The Three Types of Investing

In the world of investing there are many different investment vehicles and strategies but they can be split into three broad categories. The advantage of thinking from this point of view is that it makes it easier to decide which form of investing or which combination of investing will best suit you.

Let’s have a look at the three broad categories of investing and look at the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Passive Investing

Passive investing is when you put the investment decision making into the hands of someone else, ideally an expert investment manager.

The advantages of passive investment are that you are not required to have any investment expertise and you don’t have to invest your time, only your money. The disadvantages are that firstly you have relinquished your control over your money and secondly the returns for these types of investment are usually uninspiring.

Common examples of passive investing are savings accounts, government bonds, property trusts and mutual funds. Most people invest for their retirement under some form of passive investment that usually has special tax concessions which vary from country to country.

Active Investing

With active investing you take an active role in managing the investment. This form of investing could have a long term focus such as a buy and hold share portfolio or it could be a short term focus such as futures trading.

To do well in active investing you need to have considerable knowledge of the investment vehicle or vehicles that you are using. You also need to understand the basic principles such as when to collect profits, when to cut losses and how to analyze the market. You also need the emotional strength to apply these strategies as required (this is often the most difficult aspect of active investing).

The advantages of active investing are that you have greater control over your investment than you do with passive investing and the potential for profit is theoretically higher. The disadvantages are that you need to invest time in acquiring knowledge and skills and in managing your investments and also that the potential for loss is also generally far greater than in passive investing.

Common examples of active investments are share, options, futures, and currency trading, buy and hold share portfolio building, buy and hold residential or commercial property, and property trading.

Creative Investing

With creative investing you actually change the investment in some way that is designed to manufacture profit. This form of investment requires a lot of skill and experience but if you have that skill and experience then you can create huge profits by being able to visualize what your investment could be once you have applied your imagination to it. For this reason creative investing is often described as turning thought into money.

For example if you are a property developer there is a huge variety of possible developments that you could design and build on a particular piece of land. Amongst that huge set of possibilities there are also a huge range of potential outcomes ranging from high profit to huge loss and including all the points in between.

The advantages of creative investing are that it has the highest profit potential and the highest degree of control and flexibility. The disadvantages are that it requires the highest degree of knowledge, usually involves borrowing large sums of money and also has a huge potential for large losses if you get it wrong.

Common examples of creative investments are property development, property renovation, business renovation and new product development and marketing.

When you are deciding which of these three broad categories best suits you need to consider your knowledge and experience, your strengths and weaknesses, your access to resources, including time and money, and in particular you need to consider your personality including your time management skills, decision making skills, tolerance for risk and your self discipline.

There are of course many expert consultants to help you in each field and many sources of knowledge and experience to tap into.

I hope that this article was useful in helping you see where the various types of investments fit into the scheme of things.

About Author

James Delrojo began his professional career as a psychologist running a private practice through which he helped business people and sports people develop the mind set and mental strategies they needed to achieve excellence in their chosen endeavors. He broadened his commercial interests to include a wide range of successful businesses and investments and has spent much of his time over the last 10 years helping others gain success via his seminars, audio programs and books. James also provides private mentoring for professional investors and others who are looking to reach their full potential in life. James’ wisdom has helped thousands of people make massive, positive changes in their lives.

In Risky Markets, Following The Secrets Of The Ultra-rich, Not The Rich, Will Help Your Investment Decisions

Recently, there was an article on CNNMoney that spoke about the “secrets” of the elite rich in the United States. In turn, several articles were written about this article, including one that stated that the richest of Americans “built their wealth with diversification, wealth preservation and strategic growth.” That is a ridiculous statement in itself because two of those strategies, diversification and preservation don’t help build wealth. Perhaps the richest of Americans use these two strategies to maintain an even keel AFTER they have accumulated great wealth, but certainly they didn’t use them during the accumulation phase. According to this article, a survey of Northern Trust uncovered that the “richest Americans do not heavily rely on high-risk investment vehicles like hedge funds to make money, but are moderate risk takers who put more than half of their asset allocation into U.S. stocks and cash.”

Again, just as former hedge fund manager and multi-millionaire Jim Cramer said that he used certain financial journalists, including ones employed by the Wall Street Journal, as pawns to spread misinformation far and wide to benefit himself, again this is an example of investment institutions using the media as pawns to spread their myths to keep the masses of retail investors ignorant. The CNNMoney article made it appear that the richest of Americans built their wealth by being conservative and slowly growing their money over time. That’s an oxymoron right there. To state that the rich became rich by slowly growing their money over time. Well, if they are slowly growing their money and becoming even richer, then this implies that they were rich to begin with. So how did they accumulate wealth? Surely not by “slowly growing” their money.

Sure, some of the “richest Americans do not heavily rely on high-risk investments” because they ARE ALREADY EXTREMELY RICH. The majority of ultra-rich do NOT build their fortunes by speculating on high-risk investments as is commonly believed. Often they build fortunes utilizing volatile assets and investments but that does NOT mean they were engaging in risky behavior. Many times, investing in a hedge fund can be much riskier than investing in some of the assets that your investment firm will tell you is “risky”. But investment firms will gladly place a portion of your money in hedge funds because the fees they earn from hedge funds are so high even as they advise you not to put your money in a much less risky investment with much greater earning potential. And THIS IS THE SECRET that investment firms never tell you.

Volatile assets that often can be used to build great wealth are NOT RISKY if they are purchased at entry points that are extremely favorable and provide a low-risk point of entry. 99% of investors don’t understand what high-risk investments truly are because they have been misinformed by their advisors and their firms for the past half of a century. Purchasing volatile assets at low risk-high reward entry points greatly mitigates and neutralizes the great majority of risk of volatile assets. If you don’t understand this concept then you need to.

Many millionaires that are wealthy but that could be extremely wealthy fail to build enormous wealth because investment and financial institutions mislead them about certain investment opportunities and describe them as complex and risky and are able to convince their clients of this belief because they never properly explain risk-reward scenarios to their clients. However, those investors that are extremely wealthy are the rare breed that understand this concept. If investors had a choice between allocating $1,000,000 in a historically volatile Investment A that has a 78% chance of returning a 250% gain versus an Investment B that has a 95% chance of earning 9%, most investors would choose Investment A.

However, because Investment A may exhibit 50% more volatility than Investment B, the great majority of advisors would steer their client away from the former investment into the latter one. In fact, this is exactly what even “prestigious” firms that cater to ultra high net-worth clients do because they allow misinformed, uneducated investors dictate the rules of engagement to them, and they would much rather appease such powerful, important people with slow,minimal gains rather than empower and enlighten them and boost their returns like never before. They would choose to steer them away because they present the investment opportunities incorrectly, merely telling their client that while they could earn 350% from Investment A there was also a very realistic probability that they could lose $300,000, and that shooting for the slow but steady $90,000 a year is much better for them.

If you are thinking to yourself, “That makes absolutely no sense?” Why would firms not earn 20% a year for their clients if they could instead of 8% a year? The answer is because the overwhelming majority of investment firms, no matter how prestigious their brand, are merely highly glorified sales machines. They fail to convince clients to invest in phenomenal investment opportunities that sometimes arise like Investment A because in order for Investment A to be a moderate risk, very high reward investment, it must be entered at a low risk entry point so that the probability of being down $300,000 at any give time would be reduced from perhaps 50% to 20%.

And that even if their timing is not optimal, then a firm must educate the client that as long as they don’t panic when they are down, the odds are still extremely high that they will earn a 250% or better gain. However, the greatest factor that determines why firms will not seek this strategy is time. Engaging in much better strategies such as these for their clients would take massive amounts of time in client education and enough time in research that the amount of assets gathered would take a serious hit.

So because it is not in a firm’s interest to engage in activities that maximize portfolio returns (unless it is their own institutional portfolio), instead, we have Chief Investment Officers at top investment firms making statements like, “”Generally they [the richest of Americans] want to see prudently managed growth without a lot of surprises, which is why we emphasize diversification.” Again, this is a sales & marketing campaign statement, not an aboveboard statement about how to make money for clients.

If clients are uncomfortable with strategies that would actually built great wealth for them instead of producing mediocre or subpar returns, their discomfort only originates from the fact that the largest investment firms have been deceiving their clients, just as Jim Cramer had deceived the thundering sheep herd for years, about the realities of building wealth. This discomfort originates solely from the fact that he or she has been kept in the dark for so long. Thus, we have a misinformation-driven cauldron of investors making bad investment decisions that exists today. In 2007, you’ll still find Chief Investment Officers of very well known firms making ridiculous statement that investors need to invest at least 50% of their stock portfolio in U.S. stocks if they wish to grow their portfolios exponentially.

How are they going to grow their portfolios exponentially with more than half of their stocks in a stock market (the U.S.) that has NEVER been the best performing market in the past 25 years (even among developed stock markets)? How will they grow their portfolios exponentially by buying stocks in market that trades in what is quite possibly the worst currency on earth among developed markets (the U.S. dollar)? Yes I know that when the U.S. dollar shows a brief spike in strength as is likely to happen soon (I’m writing this article in April, 2007), that many people will question what I am saying, but this is only again because they are victims to the mass deception mind-games of the investment industry. I suppose if planning to earn better than subpar returns in your stock portfolio is engaging in risky behavior as Chief Investment Officers of various firms claim, then yes, I whole-heartedly endorse engaging in risky behavior.
And because so many people, yes, even those considered quite wealthy, fall victim to the preaching of investment industry demagogues, there is a second mistake that many rich investors will soon make.

Another survey of wealthy U.S. investors uncovered that a large percentage of investors with investment assets of over a million do not employ any type of investment advisor but plan to do so soon giving the increasingly gloomy nature of the U.S. stock markets. To that, this is what I have to say. Making money in difficult markets is ten times more difficult than making money in bull markets. If investors believe that it will be increasingly more difficult to make money in U.S. stock markets, but yet top investment firms in the U.S. continue to preach that more than half of your portfolio should be in U.S. stocks (mostly to cover their respective firm’s inadequate coverage of emerging markets), how is the hiring one of these men possibly going to improve these investors’ future performance outlook?

But there is an EXTREMELY important distinction to be made here. What I’ve written above applies to the behavior and mindset of some of the richest people in America, but not THE very richest people in America. The very richest people in America, those you might categorize as the world’s ultra-rich, possess a very different mindset and behavior set than those that are just rich. The ultra-rich have positioned their portfolios extremely differently from how the rich people discussed above have positioned their portfolios. The reason why articles regarding their behavior and investment decisions are virtually non-existent is because they don’t grant interviews and they don’t want people to know what they are doing. But I’ve investigated what they are doing, and trust me, it is nothing remotely similar to the behavior of wealthy investors described by Northern Trust and other investment firms.

If you would like to find out why the ultra-rich always manage their own money or able to find the 1 in a million consultant truly capable of providing them the returns they desire, consult our resource of “101 Reasons Why Managing Your Own Money is the Only Way to Build Wealth.” Even if the ultra-wealthy have someone managing their money for them, the only way they were capable of finding this 1 in a million financial consultant was due to the fact that if they had to, they could manage their own money successfully as well. Only be first fully understanding the most successful investment strategies themselves could they identify an advisor capable of employing such strategies. However, a great majority of ultra-wealthy continue to handle and make their own investment decisions.

Ways To Invest Money

There are many ways to invest your money. The best way to look at the different investments available is by asset class. Classification makes it easier to understand segments of investments. There are no definitive rules to breaking each into a segment but it will help you evaluate and compare investments.

Property

Property is an asset class, and property can be divided into commercial property, residential property and rural property. Each of these is a segment of that asset class. When comparing segments you can look at rates of return and investment capitol required. This will help you decide which segment is best for you.

Listed Property Trusts

Listed Property trust or LPT managers invest in a portfolio of investment grade commercial real estate to generate high yielding returns for investors, along with buying and selling properties in line with their investment strategy. They are a listed vehicle that can be purchased on the stock exchange.

Australia’s model for LPTs is a recognised world leader. From less than $5 billion in the early 1990s, the sector reached a market capitalisation of $33.3 billion in December 2000, invested in property assets of $46.3 billion. The LPT Index is the fifth largest sector on the ASX, accounting for 5.6 percent of the All Ordinaries Index.

Mortgage trusts

Investors are able to invest in mortgage trusts. These invest in mortgages over residential or commercial properties, Mortgage trust have an advantage for investors of being able to redeem funds at short notice. For this reason, they remain a simple and popular alternative to cash management trusts and fixed term deposits.

Shares

The Australian Share market is divided in segments and each share is part of an index. This is a good way to compare shares and performance of those shares. GICS was developed in response to the global financial community’s need for one complete, consistent set of global sector and industry definitions that reflects today’s economy and is flexible enough to change as the investment world changes. The industry groups under the GICS system are;

• Consumer Discretionary

• Consumer Staples

• Energy

• Financials

• Financials excluding Property Trusts

• Health Care

• Industrials

• Information Technology

• Materials

• Property Trusts

• Telecommunication Services

• Utilities

This makes it easier to make comparisons.

Managed Investments

Managed Investments offer investors exposure to a professionally managed portfolio of assets through a single security. Investors own a proportion of the investment portfolio commensurate with the size of their investment, and are entitled to any profits and distributions (dividends), but also subject to losses should the value of the portfolio decline.

To compare these managed investments you should look at the financials of each, but a major consideration will be the managed expense ratio of the investment. The MER is the fee paid by the investor in an investment fund to the manager of the fund. The MER is normally expressed as an annual percentage or “basis point” charge (where one basis point equals one hundredth of a percent).

When looking for investments and comparing them, make sure you break each vehicle down into asset classes and segments. It makes for easier comparisons and financial evaluation.

About Author

For further information on ways to invest money visit http://www.waystoinvestmoney.freedvd.com.au

James McInnes is a professional share market trader and investment entrepreneur, with many years experience trading the Australian Share market. You can visit his site at http://www.waystoinvestmoney.freedvd.com.au for further information on trading the Australian Share Market.

Profiting in a Bear Market - Three Option Trading Strategies

Most people lose a lot of money during a bear market. Do you remember the tech bubble and recession in 2000-2002? This article will discuss three option trading strategies that can make you big profits in a bear market or recession.

Option Strategy #1: Purchase Put Options Buying put options is fairly easy. This option trading strategy can even be used in an IRA account as long as you have been authorized by your broker. Put options give you the right to sell a stock at a specific price (strike price) on or before a specific date (expiration date). You want to pick a stock that you believe will be falling in value. Your risk will be limited to the cost of the put option. For example, stock XYZ is currently trading at $50 per share and you buy a put option on XYZ with an expiration date of two month later with a strike price of $50. If the stock drops from $50 to $40, your put option would be worth $10 per share.

Option Trading Strategy #2 : Purchase Bear Put Spread Buying a put spread is a little more complicated than just buying a put option but gives you the benefit of reducing your cost but caps your profit. A put spread is buying a put option at one strike price and selling another put option at a lower strike price for the same expiration month. You want to pick a stock that you believe will be falling in value. Your risk will be limited to the cost of the put spread. For example, buy the put option listed above and sell a put option at a strike price of $45. In this case, if the stock dropped to $40, you would make $5 per share (strike price of $50 minus strike price of $45). Even though you make less per share, the initial cost for the bear put spread would be lower than just buying the put option.

Option Trading Strategy #3: Married Put Buying a married put is an option hedging strategy that can be used to minimize your risk. This strategy consists of purchasing a stock that you believe will appreciate in value and buying a put option at the same time to minimize any losses due to adverse market movement. You might have heard the saying that there is always a bull market going on somewhere. So, to effectively use this strategy, you first identify the sectors and stocks that are defying the odds and appreciating in a bear market. Then, you purchase those stocks and at the same time buy a put option to protect yourself from any adverse market movement.

In conclusion, you can still make big profits in bear markets by looking for stocks that you think are going to fall in price and buying a put option or a bear put spread. Another way is to identify the right stock in the right sector that you think is going to appreciate and buying a married put to minimize your risk. In addition to buying options on stocks, you can also buy put options on exchange traded funds or index options. Exchange traded funds let you invest in global markets, commodities and even currencies. There are many ways to make big profits in a bear market but it is important to understand the option strategies in detail, select the right stock, exchange traded fund or index option and utilize a proven methodology and approach.

About Author

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice. You should contact your financial adviser before making any investment decisions.
Jonathon Hartman is an accomplished option trader, focusing on developing innovative and unique option trading strategies, approaches and methodologies. For a limited time, you can sign up to his newsletter absolutely free by clicking on this link - option trading newsletter

How to Profit From the Bear Market’s Next Victim

Bear markets are rotational.

During a bear market, stocks rarely head lower en masse. Instead, the damage usually occurs on a sector-basis, with one group getting slammed after another. The recent carnage is no exception.

First up were the homebuilder stocks in early 2006. Then came the mortgage lenders in early 2007. The next victims were the big banks in late 2007. One by one, each sector was brutalized.

And you’ll never guess who’s next.

Long-term treasuries.

When the credit market first locked up in August, investor sentiment shifted in a big way. For many investors, the issue was no longer a return ON their money, but simply the return OF their money. Treasuries, widely held to be the only truly risk-free investments in the world, became the investments of choice.

Investors started piling in, kicking off the biggest rally Treasuries have seen in years.

Recently, Treasuries plunged as the stock market began to stabilize in March. However, this recent drop is only the beginning. The Federal Reserve’s aggressive rate cuts have resulted in Treasuries yielding less than the rate of inflation. In real terms, this means that investing in “risk free” bonds means losing money.

Should the stock market stabilize enough for investors to really start shifting their assets back into equities, the Treasury market will plunge dramatically. The Fed’s rate cuts alone foretell an end to the rally in Treasuries since the latter no longer offer any “real” return other than the peace of mind that comes from knowing you will definitely get your money back.

I’m not the only one who’s noticed this situation. Bill “the Bond King” Gross recently told CNBC that “Treasuries are the most overvalued asset in the world, bar none.” Gross is putting his money where his mouth is too. He’s put 20% of his $125 billion fund’s assets into derivatives shorting long-term Treasuries.

There are a number of ways of profiting from this situation. The simplest would be to buy gold, which will soar when investors dump Treasuries thus increasing the downward pressure on the dollar. Or you could buy commodities which generally do well during times of increased inflation.

However, the most direct means would be to buy a fund that returns the inverse of Treasuries’ performance. ProFunds recently unveiled three such funds.

About Author

Graham Summers
http://www.gpscapitalresearch.com

Using CPF Money to Buy HDB Flat (Singapore)

If you are buying a HDB flat and like to use your CPF to fund your purchase. You might like to take this option which requires risk taking.

Instead of using up all the CPF money to pay for the CPF, invest the CPF money in REIT or dividend stock and loan the money from HDB. HDB loans - Current rate is 2.6% (which may be revised from time to time)

Example - If you have $170,000 in CPF. Instead of using all CPF money to pay for your flat. Allocated $50,000 to invest in REIT. Which mean you will take extra $50,000 loan from CPF at 2.6%.

a. The monthly payment of $50,000 HDB loan at 2.6% for 25 years is about $227.

b. Invest the 50K CPF in REIT at around 8.5%. The yearly dividend will be $50,000 * 0.085 = $4,250. Monthly will be 4250/12 months = $354.

c. Which mean you will have extra $354(b) - $227(a)(monthly loan payment) = $127 monthly.

d. For 25 years - You will have extra $127 * 12 months * 25 years = $38,100. Assuming the $50,000 REIT appreciate by 3.5% annually. In 25 years the $50,000 will become $108347. After 25 years, the loan will be paid and you will earn = $38,100(monthly saving for 25 years) + $108,347(You still own the REIT) = $146,447.

Risks involved

- HDB housing loan interest shoot up more than the dividend payout.

- Risk from investing in REIT.

What is the minimum dividend return to be able to payout the monthly HDB loan payment?

$50,000 * Y% = 227 * 12 months

Y = 0.05448 (About 5.45%)

Chose stocks that pay dividend that is able to service the monthly loan payment. i.e stock that pay dividend of more than 5.45%. This calculation is based on 2.6% housing loan.

Go to financialplanningtools.wordpress.com for a list of REITs (complied on 18 Apr 08 ) that return more than 5.5%.
Marcus Toh

About AUthor
Domino Consultant

http://financialplanningtools.wordpress.com/

Speculating in Hunger - Are Investors Contributing to the Global Food Crisis?

Investment newsletters are now featuring headlines like “How You Can Profit from the Global Food Crisis.” The recommended investments include agribusiness stocks and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that speculate in agricultural commodities. These investments will no doubt do very well in the global food crisis; but before you put your money down, you may want to explore whether you will be helping to alleviate the problem or actually contributing to it. Do you really want to “invest” in starvation? In an April 23 article in the German news source Spiegel Online called “Deadly Greed: The Role of Speculators in the Global Food Crisis,” Balzli and Horning note, “Many investors . . . are simply oblivious to the fact that by investing in the global casino, they could be gambling away the daily food supply of the world’s poorest people.”

Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has called the exploding food crisis “a silent mass murder.” In an interview in the French daily Liberation on April 14, he said, “We are heading for a very long period of rioting, conflicts [and] waves of uncontrollable regional instability marked by the despair of the most vulnerable populations.” He blamed globalization and multinationals for “monopolizing the riches of the earth,” and said that a mass uprising of starving people against their persecutors is “just as possible as the French Revolution was.”

In some places, in fact, this is already happening. In Haiti, where the cost of rice has nearly doubled since December, the prime minister was fired this month by opposition senators after more than a week of riots over the cost of staple foods. Violent protests over food prices have been set off in Bangladesh, where rice has also doubled; in the Ivory Coast, where food prices have soared by 30 to 60 percent from one week to the next; and in Egypt, Uzbekistan, Yemen, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Italy. In an April 21 Wall Street Journal article titled “Load Up the Pantry,” Brett Arends observed that the food riots now seen in the developing world could soon be affecting Americans as well. Rocketing food prices are not a passing phase but are actually accelerating. He recommends hoarding food - not because he is actually expecting a shortage, but as an investment, because “food prices are already rising here much faster than the returns you are likely to get from keeping your money in a bank or money-market fund.” Arends goes on:

“The main reason for rising prices, of course, is the surge in demand from China and India. Hundreds of millions of people are joining the middle class each year, and that means they want to eat more and better food. A secondary reason has been the growing demand for ethanol as a fuel additive. That’s soaking up some of the corn supply.”

That’s the rationale published in the Journal of Wall Street, the financial community that brought us the housing bubble, the derivatives bubble, and now the commodities bubble, producing the subprime crisis, the credit crisis, and the oil crisis. The main reason for the food crisis, says this author, is that the Chinese and Indian middle classes are eating better. Really? Rice has been the staple food of half the world for centuries, and it is hardly rich man’s fare. Moreover, according to an April 2008 analysis from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, food consumption of grains has gone up by only one percent since 2006.

That hardly explains the fact that the price of rice has spiked by 75 percent in just two months. The price of Thai 100 per cent B grade white rice, considered the world’s benchmark, has tripled since early 2007; and it jumped 10 percent in just one week. The fact that corn is being diverted to fuel, while no doubt a contributing factor, is also insufficient to explain these sudden jumps in price. World population growth rates have dropped dramatically since the 1980s, and according to the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, grain availability has continued to outpace population. Biofuels have drained off some of this grain, but biofuels did not suddenly happen, and neither did the rise of the Asian middle class. If those were the chief factors, the rise in food prices would have been gradual and predictable to match.

Another explanation for the sudden jump in grain prices, not mentioned by this Wall Street Journal writer, is suggested by William Pfaff in the April 16 International Herald Tribune:

“More fundamental is the effect of speculation in food as a commodity - like oil and precious metals. It has become a haven for financial investors fleeing from paper assets tainted by subprime mortgages and other toxic credit products. The influx of buyers drives prices and makes food unaffordable for the world’s poor. ‘Fund money flowing into agriculture has boosted prices,’ Standard Chartered Bank food commodities analyst Abah Ofon told the media. ‘It’s fashionable. This is the year of agricultural commodities.’”

The “hot money” that has fled the collapsed real estate bubble is now moving into the commodities bubble, and that includes food. “Hot money” is an influx of speculative capital in search of high rates of return, quickly moving from one market to another. It moves, however, not because the products are better (the traditional justification for price-setting according to “free market forces”) but because the speculative “spread” is better. Money is invested not in making real goods and services but simply in making more money. Food prices are being driven by speculators, and today that includes ordinary investors like you and me, who can now gamble in agricultural futures through ETFs that have opened up a lucrative market formerly available only to big investment players.

Conventional economic theory says that prices are driven up when “demand” exceeds “supply.” But in this case “demand” does not mean the number of hands reaching out for food. It means the amount of money competing for existing supplies. The global food crisis has resulted from an increase, not in the number of mouths to be fed, but simply in the price. It is the money supply that has gone up, and it is investment money in search of quick profits that is largely driving food prices up. Much of this seems to be happening in the futures market, where fund managers seek to maximize their profits by using futures contracts. Balzli and Horning explain:

“The futures market is a traditional tool for farmers to sell their harvests ahead of time. In a futures contract, quantities, prices and delivery dates are fixed, sometimes even before crops have been planted. Futures contracts allow farmers and grain wholesalers a measure of protection against adverse weather conditions and excessive price fluctuations. . . . But now speculators are taking advantage of this mechanism. They can buy futures contracts for wheat, for example, at a low price, betting that the price will go up. If the price of the grain rises by the agreed delivery date, they profit. Some experts now believe these investors have taken over the market, buying futures at unprecedented levels and driving up short-term prices. Since last August, this mechanism has led to a doubling in the price of rice.”

The authors quote grain wholesaler Greg Warner, who says what is happening now in the grain futures market is unprecedented. “What we normally have is a predictable group of sellers and buyers — mainly farmers and silo operators.” But the landscape has changed since the influx of large index funds into the futures market. “Prices keep climbing up and up.” Warner calculates that financial investors now hold the rights to two complete annual harvests of a type of grain traded in Chicago called “soft red winter wheat.” He calls these developments “stunning” and points to them as “evidence that capitalism is literally consuming itself.”

What about investing in agribusinesses such as Monsanto, which have promoted the “Green Revolution” through the bioengineering of foods and the production of GMO (genetically modified) seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and herbicide and pesticide sprays? Won’t these corporations, at least, help to alleviate the global food crisis? To the contrary, critics say these businesses too are just driving food prices up. Monsanto’s patented GMO seeds have been genetically engineered so that they cannot reproduce but must be purchased every year from the company. Small farmers who have fallen for the hype of greater productivity and subjected their land to these seeds and chemicals have found that not only have their yields been reduced but that the land will no longer bear anything except GMO seeds. Farmers who can no longer afford the seeds are priced out of the market, handing monopoly control over to the agribusiness giants that can then raise prices to whatever the market will bear; and in the case of food, it will bear a lot, right up to the point of slavery. As Henry Kissinger once famously said, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

What can you invest in, then, that actually would help relieve the global food crisis? One possibility is local organic farming. “Community-supported agriculture” (CSA) is a model of food production, sales, and distribution aimed at increasing the quality of food and the care given to land, plants and animals, while reducing losses and risks for producers. A variety of CSA systems are now in use worldwide, allowing small-scale commercial farmers and gardeners to have a successful, small-scale closed market while providing their customer-members with a regular delivery or pick-up of healthy local produce. The USDA provides a list of CSA addresses and websites.

That still leaves the problem of speculation in food futures. How can parasitic profits to non-producing middlemen be eliminated while still protecting farmers? The futures market was first created for farmers, who needed to be able to lock in a price today that would cover their costs and return a reasonable profit later. One interesting proposal is to return to the policy of “farm parity pricing” enacted during the 1930s. It ensured that the prices received by farmers covered the prices they paid for input plus a reasonable profit. If the farmers could not get the parity price, the government would buy their output, put it into storage, and sell it later. The government actually made a small profit on these transactions; food prices were kept stable; and the family farm system was preserved as the safeguard of the national food supply. With the push for “globalization” in later decades, farm parity was replaced with farm “subsidies” that favored foods for export over local markets. They also favored large corporate farms engaged in chemical farming over sustainable farming, forcing thousands of family farmers out of business. Farm parity pricing could help, but a complete solution to the problem of global inflation would require an overhaul of the private central banking system that has created one bubble after another for the last century. (See E. Brown, “Market Meltdown: The End of a 300 Year Ponzi Scheme,” webofdebt.com/articles, September 3, 2007.)

If you want to invest in the commodities boom without driving up the global prices of food or fuel, buy gold.

About AUthor

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In “Web of Debt,” her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com and http://www.ellenbrown.com Her eleven books include the bestselling “Nature’s Pharmacy,” co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies.