Forecasts & Trends : Recession

On the Economy & Obama's Trillions

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:33:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Economy - More Signs of Recovery
Is the Recession & Credit Crisis Over?
Obama Adds $2 Trillion to Debt Forecast
Economic Assumptions Still Too Optimistic
What in the World Are They Thinking?
Do They Want Control Even If It Ruins The Economy?

Introduction

In my June 16 E-Letter, I reprinted the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) projections of annual federal budget deficits over the period from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2019, which estimated that the national debt will more than double over that 11-year period - not including over $1 trillion for nationalized health care (if it passes) and several trillion more that will be required to rescue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade.

The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), which is partisan, runs budget deficit projections similar to those of the CBO. The OMB's deficit projections over the same period, 2009-2019, showed the national debt increasing over $2 trillion less than the CBO's forecast of $11.11 trillion. However, on Friday, August 21, the White House quietly announced that the OMB had revised upward its deficit projections to fall in line with the CBO's. So, it's official.

The only good news on the deficit front is that both the CBO and the OMB recently revised downward the fiscal 2009 budget deficit, which closes out at the end of September, from the earlier reported $1.8+ trillion to around "only" $1.6 trillion. Time to break out the bubbly, right? Wrong! We will look at the latest deficit projections as we go along, but the problem is still the same; Obama seems intent on spending this country into financial ruin.

But first, there is more good news on the economic front. More and more forecasters now believe that GDP has moved into positive territory in the 3Q, and perhaps it has. Unfortunately, we don't get our first 3Q GDP estimate until the end of October. The latest GDP estimate for the 2Q was unchanged at -1.0%, which was better than expected. I will cover the latest encouraging (and not so encouraging) economic news just below.

The Economy - More Signs of Recovery

We have seen considerably more positive signs than negative over the last month. Let's begin with the ISM manufacturing index which rose sharply to 52.9 in August, up from 43.4 in July. It is the highest reading since June 2007. A reading above 50 in the ISM index indicates that the economy is recovering. The ISM "new orders" index jumped 9.6% in August to 64.9, which confirms that inventory rebuilding is intensifying, albeit from very depressed levels.

Durable goods orders jumped 4.9% in July (latest data available) following -1.3% in June. Industrial production increased 0.5% in the same period. The factory operating rate also increased modestly in July. Construction spending, however, was still down slightly in July.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose for the fourth consecutive month in July (latest data available) with a rise of 0.6% following a gain of 0.8% in June. Four consecutive up months in the LEI is quite encouraging, indicating that the worst of the recession is likely behind us, and the economy may move into positive territory before year-end.

The Consumer Confidence Index bounced back in August to 54.1 versus 47.4 in July. After rising sharply in the spring, the Index drifted lower in June and July so the latest recovery was welcomed. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index also closed out higher at the end of August.

Unfortunately, the rise in consumer confidence that began in the spring has not translated into significantly higher consumer spending. Retail sales in July fell 0.1%. Personal consumption expenditures, another measure of consumer spending, were up only 0.2% in July. Most Americans are still very concerned about the economy, and many are choosing to save rather than spend. The Commerce Department reports that the personal savings rate rose to 5% of disposable income in the 2Q, the highest rate in over a decade.

On the housing front, there was some good news in the last month. Pending home sales rose 3.2% in July following a gain of 3.6% in June. Actual sales of existing homes rose 7.2% in July to an annual rate of 5.24 million units. Sales of new homes rose 9.6% in July, the largest monthly gain since February 2005. Much of the increase in home sales in recent months is attributed to the up to $8,000 in tax incentives for first-time home buyers; yet no one knows what will happen when this stimulus program ends later this year.

The Labor Department announced last Friday that the US unemployment rate jumped to 9.7% in August, up from 9.4% in July, and above pre-report expectations. In August, the official number of unemployed persons increased by 216,000. The Labor Dept. also reported that there are now 14.9 million unemployed Americans, and this number is likely headed even higher in the months ahead.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Is the Recession & Credit Crisis Over?

In the 30 years that I have been writing about the markets and the economy, a "recession" has consistently been defined as two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP (or GNP back in the old days). Likewise, two consecutive positive quarters meant that the recession was over. Be that as it may, if the initial GDP report for the 3Q is even mildly positive (which we won't get until the end of October), you're going to hear virtually everyone declare that the recession is over - whether or not that proves to be the case.

While I remain a bit skeptical, most of my trusted sources believe at this point that 3Q GDP will be at least mildly positive, and that the 4Q will be as well, in large part due to inventory rebuilding. But most of these same sources are not predicting a strong recovery in the economy. Some believe that there is still a real chance that we will slip back into recession in late 2010 or 2011, especially if consumers continue to save rather than spend.

As for the credit crisis, I think it is fair to say that it is no longer a crisis. But as anyone who is trying to get credit for a business knows, the banks are still not lending remotely as they were before the subprime blowup occurred. New lines of credit are few and far between. Many banks still have too many bad loans on their books, so they're not looking for new ones.

According to the FDIC, 84 US banks have failed so far in 2009, a record pace. So while it may be safe to say that the credit "crisis" is over, we are still far from being out of the woods. There are now 416 banks on the FDIC's "problem list" (up from 305 in March), so there will continue to be multiple bank failures every month for some time to come.

Then there's the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the Fed. At some point, the Fed will have to unload the $2+ trillion in questionable securities and toxic assets on its balance sheet. The Fed can't continue to print money ("quantitative easing") indefinitely; likewise, it will have to shrink the money supply at some point; and finally, short and medium-term interest rates will have to be allowed to rise somewhere down the road, especially if the economy rebounds.

Obviously, no one short of Ben Bernanke knows when this will happen. My best sources believe that because of the deflationary forces created by deleveraging, the Fed has at least a year to maintain its current stimulative policies without risking higher inflation. Similarly, they believe the Fed can wait a year or so before having to begin unloading assets and trim its balance sheet.

Virtually, everyone I read in the financial/investment world agrees that the Fed faces a daunting challenge when the time comes to unload these assets. This problem, above all, will continue to hold the threat of a double-dip recession over the economy and the markets. We all need to keep this in mind even if the economy goes positive for a few quarters.

Obama Adds $2 Trillion to Debt Forecast

2009	$1.845	trillion	2015	$785	billion
2010	$1.379	trillion	2016	$895	billion
2011	$970	billion	2017	$945	billion
2012	$658	billion	2018	$1.023	trillion
2013	$672	billion	2019	$1.189	trillion
2014	$749	billion

TOTAL $11.11 Trillion

As noted in the Introduction, both the CBO and the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) recently reduced the budget deficit forecast for fiscal 2009 from the $1.845 trillion noted in the table above to apprx. $1.6 trillion. So, the $11.11 trillion shown above would now be reduced to apprx. $10.87 trillion (if the latest projections prove to be correct).

Note that this astronomical amount does not include over $1 trillion for nationalized health care (if it passes) and several trillion more that will be required to rescue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over next decade as the Baby Boomers retire. Nor does it include the existing national debt of $11.7 trillion. The $10.87 trillion is merely the sum of annual budget deficits over the 11 years from 2009 to 2019.

Given that September is the end of fiscal 2009, the talk is now focused on record budget deficits for the 10 years from 2010 to 2019. Never mind that the 2009 deficit will be apprx. $1.6 trillion, almost four times larger than our previous worst deficit in history, which was $438 billion in fiscal 2008 under President Bush.

If you take out the $1.845 trillion 2009 deficit from the table above, the CBO deficit estimate for 2010-2019 is $9.02 trillion. This is $9 trillion that we will add to the national debt over the next 10 years, based on Obama's budget projections. Yet for months now, the Obama administration has taken flack because its own OMB has maintained that the 2010-2019 deficits would only total apprx. $7 trillion. But that has recently changed.

Now if you're the President of the United States, and you have some news that is not flattering to release to the public (especially in a recession), you might decide to quietly release that news at the end of the day on a Friday, and hope that it doesn't get much play on the weekend news shows. That is exactly what happened on Friday, August 21.

At the end of the day on Friday, August 21, a senior White House official announced that the Office of Management & Budget had revised its deficit forecasts for 2010-2019 from $7 trillion to apprx. $9 trillion. At long last, that puts Obama's forecast in line with the CBO's forecast.

Obama Administration officials acknowledged that they relied on overly optimistic assumptions about the economy when they forecast in March that President Barack Obama's budget plans would generate deficits of $7.1 trillion over the next 10 years. After factoring in the severity of the recession and the prospect of a more sluggish recovery, the White House concluded that the budget outlook is significantly worse and revised the 10-year tally of deficits to $9.05 trillion.

Some in the media welcomed the presumably more accurate deficit forecast; some even went so far as to note that such huge spending will be just fine, such as liberal commentator Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Others, however, were quite critical and seriously questioned how the Obama Administration could have been off by $2 trillion in its forecast.

The conservative Weekly Standard published a scathing article on August 31. Here are some excerpts:

"What's $2 Trillion Among Friends?

$2,000,000,000,000. That's the amount by which the Obama administration raised its ten-year estimate of the nation's budget deficit from the one it made only a few months ago. Now, $2 trillion is a lot of money. But even more significant is the fact that this revision represents almost a 30 percent increase -- no tiny percentage of the earlier $7 trillion figure. It seems that expenses are higher -- up 24 percent this year, the largest increase since the height of the Korean War -- than originally estimated, and revenues are lower. The resulting deficit, says Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, is ‘higher than desirable'. He might have added that the administration's critics had it right when they claimed that the earlier estimate represented a turn around the dance floor with that old seductress, Rosy Scenario.

There's worse: the new estimate assumes that Medicare and Medicaid spending will be cut by $622 billion, even though Congress has made it known that it is reluctant to make any such cut. Then there is the $600 billion in revenue included for the sale of [carbon] emission permits, despite the fact that the House has given away so many permits in order to buy support for the cap-and-trade emission-reduction that the program will produce at most $450 billion. Those two items alone come to almost another trillion dollars in red ink. Throw in another trillion-plus for Obamacare, and it is no surprise that senior economist Bill Gale, at the liberal Brookings Institute, says that the deficit will hit over $10 trillion over the next decade, a figure he finds ‘deeply alarming'.

This year, the deficit will come to 11.2 percent of GDP, and by 2019 the [national] debt will be equal to 76 percent of the [projected] value of the nation's output of goods and services, almost double the 41 percent when Obama took control of the nation's finances. No problem, say White House economists. Unsustainable, says Warren Buffett, among others."

Economic Assumptions Still Too Optimistic

Warren Buffet is absolutely correct. Whether it's $7 trillion or $9 trillion, it's way too much and unsustainable. Over the next five years alone, 2010-2014, the debt swells by $4.5 trillion. In fact, these projections could actually be too low based on the economic forecasts used in the projections. I should point out that this is not just an Obama phenomenon. White House budgets, whoever was president, have been laced with optimism, and no president has forecast a recession in these 10-year projections.

(By the way, all presidential administrations produce these 10-year forecasts on spending, revenues and the budget deficits/surpluses, even though they won't be in office 10 years from now.)

Consider the latest OMB projections for growth in GDP in the next several years in real terms, exclusive of inflation. The White House projects that GDP will grow by 3.8% in 2011 and climb above 4% a year for the next three years, followed by two years above 3%. This is far higher than historical norms; the economy has not seen such a period of growth since the 1960s.

And we can almost be assured of at least one more recession, if not two, over the next 10 years, what with the government running massive deficits every single year. Remember, the Fed will have to unload some $2 trillion in troubled assets at some point in the next few years. And, most forecasters agree that at some point, foreigners are going to curtail US dollar purchases, which will likely drive interest rates higher, at the least, or a currency crisis at the worst.

Excessive Obama optimism is not limited to economic growth. Despite the enormous monetary stimulus pumped out by the Federal Reserve in 2008-2009, bank credit that is widely regarded as potentially inflationary, the Obama administration assumes that inflation will actually decline from 2.1% in 2008 to 1.5% in 2009 and then to 1.3% in 2010 and 2011, and not rise above 1.8% through 2019. While it is true that inflation is declining now, thanks largely to the big drop in energy prices over the last year, we are almost certain to see higher inflation down the road.

What in the World Are They Thinking?

Most Americans that keep up with the economy and rising government spending, even remotely, are very alarmed about the exploding debt that President Obama has proposed for the next decade. Many of us wonder, what in the world could they be thinking? Do they want to purposely wreck the US economy? Frankly, I'm beginning to think so, as I will discuss later on.

Here is a snapshot of how many liberals on the left think about the perpetual rise in government spending and exploding deficits over the next decade. What follows is an August 23 editorial in the New York Times by liberal commentator Paul Krugman. He boldly attempts to explain why Obama's massive spending and deficits won't be a problem. He is wrong, of course, and I have inserted many bracketed words to help his column be more readable. I will elaborate afterward:

"How big is $9 trillion?

There's been some hysteria [no kidding] about the [Obama] administration's new estimate that the cumulative deficit will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Don't get me wrong: this is bad. But it's being treated as an inconceivable sum, far beyond anything that could possibly be handled. And it isn't. [really?]

What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too. Right now GDP is around $14 trillion [annually]. If economic growth averages 2.5% a year, which has been the norm, and inflation is 2% a year, which is the target (and which the bond market seems to believe), GDP will be around $22 trillion a decade from now. So we're talking about adding debt that's equal to around 40% of GDP [this figure is bogus - see comments below].

Right now, even if we do run these [trillion dollar annual] deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II. It will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid to late 1990s. (There are some technical issues in comparing these various numbers — gross debt versus net (mainly about Social Security) and overall government debt versus federal, but they don't change the basic picture.)

Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we're not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we're looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with."

Wow! So record trillion dollar deficits don't matter, Mr. Krugman? There are so many ways to debunk this article, I almost don't know where to start. Let's first look at Krugman's most egregious misrepresentation. In the second paragraph, he states that the $9 trillion in new debt will be only 40% of GDP by 2019. What he fails to note is that we already have $11.7 trillion in national debt today. If we add another $9 trillion, the debt will be $20.7 trillion - or 94% of GDP - by 2019!! Nice try, Mr. Krugman.

Second, it's a lame attempt to compare the economy today with the period just after World War II. We had the most robust economic growth in history just after WWII when we were rebuilding Europe, veterans were buying homes, durable goods, cars, etc. as never before and our manufactured goods faced very little foreign competition. May I remind you, Mr. Krugman, that we are not in that position today!

Third, why should we all just assume that the US economy will average 2.5% annual growth over the next 10 years, despite doubling the national debt, just because it is some historical average? As discussed earlier, we will almost certainly see another recession in the next decade, as foreign buyers of our massive debt may require higher interest rates or dump the US dollar.

Do you honestly believe the US economy will grow by 2.5% annually for the next 10 years when consumer spending is stagnant and Americans are increasing savings at the highest rate in over a decade? We've just been through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we are very likely looking at several years of below-trend economic growth. On top of that, if we spend the $9 trillion, taxes will have to go up on almost all Americans at some point, which is also bad for the economy.

Like your liberal cronies, you make these assumptions and leave out certain facts to justify your belief that bigger government and higher taxes are the answer to all of our problems. Mr. Krugman, take a look at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - and more recently President Bush's prescription drug program. Give me one example of how these government-run programs have been anything but a fiscal disaster. You can't.

Finally, Mr. Krugman (in case you happen to read this), let me say that I enjoy reading your columns and watching you on the TV talk shows. You give me insight and understanding as to the thinking of those on the far left.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Do They Want Control Even If It Ruins The Economy?

As noted earlier, I have thought about this question for many years. Why do the liberals want the government to control most everything in the economy and our lives? While members of Congress have the best healthcare in the world, they will have dozens of family members and friends and countless colleagues that will be subject to the House healthcare bill, if it is passed. So why are they so hell-bent on passing it?

The answer can only come down to two questions. Question #1: Do they really believe that their proposed national heathcare program is the very best we can offer the American people? And if so, why doesn't Congress adopt it for themselves? Or Question #2: Is this really just a massive power grab that puts the government in control of our healthcare and our lives?

President Obama would like us to believe that nothing will change if healthcare reform is passed - that if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. But that is patently false and abundantly clear if you read the onerous House healthcare bill, or even just the highlights that are readily available on the Internet. If they ram this down our throats, I firmly believe that the quality of our healthcare will suffer and the costs will far exceed any estimates being put forth by President Obama and the Democrats.

At the end of the day, I have to conclude that nationalizing healthcare (one-sixth of the US economy) is nothing more than a giant power grab by the liberals. In addition, if our government racks up $10+ trillion in cumulative deficits over the next 10 years, as Obama proposes, we are on our way to financial ruin.

Bill Clinton never scared me; he was too much of a political animal to swerve too far from the center. Unfortunately, the same could be said of George W. Bush, who routinely strayed from his supposedly conservative principles. Not so with President Obama. Sadly, many of those who voted for him did not do their homework or they would have known that he is a left-wing ideologue, as I warned in these pages last year.

Sorry to end on such a negative note, but it is what it is.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Federal deficits to bankrupt America
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/04/looking-behind-the-curtain/

ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393110640864526.html

Massachusetts & the ObamaCare Mistake
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/05/obamacare_increases_costs_wait_times_98176.html

Obama Cannot Escape Hard Choices in September
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/07/obama_cannot_escape_hard_choices_in_september_98192.html

When Does the Spending Charade End?
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336955542241664

Is The Recession Over? Don't Bet On It

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:12:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Economic Signs of Improvement
Fed Vows to Keep Rates Low
Market Comments from John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Conclusions

Introduction

We have seen some encouraging economic news in recent weeks, and President Obama and his cronies in the mainstream media have declared that the worst recession in post-war history is all but over. The advance estimate of 2Q GDP was down considerably less than expected (-1.0%); the unemployment rate actually fell slightly in July to 9.4%; and the ISM manufacturing index posted a nice improvement last month.

While these reports were better than expected, and continue to suggest that the worst of the recession is behind us (as I have suggested often in recent weeks), this economy is far from out of the woods yet. Growth prospects continue to look muted, although a growing number of forecasters are suggesting that GDP will register a positive number in the 3Q due largely to the rebuilding of inventories, as I discussed in my August 4 E-Letter.

This week, we will look at the latest economic reports, as well as the Federal Reserve's latest decision on interest rates and purchases of Treasury securities. Also, the Fed says it will end its record large purchases of government agency debt in October. If indeed this happens, it will be the first step in ending the Fed's massive stimulus spending.

Next, so that we don't all get caught up in the latest hype that the recession is over, I will reprint excerpts from a recent Weekly Market Comment written by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. Dr. Hussman is best known as the president of Hussman Investment Trust, and he manages the Hussman Strategic Growth and Hussman Strategic Total Return Funds, which are actively managed and can go to cash in bear markets.

Dr. Hussman's latest analysis is consistent with the view many of us have that the recession, while improving in some areas, is not over yet, and that the ensuing economic recovery over the next year or longer will be disappointing -- even if there is a bump up in the 3Q. All of this should make for interesting reading, so let's get started.

Economic Signs of Improvement

Over the last several weeks, we've seen some encouraging economic reports. In some cases, "encouraging" simply means that the reports weren't as negative as expected. That was certainly the case with the advance 2Q GDP estimate at the end of June, which showed a decline of only 1% (annual rate) versus pre-report estimates which were considerably worse. Some analysts expect that number to be revised downward somewhat when the second estimate is released later this month.

On the manufacturing front, the ISM Index rose more than expected in July to 48.9, up from 44.8 a month earlier. Industrial production rose 0.5% in July, and construction spending and the factory operating rate both rose modestly last month as well. These are all signs that the recession may be leveling out.

On Thursday of this week, we get the latest Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) for July, and the pre-report consensus is for a rise of 0.6%, following +0.7% in June. If the LEI is up for July, that will mean the fourth consecutive monthly increase. That would be very encouraging and a sign that we will likely be out of this recession by the end of the year.

The US unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped from 9.5% in June to 9.4% in July, as employers slashed 247,000 jobs, the slowest rate of decline in nearly a year. This news temporarily sent stocks to their highest level of the year since the pre-report consensus was for a rise to 9.6%

However, the July decline in the jobless rate came about not because more people had jobs, but because almost 800,000 "discouraged workers" - people who have essentially given up on looking for a job - were not counted as unemployed, thereby allowing the official unemployment rate to fall modestly in the latest jobs report. The number of long-term unemployed people - those who have been out of a job but looking for more than 26 weeks - rose by another 584,000. Thus, it appears we are still headed for 10% employment before this cycle reverses.

Despite the still troubled employment situation, investors welcomed the reports above, and more and more forecasters have apparently decided that the recession is over. I continue to believe that we are still at least a few months from concluding that the recession has ended. The Consumer Confidence Index fell for the second month in a row in July, and retails sales were down slightly last month. Therefore, it is premature to declare that the recession is over.

Fed Vows to Keep Rates Low

To no one's surprise, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced last Wednesday that it will continue its policy of keeping interest rates at their historically low levels. The FOMC also maintained its position that interest rates could remain historically low for an "extended period of time." In other words, the floodgates of liquidity are still wide open.

About the only new revelation was that the Fed announced that it will stop buying long-term Treasuries in October of this year. This could be the ultimate case of good news/bad news, in that it's good that the Fed may no longer be printing money to buy Treasuries, but bad in that these securities will soon have to compete in the open market, and this could lead to higher interest rates. Remember that this is why the Fed committed to start buying Treasuries in the first place.

However, the Fed's printing press will not be idle as it said it will continue to purchase up to $1.25 trillion in agency mortgage-backed securities and other agency debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed's hope here is to keep a lid on mortgage rates in an effort to stimulate the housing market.

From an economic standpoint, the latest FOMC statement notes that US economic activity is "leveling out," meaning that the rate of descent has slowed. However, this simply means that the recession may not get deeper. The Fed's prospects for recovery, however, were modest, at best. The Fed expects economic activity to remain weak "for a time" (whatever that means) and a return to sustainable economic growth is likely to be gradual.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Market Comments from John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

Dr. John Hussmanis best known as the president of Hussman Investment Trust (a mutual fund family), and he manages the Hussman Strategic Growth and Hussman Strategic Total Return Funds. Dr. Hussman is also the chairman, president and controlling shareholder of Hussman Econometrics Advisors, Inc. which has published his Weekly Market Comment letters for years, and they always have some interesting points about the economy, the markets, etc.

As a mutual fund manager, Dr. Hussman is somewhat unique in that he not only actively seeks the best opportunities in the stock market, but will also move to neutral positions in his funds during market downturns. In other words, the investment strategies he employs are similar to those used by the active money managers my firm recommends.

The following excerpts are from Dr. Hussman's August 10, 2009 Weekly Market Comment. [Note that we have removed discussions about specific funds where possible.] Pay particular attention to Dr. Hussman's outlook for the economy.

QUOTE:

The U.S. economy lost a quarter of a million jobs in July. Meanwhile, over 400,000 workers abandoned the labor force (and are therefore no longer counted among the unemployed), which prompted a slight decline in the unemployment rate despite the job losses. In the context of an economy still strained by high levels of consumer debt and still record delinquency and foreclosure rates, labor market conditions are still troublesome. Still, the pace of job losses and new unemployment claims has clearly softened from the pace we observed early in the year.

If we knew that this was a standard economic downturn, we might conclude that the recent improvements are durable. However, nothing convinces us that this is a standard economic downturn. As for market action, the major indices have generally been strong, as has breadth (as measured by advances versus declines), but the "investor sponsorship" evident from trading volume has been uncharacteristically dismal compared with initial advances of past bull markets. So here too, we have very strong concerns that the recent advance may not be as durable as investors appear to believe.

All of that said, we aren't inclined to fight even what we view as errant analysis, and the Strategic Growth Fund has about 1% of assets allocated to near-the-money index call options -- about enough to gradually close down about 40% of our hedge in the event that the market advances markedly higher from here, but without putting us at risk of much loss in the event of failure. With investors now anticipating and pricing in a sustained economic recovery, as well as a spectacular earnings rebound, a lot of things will have to go right from here in order to sustain higher prices than we currently observe.

Frankly, our call option allocation here is something of a paean to a notion -- a sustained economic recovery and new bull market -- that I have no belief in whatsoever. But at this point, the broad strength in the major indices, even lacking volume sponsorship or favorable valuation, requires that we allow for the possibility of additional investor speculation. Even if we do observe such an outcome, it's difficult to envision that the S&P 500 will clear the 1000 level for all time, without revisiting it again in the months (not to mention years) ahead. To the extent that we don't clear 1000 permanently, establishing investment exposure here with anything but call options amounts to a game of trying to "ride" the market higher and to get out before it returns to or below current levels. With the market strenuously overbought already, that game strikes me as exquisitely difficult to get right. Hence the use of a modest allocation to call options only, without closing our downside hedges.

Call me skeptical. But if you look carefully at the economic data that shows improvement, and correct for the impact of government outlays, it is difficult to find anything but continued deterioration in private demand and investment. What we do see is a government that has run what is now a trillion dollar deficit year-to-date, representing some 7% of GDP. That sort of tab will undoubtedly buy some amount of Cool-Aid, but it has been something of a disappointment to watch how eagerly investors have guzzled it down. It is not at all clear that short-term, deficit-financed improvement necessarily implies sustained growth in the context of a deleveraging cycle. This is like somebody borrowing money from their Uncle and then celebrating that their income has gone up.

Moreover, it might be enticing to look at a chart of the S&P 500 and envision a quick return to 2007 highs and beyond, but it is important to recognize that those highs were based on profit margins about 50% above historical norms, combined with an elevated P/E multiple of about 19 against those earnings. Even if the economy is poised for a sustained recovery here, the belief that those joint outliers will be quickly re-established goes against historical precedent.

In any event, we've got some call option coverage to gradually allow participation if this run continues.

Post-Crash Dynamics

When markets crashes are coupled with changes in the fundamentals that supported the preceding bubble -- as we observed in the post-1929 market, the gold market of the 1980's, and the post-1990 Japanese market, and currently observe in the deflation of the recent debt bubble -- they typically do not recover quickly. Indeed, the hallmark of these post-crash markets is the very extended sideways adjustment that they experience, generally for many years.

The chart below updates the position of the S&P 500 (red line) in the context of other post-crash bubbles. The horizontal axis is measured in months. Note that very strong and extended interim advances have been part and parcel of similar experiences.

The intent here is not to argue that the U.S. stock market must by necessity follow the same extended adjustment that followed prior burst bubbles. Rather, the intent is to underscore that it is dangerous to infer that structural difficulties have vanished simply because a market enjoys a strong post-crash advance.

My friend James Montier at SocGen draws a similar pattern from a larger historical collection of post-crash bubbles - including the above instances, as well as others such as the South Sea Bubble and the Railroad Bubble of the 1840's. The underlying theme is that the adjustment period following the bursting of a bubble tends to be very extended.

I understand the eagerness of investors to put the entire credit crisis behind them and look ahead to a recovery of the prior highs, but these hopes are based on the assumption that a positive boost to GDP, once achieved, will propagate into a full-fledged recovery. Again, however, no economic improvement is evident in the behavior of consumer demand and capital spending, once you adjust for the impact of government spending (particularly transfer payments).

Yes, we have observed a massive reallocation of global resources from savers (who have bought newly issued Treasury debt) toward mismanaged financial institutions that made bad loans. Yes, there are certainly favorable short-run economic numbers that can be achieved by running a year-to-date federal deficit equal to seven percent of the U.S. economy. The problem is that this money does not come from nowhere. We have effectively sold an identical ownership claim on our future production to those individuals and foreign governments who bought the Treasuries. Government "stimulus" is not free money. The continued attempt to bail out bad loans with good resources (largely foreign savings) will end up costing our nation some of our most productive assets, which will be acquired by foreign countries and investors for years to come.

From my perspective, investors have gotten entirely too far ahead of themselves with the assumption of a sustained recovery. Nevertheless, we again have about 1% of assets in index call options to allow for further market strength if it emerges. I expect that if they move "in the money," we will leave their strike prices unchanged unless market internals deteriorate measurably. Leaving our call option strikes fixed would open us up to losing on any subsequent downturn whatever we make on a further advance, but again, our opening exposure is fairly limited. We'll let the market put us into a more constructive position if investors are inclined to continue their exuberance here. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Market Climate

As of last week, the Market Climate for stocks was characterized by unfavorable valuation and mixed market action, but enough evidence of speculation (reasonable or not) to own about 1% of assets in index call options. We are otherwise hedged.

During earnings season, there are often days where most of the performance of the Fund is driven by significant movement in a small handful of Fund holdings. These movements can be positive or negative, and may cause the Fund to move differently than one would expect that the Fund "should" move based on our investment position, and on what the market did on a particular day. As I've frequently noted, short-term movements, particularly day-to-day, are not effective indicators of the Fund's investment position, or predictors of Fund performance. Performance is always best measured from the peak of one market cycle to the peak of the next, or over an extended period of years representing neither a peak-to-trough nor trough-to-peak movement in the market.

Based on our standard methodology, which considers normalized earnings (not the far more depressed level of current earnings) the S&P 500 is now priced to deliver 10-year total returns in the area of 6.9% annually. This is a figure that has historically been associated with bull market peaks, including 1969 and 1987. In most instances, such valuations turned out badly in reasonably short order. It is, however, true that prospective returns were even worse prior to the 1929 crash, and during the bulk of the period since 1996, so there have been some historical periods where speculators have driven valuations to higher levels, and during these times, it has not been particularly effective to stand in front of speculators saying ‘no, stop, don't.' [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Ultimately, all of those periods where valuations were driven to higher levels were followed by poor long-term returns, with stocks generally trading at lower levels at some point one or more years later. So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that even if the present advance continues, investors will most likely observe current levels again either within the current market cycle or (worse) several years out. Overvalued markets simply do not "run away" for good. Still, it can be painful or at least unenjoyable to remain defensive during a speculative advance.

In bonds, the Market Climate last week was characterized by relatively neutral yield levels and moderately unfavorable yield pressures. As usual, we will tend to increase our bond durations on spikes in yield (weakness in bond prices), and these are becoming more interesting -- though not strongly attractive. Our most recent extension of durations was in the 3.9%-4% area for 10-year Treasuries, and a push materially above that level would represent enough of a yield pickup to move a modest amount of short-maturity Treasury allocations into mid-maturities. As I've noted in recent weeks, we don't anticipate much in the way of extended directional movement in the bond market, so most of our portfolio activity will probably tend to be modest reallocations in response to yield fluctuations. At the point where we observe either fresh inflation pressure or general declines in Treasury yields (i.e. general downward pressure on real interest rates), I expect that we'll observe fresh pressure on the U.S. dollar and upward pressure on precious metals shares. For now, those markets are likely to be somewhat range-bound as well.

We've got an extended economic adjustment ahead. Most probably far longer than most investors presently expect. As always, we'll take our opportunities as the evidence emerges, with the objective of outperforming our respective benchmarks over the complete market cycle, and an additional emphasis on defending capital over the course of that cycle. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

END QUOTE

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

While we have seen some encouraging economic reports over the last few weeks, it is premature to declare that the recession has ended. As discussed above, the unemployment rate is very likely to rise even higher before this cycle is over. Remember that consumer spending is still the main driver of this economy, and retail sales fell slightly in July well below the pre-report consensus. The Consumer Confidence Index fell a second month in a row in July.

On the positive side, the Fed remains committed to keeping interest rates very low for an extended period, and liquidity is plentiful for now. If this Thursday's Leading Economic Indicators report is positive, that will market the fourth consecutive monthly increase, which will be a very good sign that the recession will end by the end of the year.

I agree with Dr. Hussman that stocks are overbought at this point, as many investors who bailed out in February and March are now jumping back in. The stock market has felt like a mini-bubble since the March lows and especially in July. Thus, I would not be surprised to see the downward correction that began last week to continue in the weeks ahead.

Finally, I recently told you about our online webinar featuring the Potomac Guardian Program on August 6th. We had hundreds of investors register for the webinar and it was well-received. If you were unable to attend this webinar but would still like to learn more about the Potomac Guardian Program and its investment strategy, you can now find a recorded version on our Internet website at www.halbertwealth.com.

Wishing you profits in a difficult market,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Stocks: Five Key Signals for Investors
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2009/pi20090817_099111_page_2.htm

Why Obama's Ratings Are Sinking
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574354383543314054.html

Public Spending's Day Of Reckoning
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/public-spending-finances-economy-debt-opinions-contributors-desmond-lachman.html

Recession May End But Growth Prospects Low

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:25:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Finally, Some Good News For The US Economy
More Insights From The Latest GDP Report
Media & Obama Declare The Recession Is Ending
Consumer Spending Is Still The Key
100+ Hedge Fund Managers Offer Their Predictions

Introduction

The Commerce Department announced last Friday that the US economy contracted less than expected in the 2Q. According to the "advance" estimate, Gross Domestic Product declined at an annual rate of only 1% in the April-June quarter. This is considered to be good news since the rate of decline was below the pre-report consensus. Never mind that the better than expected number was almost entirely due to greatly increased federal spending in the 2Q. Also, never mind that the government announced that 1Q GDP was worse than previously reported.

The latest GDP report has caused many economists and analysts to declare that the recession is ending. Yet the report noted that most sectors of the economy and consumer spending are still contracting. While I would say that it is still too early to declare that the recession is ending, the latest data strongly suggests that we've seen the worst of this recession/credit crisis. We will look at the latest economic numbers and draw some conclusions as we go along.

While it is possible that the recession will end in the 3Q and GDP could go into mildly positive territory, the unemployment outlook is likely to get worse for at least the rest of this year and possibly through the first half of 2010. Even President Obama conceded recently that the unemployment rate will almost certainly rise above 10% by the end of this year. Thus, we're looking at another "jobless recovery" if we indeed pull out of this recession later this year.

Next, as we all peer into the likely economic outlook for the balance of this year and next year, and try to formulate our investment strategies accordingly, I will summarize the latest survey of the nation's largest hedge fund managers. What are they thinking about the economy and the investment markets; where are they positioning their assets now; and what do they think are the greatest risks down the road? I think you'll find their predictions very interesting.

Finally, Some Good News For The US Economy

Last Friday, the Commerce Department announced that the US economy contracted less than expected in the 2Q. According to the "advance" estimate, Gross Domestic Product declined at an annual rate of only 1% in the April-June quarter. The GDP report came as a surprise to many, since the pre-report consensus suggested a decline of at least 1.5%, and many (including your editor) expected a decline of 2-3% for the 2Q. Of course, this is the first of three estimates on 2Q GDP, so it could well be revised lower over the next two months. Even so, this is good news for the economy.

According to the latest report, GDP fell less than expected in the 2Q primarily due to the large increases in government spending. The Commerce Department report cited that the decrease in real GDP in the 2Q primarily reflected negative contributions from business investment, personal consumption expenditures, inventory contraction and exports. According to the report, these negative influences to GDP in the 2Q were mostly offset by positive contributions from the increase in federal government spending and to a lesser extent by state and local government spending, and a decrease in imports.

The fact that the economy declined by less than expected in the 2Q primarily due to increased federal spending and falling imports is certainly not the desired scenario. But after four consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, investors were happy to see a drop of only 1% in the 2Q. Consumer spending, which makes up apprx. 70% of GDP, continued to fall in the 2Q, but again not as much as had been feared. Personal consumption expenditures fell 1.2% in the 2Q, which means that consumer spending is still on the decline, but somewhat less than pre-report estimates.

The latest GDP report was indeed better than expected, even if most of the improvement was due to increased federal spending. Unless you've been hiding under a rock over the past few days, you have no doubt heard the mainstream press cheering that the recession is ending and that happy days lie ahead. While we probably have seen the worst of the recession, we need to look at the latest numbers to get a better insight as to the bigger economic picture.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

More Insights From The Latest GDP Report

As noted above, last Friday's 2Q GDP report was better than expected, even though it showed that the economy contracted at a -1% annual rate in April-June. All the news in the report, however, was not so encouraging. The Commerce Department revised down its GDP report for the 1Q of this year from -5.5% to -6.4%. This means that the January-March quarter was considerably worse than earlier reported.

I should also note that the Commerce Department upwardly revised GDP for the 4Q of last year from –6.3% to –5.4%, which largely offsets the downward revision for the 1Q of this year as noted in the previous paragraph. Most notably, however, the Commerce Department also substantially revised the GDP number for the 3Q of 2008 downward to a negative 2.7% annual rate. This was a huge revision that was not expected. Thus, we have seen four consecutive negative quarters in GDP in the last year alone: 3Q 2008 – down 2.7%; 4Q 2008 – down 5.4%; 1Q 2009 – down 6.4%; and 2Q 2009 – down 1.0%.

This makes the current recession the worst since WWII, eclipsing even the previously worst recession in 1981-82.

In addition to the headline GDP numbers noted above, last Friday's report also revealed that consumer spending declined in the 2Q. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) fell by 1.2% in the 2Q following the very modest increase of 0.6% in the 1Q. This was well below the pre-report consensus that was looking for an increase of 2.4% in consumer spending in the 2Q. So much for the widely heralded rebound in consumer spending, but we should not be surprised given that consumer confidence turned lower once again in June.

Other indicators in the latest GDP report also suggest that the recession is not over yet. Durable goods orders decreased 7.1% in the 2Q, while non-durable goods orders decreased 2.5 percent, in contrast to an increase of 1.9% in the 1Q. Non-residential fixed investment decreased 8.9% in the 2Q, while non-residential structures decreased 8.9%. Equipment and software purchases decreased 9.0%. Exports of goods and services decreased 7.0%, while imports of goods and services decreased 15.1% in the 2Q. And the list of negatives goes on.

How is it then that GDP fell only 1% in the 2Q? Answer: increased federal spending. According to the GDP report, federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 10.9% in the 2Q, compared to an increase of 4.3% in the 1Q. While we can all be happy that GDP fell less than expected in the 2Q, there is little comfort in knowing that the main reason for the better number was increased government spending.

Media & Obama Declare The Recession Is Ending

Many in the mainstream media wasted no time last Friday in predicting that the recession is ending, if it hasn't ended already. Since the 2Q GDP number was only down 1%, many now predict that 3Q GDP will almost certainly be a positive number. Predictably, President Obama took to the microphone on Friday afternoon to announce that we are now seeing the light at the end of the economic tunnel, and he attributed the better than expected GDP report to his $787 billion stimulus plan, even though only around 10% of the money has been spent.

[Editor's Note: FYI, more and more analysts are coming around to the idea I suggested in my July 21 E-Letter, that the government should scrap the apprx. 90% of the $787 billion that has not yet been spent. As an example, see the Investor's Business Daily editorial in SPECIAL ARTICLES below. Of course, this will never happen because Obama and the leaders in Congress can't wait to spend that money on their pork barrel projects.]

The latest argument for the recession ending now goes as follows. Since the Commerce Department revised 3Q 2008 GDP down sharply to -2.7%, this means that the worst of the recession started sooner than we thought. For some reason that I cannot discern, this is supposed to mean that the recovery from the recession will end sooner than we think – as in now.

Adherents to this suggestion point to the fact that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators has risen for the last three months in a row. Likewise, home sales and housing starts have risen modestly over the last three months in many parts of the country. No doubt, these are signs that the worst of the recession may be behind us, but they are no guarantee that the recession has ended. Nevertheless, there are now widespread forecasts that GDP will go positive for the 3Q.

There is, actually, a credible reason that GDP could manage a positive uptick in the 3Q. Given the severity of the recession and the credit crisis, businesses across America have slashed inventories dramatically. According to the latest GDP report, US businesses have cut back inventories by almost $300 billion in the four months ended in June. Most analysts had expected that inventory rebuilding would have begun in the 2Q, but in fact inventories continued to contract in the 2Q.

At some point, businesses will have to rebuild inventories, and some of my best sources believe that a modest rebuilding has begun in the 3Q. Companies that have weathered the worst of the recession and remain afloat will likely have to rebuild their inventories at some point just to stay in business. Plus, federal spending will remain high going forward, so it would not be a surprise to see a positive number in 3Q GDP. But we will not see the first advance report on 3Q GDP until late October. Unfortunately, a modestly higher GDP number for the 3Q will not necessarily mean that the recession is over.

Consumer Spending Is Still The Key

Personal consumption expenditures fell sharply in 2008 as a result of the housing slump, the credit crisis and the bear market in stocks. While there was a modest bump (+0.6%) in consumer spending in the 1Q of 2009, as noted above the latest GDP report showed that personal consumption expenditures declined 1.2% in the 2Q, well below expectations.

As I have noted in recent letters, not only are consumers holding back on unnecessary expenditures, they are also boosting their savings. It is now estimated that the national saving rate has climbed to 7% and may be headed even higher. Consumers remain fearful about the rising unemployment rate and the continued record rise in home foreclosures.

Unemployment typically continues to rise even after GDP starts to increase, so pain for workers is far from over. As noted above, even President Obama concedes that the US unemployment rate is headed to 10%, and it may well go even higher next year. The Labor Department noted that already 144 of America's 372 largest metropolitan areas reported unemployment rates of at least 10% in June. Rising unemployment will mean less shopping and a slower recovery.

While we have seen some mildly encouraging reports on home sales over the past few months, the home foreclosure rate continues to set new record highs. Just two years ago, the prediction was that only about two million Americans would lose their homes to foreclosure, a prediction based on the number of subprime mortgage loans with pending interest rate resets.

As we know now, however, more than five million homes have been foreclosed on since 2007, and there were more than 336,000 foreclosure filings in June alone according to RealtyTrac. Thus, it is now predicted by some that ten million homes will be foreclosed on before this cycle is over. If that is remotely correct, we are only about half way through the cycle.

With the unemployment rate and the foreclosure rate continuing higher, I don't think we will see consumers boosting spending significantly anytime soon. The latest consumer confidence numbers show that Americans are still jittery, with the Confidence Index falling from 49.3 in June to 46.6 in July.

Bottom line: The recession may well end later this year, but the recovery is likely to be disappointing. Those who are suddenly predicting 2-3% GDP growth in the 3Q and 4-5% in the 4Q are way too optimistic in my opinion.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

100+ Hedge Fund Managers Offer Their Predictions

The accounting firm RSM McGladrey recently published the results of their inaugural Hedge Fund Industry Survey. The survey, representing the thoughts and opinions of 102 hedge fund managers, offers some interesting findings about the state of the industry and their predictions for the economy, the investment markets and real estate.

You may be wondering why you should care what hedge fund managers think. After all, the mainstream press continually demonizes them with terms like "secretive," "risky," "unregistered" and a whole host of other dubious adjectives. In the latest stock market crash, hedge funds were singled out for their shorting of bank stocks (a strategy that can actually make money on a falling stock), which some said helped to accelerate the stock market's fall in the last quarter of 2008.

And let's not forget notorious hedge fund managers such as George Soros, who is known for being the man who "almost broke the Bank of England" in 1992, or Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund managed by Nobel Prize-winning economists that almost caused a global financial crisis in 1998. These and other widely publicized implosions, coupled with the complexity and restricted availability of such investments, have generally cast hedge fund managers in a bad light, at least in the mainstream media.

Yet the 102 hedge fund managers surveyed by McGladrey represent some of the brightest and most successful minds in the investment world. Some of these managers are very adept at reading the economic tea leaves, especially as they relate to the markets. This not only helps them to make money for their clients, but to make money themselves since they typically base their fees on a share of client profits. No profits, no pay. Thus, you can bet that the future prospects for the global economy continue to be where hedge fund managers are concentrating their research, and why we want to peek over their shoulders through this survey.

A good portion of the survey deals with the new regulatory oversight of hedge funds that Obama has proposed and the managers' reactions to it, since heretofore hedge funds have been largely unregulated. It was surprising to see that 42% of the respondents felt that the SEC needs additional regulatory authority to do its job effectively, while 50% said the agency should simply be better funded to enforce existing rules, not make a lot of new ones.

While we might think all hedge fund managers would resist additional regulation of the funds they manage, another surprising result was that 37% of respondents believe there should be more regulation of hedge funds versus only 18% who said less regulation is needed. 43% of respondents believe that the current regulatory environment is the right amount.

However, hedge funds are now in the crosshairs and Congress will no-doubt put them on a shorter leash. Knowing this, 75% of those surveyed worried about the regulatory pendulum swinging too far and becoming so restrictive that it stifles the markets. Note that this includes some of those managers who believe that additional regulatory oversight is needed.

All in all, these results actually seem to indicate that a much larger segment of hedge fund managers are open to greater regulation than we might have thought. However, I think the real meat of the survey is in their outlook for the future of the economy and markets. 60% of respondents think that the current economic environment presents more investment opportunities than challenges. Knowing that some hedge funds "short" stocks in declining markets, a bear market expectation could be viewed as an investment opportunity for some funds. Thus, we need to look deeper into the survey's findings.

To begin with, 57% of hedge fund managers surveyed believe that the economy is now headed in the right direction (recession ending fairly soon), even though 83% of hedge fund managers believe that the unemployment rate will continue to rise, and 65% believe that consumer spending will decrease in the next 12 months. Over 80% of hedge fund managers believe that government spending, the Fed's balance sheet and tax rates (income and capital gains) will all continue to increase over the coming year. This explains why 42% believe the economy is still headed in the wrong direction.

Elsewhere, 59% believe that the stock markets have bottomed and are on the right track. However, respondents also acknowledge that there are still dangers lurking in the bushes that could derail the recovery. For example, 82% of respondents see both interest rates and inflation rising over the next year. While less than 20% expect either to increase "a lot," they acknowledge that the Fed faces a very difficult challenge on both fronts.

Since prospects for the stock markets generally depend upon the health of the economy, the survey asked hedge fund managers when they thought the US economy would return to positive growth. 33% of respondents felt that the economy would have positive growth by the end of 2009. 58%, however, believe that the US economy won't return to positive growth until sometime in 2010.

Of course, what we really want to know is what hedge fund managers expect the stock markets to do. After all, that's where most of us feel they have the greatest area of expertise. To get a better perspective of their predictions, it's important to note where the market stood when the survey report was written in mid-June 2009. Keep the following figures in mind as I discuss the stock market outlook of these hedge fund managers:

Dow Jones Industrial Average:	8,612.13
Russell 2000 Average:	511.83
S&P 500 Average:	923.72

To make a long story short, most hedge fund managers surveyed expect little or only moderate growth to occur in the major market indexes over the next year. For the Dow, the opinions are pretty evenly split among four general ranges of future values. 22% of hedge fund managers believe that the Dow will be under 8,000 a year from now. Another 22% believe it will be between 8,001 to 8,500 and yet another 22% believe it will be between 8,501 and 9,000. The next largest group of 21% believes that the Dow will end up between 9,001 and 9,500 in 12 months.

Clear as mud, right? About all we can glean from these predictions is that 87% of hedge fund managers think that the Dow will be between 8,000 and 9,500 in a year or so. Being so evenly split, I believe that these predictions fall in line with my best sources who think that the market will be in a trading range over the next year and possibly much longer than that.

Predictions of the future value of the S&P 500 were somewhat less concentrated, but still followed the same general pattern. 64% of respondents expected the S&P 500 Index to be between 851 and 1,100 a year from now, again pointing to a trading range market.

The Russell 2000, generally representing the small-cap stock universe, had the widest range of expectations with respondents fairly evenly spread among expectations ranging from under 400 to over 850. This result seems to say that anything can happen in small-cap stocks over the next year. What else is new?

As this is written, I find it interesting that the major market indexes are near the upper estimates reflected in the survey. With the Dow currently near 9,300 and the S&P 500 Index breaking above 1,000 yesterday, the markets have benefited from a significant rally since the McGladrey survey was taken. Perhaps this means that these hedge fund managers were too pessimistic in their views. However, if you believe that we're in for a trading range market, these levels could mean that we may experience some downward pressure on stock prices in the near future.

While we typically think of hedge funds as being only involved with financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc., hedge fund managers also weighed in on the future of real estate values. 70% of respondents expect residential real estate values to continue to fall over the coming year, while a whopping 83% believe commercial real estate values will continue to fall. If they are correct, this will continue to have a chilling effect on the credit markets.

We all know that everyone from political candidates to the media leveled criticisms at the hedge fund industry for its part in the subprime meltdown and resulting credit crunch. The survey turned the tables and allowed hedge fund managers to rate the government on the job it's done during the recent economic malaise. So, how do the managers of these funds feel about the government's performance so far?

Interestingly, the Fed and its Chairman, Ben Bernanke, both fared well in the eyes of hedge fund managers as did the FDIC. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner got mixed reviews, but sentiments were overall positive. At the bottom of the barrel we find the SEC, which has been under a lot of criticism for its delayed response to the economic crisis.

One final question I'll highlight from the survey dealt with who hedge fund managers thought would ultimately clean up the "toxic assets" at the core of the financial crisis. 41% of respondents felt that the public sector (i.e. – the government and taxpayers) would end up holding the bag. I think that many of us are in this same camp.

However, 56% of managers felt that the private sector would provide the solution to cleaning up these hard-to-value securities. If that's the case, then hedge funds are likely to be at the epicenter of these private efforts to rid the financial system of these toxic assets.

Earlier on, I asked why we should care about the opinions of hedge fund managers. Perhaps the possibility that hedge funds may relieve taxpayers from some of the burden of having to clean up these toxic assets is the best reason of all to care about the opinions of those who manage these specialized investments.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

While investors welcomed last Friday's GDP report showing growth contracting only 1% in the 2Q (with two more revisions to come), we must keep in mind that this marked improvement from the 1Q was largely due to the large increase in federal spending. Consumer spending continued to fall in the 2Q and is unlikely to rise substantially anytime soon, as consumer confidence fell in June. Unemployment is likely headed over 10% well into 2010.

There is now a broad consensus that GDP in the 3Q will actually be at least mildly positive. That may indeed occur as businesses are forced to rebuild inventories at some point, and federal spending will certainly remain high in the 3Q and beyond. However, one quarter of positive GDP does not necessarily mean that the recession is over. Even if the recession is ending, economic growth is going to be weak due to decreased consumer spending.

Finally, there is the question of the stock markets. The meteoric rise of stocks since the lows in early March has obviously been a prediction that the credit crisis would ease somewhat and that the worst of the recession was behind us. Yet having risen apprx. 50% in just five months, even though the economy is likely to remain sluggish, this suggests that stocks may be testing their upper limits.

While it looks doubtful that stocks will retest their March lows, given how much money is still on the sidelines, I would be hesitant to recommend that investors jump back in the market now – unless you do so with a professional money manager(s) that has the ability to move to cash or hedge long positions.

Wishing you profits in a difficult market,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Pull Back Unspent Part Of The Stimulus
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333152018981557

The Stimulus Lesson (why it isn't working)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/791ucyiq.asp

Has the Market Gotten Ahead of the Recovery?
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/short-term-investing/has-the-market-gotten-ahead-of-the-recovery/

Why This Recession Could Last Another Year

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 26 May 2009 21:37:42 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Is the US Economy Turning Around?
The Housing Blues Getting Bluer
Adjustable Rate Mortgage "Resets" To Soar
Commercial Real Estate - The Next Shoe To Drop?
Conclusions - This Can't Be Good For Stocks

Introduction

It's time that we had a talk about the "conventional wisdom" making the rounds in the financial media. We are constantly reminded that the US economy always comes back and that the frozen credit markets will return to normal. We are also assured that the stock markets always recover and go on to new highs. Yet there is little disagreement that we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the worst global credit crisis in our lifetimes.

Despite that, dozens of well-known economists and forecasters now tell us that the US economy will be out of the recession and back into positive growth in GDP by the end of this year. They must assume that the serious housing slump is somehow going to go away this year. It won't. In fact, the housing slump looks to get worse before it gets better and is likely to drag on for several more years.

Most troubling is the fact that the home mortgage foreclosure rate spiked 46% in March from a year ago, hitting a record high. A record 5.4 million Americans are delinquent on their mortgage loans, or are already in foreclosure. A record 20 million Americans now owe more on their mortgage loans than their homes are worth. Home prices plunged a record 19% in the 1Q.

These foreclosure numbers are almost certain to get even higher over the next year or two at least as millions of adjustable rate mortgages ("ARMs") are scheduled to "reset" to higher monthly payments, as I will discuss in detail below. Then there is the question of whether the commercial real estate market will follow suit as developers try to refinance their loans over the next year or two. Defaults and foreclosures are already rising rapidly in commercial real estate.

It is for these reasons that I believe the housing slump will get worse before it gets better. If correct, that is not good news for the credit markets or the stock markets. Therefore, it is quite possible that this recession could drag on for at least another year. Let's talk about it.

Is the US Economy Turning Around?

As the stock markets have continued to move higher, more and more economists and analysts have been revising their forecasts upward. Some polls show that a majority of forecasters now believe that we will be out of this recession by the end of the year. Fortunately, there has been some encouraging news over the last couple of months. The major stock market indexes have rebounded by 35-40% since early March, and many analysts conclude that this is a sure sign the recession will end later this year.

This rosy outlook is helped along by what Fed Chairman Bernanke called "green shoots" (good news on the economy) suggesting that the worst of the recession is behind us, and that the economy should be back in mildly positive territory by the end of the 4Q.

Barring any further major shocks in the credit markets, I would agree that we have probably seen the worst of the recession. GDP plunged 6.3% annual rate in the 4Q and -6.1% in the 1Q based on the latest Commerce Department estimate. A growing number of analysts seem to believe that the economy (GDP) will only dip by 2-3% in the 2Q, improve more in the 3Q and then be flat to slightly higher in the 4Q. Obviously, I think such forecasts are too optimistic as I will discuss as we go along.

But we have seen a few encouraging signs of late. The Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose 1.0% in April, the first monthly increase in seven months. The Consumer Confidence Index rose from 29.7 in March to 39.2 in April. The government announced today that the confidence index jumped to 54.9 in May, the highest level in eight months, and stocks are up sharply as this is written. We have also seen a rise in business confidence over the last month or so.

Unfortunately, the rise in consumer confidence has not led to an increase in consumer spending. Retail sales fell .4% in April after falling 1.3% in March. This is another reason I do not believe the economy will be out of the recession this year. Consumer spending accounts for 65-70% of GDP. Yet consumers are still reducing debt and increasing savings in the wake of the credit crisis, and this trend is likely to continue for at least the rest of this year.

The ISM services index (non-manufacturing sectors) edged slightly higher in April from 40.8 to 43.7, but keep in mind that any reading below 50 is an indicator that the economy is still contracting. That's about it for the good news of late.

On the manufacturing front, the news continues to disappoint. The ISM manufacturing index stood at 40.1 in April, thus marking the 15th consecutive month of manufacturing contraction. Factory orders declined .9% in March (latest data available), and durable goods orders fell almost as bad at -.8% during the same period.

As everyone knows, the rate of unemployment continues to spiral upward, rising from 8.5% in March to 8.9% in April. Initial claims for unemployment insurance have been well over 600,000 in each of the last two reporting weeks. I continue to believe the official unemployment rate will hit 10% sometime this year.

Despite this, some forecasters still seem to believe we will be out of this recession by the end of the year. Some point to the recent improvement in several foreign economies and conclude that the US can't be far behind. But as I will discuss in the next section, the US could be well behind these foreign economies in recovering.

Therefore, while there have been a few positive economic reports over the last several weeks, the news is still quite negative on balance. As a result, I am still doubtful, and you should be as well. As I will discuss below, the housing slump - which sparked this recession and credit crisis - is not over, and in fact is getting worse. Home foreclosures skyrocketed 46% from a year ago in March. And most of the other economic indicators and reports continue to point downward.

I continue to believe that this recession will be with us all year. If I am correct, it suggests that the rally in the stock markets will roll over to the downside soon. I continue to recommend that you move some money to the sidelines, put on hedges or at least use stop-loss orders.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

The Housing Blues Getting Bluer

Even though some of the economic reports coming out show signs of hope for a recovery, I think it is important to revisit what got us to where we are in the first place - housing. After all, it was escalating foreclosure rates on subprime loans that started this recession and credit crisis, and a number of forecasters (myself included) are still convinced that we will not see the end of this recession until housing begins to recover.

Unfortunately, I do not see the housing sector improving anytime soon. In fact, I think it will get even worse before it gets better, despite the trillions of dollars Obama is spending to jump-start the economy and stimulate jobs via liberal programs. This is news you're not likely to hear from government officials or the mainstream press.

The US housing market has two fundamental problems that look to get worse before they get better. As noted in the Introduction, the home mortgage foreclosure rate spiked 46% in March from a year ago, hitting a record high, as reported by RealtyTrac on April 16.

The sign for a foreclosed house for sale sits at the property in Denver, Colorado March 4, 2009. (REUTERS/Rick Wilking)

A temporary freeze on foreclosures by major banks and government-controlled home finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ended in February. Filings, which include notices of default, auction sale or bank repossession, jumped 17% in March from February. Foreclosure filings for the 1Q also marked a record high, jumping 24% from the same period a year ago.

RealtyTrac also reported that one in every 159 US households with mortgages got a foreclosure filing in the first three months of this year. Filings were reported on more than 803,000 properties in the quarter. California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Illinois accounted for nearly 60% of US foreclosure activity in the first quarter, with a combined 479,516 properties receiving filings.

In the transition from industry freeze to new government rescues, the foreclosure filing floodgates reopened. RealtyTrac vice president Rick Sharga noted that after the foreclosure moratoriums ceased, "We saw an onslaught of notices of default, which is the first stage of foreclosure… The rise in filings suggests a backlog had built up due to the moratoriums."

RealtyTrac predicts that home foreclosure rates will continue to rise and possibly not peak until near the end of the year. Mr. Sharga continued, "We still anticipate that we'll see upward of 3 million households receive a foreclosure notice this year, up from 2.4 million last year."

One does not have to be a real estate expert to know that this is very bad news for home prices in general. Mr. Sharga added, "But unfortunately, these well-intentioned delays in [foreclosure] processing might have the unintended consequence of extending the housing downturn, and further dragging down home prices."

Meanwhile, US home prices are still falling, down over 27% on average from their peak in 2006. In many areas, it is much worse. Even worse still, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month that a record 5.4 million Americans are delinquent on their mortgage loans, or are already in foreclosure. Making matters even worse, Bloomberg reported the following day that 20million Americans now owe more on their mortgage loans than their homes are worth.

The National Association of Realtors reported last month that the median existing home price across the nation fell to $169,000 in the 1Q, down from $196,000 a year earlier. Sales of new and existing homes were both down again in March, well below expectations. Housing starts and building permits were both worse than expected in March, with both coming in well below 500,000 units for the first time since such records have been kept going back to 1959.

While these declines will ultimately help to bring an end to the housing glut, it is clear that things will get worse before they get better. This is one of the main reasons I don't see us coming out of this recession later this year.

Adjustable Rate Mortgage "Resets" To Soar

The other big negative facing the housing slump - and the credit crisis - is the flood of Adjustable Rate Mortgages ("ARMs") that are due to have their interest rates and monthly payments "reset" to higher levels over the next several years. The riskiest of these loans include subprime mortgages, Alt-A loans, interest-only loans and so called "no documentation" loans. These are collectively called "Option Arms." It is reported that 90% of all Option ARMs in 2006 were "no-doc" mortgages.

Option ARMs usually reset after five years, at which point the monthly payment typically increases 50% or more. About 38% of option ARMs originated in 2005 are still outstanding, 63% of the 2006 vintage are outstanding, and 82% of the 2007 loans remain outstanding, according to Barclays Capital. And about a third of the outstanding loans in these years are deeply delinquent.

All of these loans are scheduled to reset over the next few years if they are still outstanding (ie - have not defaulted). Unfortunately, most of these homeowners cannot qualify for traditional 15 or 30 year mortgages. That's too bad since today's mortgage rates are below 5% in some parts of the country. The bottom line is that many of these option ARMs are going to default, especially given that home prices continue to slump - down a record 19% in the 1Q alone.

The chart below is reprinted from a major study published recently by Credit Suisse which projects the dollar amounts and timing of upcoming option ARM resets. Note that the vertical axis is in billions of dollars. As you can see, the amount of option ARM resets will explode over the next several years, thereby dumping millions more foreclosed homes on the market.

Source: Credit Suisse

I should note that in February President Obama carved up to $75 billion out of his $787 billion stimulus package for what he called a new Federal Loan Modification Plan. This plan would make money available to banks and mortgage lenders so that they can modify loans to distressed homeowners. However, since most option ARM loans are paying no principal (and many not even 100% of the interest), this latest bailout is not likely to make a significant dent in the rising foreclosure rate. Ditto for the $2.2 billion rescue plan passed by Congress last week.

I should also mention President Obama's $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers in 2009. Earlier this month, it was reported that first-time home buyers accounted for over 50% of home sales in March. Yet as reported above, new and existing home sales have declined each month so far this year. There are simply way too many homes on the market, and many more are coming in the next few years as implied by the chart above.

ENDORSED ADVERTISEMENT

Commercial Real Estate - The Next Shoe To Drop?

The drumbeat of bad news in the commercial real estate sector continues to worsen, and many are worried that this could be the next big shoe to drop in the credit crisis. The US commercial property market is huge and is widely estimated at apprx. $5.3 trillion, of which apprx. $3.5 trillion is financed.

Foresight Analytics, a California-based consulting firm that serves institutional investors and lenders, estimates that close to $1trillion of the outstanding $3.5 trillion in commercial real estate loans is due to mature between now and the end of 2011. Not only is the default rate on commercial loans rising, the credit crunch has made such loans very hard to obtain when it comes time to renew them.

* Note: the orange bars in the chart represent the years 2009-2011.

Widespread defaults in the commercial lending market would be devastating, as they were for Lehman Brothers, whose bankruptcy was precipitated by nearly $30 billion troubled commercial loans. In a May 19 report, the Wall Street Journal estimated that commercial loan losses for the 19 major banks that recently underwent the government's stress tests could easily total $200 billion between now and the end of next year. In addition, the Journal estimated that smaller and mid-sized banks could suffer losses of another $100 billion over the same period.

Using the same scenario as in the government's stress tests, the Journal examined 940 small and mid-sized banks around the country, and the results are troubling. Using the stress test criterion (which are not all that bad), the Journal found that more than 600 small and mid-sized banks would see their capital shrink to levels that would be "worrisome" for federal regulators.

The Journal concluded: "The findings are a stark reminder that the U.S. banking industry's problems stretch far beyond the 19 giants scrutinized in the government stress tests. Regulators and investors have focused on too-big-to-fail banks such as Bank of America and Citigroup Inc. But more than 8,000 other lenders throughout the country are being squeezed by the recession and the real-estate crash."

Making matters worse, for several years commercial mortgage loans have increasingly been packaged together and securitized into "Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities" (CMBS), much like with residential mortgages. Banks, investment banks, insurance companies and others could trade these loans on the CMBX (Commercial Mortgage Backed Index) market to offset some of the risk. We've heard this song before (read: subprime).

Not surprisingly, the issuance of CMBSs imploded in 2008. Earlier this year, JP Morgan Chase reported that issuance of CMBSs plunged 95% in 2008. The CMBX market is all but dead today, which virtually assures that commercial mortgage defaults will continue to increase. The Mortgage Bankers Association estimates that at least $171 billion in commercial mortgages will come due in 2009 alone.

It's a vicious circle. The recession means lower consumer spending, which in turn causes problems for commercial businesses that rent space. In turn, rental income for commercial developers goes down. Then there is the fact that the value of commercial real estate is declining in general, and you have the perfect conditions for a spike in the default rate.

Then you throw in the credit crisis. Even developers that can prove their commercial properties are still profitable, despite the recession, are finding it next to impossible to find sources to renew their loans and maturing mortgages. We have just such an example right down the street from my office where a huge new "Galleria" mall recently filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy because it cannot find any lenders to renew its maturing construction debt. Yet the mall is teeming with customers, and most of the retailers, restaurants, etc. report that business is booming.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions - This Can't Be Good For Stocks

While a growing number of economists are upgrading their forecasts, and more are predicting we will be out of this recession by the end of the year, I do not agree. While it is possible that we have seen the worst of the recession in the 4Q of last year and the 1Q of this year, I will be shocked if this economy is in positive GDP territory by the end of the year. There is simply too much bad news out there.

I do not believe that this economy will get back to positive growth until the housing crisis at least stops getting worse. Based on the discussion above, the housing crisis is set to get worse before it gets better. Maybe it starts to get better (ie - not getting worse) sometime in 2010. In any event, the housing slump will be with us for several more years as we work off a record large inventory of unsold homes, which will likely get even larger as option ARM resets lead to a continued spike in foreclosure rates.

Then there is the issue of commercial real estate defaults. As discussed above, most experts agree that the default rates on commercial real estate loans and mortgages will rise for at least the balance of this year, if not longer. We don't hear much about this in the news, but I think it is safe to say we will in the months ahead. And it won't be pretty.

I don't believe most investors and the markets fully understand the ominous implications of what will almost certainly be a $2+ trillion federal budget deficit for fiscal 2009 and $1+ trillion deficits for years to come (especially if President Obama is re-elected). This mind-boggling explosion in our national debt is quite bearish for America's economic and financial future.

For all these reasons, I believe the recession will last considerably longer than most forecasters have recently predicted. Likewise, for all these reasons and more, I do not believe that the recent strong rebound in the stock markets will last.

The S&P 500 Index has heavy overhead resistance at the point where is began to struggle two weeks ago. We may be witnessing the rollover to the downside again. For several weeks, I have recommended that you use this rally to move some money to the sidelines, put on hedges or at least use trailing stop-loss orders.

This may also be an ideal time to consider one or more of the professionally managed programs I recommend that have the flexibility to move out of the market and/or hedge long positions should the trend turn down once again. More aggressive investors may want to consider one or more of the professionally managed programs I recommend that will "short" the market.

Over the past year as the stock markets imploded, we have seen the fastest pace of new account openings in several years. More and more investors are finally coming to realize that "buy-and-hold" simply does not work in these unprecedented times, and are putting some of their investment money with the managers I recommend (and who manage my money).

If you would like to discover how active money management strategies might affect your portfolio, please feel free to call one of our Investment Consultants at 800-348-3601, send us an e-mail at info@halbertwealth.com or complete our online information request form (your personal information is strictly confidential). As always, our consultations are available to you at no cost and there is never any obligation to invest.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Home prices fell a record 19% in the 1Q
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/news/ap/finance_business/2009/May/26/
s_p__home_prices_fall_by_record_19_1_percent_in_1q.html

Roubini - Don't Believe the Optimists
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/depression-recession-green-shoots-housing-
jobs-opinions-columnists-nouriel-roubini.html

Cheney bests Obama in speech duel
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/24/2009-05-24_obama_gets_schooled_
on_terror_cheney_bests_him_in_speech_duel__by_sticking_to_th.html

Our president is not quite as advertised
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html

Signs of the End of the Recession - Maybe

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:29:18 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Latest Economic Reports -- Mostly Negative
Latest Wall Street Journal Survey of Economists
Fed's Latest "Beige Book" Outlook is Bleak
Conclusions -- What To Believe?

Introduction

We have clients calling us every day to ask if we believe the economy and the stock markets have seen the bottom. We don't know for sure, of course, but it may be reasonable to assume that the 4Q of last year and the 1Q of this year will mark the worst two quarters of this severe recession. We won't see the government's first estimate of 1Q GDP until next Wednesday, April 29, and it is expected to be about as bad as the 4Q decline of 6.3% (annual rate).

Economic reports over the last few weeks have been mixed to negative. I will highlight those reports as we go along. To get a better idea where we stand in the recession, we will also review the latest Federal Reserve "Beige Book" released on April 15, which analyzes the national economy in greater detail. Overall, it was quite negative and reinforced my view that we will be in negative economic growth territory for all of this year.

The stock markets bottomed in early March, and we have seen an impressive rally since then. The Dow Jones rebounded almost 25% from the lows in early March. There is historical evidence that the stock markets are often an early indicator of a change in the economic indicators, and tend to lead the economy by an average of six months. More and more analysts are calling the March lows the bottom, but this assumes there will be no more major negative surprises.

The stock market recovery and signs that the credit markets are unfreezing just a bit prompted some rather optimistic predictions (overall) in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of 53 economists and market analysts. On average, the 53 forecasters predicted an end to the recession by September of this year. I am not so optimistic, and the combined WSJ survey results are not nearly as positive as the September end-of-recession conclusion suggests. More on this later.

As I wrote in my April 7 E-Letter, many of the largest insurance companies are in financial trouble, so I believe it is still too early to assume that there will not be more major negative surprises. Although, as I noted in last week's letter, it appears that the Treasury Department will allow most major insurers access to TARP bailout monies, assuming the companies are willing to submit themselves to government controls.

As we go along, I will direct you to a weekly economic publication I follow that is produced by the Wachovia Economics Group (Wachovia bank was purchased by Wells Fargo bank in December of 2008). While the analysts at Wachovia are considerably more optimistic than I am about the recession ending later this year, they do a decent job of forecasting and analyzing the various economic reports that are released each week, and it's free of charge. I'll tell you how to access it later on in this letter. Let's get started.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

The Latest Economic Reports -- Mostly Negative

At the end of March, the Commerce Department released its final estimate of 4Q GDP, showing that the economy fell at an annual rate of 6.3%, the worst quarterly drop in 25 years. Personal consumption spending plunged 4.3% year-over-year in the 4Q. As noted above, the first estimate of 1Q GDP will not be released until next Wednesday, April 29. Pre-report estimates vary from down 4-5% to down 7-8%. My guess is that 1Q GDP will be down slightly more than the -6.3% in the 4Q of last year.

We have recently seen a few encouraging signs that the worst of the recession and the credit crisis may be behind us, such as improving profit numbers from several of the big banks that took TARP money. At the same time, there are persistent rumors that several of the major banks have failed their so-called "stress tests" being conducted by the Treasury Department. For a host of reasons, I believe that the recession will drag on for the rest of the year.

Most importantly, every week we continue to hear of mounting job losses. The unemployment rate jumped to 8.5% in March, up from 8.1% a month earlier. The Labor Department announced last Thursday that the number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits topped six million for the first time in US history. Initial unemployment claims have been above 600,000 for the last four weeks running. Most of my trusted sources believe that the unemployment rate will hit at least 10% by the end of the year, another suggestion that the recession will drag on for at least another 2-3 quarters.

Consumer confidence remains in the tank. The latest report for March had the Consumer Confidence Index at 26.0, down from 60 just last September. Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center noted:

"Consumer Confidence was relatively unchanged in March, after reaching an all-time low in February (Index began in 1967). The Present Situation Index suggests that the overall state of the economy remains weak and that more job losses are on the horizon. Apprehension about the outlook for the economy, the labor market and earnings continues to weigh heavily on consumers' attitudes. Looking ahead, consumers remain extremely pessimistic about the short-term future and do not foresee a turnaround in economic conditions over the coming six months."

With consumer confidence so depressed, it should not have surprised anyone that retail sales for March were worse than expected, falling 1.1%. It was the biggest decline in three months and a much weaker showing than the 0.3% decline that analysts expected. A big drop in auto sales led the overall slump in demand. Sales also plunged at clothing stores, appliance outlets and furniture stores, just to mention a few.

Along with the slowdown in consumer spending, we are seeing credit card delinquencies continue to soar. It was recently reported that banks and credit card companies wrote off a record $21 billion in unpaid credit card debt in 2008. Such credit card write-offs are estimated to balloon to a whopping $41 billion this year. This will mean more bad news for the major banks.

The Conference Board reported yesterday that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) fell 0.3% in March, following a decline of 0.4% in February. The chart below illustrates the severity of the economic downturn and does not suggest that the recession has bottomed out yet.

The ISM manufacturing index was essentially unchanged in March at 36.3, up fractionally from February's 35.8. Any reading in the ISM index below 50 indicates that the economy is contracting. The March decline was the 14th consecutive month that the index was below 50. A spokesperson for the ISM noted, however, that the March reading of 36.3 marked the third consecutive month that the index was in the mid-30s, suggesting that the decline may be stabilizing. We will see.

Industrial production contracted by 1.5% in March after a similar decline in February. Analysts estimate that industrial production fell at an annualized rate of 20% in the 1Q. If correct, that would mean the 1Q would be the largest drop since the 1Q of 1975. With the exception of utilities, all major industrial sectors registered declines. Capacity utilization (the factory operating rate) fell to 69.3% in March, which is the lowest on record, down from near 80% a year ago.

On the housing front, March brought more bad news following the brief respite the month before. Housing starts plunged 10.8% in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 510,000 units. That was the second lowest home construction pace in records that go back 50 years. The decline was worse than economists had expected, and February activity also was revised lower. Applications for building permits fell 9% in March to a record low of 513,000 units. Some would argue that the declines noted above are a good thing since there are still far too many unsold homes on the market.

Unfortunately, the home foreclosure rate jumped by 24% in the first three months of this year and is poised to rise further as major lenders restart foreclosures after a temporary break, according to data released last Thursday. Nationwide, nearly 804,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice from January through March, up from about 650,000 in the same time period a year earlier, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing firm.

The big unknown for the coming months, however, is President Obama's supposed plan to help up to nine million borrowers avoid foreclosure through refinanced mortgages or modified loans. The Obama administration expects its plans to make a big dent in the foreclosure crisis. But it hasn't happened yet, and it remains to be seen whether the lending industry will fully embrace it, despite $75 billion in potential incentive payments.

Predictions of a Recovery in the Economy

As noted in the Introduction, the analysts at Wachovia Economics Group are considerably more optimistic than I am about the second half of this year. As you can see in the chart below, the Wachovia Group expects 1Q GDP to come in around -6%, and they could be correct. In any event, the 1Q GDP number will almost certainly be one of the worst in decades.

The Wachovia Group believes that economic growth will recover in the 2Q and 3Q with GDP registering only a negative 1-2%. And they currently forecast that GDP will improve into mildly positive territory in the 4Q. I believe Wachovia's prediction of an end to the recession by the 4Q is too optimistic, as do several of my most trusted sources for economic forecasts.

If you would like to read Wachovia's latest weekly economic analysis released on Friday, click on the following link:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/WeeklyEconomicFinancialCommentaryApril172009.pdf

If you would like to subscribe to Wachovia's weekly economic commentaries, click on the following link -- the service is free of charge:
http://www.wachovia.com/economicsemail

Latest Wall Street Journal Survey of Economists

As noted in the Introduction, the latest Wall Street Journal (WSJ) survey of 53 economists and market analysts yielded some (emphasize some) surprisingly positive suggestions, despite the continued drumbeat of negative economic news. The WSJ survey was taken in early April. On average, the 53 economists and analysts surveyed predicted that the recession would end by September of this year.

While the average forecast among the 53 economists suggests that the recession will end late in the 3Q, there were a number of the economists surveyed that were not so optimistic. I agree. Here are some highlights from the latest WSJ economic survey. Pay special attention to the unemployment forecasts. Those, to me, tell us more than anything about when the recession will end.

"Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey expect the recession to end in September, though most say it won't be until the second half of 2010 that the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.

Gross domestic product was predicted to contract in the first and second quarters of this year by 5.0% and 1.8%, respectively, on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate. A return to growth -- a modest 0.4% -- isn't expected until the third quarter.

Indeed, economists' prospects for the labor market remain bleak. Just 12% of the economists expect the unemployment rate to fall some time this year. More than a third of respondents expect the jobless rate to peak in the first half of 2010, while about half don't see unemployment declining until the second half of 2010. By December of this year, the economists on average expect the unemployment rate to reach 9.5%, up from the 8.5% reported for March...

Meanwhile, asked to name the biggest risk to their forecasts, economists singled out problems in the credit markets. ‘Once the virtuous cycle starts, the chief headwind will be credit availability,' said Kurt Karl of Swiss Re. The possibilities of a failure of a major financial institution and persistent reluctance of consumers to spend, both related to the credit markets, were tied for second place in the list of concerns."

Many market analysts around the world follow the WSJ economist surveys, and they are always insightful. But this one published earlier this month raises more questions than answers. How likely is it that the recession will end in September when the consensus among the economists is that the unemployment rate will continue to ratchet up until at least mid-2010? I don't get it.

My conclusion is that the recession may well hit bottom by September of this year, but we won't be back to positive economic growth until sometime in 2010. And that assumes we are not looking at major insurance company bankruptcies (and/or major bailouts) if we see a bad hurricane season this summer or fall (as discussed in my April 7 E-Letter).

ENDORSED ADVERTISEMENT

Fed's Latest "Beige Book" Outlook is Bleak

The Federal Reserve issues a very insightful economic publication entitled the "Beige Book" eight times per year, essentially every month and a half. Each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks gathers information on current economic and financial conditions in their district, and this information goes into the Beige Book report every 45 days or so. The latest Beige Book economic summary released this month is perhaps the most negative I have ever read. Here is the summary and highlighted remarks:

"Reports from the Federal Reserve Banks indicate that overall economic activity contracted further or remained weak. However, five of the twelve Districts noted a moderation in the pace of decline, and several saw signs that activity in some sectors was stabilizing at a low level.

Manufacturing activity weakened across a broad range of industries in most Districts, with only a few exceptions. Nonfinancial service activity continued to contract across Districts. Retail spending remained sluggish, although some Districts noted a slight improvement in sales compared with the previous reporting period. Residential real estate markets continued to be weak.

Home prices and construction were still falling in most areas, but better-than-expected buyer traffic led to a scattered pickup in sales in a number of Districts. Nonresidential real estate conditions continued to deteriorate. Difficulty obtaining commercial real estate financing was constraining construction and investment activity. Spending on business travel declined as corporations cut back. Reports on tourism were mixed. Bankers reported tight credit conditions, rising delinquencies, and some deterioration of loan quality.

Agricultural conditions were generally favorable across Districts, although drought conditions persisted in the Dallas and San Francisco Districts. The Districts reporting on energy said reduced demand, high inventories, and lower prices led to steep cutbacks in oil and natural gas drilling and production activity. The Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Dallas Districts noted declines in employment in the oil and gas extraction industry.

Downward pressure on prices was reported across Districts. Wage and salary pressures eased as labor markets weakened in all Districts, and many contacts continued to report job cuts and wage and hiring freezes. Employment continued to decline across a range of industries, with only scattered reports of hiring."

This summary of the latest Beige Book report sounds rather benign. But keep in mind that the Fed hates to come across sounding too negative. The report continues as follows:

"Manufacturing activity continued to decline in most Districts and across a wide range of industries… Orders and shipments of capital goods, autos, paper, and construction-related equipment and products such as metals, wood products, lumber and electrical machinery remained mostly sluggish and below year-ago levels…

Districts that report on nonfinancial business services said demand continued to fall across most industries. Providers of health-care services noted further declines in activity, and contacts in several Districts noted demand for professional services, such as architecture, business consulting and legal services, remained weak. Auto dealers continued to struggle, and overall vehicle sales were sluggish in all reporting Districts as weak demand and tight credit continued to limit sales…

Travel and tourism activity contracted further in several reporting Districts, as households and businesses continued to scale back on discretionary and travel spending. Tourist spending in the New York, Minneapolis, and San Francisco Districts saw double-digit declines compared with the prior year. Airlines in the Dallas District and hotel contacts in the Kansas City District reported weakening demand for business travel, while the Atlanta District noted convention cancellations. Restaurants continued to see sluggish activity in the Kansas City and San Francisco Districts, which prompted further layoffs and closures in the latter region.

Housing markets remained depressed overall, but there were some signs that conditions may be stabilizing… New home construction activity fell further, however, as inventories remained elevated. Home prices continued to decline in most Districts, although a few reports noted that prices were unchanged or that the pace of decline had eased… Nonresidential real estate conditions continued to deteriorate over the past six weeks. Demand for office, industrial and retail space continued to fall, and there were reports of increases in sublease space.

[Commercial] property values moved lower as reality ‘set in…' Commercial real estate investment activity weakened further. Contacts said a decline in credit availability and markdowns on commercial property were keeping buyers and sellers on the sidelines.

… Demand for commercial and industrial loans was weak, and there were several reports that business borrowers were postponing capital expenditures. Commercial real estate lending continued to decline. Credit availability generally remained very tight across regions. A number of Districts reported deteriorating loan quality and rising delinquencies for all types of loan categories. In particular, several reports noted more stringent requirements for commercial real estate loans due to worries of worsening loan quality in the sector.

Labor market conditions were weak and reports of layoffs, reductions in work hours, temporary factory shutdowns, branch closures and hiring freezes remained widespread across Districts. Staffing firms in the New York, Cleveland, Richmond, Chicago, and Dallas Districts reported that demand for workers remained sluggish.

… Continuing layoffs, furloughs and hiring freezes kept wage pressures minimal. Contacts from a broad range of industries reported pay freezes, with some noting salary reductions. The Minneapolis District reported that unionized faculty at Minnesota's technical and community colleges had tentatively accepted a two-year pay freeze. Contacts in the Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Chicago, and San Francisco Districts reported cuts in certain non-wage employment benefits, including cuts in bonuses, elimination or suspension of employer contributions to employee retirement programs, and increases in copayments on employer sponsored healthcare plans.

… Consumer spending remained generally weak. Travel and tourism activity contracted further in several reporting Districts, as households and businesses continued to scale back on discretionary and travel spending… Retailers kept inventories lean, in line with the slow pace of sales, and most expect demand to stay at current low levels over the next few months… Auto dealers continued to struggle, and overall vehicle sales were sluggish in all reporting Districts as weak demand and tight credit continued to limit sales."

I could go on and on with quotes from the April Federal Reserve Beige Book, but you get the picture. This is the most negative Beige Book assessment of the economy that I can ever remember reading over many years.

Notice how many references the Fed makes to the weakness in the commercial real estate markets. Some analysts believe that commercial real estate markets may be the next shoe to drop in the recession (along with insurance companies, as I warned two weeks ago). This does not suggest an economy that is about to rebound from a recession anytime soon.

Have the Stock Markets Bottomed?

The major market indexes rebounded 20-25% since the recent lows in early March, and investors around the world are wondering if we've finally seen the bottom. The latest recovery has indeed been impressive, but we need to keep it in perspective. As you can see in the S&P 500 monthly chart below, the market was extremely oversold by the end of February.

Given that the S&P 500 had plunged almost 45% from the peak in late 2007, the market was overdue for a significant rebound. Over the last couple of weeks, there have been plenty of analysts and financial writers who have proclaimed that we've seen the bottom. But many of these same analysts are always bullish. Others, of course, maintain that this is just a bear market rally.

No one knows which camp will ultimately be proven correct. Here are a few observations as to how things may play out. First, if Wachovia and the majority of economists surveyed by the WSJ are correct that the recession will end and the economy will improve significantly in the second half of this year, then I would bet that the bottom is in.

It is also very helpful that several of the major banks have been reporting good news for the 1Q, and the credit markets are starting to unfreeze a bit. Several of the big banks that had TARP money shoved down their throats are now begging to give it back, which is also good, and is encouraging to the equity markets and investors in general. But keep in mind that we have yet to see the results of the stress tests, and some fear this news will not be good. We'll see.

Also, keep in mind my ongoing concerns about the insurance industry where the 1Q financial reports are expected to be very ugly. Also, as discussed above, the commercial real estate markets are turning down as we speak. So, I will not be surprised if we see at least a retest of the March lows in the major indexes. Whether we've seen the bottom or not may depend on how much concern develops for the insurance industry and commercial real estate just ahead.

Several of the professional money managers I recommend have moved back on the long side of the market, but most are not fully invested (i.e., they still have some money on the sidelines). And if their systems indicate that this rally is fizzling, they won't hesitate to move back to cash and/or hedge their long positions.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions -- What To Believe?

At the end of the day, the question is whether or not this recession will end before this year is over, or will it drag on into 2010? This, of course, depends on one's definition of recession. If we are to believe that the recession is over when negative economic growth bottoms out, but has not yet improved to positive territory, then I would tend to agree that the recession will end later this year.

But if we agree that the recession has ended only when the economy returns to positive growth, then I believe the recession will not end until sometime in 2010. I hope I am wrong. The economists at Wachovia Group believe the recession will end in the second half of this year, as does a consensus of Wall Street Journal economists based on an April survey.

I sincerely hope they are correct, but I fear they are not, especially if it is confirmed over the coming weeks that the big insurance companies are in financial trouble. It's a lot to think about, especially as it pertains to your investment accounts, your retirement portfolios and meeting your financial goals.

Time will tell which camp is correct. In the meantime, I continue to recommend that you use this market rally to move to more defensive (alternative) portfolio strategies that have the potential to protect you from major market downturns.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

A Backdoor Nationalization of the Banks (read this)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027165661037073.html

Big-Spending Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Tea Party Economics
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-ear-marks.html

Have We Turned The Corner On The Recession?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:31:08 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Finally a Little Good News for the Economy
Geithner's Latest Toxic Asset Bank Bailout
Does the PPIP Have Any Chance of Working?
Fed to Buy $300 Billion in Treasuries & a Lot More
CBO Assessment of Obama's Record 2010 Budget
Conclusions, Market Implications & What to Do Now

Introduction

Some weeks, it's tough to find a good topic to write about. Then other weeks, I'm overwhelmed with all there is to write about, as is the case this week. So, we'll touch several bases in this week's E-Letter. We'll begin with the latest economic news, some of which was surprisingly positive (especially housing). Unfortunately, the latest good news does not necessarily mean we've seen the bottom of the recession or the bear market.

On Monday of last week, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced the much-awaited new plan to take toxic assets off the books of troubled banks. The plan is called the Public-Private Investment Program. Under this new program, the government along with private investors would buy up toxic assets by way of auctions to get these loans off the banks' books. But will the plan work? I'm not optimistic. We'll discuss this in some detail as we go along.

As if the Obama administration is not spending enough already, the Fed recently announced that it will print and spend over $1 trillion in the months ahead to buy at least $300 billion in direct purchases of Treasury securities and at least another $750 billion for purchasing more toxic assets from banks and other sources. Where will it end? No one knows.

In my March 10 E-Letter, I predicted that President Obama's $3.55 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010 would result in a deficit of more than $2 trillion, as opposed to the administration's estimate of $1.75 trillion. Turns out I was wrong – the Congressional Budget Office predicted last week that Obama's 2010 budget deficit will hit $2.3 trillion. Wow, this will be bad! The CBO agrees with me that Obama's economic assumptions are too optimistic.

Following those discussions, I will give you my latest thoughts on where we stand in the big picture. With the latest smattering of good news on the economy and the nice rebound in the stock markets, some analysts are concluding that we've turned the corner on the recession and the financial crisis. I think it's premature to make that call, and I will not be surprised if we see another downward leg before long. In fact, it may have already begun. Let's get started.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Finally a Little Good News for the Economy

As everyone reading this is all too aware, the economic news so far this year has been horrible. Rarely has any good news been seen in recent months. But there was some good news last week, and it came in a very good spot – housing. Existing home sales in February unexpectedly rose by 5.3% above January levels to an annual rate of 4.72 million units. It was the largest monthly jump since 2003; still, sales were down almost 5% below yearago levels.

The increase in sales of existing homes was strongest in the West and in Florida, one of the worst hit markets. February sales of existing homes in Florida rose 20%. Florida Realtors also reported a 15% gain in statewide sales of existing condominiums in February, continuing a trend in recent months for higher statewide sales of both the existing home and existing condo markets compared to yearago levels.

The median sales price for existing homes nationwide rose to $165,400 in February, the first monthly increase in over a year, but it remains 15.5% below yearago levels. Unfortunately, the inventory of unsold existing homes rose again in February, despite the improved sales figures, thus putting the backlog at an estimated 9.7 months supply at the current sales pace.

New homes sales also increased by 4.7% in February to an annual rate of 337,000 units. Economists had expected new home sales to decline to a rate of 300,000 annualized units, so this was welcome news. While the unexpected rise in new home sales might be seen as a positive movement for the beleaguered housing market, the February rate for new home construction is still the second-lowest reading since the last recession in 2002. The median price of a purchased new home fell to $200,900 in February, down over 18% from a year ago.

Housing starts jumped well above expectations in February, rising 22% over January levels. Rising housing starts might not sound like a good thing, as that could mean even more homes on the market, but reportedly over 80% of the February construction starts were for apartment complexes, not new single family homes. Also, building permits climbed in February for the first time in over a year.

On another front, durable goods orders rose a surprising 3.4% in February following six consecutive monthly declines. This news was bittersweet because the Commerce Department revised January durable goods orders further downward from -5.2% to -7.3%.

Elsewhere, the economic news continued to disappoint. Last Thursday, the government reported that 4Q GDP fell at an annual rate of -6.3%, down from -6.2% as reported last month. Consumer confidence continued to plunge in February to only 25.0, a new record low, down from 37.4 in January. However, the latest Rasmussen tracking poll shows that consumer confidence has rebounded a bit in March.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell 0.4% in February. The LEI has fallen very sharply since the last peak in July 2007. The unemployment rate jumped to 8.1% in February from 7.6% in January. The consensus is for a rise to 8.5% in March and at least 9% by yearend. These are just a few of the negative reports we've seen over the last month.

In summary, while we've seen a few positive reports on the economy and the housing sector in particular over the last month, we are far from out of the woods on the recession and the financial crisis. Now, let's move on to the latest bank bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Geithner's Latest Toxic Asset Bank Bailout

After Treasury Secretary Geithner announced his new Public-Private Investment Program (“PPIP”) on Monday of last week, the Dow Jones promptly rallied over 500 points. That followed a rally of almost 1,000 points since the low in early March. The Dow and the S&P 500 bounced just over 20% from their recent lows – that is until the latest near 5% downward reversal over the last two trading sessions (Friday and Monday). While the equity markets clearly liked the government's latest bank bailout plan, serious questions remain – such as, will it work, and will private investor groups want to get in bed with the government, which threatened to impose a 90% tax on AIG executive bonuses?

We'll get to those questions and others as we go along, but first let's examine how the Public-Private Investment Program is supposedly designed to work. In an online article in FORTUNE, CNNMoney.com's Jon Birger provided the following summary on how the PPIP is expected to work as follows:

“The [PPIP] plan tries to fix the banking crisis by encouraging the very behavior that got us into this mess in the first place -- using buckets full of leverage to buy mortgages, asset-backed securities and other so-called toxic assets. Moreover, it requires the participation of the very folks -- Wall Street bankers and investors -- whom officials in Washington have spent the last two months threatening and vilifying.

At its core, the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP) harkens back to what the original bank bailout bill was supposed to do when it was first passed by Congress last fall: remove toxic assets from bank balance sheets, thereby freeing up more money for lending. The mechanics of the program would operate somewhat differently for stand-alone loans than for debt securities (basically bundles of loans packaged as asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities), but the general approach is the same. The government will match, dollar for dollar, any private-sector funds put towards buying these toxic assets.

And if that weren't incentive enough, the government will also facilitate cheap loans -- think of them as FDIC-guaranteed margin loans -- to private investors who will be able to leverage their distressed-debt purchases six to one.

Here's how it might work: Say a bank has a pool of residential mortgages with a $100,000 face value that are deemed good risks by the FDIC. The pool is then auctioned off, and in this example, the winning bid is $84,000. Of that, the government puts up $6,000, the private investor another $6,000, and the remaining $72,000 is financed via a FDIC-guaranteed margin loan.

The goal is to jump start the market for toxic debt and put the prices of these loans more in line with the underlying interest payments (which in some cases have declined far less than the market valuation of the loans or debt securities). Theoretically, once the PPIPs start buying and selling this stuff, the valuations will become clearer, opening the door to other private investors who may see opportunity but have shied away up until now due to the lack of price transparency.

That's the upside. The potential downside is what happens if prices continue to fall. And if you think taxpayers are mad now, just wait till they find out that, on account of government-sponsored leverage, a further 15% decline in the debt markets caused them to lose 100% of their investment in PPIPs. Says Tom Atteberry, co-manager of the FPA New Income bond fund: ‘I do see some irony in the fact that the proposed government solution to the problem looks a lot like a hedge fund and a primary broker -- with the primary broker being the federal government.'

There's also a question of whether Wall Street money managers will play ball with a government that has been bad-mouthing them and threatening them with confiscatory taxes. ‘If they go ahead with the 90% tax, nobody is going to want to work with the government,' says a top mortgage-fund manager, referring to the bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would slap a 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees of bailed-out financial companies. ‘It's a deal killer,' says Rick Hughes, co-president of Portfolio Management Consultants, which directs $70 billion in institutional and retail accounts.

Even if the bonus tax isn't implemented, the mortgage-fund manager worries what might happen if PPIP works too well. He envisions a scenario in which money managers are hauled before Congress and accused of making millions on the backs of taxpayers. ‘I'd rather be attacked by a pack of wild dogs,' he says. There are other, more conventional ways that government involvement could discourage money managers from participating.

FPA's Atteberry notes that under the Treasury Department proposal, the FDIC would provide oversight to the PPIP funds. Atteberry says that if he were putting his firm's capital at risk, he'd want to know more about what ‘oversight' entails. For instance, will political considerations prevent investors from foreclosing on certain homeowners or force them to offer generous loan modifications? Says Atteberry, ‘Those are details you need to flesh out if you want to get private investors to come on board.'

Of course, it could be that some on Wall Street -- hedge fund managers in particular -- are so desperate for any source of income, they'll gladly accept these risks.

Prime brokers are extending less credit to hedge funds and investors are pulling out their money. So if the government now wants to become hedge funds' new BFF -- their new prime broker as well as their biggest investor -- why quibble about the details? ‘The reality is that a lot of hedge funds really don't have a business model any more,' says veteran Wall Street strategist Ed Yardeni. ‘The government is basically putting Wall Street back in business with a whole new business model, which is to take all the toxic assets, repackage them and re-sell them at a discount.'

‘Wall Street is getting paid to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic -- but hopefully with a better outcome.'”

Many thanks to Jon Birger of CNNMoney.com for that summary. Obviously, there are still many unanswered questions about the Public-Private Investment Program. Geithner's roll out of the program last week was very short on details, and many private investors are going to be very wary of getting in bed with the government to buy up these toxic assets, even if the discounts are very attractive.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Does the PPIP Have Any Chance of Working?

If President Obama wants this plan to have any chance of working, he needs to make sure the Senate does not go along with the House in passing the 90% retroactive income tax on the AIG executives that received big bonuses. Hedge funds, private equity funds and the like will not want to pony up money to buy toxic assets if they fear that the government will change the rules on profit sharing in these PPIP transactions.

I have read several articles recently that indicated the Treasury was already planning to recoup the AIG bonuses by subtracting that amount from the next round of bailout money AIG will need. That would have been an easy way to get the money back and put the onus on top AIG management to claw back the bonuses. But the Democrats in the House couldn't resist the opportunity to grandstand in front of the American people with an illegal, retroactive 90% income tax on the AIG bonus money.

Political commentator Dick Morris has an interesting take on the PPIP. Morris believes strongly that President Obama wants the PPIP to fail. Morris is convinced that, while Obama says publicly that he does not want to nationalize the big banks, privately Obama and Rahm Emanuel would very much like to see the government take over these large money center banks that have taken bailout money.

Morris argues that this is precisely why the president has been lambasting Wall Street and the big banks for weeks now, in the hope that private investors will not jump into the PPIP with both feet. Morris also believes that this is why Obama packaged the PPIP as Geithner's plan, not his own, so that if it fails he won't get the blame. If it does fail, Morris predicts that Obama will then nationalize the troubled banks. I sincerely hope this assessment is wrong!

As noted earlier, the stock markets reacted extremely strongly following Geithner's announcement of the Public-Private Investment Program. If it is to have any chance of working, he needs to get the details out fast, including assurances that the government won't change the rules in the middle of the game. We'll see.

Fed To Buy $300 Billion in Treasuries & a Lot More

The Fed Open Market Committee met on March 17-18, and the policymakers approved some bold new (yet troublesome) actions. Citing that the economy continues to worsen and the credit markets are still dysfunctional, the FOMC voted unanimously to authorize the Fed to make direct Treasury security purchases of $300 billion over the next six months, with a suggestion that much more could be authorized later on if needed.

This move is controversial because the Fed will have to print the $300 billion to pay for the purchases of Treasury securities. Many fear that this action (and likely more to come) will further sew the seeds of significantly higher inflation when we emerge from this recession. But as I have written often in recent letters, the Fed is scared to death of deflation and will do whatever they feel is required to avert a debt deflation in the economy.

At the same FOMC meeting, Bernanke & Company also voted to double the Fed's purchases of mortgage-backed securities and take on more agency debt. That means the Fed will purchase another $750 billion in toxic mortgage-related securities this year. Between the Treasury purchases and the additional mortgage-related securities – all of which they will have to print money for - the Fed's balance sheet liabilities will skyrocket to well above $3 trillion this year.

Here are excerpts from the March 17-18 FOMC official statement:

“In these [bad economic] circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability. The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and anticipates that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period. To provide greater support to mortgage lending and housing markets, the Committee decided today to increase the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet further by purchasing up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities… and to increase its purchases of agency debt this year by up to $100 billion to a total of up to $200 billion. Moreover, to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the Committee decided to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. The Federal Reserve has launched the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses and anticipates that the range of eligible collateral for this facility is likely to be expanded to include other financial assets.”

Following this announcement, yields on 10-year Treasury notes plummeted in the largest one-day decline on record to near 2.5%, down from above 3% just two days before. Stocks also rallied on March 18 and since then (at least until the last two days), a clear indication that many investors approve of the Fed's unprecedented actions in buying Treasury debt directly and doubling its purchases of toxic assets.

But it should also be noted that the US dollar plunged on the news that the Fed would be buying $300 billion in Treasuries and another $750 billion in toxic assets, and the implication that those numbers may well go even higher later this year. Keep in mind that these numbers are in addition to the $2+ trillion budget deficit we will have in fiscal 2010 (more on that below) and well over $1 trillion in each of the next several years.

Given the staggering size of these numbers, I don't see the US dollar going anywhere but down over the next several years. Maybe that's why China is threatening to stop buying US Treasuries and calling for a serious discussion of a new world currency at the upcoming G-20 Summit on April 2. I will discuss this issue more in coming weeks.

CBO Assessment of Obama's Record 2010 Budget

In my March 10 E-Letter, I discussed President Obama's record $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal 2010, with its projected budget deficit of a record $1.75 trillion. I also discussed why I believe the deficit next year will be well north of $2 trillion. Last week, the supposedly non-partisan (but Democrat controlled) Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own analysis of President Obama's proposed budget for 2010 and the next 10 years.

The CBO estimates the 2010 budget deficit at $2.3 trillion; the budget deficits for 2009-2011 at almost $5 trillion; with deficits of $1 trillion or more each year thereafter to 2019, and concludes that Obama's budgets would add $9 trillion to the national debt over that 10-year period, if enacted.

If you recall, I noted in my March 10 letter that I believe the Obama administration used economic assumptions that were too optimistic. I pointed out that Obama's projections for GDP growth were too rosy. Likewise, I noted that his assumptions for unemployment were considerably too low. I concluded that discussion by saying: But it will not surprise me if the deficit is $2 trillion or more in 2010. Now the Democrat controlled CBO agrees with me!

Interestingly, Obama has routinely criticized George W. Bush for out-of-control spending, which is a well-deserved criticism. In Bush's eight years, he – with the help of Congress – added almost $5 trillion to the national debt. Obama's budgets would add almost twice that amount - $9 trillion - according to the CBO.

I think most people reading this would agree that a 2010 budget deficit of $2.3 trillion is simply way too much, even in this economic and financial crisis. While Obama says his budget is necessary to get the economy out of the ditch, it could make things worse by ruining America's credit standing in the world. Unfortunately, it looks like he has the votes to get most of his budget passed.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions, Market Implications & What To Do Now

The 20% bounce in the stock markets and the latest smattering of good news on the economy have led some analysts to conclude that the worst of the recession and the credit crisis are behind us. That could be, but the forecasters I respect believe we will see at least another 1-2 quarters when GDP will fall 6-7% or possibly more. So, I am not convinced we've seen the worst of the recession or the credit crisis. I hope I am wrong.

The good news (if we can call it that) is that the US was the first major economy to go into recession; it has suffered a more severe contraction than most other sizable economies, with the notable exception of Japan; and it would therefore be reasonable to assume the US will be one of the first major economies to turn the corner.

Yet in many ways, calling the bottom in the recession misses the point. Unlike past recessions that were followed by a strong recovery, I believe (and my best sources agree) that we face at least a couple of years of very slow growth when this recession ends. Yes, the government and the Fed are spending trillions like drunken sailors, but this economic and financial crisis is likely to put a damper on growth for at least several more years.

With that backdrop, investors have to consider the likelihood (or unlikelihood) that the US equity markets bottomed in early March. With the major market indexes having plunged over 50% from their peak in late 2007 to early March, it is easy to assume that we've seen the bottom. I, on the other hand, am not so convinced.

But that, too, misses the point in my opinion. Whether the bottom is in or not, I fully expect the equity markets to at least retest the lows seen early this month when the Dow fell to 6,500 and the S&P 500 fell to 675. And there is no guarantee that those lows will hold. Therefore, if you are looking to exit failed buy-and-hold positions in stocks, and move to more defensive strategies, I would suggest doing so now.

My greatest concern at this point is that the new Public-Private Investment Program may not work. As I have written in several recent letters, it is clear that relatively little of Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan will be spent this year when it is needed most. Thus, that means that it is even more critical that the PPIP get started quickly and that it succeeds. As noted earlier, there is no assurance that it will get up and running quickly, or that it will succeed (or if President Obama is fully behind it).

If the PPIP does not succeed, I would expect the US equity markets to plunge once again, and if so, buy-and-hold strategies will get hammered again.

If you have been considering alternatives to the buy-and-hold strategy for a portion of your equity portfolio, such as the active management programs I recommend – which can move to cash and/or hedge long positions - now may the time to get such strategies in place.

Remember, it does not matter where you live; we have hundreds of clients all across America.

Finally, we hosted our second Webinar with Scotia Partners on March 25. I'm very pleased to report that almost 300 of you registered for this opportunity to learn more about Scotia's very successful investment program. If you missed it, you can watch and listen to the full Webinar discussion (including all charts) at www.halbertwealth.com.

Hoping we can help you in these tough times,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Obama Budget - $9.3 Trillion in Deficits says CBO
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget

Obama Sticker Shock (more CBO budget analysis)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html

Uncle Sam's Hedge Fund (the Geithner bank bailout plan)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/uncle_sams_hedge_fund.html

Who Will Buy America’s Trillions In New Debt?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:00:08 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Federal Bailouts Surpassing $10 Trillion

Government Finance 101

Who Will Buy All This New Debt?

Bernanke: Crank Up The Printing Presses

Real Storm Clouds On The Horizon

Conclusions – Not Many I Can Find

Introduction

Over the last two weeks, I have discussed at some length President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package and Treasury Secretary Geithner's bank rescue plan that he said would cost $1½-$2 trillion or more. Add to that President Obama's announcement last week of another potentially $275 billion in a new bailout plan aimed at homeowners and mortgage lenders.

But these latest revelations are only the tip of the iceberg.

Bloomberg has recently discovered that with the passage of the $787 billion stimulus package, the federal government is now on the hook for $9.7 trillion in direct bailouts and associated government guarantees. Add to that Geithner's $1½-$2 trillion and another $275 billion to help the housing crisis, and you get pretty close to $12 trillion which is staggering.

Where will the government get that kind of money? In the pages that follow, I will discuss how the government normally finances its deficits, and how those sources are beginning to dry up due to the global recession. Unfortunately, it appears that the Federal Reserve will become the “lender of last resort” to fund the massive credit needs of the US government.

There are many serious implications of the historic bailout spending we have seen in the last year, with much more to come, especially if the Fed moves ahead to directly purchase trillions in Treasury debt. Sadly, there are no guarantees that this massive spending will even work. Even worse, we could be facing unprecedented inflation once we come out of this recession, or even before, as I will discuss below.

Federal Bailouts Surpassing $10 Trillion

Following announcement after announcement over the last year, Americans are growing dizzy from the various federal bailout plans. Who knows what the federal government is on the hook for? After filing a federal lawsuit to get the actual information on the bailouts and various bailout guarantees, Bloomberg reported the following on February 9:

“The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government's commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation's home mortgages. The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed.

The Senate is to vote early this week on a stimulus package totaling at least $780 billion that President Barack Obama says is needed to avert a deeper recession. That measure would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.

Only the stimulus package to be approved this week, and the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed four months ago and $168 billion in tax cuts and rebates approved in 2008 have been voted on by lawmakers. The remaining $8 trillion in commitments are lending programs and guarantees, almost all under the authority of the Fed and the FDIC. The recipients' names have not been disclosed.” [Emphasis added, GDH.]

As we all know, Obama's $787 billion stimulus has already been passed. The $9.7 trillion discussed above breaks down as follows. We have not spent it all yet, but it could happen depending on how things go. Bloomberg continues:

“The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid.

The worst financial crisis in two generations has erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world's companies since Sept. 15; brought down Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.; and led to the takeover of Merrill Lynch & Co. by Bank of America Corp.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It's 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.” [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Actually, the various bailouts and guarantees are even larger than Bloomberg outlined above. The day after this article was published on February 9, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced a new financial rescue package aimed at not only banks but also consumers, which will total another $1½-$2 trillion. That puts the total up to $11.7 trillion in bailouts and guarantees.

Then on February 19, President Obama announced his “Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan” that will spend up to $275 billion for “refinancing loans for millions of families in traditional mortgages who are underwater or close to it, by modifying loans for families stuck in subprime mortgages they can't afford as a result of skyrocketing interest rates or personal misfortune, and by taking broader steps to keep mortgage rates low so that families can secure loans with affordable monthly payments.” That puts us close to $12 trillion in bailouts and guarantees, and we're probably not done yet.

I could spend the rest of this E-Letter discussing the implications of spending this unheard of amount of money trying to bail this economy out of recession and unfreeze the credit markets. But a more basic question comes to mind: Where is the US going to get all this money?

Government Finance 101

Now that we know the real numbers, the question then becomes how the federal government intends to pay for all of these programs. Remember, the federal budget deficit is already scheduled to exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year, so where is all of this money going to come from?

That's a very good question. The answer may appear to be very basic, but please bear with me as it leads into more important matters below. The US government essentially has three ways to deal with budgetary issues. First, it can reduce spending on other programs in order to fund the bailouts. Of course, we all know that politicians will never cut spending, so there's no use in even entertaining this option.

Next, the federal government can increase revenues by raising taxes. President Obama has already indicated that he wants to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 to $250,000 a year, but has also lowered taxes (or increased giveaways, as the case may be) to those with lower incomes. To fund the bailouts, however, would require a massive tax increase that may even be more than liberals could bear.

Consider this: the total amount of personal income tax revenue received by the federal government in 2006 (latest data available) was just over $1 trillion. With trillions of dollars of bailouts either enacted or proposed, a tax increase in an amount to cover these expenditures would likely be dead on arrival in Congress, and certainly would make the economy even worse.

Numerous studies have shown that as you tax income at higher and higher rates, there is less of an incentive to take the risks necessary to invest in new businesses. This, in turn, can lead to reduced economic activity. In other words, higher income tax rates could stall the very economic recovery the bailouts seek to bring about. This is just another reason that increasing income taxes to fund the bailouts is not a good idea.

A final way to fund the activities of our federal government is through the issuance of debt securities. Accordingly, the Treasury Department issues a variety of T-bills, notes and bonds to finance budget shortfalls. Currently, the total debt incurred by the federal government (the “national debt”) is just over $10 trillion. That amounts to over $32,000 for every man, woman and child in America based on the Census Bureau's population clock. The annual interest on this debt amounted to over $454 billion in 2008, including interest accrued by bonds held by the government itself.

As you might expect, Treasury Department officials have indicated that money to pay for past and future bailouts and stimulus legislation will be funded by borrowing through the issuance of additional Treasury securities. That being the case, it might be interesting to see who currently purchases these debt instruments, and whether they have appetites for more.

By far, the single largest entity holding Treasury securities is the federal government itself. According to the recent Government Account Office's Schedules of Federal Debt, as of September 30, 2008 over $4.2 trillion of government debt is categorized as “Intragovernmental Debt Holdings.” Of course, the largest among this group is the Social Security Administration, but this category also includes various federal retirement funds, health care funds and agency trust funds.

The remaining $5.8 trillion of government debt held by the public is spread among a variety of holders, including Federal Reserve Banks, state and local governments, foreign governments and central banks, pension plans, trusts and many individual investors. By far, the greatest percentage of publicly held debt is owned by foreign interests, reaching a total of $2.8 trillion as of September 30, 2008. China has recently become the largest foreign holder of US debt, followed by Japan, the United Kingdom and a host of other countries owning smaller amounts.

Who Will Buy All This New Debt?

In light of having to fund additional expenditures related to the bailouts, I did some thinking about who among the various buyers of US debt might be able to expand their appetite for Treasury securities just ahead. While I'm not an economist or an expert in Treasury securities, the future does not look bright in my opinion.

Given that we're in a global economic recession, will the same foreign purchasers of US debt be able to continue to buy Treasuries at their previous pace, much less take on more? Let's take a closer look at just a few of the major sources of debt financing for the federal government.

Federal Government – As noted above, the single largest holder of Treasury securities is the US government itself, most of which is held in the trust funds for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. However, it is not likely that these trust funds can be counted upon to increase their purchases since the amounts they buy are determined by the excess of tax revenues over expenditures. Here are some things we know about these trust funds:

In 2004, the Medicare Hospital Insurance expenditures began to exceed tax revenues. This means that the Medicare Trust Fund is now in the process of cashing in bonds, not buying new ones.
The Social Security Trust Fund will actually be purchasing less and less government debt as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire and claim benefits. As more workers retire, tax revenues go down and expenditures go up. It is generally agreed that the Social Security benefit expenditures will outpace tax revenues in the year 2018 (if not sooner). This is hardly a scenario for a source of increased Treasury purchases.
Let's take this one step further. As the expenditures outpace tax revenues, trustees of these funds will have to start transferring money back into these programs to cover the shortfall. Where do you think they will get the money? That's right, they'll cash in some of their Treasury bonds. But wait, where will the government get the money to redeem the bonds? Well, they'll either have to borrow from another source or print the money, much as they plan to do to finance the bailout. So, in reality, the $787 billion “stimulus” and the $1½-$2 trillion bank rescue package Geithner announced two weeks ago may be just a dress rehearsal for an even greater expansion of the money supply starting in 2018 (or sooner).

Of course, the Federal Reserve can also purchase Treasury Securities, but must generally print the money to do so. I'll discuss this option and its possible negative consequences in more detail later on.

State and Local Governments – These sources of debt financing are now on the receiving end of the recent stimulus bill, and are not likely to be making new investments to the same extent they have in the past, and may actually have a net reduction in their Treasury securities holdings as states and cities seek cash to maintain their services.

Individual Investors – Treasury securities got a boost late last year as investors joined in a flight to safety. However, some observers see this as a one-time event as investors moved to the sidelines and out of equities. Future purchases by investors may be hampered by low rates on these securities.

Americans have been spending less and saving more over the last year or so. Most economists expect this trend to continue for some time yet. That may well be, but one estimate I ran across said that even if Americans got back to their historical average savings rate of 8%, this would mean only about $830 billion of new Treasury purchases - and that's IF the public chooses to invest its increased savings in Treasuries. Personally, I expect some new money from individual investors to continue to flow into Treasury securities as they seek a safe harbor in uncertain times, but this is almost certainly a temporary phenomenon. Who knows, to encourage private investment to help finance the bailouts, the government may even dust off some of the old bond promotions that they used back in World War II to encourage the public to buy war bonds.

Pension Plans, Endowments, Etc. – Many institutional investors got creamed in the recent bear market, with some losing half or more of their asset values. To the extent new contributions are made to these entities, they may continue to be a source of funding for the government. Plan trustees and investment managers have been burned, and may choose to buy safe Treasury securities until they feel better about the equity and bond markets, as well as the economy as a whole. But here, too, this is likely a temporary phenomenon.

Foreign Governments – Many foreign governments have bought Treasuries because they have been flush with US dollars from exporting goods to us. As the recession deepens and Americans cut down more on spending, fewer dollars will be flowing offshore, and this could affect the ability of foreign entities to purchase even the same amount of Treasuries, much less increase their buying activities. Plus, if we factor in the latest protectionist legislation like the “Buy American First” piece of the $787 billion stimulus bill, it might be hard to make a case to foreign nations for investing more in US Treasury securities.

The problem with all of the above sources of debt financing is that they may require concessions on the part of the Treasury to continue to buy its debt securities. Should the US be seen as unable to perform on these notes, investors may require a higher rate of interest to compensate for the added risk.

Foreign purchasers who have so reliably gobbled up our Treasury securities in the past are already balking. China recently demanded guarantees on the $690-plus-billion of Treasury securities it owns, which is not likely to happen soon but it is nonetheless a troubling development. Plus, in light of the global recession (or worse), our trading partners will likely have fewer dollars with which to buy our debt.

Bernanke: Crank Up The Printing Presses

In light of the above difficulties, there is little surprise that Chairman Bernanke recently announced that the Fed would be the purchaser of last resort of the potentially trillions of dollars of Treasury securities being issued to pay for the bailouts. I first brought this to your attention in my December 9, 2008 E-Letter. In a speech delivered in Austin on December 1, Bernanke first announced that the Fed was considering very large direct purchases of Treasury securities.

Speaking to the Austin Chamber of Commerce, Bernanke said, “Although further reductions from the current federal funds rate target of 1 percent are certainly feasible, at this point the scope for using conventional interest-rate policies to support the economy is obviously limited.”

Another option he offered was: “The Fed could purchase longer-term Treasury or agency securities on the open market in substantial quantities. This approach might influence the yields on these securities, thus helping to spur aggregate demand.” Bond prices soared on this news and yields fell to record lows.

This should not have come as a surprise. As the discussion above points out, the government has only limited ways to finance its deficits, and the global recession is serving to reduce some of those sources. Moreover, the Fed had already expanded its balance sheet by close to $2 trillion over the last year by buying up troubled assets. Even before Obama's $787 billion “stimulus” package became law, the Fed announced it would make up to $1 trillion available for consumer loans.

The problem with the Fed buying trillions of dollars worth of Treasury and other debt is that it has to print the money to pay for them. Most experts agree that we could be facing significantly higher inflation whenever the economy comes out of this recession, if the Fed monetizes trillions in federal debt by buying Treasuries.

Even when the economy and the securities markets are weak, the Fed's financing of big federal deficits can be inflationary. We learned that in the late 1970s when the Fed's deficit financing sent the CPI up to an annual rate of almost 15%. That confounded the Keynesian theorists who believed then, as now, that federal spending “stimulus” would restore economic health.

Inflation is the product of the demand for money as well as of the supply. And if the Fed finances trillions in federal deficits and more bailouts in this recession, it could create more money than the economy can use. The result could be the return of “stagflation,” a term coined to describe the 1970s experience when the economy slowed but prices rose anyway. As the global economy slows and Congress relies more on the Fed to finance a huge deficit, there is a very real danger of a return of stagflation.

These concerns, however, are not at the top of Bernanke's worry list (or Obama's or Geithner's). Remember that Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression, and he believes that the government waited too long and did too little to head off the economic and financial crisis of that period. As I have noted frequently of late, Bernanke is worried about deflation, not inflation. Here are some excerpts from the Fed's last policy meeting on January 28:

“In light of the declines in the prices of energy and other commodities in recent months and the prospects for considerable economic slack, the Committee expects that inflation pressures will remain subdued in coming quarters. Moreover, the Committee sees some risk that inflation could persist for a time below rates that best foster economic growth and price stability in the longer term [read: deflation].

The Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote the resumption of sustainable economic growth and to preserve price stability. The focus of the Committee's policy is to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that are likely to keep the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level.

The Federal Reserve continues to purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand the quantity of such purchases and the duration of the purchase program as conditions warrant. The Committee also is prepared to purchase longer-term Treasury securities if evolving circumstances indicate that such transactions would be particularly effective in improving conditions in private credit markets.

The Federal Reserve will be implementing the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility [up to $1 trillion] to facilitate the extension of credit to households and small businesses.”

So it is clear that the Federal Reserve is prepared to purchase however many trillions of Treasury paper that are required to fund the massive bailouts President Obama is asking for. The implications of this massive monetization of government debt are far from clear, especially as they relate to possible inflation down the road. Ironically, there are no guarantees that any of this will work.

Real Storm Clouds On The Horizon

Ever since the end of the 1980-82 recession, I have been a consistent optimist regarding the US economy. For the last 25+ years, I have believed that the technology and productivity-led US economy would surprise on the upside, not without a brief recession or two along the way. I was correct. As long-time readers will attest, I have condemned the “gloom-and-doom” crowd countless times in my newsletter and in recent years in this weekly E-Letter.

Likewise, over those same 25+ years, I have predicted that the US stock markets would also surprise on the upside, and they did with the greatest bull market in history, which the gloom-and-doom crowd totally missed. I encouraged clients and readers to remain fully invested in US stocks, but with a significant allocation to strategies that had the flexibility to move to cash (or more recently hedge long positions) during periodic stock market downturns.

I also predicted since 1982 that inflation, which had reached 15% in the late 1970s, would be brought under control, thanks in large part to former Fed chairman Paul Volcker. Inflation has not been a major threat since then, despite non-stop warnings from the gloom-and-doom crowd and the gold bugs to the contrary.

My optimism over the last 25+ years was well placed, and hopefully allowed my clients and readers to take advantage of the greatest bull market in stocks and bonds ever. But I must admit that my optimism is fading fast. While I am not remotely in the gloom-and-doom camp today, I am not optimistic about America's future, especially in light of the discussion above.

Our nation is in the process of borrowing nearly $12 trillion in an effort to bail us out of the current financial crisis. As noted above, there is no assurance that this plan will work. And most importantly, there is no plan for how this money will be paid back.

So the government will be incurring the most massive federal debt ever at arguably the worst possible time in our nation's history. This fact is highlighted by the reality that tens of millions of Baby Boomers will be entering retirement (if they are lucky) over the next 10-15 years.

We have all seen reports of the strains this will put on Social Security over the next 10-20 years, which will mean even more government borrowing to shore up our nation's entitlement programs. If you believe the numbers, Social Security outlays will begin to outstrip inflows by 2018. I will not be surprised if it happens even sooner.

My confidence in the massive bailouts discussed above was never much, and is fading rapidly. Frankly, I am not sure what the best course of action is at this point. But I do not believe that putting the government into the largest net debtor position in our nation's history is where we should go. Likewise, I do not believe that the government should nationalize our largest banks, but it may very well do so in the months ahead.

Not to end on a political note, but I have warned repeatedly that President Obama comes from a political persuasion which believes that government ownership of the private sector is just fine. I hope not, but we are seeing this evolve after only just over a month of his presidency. It remains to be seen what we should expect next.

Conclusions – Not Many I Can Find

The financial crisis is far from over, and the government is planning to borrow and spend several trillions more over the next couple of years or longer. The Federal Reserve is pledged to be the “lender of last resort,” which could lead to a big rise in inflation in the coming years, or stagflation depending on how the economy does going forward.

The stock markets are devastated, with many people's retirement accounts down by half or more. There is little sentiment that a recovery to new highs will occur anytime soon, for good reason. Millions of Baby Boomers have nowhere near enough to retire into the lifestyles they previously envisioned. As the latest massive bailouts have been announced, stock market prices have consistently tumbled over the last few months to new lows. Does the Obama administration get the point? Obviously not.

At the end of the day, the question is: Will all of these bailouts work? Or are we just delaying the inevitable (as suggested last week in the article by Nouriel Roubini). The main point is that we could have just let banks, brokerage firms and other businesses fail, but this possibly would have created a global depression. However, are we still headed for that fate, only $10 to $20 trillion deeper in debt? Only time will tell.

President Obama is scheduled to speak before Congress tonight (Tuesday), at which time he is expected to present “a road map for how we get to a better day,” a senior adviser said on Monday. Then later this week, Treasury Secretary Geithner is expected to unveil more details on the massive bank rescue plan. It should be another very interesting week.

Best regards in troubling times,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Obama's Stimulus: A Colossal Waste (Read this!)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obamas_stunted_economic_stimul.html

Obama's Failing Leadership
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30804

How the GOP Should Approach TARP 2.0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123534958659044761.html

Obama should rebuke Attorney General Eric Holder
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-eric-holder-racism-america-cowards-opinions-columnists_attorney_general.html

Obama Seeks Multi-Trillion Dollar Bailouts

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:25:16 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Recession Continues To Deepen
So, How Deep & How Long?
Multi-Trillion Dollar Bailouts In The Works
Obama's $825 Billion "Stimulus" Package
Obama's Next "Big Bang" Bank Bailout
Fed Gearing Up To Buy Treasury Bonds

Introduction

We are witnessing the most aggressive government intervention into the US private sector in history, and I am not simply referring to President Obama's massive $825 billion so-called "stimulus" package passed last week by the House of Representatives. As we will discuss as we go along, there are also plans in the works to borrow and spend trillions more, which will result in the government owning even more of the private sector, starting with the banking system.

We should all recognize that President Obama and most of the Democrats in Congress have no problem whatsoever with the government owning (and eventually controlling) much of the private sector. What we are, and will be, witnessing is unprecedented and is being planned under the guise of the economic and financial crisis, when in fact there is a much larger political agenda ongoing now that the Democrats have control of the White House and the Congress.

Speaking of the economic and financial crisis, the US recession continues to deepen as does the global economy. The Commerce Department reported on Friday that US GDP slumped at an annual rate of 3.8% in the 4Q. Most of the other economic reports of late have also been on the negative side. Most forecasters now predict that 1Q GDP will also be down at least 3-4%. This week, we look at the latest data and some forecasts of what lies ahead for 2009.

Following that, we will examine the latest $825 billion stimulus package that was passed last week by the House. While initially touted as a way to jump-start the banks and unfreeze the credit markets, the final bill is loaded with pork-barrel spending and has nothing for the banks. Following that, we will discuss new government plans totaling $1-2 trillion to bail out the banking system. There is so much to talk about, I don't know where to start, but let's begin with the economy.

The Recession Continues To Deepen

As one analyst put it, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for the US economy, which officially entered this recession in December 2007 (with the benefit of hindsight). As noted above, US Gross Domestic Product fell at an annual rate of 3.8% in the 4Q, the largest quarterly decline since 1982. The latest GDP number was not as bad as pre-report expectations, but it does reflect the reality that holiday retail sales plunged over 8% in December according to MasterCard.

The Consumer Confidence Index dropped to another all-time low in January, falling to a reading of 37.7, down from 87.3 one year ago. Consumers remain very pessimistic about the state of the economy and about their earnings. Those saying business conditions are "bad" increased to 47.9% from 45.8% in December, while those saying business conditions are "good" declined to 6.4% from 7.7% in December. These are the lowest readings since the Consumer Confidence Index has been in existence.

In what was initially thought to be a bright spot, the Conference Board announced last week that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) rose 0.3% in December. However, the Conference Board was quick to point out that the increase in the LEI was almost entirely due to the large surge in the money supply in December. The economic component of the LEI was actually down -0.5% in December. The LEI has declined for the last seven months in a row.

The unemployment rate rose more than expected in December, to 7.2%, when every state in America saw its unemployment rate rise. The nation lost apprx. two million jobs in the last four months of 2008 alone. Employment data for January will be released this Friday, and analysts expect the unemployment rate to rise to 7.5%. At the rate major layoffs are being announced, the unemployment rate could approach 9% by the end of the year.

On the manufacturing side, most reports were worse than expected. The ISM Index fell to 32.4 in December, down from 36.2 in November, and worse than pre-report estimates of a decline to 35.4. This morning, the ISM Index for January showed a modest increase to 35.6, which was higher than expected. But keep in mind that any figure below 50 indicates an economy that is contracting.

Industrial production fell 2.0% in December, twice the pre-report consensus. Durable goods orders fell 2.6% in December following a decline of 3.7% in November. Factory orders plunged 4.6% in November (latest data available).

On the housing front, there finally were some encouraging reports. Sales of existing homes rose 6.5% in December to an annual sales pace of 4.74 million units according to the National Association of Realtors, although the NAR noted that many of the sales were "distressed sales" in an effort to avoid foreclosure.

Thanks to the unexpected home sales increase, the inventory of homes for sale decreased 11.7% in December to 3.68 million units. That represents a 9.3-month inventory of unsold homes at the current pace of sales, down from a 11.2-month supply in November. The median home sales price fell to $175,400 in December, which was down 15.3% from the same period in 2007.

New home sales, on the other hand, fell more than expected in December to apprx. 331,000 units. Housing starts fell more than expected in December to apprx. 550,000 units – this is actually a good thing. Building permits also fell more than expected in December to apprx. 549,000 units, also a good thing from an economic standpoint, though not so good if you are or work for a builder.

So, How Deep & How Long?

The truth is, no one knows for sure how long this recession will last or how bad it will get. As noted earlier, most forecasters are predicting that GDP will fall by 3-4% in the 1Q. Among the analysts and forecasting groups I read and respect, there are basically two camps. One camp believes that the recession will get worse, perhaps considerably worse, the credit markets will remain very tight all year, and that a mild recovery will not begin until sometime in 2010.

The other camp is less pessimistic and believes that the economy will begin a slow recovery and the credit markets will unfreeze in the second half of this year. Most in this camp believe that the vast sums (trillions as we will discuss below) the government and the Fed are throwing into the economy will fill the void left by contracting consumer spending. Some in this camp are optimistic that the unexpected upturn in existing home sales in December will have marked the bottom of the housing slump.

Personally, I have been leaning more toward the first camp. However, as we will discuss in the pages that follow, if the Treasury and the Fed are prepared to throw an additional $1-$3 trillion of liquidity into the economy, perhaps the outcome is somewhere between the two camps noted above. In either case, we will not be out of this recession any time soon.

Multi-Trillion Dollar Bailouts In The Works

As I noted earlier, I do not wish for this week's E-Letter to be considered a political piece, but there are some political realities that sophisticated investors must consider. The question for me is where to start. I choose to start this discussion with a quote from President Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, shortly before Obama took office.

Rahm Emanuel, who was a senior political advisor to former president Bill Clinton, and most recently a member of the House of Representatives from the state of Illinois, is one of the most powerful (and foul-mouthed) members of the liberal Washington elite. Interestingly, Emanuel supported Hillary Clinton in the campaign, but Obama picked him as Chief of Staff anyway.

As President Obama's Chief of Staff, Emanuel is essentially the second most powerful politician in Washington. Mr. Emanuel stated the following to the Wall Street Journal after Barack Obama named him as Chief of Staff prior to his inauguration (read carefully):

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is that you have an opportunity to do things you could never do before. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with."

Let me interpret this political message that Emanuel unintentionally stated: We are in an unprecedented financial crisis that will pave the way for the implementation of the liberal policies that we believe in, including things that the American people would not otherwise tolerate. And some of those things are now in the pipeline as I will elaborate below.

You have no doubt heard about President Obama's estimated $825 billion "stimulus" package that was passed by the House last week (with not a single Republican voting yes). As you probably also know, that "stimulus" package was loaded with pork-barrel spending that, during the campaign, Obama said he would not tolerate.

What you probably do not know is that Obama has an additional stimulus plan to recapitalize the banks and financial institutions that could total $2 trillion or more, and will mean that the government gains substantially more equity ownership of the major banks and financial institutions, as well as others.

Should President Obama run into problems financing these huge bailout initiatives, the Federal Reserve has let it be known that it stands ready to purchase a trillion or more in long-term bonds in order to keep interest rates low and keep the credit markets from seizing up, according to recent statements from his new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner.

We will look in more detail at Obama's breathtaking plans in the pages that follow, beginning with the latest $825 billion "stimulus" package passed by the House last week. Then we will look into the potentially $2 trillion rescue package for the banks and the possibility that the Fed will be buying hundreds of billions of Treasury bonds, if needed.

Obama's $825 Billion "Stimulus" Package

Unless you are politically tone-deaf, you know that President Obama has proposed another so-called ‘economic stimulus package' of apprx. $825 billion, on top of President Bush's $700 billion "Troubled Asset Relief Program" (TARP) last year, of which only apprx. half has been spent so far. Obama will now get to decide how the other half is spent.

Oh, and let's not forget the additional $800 billion that the Fed intends to spend in an attempt to further unfreeze credit markets for homebuyers, consumers and small businesses. Never mind that the Fed's plan aims to do the very things that Secretary Paulson initially planned for TARP – buy up troubled mortgage securities – but then said there were better uses for the money.

Many analysts have argued for several months now that Bush's TARP program was not enough to keep our nation's largest banks afloat, and that much more in the way of rescue funds would need to be made available by the Treasury. Plus, most analysts also agreed that any such new stimulus package should include tax breaks and incentives to get consumers spending again to revive the plunging economy.

As a result, many of these same analysts welcomed the idea of the additional $825 billion Obama requested. That is, until they saw how Obama planned to spend the money. Most analysts figured that the $825 billion would go to banks in the form of loans or other capital injections, and to consumers in the form of tax cuts, rebates or other tax incentives to put money in their pockets.

But when the Obama administration finally released the substance of the $825 billion stimulus package, most analysts (your editor included) were shocked. The latest enormous stimulus package is loaded with pork. Around two-thirds of the $825 billion is liberal pork-barrel spending, with little for infrastructure rebuilding; only around one-third is tax cuts and credits for consumers; and there is nothing in the bill for helping the banks.

Remember, this was Obama's proposal. The House tweaked it a little, but not much in the end. The plan passed by the House last week totaled $819 billion, with only $275 billion for tax cuts and a whopping $544 billion in new spending programs as outlined below. The Senate, which has yet to vote on the bill, reportedly has plans to increase it to apprx. $900 billion. For discussion purposes below, I will simply refer to it as the $825 billion stimulus package.

As reported last week, the liberal spending components in Obama's plan include an estimated: 1) $92.3 billion for education, labor, etc.; 2) $88.9 billion for Medicaid to help out state budgets that are in the red; 3) another $79 billion for states that are running budget deficits; 4) $59.5 billion for transportation and urban development; 5) $48.9 billion for the Energy Department; 6) $27 billion for the Agriculture Department; and 7) $15 billion for the environment – just to name a few.

If your blood is not already boiling, get this. Obama's $825 billion bailout also includes over $5 billion that is targeted for low-income housing assistance organizations that prominently includes Chicago-based ACORN, which is really a left-wing political group that Obama worked for in his early days after law school. ACORN could be a big recipient of this money, even though it is under federal investigation for voter fraud. Hmmm.

As you can see, the bulk of Obama's $825 billion stimulus package is targeted toward government agencies – not consumers or banks – and is estimated to result in at least 600,000 new federal employees. So Obama's first major legislative initiative – supposedly a stimulus package to jump-start the economy – is a bloated spending package to increase the size of government, with only about one-third going directly to help consumers.

The Democrats in the House were surprised initially at the makeup of the bill, but quickly passed it last week with few changes. As you have likely heard, Obama's giant "stimulus" package was voted against by every Republican in the House of Representatives and even a number of Democrats. Assuming the Senate passes it (or something even larger) in the next week or two, it will soon become the law of the land.

Making matters worse, precious little of the spending and tax breaks will occur in 2009. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only apprx. $93 billion of the $825 billion will be spent in fiscal 2009, the time we need it most, and only apprx. $225 billion would be spent in fiscal 2010. The balance reportedly doesn't get spent until after that time, when we should be out of the recession.

Instead of giving the economy a "targeted, timely and temporary" injection as Obama had promised, the plan has been larded with spending on existing social programs or hastily designed new ones, with much of it permanent - and not enough of it likely to create new jobs. The Obama administration says that it wants 75% of the money to "spend out" within 18 months. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, only 64% of the spending and tax cuts will hit the economy by 2011.

Also troublesome is the likelihood that the bill will become a vehicle for new protectionism policies. The House added "Buy American" protectionism provisions for iron, steel and textiles, and the Senate seems bent on expanding the list of products. The Obama administration seems unconcerned about the danger these measures pose. The protectionism provisions insisted on by the Democrats could undo whatever measured job creation the stimulus plan achieves by provoking US trading partners to reduce purchases of American-made goods.

And finally, there is the question of whether or not these large new amounts of spending will be counted toward the "baseline budget" for all of the government departments receiving funds under Obama's $825 billion spending plan. For example, will the $92.3 billion going to education, labor, etc. mean that their baseline budget going forward is permanently $92.3 billion higher?

The $825 billion stimulus plan is supposed to be a "one-time" expenditure. But we will have to wait and see if this is true, or if all the departments getting this new money will try to say that their budgets should be increased by that amount permanently in future fiscal years. In Washington, it is easy to give money away, but it is next to impossible to scale it back.

Obama's Next "Big Bang" Bank Bailout

In addition to the $825 billion stimulus package discussed above, Congress also approved the release of the remaining $350 billion from the TARP program to the Obama administration last week. Late last week and over the weekend, Obama and his spokespersons promised that new Treasury Secretary Geithner will soon be announcing their plans for how to spend the remaining $350 billion of TARP monies – plus a whole lot more. What could this mean?

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday of last week that the Obama administration is planning another $1-$2 trillion bailout aimed at restoring the financial health of US banks. What, you haven't heard about this yet? Surprise, surprise. This may explain why none of Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan, and apparently none of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds, will be targeted to banks and financial institutions that are teetering on the brink.

The Wall Street Journal noted the following last Thursday, January 29:

"Government officials seeking the revamp the U.S. financial bailout have discussed spending another $1 trillion to $2 trillion to help restore banks to health… The potential size of the rescue efforts being discussed suggests the administration may need to ask Congress for more funds [a trillion or two]… The administration is expected to take a series of steps, including relieving banks of bad loans and securities.

The so-called ‘bad bank' that would buy these assets could be seeded with…as much as $1 trillion to $2 trillion raised by selling government-backed debt or borrowing from the Federal Reserve."

Wow – another $1-$2 trillion bailout of the banks! The question that arises, of course, is how will the government make these enormous funds available to the banks? Will they be in the form of loans or direct giveaways? New Treasury Secretary Geithner said last week that such new money would be loaned to the banks. Thus far, government loans to the big banks have been made in return for non-voting "preferred shares" in these banks.

Yet given the magnitude of the loans they are talking about – $1-$2 trillion – it is entirely possible that the government will have to take collateral in the voting "common stock" of the banks, potentially giving the government some element of control over the banks and their operations. This sounds like the first step toward "nationalizing" the banks.

On Wednesday of last week, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that he wants to avoid nationalizing banks if possible. He stated: "We'd like to do our best to preserve that [banking] system." Read that quote very carefully. I read it as follows: We'll try to avoid nationalizing the large banks, but if we feel we have to, we will. This is very scary!

As I have stated twice over the last two months, President Obama comes from a political persuasion that has no problem with the government owning – and eventually controlling – large parts of the private sector. Many Americans who voted for Obama had no idea, or ignored the fact that he embraces this ideology.

So we should not be surprised if the government ends up owning big equity stakes in our nation's largest banks over the next year or so. And there is even the chance that the government will actually nationalize the banking system before it's over. Hello Europe!

Fed Gearing Up To Buy Treasury Bonds

The massive bailouts we have already seen, plus those outlined above to follow soon, lead to one pivotal question: How is the US Government going to pay for all of this? Since we're already running a trillion-dollar deficit, the new spending would have to be funded by selling even more Treasury debt. Thus, this leads to additional questions such as: 1) Who is going to buy these trillions in new government debt? Will foreigners continue to buy US Treasury securities as they have in the past; 2) Or will these trillion-dollar deficits spook them away; and 3) Will the US dollar plunge as a result and lose its status as the world's reserve currency?

It is impossible to know the answers to these questions, and the Obama administration knows this. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is gearing up to be the "lender of last resort" as Obama's massive bailout programs move forward. The Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday that the Fed is gearing up to purchase long-term US Treasury securities on a massive scale.

This has never happened in the post-Great Depression era. Yet the Fed is reportedly now gearing up to directly buy US Treasury bonds in case Obama's bailout plans for the banks don't work. Supposedly, the Fed has the legal authority to directly buy long-term US Treasury bonds, but it has never done so on a massive scale before.

Government officials are trying to put lipstick on this pig by claiming that the Fed's action to buy Treasuries will help to reduce long-term interest rates and thus facilitate more business and mortgage borrowing. However, the real reason is that there's likely not going to be anyone left to buy our Treasuries, especially if the Dems pursue idiotic protectionist measures that would harm the very trading partners we rely on to buy our debt.

And if the government usually sells Treasuries to finance its operations, where will the money come from to buy its own Treasury securities? That's right, folks. They'll just keep the printing press running until they have enough. As I have noted before, Obama and our monetary authorities are scared to death about deflation, and they will do anything within their power to avoid a debt deflation (a la: Japan) from unfolding in the US, regardless of the inflation implications down the road.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has recently stated in public that the possibility of the Fed buying Treasuries is real. The latest policy statement from the FOMC made it clear that the Fed "is prepared" to take such a step as a result of the "evolving circumstances" in the credit crisis. I interpret these developments to mean that the Fed will fire up the printing presses immediately if Obama has problems raising the trillions of dollars he plans to spend.

Conclusions?

I have always tried to tackle the complicated issues of the day and explain them in ways that most anyone could understand. Yet the current economic and financial crisis defies a simple explanation. Yes, we know what lead us into this crisis – home mortgages were made available to millions who had little or no chance of being able to make the payments.

Pundits can argue as to who is to blame for this. Conservatives can make a strong argument that the incentives for giving home loans to people who could never make the payments go back to the Clinton presidency, which is true. But liberals can argue, rightly so, that these sub-prime lending practices continued, and even increased, during the Bush administration.

Yet where to place the blame largely misses the point, in my opinion. We are now in what looks to be the worst economy since the Great Depression. Not even the best thinkers of our time suggested that we would be in such a broad-based financial crisis a year ago. But here we are.

It is clear that President Obama prefers a Keynesian approach to solving this crisis – that is by spending trillions of dollars and substantially increasing the size and scope (control) of government. This should not have come as a surprise to anyone who has read this E-Letter for long – I warned you about this on numerous occasions well before the election in November.

Interestingly, we learned yesterday that the Republicans in Congress are busy crafting their own economic stimulus package to counter President Obama's. There are few specific details known about this GOP rescue package as I prepare to hit the "send" button, but it appears that the Republicans' stimulus package will focus on numerous tax cuts and spending that might help the economy in the near-term. Depending on what the Republicans come up with, I might write about that next week – we'll see.

Getting back to the economic discussion at the beginning of this letter, this recession is clearly worse than even the naysayers predicted. As discussed above, it could last a few more months, or it could last well into 2010. Whatever proves to be the case, it will not be good news for the stock markets, which are flirting with new lows as this is written.

In recent weeks, I have emphasized that the mantra of "buy-and-hold" investing is going the way of the buggy whip. Investors around the world have seen their portfolios crushed by the bear market. And it may not be over.

Over the last couple of months, we have seen a significant increase in interest for our actively managed investment programs that have the ability to move to cash (money market) or hedge long positions, and especially our more aggressive programs that will "short" the market. It seems that more and more investors are coming around to my views on risk management.

If your investment portfolio has been hit hard over the last year or so, maybe now is the time to reallocate some or all of your portfolio to professional money managers and strategies that have the potential to get out of the way of bear markets. Call one of my Investment Consultants at 800-348-3601 if you are interested in learning more about these strategies.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Obama Should Fix the Flawed Stimulus Package
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/31/AR2009013101535.html

Lessons from the Stimulus Fight
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/100dyjdy.asp

Public mixed on stimulus package.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-02-poll-stimulus_N.htm

Obama's Tax Policy: None Dare Call It Welfare

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:54:31 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Obama Pushes His Stimulus Plan
Dick Morris -- Tax Exempt Tyranny?
More On Obama's Plan From Peter Ferrara
It Depends Upon Your Definition Of "Tax Cut"

Introduction

I had originally planned to write about the Bernie Madoff scandal this week. In fact, I had already written the E-Letter that described how Madoff swindled investors out of tens of billions of dollars in a giant Ponzi scheme. Maybe I'll send that one to you next week.

But just in the last few days, we have learned the details of President-elect Obama's massive income tax overhaul, and the plan is much worse than we had anticipated. And you need to know about it ASAP, since it will negatively affect most of you who read this E-Letter on a regular basis.

Obama's liberal tax plan would give annual tax rebates to millions of Americans who already pay no income taxes whatsoever. Giving government tax rebate checks to those who already pay zero income taxes is nothing short of expanding the welfare state (or socialism as I prefer to call it).

Worst of all, if Obama gets his massive tax plan approved, it will mean that a majority of Americans will pay little or no income taxes, while the so-called "wealthy" will foot the rest of the bill. If we reach such a point, there will be little to no chance of true tax reform for the foreseeable future.

While the "rich" can afford to pay higher income taxes, it is this same group that creates most of the new jobs in this country. As we have seen often in the past, when the government unduly taxes the "rich," job creation grinds to a halt. We can hardly risk that in the current economic recession and credit crisis.

To get you the information you need to know, I have reprinted two articles below that are right on point. The first is from political writer Dick Morris who was a top advisor to Bill Clinton, who has since converted to a conservative. The second is from Peter Ferrara who is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union.

Together, these two articles expose the fallacies of Obama's proposed tax policies. Please read what follows closely. If Obama gets his way (and he probably will), it will affect us in profound ways, which is part of his grand plan. Hint: it will affect your pocketbook!

QUOTE:
"Obama Stimulus Fosters Tax-Exempt Tyranny
by Dick Morris & (wife) Eileen McGann

It now looks like half of President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus package will take the form of "tax cuts" for 95 percent of all Americans. Yet this wouldn't boost the economy as much as trigger a massive, unhealthy shift in American politics.

Under Obama's plan, the majority of American voters would pay no federal income taxes but would get money from the government instead. That is, these "refundable tax credits" are basically welfare checks -- and Obama's plan would leave the most of us collecting, not paying.

A $200 billion giveaway won't do much to get a $14 trillion economy rolling again. But the plan would leave any future taxpayer revolt no hope of majority support.

Today, the bottom 50 percent of U.S. taxpayers pays a total of $30.6 billion in federal income taxes on a combined income of about $1 trillion. So about 3 percent of all federal income-tax payments come from the poorest half of the country. (The top 1 percent pays 40 percent; the top 25 percent pay 85 percent of the federal income tax.)

Obama's plan -- he'd give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 -- would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a "refund" welfare check.

In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters, and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Regardless of whether this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City: hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords' profits.

Since Ronald Reagan, the anti-tax movement has been based on a blue-collar revolt against high taxes; it would lose that constituency under the Obama plan. Taxpayers would be politically helpless and the tax-eating majority would have free reign to impose any levies it wished.

Almost all of the 68 million tax filers in the country's bottom economic half would get checks from Washington at tax time. Some would be among the 22 million who get money from the Earned Income Tax Credit. Others would get a $500 check through the (Bush-passed) Child Tax Credit -- and all would get funds through the new Obama tax credit.

Welfare no longer would be only for the poor because the majority of the voters would depend on government handouts. This very system is what makes European social democracies so resistant to change.

In 1980, the bottom 50 percent of the nation paid 7 percent of the national tax bill, after refund and credits. It now pays 3 percent; under Obama's plan, it would pay less than nothing (that is, it would net a profit from the IRS). In 1980, the top 1 percent paid 19 percent of the income-tax burden; now, it's 40 percent. Taxes have become the province of only the rich.

Of course, the shift in tax burden also mirrors the incredible increase in incomes of the wealthy during the past 30 years: The top 1 percent earned only 8 percent of the total national income in 1980; now, it earns 22 percent. And the poorest half has seen its share of national income fall from 17 percent in 1980 to only 12.5 percent today.

So it is both fair and sensible to give the poor a tax break and to draw the bulk of federal revenues from the rich. But to exempt the bottom half -- a majority of the voters -- from paying any taxes and to award them refund checks instead would dangerously alter the fundamental balance of national politics. For the economically well off, it effectively could become taxation without representation, which, as the founders of our nation warned, leads to tyranny." END QUOTE

I trust that most of my readers can fully understand the implications for high net worth investors if Obama gets his way, as looks increasingly likely. Now let's take it a step further with another thought-provoking article from Peter Ferrara, another high-level source. Read closely.

QUOTE:
"The Tax Cut Mirage
by Peter Ferrara

Obama Eyes $310 Billion in Tax Cuts" the headline blares. The Obama team comes to town to start the new year, and the run-up to his inauguration, with this announcement. How sly.

This Obama tax cut package is to be part of the broader stimulus package now estimated to cost $775 billion. The problem is that there are tax cuts and there are tax cuts, and there are other things Obama calls tax cuts that are not even tax cuts. The "tax cuts" Obama is proposing for his stimulus package, like the rest of his stimulus package, are not going to stimulate anything.

Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy by "putting money in people's pockets" which they can then spend, as even some Republicans, including George Bush, mistakenly say. That's an old-fashioned Keynesian strategy, and, if it worked, the same result could be achieved by sending out increased welfare checks, which also puts money in people's pockets, which they can spend. But it doesn't work, because it doesn't do anything to change the basic incentives governing the economy, and because just borrowing money and then sending it out to people, in "tax rebate" checks or welfare checks, doesn't add anything to the economy on net.

Tax cuts stimulate the economy when they involve reductions in tax rates. The reduction in rates improves incentives for savings, investment, business creation and expansion, job creation, entrepreneurship, and work, by allowing people to keep a greater percentage of the reward produced by these activities. This improves the economy not just by the dollar amount of the tax cut. The improved incentives affect every economic decision and every dollar in the entire economy. The astoundingly successful Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, as well as the astoundingly successful Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, were both based on reducing tax rates, and were successful for these reasons.

But the Obama tax cut package studiously avoids any reductions in tax rates anywhere. The centerpiece of the plan is a $500 per worker tax credit, estimated to cost $150 billion. The government will just borrow $150 billion from the private economy to give away in these tax credits, so there will be no net gain to the economy. Nor will there be any improved incentives to save, or invest, or start or expand a business, or hire new workers. The credit does not even provide increased incentives to work, because once the worker is over a very low income threshold of about $8,000 per year, the amount of the credit does not increase for increased work and income.

Notice that these arguments apply even for workers who do pay considerable income taxes. Suppose you work and earn enough to pay $5,000 per year in income taxes. The Obama tax credit will reduce your income taxes by $500. In this case, the credit is a real tax cut. But it still will not stimulate the economy for the reasons stated above, it does not add to the economy on net and it does not improve incentives. It is a Keynesian tax cut, not a supply-side tax cut, because it is a flat cash rebate, effectively the same as more government spending, not a reduction in rates.

Keynesians think that the way to increase economic growth is to increase deficits and government spending. We tried that in the 1970s, and we got inflation along with ever worsening recessions. We tried it in the 1930s, and we got the Great Depression lasting for over 10 years. It doesn't work.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal news story on the Obama tax package says regarding this $500 per worker tax credit, "This part of the plan is similar to a bipartisan initiative launched in early 2008, which sent out checks worth $131 billion." Precisely. Bush and the Democrats joined together a year ago to agree on a stimulus package sending out $131 billion in "tax rebates" to workers all across the country. Those tax rebates were very similar to Obama's tax credits today. They involved no reduction in tax rates, or improved incentives anywhere. They were based on a Keynesian rationale, just like Obama's tax credits -- stimulate the economy by increasing government deficits and providing cash rebates for people to spend.

And, of course, that tax rebate stimulus package from a year ago didn't work. The economy continued to worsen throughout the year, and financial markets collapsed in the fall. Henry Paulson was back in September asking for another $700 billion, to save the economy supposedly from complete collapse, and another Depression.

Then there is the part of the Obama tax cut that is not a tax cut. The bottom 40% of income earners do not pay income taxes on net. The $500 per worker Obama income tax credit will consequently not reduce income taxes for these workers. It will involve instead another check going from other taxpayers to these workers, which is actually just increased government spending, indeed, increased welfare.

Indeed, another part of the Obama tax cut plan is even more overt. Obama proposes to include in that plan an increase in the scandal-ridden Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC goes to the lowest income workers, who do not pay federal income taxes, and it is universally recognized as a welfare program. In this, as in other provisions of the overall stimulus package, Obama and the Democrats are effectively arguing that they are going to stimulate the economy by increasing welfare. Reagan and the Republicans stimulated the economy by cutting marginal tax rates, providing incentives to save, invest, produce, start and expand businesses, and create jobs (as Kennedy and the Democrats did in the 1960s). Now Obama and the Democrats claim they are going to do the same by increasing welfare and government spending.

Obama tries to argue that his $500 per worker income tax credit is a tax cut even for workers who do not pay income taxes because these workers still pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. But the only connection between this tax credit and payroll taxes is purely rhetorical. If Obama wants to claim credit for a cut in payroll taxes, then he can propose a cut in payroll taxes. Then Obama can tell us how much sooner the Social Security trust funds will run out and leave the program bankrupt because of his tax credit. The answer in regard to Obama's $500 per worker credit is zero, because that credit does not involve a reduction in payroll taxes of any sort; it is an income tax credit, not a payroll tax cut.

Another component of the Obama $310 billion "tax cut" package is a proposal for a one-year tax credit of $3,000 to businesses for each new job created, costing a pricey $40 billion to $50 billion. Congress already adopted a similar plan proposed by former Sen. Dan Quayle back in the 1980s, called the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit (TJTC). Over the years this has been changed into the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), which provides $2,400 for each new adult worker hired, $4,800 for hiring a disabled veteran, and $9,600 for hiring welfare recipients, high risk youths, and qualified ex-felons. It is unclear whether Obama is aware of this history, but his tax credit is not going to produce any more hiring than the already existing WOTC.

Studies of these tax credits over the years have concluded that the credits have mostly gone for workers that would have been hired anyway, with little if any net new jobs created. And this does not include the jobs lost from the private sector when the government borrowed the additional funds to cover the tax credits. Steve Entin of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation argues that such a tax credit is unlikely to stimulate much employment when the economy is down and businesses are not expanding. "Given the current degree of uncertainty about where the economy is headed," he writes, "the credit is not likely to achieve much for many months, until we are already on the upturn, at which time it would not be needed."

Other provisions of the overall stimulus package follow on the theme of stimulating the economy through increased welfare and government spending. The plan includes major expansions of unemployment compensation, including extending unemployment insurance to part-time workers. It also includes increased Medicaid coverage, and subsidies for employers continuing health insurance for laid off workers. Another $140 billion to $200 billion would go for aid to states to be spent on Medicaid and education. The government's borrowing hundreds of billions for such spending is not going to stimulate anything. It may produce a drag on the economy by increasing dependency.

Then there is another couple of hundred billion for increased spending on infrastructure, including building and renovating roads, highways, bridges, and schools, and making government buildings more energy efficient. Such infrastructure spending was the central strategy Japan used to counter its severe economic downturn of the 1990s, which nevertheless continued for over 10 years. In the U.S., these infrastructure projects take years to get up and running, and are often bogged down by lawsuits relating to the environment and other factors, leaving such projects unsuited for short-term stimulus spending. In any event, again, government borrowing of hundreds of billions for such increased spending would not add anything to the economy on net.

The Wall Street Journal reports Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter as saying, "We're working with Congress to develop a tax cut package based on a simple principle: What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."

This propaganda spin is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing. Obama is studiously avoiding exactly what would work, with the biggest and most immediate impact, because he is so ideologically opposed to the pro-growth, free-market policies that would produce that result. Instead, his ideology is leading him to exactly what will not work to promote an economic recovery, increased welfare, government spending, and trillion dollar deficits. Here is what would work.

The Republicans should advance a proposal that would sharply reduce the 25% income tax rate that applies to the middle class to 15%. This would leave 90% of workers with a flat rate tax of 15%, or even less. Such reduced tax rates would provide real incentives to stimulate the economy, as discussed above. A bill providing for this should be introduced as soon as possible, to get the debate going. This proposal serves as an alternative to the rest of the Obama tax plan to be introduced later, as well as the stimulus package. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell raised precisely this proposal last Sunday. Bravo.

Other proposals would promote economic recovery and growth even more. Most urgent, in terms of producing the biggest and most immediate pro-growth impact, is to reduce the outdated and uncompetitive federal corporate tax rate of 35% at least to 25%, if not the 19% recently adopted by Germany and Canada. The Bush tax cuts for capital gains and dividends should be made permanent. Also urgent would be to adopt immediate expensing, meaning deductions, for investment in capital equipment, rather than depreciation, which drags the deductions out over many years. This would have the same effect as a rate reduction for investors, by increasing the percentage of the reward that such investors could keep. A true economic boom would be created if Congress also reduced the top marginal income tax rate to 25%.

But McCain proposed most of these ideas, and Obama ridiculed them, and Obama won. So Republicans should not expect to be able to advance such ideas effectively in Congress right now, especially since they are in such a distinct minority. Conservative commentators can and should promote these ideas as the real effective and practical ways to promote economic growth and get America booming again, and Republicans can run on them in future races. But the one idea that Republicans can effectively advance right now politically is the middle class income tax rate reduction discussed above.

Another urgent, pro-growth reform is deregulation to allow drilling for oil and natural gas, offshore and onshore in ANWR and elsewhere, and renewed expansion of nuclear power production. This would promote economic growth both by reviving a powerful energy industry in America, and by providing low cost, reliable supplies of energy to the rest of the economy. Removing any regulatory barriers to development and production of alternative energy would be very helpful as well. But an alternative energy industry built on massive government subsidies would be a net drag on the economy.

Republicans and conservatives should be careful to note that the inherently powerful American economy retains natural tendencies to recover. They should not preclude that possibility in criticizing the Obama/Democrat stimulus package. Economic growth may well return later this year regardless of what Obama and the Democrats do.

But neither can we allow Obama to pose unchallenged as proposing enormous tax cuts when they are mostly a mirage, or worse, actually increased government spending and welfare, rather than tax cuts. We must start aggressively advancing that argument now, and the case more generally against Keynesian government spending and enormous deficits as the keys to recovery, and aggressively offer instead the real policies that would restore growth and prosperity, and set off a new economic boom." END QUOTE

[Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation and general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union. He formerly served in President Reagan's White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.]

Conclusions

President-elect Obama's tax cut proposal has been criticized by many conservatives (and even some moderates and liberals) for being misleading because he says that it will benefit 95% of American households. Supporters, however, claim that the promise is legitimate and even some objective, third-party analysis has supported its merits. So who's telling the truth?

That's a very good question. I find it interesting that anyone can come to the conclusion that an income tax cut will benefit 95% of American households when the non-partisan TaxPolicyCenter estimates that approximately 38% of income tax filers pay no tax at all! To make Obama's statement true, you have to resort to an old Democratic tradition and ask what the meaning of ‘tax cut' is.

The secret of how the common-sense definition of reducing income taxes somehow morphs into a plan that benefits individuals who currently pay no income tax is a tale of political slight of hand at the highest level. After all, how can you reduce the income tax bite for someone who already pays NO income taxes? It sounds impossible, doesn't it? If your tax rate is effectively zero, then it would seem that you are already benefiting from the master design of a progressive tax system that increases rates as incomes go higher, right?

Wrong! (At least according to Obama and Congressional Democrats)

In today's world of political spin, a tax cut proposal need not apply only to those with income tax rates above zero. Instead, today's definition of a tax cut can include allowing those who already pay no income taxes to receive a check from the government. Let me make it clear, I'm not talking about getting a refund of all of the income tax withheld from pay. No, we're talking about receiving a government check over and above all of the withholding. In effect, it amounts to a negative tax rate for those who qualify, which is reportedly going to be over 50% of American households.

This negative tax rate is officially deemed to be a "refund," since certain tax credits are deemed to be "refundable," meaning that they are payable even if the filer's total tax bill is zero. Excuse me, but a "refund" used to be defined as a return of something that you had paid in. But that's not the case in the fairy tale world of Washington, DC. In Obama's plan, you can get something called a refund even though it really represents a check from the government drawn from all those unfortunate souls who actually had to pay income taxes. Can you say WELFARE?

Thus, in today's political world, we need to alter our common-sense definitions of some key terms, as follows:

Tax cut = Receipt of other people's tax money (but don't call it welfare or redistribution of wealth)

Refund = Check from the government that may or may not include any money you have actually paid in.

Taxpayer = Tax receiver, unless you have worked hard to earn a lot of money, and then the old definition applies.

Welfare = An outdated, politically incorrect word that used to mean government assistance. For the new definition of government assistance, see "Tax Cut" above.

Redistribution of Wealth = A socialist philosophy generally unacceptable to capitalist societies unless repackaged under another definition found to be more palatable to the general public. See "Tax Cut" and "Refund" above.

If Obama wants to put money in the hands of people in an effort to stimulate the economy, then he should proceed as Bush did last year and dole out checks to the populace. I don't particularly agree with the practice, but at least people would know what is happening.

To dress a government handout (more welfare) in the garb of a tax cut can have some very drastic and negative effects, in my opinion. First, as Dick Morris points out, it means all income tax receipts will come from the top 50% of wage earners. I still happen to be in the camp of those who believe that you hold government more responsible when part of the money is yours. Plus, it makes changing the current complexity-laden tax code virtually impossible since the alternatives such as a "Flat Tax" or "Fair Tax" would mean that the 50% who pay no taxes would have to start paying taxes again.

Another big negative is that the majority of voters can elect representatives that will pass laws with no tax consequences to the bottom 50%. Why not vote for expanded social services, it won't cost them anything, and they may even get a bigger government check. Can you say welfare? Or socialism?

Lack of participation in the funding of government is not a good thing. Alexis de Tocqueville, a 19th Century thinker, said, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Don't look now, but it looks like the time when the majority of American households that receive from the government, rather than pay any income taxes, is about to be upon us.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

The Recession & More Government Bailouts

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:21:18 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy
The Latest On The Government Bailouts
Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts
Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout
Fighting A "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

Introduction

The economy, the financial crisis and government bailouts were certainly hot topics for discussion among the large group of family and friends that we entertained over the Thanksgiving holiday and the weekend following. These sorts of issues would not normally come up at this annual gathering, but it is just more evidence that the current sinking state of the economy and the credit crisis is on the minds of virtually all adult Americans, no matter their financial strata.

Most of my Thanksgiving guests have been dizzied by all the different government bailouts that have been announced recently (haven't we all!), and most were very much against them, as is a majority of Americans according to several surveys. What most people don't understand is that the government and the Fed will do anything they possibly can to prevent the economy from falling into a full-fledged debt deflation.

Debt deflation is a cycle in which prices fall broadly, in some cases across the spectrum of assets. Most historians attribute the Great Depression to a debt deflation between 1930 and 1934. Likewise, Japan's decade of deflation and severe recession in the 1990s is the model everyone wants to avoid. For obvious reasons our monetary authorities do not want to see either happen again. I will be writing about deflation more in upcoming issues.

This week we will discuss the recent government and Fed bailouts as we go along, including some recent analysis by Stratfor.com and a nice chronicle of how the financial crisis has unfolded thus far. But first we want to take a look at the latest economic data, most all of which are bleak. While 3Q GDP was down only 0.5% according to the latest report, most analysts expect that the economy will plunge by at least 2-3% in the 4Q.

That's a lot to cover, so let's get started.

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy

I trust that everyone reading this is well aware that we are in a serious recession brought on almost entirely by the housing slump and the credit crisis which followed. The government and the Fed have proposed massive bailouts in an effort to get the credit markets moving, banks lending, and consumers spending once again. But is it working? The answer is, not yet.

Here are the latest economic reports. Last Tuesday, the Commerce Department revised its estimate of 3Q Gross Domestic Product from -0.3% to -0.5%, annual rate. In the 2Q, real GDP increased 2.8%. The decrease in real GDP in the 3Q primarily reflected negative contributions from personal consumption expenditures, residential fixed investment (housing), and equipment and software that were partly offset by positive contributions from federal, state and local government spending, private inventory investment and exports.

Most economists and analysts are expecting a much greater decrease in GDP for the 4Q. While we won't get the first estimate of 4Q GDP from the Commerce Department until late January, a recent survey conducted by the Philadelphia Fed suggests that real GDP will decline at a 2.9% annual rate in the 4Q. Likewise, the consensus now is that at least the first two quarters of 2009 will see similar decreases in GDP if not worse. There are plenty of analysts that now expect all of 2009 to hold negative growth for the economy. At this point, I cannot disagree. Things are indeed quite bleak.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) fell sharply in October, down -0.8%, marking the fourth decline in the last five months. The LEI declined sharply in October as stock prices, building permits, consumer expectations and the index of supplier deliveries made large negative contributions to the index. Without the very large positive contributions from inflation-adjusted money supply (the largest in seven years), the leading index would have been substantially weaker. Between April and October 2008, the LEI declined 2.4% (a -4.7% annual rate), falling considerably faster than the 1.2% decrease (a -2.3% annual rate) over the previous six months.

Durable goods orders (large ticket items) plunged 6.2% in October, more than double the 3% decline economists expected. The report showed widespread declines throughout manufacturing led by decreases in autos and airplanes. Factory orders plunged 5.1% in October. The manufacturing sector is being hit by the slowdown that is occurring in the rest of the economy. The prospect that the US, the world's largest economy, has entered what could be a severe recession is dragging down growth in other areas and dampening demand for US exports, which had been the one bright spot for the economy this year.

The unemployment rate surged to 6.7% in November as more than 500,000 jobs were lost in that one month alone. Most forecasters now expect the US unemployment rate to soar to 7% or above by the middle of next year. It will not surprise me if unemployment reaches 7% in the 1Q of next year.

As we all know, consumer spending accounts for apprx. 70% of GDP. In October, retail sales dropped 2.8% following a decline of 1.3% in September. It is unusual to see large drops in consumer spending in October with the holiday season approaching, but this is no usual year. Most retailers expect 4Q sales to fall below yearago levels this year.

It is encouraging to note, however, the latest media reports which indicate that on Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) retail sales were up 3% over last year. That increase was largely attributed to the fact that retailers had already discounted merchandise to levels not normally seen until later in the season.

The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index, which fell to an all-time low of 39.5 in October, rebounded modestly in November to 44.9 largely due to the sharp drop in oil and gasoline prices. However, the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Index, which asks different questions, was basically unchanged in November at 57.9 versus 57.6 in September. Both measures of consumer confidence remain at very discouraging levels.

On the housing front, the numbers continue to worsen with no end in sight. New home sales in October fell to their lowest level in 17 years, according to data released last Wednesday. The US Census Bureau said the sale of new houses tumbled 5.3% in October to an annualized rate of 433,000. That compared to 457,000 one month earlier and was the weakest showing since 1991.

The number of existing homes in the US that were sold in October fell 3.1% compared to September and was 1.6% below the annualized rate in October 2007. Housing starts also fell sharply once again in October to a 17-year low. Building permits also continued to decline significantly in October.

Even though home sales are now down 69% from the July 2005 bubble peak of 1.39 million units, builders have not been aggressive enough in curbing production because the most critical variable of all, the unsold inventory backlog, rose to an 11.1 month supply in October from 10.9 in September. Thus, we may not have seen the worst of the housing slump yet.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recently announced that the US economy is officially in a recession that began in December of 2007. This marks one of only a very few times that NBER has made such a determination without two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP, which is the traditional definition of a recession.

To round out the latest economic reports, the Consumer Price Index fell 1.0% in October, the largest monthly decline in the index since its creation in 1947. The Producer Price Index (wholesale prices) plunged 2.8% in October. These drops in prices reflect the fact that we are in a severe recession, consumer demand is plunging, and producers are dropping prices in reaction.

The data above paint a troubling picture for the US economy and thus those around the world. The trouble is that the US economy is the world's engine of growth, and US consumers are the fuel of that engine of growth. Now, US consumers are being forced to cut back and save more.

The Latest On The Government Bailouts

As noted above, the government's efforts to head-off the US financial crisis have already gone beyond what many of us could have imagined just a year ago. This financial crisis has resulted in so many different rescue operations, involving trillions of dollars. The initial $700 billion rescue package that was finally approved by Congress in October boggled our collective minds. This financial crisis has evolved so fast that it is hard for most Americans to keep track of what has happened, much less understand it. Here is a good, concise chronology published by the Houston Chronicle (Chron.com) on November 25th:

QUOTE: Gov't Announces Another $800B in Bailout Plans

The government's commitments to contain the financial crisis now approach $7 trillion. That figure includes funds to guarantee certain corporate assets and debts, although those funds may never actually be spent. Still, the overall figure reflects the huge liabilities the government is taking on to battle the meltdown.

Among the government efforts announced Tuesday are plans to buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets and up to $200 billion in loans for holders of securities backed by various types of consumer debt.

The new plans are the latest in a long list of government moves:

-- March 11: The Federal Reserve announces a rescue package to provide up to $200 billion in loans to banks and investment houses and let them put up risky mortgage-backed securities as collateral.
-- March 16: The Fed provides a $29 billion loan to JPMorgan Chase & Co. as part of its purchase of investment bank Bear Stearns.
-- May 2: The Fed increases the size of its loans to banks and lets them put up less-secure collateral.
-- July 11: Federal regulators seize Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac, costing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. billions to compensate deposit-holders.
-- July 30: President Bush signs a housing bill including $300 billion in new loan authority for the government to back cheaper mortgages for troubled homeowners.
-- Sept. 7: The Treasury takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, putting them into a conservatorship and pledging up to $200 billion to back their assets.
-- Sept. 16: The Fed injects $85 billion into the failing American International Group, one of the world's largest insurance companies.
-- Sept. 16: The Fed pumps $70 billion more into the nation's financial system to help ease credit stresses.
-- Sept. 19: The Treasury temporarily guarantees money market funds against losses up to $50 billion.
-- Sept. 29: The Fed makes an extra $330 billion available to other central banks, boosting to $620 billion the amount available to the Fed through currency "swap" arrangements, where dollars are traded for foreign currencies. It also triples to $225 billion the amount available for short-term loans to U.S. financial institutions.
-- Oct. 3: President Bush signs the $700 billion economic bailout package. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson says the money will be used to buy distressed mortgage-related securities from banks.
-- Oct. 6: The Fed increases a short-term loan program, saying it is boosting short-term lending to banks to $150 billion. It says that by year's end, $900 billion in potential overall credit will be outstanding. It also says it will begin paying interest on reserves that banks keep with the Fed in hopes of coaxing banks into keeping more money on deposit at the central bank.
-- Oct. 7: The Fed says it will start buying unsecured short-term debt, so-called "commercial paper," from companies, and says that up to $1.3 trillion of the debt may qualify for the program.
-- Oct.. 8: The Fed cuts its benchmark interest rate a half percentage point, to 1.5 percent. It follows a one-quarter point cut on April 30 and a three-quarter-point reduction on March 18.
-- Oct. 8: The Fed agrees to lend AIG $37.8 billion more, bringing total to about $123 billion.
-- Oct. 14: The Treasury says it will use $250 billion of the $700 billion bailout to inject capital into the banks, with $125 billion provided to nine of the largest: Bank of America Corp., which received $15 billion; Bank of New York Mellon Corp., $3 billion; Citigroup Inc., $25 billion; Goldman Sachs Group Inc., $10 billion; JPMorgan Chase & Co., $25 billion; Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., $10 billion; Morgan Stanley, $10 billion; State Street Corp., $2 billion; and Wells Fargo & Co., $25 billion. The $10 billion for Merrill has been deferred until its purchase by Bank of America closes.
-- Oct. 14: The FDIC says it will temporarily guarantee up to a total of $1.4 trillion in loans between banks.
-- Oct. 21: The Fed says it will provide up to $540 billion in financing to provide liquidity for money market mutual funds.
-- Oct. 29: The Fed cuts its benchmark interest rate to 1 percent, matching the low point reached in 2003. The rate hasn't been lower since 1958.
-- Nov. 10: The Treasury and Fed replace the two previous loans provided to AIG with a new $150 billion aid package that includes an infusion of $40 billion from the government's bailout fund.
-- Nov. 12: Paulson says the government will no longer buy distressed mortgage-related assets, formerly the centerpiece of the bailout, and instead will concentrate on injecting capital into banks.
-- Nov. 17: Treasury says it has provided $33.6 billion in capital to another 21 banks, with the largest stake being $6.6 billion to Minneapolis, Minn.-based U.S. Bancorp. So far, the government has invested $158.6 billion in 30 banks.
-- Nov. 23: The Treasury says it will invest another $20 billion in Citigroup Inc., on top of $25 billion provided Oct. 14. The Treasury, Fed and FDIC also pledge to backstop large losses Citigroup might absorb on $306 billion in real estate-related assets.

Citigroup will assume the first $29 billion in losses, and after that the government will absorb 90 percent of losses and the company 10 percent. In return, the government will receive $7 billion in preferred shares and warrants for more than 250 million additional shares.

-- Nov. 25: The Fed says it will purchase up to $600 billion more in mortgage-related assets and will lend up to $200 billion to the holders of securities backed by various types of consumer loans.

The Fed will buy up to $100 billion in direct obligations from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Home Loan Banks. The central bank also will buy $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities, pools of mortgages that are bundled together and sold to investors.

The program on consumer debt will be supported by $20 billion of credit protection from the $700 billion bailout package enacted last month. END QUOTE

Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts

As noted above, on November 25th, the Federal Reserve announced yet another huge bailout - up to $800 billion - aimed at freeing up seized credit markets. You would expect that this new, unprecedented bailout would be still making news and have been completely and utterly analyzed. I don't find that to be the case.

Actually, it's somewhat troubling that the Fed, acting under its own initiative and without any congressional approval, can uncork a bailout $100 billion bigger than the $700 billion TARP rescue package Treasury Secretary Paulson had to peddle on Capitol Hill. Even more surprising is that this newest bill aims to do the very things that Secretary Paulson initially planned for the $700 billion - buy up troubled mortgage securities - before he changed his mind on how best to use the TARP money.

I'll provide some analysis below, but first let's see exactly what the new Fed bailout has been designed to do. Much of the buzz on the street about this new Fed program has been that this is "Main Street's Bailout," meaning that the relief from this $800 billion of pocket change is designed to get to the ultimate consumer rather than going into bank stocks. Is Bernanke playing a little political football here? Maybe.

Stratfor.com had one of the better descriptions of the Fed's new plan to restore liquidity to the housing and consumer credit markets. I have reprinted an excerpt of Stratfor's November 25 article below, and will follow up with my own analysis:

QUOTE: In the past 24 hours, there have been two more major developments, enacted not by the Treasury but by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which, unlike the Treasury, enjoys both policy independence and control of the money supply.

First, the Federal Reserve is using its resources to take over the original idea contained in the TARP I program, launching a $600 billion package to purchase mortgages and mortgage-backed securities that started the problems in the first place. All of this funding will be applied to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and their immediate satellites. Because the Fed will be negotiating the terms of the debt purchase with the Treasury (the twins are currently under government conservatorship), price points will be determined very quickly.

And because the Fed enjoys policy independence and control of the money supply, it will not have to go back to Congress for approval or funding. If it deems necessary, it can simply print currency to "pay" for the effort. In essence, the sticky parts of the bailout program have now been handed to the institution with the most capability for unfettered action: the Federal Reserve.

Second, the Fed is using a new $200 billion credit facility to purchase AAA-rated debt -- credit card debt, car loans, student loans and the like -- that is currently foundering because of the dual impacts of the recession and bank skittishness. This program is less of a bailout and more of a reward for good behavior. The Fed will purchase only debt that is new; banks can swap their new loans for cash and then immediately turn around and lend again. Simply put, the Fed is offering the buy-up program as a sort of bait to draw skittish banks out of their holes. (The Treasury tossed in $20 billion for this as a sort of insurance policy.) [Emphasis added, GDH.]

What the government essentially has done in this admittedly confusing shell game is split the rescue program into two categories: a "good debt" management scheme and a "bad debt" management scheme.

With the exception of the $200 billion AAA facility, the Fed is in charge of the bad debt -- primarily the questionable mortgage-backed securities that touched off the problems to begin with. Because the Fed operates largely free of congressional and even presidential oversight, and because it controls the printing presses, it has the authority and ability to turn on a dime and make the serious decisions about how to reform or even (probably) liquidate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If there is a financial loss, and there certainly will be, the Fed can handle it "off the books," so to speak. After all, it can print currency if need be. There would obviously be negative (inflationary) side effects to this, but the impact on the government's bottom line and the taxpayer's pocketbook would be less direct.

In turn, the good debt will go to the Treasury. Assuming Western civilization as we know it does not collapse, the government will be able to sell back the shares the Treasury purchased in the banks. In fact, profit levels for the government are actually written into the agreements with the banks. Not only will the government get the $350 billion allocated in TARP II back, it will make a healthy profit to boot -- if all goes according to plan. END QUOTE

The key is the last sentence and the last phrase - "if all goes according to plan." So far, I would say, not much has gone according to plan, assuming there ever was one. A year ago, most analysts believed that the subprime problems would be contained in the US mortgage/banking sectors and would not affect the overall investment markets. Now we know that these endemic problems have spread to all credit markets, virtually around the world.

Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout

Reading through Stratfor's excellent analysis of the Fed's recent announcement, you may have picked up on some potentially troubling words. First, Stratfor talks about how the Fed can simply "print currency" necessary to pay for this bailout. Remember the controversy surrounding a 2002 speech by Ben Bernanke that alluded to printing money and distributing it from helicopters? Well, the printing press has evidently been placed on board the chopper at Gate One.

As a general rule, printing money is de-facto inflationary. History is filled with examples of countries that experienced hyper-inflation due to cranking up the printing presses. However, not as evident in Bernanke's "helicopter" speech was a footnote that addressed the fact that some inflation is actually a good thing, since it erodes the real value of outstanding government debt.

As I will discuss below, it can be argued that the Fed had to print money to fund bailouts or risk a severe economic depression. However, we need to be aware that the side effects from this "cure" may include increased inflation in the future. Even Fed Chairman Bernanke acknowledges the risk. In a speech last week here in Austin, he said that the Fed's balance sheet "…will eventually have to be brought back to a more sustainable level. However, that is an issue for the future; for now, the goal of policy must be to support financial markets and the economy."

Next, the Stratfor analysis discusses how the "sticky" parts of the process have now been handled. It is generally believed that Paulson backpedaled on buying up subprime debt from banks because the negotiations would have taken too much time to do the banks any good. Now, however, the Treasury and Fed will be able to negotiate directly on the price of any debt purchased, making these purchase transactions potentially much faster.

However, at what cost do we gain this additional transactional efficiency? We have an admittedly "unfettered" Fed dealing directly with the Treasury Dept. regarding the purchase and sale of hard-to-value debt. Does this bother anyone else out there, or have we come to the point where we have to believe the old line, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you?"

Finally, Stratfor notes that the Fed's dealing with the bad subprime debt will produce almost certain losses, but that these can be handled "off the books," again by printing money if necessary. The resulting inflation would be a consequence, but would be a less direct way of spreading the cost around to the public. Note that Stratfor doesn't say that it won't impact taxpayers, just that inflation will be a less direct way of paying the piper than other possible methods.

Fighting "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

As noted in the Introduction above, discussions about the recent massive government bailouts, and especially the latest from the Fed, are going on everywhere in America. Surveys consistently show that most Americans do not agree with the huge government bailouts. Choruses such as "Just let 'em fail!" and "Where's my bailout?" are common.

What most people don't understand is that the government and the Fed will do anything they possibly can to prevent the economy from falling into a full-fledged debt deflation. Whether we agree or disagree with the bailouts, it is clear that our monetary authorities, namely Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, believe that if large financial institutions are allowed to fail on a large scale, it would send the economy into a depression.

It appears quite clear to me that Paulson, Bernanke and company now believe that it was a serious bad decision to let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt. Now, they are doing everything in their power to make sure that no other large financial institution goes under, apparently no matter how much taxpayer money they have to commit, even to the point of firing up the Fed's printing presses as a last resort.

Deflation is typically defined as a persistent decline in the general prices of goods and services, or put differently, a negative inflation rate. A debt deflation is generally regarded as a persistent decline in the prices of goods and services, along with widespread loan defaults and bank failures. The last time the US experienced a serious debt deflation was in 1930-1934, the so-called Great Depression.

In the Great Depression, America saw Gross Domestic Product plunge by 10% annually on average, and the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 25%. Clearly, no one wants to see that happen again, especially Paulson and Bernanke, not to mention President Bush and President-elect Obama.

While most Americans seem to oppose the government bailouts, most of the financial/analytical/forecasting groups that I have followed for years believe that the bailouts were/are absolutely necessary. In fact, some of my most trusted sources believe that the government was slow to react to the credit crisis and has not done enough to make bailout money available.

Certainly, there is also agreement among my sources that the government has made some mistakes and did not have a clearly orchestrated plan for how and when the bailouts would happen or where the bailout money would be directed. Such evidence is clear in simply how many times the plans for the original $700 billion TARP bailout have changed.

At the end of the day the question is: What would have happened if the government and the Fed had done nothing in reaction to the credit crisis? Let's start with the easy ones. AIG would have clearly gone bankrupt sending shock waves through the banking and insurance markets worldwide. Merrill Lynch would have almost certainly gone under, perhaps taking Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and several other large investment banks with it, along with Lehman Brothers.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if these giant financial players had been allowed to fail. Yet most Americans don't seem to care. Just let the chips fall. Would the failure of these instititions have triggered a financial collapse? I think the answer is yes.

But would these financial failures have sent the US economy into a serious depression if the government did nothing? There is no definitive answer. Clearly, Paulson and Bernanke feared that without the bailouts, we would have been looking at a global financial crisis and a worldwide depression of epic proportions.

Most Americans who oppose the bailouts have not, in my opinion, thought through the possible implications had the government done nothing to rescue the credit markets. While we can't be certain that a global depression would have unfolded had nothing been done, we also cannot know that it wouldn't. Think about that.

Finally, I would be remiss not to add the obvious: there is no guarantee that the bailouts will work. Only time will tell. But it is clear that the bailouts are not over. I expect the government to give bailouts to the automakers, one way or the other; if not this year, then President Obama will do it as soon as he gets in office. Likewise, Obama is planning another giant stimulus package - reportedly in the $700 billion range - for early next year.

The point is, the bailouts are not over. More are coming in the Obama administration, if needed. How much more we don't know. What we do know is that we will have a new president that comes from a political persuation that has no problem with the government owning parts of the private sector, which is a little scary now that the government already owns equity stakes in our nation's largest banks and AIG.

But that is another discussion for another time. Time to close and hit the "send" button. Hope this has been helpful.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Graphic NYT: Tracking The Bailout
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/11/26/business/20081126_FED_graph1.html

Bernanke's Daring Experiment
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/bens_daring_experiment.html

Getting Out of the Credit Mess
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878188688689783.html

Instead of Spending, Cut Taxes
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/12/08/friedman-cut-taxes-oped-cx_bw_rs_1209wesburystein.html

Credit Crisis: Do Bush & Paulson Have A Clue?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:19:08 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Stratfor's Take On The Subprime/Credit Crisis
Treasury Secretary Paulson Changes The Plan
Do They Even Have A Clue What To Do?
Bailout's Next Phase: Consumer Loans (Maybe)
More From Stratfor On The Credit Crisis & The Economy
Gauging The Recession & The Economy - Not Good
Stock Markets Detest Uncertainty & Economic Woes
Conclusions - They Are Few

Introduction

We begin this week with some interesting analysis from our good friends at Stratfor.com regarding the subprime/credit crisis - how it unfolded and how it may play out from here. Following that, we'll look at the latest curve ball from Treasury Secretary Paulson who last week announced that the government will not buy up troubled mortgage securities from banks, but instead will proceed with more equity infusions for financial institutions that are in trouble.

In addition, Secretary Paulson announced that a significant part of the $700 billion rescue package - most all of which was originally intended to buy up troubled assets - will now be redirected toward consumer debt, including such things as student loans, auto loans and credit card debt. One wonders if the government really has a clue about how to resolve the financial crisis and unfreeze the credit markets.

And finally, we take a look at the current state of the economy and the recession. News continues to worsen, especially forecasts for 4Q GDP, which many economists and analysts now believe could be negative 4-5%. All of this continues to weigh on the stock markets, which as this is written, are threatening to make new lows. It's a lot of ground to cover in one E-Letter, so let's get started.

Stratfor's Take On The Subprime/Credit Crisis

QUOTE:
The root of the American credit crisis is similar to that of previous recessions. As profits pile up during economic expansions, investors eventually find it difficult to find investments that generate large returns, so they send their money after riskier prospects. In the [economic] expansion that just ended, the most important of those questionable investments was subprime mortgages, culminating in mortgage loans that required minimal to nonexistent credit checks, down payments or even proof of income. In total, some $550 billion of subprime loans (and a separate $725 billion of Alt-A loans -- the next quality step up from subprime) are currently outstanding.

The worst of these mortgages granted very low teaser interest rates that adjusted to normal rates after a period of two to five years; there were some $350 billion of these in subprime, and an additional $385 billion in Alt-A. While virtually none of these questionable-quality mortgages have been granted since the credit crunch began roughly a year ago, those resets are now weighing heavily on the housing market. As the rates reset, borrowers with questionable income and credit are often unable to meet the new, grossly enlarged payments based on the new rates. The result is a cascade of foreclosures that gluts the housing market, pushing prices down. So far $55 billion of subprime mortgages are in foreclosure, and just over another $80 billion are in severe delinquency. The numbers for Alt-A are $40 billion and $45 billion, respectively.

Under normal circumstances, this is more or less where things would have ended: A glut in regional housing stocks where subprime mortgages were most overused -- especially in the Southern California, Las Vegas and Miami regions -- would lead to a recession in those housing markets and perhaps some leakage into the broader national housing market.

But there is another step in the process that made the problem bigger. Mortgages are only rarely kept by their issuers -- instead they are bundled into packages and sold to interested investors. This serves three purposes. First, since the mortgage maker can sell his loan for a profit, he can then turn around and make another mortgage. Second, this secondary tier of investors brings an entirely new source of capital into the market. Third, these packaged mortgages can be sold to yet more investors, creating a new series of mortgage-backed assets (and securities) that can be traded abroad. Taken together, this widens and deepens the capital pool and reduces mortgage rates for everyone.

The problem is that as market players chased after ever-shrinking returns, no one treated the dubious mortgages as anything different from normal mortgages -- and that includes the ratings agencies whose job it is to evaluate products. All banks and investment houses are required to hold back a percentage of their assets in cold hard cash to keep from becoming overleveraged. This reserve percentage is based upon myriad factors, but the most important one is the risk level of the investments. Mortgage investments are -- or were, until recently -- widely considered to be among the safest investments available because homeowners will do everything they can to avoid missing payments and losing their homes.

Subprime mortgages are more likely to fall into default. But add in the impact of teaser rates -- and the fact that many of these mortgages were granted without requiring down payments so no equity was ever earned -- and essentially the effect is that time bombs were hardwired into these packages of tradable mortgages.

Beginning in late 2006, these teaser rates began to adjust to normal rates and the bombs started going off. That decreased the value of the mortgage-backed assets directly by their affiliation with subprime in specific, and indirectly via their affiliation with property in general. Suddenly, anyone holding the weakening mortgage-backed securities found themselves needing to use those cash reserves to rebalance their asset sheets. As the price drops intensified, anyone who might have been willing to purchase or trade these mortgage-backed securities suddenly lost interest. The holder then held an asset of questionable value that he could not unload.

As the cash crunch of individual firms increased, two things happened. First, investment houses started snapping like twigs because they are uniquely vulnerable to credit crunches. Banks, unlike investment houses, are required to hold a certain percentage of their deposits back to cover their losses should disasters strike; right now that percentage is 10 percent. The major investment houses, however -- which are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission instead of the Treasury -- are only required to set aside a minuscule amount of cash, which comes out to less than 1 percent of their total asset list and therefore provides them with a smaller cushion than banks.

By the end of September, the major Wall Street investment houses had been broken (Bear Stearns), gone bankrupt (Lehman Brothers) or were forced to recategorize themselves as banks, thus submitting themselves to the regulatory authority of the Fed (Goldman Sachs). In a few short months, everything on Wall Street changed.

Second, banks also needed to rationalize their balance sheets by dipping into their reserves. Luckily, since banks have a 10 percent reserve ratio, they have much more room to maneuver than investment houses (although some, such as Washington Mutual, still cracked under the pressure).

It is at this point that Stratfor gets interested in the economics of the issue, because it is at this point the problem transforms from angst for Wall Street into a danger for the broader system.

When an investment house faces a credit crunch (or goes under) the impact is rather limited -- the only entities that are truly hurt are those that purchased shares in the house itself -- but when a bank faces a crunch, the impact is much greater. The best means that banks have of rebuilding their emergency reserves after a write-down is to reduce lending and hoard their income until their reserves are built up again. Such actions immediately reduce the availability of credit for everyone across the entire economy -- homebuyers cannot get mortgages, companies cannot borrow to fund expansions, credit card rates go through the roof. Voila, a Wall Street crisis becomes a national economic crisis.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's $700 billion bailout plan is an attempt to address the problem at its source: the nonliquidity of the mortgage-backed securities. The government will offer to exchange these securities for cold, hard cash. In one fell swoop, banks can rid themselves of untradable assets of questionable value while recapitalizing their reserves. Flush with cash and sporting newly healthy asset sheets, this should unfreeze the credit picture and allow banks to get back into the business of banking -- most notably lending. END QUOTE

Treasury Secretary Paulson Changes The Plan

I am forced to depart from Stratfor's analysis of the credit crisis at this point for one important reason (we will revisit Stratfor below). On Wednesday of last week, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson made it official that the government is abandoning the original plan to spend $700 billion to buy up troubled mortgage assets from financial institutions.

The next phase of the Treasury's $700 billion "Troubled Asset Relief Program" (TARP), according to Paulson, would have the government continue to take equity stakes in banks and financial institutions vis-à-vis more cash infusions in exchange for stock, rather than buying up their bad mortgage-related assets and taking them off their books.

This seems like an odd turn of events given that the credit markets are still more or less frozen and we are in a recession that is looking more and more severe. Yet Paulson defended the latest swerve in the TARP mission by noting that some of the $700 billion needs to be redirected at increasing the availability of student loans, auto loans and credit cards.

Some analysts viewed the Treasury's latest redirection of TARP funds as merely the recognition that the Bush Administration has finally realized that some of the TARP billions needs to be spent directly on consumers. Clearly, the public perception is that the TARP is simply a bailout of banks and Wall Street financial institutions. Some analysts welcomed the latest announcement.

Do They Even Have A Clue What To Do?

Your editor has a different take on the latest announcement by Treasury Secretary Paulson. First, I have to question whether the Bush Administration and the Treasury Secretary know what they are doing. The original $700 billion rescue plan, which was hastily passed by Congress, was intended specifically to: 1) buy up troubled mortgage-related assets from banks and others; 2) hold those assets on the Treasury's books until the housing slump subsided; and 3) eventually sell those assets back into the market when it was expedient to do so.

Supposedly, the Treasury was busy constructing the TARP infrastructure and hiring lots of people to implement the massive buying of troubled mortgage-related debt. However, in October, the Treasury shifted its focus and allocated some $250 billion for direct equity infusion to the major banks in return for stock (warrants).

The banks that agreed to receive equity investments from the Treasury included Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. (including Merrill Lynch), Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of New York Mellon and State Street Corp. Interestingly, some of these large banks resisted the effort and opposed the cash infusion in return for equity. However, it was widely reported that Secretary Paulson made it clear that the cash infusion was not optional.

The next twist, as noted above, came last Wednesday when Paulson announced that the TARP will not purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, but instead will continue with equity infusions for banks (and non-banks) and somehow provide other TARP money for student loans, auto loans and credit card loans. This all suggests to me that the Bush Administration and the Treasury Secretary don't know what they're doing!

Obviously, the move to make TARP money available for student loans, auto loans and credit card loans is in reaction to growing pressure in Congress to make some of the money available for consumers, rather than just financial institutions. President Bush and Secretary Paulson know that they must go back to Congress for authorization of the second $350 billion installment of the TARP. But does Congress have any better idea how to spend the money than Paulson?

To me, it makes much more sense for the government to buy up the troubled assets and hold them until the housing market recovers than to buy increasing equity stakes in banks. However, in his press conference last week, Secretary Paulson said that he decided to drop the plan to buy troubled assets because it is no longer the best way to restart the credit markets. What I read that to mean is that it will take too long to buy up the troubled assets, and the banks could fail in the meantime. Thus, the decision to inject $250 billion now in return for stock was made.

Bailout's Next Phase: Consumer Loans (Maybe)

Congress is quite unhappy with Secretary Paulson for not forcing banks to make new loans with the funds they have received from the TARP. Many in Congress are also unhappy that some of the TARP money has not been earmarked to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. Paulson responded last Wednesday stating that, as a part of the new direction, the Treasury is looking into ways to use some of the TARP money to prevent home foreclosures. Specifically, he said they are considering a plan that has been floated recently by the FDIC, although he noted that the plan has some problems in his view.

Paulson stated in his news conference on Wednesday that the market in consumer finance "is currently in distress, costs of funding have skyrocketed and new issue activity [loans] has come to a halt." As a result, Paulson also announced that the Treasury is considering setting up a new lending facility to focus on consumer loans. Paulson said he was more interested in helping the currently stalled market for financing of credit card and auto loans, among other things.

The Treasury Department says nothing has been finalized, but reportedly Paulson and his advisers are looking into using TARP funds, along with some money from outside investors, to buy up credit card debt, auto loans and other, non-mortgage consumer debt. The financing mechanism for that type of debt, often called "securitization," has stalled like much of the rest of the banking sector. Paulson is hoping that buying up debts directly will be a better way of stimulating lending than just purchasing banks' shares and trying to force the firms to extend loans.

Interestingly, this new lending mechanism sounds a whole lot like another "Collateralized Debt Obligation" (CDO). Accordingly, one wonders why buying up credit card and auto loan debt is any better or easier to do than buying up mortgage bonds. In fact, when it comes to credit card debt, it could be an even riskier way to use taxpayer money. That's because credit card debt, unlike home mortgages, is unsecured. If a borrower defaults, there's no house to repossess. What's more, credit card debt, unlike a mortgage, can be wiped away in bankruptcy.

Pardon me, but this raises another obvious question. Would a huge new round of CDO-like securities be good for investors? I think not. We are in the midst of a massive deleveraging in the credit and investment markets. You would think that Bush advisors and Secretary Paulson would realize this.

Given these potential problems, it occurs to me that Secretary Paulson may simply be talking about such consumer oriented programs to satisfy Congress, when in reality he may have no plans to actually implement these proposed new plans. These ideas may simply be lip service for the time when the Treasury has to ask Congress for the second $350 billion to fund the TARP. The TARP reportedly has only apprx. $60 billion left from the initial $350 billion allocation.

Finally, it appears to me that President Bush and Secretary Paulson have decided to simply ‘run out the clock' on the bailout and hand it over to the Obama administration (note: Paulson will not be staying on at Treasury). On Wednesday, Paulson stated that he had set no date for going back to Congress for the additional $350 billion, possibly a hint that he won't.

Paulson also said he has no plans to establish major new programs ahead of President-elect Obama's inauguration. He said, "I'm not looking to make anything more difficult by implementing programs that don't need to be implemented before they're here." Paulson also said the Treasury will likely keep the remaining $60 billion on the sidelines in case of emergencies.

So, it increasingly looks like Bush and Paulson are content to run out the clock and hand this enormous credit crisis over to the Obama team.

More From Stratfor On The Credit Crisis & The Economy

I will tell you that Stratfor is less pessimistic about the credit crisis and what lies ahead for the economy than numerous other sources I read. Dr. George Friedman and his staff believe that the Treasury will be successful in largely turning around the credit crisis next year. Likewise, barring any major surprises, they do not believe that the recession will be long and overly severe. I hope they are right.

QUOTE
In our analysis of the current financial crisis in the United States -- and the world as a whole -- we have sought the center of gravity of the problem. We approached that simply by asking one question: is what is going on simply another inflection point in the business cycles that have occurred since World War II, or does it represent a systemic failure such as that which happened during the Great Depression? This struck us as the urgent issue.

We noted that in the Great Depression, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by nearly 50 percent over three years. It was an unprecedented calamity. Bearing this in mind, we compared the current situation to other events since World War II to see if there was a framework for measuring it. We found that framework in the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989, when an entire sector of the U.S. financial system collapsed and the federal government intervened -- essentially guaranteeing or purchasing commercial real estate, whose price decline had triggered the crisis.

We noted that the total amount allocated by the federal government in that crisis was about 6.5 percent of the GDP (and the amount actually spent, before recouping of costs via sales, was less than 3 percent). We noted also that in the current crisis another sector of the financial system -- the investment banks -- were devastated, and that the federal government intervened, this time at about 5 percent of GDP.

Meanwhile, the equity markets had not declined as much as they did in 2000-2001, and as of the second quarter of this year the economy was still growing by more than 2 percent. From this we concluded that the U.S. economy was moving into a recession but that the recession would not break the framework of the postwar economy, although clearly the degree of government intervention will reshape the financial markets.

The United States is a $14 trillion economy with a potential problem amounting to $1-2 trillion (and probably far less than that). If the government intervenes, it will create inequities and imbalances in the system. But between the size of the economy and the government printing press, the problem will be managed -- particularly because there are underlying assets -- houses -- that can be monetized in the long run. The gridlock in the financial system will undoubtedly create a recession, but there hasn't been one for seven years and it's high time. END QUOTE

Stratfor seems to believe that the worst of the credit crisis is now behind us, barring any major surprises. They note that bank lending has increased somewhat since the $250 billion injection in October. Likewise, they believe the recession will likely end in the first half of next year.

As always, I appreciate Stratfor's insights and the ability to share them with you. I encourage you to visit their website at www.Stratfor.com and consider subscribing to their always insightful analysis. Click HERE to get a free 7-day trial subscription to Stratfor .

Gauging The Recession & The Economy - Not Good

When Stratfor suggests above that "...the recession would not break the framework of the postwar economy...," I take that to mean that they do not believe the current recession will be worse than the recessions of 1973-74 or 1981-82, both of which lasted well over a year. Most economists seem to agree that the current recession probably began in July of this year.

In late October, the Commerce Department reported that 3Q GDP had contracted by an annual rate of -0.3%. On November 25, we will get the second estimate of 3Q GDP, and the consensus now is for a revision to -0.6%. That will not come as a surprise.

What is much more worrisome is the outlook for the 4Q. Economists and analysts are downgrading their estimates for 4Q GDP. I am hearing increasing forecasts of a 4-5% drop in GDP for the 4Q! We won't get the first estimate of 4Q GDP until late January, so it will be interesting to see what the consensus is after the first of the year. Suffice it to say, it will be ugly.

Retail sales fell a record 2.8% in October, and retail chains are bracing for the worst holiday shopping season in years. Best Buy now expects its sales to fall 8% for the year. What a shift - in early September, Best Buy was forecasting a sales increase of 3% for the year. Best Buy CEO Brad Anderson said, "Since mid-September, rapid, seismic changes in consumer behavior have created the most difficult climate we've ever seen." Best Buy rival CircuitCity filed for bankruptcy last week.

Economists and analysts are increasingly forecasting that the recession will last at least until late next year. If that is true, the current recession would be on par with the recessions of 1973-74 or 1981-82. And it could be worse.

Most forecasters now expect the US unemployment rate to climb to at least 8% sometime next year, with many expecting that to occur in the first half of next year. Over a half a million jobs have been lost in the US in the last two months alone, driving the unemployment rate to 6.5%, a 14-year high. 8% unemployment would be the highest in 25 years.

Stock Markets Detest Uncertainty & Economic Woes

Everywhere I go, people ask me the same question: What's it gonna take for this crazy stock market to find a bottom? I don't tend to talk about my business or investments to people in my personal life, but people who have never inquired before are asking me for advice now - family, friends and even people who don't know me well but know I work in the investment industry.

The fact is, no one knows when this bear market will end. If someone tells you they know when the bear market will end, keep one hand on your wallet!

One thing is clear, however. The stock markets have consistently reacted negatively to the government's massive $700 billion bailout plan. Let's take a look at recent market action. Treasury Secretary Paulson submitted the huge bailout plan - which was intended to fix the credit crunch and stabilize the market - to Congress on Saturday, September 20. Take a look at what happened thereafter. The stock market tanked.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged from above 11,000 on September 22 to below 8,000 on October 11 at the low. Certainly not the reaction that Bush, Paulson & Company had expected. The equity markets do not like uncertainty and were shocked at the massive size of the requested bailout - we all were.

The stock market tried to bounce back from the low, but on October 14 Secretary Paulson announced that on the prior day he had met with the nation's largest banks and had informed them of the government's plan to take equity stakes totalling $250 billion in their companies. You can see in the chart above that the stock markets declined sharply once again to near the October 11 low.

The markets once again tried to recover, climbing back above 9,500 in the Dow. Then last Wednesday, November 12, Secretary Paulson announced that the Treasury would not buy any of the banks' troubled assets and would only take equity positions in their stock. Now, we find the equity markets back near their October lows and threatening to make new lows as this is written.

It remains to be seen if the stock markets are in the process of forming a bottom. From a technical perspective, if the Dow can hold above the October lows once again in the next few days, that would be very encouraging (triple bottom), and we could see a much overdue strong rally in this bear market. If not, and we make new lows, expect another round of aggressive selling to follow.

Conclusions - They Are Few

I know that many of my readers are opposed to the government bailout of financial institutions. I assume that many of you will also be opposed to the latest plan to spread some of the bailout money to consumer loans. In normal times, I would agree - just let the chips fall.

However, the current credit crisis is unprecedented and the consequences of letting America's largest banks and financial institutions fail would virtually ensure a depression and a Japan-style debt deflation that could last for a decade or longer.

Of course, it remains to be seen if the government bailout plan will work. But most of my trusted sources agree that some kind of large government rescue plan was required, since letting the credit system go down the tubes would have resulted in financial Armageddon.

Personally, I believe the government will have to resort to buying up many of the toxic mortgage-related securities and taking them off the market before this crisis abates. But based on the hints and inuendo from Secretary Paulson, it seems that President Bush has decided to leave that decision to his successor, Barack Obama. I would not want to be in his shoes.

Finally, I know that many of you who read this E-Letter are facing tough decisions about what to do with your investments, your 401(k) and other retirement accounts at this point. Keep in mind that my staff of Investment Consultants and I stand ready to assist you in making those decisions if you would like to talk about it - free of charge and with absolutely no pressure to invest in the programs we recommend.

You can call us at 800-348-3601 or e-mail us at info@halbertwealth.com. We don't claim to have all the answers, but we've been through bear markets before, and we are happy to consult with you on the issue of what to do now.

Wishing you a market bottom,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

Paulson - Fighting the Financial Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18paulson.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

To Prevent Bubbles, Restrain the Fed
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688652214032407.html

Fred Barnes on how Obama could help Republicans
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/819jyryw.asp?pg=1

The Democrats' Plan To Highjack Your 401(k)

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:19:23 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Economy Falling Fast Into Recession
Democrats Want To Highjack Your 401(k)
The Democrats' 401(k) Replacement Plan
Socialism Du Jour - "Spread The Wealth Around"
Can We Afford This Nonsense? No, But So What
Conclusions - After Today, Anything Is Possible

Introduction

On this Election Day that is expected to end with a win for Senator Barack Obama, I think it's important to let you in on what the liberals in Congress are already discussing about your retirement planning options. Earlier in October, Congressional Democrats began discussing the possibility of eliminating the favorable tax benefits related to 401(k) plans, effectively killing the very popular retirement planning device.

In its place, the Dems propose to enact a government-sponsored plan that would transfer the role of total retirement security into its hands. The problem is, could the investment options be limited to only a special type of government bond? You know, the kind they use for the Social Security System where you can claim there's a trust fund but the money's all gone.

In any other circumstances, I would say that this proposal doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming law. However, a year ago I would have told you it would be next to impossible for the Fed and Treasury to guarantee hundreds of billions in worthless bonds, force mergers of financial services companies, buy hundreds of billions in equity stakes in our largest banks or take ownership in a public corporation. If the Dems get a supermajority in both Houses of Congress, I won't be surprised by any neo-socialist boondoggles that may well appear, especially if Obama wins the election.

I fear that the recent bailout maneuvers have started us on a slippery slope toward socialism. Where will it stop? Hopefully, today. If not then, we might see it get a lot worse before it gets better. Whatever turns out to be the case, you need to know what may be coming on the retirement account front, specifically for 401(k)s.

Before we get to that, I will quickly review the latest economic numbers which are grim. We are now in a recession, textbook definition or not, and I expect it will only get worse for some time to come. I will have a more detailed analysis on the economy and what we should expect in an upcoming E-Letter.

The Economy Falling Fast Into Recession

Last Thursday the Commerce Department announced that 3Q Gross Domestic Product fell at an annual rate of -0.3%. This was the "advance" report which relies on somewhat scant data for September, so the next GDP report late this month could well be revised downward. The much-watched ISM Manufacturing Index plunged from 43.5 in September to 38.9 in October, a 26-year low. The Chicago Purchasing Managers Index, a proxy for business spending, imploded from 56.7 in September to 37.8 in October.

Consumer confidence fell off a cliff in October, plunging from 61.4 in September all the way down to 38.0, an all-time low for the index. Personal consumption spending fell 0.3% and durable goods orders slumped 2.9% in September (latest data available). General Motors reported yesterday that car sales for October were down over 45% from yearago levels. Retailers are bracing for a very disappointing holiday season.

Our economy is in serious trouble, folks! And the credit crunch is far from over. I could see this recession lasting a year or longer. I will have more detailed economic analysis in the next week or so, depending on what new surprises we see in the days just ahead.

Democrats Want To Highjack Your 401(k)

By now, many of you may have read about a new Democratic proposal to eliminate the tax incentives provided to 401(k) retirement plans, and replace them with 'government-guaranteed' retirement accounts. On its face, this plan is being touted as a way to restore stock market losses incurred by 401(k) participants over the past couple of months. However, the real agenda is far more rooted in liberal ideology. If you read what follows, I think you'll agree, and it should scare you!

Before getting into what has been proposed, let's take a look at exactly what the Democratic proposal would do away with. Many Americans are not aware of all of the tax benefits available to help workers save for retirement in 401(k) plans, including plenty of people who actually have these retirement plans. The Democrats are no-doubt counting on participants not knowing what they are giving up to make the sale easier.

The Democrats' proposal does not seek to do away with 401(k) plans. Instead, it places the tax advantages enjoyed by employers and employees in the crosshairs. Therefore, it would be beneficial to review just what those tax advantages are. Note that the following benefits pertain to traditional 401(k)s, but are not applicable to special "Roth" 401(k) contributions, which I will cover a little later on. Again, these are the current tax advantages for 401(k) accounts:

Employee contributions to the 401(k) are deductible for income tax purposes, but not for Social Security tax purposes;
Employer contributions are not taxed as compensation to participating employees for income tax or Social Security tax purposes;
Earnings (interest, dividends, capital gains, etc.) on employer and employee contributions are not currently taxed to the participant, but are allowed to accumulate on a tax-deferred basis. To illustrate, let's compare the accumulation of a contribution of $300 per month on a taxable and tax-deferred basis. Assuming a 30-year time horizon and 6% earnings (which are for illustration purposes only and not guaranteed), the taxable account would grow to $172,453, while the tax-deferred account would grow to $227,146. You can see the results using other assumptions by going to the following website for a tax-deferral calculator:

http://www.calcxml.com/do/inv07
Finally, assets grow tax-deferred in traditional 401(k) plans, not tax-free. Thus, withdrawals at retirement are taxed as ordinary income in the year in which they are actually withdrawn. Most retirees withdraw annually only what they need to supplement their other sources of retirement income.

I noted above that these tax benefits pertain to traditional 401(k) plans, but they do not apply to special "Roth-type" contributions and earnings. In Roth plans, contributions are not tax-deductible when made. However, earnings on all Roth contributions can be withdrawn tax-free IF they are held for a sufficient period of time. For younger 401(k) participants, this can be a huge advantage. Note, however, that these special rules do not apply to employer matching contributions.

As you can see, the tax benefits associated with traditional 401(k) plan contributions and earnings are not only favorable to the employer, but also to the employee. The ability to grow retirement assets on a tax-deferred basis is a huge benefit, and is part of the reason that these plans have gained so much in popularity over the last 20 years or so.

The Democrats' 401(k) Replacement Plan

I have read a number of articles describing the alternative 401(k) plan being considered by some of the Democratic leadership. This plan was the brainchild of Dr. Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics-policy professor at the New School for Social Research in New York (where else?). However, I got so many different details from the various articles I read, I figured it would be best to review Dr. Ghilarducci's own testimony and briefing paper rather than counting on hearsay.

It's a good thing I did, because Dr. Ghilarducci's original proposal is quite different in some respects than the plan she revealed in her Congressional testimony. However, either proposal would still likely result in the death of 401(k) plans and would put the government in the role of providing retirement security. Here are the details of her original briefing paper from November of 2007:

As already noted, the proposal would not do away with 401(k) plans, but would eliminate all of the tax benefits as discussed above. I must assume that this also means the tax benefits associated with Roth-type 401(k) contributions as well. This would, in effect, kill 401(k) plans as the tax incentives for employers and employees are the main drivers for their adoption and participation.
Instead of employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, the government would set up special Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs). Participation would be mandatory for all workers except for those who are covered by an equivalent or better defined benefit retirement plan.
Required contributions of 5% of salary (equally shared by employer and employee) would be made to the GRA each year, and would be administered by the Social Security Administration. Contributions will apply only up to the Social Security earnings cap (currently $102,000 for 2008), and workers will have the option to make additional after-tax contributions to the GRA.
To offset the loss of before-tax contributions in 401(k) plans, workers would receive an annual $600 refundable tax credit, indexed to inflation. Note that the "refundable" nature of this tax credit insures that workers receive it even though they may not pay any income taxes. For lower-paid workers, all or part of the $600 tax credit would be directed into the GRA to insure at least a $600 annual contribution for every worker.
As noted above, the GRAs would be administered by the Social Security Administration and would be guaranteed at least a 3% annual return. However, the original proposal suggests that these contributions be managed by a unit of the government's Thrift Savings Plan, and not placed into government IOUs. Independent trustees would direct the investment of contributions and have the authority to hire commercial money managers. While the government would guarantee a minimum return of 3%, it would also be possible to earn excess returns which could be credited to GRA accounts.
Finally, at retirement, GRA account balances are converted to inflation-indexed annuities based upon the life expectancy of the participant. Even so, individuals will be permitted to take a partial lump-sum distribution equal to the greater of 10% of their account balance or $10,000, and will also be able to select among optional survivor benefits in exchange for a smaller monthly check.

The supposed benefits of this new retirement arrangement will be to provide a benefit roughly equal to 25% of the pre-retirement income of a full-time worker who works 40 years and retires at age 65. Noting that Social Security replaces approximately 45% of pre-retirement income of the average worker earning $40,000, the proposal states that the combined programs can replace 70% of pre-retirement income of such workers.

Of course, that only applies to workers earning their "averages" and working for the period of time they consider to be typical. The actual amount of replacement income will depend upon actual earnings. A table in Dr. Ghilarducci's briefing paper notes that a "high earner" averaging $60,000 per year in earnings at retirement will replace only 61% of pre-retirement pay, while a "low earner" with only $20,000 of earnings at retirement will replace 89% of pre-retirement pay. Now that's what I call spreading the wealth, but more about that later on.

There are many other details of this plan that space does not permit me to discuss. For more details of the original proposal, see Dr. Ghilarducci's briefing paper for the Economic Policy Institute at the following web address:

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp204.html

Congressional Testimony Paints A Different Picture

It's safe to say that Dr. Ghilarducci's original proposal is not as bad as what we heard being proposed during her October testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor. This testimony provides some insights as to how the proposal has changed as the markets have wreaked havoc upon the account balances of 401(k) participants, and the government has moved to "bail out" various financial sectors.

For example, the original proposal didn't spend much time talking about "trading in" existing 401(k) accounts for the new GRA, but Dr. Ghilarducci's testimony notes that such a trade-in could occur based on "mid-August [stock market] prices." In other words, the government would pony up the difference between participants' current reduced account balances and what they had in mid-August before the latest stock market meltdown.

Other testimony given during the same Committee hearings stated that $2 trillion of value had been lost by participants in 401(k)s, IRAs and similar retirement plans over the course of the past 15 months. How much of this represented "lost" 401(k) balances is unknown, but whatever disappeared between mid-August and October would be restored by the government.

Also recall how Dr. Ghilarducci originally proposed a reasonable trustee-directed investment plan for the entire GRA. However, her recent Congressional testimony modified this stance. She now proposes that 401(k) accounts "traded in" to restore their mid-August values would be invested in a special type of government bond that earns 3%, adjusted for inflation. The testimony makes it clear that the government bond proposal would apply only to restored account balances traded in for GRAs, but who knows what Congress may decide.

Plus, we all know that these special bonds would likely be similar to those in the Social Security "trust funds." It is a sad fact that money contributed to the Social Security trust funds is simply spent by the government in exchange for IOUs. I have written previously about how the Congressional Budget Office described the bonds in the Social Security trust fund back in 2002, but I'll reproduce it below just to drive home the point:

"Trust fund holdings, as internal liabilities between government accounts, are not assets of the government. Nor do they represent money owed to program recipients individually; payments to Social Security recipients and beneficiaries of other social insurance programs are based on a variety of rules set by law unrelated to trust fund holdings. A federal trust fund is basically an accounting device that measures the difference between the income designated for a specific program and the expenditures made to its beneficiaries. The accumulated difference, or balance, often represents a reserve of future 'spending authority' for the program, but it is not a reserve of money for making payments." [Emphasis added]

"In the future, when receipts for such programs as Social Security fall below their expenditures, the legal authority to pay benefits will exist as long as their trust funds have balances, but the government will have to generate cash to pay benefits either by running a surplus in the rest of the budget--which would probably require cutting other spending or raising taxes--or by borrowing from the public."

Understand that the above described makeover plan for 401(k)s is just the starting point, especially under an Obama Administration and Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.

Specifically, Dr. Ghilarducci's testimony also made it clear that she is not just aiming at 401(k) plans, but also various other types of "defined contribution" plans including profit sharing, money purchase pension plans, 403(b) plans and even IRAs. Perhaps we should christen this proposal "Social Insecurity 2.0."

Other details are far less than clear right now, such as the tax treatment of 401(k) account balances transferred into a GRA, what would happen to workers who don't fit the "average worker's" 40 years to contribute to the plan, and many, many others. If this plan gains any traction in the new Congress, I'm sure we'll hear more about these and other details yet to be disclosed.

Whatever the final form of an actual bill to introduce GRAs, if any, Dr. Ghilarducci's proposals are still a major diversion from retirement planning law that has steadily evolved since the passage of the Economic Recovery and Income Security Act of 1974, otherwise known as ERISA. What would cause Congressional Democrats to trash over 30 years' worth of retirement planning law? I'll give you a hint: it starts with an "S."

Socialism Du Jour - "Spread The Wealth Around"

The first hint at the real motivations behind the GRA proposal should come from the fact that Dr. Ghilarducci's paper was published by the Economic Policy Institute, not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. Plus, the table of contents on the briefing paper was punctuated by the tagline "Agenda for Shared Prosperity." Isn't this just another way to say, as Senator Obama suggests, to "spread the wealth around?"

And don't think this is just an over-the-top reaction from a conservative. Dr. Ghilarducci, the architect of the new plan, said the following during a recent interview:

And what's amazing about this is that it's actually, um, doesn't cost the government anybody (sic). I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading -- spreading the wealth.
[Emphasis added - GDH]

You would think that the Democrats would have coached her to not describe it in those exact words, but the bottom line is that spreading the wealth is exactly what GRAs are designed to do.

The carrot at the end of the stick is the restoration of accounts to their August 2008 values, before the latest market crash. Imagine how many Americans would jump at the chance to recoup the market losses of the last couple of months!

Free money, or so it would seem. That's how socialism works: give 'em a short-term benefit in exchange for a lifetime of bondage.

While a lot of Dr. Ghilarducci's testimony dealt with enhancing retirement security, reducing investment-related fees and making up for losses incurred during the recent bear market, a quick review of her Congressional testimony reveals the real reason for this desire to change to a new government-sponsored universal retirement plan.

According to Dr. Ghilarducci, the current system of providing tax incentives to companies and workers for sponsoring and participating in 401(k)-type plans is inefficient. While you and I might define the term "inefficient" much differently, for purposes of the "spread the wealth" crowd, Dr. Ghilarducci defines it as having too much of the tax subsidies go to people who actually pay taxes (ie - higher income earners).

Her testimony notes that 6% of taxpayers with incomes over $100,000 per year reap 50% of the total tax benefits from 401(k) and related plans. Never mind that this 6% of taxpayers pay the lion's share of all income taxes. I don't have numbers for the top 6%, but in 2006, the top 5% of taxpayers paid 60% of all income taxes. Plus, approximately 1/3 of filers pay no income tax at all based on 2006 income tax statistics.

I would argue that it makes sense that people who actually pay taxes should be the ones receiving the lion's share of any tax benefits, not those who pay no taxes at all. Demographics would also seem to dictate that high earners would get most of the benefits. My firm counsels workers to start contributing to their 401(k) plan early to allow compound interest to grow. Thus, it makes sense that those with larger balances are those who have been saving a long time, and who are most likely to have worked their way up into high-paying positions. This proves that working hard and saving early pays off in the long run.

However, the Democrats now want to say that those who worked hard to excel and who took advantage of tax incentives to save a sizeable nest egg should be punished and have their tax benefits given to those who have not been as industrious or mindful about saving.

The bottom line is that this whole proposal is nothing more than a way to redistribute wealth based on liberal ideology. It's being sold as a way to restore balances, guarantee minimum future returns and reduce the uncertainty of market-based investments, but you can rest assured that it's just another step on the road to increased government control of every part of our lives, also known as socialism.

A New Democratic Piggy Bank

I also find it very interesting that one of the new wrinkles that has appeared in Dr. Ghilarducci's proposal between its original release and her recent testimony would allow 401(k) participants to have their account balance restored if they move their account into a new government bond. Considering that billions of dollars will be required to bail out Wall Street due to the subprime crisis, the future of social programs under a Democratically controlled Congress were in question. Where would they get the money?

Now we know one way they might try to get some cash in the coffers - highjack our 401(k)s and other tax-deferred retirement accounts.

Plus, it is currently unknown how much, if any, of the ongoing contributions would be allocated to these special government bonds. Since the whole matter is currently in flux, I could see a Democratic Congress mandating all or part of ongoing contributions be placed into government-guaranteed bonds. Sure, the Democrats will try to sell GRAs as a way to insure retirement stability, but it will really be a way to have access to a gigantic stash of cash.

Can We Afford This Nonsense? No, But So What?

This new 401(k) replacement proposal results in affordability issues at several levels. First, can the government afford to restore mid-August values for everyone in a defined contribution type of retirement plan? After all, the amount of money to do so would be gargantuan! Well, I guess it can as long as they keep the printing presses going at the Fed. However, that doesn't mean it's affordable.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that all types of retirement plans (IRAs, defined benefit, 401(k), etc.) have lost apprx. $2 trillion over the last 15 months due to stock market declines. I cannot find a statistic showing how much of that loss was in defined contribution plans like 401(k)s, but I would guess it's in the hundreds of billions.

Plus, what about the defined benefit plans that are now going to be under-funded. It probably won't be long until we see companies with at-risk pension plans asking for a bailout of their own. If we bail out 401(k) participants, can we justify not bailing out employers who may have no other choice than to terminate their plan if they can't get a government handout?

Another level of affordability is in relation to the returns needed in a 401(k) to produce a meaningful retirement benefit. The proposed bond investments will guarantee 3% above inflation on balances "traded in" to the GRA. Since inflation historically runs about 3% per year, that means a 6% return. It will be hard for workers to build much wealth with such low returns.

Finally, we have to look at the effects on the stock market. We don't know exactly how the money "traded in" to a GRA will be treated, but that giant sucking sound you'll hear might be money flowing out of the equity markets and into government bonds. That will mean more downward pressure on stock market prices.

And what will the government do with the trillions of dollars it will be given? Three guesses and the first two don't count: Spend it, of course. Maybe this is how Obama gets the money to fund his lavish new spending programs. It could happen.

What is really hard to understand is that Democrats continually grouse about the regressive nature of the Social Security tax, which is currently 7.65% of pay (matched by the employer). Self-employed individuals must pay both shares, so their tax rate is 15.30%. While Obama's tax plan promises to rebate part of this tax, it would seem a contradiction to add yet another 5% mandatory contribution/tax/whatever for employees to pay. Plus, if employers have to pay half of this mandatory contribution, it will represent yet another expense during a period of recession. Not a good idea!

The entire idea of replacing employer-sponsored 401(k) plans with a government sponsored Social Security - II plan would have been considered ludicrous prior to August of this year. However, after banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies and car makers all lined up for a share of government's largesse, it's now not hard to imagine something this insane actually becoming law.

Conclusions - After Today, Anything May Be Possible

Considering that this proposal has been trotted out during a Committee hearing at a time when Congress is not even in session likely indicates that it's no more than a trial balloon to gauge public reaction. Dr. Ghilarducci's original proposal made no waves when it was released a year ago, likely because no one felt there was a snowball's chance of it ever becoming law.

Now, however, times have changed. The recent market meltdown has many investors worried about their ability to retire with sufficient income. On top of that, lawmakers have seen that the major Wall Street bailouts have been passed without riots in the streets. This just might give them the ability to answer all of their constituents who have asked, "Hey, where's my bailout?"

I want to think that this proposal has very little chance of ever becoming law. Over the last 2-3 decades, there has been a continual expansion of tax incentives to get workers to save for retirement, and for employers to help them do so, and there is no doubt this has been a good thing. Thus, I would hope this will not be dismantled in the next Congress.

But we should all understand that, if Barack Obama becomes our new president with supermajorities in Congress, anything is possible. A massive expansion of government and a rollback of our freedoms are not out of the question. Such an expansion of government has to be funded somewhere, and 401(k)s and other supposedly sacred retirement plans, including IRAs, may appear to be the low-hanging fruit to the liberals who will be in control in Washington.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

'Panic of 2008' - Will the Democrats bring us a Depression? (must read)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=aY3kqxNeV7lU

We Could Be In for a Lurch to the Left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576065024095511.html

Economic Ills Will Force Winner's Hand
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122575838410095279.html

Thomas Sowell - Obama all "Ego and Mouth"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/ego_and_mouth.html

On The Economy And Active Management

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:07:39 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

A Look At The Latest Economic Numbers
Economic Forecasts Roundly Downgraded
Fallacies Of A "Buy-And-Hold" Only Approach
The Goal Of Active Management Strategies
The HWM Difference
Is It Time To Try Active Management?
Conclusions -- Don't Miss The Next Bull Market

Introduction

This week, we will take a look at the latest economic numbers which look quite bleak overall. There is little doubt that the US and the rest of the world are headed into a global recession sparked by the international credit crisis. The only question now is: How deep and how long?

Following that discussion, I will review the advantages of including active investment strategies in your portfolio. Long-time readers know that I have been a strong advocate of "active management" strategies, especially those that have the flexibility to move to cash (traditional market timing), "hedge" long positions during market downturns or even go "short" and provide the potential to profit even when the markets decline. Not surprisingly, such active management strategies are back in demand in the wake of the recent stock market collapse.

Now that active management strategies are coming back into vogue, I will tell you why I have always been a fan of money management techniques that seek to avoid big losses, especially of the magnitude that we've all seen over the last 4-5 weeks. I think you'll find that discussion very interesting in light of the recent stock market chaos.

Though I have mentioned the advantages of active management strategies many times in the past, the current market environment has resulted in many more calls to my staff from investors who now seek to include these strategies in their portfolios. Thus, this may turn out to be one of my most popular E-Letters ever, though it's unfortunate that investors have had to endure severe losses in their portfolios to make it so.

A Look At The Latest Economic Numbers

We have long known that consumer spending accounts for apprx. 70% of US Gross Domestic Product, and consumer spending is predicated on consumer confidence. At this point, consumer confidence is in the tank and consumer spending is falling off a cliff.

The mid-October University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index plunged to 57.5, down from 70.3 in the last half of September. This is one of the deepest monthly declines in the Sentiment Index since it has been recorded. The latest report noted that there have only been four surveys that posted monthly declines of 10 index points or more. The government's Consumer Confidence Index to be released next Tuesday is expected to show a similar sharp decline.

So a recession is upon us despite the fact that US GDP rose by a healthy 2.8% in the 2Q. We may even find that the economy remained technically in positive territory in the July-September quarter when the government releases its first report on 3Q GDP on October 30. Regardless of what next week's GDP says about the 3Q, there is little doubt that economic growth will fall into negative territory in the current 4Q. And it will likely be down a lot.

Not that much else matters when consumer confidence and spending are in freefall, but here are some of the other recent economic reports.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) actually rose 0.3% in September, reversing the recent downward trend. However, analysts are careful to point out that the rise was primarily due to a large increase in the money supply, essentially masking sharp declines in stock prices and residential building permits and increased layoff activity. The September increase was also offset by a larger downward revision to August's LEI. The leading indicators are almost certain to fall again for October, probably significantly due to the continued washout in the stock markets.

Retail sales fell more than expected in September, down 1.2% following a decline of 0.4% in August. Chain store sales, including Wal-Mart, declined sharply in September and will almost certainly be down even more this month. I don't shop very often, but I was in Macy's over the weekend and it looked like two-thirds of the store was marked down 40-50% or more.

US auto sales plunged 26.6% in September, making it the first month since 1993 when buyers drove less than one million new cars and trucks off the dealerships' lots. Analysts predict that October will be even worse. GMAC announced on October 13 that it will only make car loans to buyers with a credit score of at least 700. This is bad!

On the manufacturing side, the ISM Index fell from 49.9 in August to 43.5 in September. Any reading below 50 in the ISM Index indicates that manufacturing is in a recession. Factory orders fell a whopping 4.0% in August (latest data available). I'm sure it has happened before but I don't remember seeing a 4% drop in one month in the past.

The unemployment rate held steady at 6.1% in September, but this number will definitely go higher for October and the rest of the year as well.

Economic Forecasts Roundly Downgraded

I read and hear a lot of economic forecasts, and every one is being downgraded in light of the events of the last 4-5 weeks. Other than the gloom-and-doom crowd that always predicts a recession or worse, I don't know any outfit that predicted what we have seen in the last month or so. Thus, everyone is having to downgrade their economic forecasts.

The consensus outlook, prior to the last 4-5 weeks, was that the US economic growth would go mildly negative in the 4Q and somewhat more negative in the 1Q and 2Q of next year. Most forecasters felt the US economy would rebound back into positive territory in the second half of next year. But frankly, I don't know anyone that has a clear forecast for what happens next year.

The problem is, no one knows for sure if the massive government bailout is going to work. The Treasury Department is working feverishly to put together the apparatus to begin buying up distressed debts. It's a complicated process that is rife with conflicts of interest. The thinking originally was that the Treasury would be buying assets after the first of the year. Now they are hoping to be in business before the holidays. They need to be.

Fallacies Of A "Buy-And-Hold" Only Approach

The stock market collapse over the last several weeks has devastated millions of investors' portfolios and shattered retirement plans for untold numbers of Americans. Many investors' portfolios are down 35-40% or more in just the last 5-6 weeks. The market plunge has brought into serious question Wall Street's mantra of "buy-and-hold" for the long-term.

Whether it's called "asset allocation" or "index investing" or any of a number of other names, the basic premise of buy-and-hold investing is to indefinitely hold a group of investments in hopes they will produce gains in an amount to meet investment goals. If you have read me for long, you know that I have never been a big fan of having your entire investment portfolio in a buy-and-hold strategy, especially if there is no "risk management" component involved to deal with periodic bear markets.

Instead, I have recommended "active management" strategies which incorporate risk management techniques. While active management can include programs that stay fully invested and rotate among market sectors, most of those that we recommend have the flexibility to move to the safety of cash (money market) or "hedge" long positions during bear markets. Some can even "short" the market and can profit when the market drops.

At Halbert Wealth Management (HWM), we specialize in finding successful money managers that use active management strategies which seek to minimize the effects of bear markets in stocks and bonds. This is not to say that the strategies we offer cannot lose money in down markets. Any equity investment has the potential to lose money. Instead, the Advisors we recommend in our AdvisorLink® Program use sophisticated investment strategies to limit the downside risk of a bear market or major downward correction -- something you won't find in most buy-and-hold portfolios.

We continually search the universe of professional money managers in an effort to find those Advisors who have delivered solid "risk-adjusted" returns and have managed to avoid the huge losses so common in bear markets and major downward price corrections. As it has turned out over the years, we have found the best risk-adjusted returns among active managers that move out of the market or hedge long positions from time to time to avoid bear markets.

The traditional Wall Street wisdom over the years has been that it is impossible to "time" the market. They argue that if you are out of the market from time to time, you are likely to miss the best days. So you should stay fully invested at all times.

Does that argument sound familiar? I'll bet it does, especially over the last year or so when you may have wanted to sell out, but your broker talked you into holding on. Now, with the stock markets down 35-40% or more (and it may not be over yet), it's probably the worst time to sell out, so you're stuck.

But there were active managers who limited losses in the latest bear market by moving to the safety of cash, hedging their long positions and/or shorting the market. This includes many of the equity money managers I have recommended to you in these pages. Later on, I'll tell you how to find detailed performance statistics on these money managers, but first let's look at the underlying premise of one active management strategy known as "market timing."

The Goals Of Active Management Strategies

Simply put, successful active management/market timing strategies have two basic goals:

1. Participate in stock market gains in the good times; and

2. Limit market losses to half or less of equity losses in the bad times.

These goals are simple in concept, I trust you would agree, but more than a little challenging to deliver. In fact, most active managers we run across don't succeed in meeting these goals over the long haul. Yet there are those that have, if you just know where to find them.

To be honest, many money managers and even individual investors can decide to move to cash in bad times. We are encountering investors who have been on the sidelines for months due to subprime fears. The real challenge is to know when to get back into the market once the market rebounds.

It is also important to note that some active money managers go one step further and seek to make money in down markets by entering into "short" sales of major market indexes using specialized mutual funds. While this is a more aggressive strategy than one that will only go to cash or hedge long positions, it provides investors with the potential to make money even when the markets are going down.

Here is the basic challenge for active managers if they are to beat the buy-and-hold strategy: How do you devise a system that keeps you in the market on most of the good days, but also takes you out (or "short") when bear markets come along? Let me say, this is not easy! And most active managers and market timers are not successful over time.

Those that have been successful over time, generally speaking, have developed sophisticated systems that gauge stock market trends and generate signals for when to enter and exit the market. This is not seat-of-the-pants, emotional trading, though some Advisors do have some measure of discretion built into their systems.

There is much, much more to it than this, of course. It is one thing to be generally correct about the trend -- up or down; it is quite another to know which sectors of the market to invest in. Space doesn't permit me to elaborate on how successful active managers determine which sectors to invest in, when they get their trend signals, but trust that this is another important variable when it comes to selecting a successful active money manager.

The bottom line is, there are active managers and market timers out there that have been successful in delivering their clients good returns over time, but more importantly have avoided the sometimes huge losses that come with buy-and-hold strategies.

The key is, how do you find them? Most investors don't know how to find these successful active managers. Most of these successful managers don't advertise, so they are not household names. The big brokerage firms are not likely to tell you about them, since they don't buy into the Wall Street buy-and-hold mantra.

Truth is, you will probably only find them if you stumble into a boutique investment firm like mine that has the money and the commitment to search high and low for the handful of successful active managers that are out there.

The Halbert Wealth Management Difference

My firm recognizes that we're not the only company that offers active management strategies to our clients. We do, however, believe that we have structured our AdvisorLink® Program in such a way as to offer investors the most flexible way to participate in such programs.

In many cases, actively managed investment programs are "packaged" and sold to investors as a single solution. The selection and retention of each money manager, the types of strategies employed, and the allocation to each participating manager is set by the sponsoring firm. Think of it as being something like a fund of funds. There's nothing wrong with this approach, and we are even considering some of these programs to offer our clients. However, the drawback of such programs is that they limit the investor to pre-selected options.

At HWM, we have "unbundled" the mix of active money managers so that each is available with or without any of our other managers, and in an allocation that can be tailored for each investor. Since most of our clients tend to be do-it-yourself investors, we feel it offers them the following advantages:

Due Diligence -- I have written a number of times about the extensive due diligence each money manager must endure in order to be added to our list of recommended programs. We not only subject the numbers to intense analysis, but also the Advisor's administrative capabilities and business stability.

We also have face-to-face meetings with each Advisor in order to not only get a feel for his or her grasp of the strategy being employed, but also to get a personal feel for the individual with whom our clients' money will be placed. Most of the time, these meetings take place as part of an on-site visit to the Advisor's office by my due diligence staff.

We then summarize the results of our findings in an Advisor Profile document that is made available to each prospective investor. For the investor, this means that the money manager has been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny as to performance, strategy and administrative capabilities. Thus, a lot of the legwork has already been done for our clients.

Another part of due diligence is in regard to ongoing monitoring of an active money manager's performance and operations. We monitor trading and performance on a daily basis, and communicate with money managers immediately if we notice anything out of the ordinary or not within our expectations for the particular program being monitored.
Transparency -- Even before the recent subprime mortgage debacle, "transparency" was a big issue in the managed funds world. Now, it's likely to become the law of the land, even for secretive hedge funds. Fortunately, investors have always enjoyed a high level of transparency in regard to the programs we offer.

As I noted above, some sponsors of actively managed investments will keep the details of who is managing parts of the portfolio a secret. That way, they can make a change in the lineup with a minimum of disruption. However, HWM offers each money manager as a stand-alone unit, providing full visibility of each manager and his or her approach to managing money. This transparency also allows each prospective client to review a detailed summary of the money manager's actual performance since the program's inception.

Beyond the ability to know and evaluate each individual money manager, investors also are able to see exactly how their money is being invested. All of the various money managers we recommend offer our clients the ability to follow the trading of their accounts online.
Flexibility -- Since we do not offer any set portfolios containing a mixture of money managers available in our AdvisorLink® Program, investors have complete flexibility to combine programs in a way they feel is most suitable for their unique situation. We have some clients who invest in only one of the programs we offer, while many others choose to allocate their investments among several programs.

We feel that combining the various AdvisorLink® investments can offer investors additional diversification beyond just having a variety of different asset classes in a buy-and-hold portfolio. This additional diversification comes about in a number of ways, including the following:

● Diversification for different market environments. We all know that a declining market will generally result in losses in a buy-and-hold investment. However, such a market environment could also result in some active management strategies becoming "neutral" by going to cash or hedging long positions. In that event, an extended bear market could result in only money market returns. A combination of investment strategies can provide the potential for making money even in a down market. For example, it may be suitable to have both a "long or cash" strategy and a program that can go both long or short in the market. This would provide a potential for portfolio gains even in a declining market.

● Diversification to reduce correlation. I have discussed correlation of investment programs in past E-Letters, but the basic idea is that two investments are "correlated" if they tend to go up and down at the same times. It is generally best to include some non-correlated investments in a diversified portfolio. I have noted before that most of the investment alternatives in our AdvisorLink® Program have a low correlation to the major market indexes. However, it is also true that many of these programs have little or no correlation to each other

● Diversification among investment strategies. The recent market meltdown has shown that when times get tough, virtually all equity asset classes suffer. Even for investors who choose to maintain an asset allocation or other buy-and-hold investment strategy, adding actively managed programs that go to cash or even "short" the market can result in a higher level of strategic diversification.
Control -- A final advantage of our unbundled approach to active management strategies is that you have complete control over what managers are included in your portfolio. While HWM provides due diligence services and can assist you with making an allocation decision, the final say is up to you. This keeps you in complete control of your investment destiny.

Nowhere is this more important than when it comes time to move from one money manager to another. I often tell prospective clients that few, if any, money managers will ever tell you to fire them. I am personally aware of Advisors with substandard investment programs who keep promising investors that "things will get better" in an effort to retain their business.

At HWM, our due diligence and ongoing monitoring will help to identify Advisors whose programs may no longer be suitable for meeting your needs, and we will offer other alternatives. However, the final decision as to whether to retain a money manager is yours, as it should be. There are also no "lockups," early termination charges or any other impediments to accessing your money should the need arise.

In short, the HWM AdvisorLink®Program offers investors a "cafeteria-type" approach to money management. Do-it-yourself investors can evaluate each money manager on its own merits rather than accepting it as part of a "canned" approach. For investors who are not do-it-yourselfers, the HWM staff can help evaluate the most suitable mix of money management programs based on the investor's assets, risk tolerance and investment goals.

Our experienced staff is also available for ongoing questions about the performance of each of our recommended programs, as well as inquiries about specific issues regarding your account.

As you consider the investments that make up our AdvisorLink®Program, it's also important to remember that none of our Advisors invest in subprime mortgages or anything of the like. The equity managers I recommend invest in well-known, US-based mutual funds that you probably have heard of and can look up in the newspaper or on the Internet daily.

Plus, no one on my staff is paid a commission, so there is never any pressure to invest or incentive to sell you something that may be unsuitable for your needs. On that, you have my promise. Likewise, we have an ironclad "privacy policy" and your private financial information is never, ever shared with anyone else, other than as may be required by law.

Is It Time To Consider Active Management?

As I noted above, many of my readers have recently contacted us for information on the money managers I recommend in light of the market's recent meltdown. They have seen their buy-and-hold portfolios devastated by losses of 35-40% or more. Retirement prospects have been shattered for millions of investors. People across the US are now looking for risk-averse ways to invest their money that can deliver market returns with less downside risk.

Earlier, I said that I'd provide a way for you to see how our various programs have fared so far this year. If you are ready to explore the world of actively managed investments, I recommend that you visit our AdvisorLink® performance summary web page at the following address:

http://www.halbertwealth.com/advisorlink/programs.php

While you will no-doubt notice that some of the programs we offer had year-to-date losses as of the end of September, you will also note that these are far less than those suffered by the major market indexes. Our goal is to offer programs that limit losses to half or less than those of the market, which means that when the markets turn up again, there's less ground to make up.

One noticeable exception to this goal is the Niemann Dynamic Program, which has a year-to-date loss close to that of the overall market. The reason that losses have not been limited is that this particular program is a high-octane long-only program that is always fully invested. Niemann does not have the option to go to cash or hedge any of Dynamic's positions, so it suffers in down markets. However, I also urge you to look at the long-term performance of this program as compared to the S&P 500 Index. Of course, past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Conclusions -- Don't Miss The Next Bull Market

The stock markets have imploded in the last 4-5 weeks on a scale that virtually no one anticipated. Buy-and-hold strategies are down nearly 35-40% or more in less than five weeks. Americans' retirement plans are now turned upside down.

I certainly don't have all the answers. But I do have some suggestions for avoiding the huge losses that have occurred in just the last few weeks.

I have argued these points about minimizing losses for over five years in these E-Letters. I have argued my thoughts about active management strategies that seek to minimize losses in market downturns.

Maybe now is the time to do something about it.

I don't know when the stock markets will bottom. Much depends on how quickly the credit markets free up. Whenever the market bottoms, I fully expect we will see a powerful bull market emerge. When that happens, you want a professional manager that will get you back in the market for the next run.

A very successful money manager once told me the following: Investors think they pay us our management fees to get them out of the market during the down periods. But what they really pay us for is to get them back in when the market heads higher again.

This is so true, I believe. Millions of investors have bailed out of the market in the last few weeks. Sadly, most will not know when to go back in. The only way to recover the massive losses that have been experienced over the last couple of months is to participate in the recovery.

The professional Advisors I recommend have histories of catching major trends in the market -- both up and down. And you don't want to miss the next bull market. Maybe it's time to get the professionals I recommend on your team.

If you are ready to join the ranks of investors who are putting active management strategies to work for them to reduce the risks of being in the market, I urge you to contact us about the various opportunities available in our AdvisorLink® Program. Feel free to call one of our Investment Consultants at (800) 348-3601, or send us an e-mail at info@halbertwealth.com. You can also request additional information about our risk-managed investments by completing one of our online request forms.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

How to Read the Constitution (By Justice Clarence Thomas -- A Must-Read!)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html

Get Ready for the New New Deal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455099434052597.html

The Coming Pink Slip Epidemic
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2008/db20081020_022663.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

Might Uncle Sam Make Money On The Bailout?

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:36:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Latest $700 Billion Bailout Package
What Could Go Wrong? Potentially A Lot
What Could Go Right, If We're Lucky?
What Would Happen To The Profits, If Any?
A "Main Street" Backlash To Come?

Introduction

Like it or not, members of the House and Senate, with the approval of President Bush and both Senators McCain and Obama, reached a final agreement on the massive $700 billion mortgage bailout package over the weekend, with the much-awaited announcement on Sunday afternoon. Yet on Monday, the bailout bill failed to pass in the House of Representatives. As this is written, is not certain what will happen next. The next action probably doesn't happen until Thursday.

Assuming the latest rescue package (or some version of it) passes both houses of Congress, which is a real stretch at this point, it will give President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke most of what they asked for. I'll discuss the details below.

Most Americans do NOT like the latest huge government bailout of Wall Street banks, brokers, etc. Some polls late last week and over the weekend suggested that 65-75% of Americans opposed the bailout. I can understand why, especially with millions of American families struggling to make their monthly mortgage payments.

One reason for this anger over the bailout is the widespread perception that the $700 billion (or whatever the number turns out to be) is money down a rat hole that the government and taxpayers will never see again. While there are numerous risks in the bailout, the odds seem low that the government will lose all or even most of the bailout money. I will discuss some of the main risks to the bailout as we go along.

Interestingly, there is a growing number of intelligent folks in the financial world that believe the government could actually make a lot of money on this huge bailout effort, especially if they play their cards correctly. As I will discuss below, some respected analysts believe the government could net $1 trillion or more off of its investment of $700 billion.

Don't count me among this group, however. While I would concede that there may be some potential upside in this massive bailout program, we have to keep in mind that it's the government, after all, that will be running the enormous and complicated operation. The government is not known for making money, especially in complex financial dealings.

In any event, I do believe that if more Americans understood there is the potential to get most or maybe even all of the bailout money back, they might not be quite so angry about the deal. We'll talk about all of this as we go along this week.

The Latest $700 Billion Bailout Package

As discussed at length in last week's E-Letter, the massive rescue package floated by President Bush, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke on September 19 was fraught with problems. That plan would have us turn over $700 billion to the Treasury Secretary with no oversight, no transparency, no accountability and no legal challenge in the courts.

There was no chance that package was going to pass, as I pointed out last week. Yet over the ensuing week, all parties rolled up their sleeves, put in very long hours, made compromises on both sides of the aisle and came up with a much better rescue plan by last Sunday. Whether we like it or not, here is an overview of the latest massive bailout plan as we now understand it.

Doling the money out: The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury's use. More would be made available as needed. Authority to use the money would expire on Dec. 31, 2009, unless Congress certifies a one-year extension.

Overseeing the program:The bill would establish two oversight boards. A new Financial Stability Oversight Board would be charged with ensuring that the policies implemented protect taxpayers and are in the economic interests of the United States. The oversight board would include the Federal Reserve Chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency Director, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and the Treasury Secretary.

Second, a congressional oversight panel would be charged with reviewing the state of financial markets, the regulatory system and the Treasury's use of its authority under the rescue plan. Sitting on the panel would be five outside experts appointed by House and Senate leaders.

Insuring against losses:The Treasury would establish an insurance program - with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee certain of the companies' troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities purchased before March 14, 2008. The amount the Treasury would spend to cover losses minus company-paid premiums would come out of the $700 billion the Treasury is allowed to use for the rescue plan.

Protecting taxpayers: One provision requires the President to propose legislation to recoup losses from the financial industry if the rescue plan results in net losses to taxpayers five years after the plan is enacted. In addition, Treasury would be allowed to take ownership stakes in participating companies.

Limiting executive pay: Curbs would be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to the Treasury. Among them, companies that participate will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000. They also will not be allowed to write new contracts that allow for "golden parachutes" for their top five executives if they are fired or the company goes under. However, the executives' current contracts, which may include golden parachutes, would still stand.

Like it or not, these are the highlights of the latest proposed massive government bailout of troubled financial institutions which may yet be signed into law this week. While leaders of Congress praised themselves for acting quickly, it is indeed a very sad time for America.

What Could Go Wrong - Potentially A Lot

Let's be clear from the outset: this is the largest and most complex financial rescue plan in history. Given that fact, some argue that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is the right man for the job. Paulson was Chairman and CEO of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs from 1999 to June 2006 when be became Treasury Secretary. While Paulson may be very qualified to head-up this massive financial operation, we must keep in mind that the rescue plan will hardly be off the ground by January 20 when the new administration takes over.

Perhaps the new president will keep him on, but there's no guarantee. So, leadership of this massive, complex operation is a big, big question mark as we begin our summary of the possible risks and problems.

The next fundamental risk is this: the banks, brokerages and others will be trying to unload the worst of the worst of their mortgage-backed securities on the government for the best possible price. The question is, will the government pay too much?

The mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) that the Treasury will buy from the various financial institutions that hold them are in many cases very complicated instruments. Space does not permit a discussion of all the intricacies and the various combinations and mutations of these complex packages of MBSs (not to mention that I don't fully understand them all myself).

Suffice it to say that even the supposedly brilliant minds of Wall Street cannot determine how to value many of these securities today, so why should we think that government bureaucrats will know how to value them correctly? Why would we not assume that the Wall Street banks and brokers will convince Treasury to pay more than the securities are really worth?

And as I discussed briefly last week, the government has some incentive to pay more than these assets are really worth. After all, the supposed purpose of this massive bailout is to allow the banks and other financial institutions to recapitalize and resume lending and unfreeze the credit markets. If the government buys these MBSs at even further discounted prices, the banks would have to book even more losses, and more banks would fail.

The thinking is that since Uncle Sam has the deep pockets and the ability to hold these securities for a long time, it can pay the banks somewhat more than today's crisis values, thus allowing them to recapitalize. Presumably, the government can hold the mortgage securities long enough for them to recover and make at least a decent profit on some of them. That remains to be seen, of course.

I think we can all agree that the government has the deep pockets, at least as long as the world is willing to buy our Treasury bills, notes and bonds. But my question is whether the Treasury, the Congress (and the public for that matter) will have the patience to hold these distressed securities, potentially for years for them to recover. Or will there be pressure on the Treasury to dump these securities prematurely?

Patience is not a commodity that is in heavy supply in today's debt-laden, entitlement-oriented society in America. Baby Boomers need a renewed bull market in stocks to fund their retirement, which may be postponed due to this massive pool of MBSs hanging over the market.

Bottom line: if the Treasury is pressured into unloading these mortgage-backed securities before the economy and the debt markets have recovered, then we should expect to incur potentially huge losses and possibly yet another credit crisis.

Next, there is the question of how will the Treasury determine which banks and other financial firms get to participate in the bailout, especially in the first $250 billion tranche (assuming that is the final deal). One possible mechanism that has been discussed by Paulson and others is a "reverse auction." However, a traditional reverse auction may not be effective in this situation where the government is not necessarily looking to purchase the MBSs at the lowest possible price. The objective of the enormous bailout is not to drive more financial firms out of business, but to help them recapitalize, stay in business and resume normal lending.

Another tricky part of determining which banks and financial firms get to unload their bad debt is as follows. As noted earlier, everyone will likely try to unload the worst of the worst MBSs on the government. Some firms that are in better shape and have limited MBSs may be in a position to take less for them just to get them off their books, whereas firms that have much higher exposure to MBSs could yet go out of business were they to unload their toxic positions at further discounted prices.

The bottom line is, the process for determining which firms get to unload these securities, and at what prices, will be extremely complicated and risky. A lot could go very wrong.

The discussion just above is by no means a comprehensive summary of the possible risks to this massive mortgage bailout. In fact, it is overly general, but I think you get the idea that we are far from out of the financial crisis, even if the massive bailout becomes law later this week.

What Could Go Right, If We Are Lucky

As noted in the Introduction, there are some very smart people that believe the government could actually make a profit on the bailout, perhaps a lot of money if managed effectively. Bill Gross is one of the most highly respected money managers and financial writers around. He is the portfolio manager for the largest bond mutual fund in the world, PIMCO's Total Return Fund. He is also the author of two very popular books on investing.

Last Wednesday, Bill penned an editorial in the Washington Post in which he made it known that he was in favor of some form of the government rescue plan that was being debated in Congress last week. Furthermore, he made it clear that he believes the government could make a lot of money on the mortgage-related assets the Treasury intends to buy. He said of the bailout plan:

"The extreme measures [needed] are extended government guarantees and the formation of an RTC-like holding company housed within the Treasury. Critics call this a bailout of Wall Street; in fact, it is anything but. I estimate the average price of distressed mortgages that pass from ‘troubled financial institutions' to the Treasury at auction will be 65 cents on the dollar, representing a loss of one-third of the original purchase price to the seller, and a prospective yield of 10 to 15 percent to the Treasury. Financed at 3 to 4 percent via the sale of Treasury bonds, the Treasury will therefore be in a position to earn a positive carry or yield spread of at least 7 to 8 percent.

Calls for appropriate oversight of this auction process are more than justified. There are disinterested firms, some not even based on Wall Street, with the expertise to evaluate these complicated pools of mortgages and other assets to assure taxpayers that their money is being wisely invested. My estimate of double-digit returns assumes lengthy ownership of the assets and is in turn dependent on the level of home foreclosures, but this program is, in fact, directed to prevent just that…

Today, the purchase of junk mortgages, securitized credit card receivables and even student loans will be bought at prices significantly below ‘par' or cost, and prospectively at levels allowing for capital gains. This is a Wall Street-friendly package only to the extent that it frees up funds for future loans and economic growth… The Treasury proposal will not be a bailout of Wall Street but a rescue of Main Street, as lending capacity and confidence is restored to our banks and the delicate balance between production and finance is given a chance to work its magic."

So, Bill believes the government should be able to make 10-15% on average on the distressed mortgage and related securities it purchases – IF the massive operation is managed well. Interestingly, it was reported in the media late last week that Bill offered to manage the government-owned mortgage/securities portfolio himself for free. Who knows if this offer is for real, but PIMCO manages over $825 billion in assets now, an amount similar to the size of the proposed bailout, so…. Hank, are you listening?

The next example of a savvy market maven who thinks the government could make some serious dough on the bailout package is Andy Kessler. Andy is a former hedge fund manager who made his claim to fame by reportedly taking $100 million in his fund's assets in 1996 to $1 billion by 2001. He has since written several popular books on investing and business.

Andy believes the government could make far more money on this mortgage rescue package than Bill Gross envisions. Here are excerpts of what Andy offered up last Thursday in his latest Wall Street Journal editorial (emphasis added):

"There is a saying on Wall Street that goes, ‘The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.' Long Term Capital Management learned this lesson 10 years ago when it got its portfolio picked off by Wall Street as its short-term financing dried up. I had thought the opposite -- hedge funds picking off Wall Street -- would happen today. But in a weird twist, it's the government that is set up to win the prize.

Here's how: As short-term financing dried up, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's deteriorating financials threatened to trigger some $1.4 trillion in credit default swap payments that no one, including giant insurer AIG, had the capital to make good on. So Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship. This removed any short-term financing hassle. He also put up $85 billion in loan guarantees to AIG in exchange for 80% of the company.

Taxpayers will get their money back on AIG. My models suggest that Fannie and Freddie, on the other hand, are a gold mine. For $2 billion in cash up front and some $200 billion in loan guarantees so far, the U.S. government now controls $5.4 trillion in mortgages and mortgage guarantees.

Fannie and Freddie each own around $800 million in mortgage loans, some of them already at discounted values. They also guarantee the credit-worthiness of another $2.2 trillion and $1.6 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. Held to maturity, they may be worth a lot more than Mr. Paulson paid for them. They're called distressed securities for a reason.

Now Mr. Paulson is pitching Congress for $700 billion or more to buy distressed loans and CDOs [Collateralized Debt Obligations] from the rest of Wall Street, injecting needed cash onto balance sheets so that normal loans for economic activity can be restored. The trick is what price he will pay. Better mortgages and CDOs are selling for 70 cents on the dollar. But many are seriously distressed (15-25 cents on the dollar) because they are the last to be paid in foreclosures. These are what Wall Street wants to unload the quickest.

Firms will haggle, but eventually cave -- they need the cash. I am figuring Mr. Paulson could wind up buying more than$2 trillion in notional value loans and home equity and CDOs for his $700 billion...

It's not without risk, but the Feds, with lots of levers, can and will pump capital into the U.S. economy to get it moving again. Future heads of Treasury and the Federal Reserve will be growth advocates… This is a huge change. Plus, a stronger U.S. economy, with its financial players having clean balance sheets,[the U.S.] will become a safe haven for capital...

You can slice the numbers a lot of different ways. My calculations, which assume 50% impairment on subprime loans, suggest it is possible, all in, for this portfolio to generate between $1 trillion and $2.2 trillion -- the greatest trade ever. Every hedge-fund manager will be jealous. Mr. Buffett is buying a small piece of the trade via his Goldman Sachs investment.

Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C., which can also strengthen the dollar. The next president gets a heck of a windfall. In the spirit of Secretary of State William Seward's purchase of Alaska for $7 million in 1867, this week may be remembered as Paulson's Folly."

What exactly does this mean? Kessler believes that the Treasury will recover at least $1 trillion off of the investment of $700 billion – even with some of the mortgage securities fetching zero – and quite possibly as much as $2.2 trillion. Only if the operation is bungled should the government lose a dime, so Kessler believes.

Finally, I'm seeing more and more analysts come to increasingly positive conclusions about how the government ought to be able to make money – and not lose money – on this massive mortgage rescue package.

As for me, I'm not drinking the kool-aid just yet, but then again, I'm willing to admit that there's potential if a lot of things happen right. But a lot could go wrong as well. We are talking about the government after all, and one that may well be controlled by a liberal Congress and a liberal president for the next four-to-eight years. So I would not bet a dime that this massive bailout will end up being profitable. On the other hand, I do hope that it will.

What Would Happen To The Profits, If Any?

No doubt we will all rejoice if the $700 billion bailout reaps some big profits in the next 5-10 years (not that I am convinced, of course). As thoughts of some sizeable profits have become the talk of the town in recent days, questions have arisen as to what the government would do with the windfall should it happen.

Would Uncle Sam issue checks directly to the taxpayers? Not hardly! That would be seen as a tax cut, when in fact the taxpayers never had to loan the government any money directly to fund this massive $700 billion bailout.

Some intelligent observers have suggested that the government could use the potential profits from the giant bailout to pay down the national debt. This is precisely what Andy Kessler refers to above when he writes: "Over 10 years this could change the budget scenario in D.C." He is suggesting that the government could use the profit he projects (up to $1.5 trillion) to pay down the national debt.

Others have suggested that the potential bailout windfall could be used to help shore-up Social Security and/or Medicare. A trillion dollars, they suggest, could go a long way toward keeping these giant entitlement programs solvent in the years ahead.

That's a nice idea, assuming such a windfall profit actually occurs. But even if you assume that there will be some large profits some years down the road on this huge bailout, which I don't, what do you think Congress and the Administration in power at the time will do with the money? Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

They will spend it and delight in doing so. They will not send us a check or even cut taxes. They will not pay down the national debt. They will see it as a green light to increase the budget and thus the size of government. Just keep this in mind in a few years – if there are any profits to be dealt with.

Thus, I would insist that there should be clear language in the bailout bill, assuming one passes, that specifies exactly what would be done with any profits that might result from it. Yet that is not likely to happen.

A "Main Street" Backlash To Come?

As noted earlier, some polls over the last two weeks suggested that two-thirds to three-fourths of Americans were opposed to the Wall Street bailout. Clearly, millions of Americans are downright angry about it. A few polls indicated that the numbers were not as negative as 65-75% opposed, but clearly there are far more Americans who oppose the bailout than are remotely in favor.

This indeed raises the question of whether there will be a Main Street backlash if the $700 billion bailout is voted into law. Clearly, millions of Americans see this massive bailout as nothing more than the government's willingness to spend historic amounts of taxpayer money to bail out the Fat Cats on Wall Street.

Along this line, let me remind you of something I wrote last week: "the current financial crisis and the enormous $700+ billion government bailout virtually assure that, if elected: 1) Obama will not be able to push through his aggressive spending plans; and 2) McCain will not be able to push through any tax cuts. Realistically, the money for either of these proposals is no longer there."

Let there be no mistake, millions of Americans have been counting on the promises made by these two candidates. Most of Obama's supporters have bought into his promises of wide sweeping social reform, including nationalized health care, lower taxes on the middle class, and higher taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year. Likewise, many McCain supporters are banking on him extending the Bush tax cuts and other tax cuts he has promised.

If sound fiscal minds prevail, in light of the latest $700 billion spending bailout, neither candidate will be able to pursue these campaign promises. If people are angry today, they are likely to get even angrier in the months and years ahead. Why?

Despite the dire warnings of financial calamity from the White House, the Treasury Secretary, the Fed Chairman and some high-profile business leaders, much of Middle America wasn't buying the story that their own livelihoods were linked to the fate of the rescue package. Instead, average workers read the plan as the big guys in Congress bailing out their friends on Wall Street.

A majority of Americans didn't want Congress to use taxpayer dollars to bail out financial institutions, even if their collapse meant a rocky ride for investors in the stock market. A few congressmen and women admitted publicly that their calls from constituents were running as high as 100-to-one against the bailout plan.

Never mind that the collapse of Wall Street will almost certainly result in a recession, or worse, that will affect virtually all Americans. Never mind that the credit markets have seized up, and that lending for such things as home mortgages had ground to a virtual halt. Never mind that credit card spending may actually be at risk next.

I am reminded of the 1970s the movie "Network" which featured a news anchor who lost control and exclaimed, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more." I think that many in our country today have similar feelings, and no one knows at this point exactly what the eventual consequences will be.

Will there be a major backlash against the big Wall Street banks, brokers and others? Will Americans opt to move their money and their business to local banks that never participated in subprime mortgages, CDOs and other complicated mortgage backed securities? Will they move their investments from the Merrill Lynches of the world to local investment firms?

In my opinion, this suggests that big banks, big brokerage firms and multi-million dollar executive big bonuses may be in big trouble. We may well see a return to local community banks, many of which are in fine shape and have no subprime/MBS exposure at all. Local investment firms, financial planners and the like may benefit from a migration from "big box" brokerage/investment firms that were big players in toxic mortgage securities and still paid their CEOs and top execs multi-million dollar bonuses.

Unfortunately, we'll also likely see a move toward populist political candidates, who are far less friendly to big business – that being the Democrats. For example, Senator Obama has seen a big bounce in the polls over the last two weeks as the credit crisis worsened and the massive bailout was concocted.

If there is a further trend toward populist politicians, that will mean more spending and higher taxes, which will be bad for our economy over the long-term. But then, that's a subject for another E-Letter.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

The Bailout Defeat: A Political Credibility Crisis
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845655,00.html

ACORN, Obama and the Mortgage Mess (what, you didn't hear about this?)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/acorn_obama_and_the_mortgage_m.html

Congress lives up to its abysmal approval rating.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122273257698488295.html

What Goes Before a Fall? On Wall Street, Reassurance
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30sorkin.html?_r=3&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Recession & What To Do About It

Gary D. Halbert — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:47 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Latest Economic Numbers
On Inflation & The Fed
“The Double Dip Supply Shock”
Conclusions – What Next?
Investing In Today’s Dicey Environment

Introduction

The major investment markets seem perplexed this year. Questions abound. Are we in a recession? Not according to the textbook definition of two back-to-back quarters of negative growth in GDP. Nevertheless, US consumer confidence has plunged to a 16-year low as oil and gasoline prices continue to skyrocket. Yet surprisingly, American consumers continue to spend at a growing rate, as I will discuss in more detail below.

With consumer spending accounting for apprx. 70% of GDP, it’s no wonder that we haven’t seen a negative quarter of GDP. In fact, GDP surprised on the upside in the 1Q with a modest gain of 0.9%, following the 0.6% rise in the 4Q of last year. Pre-report estimates suggest that the 1Q GDP number may be revised upward to 1.0% or better on June 26 when the final report is released. But that may be the last of the good GDP news. Most analysts expect GDP to decline in the 2Q as I will discuss below, and perhaps in the 3Q as well.

The Fed seems to be sending signals that the near year long rate cutting cycle has come to an end. With food and energy prices soaring, the Fed risks letting inflation get out of control, and more and more analysts are predicting that the Fed will begin raising rates later this year, perhaps as early as the August 5 FOMC meeting. But can the Fed risk raising rates at a time when the economy is expected to be contracting and the housing/credit crunch is far from over?

For some independent insight and analysis on the economy and the Fed’s dilemma, we turn to a new report by Morgan Stanley economists Richard Berner and David Greenlaw, which I think you’ll find insightful but not very comforting.

Finally, I will reiterate some suggestions for how you should be investing in light of today’s increasing risk environment. Let’s get started.

The Latest Economic Numbers

As noted above, 1Q GDP (which many analysts had expected to be negative) was revised upward to +0.9% (annual rate) on May 29. The positive rate of growth in the 1Q was led by personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports and government spending. The Commerce Department will release its final report on 1Q GDP on June 26, and some analysts predict yet another upward revision to at least 1.0% or better.

There is a growing consensus among the sources I read that the 2Q GDP number will in fact be negative, and I think that is a pretty sound bet. How negative remains to be seen. One indication that the 2Q number may not be particularly ugly is the latest reports on the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI). The LEI actually rose modestly by 0.1% in March and April (latest data available). The small increases in March and April followed seven consecutive negative months in the LEI. The next LEI report for May will be released this Thursday, and it is expected to show another modest gain of 0.1%.

While the latest LEI news is underwhelming, it may be an indication that GDP growth in the 2Q may not be worse than –1.0% (annual rate). As you will read below, Morgan Stanley economists Berner and Greenlaw estimate 2Q GDP at –0.7%. Most of the sources I read seem to agree that US economic growth will also be negative in the 3Q of this year as well, which would satisfy the textbook definition of a recession – more on this later on.

While there is a consensus that GDP will have gone negative in the 2Q, not all the news of late has been negative. In addition to the modest LEI gains in March and April, retail sales rose a surprising 1.0% in May after climbing 0.4% in April. This is a suggestion that the stimulus package may have helped, at least marginally.

On the manufacturing side, there was also some limited good news over the last month. Factory orders climbed 1.1% in April following a 1.5% rise in March. The ISM Index of manufacturing rose to 48.6 in April and to 49.6 in May. Still, anything below a reading of 50 suggests an economy that is contracting.

Of course, there has been no shortage of bad economic news over the last month or so. Consumer confidence continues to fall as the price of gasoline continues to soar. The Consumer Confidence Index fell again in May to a reading of 57.2, the lowest in 16 years and down from 62.8 in April. The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index also fell again in May and is even lower for early June. The chart below shows just how much consumer confidence has plunged over the last nine months.

Of course, the worst news of late was the much larger than expected jump in unemployment in May. The unemployment rate surged from 5.0% in April to 5.5%, the largest monthly jump since 1986. Employers cut 49,000 jobs last month. In addition the Labor Department revised upward its estimates of unemployed workers in April and March.

On balance, the economic reports of late support predictions that 2Q GDP will be in negative territory. How negative remains to be seen, but I would be surprised if the number is much worse than –1%. Unfortunately, we won’t get the first official look at 2Q GDP until late July when the Commerce Department issues its “advance” report.

On Inflation & The Fed

As noted in the Introduction, concerns about the faltering economy are increasingly sharing the stage with concerns about rising inflation. The explosion in energy costs has led to a spike in food prices and many other consumer staples. Concerns about higher prices are widespread, not only among consumers but also with Fed policymakers. Here are the latest numbers.

Within its latest GDP report, the Commerce Department noted that the price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 3.5% (annual rate) in the 1Q as compared to a rise of 3.7% in the 4Q of last year. Excluding food and energy prices, the core price index for gross domestic purchases increased 2.2% (annual rate) in the 1Q compared with an increase of 2.3% in the 4Q. The headline Consumer Price Index rose 0.8% in May, which was a sizable monthly jump. For the 12 months ended May, the CPI rose 4.2%, which is certainly above the Fed’s intended target. The Fed historically has focused on the core rate of consumer inflation, which in May was +0.2% and was up 2.3% over the last 12 months.

The Fed traditionally has focused on the core rate of consumer inflation because the prices of food and energy are so susceptible to volatile short-term swings in prices, which may be caused by temporary phenomena such as weather, wars, politics, etc. However, with the explosion in energy prices, and to a lesser extent in food prices, domestic inflation clearly looks to be trending higher. Because energy prices affect so many other goods and services, directly or indirectly, the Fed must surely be concerned about rising inflation at this point.

The question is, will the Fed launch a rate hiking cycle with the US economy possibly headed into a recession? Based on its policy statement on April 30, most analysts do not expect the Fed to raise rates at its next FOMC meeting on June 24-25. In its April 30 statement, the Fed offered the following analysis:

“The Committee expects inflation to moderate in coming quarters, reflecting a projected leveling-out of energy and other commodity prices and an easing of pressures on resource utilization. Still, uncertainty about the inflation outlook remains high.”

Since April 30, however, oil prices have surged above $135 per barrel and gasoline prices have spiked to over $4 per gallon nationally. Corn prices skyrocketed to over $7 per bushel, an all-time high, and numerous other commodities are at or near record highs as well. Obviously, commodities prices – especially energy – do not appear to be leveling out as the Fed expected.

Thus, over the last few weeks, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has sounded more hawkish about interest rates. So have some of the Fed governors who are members of the FOMC. While the general consensus is that the Fed won’t raise rates on June 24-25, the futures markets are now priced for a 25 basis point increase in the Fed Funds rate in August or September and perhaps more before year-end.

The Fed considers keeping inflation under control as one of its primary mandates. So it remains to be seen just how far they will go, what with the housing/credit crunch far from over and the economy appearing to be on track for at least a couple of quarters of negative growth. As recently as a couple of months ago, most analysts felt the Fed would simply hold the Fed Funds rate unchanged at 2% for the rest of the year while the credit crunch plays out. That would be great, but the commodities markets are not cooperating on the inflation front.

If the Fed raises rates too early or too far, what looks to be another mild recession could turn out to be much more severe, and that will be bad news for the equity markets. If the Fed doesn’t act sufficiently, that will be bad news for the bond markets. Sounds like a good time to have a “long and short” strategy in your portfolio. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Let’s first see what some other well-known analysts are thinking at this point along the road. What follows is the latest analysis from Morgan Stanley economists Richard Berner and David Greenlaw.

QUOTE:
The Double Dip Supply Shock

A double-dip recession is coming, courtesy of soaring energy prices and the ongoing restraint from the housing downturn, falling home prices and tighter financial conditions. Despite recent economic resilience, we’ve trimmed our growth prognosis by three quarters of a point over the four quarters ending in Q2 2009 to 0.5% from 1.3% last month, with modest declines now likely in both the spring and autumn quarters. Surging energy prices likely will boost headline inflation to 5-5½% over the next few months, and risks are rising that the consequent escalation in inflation expectations will spill over into a more lasting increase in inflation. Our year-over-year inflation forecasts (in terms of the CPI) for both 2008 and 2009 are now 70 bp higher in both years, at 4.6% and 3.5%, respectively. Although we think that the current episode is quite different from the miserable 1970s economy, the result − like that long feared by our colleague Joachim Fels − will feel like a prolonged whiff of stagflation. Indeed the risk is that the 1970s ‘misery index’ − the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates − will rise above 11% at some point in the next year. We have long agreed that investors should pay heed both to downside risks to growth and upside risks to inflation. Here’s why.

First-Half Resilience

This most recent downgrading of our growth prognosis may seem strange at first blush. Despite a prolonged housing downturn, the influence of a credit shock, and the early effects of the recent surge in energy quotes, there’s no mistaking the better-than-expected performance in recent and incoming data for the first half of 2008. First-quarter real growth was revised higher to 0.9%, and we expect a further upgrade to 1.1%. And we now expect a second-quarter decline of just 0.7%, compared with 2% last month. The reasons: Vigor in capital spending and the influence of strong global growth on net exports more than offset the headwinds buffeting housing and consumer outlays.

As evidence, a healthy 4% jump in April nondefense capital goods orders and increases in shipments point to smaller declines in business equipment spending than we thought last month. Strong April results and upward revisions to prior months’ data for nonresidential construction indicate a sizable increase in Q2 spending. And while exports tumbled in March, possibly reflecting the first signs of slower global growth, imports plunged by more, suggesting more support from net exports than anticipated. Finally, expected price hikes may be prompting some firms to buy goods in advance and hold them in inventory, limiting the slide in stockbuilding.

Indeed, there is a risk that the tax rebates for individuals and the business tax incentives in the Economic Recovery Act of 2008 will promote a stronger result than the 0.7% decline we estimate for Q2 real GDP. As of the end of May, consumers had received $50 billion in tax rebates. Although vehicle sales remained depressed last month, May’s better-than-expected retailing results at chain stores could reflect the first signs that consumers will spend a portion of the rebates sooner than we think. Likewise, the ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ nature of the investment incentives may be triggering some capex [capital expenditures] gains, albeit at the expense of 2009.

Four ‘Adverse Feedback Loops’

Nonetheless, the analytics we see unfolding point to more economic weakness ahead. In particular, four ‘adverse feedback loops’ create downside risks to growth, especially to the consensus view that the economy has skirted recession and that a stronger second half is likely.

First, the interplay between the housing downturn, falling home prices, deteriorating credit quality, and lender caution is undermining consumer wealth and ability to borrow. With inventories of unsold new homes still at 10.6 months’ supply, and foreclosures contributing to resale availability, a further 30% decline in 1-family housing starts seems needed to bring supply into balance with demand. Although housing affordability has improved with falling home prices and interest rates, price declines are keeping would-be buyers and lenders cautious. The first-quarter rise in delinquencies on 1-4 family loans reported by the Mortgage Bankers’ Association and chargeoffs on residential mortgages reported by banks − to 6.4% and 0.8%, both new records − has doubtless reinforced that caution. Household net worth in relation to income has declined by 35 percentage points (to 533%) in the 15 months ended in March. Recent surveys from the University of Michigan suggest that cautious consumers ‘are more interested in reducing their debt and increasing their savings,’ and 57% of respondents opined that banks were less willing to lend than before. So while our assumption that only 20% of the tax rebates will be spent may be too low, these factors suggest that their impact will nonetheless be limited.

The second adverse feedback loop stems from the supply-induced surge in energy prices that will undermine discretionary income in the US and abroad, probably depressing consumer spending and challenging the vigor of global growth. If gasoline prices nationwide peak at $4.25/gallon − hardly a bold forecast given the 20-cent surge in wholesale gasoline prices last week and the fact that prices averaged $4.03/gallon the week before − and if food prices rise at a 4.2% annual rate between May and September, the rise in food and energy quotes will have drained nearly $180 billion annualized from consumer budgets between December 2007 and September 2008. By comparison, the rebates will total $117 billion over all of 2008 [emphasis added, GDH.]. Outside the US, countries such as India, Indonesia and Malaysia are reducing the subsidies that have long helped their consumers pay below-market prices for energy. The resulting price increases, combined with those in many other economies around the world, will erode spending power and thus global growth.

A third feedback loop involves slipping profitability, tighter financial conditions and economic uncertainty that will likely slow capital spending and hiring. This feedback loop is especially important for lenders: Weaker economic growth will erode credit quality and make lenders more risk averse, tightening lending standards further. While capital spending seems to be holding up for now, hiring is clearly fading. Nonfarm payrolls have declined by an average 65,000 in each of the last five months, and for all the talk of how little payrolls have declined in this slowdown, the current pace is identical to the pace of decline seen in the first five months of 2001. Combined with sliding real wages, these job declines signal declines in real wage and salary income for the first time since 2001.

Finally, rising inflation and inflation expectations in Europe likely rule out monetary ease and could prompt the ECB to tighten. And in many emerging market economies − including China, where officials just announced a 100 bp hike in the ratio for required reserves, and Poland, Turkey, Israel, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and Columbia − officials likely will tighten monetary policy further to fight rising inflation. ECB officials and those elsewhere will welcome slower growth to bring down inflation pressures, and it seems likely they will eventually get their wish.

For the first time in 35 years, we expect global forces will significantly push up US inflation, and the Fed faces the most serious inflation threat in a decade or more. Surveyed inflation expectations are rising sharply, echoing rising energy, food, and import quotes, and those hikes now threaten to spill over into domestic pricing. Measured by the University of Michigan’s 5-10 year median, inflation expectations rose in May to 3.4%, a 13-year high. The doubling in energy quotes over the past year is affecting pricing in a broad array of industries, including transportation, agriculture, chemicals, construction and construction materials. Thus, core intermediate goods producer prices rose at a 9.4% annual rate in the six months ended in April, and more hikes are coming. Prices for imported consumer goods excluding motor vehicles rose by 2.8% in April, the fastest pace in 15 years.

These developments potentially could create a vicious inflation circle, because the rise in energy, food and import prices is affecting inflation expectations. And we’ve long argued that the dollar and oil prices might become locked in a vicious circle of their own, as oil producers seek to hedge their currency risks with higher prices. The good news is that these inflation pressures do not so far appear to have filtered into the wage setting process. Instead, they are squeezing margins in private industry and budgets for state and local governments. Over time, growing slack in product, housing and labor markets and hearty productivity gains will help mitigate the threat of a wage-price spiral. But that more benign picture is a story for 2009, when operating rates slide more significantly and the jobless rate rises to 6%, not now.

This setting clearly poses a dilemma for the Fed. As we see it, the resolution lies in leaving monetary policy on hold until spring 2009 − far longer than is currently priced in to financial markets. Indeed markets oddly are priced for a first rate hike as soon as the late-October FOMC meeting, just when the stimulus from tax rebates will be fading, and at least some ‘payback’ in growth is highly likely. Despite the coming economic weakness, the rise in inflation and surveyed inflation expectations means that the Fed is unlikely to ease monetary policy again. Those inflation increases have reduced real rates, making policy effectively more stimulative. They also threaten to erode the Fed’s track record and credibility in keeping inflation in check. Chairman Bernanke’s warning that the dollar’s decline has boosted inflation is one aspect of the Fed’s concern. As a result, we think policymakers are on hold and will tolerate and even welcome economic weakness to cap inflation and eventually bring it back down.

For investors, that policy stance will continue to shape risks to the yield curve. With the Fed anchoring short-term rates, rising inflation risks will put a floor under long-term yields and could push them above 4% again. Rising oil prices and inflation uncertainty probably will promote a bearish steepening in the yield curve. Indeed, our colleague Manoj Pradhan provides tests suggesting that core CPI inflation volatility has been a structural driver of breakeven inflation, implying that investors should be compensated with a higher inflation risk premium and breakevens. Our rates strategy colleagues Jim Caron and George Goncalves are concerned that inflation risks might begin to shift the entire yield curve higher. But weakness in the economy likely will cap real yields and limit the sell-off for now, keeping 10-year yields roughly in a 3¾% to 4¼% range through year-end.
END QUOTE

Conclusions – What Next?

For most of 2007, there was a general consensus among many economists and market analysts that the US would experience a recession in the first half of 2008, followed by a slow recovery in the second half of this year, and that economic growth would get back to usual (3% or so) in 2009. For better or worse, the US economy has been stronger than expected so far this year, even though GDP is expected to be slightly negative in the 2Q and likely the 3Q as well.

Yet the explosion in energy prices over the last several months has put a dark cloud over forecasts suggesting the economy could get back to normal in 2009. Not only are spiraling energy and food prices draining consumer spending power, they are also raising the odds that inflation will raise its ugly head. In fact, it already has with the Consumer Price Index rising 4.2% over the last 12 months. Inflation is trending well above the Fed’s target range, and this is likely to continue for at least the next several months.

Virtually all of the sources I read now believe that the long Fed rate cutting cycle is over. Now the concern is whether the Fed will feel compelled to hike interest rates, perhaps several times, over the months ahead in an effort to fight inflation. Most of my trusted sources believe such a rate hiking cycle would be extremely dangerous given that the housing slump is far from over, and the credit crisis is still very much with us.

As Morgan Stanley economists Berner and Greenlaw argue above, as well as other trusted sources, the Fed needs to keep rates low at least through the end of this year if not longer. But we also have to remember that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is still “the new kid on the block,” and he does not want to be the Fed Chairman that sat idle as a powerful inflationary wave developed. He may feel obliged to raise rates.

If I were to advise Bernanke, I would note the following: 1) Food and energy prices make up apprx. 25% of CPI, and raising interest rates will have virtually no short or intermediate-term effect on the prices of energy or food; 2) the economy appears to be going into a recession that could be longer than expected, in no small part because of soaring energy and food prices, and raising rates will only make it worse; and 3) raising rates just ahead will increase the odds that the credit crunch will worsen, rather than improve, and there could well be more large Bear Stearns-type failures in that scenario.

Yet while the above advice seems reasonable, the futures markets are pricing in at least one rate hike before year-end. So it remains to be seen what will happen. It will be most interesting to read the Fed’s policy statement on June 25 next week following the FOMC meeting. Analysts will no doubt be looking for any hints that the Fed is considering raising interest rates.

Investing In Today’s Dicey Environment

Investing in the US stock and bond markets over the last couple of years has been a challenge, especially as the housing/credit crunch unfolded and energy prices exploded. Now we must add in the real possibility of a recession, rising inflation and the chance that the Fed may get it wrong. All of this suggests that market volatility is likely to ratchet up to yet another higher level over the next year or longer.

While the US economy and stock markets have proven to be surprisingly resilient in recent years, we may be in for some rough times just ahead. The stakes get higher with each economic cycle and the ever-rising level of federal debt. The margin for error by our policymakers continues to shrink, while the potential for negative consequences just gets higher.

This is why I believe it is more important than ever to have your investment portfolio diversified in such a way to deal with today’s economic and market uncertainties. In my view, it is critical to have strategies in your portfolio that can move to the safety of cash (money markets) or hedge long positions in case of a bear market.

Likewise, in my opinion, most sophisticated investors would be well served to have strategies that involve “short selling” with the potential to profit from market downturns, provided such strategies are suitable in terms of their goals and risk tolerance.

I also believe it is important to have successful money managers on your team, with proven track records of implementing such “active management” strategies. So far this year, I have written about four successful professional money managers that I recommended in these pages. Each of these four managers has the ability to move to cash and/or hedge positions. Two of the four managers I have written about this year utilize short selling from time to time.

Maybe it’s time to look at them again. They are (click on the link):

Niemann Capital Management (equity funds)
Potomac Fund Management (equity funds)
Hg Capital Advisors (long & short bond funds)
Scotia Partners (long & short equity funds)

These are professional money managers that have delivered impressive actual results, with far less downside risk than a buy-and-hold approach to stocks and/or bonds. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, now may be an ideal time to get these managers on your team.

Over the years, readers of this E-Letter have told me that their biggest reluctance to investing with the money managers I recommend is the fact that my company is in Austin, Texas and they live far away. Let me assure you, that is not a problem. I have over a thousand investment clients all across the US, and I have met relatively few of them in person.

The fact that my company is in Texas and you live elsewhere should not dissuade you from participating in the investment programs I recommend, and where I have the bulk of my own net worth invested. By the way, I have my own money invested in EVERY program I recommend.

If you have any questions or would like to talk to one of our experienced Investment Consultants about whether these programs may be suitable for your portfolio, please give us a call at 1-800-348-3601, or e-mail us at info@halbertwealth.com.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Retail Sales: Tax Rebates Starting to Work in May (Maybe)
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/RetailSales_May_2008.pdf

Mapping the ‘08 Battlegrounds
http://blogs.wsj.com/politicalperceptions/2008/06/15/mapping-the-08-battlegrounds/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Obama, Trumping Despair, Can Win Comfortably (Maybe)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a7ya66W1QcOw&refer=politics

Forecasts & Trends : Recession

On the Economy & Obama's Trillions

Is The Recession Over? Don't Bet On It

Recession May End But Growth Prospects Low

Why This Recession Could Last Another Year

Signs of the End of the Recession - Maybe

Have We Turned The Corner On The Recession?

Who Will Buy America’s Trillions In New Debt?

Introduction

Federal Bailouts Surpassing $10 Trillion

Government Finance 101

Who Will Buy All This New Debt?

Bernanke: Crank Up The Printing Presses

Real Storm Clouds On The Horizon

Conclusions – Not Many I Can Find

Obama Seeks Multi-Trillion Dollar Bailouts

Introduction

The Recession Continues To Deepen

So, How Deep & How Long?

Multi-Trillion Dollar Bailouts In The Works

Obama's $825 Billion "Stimulus" Package

Obama's Next "Big Bang" Bank Bailout

Fed Gearing Up To Buy Treasury Bonds

Conclusions?

Obama's Tax Policy: None Dare Call It Welfare

Introduction

QUOTE: "Obama Stimulus Fosters Tax-Exempt Tyranny by Dick Morris & (wife) Eileen McGann

QUOTE: "The Tax Cut Mirage by Peter Ferrara

Conclusions

The Recession & More Government Bailouts

Introduction

Latest Grim Numbers On The US Economy

The Latest On The Government Bailouts

Fed Announces The Mother Of All Bailouts

Troubling Aspects Of The Fed's Latest Bailout

Fighting "Debt-Deflation" At Any Cost

Credit Crisis: Do Bush & Paulson Have A Clue?

Introduction

Stratfor's Take On The Subprime/Credit Crisis

Treasury Secretary Paulson Changes The Plan

Do They Even Have A Clue What To Do?

Bailout's Next Phase: Consumer Loans (Maybe)

More From Stratfor On The Credit Crisis & The Economy

Gauging The Recession & The Economy - Not Good

Stock Markets Detest Uncertainty & Economic Woes

Conclusions - They Are Few

The Democrats' Plan To Highjack Your 401(k)

Introduction

The Economy Falling Fast Into Recession

Democrats Want To Highjack Your 401(k)

The Democrats' 401(k) Replacement Plan

Congressional Testimony Paints A Different Picture

Socialism Du Jour - "Spread The Wealth Around"

A New Democratic Piggy Bank

Can We Afford This Nonsense? No, But So What?

Conclusions - After Today, Anything May Be Possible

On The Economy And Active Management

Introduction

A Look At The Latest Economic Numbers

Economic Forecasts Roundly Downgraded

Fallacies Of A "Buy-And-Hold" Only Approach

The Goals Of Active Management Strategies

The Halbert Wealth Management Difference

Is It Time To Consider Active Management?

Conclusions -- Don't Miss The Next Bull Market

Might Uncle Sam Make Money On The Bailout?

Introduction

The Latest $700 Billion Bailout Package

What Could Go Wrong - Potentially A Lot

What Could Go Right, If We Are Lucky

What Would Happen To The Profits, If Any?

A "Main Street" Backlash To Come?

The Recession & What To Do About It

QUOTE:
"Obama Stimulus Fosters Tax-Exempt Tyranny
by Dick Morris & (wife) Eileen McGann

QUOTE:
"The Tax Cut Mirage
by Peter Ferrara