November 21, 2006

BLANKET INSECURITY:

The Mystery of the Disappearing Stocks: A bizarre explanation for the stock market rally. (Daniel Gross, Nov. 20, 2006, Slate)

The continuing stock rally in the face of a slowing economy and a cratering housing sector is something of a mystery, baffling economists and investors alike. But there could be a simple explanation: supply and demand.

Simply put, the supply of U.S. stocks available for individual investors, mutual funds, and index funds. Call it de-equitization. In the last few days, deals have been announced or concluded to take large publicly held companies private. HCA, the giant hospital chain, last Thursday announced the completion of its $21.2 billion leveraged buyout. The same day, Reader's Digest said it would be acquired by private equity firm Ripplewood Holdings for $2.4 billion. This morning, Equity Office Properties, the huge real estate company, struck a deal to be acquired by the Blackstone Group for $19 billion. (Throw in the value of Equity Office's debt, and it may be the biggest LBO ever.) At the same time, publicly held firms are buying back big chunks of their shares. Last Friday, Wendy's said it would spend $800 million buying 19 percent of its outstanding shares.

This year is shaping up to be a record for both leveraged buyouts and stock buybacks. According to Thomson Financial, buyouts worth $334.5 billion have been announced or completed so far this year, up from $115 billion for all of last year. According to Standard & Poor's, members of the S&P 500 Index spent $325.15 billion on their own shares in the first three quarters of 2006 and have spent more than $674 billion since Jan. 1, 2005. Between buybacks and buyouts, that's more than $1.1 trillion of stock taken out of public hands in less than two years.


Chairman Greenspan managed to stall out the US economy before the balanced federal budget and the resulting shortage of US debt became a huge problem at the turn of the century, but as the war winds down we face that danger again and it would be disastrous for the world economy to lose its only safe harbors for money.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2006 8:05 AM
Comments

Not disastrous for everybody. The Dems would welcome another nail in Bush's coffin.

Posted by: erp at November 21, 2006 8:19 AM

Not disastrous for everybody. The Dems would welcome another nail in Bush's coffin.

Posted by: erp at November 21, 2006 8:21 AM

The dog that doesn't bark in this story is Sarbanes-Oxley. Private firms have a huge competitive advantage by getting out from under SOX reporting requirements which require and enoromous amount of resources to comply with and are a retraint on innovation.

While the IPO market may look OK, we would expect it to be much larger given the favorable market conditions. A lot of potential IPO's are holding back or going public on Canadian exchanges in order to avoid the additional overhead caused by SOX.

Posted by: jeff at November 21, 2006 9:09 AM

SOX also criminalizes board directors' actions, which doesn't help.

The whole point of incorporation is to create a fidiciary shield so that you don't loose your shirt if you make a bad business decision. With SOX (and an ambitious DA) you can get thrown in jail.

Posted by: Gideon at November 21, 2006 11:37 AM
« DANCIN' WITH THOSE WHAT VOTED AGAINST YA': | Main | WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE FREE MARKETS? (via Brandon Heathcotte): »