Whenever an industry hits the skids there is value to be found. That is, unless the whole industry is going under. In that case value would take a while to surface. An active example is oil. There have been plenty of opportunities over the past two years to invest in oil and lose it all. While oil was attractive last summer when everyone thought it hit a bottom, the buy calls were short lived as oil continued to fall. At the same time we had commodities slowing down as an asset class. Now an August '16 crude futures contract is at $36.82 per barrel compared to a $93.11 closing price February 25, 2013. Brent Crude is at $34.26. 




Despite the carnage there will be equities (and bonds) worth buying. If you are dividend focused it will pay to do your research if you are going to buy new investments as dividends are being slashed, cut back or stopped.

Kinder Morgan $KMI is a name that has popped up since they crashed - despite the gloomy future of the industry that lies ahead - as a group that can start again and perhaps go on an M&A streak picking up the soon to be cheap oil assets. Credit Suisse and Stifel recently upgraded KMI to buy status but some analysts forecast it staying around $17.50-$18.00 until Q1 2018. They are also unlikely to go bankrupt. An estimated 40% of oil related companies are entering bankruptcy protection. In mid-2015 many oil service groups extended additional credit to energy firms to pick up the slack in the industry and kick start growth. Now with global growth slowing down and a growing oil surplus there is real exposure and losses that will need to be funded. The turnaround is just beginning to be planned and an entrance at this point would be premature. But it is time to build out a new watchlist for energy groups and avoid the urge to be dragged down the road while oil finds its bottom.






















Full article at http://www.investing.com/analysis/waiting-out-the-long-oil-crash-200119414

Ping Zermatt Credit if you want the data points

- Chad Hagan

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 25, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- I am obviously disappointed by the judge's decision to confirm the debtors' reorganization plan and hand ownership of American Apparel to its bondholders. This outcome is one that I have been working tirelessly for nearly two years to avoid in an effort to protect value for the company's various stakeholders. Now all stockholders will have their shares and value extinguished. Many of the company's loyal vendors will recover only cents on the dollar of what the company owes them. And the company's workers, faced with current management's inability to generate profits, face a highly uncertain future. It is without question that the debtors, Standard General and the bondholders carefully orchestrated a strategy to pass the Company over to the bondholders without exposing it to fair market test or bidding. This outcome was the only logical and unfortunate conclusion of many months of pre-bankruptcy preparation on the part of the bondholders and the company's board. Here the bondholders and current management effectively used Chapter 11 as a defensive measure to thwart my efforts. This goal was pursued despite the many alternative pathways and opportunities to preserve value. As evidence of the lengths the Board went to in facilitating its scheme they filed a "lock - up" agreement, prohibiting secured creditors and bondholders from considering alternative offers. Chief Judge Shannon was clearly concerned about the Company's failure to undertake any marketing effort and on November 19 he ordered them to market the Company. Although the Debtors were uncooperative even after the Court's order, through intensive efforts with our financial partners, we submitted—a bid that was demonstrably superior to the Debtors' filed plan. Indeed, the Court said in its ruling that if American Apparel were for sale, the Court would not have hesitated to send the parties back to the auction table. The Debtors then increased the economics to match the offer, but refused to engage in further negotiations. They then embarked on a scorched earth campaign to block further bids, subjecting myself and my financial partners to days of depositions during the waning days of the already truncated marketing process. In short, they did everything possible to curtail all efforts to bring fair, reasonable value to creditors. Since relocating American Apparel to Los Angeles in the late 1990's from South Carolina I was bucking conventional wisdom by trying to preserve American manufacturing jobs and keep apparel manufacturing in the United States. Even though everyone else was moving jobs offshore, I was able to build and grow a profitable apparel business by manufacturing domestically. At every step along the way people challenged me and said I was crazy for trying. American Apparel was one of the only companies that shattered the sweatshop paradigm by paying fair wages, and did so at scale. By the time American Apparel went public in 2007, it was running the largest operating apparel manufacturing plant in the United States. For these endeavors I remain justifiably proud. There was logic to the company's unconventional business strategy as evidenced by the company's historic earnings. Until I was removed as CEO, the company had posted positive EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in nine of the last ten years. There were many other things that we did differently at American Apparel, besides manufacturing domestically, in which we were ahead of the times. Whether it was deploying RFID technology in our retail stores, fulfilling e-commerce orders direct from retail stores, or opening stores in emerging neighborhoods before they were recognized as attractive retail markets (just a few examples among many), we were often ahead of the curve. It was because our organization respected and celebrated creativity and unorthodox thinking that we were so successful, and I was committed to protecting this spirit of contrarian thinking. When the Company's board removed me as CEO in June 2014, I was midway through what was shaping up to be a successful recalibration of American Apparel's business. The process of my disenfranchisement ultimately resulted in a wealth transfer from the Company's shareholders, vendors, and employees to hedge funds, lawyers, and bankers. The company was rebounding from a catastrophic distribution center shift implemented by the former CFO and was on track to post a positive operating profit in the second quarter of 2014, and on track to hit its earnings guidance for the year of $40 million EBITDA. With the company's bonds trading down because of the uncertainty around the success of the turnaround, I believe I was pushed out as CEO because of pressure that the bondholders exerted on the company's then CFO and board of directors (As I have alleged in my litigation, I maintain the view that the then CFO, John Luttrell, conspired to sell the company behind my back and to that end disenfranchised me as a shareholder during the June 2014 annual meeting by way of a misleading and fraudulent proxy). The resolute goal of the bondholders was to sell the company so they could profit, but I had to be pushed out of the way since I was the company's largest shareholder. I was not willing to give up, and I attempted to regain control of the company because of my concerns that the company was still in a very vulnerable position with its turnaround not yet complete. I feared, with good reason, that the new management, not understanding what made American Apparel successful in the first place, would try to run the company in a more "conventional" manner. Because the board and new management did not appreciate that a vertically integrated domestic manufacturer had to approach business in a fundamentally different fashion, I felt that the company's future was in serious jeopardy if they ran it like a traditional retailer. For this reason, I entered into a partnership with the hedge fund, Standard General, to regain control of the company. I could have assembled a coalition of shareholders to force a change at the board level, but given the urgency of the situation, I decided to surrender part of my economic interest in the company to regain control quickly. When Standard General did not deliver on their promises to reinstall me as CEO by late summer 2014, even though they had appointed new directors constituting a majority of the board, Standard General said I could buy them out of their investment. When I showed up with investors to do precisely this, they said that they could only support a go-private transaction for the entire company. In December 2014, a private equity firm offered $1.30-$1.40 per share to take the company private. The board rebuffed this offer as well, as offering inadequate value to shareholders for a company they said was worth much more. Instead, the board pursued a path where only a year later the shareholders are receiving zero. The offer that I made in conjunction with Hagan Capital to purchase the company was just one in a long list of offers, and there was no reason to believe that this one would end any differently, given the powerful forces steering the company towards a reorganization where the bondholders end up owning the company. While many parties close to me feared that this would be the outcome of my partnership with Standard General, even they could not fathom such a reversal. While outside observers might not yet appreciate it, I believe the path being followed by the company's management is a road to ruin. The financial results of plummeting sales and EBITDA thus far support this. Management attempts to explain away their abysmal financial performance, as the result of inadequate liquidity, but the truth is that they misunderstand the unique business model that American Apparel must pursue as a vertically integrated domestic manufacturer. Their losses are self-inflicted, the result of poor decisions, made by executives who are learning as they go. Part of me can scarcely believe that a court could confirm their plan as feasible given the operating performance of the business under their management and 18 months into their turnaround plan. But while the bondholders are likely to be put in a position to throw good money after bad for consciously pursuing this path, I worry for the manufacturing workers and the business community who are the collateral damage to this corporate drama. I'm proud of the creativity and innovation that American Apparel fostered over the years. We made important strides in the areas of ethical manufacturing and art as they intersect with commerce. The sad reality is that American Apparel, the largest garment manufacturer in the United States, will not survive at this pace and I don't believe the current management has the talent to bring it back to health. At the end of this saga, I, like the many former stockholders, will most likely be left with nothing. Despite that, what gives me great optimism are the things I possess that can't be stolen by a predatory hedge fund - my ideas, values, drive, authenticity, integrity and my passion. To that end I ask that my supporters stay tuned.

Khamenei calls for security cooperation with China, says U.S. not to be trusted

RTRS 23-JAN-2016 11:46:48 AM DUBAI, Jan 23 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Saturday for closer economic and security ties with China, saying both countries could be reliable partners, especially in energy. "Iran is the most reliable country in the region for energy since its energy policies will never be affected by foreigners," Khamenei was quoted as saying by his official website at a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Khamenei said the United States was "not honest" in the fight against terrorism in the region, and asked for more cooperation between Iran and China.

American Apparel rejects takeover bid - source - RTRS

14-JAN-2016 11:59:16 PM 

By Aurindom Mukherjee Jan 14 (Reuters) - Bankrupt teen apparel retailer American Apparel Inc's APPCQ.PK board has rejected the latest takeover offer involving the company's controversial founder, Dov Charney, a source told Reuters. Earlier this week, the Los Angeles-based company received a $300 million bid from a group of investors who are backing the return of Dov Charney.
Hagan Capital Group and Silver Creek Capital Partners said their proposal included $90 million of new equity and a $40 million term loan, and backs a business plan from Charney, who was fired as chief executive in December 2014. American Apparel is open to a revised offer from the funds, the source said. (http://bloom.bg/1lbRGeX) Bloomberg reported the news first on Thursday.

Chad Hagan from the Hagan Capital Group said they are confident that American Apparel will accept their "superior business model that centers on long term value, ethical management and preserving American manufacturing jobs"

Silver Creek Capital Partners were not immediately available for comment. Representatives of Dov Charney declined to comment. American Apparel, which has not been profitable since 2009, filed for bankruptcy in October, joining a list other teen-focused retailers including Wet Seal and Body Central Corp that have struggled with changing tastes. Charney founded American Apparel in 1989, but was fired in December for allegedly misusing company funds and failing to stop a subordinate from defaming former employees. He has denied the allegations. 

Remarks upon certain aspects of the theory of costs
by LIONEL ROBBINS
A lecture delivered before the Nationalökonomischen Gesellschaft, Vienna, 7 April 1933. First published in the Economic Journal (March 1934).

The theory of costs is not one of those parts of economic analysis which can properly be said to have been unduly neglected. It has always occupied a more or less central position, and in recent years it has been the subject of a quite formidable body of new work. There is, indeed, no part of his subject about which the contemporary economist may legitimately feel more gratified, either as regards the quality of the work which has been done or as regards the temper in which it has been undertaken. Yet, in spite of this, the present state of affairs in this field is not altogether satisfactory. The various problems involved have been tackled by different sets of people; and the conclusions which have been reached in one part of the field have sometimes a rather disquieting appearance of incompatibility with conclusions which have been reached elsewhere. No doubt some of this apparent incompatibility is real. It is not to be expected that here—any more than elsewhere—economists should have reached finality. But some of it is probably illusory; and if in discussing these matters we were to state more decisively the problems which we are attempting to solve, and the assumptions on which we proceed, it seems likely that not only should we be able to clear up our outstanding real points of difference more quickly, but that, in the course of doing so, we should also discover that many of them depended essentially upon subtle differences of object and assumption, hitherto insufficiently stated. At any rate, it is in the belief that this would be so that these very tentative remarks are put forward.

http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Thirlby/bcthLS2.html

The investor backing Dov Charney's American Apparel bid tells @BettyWLiu why https://t.co/PuimJReN0v pic.twitter.com/wbN37B3qXA

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) January 12, 2016

(AP) — An investor group wants to buy American Apparel for about $300 million and bring back the clothing chain’s founder and former CEO Dov Charney. Charney was fired from American Apparel in 2014 following allegations that he had violated the company’s sexual harassment policy. Charney denied those charges. The investors, Hagan Capital Group and Silver Creek Capital Partners, said Monday that they have submitted a bid. American Apparel said in a statement Monday that it evaluates all bids and that it is focusing on emerging from bankruptcy protection. The Los Angeles company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October. Most Read Stories Seahawks Game Center promoSeahawks Game Center: Complete postgame playoff coverage after Seattle Seahawks edge Minnesota Vikings in wild-card showdown nullListen: Two very different radio calls of Vikings kicker Blair Walsh's missed field goal against Seahawks (Rich Boudet / The Seattle Times)The sports world reacts to Seahawks' wild win over Minnesota Vikings Marshawn Lynch’s stunning decision not to play Sunday raises more questions about his future with Seahawks Seahawks 10, Vikings 9: What the national media are saying about Seattle's close call, chances vs. Cam Newton, Panthers Unlimited Digital Access. $1 for 4 weeks. Hagan Capital Group and Silver Creek Capital Partners said Charney has a business plan that would improve American Apparel, which has faltered since he left. American Apparel, which Charney founded in 1998, sells its clothing in 218 stores around the world.

"American Apparel is a proven viable business model that needs to be scaled from a sales point of view and should not be in bankruptcy. If the Company is not turned around it will be a pointless loss of American manufacturing jobs. We strongly urge the creditors to evaluate and accept our offer," stated Chad Hagan, Managing Partner of Hagan Capital Group.

1e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432-20160111-story.html

https://amers2.apps.cp.thomsonreuters.com/web/pdfReuters/htmlnews/8knews.asp?i=43059c3bf0e37541&u=urn:newsml:reuters.com:2016-01-11:MKW_20020408:1238177

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-11/charney-backers-manage-more-than-2-billion-feel-he-was-wronged

Seemingly moments after Xi made a visit... From Reuters China claims most of the South China Sea and on Oct. 9 its Foreign Ministry warned that Beijing would "never allow any country to violate China's territorial waters and airspace in the Spratly Islands, in the name of protecting freedom of navigation and overflight." The United States argues that under international law, building up artificial islands on previously submerged reefs does not entitle a country to claim a territorial limit and that it is vital to maintain freedom of navigation in a sea through which more than $5 trillion of world trade passes every year.

By Simon Jessop and Sinead Cruise

LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - U.S. asset manager Principal Global Investors is to shut London-based hedge fund investment firm Liongate Capital Management after fee-conscious investors withdrew too much money from its funds.

While the hedge fund industry has hit $3 trillion on demand for alternative bets in a low-return world, investors are keen to pay less to make those bets, hitting funds that charge an extra fee for selecting which hedge funds to invest in.

"The headwinds in the hedge fund of funds industry -- fees on fees, declining assets, which I think is an industry phenomenon -- in spite of decent performance, had got us to the point where it was better, on scale grounds, to return cash to investors," said Principal Chief Executive Jim McCaughan.

Liongate, which ran $1.4 billion at the time Principal took a majority stake in 2013, had less than $500 million in assets under management, a spokesman for Principal said, after suffering "significant pressure".

Managing director Jeff Holland left the firm in July, nearly 13 years after helping found the business.

And the lawsuits start piling up...

Attorneys at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. have filed a request for a temporary restraining order against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and related entities to prevent the auto maker from sending misleading communications to drivers of certain Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles.

Complaints of US employers slamming the breaks on hiring, in addition to global woes, have placed the fed on hold.  Forecasts call for rates action to take place in March 2016.

However, launch the IPOs. Let us not forget that corporates hit the skids at alarming rates. New blood in the system is mandatory.

Parting words...emissions. Set to explode right? The VW scandal is about to uncover a history (since the 1970's) of VW going face-to-face with the EPA. Just wait., Carbon finance is the new darling once again.
----

NEW YORK, Oct 2 (Reuters) - The global market volatility of the past month that sent U.S. stocks to their worst quarter in four years shows no signs of letting up just because the calendar turned to October.

Investors say they are bracing for another leg down in the S&P 500 stock index despite its positive showing last week by increasing cash and other defensive positions in their portfolios.

"Do I think we go into a bear market? No. Can we inch toward it? Absolutely," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Rockwell Global Capital in New York.

With the backdrop of slowing jobs growth in the U.S. and the collapse of global commodity prices, third quarter corporate results will take on a heightened significance when companies begin reporting them next week, analysts said. Alcoa Inc, traditionally the first company to report its results, is scheduled to announce its third quarter earnings after the market closes on Oct. 8.

Overall, corporate earnings are expected to fall by 4.1 percent, according to Thomson Reuters data. That figure is skewed, however, by an expected 65 percent fall in energy sector results.

"The single most determinant variable is going to be earnings at this point," said Mark Freeman, chief investment officer at Dallas-based Westwood Holdings Group. He has been raising his cash levels, and at the same moving more of his portfolio into healthcare and technology companies that show signs of growth.

"The market continues to narrow and narrow. We're not about to fall into a bear market, but I'm starting to think the raging bull market is over," he said.

A weaker than expected U.S. employment report for September on Friday diminished inflation expectations, and the prospects for a dim U.S. corporate earnings season, are all factors fanning worries that the economic recovery could be derailed. (Full Story)

Concerns about the global economy has fueled a series of deep declines and snap-back rallies over the last month, as investors look for surer footing. The S&P index had fallen more than 10 percent from the record high it reached May 20, and after starting with a selloff on Friday, closed up 1.42 percent, still down 8.6 percent from its recent high.

Investors pulled $22 billion out of U.S. equity funds in the third quarter, while putting a record $17 billion into U.S. Treasury funds, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Those investors have had few places to hide. Of the 21 major financial asset benchmarks tracked by Reuters, only two - the U.S. dollar and 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds - have posted positive returns so far this year, leaving investors with the worst financial market returns since the financial crisis in
2008.


The yield of the benchmark 10-year Treasury fell below 2.0 percent on Friday for the first time since late August on concerns about growth in the U.S. economy.

"There are some wicked winds swirling around from a macro perspective and you can't afford to be complacent," said Alan Gayle, head of asset allocation at Atlanta-based RidgeWorth Investments, who said he has been raising the cash levels in his portfolios until the market stabilizes. (Full Story)

The Federal Reserve's decision in September to delay raising interest rates from financial crisis-era levels is exacerbating the uncertainty behind the market's large swings, said Jonathan Golub, chief U.S. market strategist at RBC Capital Markets.

"The market wants to see the economic conditions normalize. It's starting to think that something is broken here and it makes them uncomfortable," he said.

Fedwatchers suggest Friday's lackluster jobs report would cause the Fed to further delay raising interest rates until 2016, prolonging market volatility into next year. (Full Story)

To be sure, some investors say that heightened volatility is welcome.

"This can create wonderful opportunities, and we're actively looking to take advantage of egregious pricing," said Connor Browne, managing director of equities at fund manager Thornburg Investment Management.
By David Randall, Reuters