John Stepek highlights some of the best bits from our free emails
, newsletters
, blog
and MoneyWeek magazine
that we’ve published in the past week.
● The commodities sector was the big story in the financial world this week. Thursday saw the biggest slump in commodities in general since 2009. Coincidentally (or not, as the case may be), it also marked the day that commodities trader Glencore issued its IPO (initial public offering) documents.
I’d already suggested that there were a number of red flags over the commodity markets, and the Glencore float was the biggest one. But is Glencore itself worth buying? Here’s where there’s a bit of debate in the MoneyWeek team.
My colleague David Stevenson thinks it might be a short-term play, as he noted in yesterday’s Money Morning. But Bengt Saelensminde, who writes the free Right Side email is more bullish.
Bengt got it right on the float of fashion group Superdry last year – he tipped it as a buy, and as he says, “If you took my advice and tucked in, then you could have doubled or even tripled your money.” And he thinks there’s a chance for “a decent profit here” too.
That’s because Bengt reckons that despite strong demand, Glencore shares will end up being keenly priced – not least because the company’s partners, who still hold 80% of the shares, will want to see the float ‘succeed’.
“If they sell their 20% on the cheap, then the stock chart is likely to start on a nice upward trajectory. And a stock on an upward trajectory looks good to buyers – especially technical traders and the computer bots that are so heavily involved in the markets these days.”
In short, while they may differ in levels of enthusiasm, both David and Bengt reckon you could make a turn in Glencore. Bengt is going to be watching for the best way to get hold of the shares as the float unfolds – sign up for his free email here to stay informed.
● Amid the commodities slump, silver has been the hottest topic of all. After noting last week that $50 an ounce probably marks a high for now, Dominic Frisby gave his views on how far silver might fall.
His “best-case” scenario target of $38 an ounce has been shattered already. Next stop, $30. If it falls that far, $22 could be the next stop, he reckons. But is the jig up for silver? Not at all. It’ll take some time before we see new highs, but Dominic is confident it’ll rise again in the long run.
“One look at a silver chart shows that it is characterised by spikes. Up and down. I’m afraid that comes with the territory. It’s incredibly volatile. That’s just how it is. If you can’t stand the heat and all that, then don’t trade silver.”
● Also, our spread-betting guru John C Burford cast his experienced eye over the silver charts. John normally concentrates on more liquid markets – silver is well known for being hugely volatile – but in this instance he couldn’t resist. You can read his take on silver here.
And if you haven’t already done so, you should sign up for his free email, MoneyWeek Trader. I’m not a regular spread better – I just like to dabble on the side. But even so, I’d say that reading John’s emails and thinking about his points – particularly on the importance of disciplined money management – has improved my own occasional trading a great deal.
● The other big stories of course were the death of Osama bin Laden, and the royal wedding. Much was made of the impact of Bin Laden’s death on the markets, but in fact, there’s not much to say. Other than making it even more likely that US President Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012, I don’t see that bin Laden’s death should mean much for the oil price or stocks or any other financial assets.
However, there was an obscure investment angle to the royal wedding – and trust share tipper Paul Hill, who writes the Precision Guided Investments newsletter, to uncover it. Paul wasn’t interested in the wedding so much as the security arrangements. Paul likes cutting-edge technology, and for him, the big event merely underlined the exciting prospects for the security industry – and for one stock in particular.
● On her blog this week, Merryn’s been talking about having quotas for women on boards again. I think on balance, that it’s probably a good idea. I might disagree if I thought boards were genuinely meritocratic, but if they were, there’d probably be more women on them already.
It’s not a popular view. “Should we have a quota for midgets too?” writes one reader. Another, Alex, takes a more serious line – “men will always be able to say that the only reason women are on boards at all is because there is a quota… it will undermine those women with genuine talent, and further entrench the notion that the state has a right to dictate how privately-owned companies are managed.”
I can see his point. I don’t like the idea that the state interferes in how companies are run either. And maybe it makes more sense to see if companies that already have women on their boards end up outperforming and being more successful than those that don’t.
But as Merryn has pointed out before, if we think that having more women on boards is a good thing (and the government has certainly tried to encourage it) then there’s no point on pussy-footing around with ‘targets’. So push the culture change through – I suspect it won’t end in disaster.
● Early last week, I wrote about the surest way to improve your investment returns – by cutting your costs. But how? My colleague Tim Bennett has just produced another of his videos, outlining four practical ways in which to cut your investment costs.
● Just to remind you again – Friday 17 June – the MoneyWeek conference 2011: Crisis or Opportunity? It’s going to be held at One Whitehall Place in central London. Details to follow very soon now. All I’ll say for now is that you’ll get to talk to lots of MoneyWeek’s top experts.
● And before I go – MoneyWeek is recruiting for two roles on our website. Firstly we’re looking for a writer to produce daily commentary on markets and companies, and more general pieces on investment. We’re looking for someone with a real interest in investment and a talent for writing punchy, opinionated, accurate copy.
And secondly, we’re also looking for a website assistant. The main role is to upload content to the MoneyWeek website and help the website editor with proofing and headlining fresh content. This would suit someone looking for an entry-level job in publishing or journalism.
If you would be interested in applying for either of these roles, then get in touch with me at john.stepek@moneyweek.com.
• To hear about other bits and pieces on the internet that have amused us or made us think, sign up for our Twitter feeds – we’ve listed them below.
Have a great weekend!
• MoneyWeek
• Merryn Somerset Webb
• John Stepek
• Tim Bennett
• Ruth Jackson
• James McKeigue
• David Stevenson