Gen Y Takes 'Collaborative' Approach to Finances

TD Ameritrade released a survey Wednesday on the differences in financial education and attitudes between generations.

The report noted that Gen Y is "collaborative" when it comes to finding financial information; 60% will ask their friends, relatives and colleagues for information, compared with 46% of Gen X, 43% of boomers and just 31% of matures. It should be no surprise then that one-third of Gen Y respondents turn to social media for news about the economy and financial markets.

The survey found 61% of respondents use television and radio talk shows for information on economic and financial issues. Over 50% use daily newspapers. People born between 1930 and 1945, or matures, were most likely to use daily newspapers, while those born between 1965 and 1989, which includes Gen X and Gen Y, were most likely to use news websites. Almost two-thirds of Gen Y respondents say they use news websites, and 52% of Gen X respondents do.

Boomers are most likely to use professional advisors to get news, but older generations are similarly dependent on advisors. Thirty-eight percent of boomers, 37% of matures and 32% of Gen X use their advisor to get news about the economy and financial markets, but just 21% of Gen Y does.

There's a gap, however, in where respondents go for information and how much they trust those sources. While 38% of boomers go to their advisor for information, just 22% reported that they trust their advisor. Gen X didn't indicate trust in any one source; rather, 17% noted traditional media, investment advisors and news-oriented websites each as trustworthy sources.

While 21% of Gen Y respondents said they trust their friends or talk show hosts, just 10% say they trust professional advisors as a source of news.

Most respondents (81%) say they were exposed to money management principles before they turned 20, and almost 80% of respondents feel this was appropriate. Younger generations are learning to save and spend wisely at younger ages. Forty-one percent of matures say they learned financial principles in their teens, compared with 69% of Gen Y.

Parents were unsurprisingly the most frequently cited source of financial education, but 74% of respondents said they felt schools should take more responsibility. Compared with Gen X and Gen Y, matures are twice as likely to think that employers should play a role in financial education.

Although most respondents learned the basics early, 57% said they didn't learn about investing in the stock market until their 20s or 30s. Among respondents who own stocks, bonds, mutual funds or exchange-traded funds, 54% say they have "just average knowledge" of the stock market.

Gen Y and matures agreed that managing their income and living within their means was their top financial priority, though Gen Y was slightly more confident about their ability to do so (47% compared with 44% of matures). Boomers just want to live comfortably (34%), but only 26% are confident in their ability to do that. Gen X is focused on reducing personal debt - one-quarter said this was their biggest priority – and are confident they can do so. Gen X is also the most likely to say they regret not saving enough for the future (62%), although all generations agreed this was their biggest regret.

Older generations agreed, though, that being debt-free was their definition of financial success, with roughly one-third of each group citing no debt as a mark of success. Among Gen Y respondents, 36% said being able to put money aside each month was how they defined financial success.

Nearly 60% of matures say they have already achieved financial success. Younger generations are far less likely to agree. Just 18% of boomers say they've achieved success, compared with 8% of Gen X and 9% of Gen Y. While Gen Y is ever so slightly more apt than Gen X to say they've achieved financial success, they're also most likely to say they are on their way to success. Sixty-four percent of Gen Y respondents say they are on their way, compared with 56% of Gen X and 48% of boomers. Sadly, 20% of boomers and Gen X say that while they're working on it, they may never be financially successful. At 13%, Gen X respondents are most likely to say it's unlikely that they'll achieve financial success, followed closely by boomers at 12%.

Matures who are struggling to achieve financial success attribute their difficulties to costs associated with health care, while the younger generations agree their biggest obstacle is expenses that are rising faster than their income.

Eighty-five percent of respondents reported that it requires more self-discipline and knowledge to manage personal finances today than it used to, according to the report. Still, 93% say they are confident about their ability to manage their finances, although 60% said they would be more comfortable if they knew more about investing. Of the 55% of respondents who called themselves "investors," Gen X and Gen Y were more likely to say managing their personal budget was more difficult than managing their investment portfolio. Boomers were evenly split – 47% said their personal budget was more difficult to manage, and 47% said their investment portfolio was more challenging.

The survey was conducted in late 2010 by Maritz Inc. among over 950 adults between 21 and 80.

Throw Them All Out: An Interview with Peter Schweizer

Sometimes a subtitle tells you quite a lot about a book. The one for Peter Schweizer's Throw Them All Out reads: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison.
That's a powerful statement, and perhaps unsurprisingly, Schweizer's book has had an enormous impact on the debate over Congressional insider trading. In fact, one could argue that Schweizer's interview with CBS's 60 Minutes was one of the biggest catalysts in bringing this issue to the attention of the American public.
Our very own Chris Hill was able to sit down with Schweizer for an interview recently. An edited audio recording of the interview as well as a transcript are included below.

Chris Hill: Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. I'm Chris Hill. Insider trading is against the law, unless apparently you are a member of the United States Congress. Then it's completely legal. Peter Schweizer is a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and he's the author of the new best-seller Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. Peter, welcome to Motley Fool Money.
Peter Schweizer: Hey, it's great to be on with you. Thanks for having me.
Hill: There is a lot to get to here, but I want to start at the beginning of this project for you. How did you come up with the idea for this book?
Schweizer: Well, you know, somebody sent me an article that appeared in an academic journal a few years ago. It's a journal called the Journal of Quantitative Economics. If you have trouble sleeping at night, this might be a good place to go.
But this study was actually very interesting, because thes! e schola rs looked at 6,000 stock trades by U.S. senators, and what they found, shockingly, was that while the average American tends to underperform the market averages, the average corporate executive beats the market by 5% a year and the average hedge fund beats the market by 7 to 8% a year. This study found that U.S. senators beat the market by 12% a year...
Hill: Wow!
Schweizer: Yeah. And so, it left me wondering, you know: "OK, gee. Either these guys are really, really smart geniuses that I don't give them enough credit for, or something else is going on." And it really only took me a split second to say, "You know, I think something else is going on."
Hill: And again, there's so much research that you and your team did for this book. How did you go about connecting the dots?
Schweizer: Well, you know, it was very difficult. What we really wanted to do was show and sort of overlay the financial transactions of members of Congress. They're required to disclose them once a year. They're required to show what their holdings are and also the dates of transactions, but they only give the amounts in ranges, so you don't know exactly how much money they're trading.
But we took that material, and then we looked at their legislative activity or things that were going on where they had access to special information. Like for example, during the 2008 financial crisis, they had a lot of closed-door meetings with the Fed chairman and Treasury secretary. And once we overlaid those, we found, astonishingly, that people who served on financial committees were aggressively trading bank stocks. Those that were involved in the health-care bill, the health-care reform debate in 2009 were aggressively buying and selling all sorts of health care-related stocks, and it was kind of stunning. So, once we had this overlay, then we started to track to see what sort of investment decisions they were making and how they did in terms of tho! se inves tments.
Hill: Why are we just hearing about this now? I mean, if this has been going on for this long...
Schweizer: It's a good question. I think for a couple of reasons. No. 1, it takes a lot of work, because they don't file their financial disclosures even electronically. You'd think this is the 21st century, but they fill them out on paper, and they basically are put somewhere by the ethics committees. So you have to really go and find them and get them.
The second thing is that, frankly, I think journalists in Washington, D.C. that cover Congress are in a bit of a quandary. The example that I would give is imagine that you are the sports reporter covering the baseball team, and you write a story that says the owner is a drunk and the players are corrupt. Guess what? You're not going to get invited into the locker room anymore. And I think that a lot of reporters in Washington face that dilemma. If they start reporting these kinds of stories, they're not going to get leaks. They're not going to get exclusive interviews. So, I think the media has frankly, in Washington, been much more of a lapdog than a watchdog because they don't want to lose their access.
Hill: You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Talking with Peter Schweizer, author of the new best-seller Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. There's a lot there in the subtitle. Let's start with the insider stock tips. Could you elaborate on some of the ways that politicians... let's just take John Kerry, for example. He's one of the people that you cite in the book. How is John Kerry -- who is already a wealthy guy to begin with -- how is he doing it?
Schweizer: Well, it's a great question. What's so interesting about insider trading -- whether it's in the private sector or in Congress -- is that whether you're rich or poor, pe! ople are tempted to do it. In the case of John Kerry, here's a guy that was very much involved in writing and structuring two big pieces of health-care legislation. One was the 2003 benefits for Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit, which basically was a huge boon to the pharmaceutical industry. Kerry, at the time he was helping that bill go through the Senate and craft it, the investment funds that he and his wife owned were actually aggressively buying Big Pharma stock, and they had a capital gains of about $2 million on those Big Pharma stocks.
And again in 2009, during the debate over health-care reform -- or ObamaCare, whatever you want to call it -- the same thing applied. He was dumping companies that were going to lose in that reform and he was buying companies like generic-drug manufacturers who were going to be winners.
You know, this is perfectly legal. It's deemed ethical. But were you to do this while you were working for a company, you would face either fraud charges or insider trading charges, because you're just simply not allowed to mix your investment decisions with private information or knowledge that you have of what's going to happen to your company.
Hill: Is that ultimately what this comes down to, is the unfairness of it? Because I could see someone making the argument like, "Yeah, this is going on, but this is a victimless crime. This isn't actually hurting anyone. It's advantageous to members of Congress, but it's not really hurting anyone."
Schweizer: Well, no, I would disagree with you slightly. I mean, you can argue how much the hurt really is, but every time that you are a member of Congress who is buying a stock or selling a stock, there's somebody on the other end of that transaction that is not privy to the information you have. So to pick an example, during the 2008 financial crisis, on the evening of Sept. 18, there was a closed-door briefing with the Treasury secretary and with the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke. And! as Paul son recounts in his memoirs, this was an apocalyptic briefing. They said that the market's going to go down at least 20%. We're looking at a major economic crisis.
Well, people that were in that meeting -- members of Congress -- the next day lots of them went out and dumped their shares of stock. And the Dow at that time was over 11,000, and within three weeks, it would be down to 8000. So, they were able to avoid those trades, and when you're buying and selling stock, there's somebody on the other side of that transaction. So, I don't think it's totally a victimless crime.
Hill: You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Talking with Peter Schweizer, author of the new book Throw Them All Out. One of the things that is clear from your book, Peter, is that for people who are seeking bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., they can certainly find it when it comes to insider trading because you mentioned Senator Kerry. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House -- he's in your book for buying shares of different public companies as he's essentially killing the public option on health care.
Schweizer: Yeah. I mean, this is not something that is a partisan issue. I mean, the bottom line is human nature is human nature and politicians, to varying degrees, are looking out for their own financial interests. So yes, John Boehner was doing it. Another Republican that I think was particularly egregious is Spencer Bachus, who was the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. He was at that apocalyptic briefing that I just mentioned, whereby they were told the market was going to go down significantly.
Literally, the next day he went out and bought something called Proshares Ultra-Short QQQ, which is a leveraged option buy -- a leverage betting that the market's going to go down -- and he literally doubled his money in a matter of a couple of days based on that information. And he wasn't done, by the way. He did 40 options trades ! during t he financial crisis, and made tens of thousands of dollars doing so. So, yeah -- this swings to both parties, and I think it's one of those reasons that we haven't heard a lot about it, because both sides have a motive and an incentive to keep it quiet.
Hill: Well, and just to pick one other example, also in the financial space but just sort of outside the big banks on Wall Street, you had Nancy Pelosi who was the Speaker of the House. At the Motley Fool, we're constantly cautioning people to stay clear of IPOs, because you want to see how a public company performs as a public company for maybe six, twelve months. But in the case of Visa (NYSE: V  ) , Nancy Pelosi got in on the IPO and it really seemed to work out well for her.
Schweizer: Yeah, I think you're right to be cautious about IPOs. But if you have particularly IPOs that are in demand like Visa, which was a very profitable company, everybody wanted its stock and they simply were not able to because there was so much demand. The Pelosis, however, while she was Speaker of the House, were given access to 5,000 IPO shares. They were able to buy it at $44 a share. The day it went public, the next day, it was up to $64 a share, and within a matter of a couple of months, it had doubled. It was trading at over $90 a share. So, they did very well. They made several hundred thousands of dollars on that transaction.
And here's the bottom line: When they took that from Visa, there were two pieces of legislation that Visa was very concerned about that had been introduced in the House that would deal with merchant fees, which is where Visa makes its money. Those bills came out of committees with bipartisan support, but as Speaker of the House, she just simply did not allow them to come to the House floor for even a vote. So Visa basically had that legislation delayed for not one year, but two years. The Pelosis did well, Visa got what it wanted, and I t! hink it raises real concerns about conflict of interest.
Hill: You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Talking with Peter Schweizer, author of the book Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. When it comes to trading stocks on privileged information -- because at the Motley Fool we're very focused on stocks -- who are the most egregious members of Congress? I know we've talked about a few. But who are the most egregious? And please tell me that, on the flip side, there are some shining lights, some members of Congress who are actually being not just above the board legally -- because as you pointed out, this is all legal -- but they've really gone beyond the call in terms of being highly ethical.
Schweizer: No, I think that's a great point. I'll mention one liberal Democrat and one conservative Republican that if you look at their financial investments, you look at what they do, are very clean on this out of principle. The liberal Democrat I would mention would be Barney Frank, who is the once-chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He's from Massachusetts. He's retiring. He does not invest in stocks as a matter of principle. He puts all of his money into municipal bonds.
On the Republican side, you could take a conservative like Michele Bachmann who basically does the same thing. She's from Minnesota. Had an ill-fated presidential run here. She's the political opposite of Barney Frank, but she does the same thing. And there are others, and I think we need to applaud them.
I would look at the stock traders and say that John Kerry and his wife have a lot of assets. They do a lot of stock transactions that seem to be patterned on legislative activity, so he would be somebody I would pick on the Democratic side. Spencer Bachus, who I've mentioned, I would pick on the Republican side. He is an aggressive trader in options.
I'm su re you've talked at the Motley Fool about how that is a very high-risk investment strategy. Most people don't make money. They lose money doing that. But Bachus has done this for years, and he does it in trading stock options in companies like United Airlines, for example, or Sony Corporation (NYSE: SNE  ) or General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) . And he does this when he's privy to all sorts of information. And although most options traders lose money, he consistently makes a lot of money. In fact, I think it was in 2007, he made $160,000 which was the equivalent of his Congressional salary.
Hill: Maybe these guys should open up a side business where they can basically be brokers...
Schweizer: [Laughing]
Hill: You know, if someone's got that kind of track record, if they're getting those kind of returns, I would think seriously about investing my money with them.
Schweizer: Well, what I would do is I think Motley Fool needs to set up a Congressional Index Fund. If we could get these guys to do instant disclosure of their financial transactions, and Motley Fool were to just track their investment choices, we would all be beating the market by 12% a year. So I think maybe that's the future direction we need to go.
Hill: We've talked a lot about the problems as you've laid them out in your book. Let's think in terms of solutions. There is a bill before Congress right now -- the STOCK Act. It does have wide bipartisan support in the House. I think it has over 240 co-sponsors. This would effectively kill the type of insider trading that we're talking about. I'm curious. What do you think about that legislation and the chances that it has in the new year to pass?
Schweizer: I think the STOCK Act has a pretty good chance of passing and I think it's a goo! d step f orward, but I don't think it goes far enough, simply because what the law does is it makes congressional insider trading illegal. The question is enforcement. Is the Securities and Exchange Commission really going to go after, say, a powerful congressman on this issue? And past experience is not good. I mean, when the FBI was investigating William Jefferson, the congressman who famously had the money in his freezer...
Hill: In his freezer, yeah...
Schweizer: Yeah, when they got a search warrant to search his congressional office, both political parties said that this was a breach of congressional privilege, and they threatened to cut the FBI budget. So I don't think the SEC is going to enforce it. I think that we should pass the bill out of principle. I think we should also pass something that's been introduced called the RESTRICT Act. It's been introduced by Congressman Duffy and has co-sponsors from both political parties.
Duffy's, I think, is very good in that he would basically give members of Congress an option. No. 1, you need to put your assets in a blind trust and one that's certified and recognized as a blind trust. Or, if you don't want to do that, you have to disclose all of your transactions within three business days. So, in other words, if there's a health-care bill on Capitol Hill, we could see on a website that this congressman was buying or selling Big Pharma stock. And I think transparency would be a huge step forward. So, I think we need both of these bills to be passed.
Hill: You're listening to Motley Fool Money. Talking with Peter Schweizer. His new book is Throw Them All Out. What surprised you the most when you were working on this book?
Schweizer: What surprised me the most is that wealthy members of Congress did this� -- this just wasn't the guy who was kind of scraping by and trying to make money -- and how large some of the amounts were. During the health-care debate, for! example , you had a congressman from Colorado, Jared Polis, who's very wealthy, making multimillion-dollar bets on health company businesses that were going to benefit from health-care reform which he was supporting. So, the sheer amounts, in some cases, and the frequency of these transactions by members of Congress really stunned me.
Hill: What has the response on Capitol Hill been to your book?
Schweizer: Oh, you know, it's been mixed. What I found is that in Washington, D.C., the response has been to sort of attack me or to say it's not that big an issue. The response around the country has been the opposite. It's been on the best-seller list, now, for six weeks. People are very angry and frustrated about it. The media interest has been keen. And people from both political parties have really adopted the mantra that I've said, which is even if it's your guy that's doing this, we have to have a zero-tolerance policy.
For example, I'm a conservative Republican. If a conservative Republican is doing this, I need to vote against him and help throw him out of office, because they use the fact that they're with us on the issues to justify themselves staying in power and enriching themselves. And I think we need to stop, or otherwise this problem is just going to get worse and continue.
Hill: The book is Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison. Very thought-provoking stuff. A lot of great ideas. Peter, thanks so much for being here.
Schweizer: Hey, thanks for having me.

Best Wall St. Stocks Today: EK,HPQ,LXK

By Chad Brand Of The Peridot Capitalist

Eastman Kodak (EK) stock has been a value trap for years as increased sales of low margin digital photo products have struggled to make up the cash flow lost from declining traditional film sales. The next step in Kodak’s digital reinvention is aimed directly at Hewlett Packard (HPQ) and Lexmark (LXK). The company has unveiled its own line of inkjet printers complete with their own ink cartridges.
How does Kodak think it can compete with the established big guys in the printer market? By changing the rules of the game. For years, the hardware companies sacrificed margins on their printing hardware in order to secure the bulk of their profits from overpriced ink cartridges. Think of it as the Gillette business model. Get everyone using your razors and make your money selling replacement blades.
Kodak is going to try and take a slightly different approach, since low-priced ink recycling stores have popped up everywhere, aimed at customers frustrated by paying $30 for a plastic container of ink. Kodak will price their printers slightly above average, but simultaneously is slashing the prices of their replacement ink. Black cartridges will fetch $10, with color versions costing $15 apiece.
Will this strategy work? Well, it’s hard to say. Ink cartridge prices will most likely fall even further but that trend has already been in motion ever since ink recycling retailers like Cartridge World have gone ahead with rapid nationwide expansion plans. As a result, it is definitely bad news for HP and Lexmark, who will have to either lower prices to maintain market share, or give up some share to preserve profit margins.
But is this lightning in a bottle for Kodak? I’m not convinced yet, until I see what kind of margins the company can really get from thi! s strate gy. Hardware prices are always under pressure, so how long will Kodak be able to price their printers at the high end of the market, and how long will those prices hold? Will the total margin on a $250 printer and a $10 cartridge for a new entrant into the market be meaningfully higher than that of a $200 printer and a $30 cartridge from a company like HP that already possesses a low-cost production process?
It is surely a bold move from Kodak, and one they needed to make to reinvigorate their company and really take aim at a large consumer complaint; the high price of ink. However, even if they can take a nice chunk of the home printing market, it remains to be seen how much of that ink will really flow through to their bottom line. And that is really what will be important for Kodak investors going forward.
Full Disclosure: No position in EK, HPQ, or LXK at time of writing
http://www.peridotcapitalist.com/

Barnes & Noble recently Stroke its 52 Week High Price NYSE:BKS

Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE:BKS) is a bookseller. The Company is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. Barnes & Noble, Inc witnessed volume of 6.85 million shares during last trade however it holds an average trading capacity of 1.84 million shares. BKS last trade opened at $11.21 reached intraday low of $10.86 and went -0.44% down to close at $11.19.
BKS has intra-day market capitalization $649.74 million and an enterprise value at $1.05 billion. Trailing twelve months price to sales ratio of the stock was 0.09 while price to book ratio in most recent quarter was 0.85. In profitability ratios, net profit margin in past twelve months appeared at -0.89% whereas operating profit margin for the same period at -0.65%.
The company made a return on asset of -0.70% in past twelve months and return on equity of -6.99% for similar period. In the period of trailing 12 months it generated revenue amounted to $7.01 billion gaining $122.81 revenue per share. Its year over year, quarterly growth of revenue was -0.60%.
According to preceding quarter balance sheet results, the company had $23.63 million cash in hand making cash per share at 0.41. The total of $424.90 million debt was there putting a total debt to equity ratio 44.62. Moreover its current ratio according to same quarter results was 1.04 and book value per share was 13.27.
Looking at the trading information, the stock price history displayed that its S&P500 52 Week Change illustrated 0.63% where the stock current price exhibited up beat from its 50 day moving average price $15.31 and remained above from its 200 Day Moving Average price $13.79.
BKS holds 58.06 million outstanding shares with 27.12 million floating shares where insider possessed 50.38% and institutions kept 43.40%.

Fundamentals and a strong technical picture point to upside

So far this year, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) shares have plummeted nearly 30%, making it one of the worst-performing stocks on the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
While many claim the stock will continue to drop, I see a more bullish picture ahead.
In fact, I agree with my colleague, Jeff Reeves, who in his June 16 article, Why Bank of America (or Any Financial Stock) May Be Your Best Buy Now, suggested several reasons why BAC may be a potential buy at current levels.
In addition to Jeff�s insights, here are six more reasons why buying shares of America�s second largest bank �could put money �BAC� in your pockets:
1) Shedding of noncore assets
As a growth strategy, Bank of America aggressively pursued a number of mergers and acquisitions in years past.
Most notably, in 2008, the bank purchased mortgage lender Countrywide Financial for $4.1 billion. The deal was intended to expand BofA�s empire. But, in reality, it devastated the bank, making it incredibly vulnerable during the height of the housing bubble.
Coming to terms with this big mistake, BofA implemented a strategy to sell noncore assets, in order to increase capital, over time. On Monday, BofA announced plans to sell a portion of its holdings in China Construction Bank. BofA also recently spun off its last largest private equity firm, known now as North Cove Partners. And it recently sold its Balboa Insurance unit.
Last year, BofA sold 46.1 million shares of its stake in BlackRock (NYSE: BLK) and raised additional capital by completing the $1.9 billion sale of First Republic Bank.
BofA will likely to continue to strategically shed noncore assets in the years to come to improve capital and help strength its balance sheet, ultimately bringing better value to shareholders.
2) Slowly improving housing situat! ion
Through its Countrywide purchase � and the huge number of home foreclosures that followed � BofA unintentionally became one of the largest private home owners in the U.S. As a result, the bank is highly exposed to fluctuations in housing market.
While we are certainly not out of the woods yet, there are subtle signs the housing market may be slowly improving. This week, the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported that home prices increased 0.8% in April, their first rise in over a year. In addition, May existing home sales fell less than expected.
With BofA�s heavy exposure to the housing market, a lift in the housing sector could equally translate to a lift in Bank of America shares.
3) Bank of America is hiring
A growing company often needs to hire new employees. Available jobs, therefore, can be a way to casually gauge a company�s financial health. This week, BofA announced plans to hire over 500 so-called Financial Solution Advisors.
With these hirings, the bank�s intention is to enhance relationships with �preferred customers� who have BofA assets worth between $50,000-$250,000. The move should improve customer service and may even attract new clients to the bank, potentially bringing in new capital.
4) Bullish technicals
You need not be an astute technical analyst to see that BAC�s chart has been in a steady downtrend all year. �As you can see on the chart below, shares toppled from a high of $15.29 in early January to a low of $10.40 in mid-June.

Coincident with this tumble, the 50-day moving average bearishly crossed below the sinking 200-day moving average, creating a bearish formation known as a �death cross�! .
However, BAC may have hit bottom. The stock appears to have found support around the $10.40 level. And over the past couple weeks, it has lifted off this support level. It now appears the stock is attempting to break the downtrend line — which acts as an important resistance point.
If BAC can challenge this downtrend line, it will shatter the bearish descending-triangle pattern. With enough momentum, the stock could feasibly climb back to its January $15.29 high. At the stock�s current price, traders could potentially see gains upward of 40%.
5) Solid fundamentals
The fundamentals also indicate moderate growth potential ahead.
Although analysts project 2011 revenue will drop 4% to $105.8 billion from $110.2 billion last year, the situation should slowly improve. By 2012, the 23 analysts following the company expect revenue will increase 5.1% to $111.2 billion.
The earnings outlook is also strong. Analysts expect 2011 earnings per share to increase to $1.06 from 86 cents last year. By 2012, earnings are projected to rise to $1.70 a share.
6) Fair valuation
At current levels, the stock is also fairly valued, based on its forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 6.3 and price-to-book (P/B) ratio of about 0.5. In comparison, competing banks Citigroup (NYSE: C) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) have higher P/E ratios of around 7.4 and 7.2, respectively. They also have higher respective P/B ratios of about 0.7 and 0.9. Based on these metrics, BAC is slightly more attractive than its peers.
Given the six factors outlined above, BAC may be a buy at current levels. If the stock can break the downtrend line and the ensuing descending triangle pattern, the technicals suggest BAC could, well, give you a run for your money.

J.M. Smucker Increases Sales but Misses Revenue Estimate

J.M. Smucker (NYSE: SJM  ) reported earnings on Feb. 16. Here are the numbers you need to know.
The 10-second takeaway
For the quarter ended Jan. 31 (Q3), J.M. Smucker missed estimates on revenues and whiffed on earnings per share.
Compared to the prior-year quarter, revenue improved and GAAP earnings per share dropped.
Margins shrank across the board.
Revenue details
J.M. Smucker tallied revenue of $1.47 billion. The 12 analysts polled by S&P Capital IQ predicted a top line of $1.54 billion on the same basis. GAAP reported sales were 12% higher than the prior-year quarter's $1.31 billion.
anImage
Source: S&P Capital IQ. Quarterly periods. Dollar amounts in millions. Non-GAAP figures may vary to maintain comparability with estimates.
EPS details
Non-GAAP EPS came in at $1.22. The 15 earnings estimates compiled by S&P Capital IQ averaged $1.42 per share on the same basis. GAAP EPS of $1.03 for Q3 were 7.2% lower than the prior-year quarter's $1.11 per share.
anImage
Source: S&P Capital IQ. Quarterly periods. Non-GAAP figures may vary to maintain comparability with estimates.
Margin details
For the quarter, gross margin was 32.5%, 490 basis points worse than the prior-year quarter. Operating margin was 15.8%, 390 basis points worse than the prior-year quarter. Net margin was 8.0%, 210 basis points worse than the prior-year quarter.
Looking ahead
Next quarter's average estimate for revenue is $1.35 billion. On the bottom line, the average EPS estimate is $0.99.
Next year's average estimate for revenue i! s $5.52 billion. The average EPS estimate is $4.68.
Investor sentiment
The stock has a four-star rating (out of five) at Motley Fool CAPS, with 459 members out of 484 rating the stock outperform, and 25 members rating it underperform. Among 159 CAPS All-Star picks (recommendations by the highest-ranked CAPS members), 152 give J.M. Smucker a green thumbs-up, and seven give it a red thumbs-down.
Of Wall Street recommendations tracked by S&P Capital IQ, the average opinion on J.M. Smucker is outperform, with an average price target of $81.36.
Can your portfolio provide you with enough income to last through retirement? You'll need more than J.M. Smucker. Learn how to maximize your investment income and "Secure Your Future With 11 Rock-Solid Dividend Stocks." Click here for instant access to this free report.
  • Add J.M. Smucker to My Watchlist.

University of Charleston: How we cut tuition by 22%

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- After seeing enrollment decline for the first time in a decade, the University of Charleston, in West Virginia, slashed tuition by 22% for the upcoming school year hoping to entice more students.
The school, which currently has 1,006 undergraduate students, employed a series of initiatives to afford the cut, including reducing its financial aid, sharing professors with colleges in the region and graduating students early. As a result, tuition for new students will be $19,500 per year beginning in August -- down from the current rate of $25,000.
In an interview with CNNMoney, the university's president, Dr. Edwin Welch, explains why he took this unusual step and what the impact has been so far:
Why did you decide to cut tuition?
Last year, there were 30 students or so who had enrolled at the university but changed their minds after August 1. They went to different places -- we lost some students who transferred to community colleges. This was a new event for us.
We realized parents and families were now considering the overall price, not just the discount [financial aid and scholarships] they would be able to get. As universities we tend to market education the same way Joseph A. Banks advertises clothes, thinking the advertised price is not that important but the discounts are the most important part. But that's what is driving middle-class students away. So it seemed we needed to take a fresh look.
How did you decide on a 22% cut?
We had thought about cutting tuition by 20% at first, but the board said the total price should be under $20,000, so we cut it a little further and agreed on a ceiling price of $19,500.
How are you able to afford to cut tuition by 22%?
We've undertaken about half a dozen initiatives to reduce what it costs to run the institution.
We have a faculty-sharing program, which is a new initiative for this upcoming year. We'll share professors between five school! s to tea ch certain subjects. We also have a fast-track program, and 35% of the students who come to our school and stay earn a degree in three years instead of four or enroll in graduate school. That means students can replace a year of tuition with a year of income.
We have not lowered salaries.
Has the school reduced the total amount of financial aid it is offering to students?
We reduced how much aid we're giving overall. We're guaranteeing no one will pay more than $19,500.
Numbers won't be complete until the end of the year, but if we had 1,000 students and reduced tuition by $5,500 per student, that's $5.5 million that's not going to be awarded in financial aid. But on the other hand, all of our students get a discount anyway because we reduced the overall price.
We still have financial aid available -- a significant amount. This year we probably gave $15 million in financial assistance. Next year, we'll give maybe $10 million.
What has been the impact of the decision to lower tuition so far? Have you seen applications increase?
So far, the reaction from parents and students has been very positive. We expected a spike in applications, and applications are up nicely in our primary markets -- West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. Total applications are ahead of our two-year average but slightly behind last year.
More importantly, our deposits are up 40%. This suggests that students and families who look at us are finding the new tuition structure attractive and are depositing at a higher rate than previously.
As part of its 5-year vision, your university hopes to increase enrollment -- which currently stands at a total of 1,372 undergraduate and graduate students -- by 79%. Do you think this is a realistic goal?
As part of our vision, we want to reach total enrollment of 2,500 students within the next five years. We are starting a physician's assistant program which should bring some additional ! students , and we would like to add another graduate program. We hope that the process of lowering tuition helps us in the undergraduate area.
Have you seen enrollment decline in recent years?
We've had 60% more enrollment over the past 10 years, and we've had 10 years of increases. Then we had a decrease in new students this year [the 2011-2012 academic year]. We were down 70 students. So our commitment was to make sure this was the one exception to the trend.
What if the tuition cut does not boost enrollment? What's next?
This all revolves around net income. We can meet our budget targets either by increasing enrollment, increasing net revenue per student, or a combination of both. If neither of those three occur, then we will need to reduce expenses or expand other revenue sources.
Do you foresee your decision to cut tuition sparking a price war with other colleges?
I was at a national meeting with college presidents this January talking about tuition reduction, and a number of presidents talked to me in the meeting and outside of the meeting, saying they are considering lowering tuition.
I would hope schools would start to get their advertised price more in line with what people actually have to pay, but presidents are nervous, boards are nervous. It takes a while because it is such a bold and daring thing to do. Most schools are going to be afraid to do it. Sewanee, University of the South, did it last year and their enrollment went up, and we followed what they did.
Which colleges do you expect will be the first to follow your lead and lower tuition?
Schools like us who are second-tier educational institutions. Not Harvard, not the University of Pennsylvania. Schools that already have high rates of financial aid and are willing to market the price over the discount and change the way they operate.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the school is hoping to add 2,500 students over five ye! ars. It' s trying to reach a total enrollment of 2,500 students in five years.

Show Me the Love... Or Not

Chuck Ford tells his wife often how much he loves her. He likes to hold hands when they walk, cuddle when they watch TV and hug—a lot.
His wife has learned to like it. "I don't like to sit on the couch and cuddle for two hours," says Judy Ford, a 66-year-old retired high-school counselor from Carmel, Ind.
Robert Neubecker
Does your partner expect you to pick up subtle cues about whether he or she is upset? A partner who isn't great at communicating their feelings directly may hope you'll be quick to notice when they are upset and make things right. This tendency points to an Anxious attachment style.
Of all the ways that opposites attract, the thorniest may be when emotionally giving types pair up with types who are emotionally reserved.
Givers love to show affection: Hugs, kisses, flowers, skywriting—there's no such thing as too much. They crave receiving displays of love, as well.
Reserved types certainly may love deeply, but they are uncomfortable showing it. Often, they rely on their partner to initiate a display of affection. Sometimes, they don't even enjoy receiving expressions of love.
Initially, emotionally giving types are attracted to emotionally reserved types, and vice versa, because they are so different, experts say. Giving people often find reserved people intriguing; they like to elicit affection from someone who doesn't express it easily. And deep down, reserved types often like to be drawn out.
Meet the Marriage Killer: Why Is It So Hard to Stop Nagging? (Jan. 25, 2012)
Can 'the Planner' and 'Winging It' Live Happily Ever After? (Nov. 29, 2011)
Click Here for More Health & Wellness Articles
Over time, though, the two types can bring out the worst in each other. The giver starts to seem needy. The reserved partner reacts by pulling away. This makes the giver give even more in order to elicit attention; the reserved one backs away even further.
Enlarge Image
Close
BOND2
Early in their 20-year marriage, Mr. Ford, a 61-year-old retired social-studies teacher, began to feel his wife didn't fully reciprocate his affection. She rarely initiated hugs and kisses. And while she let him hold her hand sometimes, Mr. Ford says he could tell she didn't really enjoy it. He began to pull away. "I didn't want to waste my time," he recalls. "If the marriage isn't working so well, I can go fish or hunt or work on my studies or business relationships." He worried the relationship wouldn't last.
Then Ms. Ford asked her husband what was wrong. He told her, "I need more physical closeness, and not necessarily sex." She reminded him that she had been raised in a German-American household that wasn't "huggy-kissy." She told him she prefers to show lov! e throug h actions—making a nice home, planning vacations, setting up get-togethers with his family. "I was raised in a very bonded family that showed their love by spending time together," she says.
Enlarge Image
Close
BONDS-JUMP
Robert Neubecker
When your partner is away, are you afraid that he or she might become interested in someone else? Constant worry about the relationship points to an Anxious attachment style. But if your partner is an Avoidant type, there may be reason to worry: Research indicates Avoidants are more likely to cheat in the long run.
In the psychology field, these different ways of relating are called "attachment style," and they are partly learned and partly genetic. Attachment is believed to be a basic human need with an evolutionary basis. Many children, such as orphans, who aren't held or given physical affection fail to grow at normal rates.
Amir Levine, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at Columbia University in New York, identifies three types of attachment styles: Secure, Anxious and Avoidant. Secure people make up more than half the population and are typically warm, caring and comfortable with intimacy, he says.
Enlarge Image
Close
BONDS-JUMP
Robert Neubecker
Does your partner act out when things go wrong in the relationship, or even threaten to leave? A partner may engage in 'protest behavior' to get the other to pay attention and later regret things they said or did. This behavior may be typical of an Anxious attachment style.
Those with an Anxious attachment style, about 20% of the population, often worry about their relationship and whether their partner loves them, says Dr. Levine, co-author of the book "Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find—and Keep—Love." They typically are emotionally giving. Those with an Avoidant attachment style, about 25% of the population, tend to think intimacy leads to loss of autonomy and try to minimize closeness, he says.
In the mid-1960s, a Johns Hopkins University psychologist, Mary Ainsworth, developed an experiment known as "the Strange Situation": A young child plays with her mother in a room. Her mother leaves, and a stranger remains. Then the mother returns. Most children were distressed when their mothers left the room, says Robert S. Marvin, director of the Mary D. Ainsworth Child-Parent Attachment Clinic, in Charlottesville, Va.
[BONDS-JUMP] Robert Neubecker
Do you find it difficult to be emotionally supportive when your partner is feeling down? Supporting someone in times of need is a big opportunity to be close. An Avoidant attachment style makes it difficult for some people to deal with closeness, and they tend to pull back.
Dr. Ainsworth examined what took place during the mother-child reunion. Some children rushed to their mothers and were easily consoled; Dr. Ainsworth concluded they were secure. Other children were unable to be consoled by their mothers; these she called "anxious-resistant." Some didn't rush to their mothers, or they started to approach but then turned away; these she called "anxious-avoidant."
Another experiment, "the Still Face," conducted by Edward Tronick, now a developmental psychologist at the University of Massachusetts Boston, demonstrates that a child can experience a mother's emotional withdrawal at an early age. Dr. Tronick videotaped a mother engaging lovingly with her approximately 1-year-old baby. Then the mother makes her face immobile. The baby notices and tries to re-engage with her by smiling, then by pointing, then shrieking and finally crying.
The good news, Dr. Levine says, is that attachment style can change. Experts say couples need to tell each other what they need and be specific. For example, they can say, "I know it's difficult for you to be affectionate in front of my friends, but at home I really need a hug every day."

Does your partner or spouse make you feel that your well-being is your own responsibility, and not his or hers?
'You take care of your needs, I'! ll take care of mine,' is the credo of the Avoidant attachment style.
Do you often worry that your partner will stop loving you?
People who think relationships are immensely fragile and any wrong move can trigger the end tend to have an Anxious attachment style.
Do you dislike being dependent on your spouse or partner?
'Dependency' is a dirty word to Avoidants, who believe they should be self-reliant.
Displays of love don't have to be 50-50, as long as both people show something. "Each partner will need to make some slight movements in the opposite direction from which they are comfortable," says Sharon Gilchrest O'Neill, a Mount Kisco, N.Y., marriage and family therapist. She says she is more emotionally reserved than her husband, and he asked her to give him a kiss when he comes home.
The Fords worked on their differences, and now Ms. Ford gives her husband hugs when he comes home and before bed. She has become more comfortable holding hands and often initiates it. Mr. Ford has altered his expectations and doesn't take his wife's lack of verbal or physical expression personally. He also pays attention to the other ways she tells him she loves him: planning special weekends together, washing his hunting clothes, preparing and freezing meals before he goes camping. "We've moved to a mutual center," Mr. Ford says. "It comes from communication."
—Email Elizabeth Bernstein at bonds@wsj.com or follow her column at www.Facebook.com/EBernsteinWSJ.
Write to Elizabeth Bernstein at Bonds@wsj.com

Why You Should Buy the Most Hated Sector On the Market

For more than half a decade, few stocks have been more vilified than those from one out-of-favor sector. Even as the market recovered from its 2009 lows, this entire group was left behind. Investors simply wanted nothing to do with these stocks…
However, the first signs of life in this sector are beginning to appear. And I�ve found a unique way for you to play this hidden rally.
I�m talking about the housing sector. Since the housing market peaked more than 5 years ago, few investors have been willing to go anywhere near homebuilders. For years, these stocks have stagnated. Even sector leaders like Toll Brothers (NYSE:TOL) have failed to see their shares recover from 2008 lows.
Negative news surrounding the housing market continues to command front-page coverage. It�s been all too easy for the media to pile onto the countless human interest stories in the most affected regions of the country. Foreclosure horror stories, entire abandoned neighborhoods, and abusive bank practices remain top stories in the financial and mainstream media alike.
On the surface, housing sector data doesn�t look any brighter. The Case-Shiller index � which measures property values in 20 major cities � showed in its most recent data that home prices dropped 3.7% year-over-year.
But beneath the gloom-and-doom, there are several signs that the environment for homebuilders is improving.
Even Case-Shiller index co-creator Karl Case sees the silver lining in the numbers. Case told Bloomberg last month that the seeds of recovery have already been planted because homes are becoming affordable again. Add in record-low interest rates and you have a reason to be hopeful about housing.
According to the AP, builders broke ground on a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 699,000 homes last month. This milestone puts the seasonally adjusted rate at its highest level since October 2008. These glimmers of hope for the housing market have ignited a stealth rally within the sector:!
Homebuilders Index Quietly Outperforms
SPDR S&P Homebuilders Index ETF
Am I arguing that the housing market is ready to boom again? Absolutely not.
But when the skies are completely clear for the housing sector (and many experts are predicting at least two years before the market truly regains its footing) the investing opportunities will have passed us by. Right now, I am seeing the bottoming process play out in this sector.
While it would be completely unrealistic to expect anything even close to housing bubble conditions reappearing, I do believe there is opportunity in this space. There�s value to be found in some of these beaten-down homebuilders. Even though conditions will remain far from perfect for some time, many of these stocks could find higher ground now that the monumental bust that buried every single one of these stocks back in 2008 is beginning to wear off…
Mea Culpa: How I Was (Kind of) Wrong About Zynga
Last week, I warned you about the imminent collapse of Zynga Inc. (NASDAQ:ZNGA), the developer of FarmVille and other fad games for Facebook and mobile phones. I suspected that unrealistic expectations would eventually catch up with the stock. But I didn�t expect that to happen right away.
In fact, I wrote that the stock would probably trade even higher before any hint of a correction:
�Unfortunately, countless eager investors will probably get sucked into this stock before it crumbles,� I wrote just one week ago. �It will begin next week when Zynga will announce fantastic earnings. The company will beat estimates, predict incredible growth and win over plenty of new followers.�
That�s not exactly how it played out…
Yesterday, Zynga announced fourth quarter earnings! that se nt speculators packing. The stock lost nearly 18% of its value by the end of the day. Lower earnings and skyrocketing expenses helped spur the selling.
Needless to say, I was surprised that Zynga couldn�t put together a decent-looking quarter. Even more alarming are the huge research costs that are contributing to the company�s rising expenses. It�s clear that Zynga is going all-in when it comes to developing new games. Of course, there�s still no guarantee that those millions spent on game development will translate to long-term profits. I still recommend avoiding this stock.

Best Stocks to buy 2012 Labels