World
Impact of tightening on emerging markets

 Ben Bernanke’s testimony before the Congress shows how he is simply reflating a bubble that he created earlier. Unfortunately, the worst impact of tightening will not be in the US, but in emerging markets where the pain will be much greater

On 17th July, much of the world’s financial community were treated to another performance by the US Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, when he made his semi-annual appearance before Congress. Dr Bernanke attempted to ‘clarify’ the Fed’s position regarding tightening of monetary policy. His testimony was so full of conditional phrases that it is doubtful whether he clarified anything. Apparently the Fed will end the quantitative easing (QE) bond buying program when and if the board feels the time is right.

 

I am not sure if the most recent pronouncement from on high was any more enlightening than the standard Delphic prophecy, but what did seem clear was that the easy money would end, sooner or later. If we take Dr Bernanke at his word, the stimulus will end when the US economy is stronger, which he forecasts to be soon. With a stronger economy, the end of QE is supposed to have a small impact in America. But there are other countries and other economies in the world where the effects might not be so benign.
 

It is estimated that about $4 trillion has washed around emerging markets since the stimulus programs started four years ago. The impact has significantly lowered Asian bond yields, boosted equity markets and pushed local currencies higher against the dollar. The impact has varied widely from country to country. In Singapore, for example, the inflation rate rose only 0.5%.while in Indonesia inflation increased by over 4%. Inflation increased in the US by 0.6% at most.

 

This impact no doubt will increase, if and when, the Fed’s policy moves to taper stimulus. In the past month alone 19 of the 24 emerging market currencies tracked by Bloomberg fell against the dollar. Cooling from central banks helped to stem the fall. But for all the rhetoric, US interest rates have risen 1% in the past three months and have not retreated.

 

Higher US interest rates will have the greatest impact on emerging market bonds. One of the most promising developments since the Asian crisis 15 years ago has been the rise of local bond markets. Higher credit ratings and often very large foreign reserves have benefitted local debt. With more companies and governments able to borrow in their own currencies, there is less of a chance for disaster when the currency tanks, as recently occurred. It does not mean that the problem has disappeared.

 

It is estimated that the developing world needs $1.5 trillion in external funding every 12 months.  If the markets dry up this could create a very large problem. The general belief has been that emerging markets are not large debtors like the US or southern Europe, but this depends on the country.  India, Turkey, South Africa, and Brazil all have large current account deficits and their currencies have suffered as a result. Lower commodities prices and less demand will make servicing the deficits more challenging. Higher interest rates will certainly magnify the problems.

 

These problems became more evident last month when money started to pour out of emerging market bond funds. Last year emerging market bond funds were the beneficiaries of the “search for yield” precipitated by the interest rate suppression of the Fed. They averaged inflows of 0.4% per week. With a potential Fed policy change, the flows recently reversed and the average outflow was 1.2% per week. Foreign investors who had piled into the local currency debt have started to flee.

 

It is not just the occasional pronouncements of central banks that have caused trouble. With so much money desperately looking for decent returns, some have gone to poor quality lenders. Three examples are Mexico’s three leading homebuilders—Desarrolladora Homex, Corp. Geo and Urbi Desarrollos Urbanos. All three companies are junk rated, but last year they had no problem with raising $2.75 billion dollars from fund managers. Interest rates as high as 9.75% for ten year notes was too much to resist.

 

The money managers now wish they had. These bonds have plunged by an average of 55% this year. The reason for the fall had nothing to do with tapering. Urbi, Geo and Homex, specialized in suburban developments of single family homes. The Mexican government decided to shift its subsidized housing program towards the construction of apartment buildings in city centre. The builders are stuck with a glut of unsold homes and undeveloped land. It appears that all of the companies will have to restructure their debt, and the bond holders will have to take significant haircuts.

 

It would be simplistic to believe that default issues are limited to the Mexican housing market. Yield deprived investors allowed companies all over the world to tap the bond market for the first time. For many it will be their last.

 

The tightening or tapering comes at a particularly bad time. The Chinese growth slowed to 7.5%. Markets sighed with relief. They expected a far lower number. Their expectations were probably more accurate. The real number though was probably much lower. The Chinese leadership is intent on restructuring the economy and has vowed not to provide additional stimulus. This will impact many emerging markets whose main trading partner is China and no longer the US.

 

It is not just that individual bonds or countries have issues. The bond market is also structurally weak. The size of global fixed income markets has grown from around $40 trillion to $100 trillion over the past 10 years. But as the size of the market increased so did the risks. Regulatory changes require banks to hold less inventory, so the market has become more illiquid. Poorly understood feedback loops make the situation more dangerous. According to Nobel Laureate Robert Merton “The post-crisis environment has a much greater intensity of connectedness in terms of credit sensitivities than before.” So what happens anywhere will have a greater impact on everyone else and it may happen very quickly.

 

Ben Bernanke has been desperately walking back the comments he made in May. He has been fairly successful at it. But he has simply reflated a bubble that he created. Sadly, the worst impact will not be in the US, but in emerging markets where the pain will be much greater.

 

(William Gamble is president of Emerging Market Strategies. An international lawyer and economist, he developed his theories beginning with his first hand experience and business dealings in the Russia starting in 1993. Mr Gamble holds two graduate law degrees. He was educated at Institute D'Etudes Politique, Trinity College, University of Miami School of Law, and University of Virginia Darden Graduate School of Business Administration. He was a member of the bar in three states, over four different federal courts and has spoken four languages.)

User

No warrant, no problem: How the government can get your digital data

From subpoenas to secret court orders, the US government has an arsenal of legal tools for sweeping up your personal data

Update, July 22, 2013:
This post has been updated to include the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling on location data. It was originally published on Dec. 4, 2012.
 

The government isn't allowed to wiretap American citizens without a warrant from a judge. But there are plenty of legal ways for law enforcement, from the local sheriff to the FBI to the Internal Revenue Service, to snoop on the digital trails you create every day. Authorities can often obtain your emails and texts by going to Google or AT&T with a simple subpoena that doesn’t require showing probable cause of a crime. And recent revelations about classified National Security Agency surveillance programs show that the government is regularly sweeping up data on Americans’ telephone calls and has the capability to access emails, files, online chats and other data — all under secret oversight by a special federal court.
 

The breadth of and justification for the surveillance are the subjects of ongoing debate in Washington. President Obama and others have defended the programs as necessary to identify terrorists and stop attacks before they happen, but privacy advocates and several U.S. lawmakers have questioned them.

Here's a look at what the government can get from you and the legal framework behind its power:
 

Stuff They Can Get

How They Get It

What the Law Says

Listening to your phone calls without a judge's warrant is illegal if you're a U.S. citizen. But police don't need a warrant — which requires showing "probable cause" of a crime — to get just the numbers for incoming and outgoing calls from phone carriers. Instead, police can get courts to sign off on a subpoena, which only requires that the data they're after is relevant to an investigation — a lesser standard of evidence. The FBI can also request a secret court order for phone records related to an international terrorism or spying investigation without showing probable cause. A recent order obtained by the Guardian newspaper shows that the FBI in April requested all phone records over a three-month period from Verizon Business Network Services. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper said in a statement that such orders are renewed by the court every 90 days. And similar ordersreportedly exist for other phone companies, including AT&T, Sprint and Bell South. The phone records being collected are for what’s called “metadata” — time, duration, numbers called — but not the content of calls, which President Obama, in defending the surveillance, said would require a judge’s consent.

 

Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court ruling, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers. The New York Times reported last November that New York's police department "has quietly amassed a trove" of call records by routinely issuing subpoenas for them from phones that had been reported stolen. According to the Times, the records "could conceivably be used for any investigative purpose." The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress expanded in 2001 when it passed the Patriot Act, also allows the FBI to apply for a FISA court order to get “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items).” The FISA court ruled on May 24, 2006, that this provision applied to a phone company’s entire call database, according to the Washington Post. (The phone companies had previously handed over the data voluntarily, the Post reported, but grew nervous after The New York Times published a story on the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program in 2005.) The court order for Verizon obtained by the Guardian — which covers all records from April 25 to July 19 — is much more expansive than a typical warrant or subpoena, said Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It covers “telephone metadata … for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.” In a statement, Clapper’s office said the government can’t query the metadata it has collected unless there is a “reasonable suspicion” it is associated with a specific foreign terror group. That happened fewer than 300 times last year, the statement said, adding that the data is destroyed after five years.

 


Many cell phone carriers provide authorities with a phone's location and may charge a fee for doing so. Cell towers track where your phone is at any moment; so can the GPS features in some smartphones. The major cell carriers, including Verizon and AT&T, responded to at least 1.3 million law enforcement requests for cell phone locations, text messages and other data in 2011. Internet service providers can also provide location data that tracks users via their computer's IP address — a unique number assigned to each computer. In addition, the NSA has the authority to collect location data from phone companies, along with other “metadata,” according to the statement from Clapper’s office, but the agency chooses not to do so.

 

Many courts have ruled that police don't need a warrant from a judge to get cell phone location data. They only have to show that, under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA), the data contains "specific and articulable facts" related to an investigation — again, a lesser standard than probable cause. In July, Maine became the second state, after Montana, to require police to obtain a warrant for location data; Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat, vetoed a similar measure last year. Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, introduced a bill in March that would have updated the ECPA but would not change how location data is treated. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, introduced a separate bill in the House that would require a warrant for location data as well as emails. The New Jersey Supreme Court also ruled in July that police needed a warrant for location data, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., is currently weighing a similar case.


Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other webmail providers accumulate massive amounts of data about our digital wanderings. A warrant is needed for access to some emails (see below), but not for the IP addresses of the computers used to log into your mail account or surf the Web. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, those records are kept for at least a year. The NSA also runs a program called Marina designed to sweep up Internet “metadata,” or “digital network information,” according to the Washington Post. Whether that includes IP addresses is unclear.

 

Police can thank U.S. v. Forrester, a case involving two men trying to set up a drug lab in California, for the ease of access. In the 2007 case, the government successfully argued that tracking IP addresses was no different than installing a device to track every telephone number dialed by a given phone (which is legal). Police only need a court to sign off on a subpoena certifying that the data they're after is relevant to an investigation — the same standard as for cell phone records. FISA also allows the FBI to apply for a secret court order to get “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)” relevant to an international terrorism or spying investigation.


There's a double standard when it comes to email, one of the most-requested types of data. A warrant generally is needed to get recent emails, but law enforcement can obtain older ones with only a subpoena. Google says it received 16,407 requests for data — including emails sent through its Gmail service — from U.S. law enforcement in 2012. And Microsoft, with its Outlook email service, disclosed in March that it had received 11,073 requests for data last year. Other email providers, such as Yahoo, have not made similar statistics available. In January, Google said that it would lobby in favor of greater protections for email. The National Security Agency also obtains emails from companies such as Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and AOL under a program called Prism, as revealed by The Washington Postand the Guardian. Clapper has said the program does not target U.S. citizens or anyone in the country.

 

This is another area where the ECPA comes into play. The law gives greater protection to recent messages than to older ones, based on a 180-day cutoff. Only a subpoena is required for emails older than that; otherwise, a warrant is necessary. This extends to authorities beyond the FBI and the police. I.R.S. documents released in April by the American Civil Liberties Union suggest that the I.R.S.’ Criminal Tax Division reads emails without obtaining a warrant. The ECPA update bills introduced by Leahy and Lee in the Senate and Lofgren in the House would require a warrant for the authorities to get all emails regardless of age. The Justice Department, which had objected to such a change, said in March that it doesn’t any longer. Clapper has said the Prism program is legal under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which lays out how intelligence agencies may spy on non-U.S. citizens abroad. Under “limitations,” the section says the surveillance “may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” and “shall be conducted in a manner consistent” with the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

 


Communicating through draft emails, à la David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell, seems sneaky. But drafts are actually easier for investigators to get than recently sent emails because the law treats them differently. Under the NSA’s Prism program, drafts presumably would be accessible along with other emails and files kept by companies such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL.

 

The ECPA distinguishes between communications — emails, texts, etc. — and stored electronic data. Draft emails fall into the latter, which get less protection under the law. Authorities need only a subpoena for them. The bills introduced by Leahy and Lee in the Senate and Lofgren in the House would change that by requiring a warrant to obtain email drafts. In defending the Prism program, President Obama has said it does not target email accounts of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

 


Investigators need only a subpoena, not a warrant, to get text messages more than 180 days old from a cell provider — the same standard as emails. Many carriers charge authorities a fee to provide texts and other information. For texts, Sprint charges $30, for example, while Verizon charges $50.

 

The ECPA also applies to text messages, according to the EFF’s Fakhoury, which is why the rules are similar to those governing emails. But the ECPA doesn't apply when it comes to actually reading texts on someone's phone rather than getting them from a carrier. State courts have split on that issue. Ohio's Supreme Court has ruled that police need a warrant to view the contents of cell phones of people who've been arrested, including texts. But the California Supreme Court has said no warrant is needed. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 declined to clear up the matter.

 


Authorities typically need only a subpoena to get data from Google Drive, Dropbox, SkyDrive and other services that allow users to store data on their servers, or "in the cloud," as it's known. The NSA is also gathering “stored data” from companies like Google, according to an NSA PowerPoint briefing obtained by the Washington Post and the Guardian. Clapper has said only non-U.S. citizens abroad are targeted.

 

The law treats cloud data the same as draft emails — authorities don't need a warrant to get it. But files that you've shared with others — say, a collaboration using Google Docs — might require a warrant under the ECPA if it's considered "communication" rather than stored data. "That's a very hard rule to apply," says Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel with the Center for Democracy& Technology. "It actually makes no sense for the way we communicate today." If cloud data is covered by FISA — which seems likely, as the law specifically states that “documents” are included — it would let the FBI request a secret court order for data deemed relevant to international terrorism or spying investigations.

 


When it comes to sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, the social networks' privacy policies dictate how cooperative they are in handing over users' data. Facebook says it requires a warrant from a judge to disclose a user's "messages, photos, videos, wall posts, and location information." But it will supply basic information, such as a user's email address or the IP addresses of the computers from which someone recently accessed an account, under a subpoena. Twitter has reported that it received 1,494 requests for user information from U.S. authorities in 2012. The company says it received 60 percent of requests in the second half of 2012 through subpoenas, 11 percent through other court others, 19 percent through search warrants and 10 percent through other means. Twitter says that "non-public information about Twitter users is not released except as lawfully required by appropriate legal process such as a subpoena, court order, or other valid legal process." The NSA is also gathering data from social media from companies such as Facebook, YouTube and Paltalk as part of its Prism program, according to the NSA PowerPoint briefing. Clapper has said only non-U.S. citizens abroad are targeted.

Courts haven't issued a definitive ruling on social media. In September, a Manhattan Criminal Court judge upheld a prosecutor's subpoena for information from Twitter about an Occupy Wall Street protester arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge in 2011. It was the first time a judge had allowed prosecutors to use a subpoena to get information from Twitter rather than forcing them to get a warrant; the case is ongoing.

 


Courtesy: ProPublica.org

User

Insider trading in Bajaj Corp scrip?

After the market closed on 18th July, Bajaj Corp announced an offer for sale at Rs200. Strangely, during the day, the stock had already fallen from Rs264 by as much 10% on huge volumes. Will SEBI continue to sleep? Or will its officers find out the details and “settle”?

 

Bajaj Corp made an Offer for Sale (OFS) announcement on 18 July 2013, which came after market closed that day. Strangely, ahead of the OFS announcement, the trading that day was dominated by an unusually large volume and a decline in the stock by as much as 10%. Did someone close to the management know of the announcement and act on it?
 

It is interesting to note that unusually high trading volumes in the Bajaj Corp scrip that day. The scrip does not trade much. During the period 20th June to 17 July 2013, the average daily trading volumes in the scrip on the NSE were 31,500 shares, with deliverable volumes being 67% of total volumes. Also, the price did not show much volatility during this period—the high and low prices being Rs257 and Rs245, the spread being just 5%.
 

On 17th July, a day before the OFS announcement, the scrip closed at Rs253.75. However, on 18th July, after hitting an intra-day high of Rs264, the stock crashed by 10% intra-day to touch Rs237, before closing at Rs245. On that day, the trading volumes rose to 272,000 shares on the NSE (a 750% jump over the average trading volume), with deliverable volumes being 64% of total volumes.
 

There was no significant news in the media or announcement by the company, to warrant such unusually high trading volumes or volatility in the price, on 18th July. In fact, most other FMCG stocks rallied on 18th July, a day when Sensex was up by 180 points. Bajaj Corp was the only consumer products stock which crashed 10% intra-day. Somebody knew something? Around 6 pm on the same day, a couple of announcements appeared on the BSE website, a summary of which is as follows:

  1. SKB Roop Commercial LLP, a constituent of the promoter group of Bajaj Corp Ltd, has submitted to BSE a Notice of Offer for Sale of approx. 1.44 crore equity shares of Re1 each, representing 9.75% of the equity share capital of the Company. The Sale shall commence on July 19, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. and will close on the same date at 3:30 p.m. 
     
  2. SKB Roop Commercial LLP, a constituent of the promoter group of Bajaj Corp Ltd has now informed BSE that the “Floor Price” for the Sale Shares shall be Rs200 per equity share of Bajaj Corp Ltd. 

The OFS was subscribed 2.44 times.
 

The question is: was there “informed selling” in the stock on 18th July? It appears so, since the announcement of OFS (including the price of Rs200 per share) was not in the public domain on 18th July during the market hours, and came in much after market close. 

Who were the persons/entities who sold the stock on 18th July? Genuine investors, who bought the stock during its crash, would obviously have felt short-changed. Had they known about the OFS lined up, they too would not have bought it from the market on 18th July and would have waited till 19th July, to buy it in the OFS.
 

Informed entities seem to have dumped the stock since they knew the OFS plans (ahead of the public announcement), and the floor price, which worked out to almost 18% lower than closing market price on 18th July. Therefore, technically the stock was being shorted, since anybody who sold the stock at a higher price would have the opportunity of buying it back in the OFS at lower price. Apparently, they were not wrong, as the indicative price for the OFS has been computed at Rs225.98, on the close of the OFS, as per the NSE website. Obviously, informed circles made a killing of around 10% in just a couple of days. Will the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), as usual, ignore the compelling evidence or will it act and then “settle”?

User

COMMENTS

Mehul

3 years ago

Wake up SEBI and start acting in the interest of the investors, not the operators. Not taking any action is as good as supporting the culprits

Ganesh Johnson

3 years ago

Actually, the author and Kush Katakia seem to have gotten into a war of words ... and there seems to be some misunderstanding between them!

To bring clarity:

Kush Katakia says: There was no short sell. But he does not deny "insider". So what he says is the selling must have been delivery-based, but was certainly possible it was "insider" trading.

Author thinks: Kush Katakia is denying any wrongdoing at all. Author misunderstands Katakia.

Looks like both are in agreement over wrong-doing, but are battling due to misunderstanding!

Ganesh Johnson

3 years ago

Actually, the author and Kush Katakia seem to have gotten into a war of words ... and there seems to be some misunderstanding between them!

To bring clarity:

Kush Katakia says: There was no short sell. But he does not deny "insider". So what he says is the selling must have been delivery-based, but was certainly possible it was "insider" trading.

Author thinks: Kush Katakia is denying any wrongdoing at all. Author misunderstands Katakia.

Looks like both are in agreement over wrong-doing, but are battling due to misunderstanding!

REPLY

Nitin

In Reply to Ganesh Johnson 3 years ago

There is no war of words or battle, my friend. I am a professional analyst and have no time for rhetoric or gimmicks.

I simply pointed out the anomalies in what he wrote in response to my article. Everyone, including I, is entitled to put forth their views. He did it and so did I. End of story.

arun adalja

3 years ago

no doubt our regulators are sleeping when the damage is going on and wakes when everything is over.ofs is meant for goverment to achieve their disinvestment target so they can sell at any price and retail investors are loosing money.

nagesh kini

3 years ago

To see the Bajajs indulging in such sharp practices?

REPLY

Rakesh

In Reply to nagesh kini 3 years ago

This is a different Bajaj, not Rahul

Mehul

In Reply to nagesh kini 3 years ago

Just a clarification, bajaj management might not be directly involved... there are various other sources / means through which information leaks might happen. That is what needs to be investgated

nagesh kini

3 years ago

To see the Bajajs indulging in such sharp practices?

Santhana Krishnan

3 years ago

Market regulator SEBI wants more retail participation! (SIC)In addition to the FIIs and P Notes and faceless Foreign investors, we have unscrupulous market operators who rig the market at will and thump their nose at SEBI. Poor retail investor is left holding the can. When the investor do not have faith in the regulator, how he can have faith in the rigged market under their watch. Even Employees Provident Fund Organization opted to have NO Equity.

Kush Katakia

3 years ago

Btw, the V Wap of Bajaj Corp on 19th july was around Rs.245, which is very close to the V Wap of 18 th july. And i wonder how can one short sell a non derivative stock. (ALBM Volumes are abysmally low for such stocks, so could not have borrowed either).. With due respect Mr.KHANDKAR, i am afrais your conclusion seems to be a hurried one without much efforts being put in to research.

REPLY

Nitin

In Reply to Kush Katakia 3 years ago

Well if you had put some of your own efforts into reading the article and data carefully, maybe you would not have come up with these comments. I do not need to tell you that even non-derivative stocks can be shorted.

Kush Katakia

In Reply to Nitin 3 years ago

Sir, that is exactly what i have mentioned.. ALBM (Automated lending and borrowing mechanism) volumes are extremely low. Unlikely that some one could have borrowed Bajaj Corp and shorted it.

Kush Katakia

3 years ago

I personally feel it is extremely naive to suggest that rise in volumes is an indicator of Insider trading.. Leaks from Merchant bankers are so commonplace nowadays..(In this case Citigroup Global) The leak could have come from various sources though..

REPLY

Nitin

In Reply to Kush Katakia 3 years ago

Why are you keen on contradicting yourself? Your first line states there may have been no insider trading. Your last line says leaks could have taken place. What exactly are you trying to say?

Pantulu

3 years ago

Speculators only get advantage and not common people. Share prices do not depend on the performance of the company. Can somebody explain why the system should be like that? Is stock market only for some speculators? Unless the share prices are linked to the performance of the company it serves no purpose. I wish some good Economist comes out with a solution. If the same system continues common people will be taken for a ride and there is no incentive for companies to improve their performance.

Mehul

3 years ago

This is a clear case of insider trading. Such trades are very rampant in Indian markets. At least when there is clear evidence, SEBI must investigate and take strict action against the culprit. This will not only bring the guilty to the book, but will also bring confidence in small investors who have fled the equity markets because of such malpractices

REPLY

Hemant

In Reply to Mehul 3 years ago

You are right ,but who will take action against SEBI,for taking anti investors actions like PCAS etc.They act like robots,without understanding the ground realities.

Mehul

In Reply to Hemant 3 years ago

SEBI can at least investigate such cases. When there is smoke, there is a possibility of fire. Historically SEBI has been a dormant regulator. Only when small malpractices turn into bigger scams, they react to the situation.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)