 percent (cash), make it 20 percent."

Gary Dugan

CEO, Purple Asset Management

Gold, a classic "safe" asset, has seen wild swings between $1,450 and $1,550 an ounce, triggering panic selloff by traders looking to liquidate everything they have in order to honor large market positions on borrowed money. Essentially, they need to generate cash to pay for the over-exposed calls that have generated losses.

The big problem for world markets right now is that there just aren't enough dollars to go around.

That's one reason the greenback just crossed the 101.45 mark against a basket of currencies, despite the Fed funds rate going down to near zero. Divya Devesh, Asiaforeign exchange strategist at Standard Chartered, told CNBC's "Street Signs" on Wednesday that even though the Fed has rolled out a $700 billion asset purchase program, the bond market doesn't foresee inflation rising.

Inflation risk is off the table because of the unprecedented crash in oil prices.

The traditional inverse relationship between bonds and stocks has broken in the ongoing selloff. Morgan Stanley in a research note pointed out that the less power bonds have as a hedge for a portfolio, the less overall risk a portfolio should take.

In summary, bonds can no longer cushion portfolios in bear markets where stocks are seeing clear capitulation.

Speaking about desirable cash levels, Gary Dugan, CEO of Purple Asset Management didn't mince his words when he spoke to CNBC on Monday: "Whatever number you have got, double it. If you are at 10 percent, make it 20 percent."

Cash is king not only for investors, but also for businesses. Looking for companies that have strong balance sheets, less debt, stable cash flows and carrying a respectable dividend yield are the preferred plays.

Some fund managers, such as Sat Duhra from Janus Henderson, believe the most attractive sectors in Asia are REITs, telecom and infrastructure assets. "These sectors remain favored in times of extreme volatility and sharp market draw-downs, given their defensive nature," he said.

All that said, there certainly are a lot of contrarian bets out there.

Other assets that are drawing investor interest include China A-shares. The Chinese yuan both offshore and onshore is also gaining investors.

Some analysts say outright that they don't feel cash is such a great idea.

"Raisingcash when the S&P 500 is already off 28 percent from its peak doesn't seem the most appropriate strategy now,"Kelvin Tay, regional chief investment officer of UBS Global Wealth Management,told CNBC via email. "Since 1945, the average drawdown in bear markets has been 34.5%."

Applying that calculation to today's markets would imply the S&P 500 index bottoming out at around 2,200 or another 8 percent from current levels. But no one can be certain, of course. Trying to time the market and buy at the bottom is not a viable strategy when the closely followed volatility index from the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the VIX, is at record highs.

Kelvin said he believes the opportunities could lie in the tech sector online companies, e-commerce giants, 5G companies and cloud computing firms could be winners in a further market retreat.

That would be a "smarter" strategy, he said, than raising cash.

See the rest here:
Fund managers have a message: Cash is king - CNBC

World Travel and Tourism Council CEO Gloria Guevara says she fears coronavirus are closing down major metropolitan areas, which is putting a huge dent in the travel industry.

The coronavirus outbreak has sent shockwaves through U.S. markets, leaving many investors concerned about the fate of their retirement accounts.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen nearly 30 percent duringthe past month, while the S&P 500 has declined more than 25 percent over the same timeframe ending the longest-running bull market in history.

While the number of so-called 401(k) and IRA millionaires hit a record 441,000 as of February, according to Fidelity, its likely that number has been on the decline throughout recent weeks.

So what should concerned investors do with their retirement accounts?

First, dont be a masochist and look at your 401k right now, Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com, told FOX Business. Youll get your quarterly statement in April and that wont be a lot of fun, but that also may be an opportunity to rebalance your portfolio.

For most, rebalancing involves selling a little of what has done well and buying more of what has not, McBride said, the well-known strategy of buying low and selling high.

MNUCHIN SAYS WHITE HOUSE WORKING TO SEND $1,000 CHECKS TO MOST AMERICANS WITHIN 3 WEEKS

US JOBLESS CLAIMS SURGE AS CORONAVIRUS WEIGHS ON ECONOMY

For older Americans closer to retirement, the situation may mean something a little different, and the stock market tumble points to the exact reason why these individuals should have a diversified portfolio.

Having the first several years of withdrawals bucketed separately in cash and conservative bonds allows you to ride out a bear market, according to McBride.

As previously reported by FOX Business, it is prudent for Americans of all ages to have a financial plan in place. That plan should include having cash readily available in case of emergencies. It should also include safe money on which investors take less, or no, risk, which can be used on planned expenses. And money in tied up in the stock market should be intended to stay there for the long-term.

Having a diversified portfolio generally means downturns and losses have been taken into account and investors should not be making many adjustments or worrying.

Having a plan will also make your results more predictable, Greg Hammer, CEO and president of Hammer Financial Group, previously told FOX Business. Thats why it may be worth sitting down with an expert to proactively plan for these events, based on your individual circumstances and needs.

Overall, its important for workers to understand that, even though the market is extremely volatile right now, it will eventually normalize.

Investors need to maintain their long-term perspective, McBride said. Its extremely jarring but the situation that prompted this is temporary. Dont let any short-term temporary situation affect your long-term financial security.

And the good news? For those still working who have a 401(k) account, you are automatically investing every pay period and getting better prices than you were one month ago, McBride pointed out.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

See the original post:
Coronavirus and retirement savings: What to do with your investments - Fox Business

Even the most seasoned investors have watched the recent swift decline in the stock market with a bit of wonderor horror. Bear markets are a well-documented part of normal stock market activity, yet they still seem to surprise investors whenever they happen.

Right now, you are being told not to do many things, which may make you want to do somethinganything. When the information updates and the financial markets are moving as quickly as they are right now, it can be challenging to find a strategic move to make, especially when the age-old advice is to stay invested through good times and bad.

We spoke with wealth management expert Debra Brennan Tagg about investment strategies to consider during the COVID-19 crisis. The Brennan Financial Services president said, While the upside potential of the stock market is what lures us, we should recognize those big downturnsbetter known as bear marketshave their place.

They remind us that investing is not a risk-free proposition and that no one knows the direction of the market in the short-term. More importantly, investing does not have a one size fits all answer. What is right in my portfolio should have no bearing on what is appropriate in your portfolio since we have different life goals. Now that we are in a bear market, here are five ways you can use it to your advantage.

Here are five strategies to consider, including one major mistake to avoid.

Your financial plan should be specific to you, your risk and resources, and your life goals. While the risk for all of us is elevated during this uncertain time, the structure of your financial plan should guide you to continue to make sound financial decisions.

Editors Note: Debra Brennan Tagg offers securities and advisory services through FSC Securities Corp. (FSC), member FINRA/SIPC, and financial planning services through DBT Wealth Consultants. FSC is separately owned and other entities and/or marketing names, products or services referenced here are independent of FSC. Listed entities are not affiliated with FSC. The views expressed herein are not necessarily the opinion of FSC Securities Corp. and should not be construed as an offer to buy or sell any securities mentioned.

Original post:
How to Respond to the Coronavirus Situation From an Investments Perspective - D Magazine