John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Credit Crisis

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

John Mauldin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:05:00 GMT

We all know that a large wave of Baby Boomers in the US are approaching retirement. But what about the rest of the world? And what happens when those retirees need to spend out of savings? There is more than just a credit crisis and a government deficit crisis in our future. A rising level of retirrees to workers is happening even as I write. And the US is not, for once, the center of the problem. As this week's writer of your Outside the Box Niels Jensen explains, we cannot all export our way out of the problem. There is a global adjustment that must happen and when it does, it will have serious consequences for all. This week's letter is guaranteed to make you think. Set aside a few minutes to do so.

Niels Jensen is the Senior Partner of Absolute Return Partners based in London. I have worked closely with Niels for years and have found him to be one of the more savvy observers of the markets I know. You can see more of his work at www.arpllp.com and contact them at info@arpllp.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

The Absolute Return Letter October 2009

The Man Card

"Excuse me Sir, can I see your Man Card?" The stone-faced look of the security guard at Dallas Fort Worth Airport gave nothing away and, after two days of celebrating John Mauldin's 60th, my brain was probably operating somewhat below full capacity. "I need to see your Man Card Sir". Couldn't he just go away, I thought to myself, not really sure how to deal with the situation. Suddenly his face cracked wide open and in the broadest possible Texas drawl he said: "With those pink socks on Sir, I need to make sure you are a man". Welcome to Dallas!

The highlight of the weekend was a two hour roundtable discussion on Saturday afternoon where John had asked 15 of his friends and business associates to share with the group what their fears and hopes were for the next 15-20 years. I duly noted that the issues on the minds of our American friends are not at all dissimilar to what we worry about in Europe – our children's welfare, unemployment, immigration, racism, the impact of technology and the aging of our society to mention but a few.

This month's letter is about demographics and is the second in our series about major trends defining the future of the world we live in. Last month I wrote about the energy outlook, and I had an unusually high number of emails commenting on the letter. Many of them made the point that the world is in better shape than I seem to think, even if oil supplies are dwindling, as natural gas reserves are ample. We just need to switch source. Whilst I don't disagree that natural gas seems the way forward, one should not underestimate the task ahead of us. About 2/3 of all oil is used for transportation purposes and it is an enormous task to reduce our oil dependency. It will take many, many years and cost gigantic sums of money.

It is the banks, Stupid!

Back to this month's topic - in the financial press, there has been no shortage of attempts to apportion blame for the credit crisis. Disregarding the more obvious finger-pointing (it is the banks, stupid!), there seems to be a growing acknowledgement that large imbalances in the global economy are to blame for the current mess.

Put differently, a large number of countries - mainly Anglo-Saxon in origin but also the majority of our Eastern European friends - became credit junkies and spent beyond their means, year-in year-out. Conversely countries with large current account surpluses (e.g. China, Japan and Germany) were only too happy to deliver the drug to the intoxicated.

It is therefore too simplistic to suggest that only the deficit countries are to blame. The suppliers of credit must accept that they carry no small part of the responsibility, just like the drug dealers do when supplying junkies. In the past, I have been critical of Ms. Merkel of Germany when she stated publicly that Germany should continue to do what Germany does best, and that is to export goods of high quality. The obvious point here is that if Germany pursues such a strategy, the world will be no more balanced ten years from now than it is today, and a crisis similar to the one we have just been through could happen again.

It should therefore be obvious that not only should the deficit nations become more disciplined (i.e. save more and spend less), but the large surplus nations should actually put measures in place to ensure that their citizens save less and spend more. In practice, however, that is easier said than done. Demographic forces have a much bigger say on spending and savings patterns than generally acknowledged.

The Life Cycle Hypothesis

My story begins with Franco Modigliani. In 1985 he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his life cycle hypothesis which (somewhat simplified) states that spending and savings patterns are predictable and largely a function of demographics. When you are in your 20s and 30s, savings are low as much of your income is spent on establishing a family, buying and furnishing your home, putting the children through education, etc. Then comes a phase, from your early to mid 40s until just before you reach retirement age, where your savings grow significantly. The outgoings are smaller during this phase of your life as the kids have left home, and you focus on accumulating wealth to pay for your retirement. Eventually, when you retire, your savings rate turns negative as you begin to live on your life savings¹.

Empirical evidence has since shown that this is generally true both for the individual and for society at large. Obviously, you don't win the Nobel Prize for pointing out something that can hardly be classified as original thinking, but Modigliani's claim to fame was to demonstrate the effect this pattern has on the general economy as the population ages. Let me introduce you to a chart constructed by fellow Dane Claus Vistesen who is an economist and active blogger. He has made a solid attempt to graphically illustrate the consequences of Modigliani's work (chart 1).

The blue line represents the current account – it is in surplus when above the red line and in deficit when below. As you can see, when a country's population is relatively young, the country should (all other things being equal) run a current account deficit. As the population grows older, and the savings rate rises for the reasons described above, the deficit turns into a surplus until such time that the elderly begin to dominate the young at which point the surplus turns into a deficit yet again.

Our export dependency

Why is all this important? Well, take another look at chart 1, but focus on the purple line instead, which represents the country's export dependency. Translated into plain English, Modigliani's work implies that a country with an ageing population must grow its exports aggressively in order not to build up an unsustainably large current account deficit. Unfortunately, as you can see from the shape of the curve, it is not a linear function. The problem gets progressively worse as the population ages.

Now, with most OECD countries fast approaching the danger zone where an uncomfortably large part of the population consists of old-age pensioners, how do we get out of this pickle? We can't all export our way out of the problem. Somebody needs to buy our products. I will get back to answering this question later, but let's take a quick look at the so-called dependency ratio first. If the ratio is, say, 30, it means that there are 30 people at the age of 65 or older for every 100 people between the age of 15 and 64 (which defines the working population).

Obviously, the higher the dependency ratio, the fewer working people there are to pay for the elderly. At some point the cost of supporting the elderly will reach a level which spells economic disaster, and some of the more exposed countries may quite simply be forced to abandon their welfare standards to cope. More about this later -let's get some data points on the table. In chart 2 below, I have tried to keep things relatively simple. I have assumed, for example, that the fertility rate will remain unchanged going forward. This may or may not be a reasonable assumption. Only time can tell.

A walk in the park

The first thing that struck me when I produced this chart was how relatively benign the US outlook is. I read an awful lot of US centric macro economic research (my wife thinks too much!) and, more often than not, there is a reference to the bleak future for America given the fact that baby boomers in large numbers will be retiring over the next two decades. However, when you compare the US numbers (a dependency ratio of 19 today growing to 34 by 2050) to most other developed nations, the US demographic challenge suddenly looks like a walk in the park.

No other country is aging as quickly as Japan. Saddled with a large number of old age pensioners already (the dependency ratio is currently 35), the ratio will grow to an astonishing 76 over the next four decades. The Japanese economy has struggled to drag itself out of a slow growth environment for the past twenty years (give or take). The problems in Japan are well publicised and are often blamed on failed policy measures. I just wonder how big a role demographics have actually played in all of this and whether the Japanese mire is a sign of things to come for the rest of us?

Europe is toasted

The outlook for Europe doesn't make for pretty reading either. In fact, you can argue that we are worse off than Japan given our lower savings, and it raises some serious questions about the sustainability of our entire welfare model. The IMF has calculated that the cost of age-related spending in the average advanced G20 country will cause public debt-to-GDP to grow to over 400%, with Spain and Greece reaching over 600% unless the existing welfare model is cut back. For comparison, Japan has the highest public debt-to-GDP ratio today at about 225%.

As our business partner, John Mauldin, always reminds us, what cannot happen, will not. We may have to prohibit the use of condoms (not advisable for other reasons), import more labour from countries with higher birth rates (immensely unpopular) or simply reduce old-age benefits. The latter carries its own set of challenges as the political influence of the elderly is on the rise, and it won't exactly become any easier over the next 20 years to pass draconian legislation to reduce old-age benefits. Frankly, I have no idea how we will find a way out of this pickle. But find a way we will.

BRICs versus PIGS

As far as emerging economies are concerned, the outlook is considerably brighter (note the big difference between the BRICs and the PIGS in chart 2) but perhaps not as straightforward as you may think. Most investors seem to buy into the idea that, over the next few decades, emerging markets will offer better investment opportunities than more mature markets, as their economies are likely to grow much faster, and you don't yet pay for the faster growth through higher P/E ratios. Whilst we wrestle with depressing issues such as how to pay for the credit crisis and how not to bankrupt ourselves as we age, emerging economies should benefit from a growing labour force. In fact, as you can see from chart 3, in the next few years less developed countries, which tend to have very young populations, will actually outgrow more developed countries in terms of the size of the working population relative to the total population (which is good for economic growth).

The growing number of workers should, according to Modigliani, be followed by stronger economic growth and rising savings. If these savings can be invested into new productivity enhancing investments, emerging economies should enjoy much higher living standards in the years to come. You may raise a hand here and say "STOP – didn't you just argue that countries with young populations should run current account deficits and hence low savings rates?" It is indeed correct that 'young' countries should, according to Modigliani's hypothesis, not be able to generate savings rates at the magnitude we have seen coming out of South East Asia in recent years.

Cheating is omnipresent

But Modigliani didn't take cheating into account. Virtually every country in Asia has artificially depressed its currency in recent years in order to export itself to prosperity. This cannot, and will not, go on forever. As living standards rise in these countries, and domestic demand fuels economic growth, expect their currencies to appreciate against the old world currencies.

At the same time, one should not ignore the fact that not all emerging economies have young populations. I have included the four BRIC countries in chart 2 in order to make this point clear. As you can see, by the middle of the century, China and Russia will actually both have a higher dependency ratio than the United Kingdom, whereas Brazil and in particular India should continue to benefit from relatively young populations.

In a recent research paper², BCA Research analysed a number of emerging economies and found that, broadly speaking, they can be divided into 3 categories – those where the working population is peaking just about now, those that will peak in the next 7-10 years and finally those where the peak is still 15-20 years away (chart 4).

It is clear from BCA Research's work that some countries are in much better shape demographically than others. Most interestingly, China, which everybody (well, almost everybody) raves and rants about, does not look particularly attractive. Obviously you cannot judge the investment appeal based only on demographics, but if you add to that China's fragile banking system and a construction boom which has left most new buildings half empty and led the Chinese authorities to block local access to hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry's website, because he had the audacity to point out the insanity of many of the construction projects in China, then the Chinese investment story loses some of its glamour.

Too much of a good thing

A great growth story like China will always attract plenty of capital but, in the case of China, you can actually argue that too much capital has been attracted. As I was taught at university, economic growth loses its momentum if capital spending outgrows labour because of the diminishing return on capital. BCA has illustrated this graphically (chart 5), and it is obvious that China is attracting too much capital for its own good. You want to invest where capital is scarce, not plentiful.

You are therefore likely to earn a higher return on investment by investing elsewhere in the universe of emerging economies. One such country is Brazil which does not attract nearly the amount of capital that China does. I have been keeping an eye on Brazil for some time now as I am intrigued about their fledgling oil industry, and the more I learn about this country, the more excited I get. The story has not gotten any worse in recent days after the International Olympic Committee's decision to award the 2016 summer games to Rio de Janeiro. But that is an entirely different story which I may write more about another day.

Going back to the question I raised earlier, how do we get out of this pickle? As already stated, we cannot all become exporters as we grow older and domestic demand begins to fade. The only way out, if we want to maintain economic growth, is for the younger and more dynamic emerging economies to become net importers. This will require a sea change in policy, and attitude, in those countries. Most importantly, it will require the exchange rate cheating to stop once and for all. There is no alternative, unless you are prepared to accept negative GDP growth year-in year-out. And that is no fun.

Niels C. Jensen

Footnotes:
1 See http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/romelecture.pdf for more information on Modigliani's work.
2 'Demographics, Investments and Growth: Where are the opportunities?', BCA Research, August 2009.

Credit Crisis Watch

John Mauldin — Tue, 26 May 2009 16:49:31 GMT

This week we look at a number of charts of various parts of the credit markets to see what kind of progress is being made on getting back to "normal" or to a "new normal." And my friend Prieur du Plessis shows us there is reason to believe that we have seen the worst.

"This too shall pass" are words we should all take to heart. Things will neither stay on permanently high or low plateaus. Those doom and gloomers who expect the world to keep devolving back to some pastoral age of scarcity where we will all need those guns and freeze dried food will be disappointed. We are simply hitting the re-set button on many of our institutions and businesses, and while the adjustment is painful, we will eventually get through it. Today's Outside the Box is a kind of map that tells us where we are in the process.

Dr Prieur du Plessis is chairman of Plexus Asset Management and writes the Investment Postcards from Cape Town blog (www.investmentpostcards.com). Click here to subscribe to e-mail updates to the blog.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Credit Crisis Watch: Thawing – noteworthy progress

Are the various central bank liquidity facilities and capital injections having the desired effect of unclogging credit markets and restoring confidence in the world's financial system? This is precisely what the "Credit Crisis Watch" is all about – a review of a number of measures in order to ascertain to what extent the thawing of credit markets is taking place.

First up is the LIBOR rate. This is the interest rate banks charge each other for one-month, three-month, six-month and one-year loans. LIBOR is an acronym for "London InterBank Offered Rate" and is the rate charged by London banks. This rate is then published and used as the benchmark for bank rates around the world. The higher the LIBOR rate, the greater the stress on credit markets.

Interbank lending rates – the three-month dollar, euro and sterling LIBOR rates – declined to record lows last week, indicating the easing of strain in the financial system. After having peaked at 4.82% on October 10, the three-month dollar LIBOR rate declined to 0.66% on Friday. LIBOR is therefore trading at 41 basis points above the upper band of the Fed's target range – a substantial improvement, but still high compared to an average of 12 basis points in the year before the start of the credit crisis in August 2007.

Importantly, US three-month Treasury Bills have edged up after momentarily trading in negative territory in December as nervous investors "warehoused" their money while receiving no return. The fact that some safe-haven money has started coming out of the Treasury market is a good sign.

The TED spread (i.e. three-month dollar LIBOR less three-month Treasury Bills) is a measure of perceived credit risk in the economy. This is because T-bills are considered risk-free while LIBOR reflects the credit risk of lending to commercial banks. An increase in the TED spread is a sign that lenders believe the risk of default on interbank loans (also known as counterparty risk) is increasing. On the other hand, when the risk of bank defaults is considered to be decreasing, the TED spread narrows.

Since the peak of the TED spread at 4.65% on October 10, the measure has eased to an 11-month low of 0.48%. This is a vast improvement, although still somewhat above the 38-point spread it averaged in the 12 months prior to the start of the crisis.

The difference between the LIBOR rate and the overnight index swap (OIS) rate is another measure of credit market stress.

When the LIBOR-OIS spread increases, it indicates that banks believe the other banks they are lending to have a higher risk of defaulting on the loans, so they charge a higher interest rate to offset that risk. The opposite applies to a narrowing LIBOR-OIS spread.

Similar to the TED spread, the narrowing in the LIBOR-OIS spread since October is also a move in the right direction.

Further evidence that the convalescence process is on track comes in the form of data showing a sharp decline in borrowing by primary institutions at the discount window – down by almost 65% since the "panic peak" recorded during the week of October 29, 2008.

The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey of early May serves as an important barometer of confidence levels in credit markets. Asha Bangalore (Northern Trust) said: "The number of loan officers reporting a tightening of underwriting standards for commercial and industrial loans in the April survey was significantly smaller for large firms (39.6% versus peak of 83.6% in the fourth quarter) and small firms (42.3% versus peak of 74.5% in the fourth quarter) compared with the February survey and the peak readings of the fourth quarter of 2008."

"In the household sector, the demand for prime mortgage loans posted a jump, while that of non-traditional mortgages was less weak in the latest survey compared with the February survey. At the same time, mortgage underwriting standards were tighter for both prime and non-traditional mortgages in the April survey compared with the February survey," said Bangalore. In other words, more needs to be done by the lending institutions to revive mortgage lending.

The spreads between 10-year Fannie Mae and other Government-sponsored Enterprise (GSE) bonds and 10-year US Treasury Notes have compressed significantly since the highs in November. In the case of Fannie Mae, the spread plunged from 175 to 26 basis points at the beginning of May, but have since kicked up to 37 basis points on the back of the rise in Treasury yields.

After hitting a peak of 6.51% in July last year, there was a marked decline in the average rate for a US 30-year mortgage. However, the rise in the yields of longer-dated government bonds over the past nine weeks – 92 basis points in the case of US 10-year Treasury Notes – resulted in mortgage rates creeping higher since the April lows. Also, the lower interest rates are not being passed on to consumers, as seen from the 434 basis-point spread of the 30-year mortgage rate compared with the three-month dollar LIBOR rate. According to Bloomberg, this spread averaged 97 basis points during the 12 months preceding the crisis.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said earlier in May that "mortgage credit is still relatively tight", as reported by Bloomberg. This raises the possibility that the Fed will boost its purchases of Treasuries to keep the cost of consumer borrowing from rising further. [The Fed has so far bought $95.7 billion of Treasury securities from $300 billion earmarked for this purpose. Similarly, purchases of agency debt of $71.5 (out of $200 billion) and mortgage-backed securities of $365.8 billion (out of $1.25 trillion) have taken place.]

As far as commercial paper is concerned, the A2/P2 spread measures the difference between A2/P2 (low-quality) and AA (high-quality) 30-day non-financial commercial paper. The spread has plunged to 48 basis points from almost 5% at the end of December.

Similarly, junk bond yields have also declined, as shown by the Merrill Lynch US High Yield Index. The Index dropped by 44.4% to 1,213 from its record high of 2,182 on December 15. This means the spread between high-yield debt and comparable US Treasuries was 1,213 basis points by the close of business on Friday. With the US 10-year Treasury Note yield at 3.45%, high-yield borrowers have to pay 15.58% per year to borrow money for a 10-year period. At these rates it remains practically impossible for companies with a less-than-perfect credit status to conduct business profitably.

Another indicator worth monitoring is the Barron's Confidence Index. This Index is calculated by dividing the average yield on high-grade bonds by the average yield on intermediate-grade bonds. The discrepancy between the yields is indicative of investor confidence. There has been a solid improvement in the ratio since its all-time low in December, showing that bond investors are growing more confident and have started opting for more speculative bonds over high-grade bonds.

According to Markit, the cost of buying credit insurance for American, European, Japanese and other Asian companies has improved strongly since the peaks in November. This is illustrated by a significant narrowing of the spreads for the five-year credit derivative indices. By way of example, the graphs of the North American investment-grade and high-yield CDX Indices are shown below (the red line indicates the spread).

In summary, the past few months have seen impressive progress on the credit front, with a number of spreads having declined substantially since their "panic peaks". The TED spread (down to 0.48% from 4.65% on October 10), LIBOR-OIS spread (down to 0.45%% from 3.64% on October 10) and GSE mortgage spreads have all narrowed considerably since the record highs.

In addition, corporate bonds have seen a strong improvement, although high-yield spreads remain at elevated levels. Credit derivative indices for companies in all the major geographical regions have also shown a marked tightening since the November highs.

Most indications are that the credit market tide has turned on the back of the massive reflation efforts orchestrated by central banks worldwide and that the credit system has started thawing. However, although the convalescence process seems to be well on track, it still has a way to go before confidence in the world's financial system returns to more "normal" levels, liquidity starts to flow freely again, and the economic recovery can commence.

* Dr Prieur du Plessis is chairman of Plexus Asset Management and writes the Investment Postcards from Cape Town blog (www.investmentpostcards.com). Click here to subscribe to e-mail updates to the blog.

Long-Term Outlook: Slow Growth And Deflation

John Mauldin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:07:22 GMT

This week I am really delighted to be able to give you a condensed version of Gary Shilling's latest INSIGHT newsletter for your Outside the Box. Each month I really look forward to getting Gary's latest thoughts on the economy and investing. Last year in his forecast issue he suggested 13 investment ideas, all of which were profitable by the end of the year. It is not unusual for Gary to give us over 75 charts and tables in his monthly letters along with his commentary, which makes his thinking unusually clear and accessible. Gary was among the first to point out the problems with the subprime market and predict the housing and credit crises. You can learn more about his letter at http://www.agaryshilling.com. If you want to subscribe (for $275), you can call 888-346-7444. Tell them that you read about it in Outside the Box and you will get not only his recent 2009 forecast issue with the year's investment themes, but an extra issue with his 2010 forecast (of course, that one will not come out for a year. Gary is good but not that good!) I trust you are enjoying your week. And enjoy this week's Outside the Box....

And if you have cable and get Fox Business News, I will be on Happy Hour tomorrow Tuesday the 17th at 5 pm Eastern. Have a great week.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Long-Term Outlook: Slow Growth And Deflation

(excerpted from the March 2009 edition of A. Gary Shilling's INSIGHT)

From 1982 until 2000, the U.S. economy enjoyed rapid growth with real GDP rising at a 3.6% average annual rate. Furthermore, this 18-year expansion, which cumulated to an 89% rise in inflation-adjusted economic activity, was interrupted by only one recession, the relatively mild 1990-1991 downturn, which depressed real GDP by only 1.3% from peak to trough.

Extended Expansion

From a fundamental standpoint, the growth spurt ended in 2000 as shown by basic measures of the economy's health. The stock market, that most fundamental measure of business fitness and sentiment, essentially reached its peak with the dot com blow-off in 2000 and has been trending down ever since (Chart 1). The same is true of employment, goods production and household net worth in relation to disposable (after-tax) income.

Nevertheless, the gigantic policy ease in Washington in response to the stock market collapse and 9/11 gave the illusion that all was well and that the growth trend had resumed. The Fed rapidly cut its target rate from 6.5% to 1% and held it there for 12 months to provide more-than ample monetary stimulus. Meanwhile, federal tax rebates and repeated tax cuts generated oceans of fiscal stimulus.

As a result, the speculative investment climate spawned by the dot com nonsense survived. It simply shifted from stocks to housing (Chart 2), commodities, foreign currencies, emerging market equities and debt, hedge funds and private equity. Investors still believed they deserved double-digit returns each and every year, and if stocks no longer did the job, other investment vehicles would. Thus persisted what we earlier dubbed the Great Disconnect between the real world of goods and services and the speculative world of financial assets.

Not Sustainable

Even before these final speculative binges, the forces driving the economy in its long expansion were unsustainable, as we've been stressing for years in Insight. These forces included the decline in the consumer saving rate and jump in consumer debt, the vast leveraging of the financial sector, increasingly freer trade and loose financial regulation, all of which are now being reversed.

In the 1980s and 1990s, American consumers were more than willing to cut their saving rate because they believed stock portfolios would continue to grow rapidly and take care of all their financial needs. Then, when stocks collapsed in 2000-2002, house appreciation (Chart 3) seamlessly took over to continue the push down the household saving rate from 12% in the early 1980s to zero. Americans saw their houses as continually-filling piggybanks because, they believed, home price appreciation would continue indefinitely. They tapped that equity freely with home equity loans and cash-out refinancing.

The flip side of saving less is borrowing more, as evidenced by the leap in all consumer debt and debt service, both in relation to disposable (after-tax) income and relative to assets. In relation to GDP, the cumulative outside financing of the household as well as the financial sector leaped for three decades, measuring the immense leveraging in these two areas. Not surprising, amidst this consumer borrowing and spending binge, consumer spending's share of GDP leaped from 62% in the early 1980s to 71% at its peak in the second quarter of 2008 (Chart 4).

The Tide Turns

Now, however, consumers have run out of borrowing power. As of the third quarter 2008, homeowners with mortgages had on average 25% equity in their abodes after all mortgage debt was removed and that number will probably drop to the 10%-15% range with the further decline in house prices we are forecasting (Chart 3). At that bottom, after a 37% peak-to-trough collapse, almost 25 million homeowners, or nearly half the 51 million with mortgages, will be under water, with their mortgages bigger than their house values. In total, the gap will be about $1 trillion.

The nosedive in stocks has also discouraged consumer spending as have mounting layoffs (Chart 5), maxed out credit cards and tighter lending standards and weak consumer confidence. Rising medical costs are also a drag on consumers as their co-pays and deductibles mount. For decades, credit card issuers and other lenders encouraged consumers to indulge in instant gratification. Buy now, pay later. But now, habits are changing. Debit cards are becoming popular since they deduct charges directly from the user's checking account and, therefore, don't increase indebtedness. Layaway plans are back in style after nearly disappearing.

Financially Unprepared

Between low saving levels in recent years and weak stock prices, few Americans are prepared financially for retirement. About 54% of 401(k) assets are invested in stocks, which fell 39% last year as measured by the S&P 500 index. And except for Treasurys, almost all other investments suffered huge losses in 2008. Around 50 million Americans have 401(k) plans, with $2.5 trillion in assets, and in the 12 months after the stock market peak in October 2007, over $1 trillion in stock value was wiped out in 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans. Another $1 trillion in IRAs was lost.

After 401(k)s were initiated in 1978, those containing stock assets appreciated in the long 1982-2000 bull market, which convinced many that they didn't need to save, as mentioned earlier. In 1983, 33% of working-age households were financially unprepared for retirement, but the number rose to 40% in 1998 as a result of lower saving and more borrowing, and to 44% in 2006 as the 2000-2002 bear market also depressed retirement funds. Obviously, with the subsequent collapse in house and stock prices, many more -- over 50% -- are unprepared. In 2007, in defined contribution accounts administered by Vanguard, the median account balance for 55-64 year-olds was just $60,740 and only 10% of participants contributed the maximum amount.

Economic Effects

As households increase their saving rate, their spending growth will slow, a distinct contrast from the decline of the saving rate from 12% in the early 1980s to zero recently. That decline, which averaged about a half-percentage point per year, meant that consumer spending grew an average of around a half-percentage point faster than disposable income annually. For the next decade, we're forecasting a one percentage point rise in the saving rate annually. That still would not return it to the early 1980s level of 12% even though the demographics for saving have gone from the worst to the best in the interim. Applying a 1.5 multiplier to account for the total destimulating effects as those dollars are saved, not spent, this means a reduction of about one percentage point in real GDP growth, from 3.6% per annum in the 1982-2000 years to 2.6%.

Although the stock bulls may salivate over the prospect that increased saving will mean more equity purchases, we believe that most of the money will go to debt repayment--the flip side of a saving spree. Note that if the saving rate rises one percentage point per year for 10 years, the cumulative increase in saving will total about $5.5 trillion. That will go a long way in offsetting federal deficits and debt.

So will the deflation that we'll explore later. Incomes may grow on average in real or inflation-adjusted terms, but shrink in current dollars. But debts are denominated in current dollars and therefore will grow in relation to incomes and the ability to service them. This will be the reverse of inflation, which reduced the value of debts in real terms and makes it easier to service them as incomes rise with inflation.

Foreign Effects

The effects, then, of a consumer switch from a 25-year borrowing-and-spending binge to a saving spree will be profound for the U.S. economy. Even more so for the foreign economies that have depended for growth on American consumers to buy the excess goods and services for which they have no other ready markets.

In 2007, U.S. consumers accounted for 18.2% of global GDP, and that share has jumped from 14.9% in 1980 and 16.8% in 1990. Furthermore, the shares of American consumer spending on durable and nondurable goods accounted for by imports from Central and South America and from the Pacific Rim have leaped since the early 1990s.

A clear result of the upward trend in consumers' share of GDP (Chart 4) and declining saving rate for a quarter-century has been the downtrend in the foreign trade and current account balances. We can't overemphasize the importance of the profligate U.S. consumer in fueling economic growth in the rest of the world, as we've discussed in many past Insights. We have also published our analysis of Asian exports. The intra-Asian trade was much bigger than the direct exports to the U.S., but when we accounted for the components produced in, say, Taiwan that were sent for subassembly to Thailand, then to Malaysia for final assembly with the finished product destined for the U.S., over half of Asian exports ended up in America.

Export-Dependent China

In late 2007, most forecasters disagreed with us and said China's economy would continue to grow at double-digit rates, and even support the U.S. economy if it softened. However, in "The Chinese Middle Class: 110 Million Is Not Enough" (Nov. 2007 Insight), we explained that China was not yet far enough along the road to industrialization to have a big enough middle class of free spenders to sustain economic growth if exports fell with U.S. consumer spending, as we were predicting.

As we noted in that report, in China, it takes $5,000 or more in per capita income to have meaningful discretionary spending. The 110 million who fit that category are a lot of people, but only 8% of China's population. In India, the middle and upper income classes are even smaller, 5%. In contrast, in the U.S. it takes $26,000 or more to have middle-class spending power, and 80% of Americans qualify. So we wrote in that report that all the cell phones and PCs being bought by Chinese was not the result of domestic economic strength, but merely the recycling of export revenues and direct foreign investment funds. And we went on to forecast that U.S. consumers would retrench, resulting in a nosedive in Chinese exports and a deep recessionary slump in China's growth.

Well, as they say, the rest is history. It now seems likely that China's earlier double-digit growth rates will slip to the 5%-6% range that would probably constitute a major recession, and probably lower. About 8% growth is needed to accommodate the vast numbers who continually flood from the countryside to the cities in search of work and better lives. Of those who went back to their villages to celebrate the recent lunar new year, 20 million didn't return because their factory jobs had vanished along with Chinese exports. Worker unrest us mounting and just as civil disturbances have ended many past Chinese dynasties, the Mao Dynasty's days may be numbered, as we've discussed in past Insights.

No Winners

With subdued U.S. consumer spending in the years ahead and the resulting weakness in American imports, economic growth abroad will be even weaker than in the U.S. Note that in previous U.S. recessions, the current account and trade balances tend to rise as imports weaken with economic activity, but exports fall less as economic growth abroad persists. That's been true of late, even though most would prefer strengthening balances from strong U.S. exports, not weaker imports. In any event, falling economies overseas are already weakening U.S. exports (Chart 6) and subdued global growth in the years ahead will probably limit the improvement in the U.S. current account and trade balances. Notice the close link between world industrial production and merchandise exports (Chart 7).

First And Last Resort

Now, with American consumers embarking on a saving spree, the U.S. will no longer be the buyer of first and last resort for the globe's excess goods and services. Furthermore, with slower global growth for years ahead, virtually every country will promote exports to spur domestic activity. Already, China has stopped allowing her yuan to rise in order to gain a bigger share of a declining pool of global exports.

Financial Deleveraging

There's no question that the financial sector is deleveraging, and its embarrassed leaders, pressured by regulators and everyone else, will no doubt continue this process for years to come. Securitization, off-balance sheet financing, derivatives and other financial vehicles that both stimulated and distorted economic activity are disappearing.

Big banks are reducing exposure to volatile proprietary trading and emphasizing safer asset management. Hence, Morgan Stanley's interest in buying Smith Barney, the brokerage unit of cash-hungry Citigroup. Furthermore, banks are cutting their financing of hedge funds by concentrating on the likely survivors in the ongoing shake-out and cutting off the rest. This will hasten the demise of many less-successful as well as smaller shops that are also at risk of investor withdrawals.

Banks are retrenching from lending to the point that corporate borrowers are turning to the bond market instead for funding. Despite government bailouts, writedowns continue to erode bank capital. Many still hold some of the leveraged loans they made to fund private equity leveraged buyouts back in the boom days. Lenders normally recover 80% on those loans when borrowers default since they rank high in the recovery pecking order. But recent bankruptcies indicate 25% recovery rates. Earlier, Japanese banks were flush with cash, but sharply lower earnings outlooks suggest they no longer will be able to provide capital to international markets.

As banks retreat to their core competencies, they're selling non-essential units. Faced with lasting fear spawned by huge losses and pressed by regulators, these institutions are retreating to basic banking 101. That's spread lending in which deposits are lent with a market-determined interest rate spread that covers costs plus a modest profit. Banks are also consolidating in response to gigantic losses and bleak outlooks. France's BNP Paribas bought the Belgium and Luxembourg assets of Fortis. Spain's Santander is acquiring full control of Sovereign Bancorp based in Wyomissing, Pa. Large consolidated financial institutions don't tend to be big risk-takers, and often lack the entrepreneurial spirit that promotes productivity and economic growth. Also, with fewer institutions, there are fewer counterparts to share risks, and that also dampens activity.

Eastern Europe

Overseas, Western banks largely financed the rapid economic growth in the former Iron Curtain countries in Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. In addition, many companies in those lands financed their domestic businesses by borrowing Swiss francs, euros and other hard currencies at lower rates than in their own inflation-prone countries. Individuals entered the same carry trade to fund their home mortgages.

Now, however, lenders are retreating as they delever. Exports to Western Europe, another important source of growth, are falling. Eastern European borrowers need to repay $400 billion owed to Western banks this year, much of it denominated in foreign currencies. Eurozone banks have outstanding loans to Central and Eastern Europe totaling $1.3 trillion. EU leaders, led by German Chancellor Merkel, recently rejected a $240 billion bailout of Eastern Europe proposed by Hungary.

Like Asia 1997-1998

The dependence of Central and Eastern Europe on foreign financing is painfully similar to that is Asia in the 1990s that led to the 1997-1998 financial and economic collapse--except it probably will be worse this time since banks are delevering this time and weren't back then. Also, these European countries were more leveraged in 2008 than their Asian counterparts a decade ago. This can be seen in their foreign debts in relation to GDP (Chart 8) and in their current account deficit/GDP (Chart 9) as well as in their currency declines.

Asian lands reacted to the 1997-1998 crisis by cutting foreign borrowing and building foreign currency reserves. Ironically, however, they still didn't escape the current global recession and financial crisis. They're no longer as dependent on inflows of foreign capital, but this time are highly dependent on exports, which are plummeting as U.S. consumers retrench.

Commodity Crisis

The collapse of the commodity bubble will also subdue global economic growth in future years. Sure, commodity consumers benefit from lower prices as producers lose. But the share of total spending on commodity imports by consumers, especially developed lands, is tiny while they account for the bulk of exports for producers, notably developing countries.

Budget Signals

The new Obama federal budget points clearly to more government regulation and involvement in the economy. Going well beyond dealing with the deepening recession and financial crisis, the President wants $630 billion to move toward national health insurance. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would have to purchase permits. Another $20 billion would go for clean energy technology. The government would essentially take over student loans while eliminating private lenders, and make them entitlements with no annual limits on loan totals.

Obama also plans to increase taxes in higher-income households and capital gains and estate while redistributing money to lower-income people, even those who don't pay taxes. This reflects his populist views on the campaign trail, but with considerably more edge. The President's budget document states, "Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected. In the face of these trade-offs, Washington has ignored the squeeze on middle-class families that is making it harder for them to get ahead. There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few." The President's budget message also attacks "a legacy of misplaced priorities...and irresponsible policy choice in Washington."

Corporations, the energy industry, hedge funds and large farmers would also pay higher taxes while families with annual incomes under $200,000 and especially the working poor would get government checks.

The budget calls for more enforcement money for the FDA to step up drug safety rules, more for the EPA to crack down on industrial polluters, additional funds to protect endangered species and land and water conservation and to protect wildlife from climate change. More money is also requested to enforce fair housing laws and better disclosure of mortgage terms and to reverse "years of erosion in funding for labor law enforcement agencies." Employers that don't offer retirement plans will be forced to open IRAs for employees. There's also additional funds requested for enforcing workplace safety rules.

Stress Tests

Major banks are being stress-tested to determine their volatility under adverse conditions. To date, Fannie and Freddie are in conservatorship and controlled by the government. The remaining major investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are bank holding companies with Federal Reserve regulation. Is it a big surprise that Litton Loan Servicing, owned by Goldman, recently changed its strategy on mortgage modification to reduce borrowers' monthly payments to 31% of income from 38%, the industry standard?

Citigroup and BofA are, for all intents and purposes, wards of the state while the media and Washington spar over whether they will be formally owned by the government. Those two banks recently agreed to suspend mortgage foreclosures until the Treasury sets up its rescue program.

AIG is 85% owned by the Fed, which probably wishes it owned nothing of that bottomless money pit that has already absorbed $150 billion in government money. Recently, the government initiated its fourth plan to rescue AIG,which just reported a $62 billion loss in the fourth quarter. The firm is so troubled that Washington has completely backed away from its role as a stern lender that forced AIG to pay high interest rates on what it assumed would be short-term loans. Now the government is relaxing loan terms by wiping out interest in hopes of preserving some value for AIG. And it will be more involved as it splits AIG into two pieces and gets preferred shares in each entity.

Auto Bailout Payback

Beyond the financial sector, the ongoing bailout of U.S. auto producers is leading to more government intervention in that industry. As usual, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The government has already pumped $17.4 billion into GM and Chrysler, and they say they may need $21.6 billion more. GM also proposes a $4.5 billion credit insurance program for the auto parts makers. Furthermore, GMAC may need more than the $5 billion sunk into it by the Treasury last December.

Bonuses

Of all the signs of opulence carried over from the bubble years, corporate jets and big executive bonuses seem to bother Washington the most. BofA is selling three of its seven jets, a helicopter that was owned by Merrill Lynch and one of two of its New York corporate apartments. Obama wants firms that accept "extraordinary assistance" from the government to cap annual pay at $500,000, disclose pay to shareholders for a non-binding vote, claw back bonuses of corporate officials who provide misleading information, eliminate golden parachutes for those terminated and adopt board policies for luxuries such as entertainment and jets.

This reaction to big bonuses in firms that are taking huge writeoffs, losing big money and requiring massive government bailouts was predictable. From 2002 to 2008, the five largest Wall Street firms paid $190 billion in bonuses while earning $76 billion in profits. Last year, they had a combined net loss of $25 billion but paid bonuses of $26 billion.

The Trouble With More Regulation

Increased regulation may be the natural reaction to financial and economic woes, but it is fraught with problems. It's a reaction to crises and, therefore, comes too late to prevent them. And it often amounts to fighting the last war since the next set of problems will be outside the purview of these new regulations. That's almost guaranteed to be the case since fixed rules only invite all those well-paid bright guys and gals on Wall Street and elsewhere to figure ways around them.

Furthermore, government regulators have never, as far as we know, stopped big bubbles or caught big crooks. Consider the dot com and then the housing blowoffs, both of which occurred while the SEC, the Fed, other regulators, Congress, etc. sat on their hands. Think about Enron, WorldCom and Bernie Madoff, all of whom went on their merry ways until their self-induced collapses, completely free of regulatory interference.

Most importantly, government regulation and involvement in the economy is almost certain to prove inefficient. Risk-taking has been excessive, but government bureaucrats are likely to eliminate much of it, to the detriment of entrepreneurial activity, financial innovation and economic growth. Fannie, Freddie and government-controlled banks are now being directed by the government to modify mortgages to accommodate distressed homeowners. That may implement government policy, but leads to bad business decisions.

Confusion

Furthermore, if financial regulation changes massively, it probably will create confusion and uncertainty to the detriment of adequate financing, spending and investment. Some academics believe that the Great Depression was prolonged because the New Deal measures were so disruptive that banks and other financial firms as well as individual investors, consumers and businessmen were too scared to do anything. Recently, Tadao Noda, a Bank of Japan policy board member, said, "We are in a position where the central bank needs to interfere in financial markets, but if we do too much, the market functioning in turn may be hurt." In any event, major problems inexorably lead to greater government involvement. The Bush Administration was staunchly deregulatory in philosophy but forced to intervene in the financial crisis. The 20th century saw tremendous growth in government involvement in all aspects of the economy and financial markets as a result of three tremendous traumas--World Wars I and II and the Great Depression.

Protectionism

Recessions spawn economic nationalism, protectionism, and the deeper the slump, the stronger are those tendencies. It's ever so easy to blame foreigners for domestic woes and take actions to protect the home turf while repelling the invaders. The beneficial effects of free trade are considerable but diffuse while the loss of one's job to imports is very specific. And politicians find protectionism to be a convenient vote-getter since foreigners don't vote in domestic elections.

U.S. Leadership

Sadly, the U.S. appears to be among the leaders for protection of goods and services against foreign competition. The auto loan program last year under the Bush Administration largely excluded foreign transplants. Obama advocates a super-competitive economy, which requires highly productive workers. Yet the recent fiscal stimulus law restricted H-1B visas, granted to foreigners with advanced education and skills, for employees of firms that receive TARP (bank bailout) money.

Some in Congress worried that tax credits for renewable energy should be confined to American-produced equipment. And recall that during the presidential campaign, Obama called for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Furthermore, the President's emphasis on health care, education and renewable energy turns attention inward, toward self-sufficiency and away from a global focus.

Outside the U.S., protectionism is being promoted by labor unrest. In England, workers at a French-owned oil refinery struck because Total awarded a construction contract to an Italian firm that planned to use its own staff from abroad rather than local workers. Rioters on the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe protested high prices for food and other necessities for a month recently. High unemployment rates, especially among younger workers, have precipitated riots in Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, Russia and Bulgaria as well as France.

Competitive Devaluations

Good old-fashioned competitive devaluations to spur exports and retard imports, a mainstay of the 1930s, are making a comeback. Kazakhstan recently devalued, in part because of devaluations of her trading partners. As noted earlier, China stopped allowing her yuan to appreciate, in part because her labor costs are being undercut by countries like Vietnam and Bangladesh.

With the understanding that protectionism helped make the Great Depression "Great," country leaders still publicly espouse free trade and reject protectionism. And they express confidence that global organizations like the WTO, IMF and World Bank will forestall protectionism and economic nationalism, and they engage in endless meetings to promote free trade as well as global standards and cooperation for handling the deepening financial crisis. But almost nothing happens, as shown by the recent EU refusal to bail out Eastern Europe.

Stealth Protectionism

In any event, protectionism is returning by stealth. U.S. steelmakers plan to file anti-dumping suits against foreign producers, a strategy they have employed successfully for decades, and India recently proposed increased steel tariffs. In the first half of 2008, WTO antidumping investigations were up 30% from a year earlier. Bank bailouts have been aimed at protecting local institutions, as discussed earlier, and the Japanese government is buying stocks of Japan-based corporations to help company balance sheets, but also giving them a competitive advantage over the subsidiaries of foreign outfits.

Like America, France is aiding its own auto producers, not transplants, and has created a sovereign wealth fund to keep "national champions" out of foreign ownership. Since last November, Russia has introduced 28 import duty and export subsidies affecting steel, oil and other products as well as imposed special road tolls on trucks from the EU, Switzerland and Turkmenistan. Russia's tariff on imported cars recently rose 5 to 10 percentage points, curtailing shipments of used cars from Japan to the Russian Far East.

Meanwhile, Argentina has imposed new obstacles to imported shoes and auto parts. The EU again is giving export refunds to dairy farmers, to the detriment of New Zealand, slapped anti-dumping charges on Chinese nuts and bolts, and threatens duties on U.S. biodiesel imports in retaliation for America's export subsidies. Not to be outdone, the U.S. plans retaliatory tariffs on Italian water and French cheese in reaction to EU restrictions on U.S. chicken and beef imports in the hormones war.

Ecuador lifted tariffs across the board recently, with the levy on imported meat rising to 85.5% from 25%. Indonesia is using special import licenses to limit the inflow of clothing, shoes and electronics and also is curtailing toy imports by allowing them to enter through only a few of its ports. And there's the old standby, health and safety standards that Japan relies on consistently to keep out unwanted products.

Deflation

Long-time Insight readers know that we have been forecasting chronic deflation to start with the next major global recession. Well, that recession is here. As discussed in our Nov. 2008 Insight, deflation results when the overall supply of goods and services exceeds demand, and can result from supply leaping or from demand dropping. We've been forecasting chronic good deflation of excess supply because of today's convergence of many significant productivity-soaked technologies such as semiconductors, computers, the Internet, telecom and biotech that should hype output. Ditto for the globalization of production and the other deflationary forces we've been discussing since we wrote two books on deflation in the late 1990s, Deflation: Why it's coming, whether it's good or bad, and how it will affect your investments, business and personal affairs (1998) and Deflation: How to survive and thrive in the coming wave of deflation (1999). As a result of rapid productivity growth, fewer and fewer man-hours are needed to produce goods and services. Estimates are that 65% of jobs lost in manufacturing between 2000 and 2006 were due to productivity growth with only 35% due to outsourcing overseas.

Similar conditions held in the late 1800s when the American Industrial Revolution came into full flower after the Civil War. Value added in manufacturing leaped, and at the same time, real GNP grew 4.32% per year from 1869 to 1898, an unrivaled rate for a period that long, and consumption per consumer jumped 2.33% per year. Yet wholesale prices dropped 50% between 1870 and 1896, a 2.6% annual rate of decline. Good deflation also existed in the Roaring '20s when the driving new technologies were electrification of factories and homes and mass-produced automobiles.

The 1930s

In contrast, bad deflation reigned in the 1930s as the Great Depression pushed demand well below supply. As in the 1839-1843 depression, the money supply, prices, banks and real goods and services all nosedived. Employment dropped along with prices in the Great Depression and the unemployment rate rose to 25%. That depression was truly global.

We've consistently predicted the good deflation of excess supply, but in our two Deflation books and subsequent reports, we said clearly that the bad deflation of deficient demand could occur--due to severe and widespread financial crises or due to global protectionism. Both are clear threats, as explained earlier in this report.

Furthermore, with slower global economic growth in the years ahead due to the U.S. consumer saving spree, worldwide financial deleveragings, low commodity prices, increased government regulation and protectionism, excess global capacity will probably be a chronic problem. So deflation in the years ahead is likely to be a combination of good and bad.

Supply will be ample due to new tech, globalization and other factors we've explored over the years such as no big global wars (we hope), continual inflation worries by central bankers, continuing restructuring, and cost-cutting mass retailing. But demand will be weak, as discussed earlier. The chronic 1% to 2% deflation from excess supply that we forecast earlier still seems likely, but now we're adding 1% due to weak demand for a total of 2% to 3% annual declines in aggregate price indices for years to come.

2009 Seems Easy

For four reasons, the deflation that started several months ago (Chart 10) is quite likely to persist along with the recession, or at least until early 2010. First, the collapse in commodity prices continues and past declines are still working their way through the system. Crude oil prices have collapsed from $147 per barrel to around $40. Steel semi-finished billet prices were $1,200 a metric ton last summer but now is $350. Iron ore costs per metric ton dropped from $200 early last year to $80. It takes time for steel prices to work through to final consumer goods prices such as for washing machines.

Second, producers, importers, wholesalers and retailers were caught flat-footed by the sudden nosedive in consumer spending late last year and continue to unload surplus goods by slashing prices. All the giveaway bargains at Christmas still didn't entice enough consumers to open their wallets. Spring apparel, ordered before consumer retrenchment, is clearly in excess and being marked down before it's put on the racks. Retailers from Saks on down continue to chop prices. Branded food product manufacturers are willing to promote their wares alongside the private-label goods that supermarkets shoppers increasingly favor.

Wage Cuts

Third, wages are actually being cut for the first time since the 1930s. Previously, labor costs were controlled by layoffs, which still dominate. Benefits have also been trimmed in recent years by switching from defined contribution pensions to 401(k)s and increasing employee contributions to health care costs. Most workers are less sensitive to benefits than to salaries and wages, but the deepening recession and mounting layoffs (Chart 5) are making them more amenable to wage cuts.

So is the growing use of this approach. In a recent poll, 13% of companies plan layoffs in the next 12 months, but 4% expect to reduce salaries and 8% will cut workweeks.

So it just isn't the CEO who is taking the symbolic pay cut to deal with tough times. We argued in our Deflation books that cutting pay rather than staff is more humane, better for morale and better for keeping the organization together and ready for a business rebound. Now increasing numbers of employers agree with us.

A final reason to expect deflation in coming quarters in the U.S. is the surplus of aggregate supply over demand. Notice that the supply-demand gap is an excellent forerunner of inflation six months later. And deflation this year is spreading globally. Japan is once again flirting with falling prices, Thailand's CPI in January fell year over year for the first time in a decade. In Europe, inflation rates are rapidly approaching zero.

Prices In Recovery

The real test of deflation will come when the economy recovers--in early 2010 or later, we believe. Inflation rates normally fall in recessions, but then revive when the economy resumes growth. This time, inflation rates started low, so declines into negative territory are normal, especially given the severity of the recession and the collapse in energy and other commodity prices. If we're right, however, aggregate price indices like the CPI and PPI will continue to drop in economic recovery and verify the arrival of chronic deflation.

Few agree with us. They've never seen anything but inflation in their business careers or lifetimes, so they think that's the way God made the world. Few can remember much about the 1930s, the last time deflation reigned. Furthermore, we all tend to have inflation biases. When we pay higher prices, it's because of the inflation devil, but lower prices are a result of our smart shopping and bargaining skills. Furthermore, we don't calculate the quality-adjusted price declines that result from technological improvements. This is especially true since many of those items, like TVs, are bought so infrequently that we have no idea what we paid for the last one. But we sure remember the cost of gasoline on the last fill-up a week ago.

Too Much Money?

The main reason most expect inflation to resume, however, is because of all the money that's being pumped out by the Fed and other central banks as well as the Treasury to finance the mushrooming federal deficit. When the economy revives, they fear, all this liquidity will turn into inflationary excess demand.

At present, the Fed's generosity isn't getting outside the banks into loans that create money.

When cyclical economic recovery finally does arrive in 2010 or later, it will probably be sluggish and lenders will still likely be cautious, as discussed earlier. Furthermore, any meaningful increase in loans will probably continue to be more than offset by the continual destruction of liquidity as writedowns, chargeoffs, elimination of derivatives, etc. persists for years. Derivatives represent liquidity. You can't use them at the grocery store, but at least until recently, they were interchangeable from money in many uses.

In Sum

The deepening recession and spreading financial crisis is the beginning of the unwinding of about three decades of financial leverage and spending excesses. The process will probably take many years to complete as U.S. consumers mount a decade-long saving spree, the world's financial institutions delever, commodity prices remain weak, government regulation intensifies and protectionism threatens, if not dominates. Sluggish economic growth and deflation are the likely results.

A. Gary Shilling's INSIGHT - March 2009
Telephone: 973-467-0070

Reality Bites

John Mauldin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:23:00 GMT

This week's writer of the Outside the Box is no stranger to long time readers. Michael Lewitt writes the HCM Market Letter and is one of my favorite writers and truly deep thinkers. He has recently decided to turn his letter into a subscription based model and is meeting with some success, as he should. So, sadly, he will no longer be a regular feature of OTB, but he did allow me to use the current letter, as I think it is one of his more provocative letters.

This is a piece you want to think through. Michael discusses the continuing series of bailouts, the consequences of the stimulus package, the various policy options and the likely response of the economy to all of the above. Plus he makes a few market calls and some interesting observations. I am truly pleased to be able to send this to you.

If you are interested in subscribing, you can to go www.hcmmarketletter.com/home.html or email info@hcmmarketletter.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Reality Bites

The HCM Market Letter by Michael E. Lewitt

"So long as risk is effectively concealed from borrowers and lenders or actually shifted to others, risk-taking will be excessive. The initial phase of excessive risk-taking will manifest itself as an economic boom, but eventually, when actual losses begin to change the perceptions of borrowers and lenders and begin to impinge upon unsuspecting others, the boom will give way to a bust....(A) market system whose credit markets involve risks that are partially concealed from the lender and partially shifted to others will be biased in the direction of excessive risk-taking. And excessive risks are converted in time into excessive losses."

Roger Garrison¹

The problem with bailouts is that you have to know what you're bailing out. But neither the U.S. government nor anybody else is capable of estimating the ultimate cost of bailing out such corporate giants as Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (and the list goes on). There are two reasons for this. First, on a stand-alone basis, these companies are opaque and indecipherable entities. Financial innovation left transparency in the dust. Wall Street devoted much of its intellectual and political capital to concealing the risks it was creating. This concealment was deliberate; products needed to be priced inefficiently to produce profits. Second, these companies are integral parts of a networked global economy; as such, their value is completely dependent on the overall health of that network. Unless the network can be restored to health, these assets will remain severely devalued. Right now, the network is very sick. When a system is allowed to hide risk for so long, it is ill-equipped to manage that risk when it finally emerges from the shadows.

The Economic Policy Conundrum

The Obama Administration is facing a near-impossible task trying to bail the U.S. economy out of the muck of years of ill-begotten economic policies. The biggest challenge facing policymakers is not short-term recovery, however. Eventually, stimulus is likely to arrest the forces of economic collapse and stabilize matters – at least temporarily. But the real problem is sowing the seeds of long-term, sustainable, organic economic growth. This is really the crux of the policy challenge. The United States in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years as the result of a panoply of extremely poor economic policy choices. Economist Roger W. Garrison draws an important distinction between "healthy economic growth, which is saving-induced (and hence sustainable), and artificial booms, which are policy-induced (and hence unsustainable)."² In other words, monetary policy that kept interest rates low for an extended period of time, tax policy that favored debt over equity, regulatory policy that allowed financial institutions to operate opaquely, and social policy that pushed home ownership regardless of affordability, all combined to create artificial economic demand that could only be financed with debt because the savings (i.e. equity) to purchase them did not exist.

Moreover, as more and more debt was created through financial engineering and policy prescription, the prices of these were bid up higher and higher. This led these products to become grossly inflated in value compared to any inherent economic worth they might possess. Once the bubble burst, their value dropped precipitously. Unfortunately, the face amount of the debt used to purchase these assets did not adjust downward at the same time. Assets that were purchased at inflated prices are now worth a fraction of what they were purchased for, leaving behind a serious dilemma for the owners of these assets and their creditors.

Following conventional economic thinking, the government believes that the solution lies in policies designed to reflate the value of these assets. The problem with this approach is that it is based on the incurrence of trillions of dollars of additional debt to create the demand needed to purchase these assets. Debt begetting more debt is a poor prescription for sustainable long-term economic growth. At best the government may be able to provide a short-term boost to the economy, but what the economy really needs is a solid, organic foundation for growth. Debt-financed government demand can't be sustained indefinitely, which is why this policy is doomed to fail in the long run. The U.S. balance sheet is not a bottomless pit, although it is increasingly coming to resemble a Black Hole. At some point, the economy will have to generate sufficient tax revenue to pay for this government spending or the country will lose its AAA rating and ultimately become a troubled credit. Economic demand will ultimately have to become savings-driven or it will again collapse.

This does not necessarily mean that the government should walk away from creating short-term demand, but it should be extremely circumspect in how it does so. This is where political reality collides with economic reality. The optimum long-term economic solution would be to allow the economy to hit bottom and then begin to rebuild demand naturally. But such a scenario would likely entail an unemployment rate on the order of 15 or 20 percent and an even worse human toll than is already being exacted by the downturn. But it would give the economy an organic base from which to rebuild. The government's job in such a scenario would be to provide the right kind of safety net (not only of financial support but also job and educational training) to see the citizenry through the crisis. What the U.S. really needs is an economic Marshall Plan to rebuild itself, with all of the sacrifice and public service that would entail. Apparently, that is asking too much in today's me-first society. Accordingly, the government finds itself compelled to follow policies that may or may not create unsustainable short-term growth and will have to be carefully targeted to promote sustainable long-term growth.

There is a profound difference between healthy, sustainable demand and unhealthy, unsustainable demand, just as we are living the unhappy lesson that there is a great difference between healthy economic activity (i.e. activity that contributes to the productive capacity of the economy) and unhealthy economic activity (i.e. speculative trading and corporate finance transactions). Propping up bad banks through a "good bank/bad bank" model would simply direct funds to the sustenance of past unhealthy economic activity. Starting a new Economic Reconstruction Bank, as HCM has recommended, could make loans available for new productive projects and direct funds into healthy long-term economic activity.

Another bout of policy-induced growth will not only repeat the mistakes of the past, but leave the economy even weaker, teetering on an unstable foundation of government support that cannot be sustained indefinitely without impairing America's balance sheet, credit rating, and ultimately its geopolitical might. Whether America's short-term political orientation can ever address this conundrum is the greatest question facing policymakers today. HCM has no hesitation in saying that much of what the government has proposed thus far to deal with the crisis won't come close to dealing with the long-term issue of creating savings-induced or organic growth. This means that any near-term relief (i.e. relief that occurs within the next five years) is most likely to give way to years of below trend growth because the economy will be lacking the organic foundation of growth it needs.

Dow 5000 Update

Year-to-date through February 27, the S&P 500 was down 18.62 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 19.52 percent. Moreover, strategists and investors are increasingly coming around to the conclusion that corporate earnings are going to be nothing short of horrendous this year and that stocks are headed even lower, as HCM has been arguing for months (without pleasure, we hasten to add). Very recently, three of the smartest forecasters on Wall Street sharply lowered their earnings forecasts for the S&P 500.

On February 13, David Rosenberg, Bank of America's North American Economist, recently reduced his 2009 and 2010 S&P 500 operating EPS forecast to $46 (from $56) and $55.50 (from $63), respectively.ⁱ Mr. Rosenberg is now forecasting an S&P 500 low of 666 based on a 12x multiple of forward (i.e. 2010) earnings.
Francois Trahan of ISI Group dropped his S&P 500 earnings forecast from $60 to $45 on February 23. Mr. Trahan used a 13x multiple to forecast a potential market low of 585.
On February 26, Goldman Sachs' David Kostin dropped his 2009 and 2010 S&P 500 operating EPS forecast to $40 and $63, respectively, after deducting $23 and $8, respectively, for provisions and write-downs. Mr. Kostin uses a 13.2x multiple of 2010 earnings (pre-write-downs and provisions) to come up with a year-end 2009 S&P 500 target of 940.

These sharply lower forecasts are consistent with HCM's dim view of corporate earnings, but we believe that all three analysts are clinging to overly optimistic earnings multiples in predicting ultimate stock market lows. At this point, there is clearly a growing Wall Street consensus that S&P 500 earnings will come in well below $50 in 2009 and that the correct multiple on these earnings should be in the 12-13x range. HCM continues to believe that the multiple should be lower based on the fact that (a) we are in a debt deflationary spiral, and (b) government yields are artificially depressed and signal economic distress and do not signal an attractive investment alternative, and corporate yields are extremely high and offer real competition for investor funds.

Last November, HCM set 2009 price targets of 5000 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and 475 on the S&P 500 based on applying a 7x multiple to Goldman Sachs' then 2009 S&P 500 earnings estimate of $65. (See The HCM Market Letter, Nov. 15, 2008, "Dow 5000") At the time, the S&P 500 was at about 850 and the DJIA was at about 8600. Our low multiple was based on our view that an environment characterized by debt deflation deserves a 6-8x multiple. Now that Mr. Kostin and others have lowered their multiple, it is only fair to raise the question whether we should be further lowering our target prices on these equity indices at this time based on applying our multiple to a lower earnings number.

For the moment, the market remains far above our previous targets. Our targets are intended to be directional in nature and we see no reason to lower them further at the current time. We have made our point, which is that the stock market is likely to head sharply lower in the months ahead. Moreover, the earnings estimates have been lowered primarily based on expectations for further write-offs by financial companies (and non-financial companies that wandered into the financial space). Investors may treat these write-offs and provisions as nonrecurring items and look to higher recurring S&P 500 earnings in pricing the market. While we continue to believe that the multiple should be in the single digits, the correct recurring earnings number remains a moving target. Accordingly, at this time it would be premature to lower our estimate further. Needless to say, we remain extremely comfortable with our prior estimates of 475 on the S&P 500 and 5000 on the DJIA.

A bear market rally is possible at any time. Investors should be aware that as the market moves lower, rallies have the potential to be extremely sharp since they are starting from compressed levels. Such rallies should be used to reduce overall equity exposure. That does not mean that equities should be abandoned totally. There are a number of stocks that are trading at well below book value (even taking into account the declining transfer value of their assets) that may be worth buying in the months ahead. The debt of these companies, which HCM is particularly active in, is even more compelling as an investment. But investors need to identify longer term changes in market behavior and the economic environment before becoming bullish again on stocks. Right now, there are no such signs, such as better employment, housing or GDP numbers, or tightening credit spreads, or improving market technicals. HCM is starting to sense that the forces of denial, as potent as they are, are starting to weaken. Accordingly, investors should structure their portfolios for further equity declines.

The "D" Word

The fourth quarter GDP loss of 6.2 percent (did anybody really believe the 3.8 percent estimate?) illustrates just how deep a hole our economy has to climb out of. The economy fell into this hole almost literally overnight, but it's going to take much longer to climb out. A quick recovery is out of the question. HCM expects first quarter GDP to be in the -6.0 to -7.0 percent range based on our reading of employment, housing and other economic data as well as the data we are seeing from the 200 or so companies in our portfolios across a wide variety of industries. Moreover, based on our view that the stimulus plan will be largely ineffective this year and that more large-scale business failures are in the works (many of them slow-motion car wrecks), we do not expect to see positive economic growth until sometime in mid-to-late 2010 (and then only modest growth).

Investors expecting a conventional bear market/bull market cycle are likely to be sorely disappointed. Over the past several decades, U.S. stock market investors have been conditioned to believe that the market will bottom and then rebound. Bear markets have been brief within the context of a long bull market that stretches back to the 1980s. But the current environment is likely going to be different. We are now experiencing a destruction of wealth on a scale that is both unprecedented and permanent because much of that wealth was built on a fragile foundation of debt; in reality, much of that wealth didn't really exist in the first place. As a result, what people believed to be economically valuable and stable was in fact nothing of the kind. In many respects, the latter stages of the bull market were little more than an illusion. Real corporate earnings and genuine productivity peaked years ago, and the economy has been operating on debt-induced fumes for years.

Accordingly, investors need to prepare themselves for a future that will not resemble the recent past. Ray Dalio, the wise man who runs Bridgewater Associates, noted in a recent Barron's interview that investors need to recognize that the current environment more resembles a depression than a recession: "Everybody should, at this point, try to understand the depression process by reading about the Great Depression or the Latin American debt crisis of the Japanese experience so that it becomes part of their frame of reference. Most people didn't live through any of those experiences, and what they have gotten used to is the recession dynamic, and so they are quick to presume the recession dynamic. It is very clear to me that we are in a D-process." (Barron's, February 9, 2009, "Recession? No, It's a D-process, and It Will Be Long," pp. 38-40.) Mr. Dalio's view is consistent with HCM's long-argued view that we are in a debt-deflationary spiral whose end is nowhere in sight.

The characteristics of our current economic situation are as follows:

Interest rates have dropped to zero.
Bank stocks have plunged by 90 percent or more.
The Federal Reserve's balance sheet has exploded.
Credit spreads have widened to historic levels.
The economy is seeing massive asset deflation.
Debt is being destroyed in record amounts.
Unemployment is increasing each month.
The financial industry is shrinking radically.
Manufacturing activity has slowed sharply.

This is not a situation that is consistent with recent American experience. HCM has previously described a depression as an economic condition in which traditional monetary and fiscal policy is rendered ineffective. For the moment, we are deeply entrenched in such a situation. The question is how long the economy will remain depressed before some of the remedies that have been proposed start to work. Unfortunately, HCM fears we may be in for an extended stay.

For these reasons, HCM believes that after the stock market bottoms, it will drift along at a depressed level for an extended period of time. The American economy will experience less-than-trend growth for a similarly prolonged period of time. The economy will have to absorb trillions of dollars of bad debts and transition its resources away from speculative activities and toward new productive endeavors. The economy has to be completely retooled, and this process will not happen overnight, particularly because such a program must be directed by a highly inefficient democratic political system that is inefficient in reaching consensus about its goals and how to achieve them. Unfortunately, the deeper involvement of the government in the financial and other sectors of the economy is likely to stifle growth, innovation and creativity and further contribute to lower growth for years to come.

Investing Today

This by no means is intended to suggest that investors will be unable to make money. It does suggest, though, that the era of bull market geniuses is probably over. Too many were paid too much for doing too little over the past several decades. Being at the right place at the right time is not going to cut it anymore. But as the debt destruction process plays out, new investment opportunities will arise in the capital structures of restructured and surviving companies.

As investors go about reallocating money to new opportunities, they may want to keep in mind something that HCM recently read in The Economist.

"Over the past 35 years it has seemed as if everyone in finance has wanted to be someone else. Hedge funds and private equity wanted to be as cool as a dotcom. Goldman Sachs wanted to be as smart as a hedge fund. The other investment banks wanted to be as profitable as Goldman Sachs. America's retail banks wanted to be as cutting-edge as investment banks. And European banks wanted to be as aggressive as American banks. They all ended up wishing they could be back precisely where they started." (The Economist, "A special report on the future of finance," January 24, 2009, p. 17.)

There are a limited number of investment opportunities that make sense in today's market, and there are a limited number of managers qualified to execute those strategies. Unfortunately, managers in out-of-favor or discredited strategies are now trying to reinvent themselves as managers of the few in-favor strategies in which they have limited or no experience. HCM is seeing this occur in the corporate credit space, where firms that have previously operated in areas peripheral to the credit markets such as private equity or mortgages are suddenly touting their expertise in corporate credit. These managers are wading into uncharted territory. Investors must insure that managers possess the expertise that is required for the strategies for which they are being hired. They have already experienced the disastrous results of private equity firms thinking that doing deals would prepare them for investing in bank loans.

Bank Nationalization

We are quickly learning the flaws of the half-baked approach to supporting the nation's banks that the Bush Administration adopted and the Obama Administration seems hell-bent on continuing. At least the Bush Administration had an excuse – the former Treasury Secretary was a career investment banker who saw the world through the eyes of Wall Street. Perhaps HCM was naïve in hoping that the new Treasury Secretary, having been a career regulator who viewed matters through the opposite end of the glass, would see things differently. We probably should have known better since Mr. Geithner participated in the Bush Administration's bailout. But the quasi-nationalization approach is clearly a disaster for all concerned (the recent article describing the hall of mirrors that used to be Citigroup is a case in point - see The Wall Street Journal, February 25, 2009, "Citigroup Chafes Under U.S. Overseers," p. A1.) There seems to be little disagreement that two of the country's major banks – Citigroup and Bank of America – are in the zone of insolvency. Their assets are worth less than their liabilities and their shareholders have been wiped out in all but name (and in the little drill-bits of stock that trade publicly as make-believe options on their long-term recovery). But the system can't seem to bring itself to admit that these banks have been effectively nationalized in all but name and that taking the final step of nationalizing them is in many respects just a matter of form over substance. The only thing worse than a banking system that has been privatized is one that has collapsed, but that is the choice we are faced with. The Rubicon has been crossed and we need to clear away tons of debris that are clogging up the river before we can cross back to the other side.

Moreover, maintaining the illusion of public ownership has enabled some of the individuals running these institutions to engage in some of the most irresponsible behavior ever seen in the history of American business. HCM is speaking specifically of the pay-out of billions of dollars of bonuses to the executives and employees of Merrill Lynch on the eve of its forced takeover by Bank of America. This act, which Bank of America's Chairman Ken Lewis claims he was powerless to stop (HCM does not believe him) and former Merrill Lynch Chairman John Thain, in what can only charitably be described as a gross breach of conscience and good judgment, somehow sanctioned, are prima facie evidence that the hybrid public/private TARP model is totally untenable and should be shelved immediately. Those banks that can repay the TARP money (or produce a believable plan to do so within three years) should be permitted to do so forthwith, and those that are teetering on the brink of insolvency should be nationalized. Otherwise, the managements of these firms are going to pay more attention to figuring out how to game government compensation limitations than maximizing the value of their troubled assets over the next several years. HCM never thought we would say that there are worse things than nationalization, but there are and we saw them when billions of dollars was paid out to the people who lost even more billions of dollars at Merrill Lynch. This has to have been one of the most brazen thefts in American history.

Let GM Go

General Motors has been insolvent for years. Yet political expediency has prevented recognition of this harsh truth. The company's unions have blocked efforts to bring the company's cost structure into line with changing economic realities. Michigan's powerful Congressional delegation has blocked efforts to improve American automobiles' fuel efficiency, creating an opening for foreign manufacturers with lower cost structures to steal the hearts and minds and pocketbooks of American consumers. Years of bad choices have now left the U.S. government with a terrible choice – whether to give GM billions of dollars of money inside or outside of bankruptcy. The correct decision, as unpalatable as it may be, is painfully obvious. All of the king's horses and all of the king's men are not going to be able put GM back together again. It is time to let this American icon declare bankruptcy in order to maximize the chances of salvaging something out of this American tragedy.

GM is still paying or accruing billions of dollars of annual interest payments on the company's more than $40 billion of debt. The company is negotiating with holders of $27.5 billion of this debt, which is unsecured, to reduce it to $9.2 billion (by exchanging stock for bonds). Yet all of this debt and stock is worthless. Instead of wasting time haggling with debt holders over exchanging a portion of their worthless claims for worthless stock, the company should declare bankruptcy so these claims can be wiped out. GM's ability to meet the government's February 17 deadline was delayed by its inability to come to an agreement its bondholders. The bondholders are institutional investors who believe they are exercising their fiduciary duty to their beneficiaries by trying to squeeze the best deal possible out of the automaker. But the sad reality is that they made a bad investment and should suffer the consequences. We need to stop trying to save everyone from the consequences of their errors or else they will keep making them.

The unions are also trying to salvage an ownership stake out of this mess. The company is negotiating to exchange half of approximately $20 billion of Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) obligations into equity. Unfortunately, 100% of the VEBA obligations are likely worthless since GM will never be able to pay them. The VEBA was part of the bargain that the unions made with GM over the years. Workers gained generous wages, benefits and work rules that rendered the company uncompetitive. This was not a secret – the company's loss of market share and weakening financial position was apparent for years to the unions as well as to everyone else. The unions won the bargain but they lost the war. The company doesn't owe the workers anything more than what can be granted in bankruptcy, which is likely a meaningful equity stake in exchange for the VEBA and the billions of dollars of other healthcare and pension obligations owed to current and retired workers. This is undoubtedly a tragedy of enormous human dimensions, but responsibility for it is shared by all Americans who sat by while their politicians and business leaders allowed GM to sink into insolvency. Accordingly, America owes the workers a safety net when they lose their jobs and benefits. But this should be the same safety net society owes all of its displaced workers, not a special one for former GM workers.

Allowing GM to file for bankruptcy will be a blow to the American psyche. But GM has already gone bankrupt in all but name. In suggesting that it will require $125 billion in financing to undergo a bankruptcy, the company may be playing chicken with Congress but is more likely indicating just what a Black Hole of liabilities it has become over the decades. America must have the courage to deal with this reality. Bankruptcy will give the company, and the country, an ability to make the hard decisions that it refused to make before. Either way, GM's failure is going to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. But until we are willing to be honest about our failures, we are never going to put ourselves in a position to avoid future ones.

Obama's Budget

President Obama's is in many respects a dramatic break with the past, although in many respects it falls short of the type of radical tax and other changes that are really needed (but may simply not be politically feasible). We just hope that Mr. Obama's reach does not exceed his grasp. Many things may have changed economically in recent years, but one thing has not: a country can't tax and spend its way into prosperity. Moreover, we are confident that the growth rate assumptions used in years 2, 3 and 4 of our new president's proposed budget are unrealistic. The economy is unlikely to grow at anything close to 3 to 4 percent in those years, and relying on that much growth to close the budget deficit by the end of Mr. Obama's first term will only lead to disappointment. This economy, which shrunk at an annual rate of 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and will almost certainly not show any growth at all in 2009, is not going to magically spring back to life in 2010. Mr. Obama is setting himself up for failure with these projections.

HCM was very happy to see that the Administration is prepared to rid the tax code of the egregious treatment of private equity carried interests, which we have recommended before (see The HCM Market Letter, April 1, 2008, "How to Fix It"). Now that private equity has become a loss-leader for its partners, we would caution those drafting the legislation to make sure that private equity does not gain an unintentional windfall from this legislation. This could occur if private equity partners were permitted to deduct claw-back payments (i.e. repayments of carried interests earned early in a partnership based on losses incurred later in a partnership) at the new higher tax rate if they were taxed on those original payments at the lower rate. In order to prevent such a benefit, if the original payment was taxed at 15 percent, repayment of that money should only give rise to a deduction at 15 percent, not the higher ordinary income tax rate.

We think limitations on charitable deductions are poor public policy. The argument that wealthier people should not receive a greater dollar-for-dollar benefit for charitable deductions than less affluent people is a red herring, particularly in view of the fact that the Alternative Minimum Tax already haircuts high earners' charitable gifts. We also believe that limitations on mortgage deductions would be better handled by limiting deductions for mortgages over a certain dollar amount rather than by income; such a methodology would be more effective in fighting housing speculation.

We are opposed to raising taxes on capital, but we also recognize that we are in a fiscal emergency and that raising the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent on the wealthiest Americans would not impose undue hardship and would keep the rate relatively low. We would prefer to see capital gains rates implemented on a graduated scale based on the amount of capital gains reported in a single year. Someone who earns an especially large gain could certainly afford to pay a little more in tax. We commend the plan for maintaining the 15 percent tax rate on dividends, which should not be taxed at all since they are already taxed at the corporate level and remain an extremely inefficient means of returning capital to shareholders.

The biggest problem with the budget – and with any budget, not just Mr. Obama's – is that the government just wastes so much stinking money. The reason people find higher taxes abhorrent is not because they don't want to help those less fortunate than themselves, or fund necessary government programs, but because they don't want their money to be treated like Congress's personal piggy bank. We would love to see the list of the $2 trillion of wasteful programs that Mr. Obama claimed his team has already identified for elimination. The amount of government waste is truly mindboggling, and Mr. Obama must insist on spending discipline if he is to have any chance to keep the budget deficit from exploding over the next four years.

The Coming Meltdown in Eastern Europe

By all accounts, the former Eastern Bloc countries that so successfully navigated their entry into world capitalism after the fall of communism have borrowed themselves into near oblivion and are about to inflict frightening losses on their own banks and Western European banks, their main aiders and abettors. Our good friend John Mauldin has been out front on this story, which has enormous implications for the global financial system. The ever prescient Christopher Wood has also been warning about an Asian-style banking crisis in the region, with serious ramifications for the Western European banks that loaned these institutions by some reports trillions of dollars. This is a story that needs to be followed in the coming weeks because it will have major negative consequences for world financial markets. To state the obvious, this is the last thing the world economy needs to deal with right now.

Michael E. Lewitt

Footnotes:
¹ Roger W. Garrison, Time and Money The Macroeconomic of Capital Structure (New York: Routledge, 2001), pp 111, 120.
² Garrison, p. 56.

Europe On the Ropes

John Mauldin — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:17:24 GMT

This week we look at the European bank markets through the eyes of my London partner Niels Jensen, head of Absolute Return Partners. I continue to believe that this is a brewing crisis which could have far more significant implications for the global economy than the Asian Crisis of 1998. In this week's Outside the Box, Niels has compiled a sobering set of data that suggests that only massive government involvement in Europe on a scale that is unprecedented will keep the wheels from coming off in Europe and the global economy.

I have worked closely with Niels for years and have found him to be one of the more savvy observers of the markets I know. You can see more of his work at www.arpllp.com and contact them at info@arpllp.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Europe On the Ropes

The Absolute Return Letter March 2009

"Many of today's policy proposals start from the view that "greed" and "incompetence" and "poor risk assessment" are the ultimate source of what went wrong. In fact, they were not the true cause at all. Moreover, even if they had been, it is fatuous to think that we will now create a post-crash generation of bankers and traders who are not greedy, much less a new generation of quants who will be able to assess and manage risks much better than "the idiots" who have brought us to the current abyss. Greed cannot be exorcised. Nor can the inherent inability of any quants to determine the "true" probability distributions of all-important events whose true probabilities of occurrence can never be assessed in the first place."

Woody Brock, SED Profile, December 2008

Policy mistakes 'en masse'

The last few weeks have had a profound effect on my view of politicians (as if it wasn't already dented). All this talk about capping salaries for senior bank executives is quite frankly ridiculous. It is Neanderthal politics performed by populist leaders. That Gordon Brown has fallen for it is hardly surprising but I am disappointed to see that Barack Obama couldn't resist the temptation. The mob wants blood and our leaders are delivering in spades. The stark reality is that we are all guilty of the mess we are now in. For a while we were allowed to live out our dreams and who was there to stop us? Policy mistakes – very grave mistakes – permitted the situation to spin out of control. From the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank under the stewardship of Alan Greenspan being far too generous on interest rates to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer -who now happens to be our Prime Minister - advocating 'Regulation Light'.

Policing must improve

If you really want to prevent a banking crisis of this magnitude from ever happening again, the focus should be on the way banks operate and not on how much they pay their staff. And, within that context, any discussion must start and end with how much leverage should be permitted. The French have actually caught onto that, but their narrow-mindedness has driven them to focus on hedge funds' use of leverage which is only a tiny part of the problem. It is the gung ho strategy of banks which brought us down and which must be better policed. And guess what; if banks were better policed - and leverage restricted - then profits, even at the best of times, would be much smaller and there would be no need to regulate bankers' compensation packages.

It is pathetic to watch our prime minister attacking the bonus arrangements of our banks when the UK Treasury, on his watch, spent £27 million pounds on bonuses last year as reward for delivering a public spending deficit of 4.5% of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle. Even my old mother understands that governments must deliver budget surpluses in good times, allowing them more flexibility to stimulate when the economy hits the wall. What Gordon Brown has done to UK public finances in recent years is nothing short of criminal.

So, with that in mind, let's take a closer look at the European banking industry. The following is not pretty reading. I have rarely, if ever, felt this apprehensive about the outlook. So, if the crisis has made you depressed already, don't read any further. What is about to come, will make your heart sink.

More leverage in Europe

Let's begin our journey by pointing out a regulatory 'anomaly' which has allowed European banks to take on much more leverage than their American colleagues and which now makes them far more vulnerable. In Europe, unlike in the US, it is only risk-weighted assets which matter to the regulators, not the total leverage ratio. European banks can therefore apply a lot more leverage than their US counterparties, provided they load their balance sheets with higher rated assets, and that is precisely what they have been doing.

That is fine as long as you buy what it says on the tin. But AAA is not always AAA as we have learned over the past 18 months. Asset securitisations such as CLOs proved very popular amongst European banks, partly because they offered very attractive returns and partly because Standard & Poors and Moodys were kind enough to rate many of them AAA despite the questionable quality of the underlying assets.

Now, as long as the economy chugs along, everything is dandy and the AAA-rated assets turn out to be precisely that. But we are not in dandy territory. Many asset securitisation programmes are in horse manure to their necks, so don't be at all surprised if European banks have to swallow further losses once the full effect of the recession is felt across Europe. The two largest sources of asset securitisation programmes are corporate loans and credit cards. Senior secured loans are still marked at or close to par on many balance sheets despite the fact they trade around 70 in the markets. The credit card cycle is only beginning to turn now with significant losses expected later this year and in 2010-11.

Not much of a cushion left

Citibank has calculated that it would only take a cumulative increase in bad debts of 3.8% in 2009-10 to take the core equity tier 1 ratio of the European banking industry down to the bare minimum of 4.5%¹. By comparison, bad debts rose by a cumulative 7% in Japan in 1997-98. One can only conclude that European banks are very poorly equipped to withstand a severe recession. Seeing the writing on the wall, they are left with no option but to shrink their balance sheets. Despite talking the talk, banks will use every trick at their disposal to reduce the loan book. No prize for guessing what that will do to economic activity.

The wheels are coming off

But that is not the whole story. It is not even the most worrying part of the story. For the true horror to emerge, we need to turn to Eastern Europe for a minute or two. Nowhere has the credit boom been more pronounced than in Eastern Europe. And nowhere is the pain felt more now that credit has all but dried up. One measure of the credit fuelled bonanza is the deterioration of the current account across the region. Credit Suisse has calculated that in four short years, from 2004 to 2008, Eastern Europe's current account went from +6% to -6% of GDP². That is a frightening development and is likely to cause all sorts of problems over the next few years.

Meanwhile Western European banks, eager to milk the opportunities in the East after the iron curtain came down, have acquired many of the region's banks (see chart 1). Now, with many Eastern European countries in free fall, ownership could prove disastrous for an already weakened banking industry in the West.

The problem is widespread

To make matters worse, the problems in the East are beginning to look systemic. Credit Suisse has produced an interesting scorecard where they rank a number of countries around the world on factors usually taken into consideration when assessing the credit quality of sovereign debt (see chart 2). At the top of the tree (i.e. the worst credit score) you find Iceland – hardly surprising considering their current predicament. More importantly though, of the next 14 countries on the list, 8 are Eastern European – not what you want to hear if you are an already undercapitalised European bank with huge exposure to Eastern Europe.

Swedish banks are already reeling from their exposure to the Baltic countries. Austrian banks are in even worse shape, having been the most acquisitive of any European banks. Some Italian banks could be dragged under by their Eastern European exposure and even the conservative banking sector in Switzerland doesn't look like it can escape the mayhem.

Worst of all, the problems in the East are just about to unfold at a point in time where the European banking industry is bleeding heavily from massive losses already incurred in other areas. With no access to private funding, banks find it virtually impossible to re-build their capital base with anything but tax payers' money.

US banks are better off

US banks are in less of a pickle. Unlike the subprime debacle which hit both the US and the European banks hard, US banks have little exposure to Eastern Europe. To prove my point, according to the IMF, European banks have 75% as much exposure to US toxic debt as American banks, but 90% of all cross border loans to Eastern Europe originate from Western European banks. And, to add insult to injury, European banks have been much slower than US banks in terms of recognising their losses. Write-offs now total about $750 billion in the US and only about $325 billion in Europe.

The great mortgage show

The problems in Eastern Europe begin and end with their large external debts. In recent years, ordinary people all over the region have converted their traditional mortgages to EUR- or CHF-denominated mortgages. Some have even switched to JPY mortgages. Who can possibly resist 3% mortgages? Didn't anyone inform them of the risk? As currencies across the region have fallen out of bed in recent months, these mortgages have suddenly become 30-50% more expensive. No wonder the local economy is suddenly tanking.

Credit Suisse has calculated that net foreign liabilities (as a % of GDP) have risen from 47% to 65% in recent months as a direct result of the loss of local currency values (see chart 3 – and don't ask me why Credit Suisse has included South Africa in Eastern Europe!).

Chart 4: Eastern European vs. Asian Crisis

Source: Wall Street Journal

Back in 1997-98 Asia went through a similar currency crisis. However, as you can see from chart 4, Asian current account deficits were much smaller than Eastern European deficits are now. So were debt levels. Despite that, the Asian crisis did enormous damage to the local economy. Eventually Asia came good, primarily because the devalued currencies allowed the Asian countries to export more. Eastern Europe does not share this luxury. With over 90% of the world's GDP in recession, who are they going to export to anytime soon?

Austria is in greatest trouble

According to the latest estimates from BIS, Eastern European countries currently borrow $1,656 billion from abroad, three times more than in 2005 and mostly denominated in foreign currencies (ouch!). 90% of that can be traced to Western European banks. About $350 billion must be repaid or rolled over this year. Not an easy task in these markets. Austrian banks alone have lent about $300 billion to the region, equivalent to 68% of its GDP according to the Financial Times. A default rate of 10% on its Eastern European loans is considered enough to wipe out the entire Austrian banking system. EBRD has gone on record stating that defaults in Eastern Europe could end up as high as 20%³.

An extra $250bn to the IMF

Hungary, Latvia and Ukraine have already received emergency loans from the IMF and both Serbia and Romania are reportedly considering asking for help. Meanwhile the IMF's coffers are draining quickly and it has asked leading industrial nations for new funding. At their summit a week ago, EU leaders coughed up an extra $250 billion but nobody said where the money is going to come from. Even if they find the money, it is likely to prove hopelessly inadequate. Our leaders must grow up. Measuring everything in billions is so yesterday. Trillions are the new billions, like it or not.

Conspiracy or...?

On the 11th February the Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent Bruno Waterfield wrote an article under the header: "European banks may need £16.3 trillion bail out, EC document warns." In the article, the reporter revealed that he has seen a secret document produced by the EU Commission which briefed the union's finance ministers on the true extent of the banking crisis. Less than 24 hours later, the article's header was changed to "European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis" and two paragraphs had mysteriously disappeared. Here they are:

"European Commission officials have estimated that "impaired assets" may amount to 44pc of EU bank balance sheets. The Commission estimates that so-called financial instruments in the 'trading book' total £12.3 trillion (13.7 trillion euros), equivalent to about 33pc of EU bank balance sheets.

In addition, so-called 'available for sale instruments' worth £4trillion (4.5 trillion euros), or 11pc of balance sheets, are also added by the Commission to arrive at the headline figure of £16.3 trillion."

Do yourself a favour - read those two paragraphs again. Newspaper editors do not change content light-heartedly. Did the Telegraph editor receive a call from Downing Street? Or Brussels? Did he have second thoughts about the avalanche that he could possibly instigate? I don't know and I probably never will. But one thing is certain. If the EU Commission's estimate of £16.3 trillion of impaired assets is correct, then the crisis is far worse than any of us could ever imagine. Not only would we have to get used to the prospects of a systemic meltdown of our banking system, but entire nations may go down as well.

Public debt to rise and rise

Even if actual losses prove to be much, much smaller (and I sincerely hope so), the banking sector cannot, in the current environment at least, raise sufficient capital to stay afloat, so more, possibly a lot more, tax payers' money will have to be put forward. This can only mean one thing. Public debt will rise and rise. The official estimate for the UK for next year is already approaching 10% of GDP, an estimate which will almost certainly rise further. We probably have to get used to running 10-15% deficits for a few years, a fact which seriously undermines the notion of government bonds being next to risk-free.

BCA Research has calculated the effect on public debt in a number of countries, as a result of further bank losses being underwritten by tax payers. Obviously, those countries with the largest banking industries (as a % of GDP) will be hit the hardest (see charts 5a and 5b).

For that very reason, and as pointed out in last month's Absolute Return Letter, there is a real risk that investors will demand much higher risk premiums on government debt. Only a few days ago, Ireland issued 3-year bonds at almost 250 basis points over corresponding Bunds. As more and more debt is transferred to sovereign balance sheets, we will likely see the spreads between good and bad paper rise further but we will also witness increasingly desperate measures being applied by the men in power. If they could prohibit short-selling of banks on the stock exchange (which didn't work), why wouldn't they consider prohibiting short-selling of government bonds? Not that it would necessarily work any better, but desperate people do desperate things.

Can Germany rescue us?

Most investors remain convinced that Germany will come to the rescue - in my opinion not as simple a solution as widely perceived given the enormity of the crisis. One possible solution which has been mentioned frequently in recent weeks is for all the eurozone nations to get together and start issuing joint bonds. This would undoubtedly help the weaker nations, but the idea was shot down by the German Finance Minister only a few days ago when he said that closer economic harmony across the eurozone would be needed before Germany would be prepared to entertain such an idea.

The most obvious trick left in the book, therefore, is to inflate us out of this mess. With the enormous amounts of public debt being created at the moment, years of deflation a la Japan would be catastrophic. You will never get a central banker to admit to it, but a healthy dose of inflation is probably our best prospect of surviving this crisis.

Given this outlook, do you really want to be long euros?

Niels C. Jensen
© 2002-2009 Absolute Return Partners LLP. All rights reserved.

Footnotes:

1 Citibank, Credit Outlook 2009

2 Ex Russia. Source: Credit Suisse Global Equity Strategy

3 "Failure to save East Europe will lead to wordwide meltdown", Daily Telegraph

Market Vertigo

John Mauldin — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:07:13 GMT

I get a lot of newsletters from money managers around the country, which I try and read as they are written by people who are “in the trenches,” actually making decisions on behalf of their clients. It broadens my perspective. Frankly, most are not all that well written and unimaginative, but who ever said writing was easy? But some really strike a chord with me. Today’s Outside the Box I have read twice, which is unusual for me. Cliff Draughn is a wealth manager in Savannah, Georgia (Draughn Partners) and a good friend. His letter is a wide ranging tome on a variety of topics, but is full of common sense and one that I think will resonate with readers. I trust you will enjoy this.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Market Vertigo

"We give you a Republic; now see if you can keep it." -- Ben Franklin

As I have remarked in prior calendar-turning newsletters, it is this time of the year when most people pause to reflect on the past, ponder the present, and plan the future. The New Year always rings in with the soothsayers and fortunetellers of the market invading our consciousness with their predictions for the future. Investors' behavioral "herding instinct" seeks reassurance from the analysts of Wall Street that we indeed possess wisdom, and we search to find our thoughts confirmed in The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Business Week and Forbes. Like most market pundits at the beginning of every New Year, I am tempted to weigh in on the absolute numbers prediction game and throw out my best guess as to what the next twelve months hold in store.

However, experience has taught me that these types of predictions always prove me to be far smarter or dumber than I deserve. For if I had predicted at the beginning of 2008 we would experience freezing credit markets, bankruptcies and near bankruptcies of our largest of financial institutions, massive amounts of taxpayer monies used to "save" the financial system, the worst recession numbers since the Great Depression, unemployment at 7% and rising, mortgage defaults at unprecedented levels, "deleveraging" on a global basis -- and toss in oil going from $95 a barrel to $145 a barrel and back to $37 -- then you would have sought to admit me into a mental ward for treatment last January. Add the miserable economic news reports of 2008, with market declines for the S&P 500 of 37%, the EAFE at -41.04%, and Emerging Markets of -48.88%, and is anyone surprised that most investors are beginning 2009 shell-shocked, scared, and (after Uncle Bernie's confession) doubtful that anyone on Wall Street is capable of the truth? Or, should we even call Wall Street the financial center anymore, since power in the financial markets has clearly shifted to Pennsylvania Avenue?

I fear that the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the White House may decide who wins and who loses in the capital markets over the next three to five years. At the core of their decision-making process is the cattle prod of all cattle prods to get this economy moving: the existing TARP plus Obama's promised $850 billion stimulus package (with $310 billion in tax cuts). Could Pennsylvania Avenue be administering electrical stimulation to a dead horse? Perhaps it's time they consider breaking a new horse to ride, preferably one that does not gobble financial engineering as its main fare.

I titled 2008's first-quarter Newsletter "The Year of the Rat: Ultimate Minsky Time," and was that ever appropriate. In Hyman Minsky's economic teachings he states:

"The Financial Instability Hypothesis suggests that over periods of prolonged prosperity, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance (stable) to a structure that increasingly emphasizes speculative and Ponzi finance (unstable)."

Our economy and markets could not have been perceived to be more stable from 2003-07, only to become completely unstable in 2008. As evidence of the market's instability, Howard Silverblatt, a noted S&P senior index analyst, observed that the S&P 500 rose or fell more than 5% on 17 trading days in 2008. When one considers there were only 17 trading days in the previous fifty years when the S&P rose or fell more than 5% in a day, then I think you can appreciate the unprecedented volatility we have experienced! As my grandmother would say, "Lordy, Lordy, what's the world coming to?" The increased volatility, sudden failure of credit and confidence, and a market crash unlike we have seen since the Great Depression are definitely indicative of "Ultimate Minsky" time. The volatility of the last quarter begs the question: could we get any more unstable?

In another reflection on last year's newsletter title, 2008 gave us the ultimate of all rats: Bernie Madoff. The warning signs were there: people like Harry Markopolos wrote the SEC on numerous occasions, and yet nothing was done. In my opinion, Mr. Madoff has done more harm to the investment community than any single individual I can remember in financial history. Samuel Isreal, Jerome Kerviel, Brian Hunter, Giancarlo Paretti, Nick Leeson, Ivan Boesky, Lou Pearlmen, and the eponymous Mr. Ponzi all pale in comparison to the economic, social, and trust destruction wrought by this single investment sociopath. In the Old Testament, the Bible speaks of the "Toevah," which is defined as "an abomination." On Bernard Madoff's tombstone, I hope they inscribe "The Great Toevah."

However, the financial crisis of 2008 cannot be blamed on worthless financial instruments; rather the fault in the system is worthless people. The credit default swap and derivative traders of AIG and other financial institutions who siphoned millions of dollars in bonuses for abusing the financial system and knowingly created unprecedented amounts of risk liability should be made to pay the bonuses back or be thrown in jail. The same could be said for SEC enforcement officers who turned a blind eye to certain institutions in hopes of securing lucrative employment once they left the SEC, from the very people they were supposed to be regulating. It disgusts me to think the taxpayers of this country are financing the multi-million dollar lifestyles of rogue traders and executives who now lounge on the beaches of Monte Carlo. I do not blame Main Street for its anger at Wall Street and the regulators who supposedly oversaw the investment world.

Without a doubt, 2008 was an historic year from a number of perspectives, and it is frankly one that I am glad to see in the rear-view mirror.

At the beginning of last year we put forth the following themes that would influence markets during 2008:

Credit and Liquidity
Bond Insurance Woes -- AMBAC, MBIA, FGIC
The Dollar
Commodities
Investor Psychology

Our thesis of a contracting credit market in the face of a declining real estate market was one of the easier predictions for 2008. What we missed, as did the Federal Reserve Chairman, Treasury Secretary, and almost everyone else in the investment world, was the severity and swiftness of the contraction and subsequent deleveraging of bank balance sheets. What happened to regulatory oversight and orderly markets? As we entered the fourth quarter of 2008 our financial system teetered on the edge of collapse, and the banking industry's ability to raise capital in the face of mounting loan and investment losses became impossibly difficult. Therefore, the Fed and the Treasury did the only thing they knew and utilized the taxpayers' balance sheet to be the lender of last resort for banks (Keynesian economics). Subsequently every other business lined up with its hand out, too. My fear of the 2008 government actions, specifically the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (aka "HERA") in July and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (aka "EESA") in October, is that we are replacing our "Capitalist" system with a "Socialist" system and jeopardizing the principles that made this country great. The slope of socialism narrows and turns very slippery once government intervention and ownership of certain industries occurs. When corporate welfare programs begin, then it is inevitable that everyone jumps on the free-lunch bandwagon. One only need look at France and its economic picture to realize the problems associated with socialism in a supposedly free market environment. It reminds me of when Dr. Phil questions one of his guests who is obviously going down the wrong path. After the participant cops to his or her mistake, Dr. Phil typically looks up and asks, "And how's that working for you?" If the US continues a path of socialism and industry bailouts, then in another ten years our children are going to look up and ask, "So how's this working for you?' I think we know the answer.

So Cliff, what now? We all are very aware of where we are, but it is impossible to move forward by driving in the rear-view mirror. My investment themes for 2009 are as follows:

President Obama -- Great Expectations (also known as "ObamaRama")
Aging and Saving -- The Face of the American Consumer
A Market of Hope

Barrack Hussein Obama -- America's 44^th President

"So now, as an infallible way of making a little ease great ease, I began to contract a quantity of debt." -- Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

In November of 2008 we witnessed an election of epic proportions for the United States of America. The 2008 election will, in my opinion, foretell the fate of our industry and country throughout the lives of my children, as the actions taken over the next twelve months could reshape our systems and capital structure. To all the Op-Ed pieces that have been written on President Barrack Obama, I do not think I could add more commentary as to how one man will turn things around. He has instilled a sense of hope and a level of confidence not only to Wall Street but more importantly to Main Street. Hope and confidence are crucial to the eventual reversal of our current financial and economic woes, because they lead to the re-establishment of trust that is essential to the restoration of the global economy.

However, I caution anyone willing to place significant bets that Obama's "stimulus" plan will reverse the current recession tide any time soon, to simply examine the largess of issues confronting our economy. Expectations are off the charts as to the list of "fixes" that our President-elect and Congress should enact. Congress is essentially the same entity it was in 2004 and 2006, and the "system" does not change easily. The unions expect new labor laws (i.e. "protectionism"), investors expect revised financial regulations (i.e., protect us from the crooks), the auto industry expects to be saved (i.e., revive a corpse), environmentalist expect "green laws" (increased energy costs), the unemployed expect health care and extended benefits (entitlement, "it's my right"), the minorities expect enhanced affirmative action plans (ignoring a competitive global job market), and the average American consumer wants to continue to live an unrealistic lifestyle, given the level of global job competitiveness and increasing amounts of debt incurred by both consumers and our government (i.e., I deserve my father's lifestyle). As my own wise father once said, "Son, you can't borrow yourself out of debt".

President-elect Obama's immediate challenge is to deal with the current financial crisis and the economic recession. In periods of normal recessions, government debts (ours or anyone else's) generally rise because tax revenues decline and government expenditures climb. In 2008, the loss of about 1 million jobs, combined with declining corporate profits, resulted in a deficit of $455 billion versus a 2007 deficit of $163 billion (I am not including any expenses associated with the recent HERA or EESA bailout efforts). Will an $850 billion stimulus package that includes $310 billion of tax reductions work? Better yet, can Obama and his team even get the legislation passed in a timely manner without Congress layering on the special-interest pork and drawing out the legislative process for months while the recession only gets worse? Oh, and did I forget to mention Obama's promise for the withdrawal from Iraq? Israel's invasion of Gaza? The Russians now holding Europe hostage for natural gas? Or, that Pakistan is emerging as THE MOST volatile hot spot for military instability (remember, they have nukes)?

Even if Obama is able to pass the stimulus package and soften the current recession, our country still faces the fiscal task of dealing with the costs of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that are growing at exponential rates due to an aging population. These entitlement programs, if left unchecked, are going to land our country in a much bigger financial crisis within the next 15 years than we are in today. I encourage you to visit these web sites:

www.fms.treas.gov/frsummary/index.html
www.gao.gov/financial/fy2008/citizensguide2008.pdf
http://www.pgpf.org -- Go the documentary feature I.O.U.S.A.

And, I fault Republicans and Democrats alike on this issue, as every administration and Congress since Reagan have punted Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to the next elected group. Should we expect any different this time around?

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

Obama faces multiple risks in the first year of his administration. In my opinion, the first risk he faces is one of "drifting," where he fails to deliver on the promises of the campaign trail and potentially loses credibility. Part of the "drifting" effect will be Congress' ongoing need to participate in all financial issues (and we thought the hearings on use of steroids in baseball were a waste) and to place demands on Obama's team to provide some form of "proof" that the benefits of public spending justify the costs. Of course, this is a ridiculous demand as (a) at no time before has Congress ever demanded proof to justify spending or tax cuts and (b) we are at an unprecedented moment where there are no comparative economic circumstances from which one could hypothecate proof.

The second major risk Obama faces will be the eventual protectionist cries in the name of defending American jobs. By restricting trade and imposing import tariffs (smells like Smoot Hawley all over again), our President and Congress will seek to protect America from an ever more competitive global economy. Sorry to say, but protectionism has not worked in the past nor will it work in the future. However, as unemployment continues to rise, Joe Plumber will want to know why his job is going overseas. The unions did not fully support Obama without reason, and I assure you that Mr. Gettelfinger will be calling on the current administration. When one considers that since the last G20 meeting in November, five of the twenty nations present have already announced intentions to raise import tariffs and restrict trade, then would it be any wonder if the unions pointed to these actions and demanded reciprocity? The countries who intend to begin "protectionist trade practices" include Russia, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Argentina. What's good for the goose is … beware Mr. President, the wolves are close to the door.

The third risk I foresee for Obama's administration is the continued thought process of "too big to fail." Whether it is financial services, autos, transportation, etc., the "top-down" approach of providing more and more taxpayer dollars to weak corporations is ill-advised. In my opinion, if you're using taxpayer dollars, then either nationalize the company or let it fail. And, if you nationalize the company then wipe out the bond holders and shareholders, replace the management and board, sell the good assets to qualified buyers, and then and only then, have the taxpayers eat the remaining deficit. With the current "bailout system" we are merely trying to sustain the status quo, which penalizes those banking institutions that did not make bad decisions while at the same time rewarding poorly managed institutions by handing them taxpayer money. Until you put the stimulus money back in the hands of the private sector (i.e., the individual) you're fighting today's housing/mortgage fires with a garden hose. The bailout funds need to be distributed to the homeowners, not the banking and lending institutions. Banks currently taking the government TARP money (our tax money) are adding it as capital to their balance sheets and then sitting on the funds in anticipation of further losses, rather than lending back into the system. Obama should follow the laws of nature: if you have a herd of animals and some become sick, get rid of the sick. Why continue sustaining the sick animals that will eventually die anyway and at the same time risk the entire herd? A prime example of propping up the status quo occurred in December of this year when Treasury Secretary Paulsen made the unilateral decision to guarantee $306 billion of CitiGroup's assets. The guarantee was in addition to the $25 billion Citi had already received in TARP funding. The $306 billion "guarantee" was not part of TARP and was extended without Congressional approval! $306 billion is equal to what our government spent in 2007 for the departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation combined. (The Economist) Unfortunately, the only money makers to come out of TARP and the proposed stimulus bill, in my opinion, will be the lobbyists, the legislators (imagine, with our taxpayer money, the campaign contributions to be received!), and a few "selected" legal, accounting, and infrastructure firms.

To date, the Fed/Treasury have made nearly $2 trillion of emergency loans in response to the economic crisis. On December 12, 2008, Bloomberg News sued the Treasury and the Federal Reserve for disclosure of the collateral being supplied by those institutions that were accepting these loans. To date, both Fed and Treasury have refused to disclose, claiming "It would be a dangerous step." Talk about taxation without representation. For the latest on TARP, I refer you to the following report:

www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/TARPfirst-105report.pdf

"Any system produces winners and losers. If the gap between them gets too great, the losers will organize themselves politically and seek to recast the existing system -- within nations and between them." -- Henry Kissinger, in The Economist

Aging and Saving -- The Face of the American Consumer

Imagine if you will a snake that catches a rabbit for dinner. As we know from 7^th-grade biology class, the digestive tract of the snake simply engulfs the rabbit and, if watched over a period of days, the huge bubble progresses through the snake until the rabbit is gone. Now, as a metaphor, would you care to imagine the Baby Boomer generation as the rabbit in the American economy?

Initially, the boomers were the stimulus of economic expansion:

1950s -- parents buy new houses and cars, suburbs emerge, and America is King of Production
1960s -- more housing, more cars, college educations, Made in Japan = cheap, Vietnam, shaken values, Johnson's "War on Poverty"
1970's -- the Boomers emerge with jobs, are new consumers -- more housing, international manufacturing becomes more competitive, US corporations locate operations overseas
1980s -- Reagan tax cuts = increased discretionary spending, revenues up, social programs funded, Iron Curtain falls, technology enables global expansion
1990s -- peak Boomer earnings, corporate America dissolves pensions (funding liabilities, regulatory liabilities, increasing PBGIC premiums) and convince Boomers to "control" their retirement with self-directed 401(k)'s, Moore's Law at work in technology, the Internet becomes hostile to profits, emergence of private equity and venture capital on a large scale, increased financial engineering
2000s -- oops, where did the American Dream go?

The Boomers are now becoming retirees. The latest census data counted 303,824,640 US citizens. We are experiencing an annual birth rate of 14.18 births per 1,000; it is estimated we need at least 24.50 births per thousand to sustain our population (can you say immigration?). More importantly, we are only experiencing 8.27 deaths per 1,000, and the average life expectancy of an American male is 75.29 years, while the average expectancy for a female is 81.13 years … and growing. (CIA.gov library). America is aging, and as a result we are experiencing a decline in the number of workers that provide tax revenues and, more importantly, consumption.

The "big bulge" known as the Baby Boomer generation has been the growth engine of this country for the past five decades. But something happened in the last fifteen years that was not present in the prior years: we stopped saving. The bull market from 1982 to 2000, along with the ever-increasing value of our homes, made our balance sheets appreciate. Why save when our 401(k)'s were up an average of 15% a year and we kept upgrading our homes? Americans became spenders. During the period from 1980 to 2007, our savings rate went from 7.4% of wages and salaries to 1.7%. More importantly, since 2003 our savings rate has averaged less than 2% per year, and these numbers include both the private and government labor force. (Bureau of Economic Analysis)

Wages and salaries (both private and government) make up about 60% of personal income in the US. The remaining 40% is the combination of other labor income (benefits), proprietor's income (farm and non-farm), interest and dividend income, rental income, and transfer payments. Current annual income in the US is estimated at $12.1 trillion per year. As of 12/31/07, the average household income was $50,233 per year and the median was $67,609 per year. In addition, the current average savings rate in the US, as mentioned above, is currently at 1.7% of income per year, and the average amount of debt as a percentage of income is 21.19%. Why bring all this up? If you've read this far, stay with me a little further.

The American Consumer has been the engine of the last expansion. We have bought houses, cars, flat screens, beach condos, etc. and financed the purchases either by extracting the equity from our increasing home prices (home equity lines) or incurring additional debt through credit cards and other forms of consumer finance. In the average American's mind, as long as the bottom line of the balance sheet continued to increase (i.e., assets greater than liabilities) then all was well. But in 2008 something happened that had not happened to these Baby Boomers before: the value of all assets (stocks, houses, rental properties, etc.) declined. As a result the debt party began to unwind as the value of the assets declined while the debt (liabilities) remained, thereby shrinking the balance sheet. Americans are feeling poorer … much poorer.

If one considers that the average 401(k) is now a 201(k) and the average house (according to Case/Shiller) declined 26% from its peak value in 2006, then it's easy to understand why the Baby Boomer is feeling gut punched. The financial shock of watching the asset side of their balance sheets crumble while the debt side remained the same or actually grew has now forced the American consumer into a dilemma: How do I retire and live the same lifestyle that my parents enjoyed? Answer: I have to save money and reduce debt.

The consequence to the economy is, in my opinion, going to be a protracted, painful recession. Why? Because this recession is driven by asset devaluation, and that is different than a cyclical downturn. There is a need for institutions and households alike to reduce debt and restore equity to the balance sheet. For the consumer/individual this will only happen with an increase in his/her saving rate to reduce debt and fund future retirement. For example, if the average consumer goes from a 1.7% savings rate to a 5% savings rate, then that equates to $400 billion a year in either debt reduction or retirement funding. From the contra angle, that means there will be $400 billion less of American consumption. I label this the "Paradox of Thrift," in that we can't restore our balance sheets without additional savings, and our stock markets cannot recover without consumer spending and corporate profitability.

A Market of Hope

We have all read the papers and understand that 2008 was the worst year for stocks since the Great Depression. (As an aside, why do we call it "Great"?) As I read through the analysts reports, newsletters, Bloomberg, etc., there appears to me to be a decisive line between those who are either (a) cautiously optimistic that we have seen the worst and markets will improve or (b) see greater doom ahead, that will equal or surpass the depression of 1929 to 1936. I glean from the community of optimism the following:

How much more can stocks decline? A 52% decline in the S&P 500 from October of 2007 to the market low on November 20, 2008 is the most dramatic decline in history. The thought is that this decline reflects all the bad news of the economy looking out to 2010, and therefore the worst is over.
Mutual fund assets currently reflect that 37% of all mutual funds are invested in money market funds. In 2008, the net withdrawal from stock funds was a record $320 billion (Financial Times). The thought here is that at some point, with the cattle prod of .25% Fed Funds rates and negative T-Bill rates, the cash will seek other investment opportunities. Right now, the cash is simply scared while the market reprices risk.
The recent fall in gasoline prices will promote consumer spending again. The premise here is that the majority of Americans could care less about saving for the future. As a result, they will utilize any savings from energy expenses to resume their prior consumption practices and revive the economy.
The credit freeze and financial crisis continue to thaw, and the Keynesian policies of the Treasury and Federal Reserve will actually work this time.
Real estate prices are at a bottom, which will ease the credit and default issues of the mortgage market.

As you have heard me say or have read in prior newsletters: Hope is not a strategy. The following is data from my friend John Mauldin's newsletter regarding corporate earnings:

Let's look at their estimates for earnings in 2008. They started at $92 in early 2007 and are now down to $48. This chart is not something to inspire confidence in stock analysts.

On a trailing one-year basis, that puts the Price to Earnings Ratio (P/E) at over 19 as of today's close at 925, which does not make the market cheap. But last year's earnings are history. What about 2009? Again, the analysts are in a race to find the bottom.

The current projections are for $42.26 for 2009. That makes the forward P/E 22. That doesn't look like value at all, when the historical average is closer to 15.

Stocks are not cheap by valuation measures. As a result, we are finding far more opportunity in the credit (bond) markets than the equity markets at this time. I opine that we are bound to a "trade range" on stocks for 2009, with a bottom of 770 on the S&P and a top of 1120. On the housing and real estate front, I estimate that while most of the dramatic declines have occurred, real estate will not begin to recover until late 2010.

All bets and predictions to the upside of the stock market have as their common foundation a belief that the combined spending of the government, at unprecedented levels, combined with extremely low guaranteed interest rates (i.e., my "cattle prod") will lead the herd to a market recovery and stem the recession tide. For a lot of investors who have experienced 30% to 70% losses, the stock market is a thing of the past; however, the stock market is not dead. Short-term the market is a voting machine; long-term it is a weighing machine. In my opinion, we remain in a secular bear market that began in 2000. However, we will experience "mini-bull" markets and "mini-bear" markets during the secular bear that will probably last until 2014. One of the great sucker plays since the bear began in 2000 has been the "buy and hold for the long term" mantra that has been chanted by the sages of Wall Street. Simply look at the returns: from 12/31/99 to 12/31/08, if you invested in an S&P 500 index and held for "the long term," then your total return during this time would have been -28.13%, or an annualized rate of -3.6% per year. Small caps were better, with a total return of 11.66% or 1.23% annualized. If you expect to make money in the equity markets in 2009 going forward, then you must be willing to "trade" the volatility while also maintaining a high proportion of income-producing assets.

"Jay: You do know Elvis is dead, right?
Kay: No, Elvis is not dead. He just went home."

-- Men in Black

Because it is still applicable, I want to repeat two paragraphs from last year's first-quarter letter.

The Investor Psychology

People make mistakes when they invest. They do so as a result of their biases of judgment or mistake their perceptions as reality. There are several basic mistakes:

Over-Optimism: Most investors tend to exaggerate their own abilities.
Over-Confidence: Lends investors to overstate their knowledge, understate the risks, and exaggerate their ability to control the situation.
Cognitive Dissonance: Investors often have an incredible degree of self-denial.
Heuristic Rules: Rules of thumb that we employ for dealing with the daily information deluge by evaluating based on how closely a situation, person, etc., resembles someone or something, rather than examining and questioning; i.e., we "frame" and/or "anchor" the event/person/action.

Freud once said, "Thinking is rehearsing." What he meant was that after you accumulate the data and analyze the opportunities, then you have to take action. In the world of investing, there is no substitute for taking action. Therefore, as an advisor, I seek to understand our biases and attempt to make rational and prudent decisions based on fact and not perception. Savvy investors understand the risks inherent in their assumptions and adopt a more businesslike approach to investing by reducing and hedging risk. Investors are typically surprised when facing a loss, and the power of the loss far outweighs the power of gains. Each of you will always know of someone who made more money than we did: always. The critical thing we ask you to ask yourself is, What amount of risk was taken for the performance? Losses are inherent in any investment process; the key is to limit the size of the loss in order that you have more marbles to play with when good times return. Therefore remember the critical rule of compounding: Don't lose money.

As an investor, there are two steps you can take to improve your ability to handle the coming year:

Actively Manage the Asset Mix -- look to be contrarian (this is our primary job).
Develop Reasonable Expectations -- Wishful thinking is not a strategy.

It's not what you make, it's what you keep.

Cliff W. Draughn, Managing Principal

Semi-Annual U.S. Economic Outlook: Collapsing On Schedule

John Mauldin — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:31:03 GMT

Gary was among the first to point out the problems with the subprime market and predict the housing and credit crises. You can learn more about his letter at http://www.agaryshilling.com. If you want to subscribe, you can call 888-346-7444. Tell them that you read about it in Outside the Box and you will get not only his 2009 forecast issue but an extra issue with his 2010 forecast (of course, that one will not come out for a year. Gary is good but not that good!)

I trust you are enjoying the holidays. And enjoy this week's Outside the Box.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Semi-Annual U.S. Economic Outlook: Collapsing On Schedule

(excerpted from the December 2008 edition of A. Gary Shilling's INSIGHT)

The recession is now running on all four cylinders. We're referring to the four phases of the downturn that we identified much earlier and discussed in numerous Insights.

Phase 1, the collapse of the housing sector, touched off by the subprime slime, as we dubbed it, and measured by the ABX BBBindex, started early last year with the $1.8 billion writedown of subprime mortgage securities by big U.K. bank HSBC in February. Phase 2, the spreading of the woes to Wall Street, commenced with the implosion of two big Bear Stearns hedge funds in June 2007. These first two phases are largely financial, and persist today.

Housing Horrors

Housing starts have nosedived from 2.3 million, seasonally adjusted at annual rates, in January 2006 to 791,000 in October, a post-World War II low (Chart 1). Meanwhile, homebuilder sentiment is now at record lows. Leaping foreclosures, among other forces, have pushed up the homeowner vacancy rate. Some of the victims of declining homeowner rates are moving into rental apartments as the bubble years' lure of homeownership fades or they lose their houses. But others are doubling up with friends and family, thereby adding to empty house inventories.

Foreclosure Sales

As lenders spilled foreclosed houses on the market, they were sold for only 70% of the unpaid loan balance in the third quarter compared with 78% in 2007, and losses averaged 44% of the loan balance compared with 29% a year earlier. With about 40% of existing home sales coming from foreclosures, or "short sales" in which the mortgage amount exceeds the house's value, the prices for selling homeowners and builders are forced to decline to compete.

25% More

Existing home prices are down in October 20% from their peak in October 2005 as measured by the National Association of Realtors, and 21% from their second quarter 2006 peak according to the less-upward biased Case-Shiller index (Chart 2). Curiously, a survey found that in the second quarter, 62% of homeowners believed their houses had appreciated in the last year even though 77% had fallen over that time and only 19% had risen, according to Zillow. Another survey found that 91% believe that a house is the best long-term investment. A third poll revealed that 32% think this is a good time to buy stocks, but 51% believe it's a good time to invest in a home. We wonder if that optimism will persist if our long-held forecast of a 37% peak-totrough decline holds.

Underwater

At present around 12 million homeowners, a quarter of those with mortgages, are underwater with their houses worth less than their mortgages. Among those who bought their homes in the past five years, 29% are underwater. If our forecast of a 37% house price fall is reached, about 25 million, or almost half the 51 million with mortgages, will be underwater. Adding in the 24 million who own their houses free and clear, and one-third of the total will be in trouble. The destruction of the American Dream of homeownership for so many people will force a political response, even though the cost of subsidizing their mortgages down to their house values would be about $1 trillion.

Financial Problems

The woes of financial institutions also persist, fed by bad mortgages and increasingly by other troubled assets. The extreme stress on the financial system here and abroad is manifested in two clear ways: first, the consolidation and disappearance of many previously impregnable financial institutions and second, by the need for huge and continuing government bailout in order to preserve the integrity of the financial structure and, hence, the world's economies.

The list of the departed is well known: Bear Stearns, WaMu, Lehman and Wachovia disappeared while Merrill Lynch arranged a shotgun marriage with Bank of America and Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs converted to the safety of bank holding companies.

The FDIC recently announced that the institutions it insures had only $1.7 billion in earnings in the third quarter, down from $28.7 billion a year earlier. And financial troubles aren't confined to banks. Many hedge funds have suffered huge losses on their highly leveraged positions this year. And their sales of securities to limit further losses and to meet investor redemptions are adding downward pressure on many markets. In some, assets are down 50% while others are folding their tents and still others are limiting redemptions, only adding to investor restiveness. Redemptions are expected to jump early next year.

Diversification

Many endowment and pension funds have been hard hit, especially those with heavy alternative investments in hedge funds, private equity funds, venture capital, commodities, currencies, emerging market stocks and bonds, real estate, junk securities, etc. Diversification is a great idea -- if it works! But as we've noted continually in Insights for more than 10 years, there are tremendous amounts of hot money flowing around the world. And whether it's managed on the basis of fundamental factors, momentum, technical analysis, etc., it all tends to end up on the same side of the same trade at the same time.

So when stocks get clobbered, as they have since October 2007 (Chart 3), and force out hot money, it will also retreat from otherwise unrelated long positions in, say, grains, to conserve capital. Many institutional investors believe in the Modern Portfolio Theory of diversification, but erroneously thought that alternative investments would have zero or better still, negative correlation with their basic equity holdings. They also became convinced that commodities and foreign currencies were asset classes like equities and bonds, and merited 5%, 10% or 15% of their portfolios. They're learning the hard way that all those correlations have proved to be close to 100% and that commodities and currencies aren't asset classes but speculations.

The Overarching Reality

Washington policymakers do not appear to have understood the overarching reality -- the massive and painful deleveraging of the immense leverage accumulated by the household and private financial sectors over the last three decades (Chart 4). They were also initially preoccupied with a philosophy of non-intervention in the private sector and with concerns with creating moral hazard if they bailed out troubled financial institutions. Furthermore, they've been making up the game plan as they go along. Last summer, Secretary Paulson told Congress that the $700 billion bailout money would be used primarily to buy troubled mortgages and mortgage-related securities from banks. Somehow, that would encourage banks to resume lending, but we never understood how.

A TARP For All

Even though the majority of the $700 billion TARP money is yet to be committed, that total is only a small piece of the $4 trillion-and-counting sum the federal government has made to bail out the financial sector.

Included in that total beyond the $700 billion TARP program is $350 billion in FDIC guarantees on bank-issued debt, and Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America quickly raised $26 billion with Citigroup and Wells Fargo planning to follow. Then there's an estimated $1.3 trillion from the Fed to buy frozen commercial paper, $540 billion to buy commercial paper and other short-term debt from money market funds to stop the run on them, the new $200 billion Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) to back credit card, auto, student aid and small business loans and the $600 billion to buy mortgage-backed securities and GSE debt.

Worst Since The 1930s

Of course, in what will probably be the worst financial crisis and deepest recession since the 1930s, it's not surprising that Depression-era bailout structures are being copied. The Reconstruction Finance Corp., instituted by President Hoover in 1932, bought positions in over 6,000 financial institutions to the tune of $50 billion, not adjusted for inflation or the growth of the economy since then. The government got senior voting rights to control these firms and barred dividend payments to shareholders until the government was repaid.

The worldwide recession is redirecting sovereign wealth money homeward. For instance, seven sovereign wealth funds in the Persian Gulf region are expected to lose 15% of their value, or $190 billion, this year, cancelling the likely $198 billion growth in crude oil revenues.

It's interesting that the Fed, with its new commercial paper program, is lending directly to nonbank corporations for the first time since the 1930s. But then the Fed can lend to anyone, you included, under "unusual and exigent" circumstances. The Fed is, after all, the nation's lender of last resort.

And don't worry about the remaining $370 billion in TARP money being committed. Detroit automakers want $25 billion. Homebuilders want money from somewhere for their $250 billion bailout, mentioned earlier. Banks not included in the initial nine to receive TARP money in the form of preferred stock purchases worry that if they don't ask to be included, they'll appear too weak to qualify. Many of the nation's 6,000 small, non-publicly traded banks want their share of the government goodies even though they can't issue preferred shares and warrants.

Spreading Financial Woes

As consumers retrench and eliminate discretionary spending, they are increasingly regarding monthly payments on credit cards, auto, student and home equity loans as discretionary. When it's a choice between putting food on the table or making a credit card payment, financial responsibility is suffering. Delinquencies and charge-offs in these consumer loan categories are mounting with a 9% increase in auto loans 30 days past due in the second quarter vs. a year earlier and an 11% rise in those 60 days overdue.

Even upscale-oriented American Express, where over half its revenues come from fees paid by merchants, is suffering as charge volume falls and delinquencies and charge-offs on its credit cards rise, leaping 6.7% in September from 3.6% a year earlier. Consequently, the firm recently became a bank holding company so it could qualify for TARP money and hopes to get a $3.5 billion infusion. Credit card issuer Capital One has received preliminary approval for $3.55 billion in TARP money. Credit card issuers are also reacting to weakening volume and jumping charge-offs by raising interest rates and fees.

Student loans more than doubled from $41 billion in school year 1997- 1998 to $85 billion in 2007-2008, but almost all of the growth was in private loans, with subsidized federal aid relatively flat. And delinquencies are jumping in that segment. SLM, or Sallie Mae, the largest private student lender, reported a delinquency rate of 9.4% in September vs. 8.5% a year earlier. Parents, suffering from stock losses and the disappearance of home equity, are no longer able to bail out their debt-swamped offspring. Meanwhile, SUV and other vehicle owners who are now upside down on their auto loans due to weak used vehicle prices have limited zeal to keep up on loan payments.

TALF

Adding the general freezing of credit markets to these conditions and it's not surprising that investor buying of securitized consumer loans, which normally provide the funds to make fresh loans, has dried up. In October, there was only one $500 million deal compared to $50.7 billion a year earlier. And the interest cost has leaped. From June to October, the risk premium on a triple A credit card deal jumped from 3.2 percentage points over 2-year Treasurys to 4.67. Treasury Secretary Paulson recently said that that market "is currently in distress, costs of funding have skyrocketed and new issue activity has come to a halt."

So the government bailouts that we predicted in our October Insight have commenced. The Department of Education is buying $6.5 billion in federally-guaranteed loans, which doesn't affect troubled private student loans directly but does bolster the student loan market overall.

Much more importantly, the government in late November initiated the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) under which the New York Fed will extend up to $200 billion in nonrecourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated auto, student, credit card and small business loans. The program may be expanded later to include commercial and residential mortgage-backed securities. The Treasury is kicking in $20 billion from TARP to absorb any losses, as noted earlier.

The hope is that this $200 billion infusion will re-ignite consumer loans. But, as discussed in our October report, leaping delinquencies and the eventual huge writedowns by financial institutional holders of bad consumer loan-related securities suggest that the zeal for consumer loans on the part of lenders or investors will remain subdued. Like TARP, TALF is likely to be no more than a bailout for distressed lenders who made a lot of bad loans. Since the Nov. 25 announcement of TALF, yields on bonds backed by credit card and auto loans remain at record levels.

Foreign Financial Woes

Phase 2 of the recession, financial woes, are, of course, a global phenomenon. And so are the responses. The U.K. initiated the direct injection of government money into banks to buy preferred stocks. The British government had hoped to attract some private capital into HBOS and Royal Bank of Scotland, but collapsed share prices left the government with most of the new stock. Barclay's avoided government help, but with its stock down 70% this year, it may ultimately end up with a third of the bank owned by Middle East investors as it raises $10 billion. The Bank of Japan is injecting another $32 billion into the financial system by expanding lending and easing collateral requirements.

Switzerland depends heavily on her reputation as a super-safe haven for international money, and her financial services industry contributes 11.4% to GDP and employs 5.9% of her workforce. Yet the condition of her banks has deteriorated to the point that in October, her Economics Minister had to state publicly that the government would not allow big banks UBS and Credit Suisse to fail. The government is injecting $5 billion into UBS to back $50 billion in illiquid UBS assets. That bank has suffered over $40 billion in losses due to bad mortgage-related securities.

Credit Suisse is in better shape but suffered a $2 billion third quarter loss due to writedowns on mortgage securities and unsold buyout loans as well as currency trading losses. The bank still holds $26 billion in leveraged loans and conventional mortgagerelated securities. Both banks are closing their bond funds for outside investors due to huge withdrawals following losses.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands agreed to inject $13 billion into the banking and insurance giant ING. In 2000, the Spanish central bank introduced its "dynamic provisioning" system that required Spanish banks to build up considerable reserves against potential future losses. As a result, Spanish banks began this year with 200% coverage of nonperforming loans compared with 59% for the average EU bank in 2006. Still, Spain recently set aside $41 billion to fund illiquid assets of her banks. And turbulent market conditions prompted Banco Santander, Spain's largest bank, to unexpectedly announce last month a $9 billion rights issue.

Russia has been floating on a sea of crude oil, but has sunk along with oil prices. Russians are fleeing the ruble for dollars and $83 billion left the country from August to October. The government has raised interest rates and spent heavily to cushion the currency's descent and avoid a repeat of its 1998 collapse. Still, the ruble is down 5% from its August high, and a halving of its current value is forecast. Meanwhile, plunging crop prices and a lack of credit is curtailing Brazil's soaring farm sector.

In Asia, Pakistan, which reluctantly sought a $7.6 billion IMF loan, really needs $10 billion to $15 billion to prevent economic collapse, government officials say. Dubai's pell-mell economic growth has been heavily financed by international debt that may be hard to refinance. South Korea, responding to shortages of foreign currency for her banks and businesses, in October announced a $100 billion government guarantee on foreign currency loans and a $30 billion infusion of dollars into her banks. More recently, that country has problems with high household debt, which leaped from 38% of GDP in 1997 to 66% last year and is probably higher today. And rising credit costs and falling stock and corporate bond prices are slashing the profits of Japanese banks and their ability to provide capital to the international financial system.

Central Bank Responses

Central banks have responded to the global financial crisis in three ways. First, the Fed cut the discount rate and then the federal funds rare repeatedly, starting in August 2007. The Fed has continued this traditional easing approach and other central banks have followed more recently and aggressively, including the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the central banks of India, China, Australia, Norway, Sweden South Korea, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Japan and even Indonesia.

Nevertheless, it became clear early on that rate cuts were of limited value since banks were so scared that they didn't want to tend to each other much less customers. The spread between the London Interbank Lending rate on U.S. interbank loans and Treasury bills, which leaped in the summer of 2007, remains wide. Furthermore, central bank rates are approaching zero at which point, as we understand it, they'll stop falling. So the ammunition of rate cuts is almost all shot off. The horse didn't want to voluntarily walk to the water and, besides, the pond is almost empty. Fed Chairman Bernanke recently said, "The scope for using conventional interest rate policies to support the economy is obviously limited."

So the Fed moved quickly to step 2, leading the horse to the water. It introduced a succession of facilities to auction money to member banks, make it available to nonbank government security dealers, etc. The ECB and the Bank of England introduced similar facilities. Last August, the People's Bank of China, her central bank, relaxed credit quotas so most banks can lend 5% more this year and, more recently, allowed local companies to easily sell yuan-denominated debt of three-to-five years' duration. Then China, it increased quotes for state-controlled lenders by $14.5 billion this year, encouraged local governments to support credit guarantee firms and opened new financing channels including loans for mergers and acquisitions and for consumer finance.

India's central bank has repeatedly reduced bank reserve requirements as has China's. And the Fed has attempted to satisfy foreign banks' gigantic demand for Treasurys by mushrooming its currency swap agreements with foreign central banks and then providing unlimited dollars to the ECB, Bank of England and Swiss National Bank for lending to local banks. The top policymakers of the cautious ECB recently called for an "abundant and generalized" capital infusion into banks. But all these central bank efforts resulted in the proverbial pushing on a string. The funds have stayed in the banks and haven't been lent out and entered the money supply to any meaningful degree as banks want nothing but Treasurys. The central banks led the commercial bank horse to water, but he wouldn't drink.

So it's on to step 3 with the Fed and other central banks, as well as governments, investing directly in Fannie and Freddie, AIG, banks, credit card issuers, insurers, etc. here and abroad, buying commercial paper and, most recently, purchasing indirectly credit card, auto, student and small business loan-backed securities and maybe extending later to commercial and residential mortgagebacked securities as well as subsidizing mortgage rates, as noted earlier.

Washington officials cringe at the suggestion that these measures amount to "quantitative easing," the Japanese policy initiated in 2001, because it failed to rapidly spur Japanese bank lending and the economy and arrest deflation. The Bank of Japan drove its target rate to zero with no effect and then tried to hype the quantity of money by buying government bonds, asset-backed securities and even stocks.

Current quantitative easing by the Fed may not be any more successful than it was in Japan since the global financial system is in a classic liquidity trap, as in the 1930s when bankers were defined as people who wanted to lend to those who didn't need to borrow and didn't want to lend to those who did. Today, banks don't want to lend to anyone but the U.S. Treasury.

Consumer Retrenchment

The financial crisis spawned by the collapse of the residential mortgage market and the follow-on Wall Street woes obviously just had to depress the goods and services economy, and it has in Phases 3 and 4 of the unfolding recession. With the collapse in stock prices and evaporation of home equity, consumers have no other meaningful source of borrowing to fund their spending growth in excess of their after-tax income gains. Notice that home equity withdrawals through cash-out mortgage refinancing and home equity loans reached about $900 billion at annual rates, or around 10% of consumer spending. Now it's negative as principal repayment exceeds home equity withdrawals. So consumers' 25-year borrowing and spending binge, as witnessed by their quarter-century saving rate decline (Chart 5) and borrowing rate surge (Chart 6), is over.

In addition, Americans, especially postwar babies, have saved little for retirement as they concentrated instead on spending. The nosedive in stocks has only made retirement prospects more bleak. In the last 15 months, $2 trillion has disappeared from workplace retirement accounts, including 401(k)s, which now are the primary saving vehicle for 60% of employees.

Jobs

As the housing and financial sectors continue to drop and U.S. consumers retrench, layoffs and unemployment will continue to mount. Payroll employment, which fell 533,000 in November (Chart 7), will probably continue to see monthly declines of 500,000 and the unemployment rate will likely exceed 8% by the end of 2009.

Housing and financial services job cuts are already large and more are coming. But job losses have spread well beyond housing and finance. Manufacturing jobs will continue to be lost as consumers buy fewer domestic goods and foreigners buy fewer American-made products. Retail jobs, normally the employment of last resort for the newly unemployed, are shrinking rapidly. Retail trade employs 10% of the total, but since November 2007, accounted for a quarter of jobs lost, or 320,000, as consumers cut their spending. And another 209,000 retail employees had their full-time hours cut to part-time. Estimates are that 6,100 U.S. stores -- ranging from mom-and-pops to major chains -- will fold this year, up 25% from 2007, and followed by 14,000 stores in 2009.

Impotent Monetary Policy

Conventional monetary policy ease through central bank target interest rate cuts at present is nearly useless, i.e., pushing on a string. Qualitative easing, now actively pursued by the Fed and the Treasury and by central banks and governments abroad, will probably at best only stabilize demoralized financial structures by substituting government securities for questionable assets with little near-term rejuvenation of lending and economic activity.

Also, bear in mind that in democracies, governments are almost guaranteed to be behind the curve in dealing with financial and economic crises. That's because voters elect them to respond to their concerns, not to act in anticipation of yet-unseen problems. Politicians are responders, not planners. In 2006, neither voters nor politicians wanted to prepare for a mortgage market collapse, but voters demanded and got swift action after the crisis unfolded in 2007 and this year.

This means that any resuscitation of the global economies falls on fiscal policy and, as usual, the effects will be delayed, influencing the recovery after the recession rather than shortening its normal course. The incoming Obama Administration is, of course, talking about a sizable fiscal package, perhaps $500 billion to $700 billion, or 3.5% to 5% of GDP.

$700 Billion In Perspective

That's a lot compared to the size of post- World War II recessions (Chart 8). Notice that the 1957-1958 recession, the most severe so far, has a peak to trough decline in real GDP of 3.7%, and the long and deep 1973-1975 downturn saw a 3.1% decline. We're forecasting the most severe recession since the 1930s with a 5.0% decline. You may think that a 5% decline is not a lot, but bear in mind that recessions are more interruptions in growth than economic collapses -- growth that business, consumers, employees and government assume will continue without interruption. Similarly, the 21% decline in the Case-Shiller house price index so far (Chart 2) is small compared with the more-than-doubling during the bubble years. Still, it's very painful for those who made small downpayments at the top and those who extracted their equity when prices were still high.

Even a $700 billion fiscal package would probably have limited impact on the recession, and not start to be effective until the end of 2009. And even then, the effects will probably barely offset the negative cumulative recessionary forces. Obama says his proposal will create 2.5 million jobs over two years. But as discussed earlier, payroll declines are likely to continue to run 500,000 per month, so his program would only offset five months of recessionary losses.

Phase 4

Phase 4 of the recession, its globalization, is clearly underway with almost every major country's economy falling whether or not the official recession label has yet been applied. One indicator of weakness is the 2.4% decline in global semiconductor sales in October after a 2.1% fall in September from a year earlier, reflecting softness in computer and cell phone sales. The worldwide turndown is driven by housing slumps, notably in Ireland, the U.K., Spain, Australia and China. U.S. financial woes have spread to almost all major financial institutions worldwide. And consumer spending has been weak in Europe and Japan. U.S. consumer spending accounts for 71% of GDP but less than 60% in all other G-7 countries except the U.K. Sure, much more of healthcare and education expenditures tend to come from government, not consumer pockets in those lands, but households have traditionally been more cautious spenders than Americans, especially in recent years.

And this introduces another key reason for global recession -- retrenchment of U.S. consumers, which depresses U.S. imports on which the rest of the world depends for growth. The huge U.S. trade deficit is the counterpart of the rest of the world's huge surplus.

Commodities

Obviously, the commodities boom is over (Chart 9). Prices of energy, base and precious metals and agricultural products are all down significantly from peak prices. The global recession has reversed the earlier excess of demand over supply.

Also, institutional and individual investors who earlier rushed into commodities under the belief that they are a legitimate asset class like stocks and bonds are stampeding out even faster. The financial crisis has also made investors wary of structured notes and other commoditylinked instruments -- and of the firms espousing them.

Tsunami In The Swimming Pool

As noted at the outset, the first two phases of the recession were largely financial, the residential mortgage collapse and the following Wall Street woes. Then, like a tsunami in a swimming pool, that financial tidal wave rolled to the other side and inundated the goods and services economy, with Phase 3, consumer retrenchment, and Phase 4, global slump. Now the tsunami is being reflected back to the financial side of the pool in three ways.

First, retrenching consumers will keep pushing up delinquencies on credit cards, home equity, auto and student loan debt, which will result in big writedowns for their many institutional holders. Collectively, these four categories amount to $4.4 trillion, dwarfing the $0.7 trillion in subprime loans.

Commercial real estate debt is the second problem area, and of the $3.5 trillion outstanding, $800 billion is in commercial mortgage- backed securities and $2 trillion in commercial mortgages held in regional and community banks. As vacancies rise, big writedowns will follow.

Third is nonfinancial leveraged loans and junk binds. Delinquencies have barely risen from rock bottom levels, but will as anticipated by yield spreads and 20% junk bond yields. Recession-depressed revenues here and abroad, collapsing commodity prices (Chart 9) and the leaping dollar that will turn earlier currency translation gains to losses, will all slaughter the corporate earnings of nonfinancial corporations, so far relatively untouched by the financial recession. So delinquencies and charge-offs of junk securities will leap and many investment-grade debts will be pushed into junk territory. Junk bond spreads vs. Treasurys now imply a 21% default rate, higher than in 1933 at the bottom of the Depression. Financial institutions also own a lot of the $3.7 trillion in leveraged loans and junk bonds.

If the tsunami moving from the goods and services side of the pool does considerably more damage to the financial side, it will again be reflected back and even tighter financing will devastate the real economy. Policymakers here and abroad, of course, are trying to erect baffles in the form of bailouts in the middle of the pool to dampen the waves. They are learning that they have to build those baffles bigger and stronger to prevent the waves washing over them. Their moves from Fed interest rate cuts to massive quantitative easing, described earlier, shows they're making progress.

Recession Ends When?

If policymakers succeed in containing the mortgage mess and bailing out financial crises related to consumer borrowing, commercial real estate and junk securities -- and other financial problems we haven't explained in detail -- then the recession may well end at the end of 2009 as massive fiscal stimulus begins to take hold. If not, it probably will extend well into 2010 and perhaps beyond.

To end the crisis, four developments are needed, in our view. The elimination of excess house inventories will probably continue until at least the end of 2010, as discussed earlier. The writedowns and recapitalizations of financial institutions -- at least those related mainly to mortgage-related problems that have unfolded so far -- are well along.

Subsidizing the mortgages of underwater homeowners is beginning to develop. And of course the quicker the excess house inventories are eliminated, the more limited will be further house price declines and the fewer will be the additional homeowners who will slip under water. Bailouts of bad loans and securities in the three additional areas we've identified are big unknowns in terms of cost and feasibility. Nevertheless, policymakers are gaining experience as they grope their way through the current round of bailouts and may be real pros when further big problems surface.

The Dollar

At the end of last year, we forecast that the dollar would end its seven-year slump and rally later in the year against most currencies, but not the yen. And it did, starting in July. It was obvious a year ago that far too many were negative on the greenback. As with commodities, many institutional and individual investors considered foreign currencies as an asset class, worthy of a certain percentage of their portfolio.

Much more importantly, we were forecasting a major global recession and reasoned that, as usual in times of trouble, the dollar would be the global safe haven. We didn't expect the U.S. economy to improve but that the rest of the world would join America in the tank. The greenback would be the best of a universally bad lot. We expect the dollar to keep rising for the next 5 to 7 years, continuing the long- run pattern.

Profits

With the nonfinancial sector joining financial businesses in full retreat, domestic corporate earnings will be decimated in coming quarters, as discussed earlier. And U.S.-based multinationals will also be clobbered by weak foreign revenues and the strong dollar, which will make foreign earnings worth less in dollar terms. Some 30% to 50% of revenues of consumer staple companies like PepsiCo, Sara Lee and Campbell Soup come from abroad. With our forecast of a severe recession, we look for corporate profits, as defined by the Commerce Department, to fall 48% from their peak in the third quarter 2007 to the fourth quarter 2009, and to drop 32% from 2008 to 2009.

P/Es and Stock Prices

Our forecasts imply S&P 500 operating earnings of $40 per share in 2009, down 35% from our $62 estimate for this year. That may sound extreme, but not for the most severe worldwide financial crisis and deepest global recession since the 1930s. At stock market bottoms, the S&P 500 P/E tends to be in the 10-12 range. But low interest rates normally push up P/Es and 10-year Treasury now yield 2.66%, and will probably be even lower later while 30-year Treasury bonds are now at 3.0%, our long-held target, and also a low in recent decades, but may drop further.

So a P/E of 15 at the stock bottom sounds reasonable, but would put the S&P 500 index at 600 then, down 32% from here and 61% below its record close on Oct. 9, 2007. Wow! Earlier, we warned of the number 777, not the Boeing airliner model but the low on the S&P 500 in 2002. If it were breached, we noted, then the bear market that started in early 2000 would still be intact, and all of the rally from the 777 low in October 2002 to the peak five years later would merely be a rally in a bear market. Last month, the S&P 500 fell below 777. It has since bounced, but probably not for long as new lows lie ahead.

There are other reasons to expect considerable further weakness in stocks. High dividends can support stocks at least to a degree, and dividend yields in Europe are meaningful, averaging 5.2%. But not in the U.S. where the S&P 500 yield is a miserly 2.5%. And dividend cuts are coming fast and furious. In the U.K., dividends are constrained for financial institutions getting government bailouts, while in the U.S., the financial sector is slashing dividends.

Some 36 of the S&P 500 have cut dividends 46 times this year, axing $33.8 billion, with $30.8 billion coming from financials. Among those S&P 500 firms, about 20% of dividends this year are from financials, down from 34% in 2007. Elsewhere, REITs are cutting payouts, and GM eliminated its dividend. Only 202 S&P 500 companies have initiated or raised dividends 218 times this year, representing payments of $18 billion, with only $2.4 billion being from financials. In 2007, 298 did so and only 12 reduced or suspended dividend payments.

In troubled times, investors tend to withdraw from foreign markets to concentrate on the home scene they know best. That's why bear markets tend to be uniform. U.S. investors sold a net $92 billion in foreign stocks and bonds in the July-September period, a record flight from overseas investments, while foreign investors pulled over $100 billion from stocks in Japan, South Korea and India so far this year. U.S. stocks are actually falling less than most foreign markets.

Deflation

For years, we've been forecasting that chronic deflation of 1% to 2% per year would start with the next major global recession. Well, it's here! In October, the U.S. producer price index fell 2.8% from September and the CPI dropped 1.0%, the biggest decline since before World War II. Sure, the big driver was the decline in energy costs, but even excluding food and energy, consumer prices dropped 0.1%.

The Fed worries that in deflation, offsetting monetary policy is difficult since its target rate has to stop declining when it reaches zero. Of course, the Fed has other tools as witnessed by the quantitative easing discussed earlier. Nevertheless, all these measures amount to leading the horse to water, as discussed earlier, and he may not drink. The deflation in Japan in the 1999-2005 years worried the Fed when it appeared imminent in the U.S. early in this decade, and it still does. Japan again faces chronic deflation, and the Bank of Japan forecast zero change in the CPI (ex food but not energy) for the fiscal year ending March 2010. Fed Vice Chairman Kohn said the lesson from Japan was that "we should be very aggressive in combating deflation."

Deflation encourages saving since money is worth more later. It also spawns deflationary expectations. Buyers anticipate lower prices later by waiting to buy. That sires excess inventories and capacity, which forces prices down. Buyer suspicions are confirmed so they wait even further to buy, generating a self-feeding downward price spiral, as now seen in autos and houses. Deflation also elevates the cost of debts and debt service since both remain fixed in nominal terms but the revenues and incomes used to repay them tend to fall with overall prices.

Deflation fears and other forces have also reduced reducing 30-year Treasury bond yields to our long-held target of 3.0% and completed what we dubbed in 1981, when the yield was 14.7%, "the bond rally of a lifetime." The recent financial crisis has also helped as investors abandon everything else -- stocks and fixed income alike -- in favor of Treasurys.

Deflation results from overall supply exceeding general demand. We have been forecasting the good deflation of excess supply, as in the late 1800s and in the 1920s, due to today's confluence of semiconductors, the Internet, computers, biotech, telecom and other productivity-soaked technologies. But we have allowed for the bad deflation of deficient demand, as in the 1930s, if one of two adverse conditions develop -- widespread financial crises and worldwide protectionism. Sadly, both are real possibilities.

Inflation?

Many, of course, worry not about deflation but inflation due to all the money being pumped out by central banks and governments globally. They no doubt are biased since most have lived only in an era of inflation and don't agree with us that inflation is the result of excess government spending in wars, both hot and cold. In peacetime, deflation reigns. Starting with rearmament in the late 1930s, then World War II and the Cold War with its hot phases, Korea and Vietnam, wartime and inflation persisted for 60 years.

For now at least, all that money from central banks and governments isn't getting outside financial institutions. We're in a liquidity trap. The horse isn't drinking, thank you very much. And if lenders do start to lend, central bankers, with their congenital fear of inflation, will no doubt reel in all that extra credit.

Even if the bank reserves stimulate the money supply with the usual multiplier effect, the credit created will pale in comparison to the destruction of derivatives and other privately-created liquidity due to persistent deleveraging and writedowns.

Finally, the consumer saving spree we're forecasting will probably increase the saving rate by one percentage point per year on average for the next decade. That would generate a cumulative $5.5 trillion and go a long way to offsetting the intervening fiscal stimuli, and then some.

When the Chickens Come Home to Roost

John Mauldin — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:07:44 GMT

Can the credit crisis get any worse? In this week's Outside the Box my London partner Niels Jensen shows that it indeed can. Banks, and mainly European banks, have large exposure to emerging market debt of all types through both sovereign, corporate and individual loans. Just as banks have had to write down large losses from the subprime crisis and other related problems, next will come a wave of potential losses from yet another source. Niels then goes on to give us a look the size and problems with hedge fund deleveraging. Altogether, this is a very interesting letter and one that is written from a non-US point of view that I think you will find instructive.

Niels Jensen is Managing Partner of Absolute Return Partners based in London, which is a boutique alternative investment firm (www.arpllp.com). You can write Niels at info@arpllp.com if you like with your comments and questions.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

When the Chickens Come Home to Roost

The helicopters are here

You may remember my prediction last month that Bernanke's helicopters were on their way. I cannot resist the temptation to show you this chart, courtesy of John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics (see chart 1). The US monetary base has literally exploded in recent weeks and is up a staggering 38% year-on-year - the highest increase since 1939 according to my good friend Simon Hunt at Simon Hunt Strategic Services. Not entirely surprising, you might say. After all, you would expect the Federal Reserve Bank to react swiftly in response to the drama unfolding in front of our eyes.

I just wish we had central bankers here in Europe who would be prepared to move as quickly and as decisively as their colleagues on the other side of the pond. Our 'eurocrats' continue to worry unnecessarily about inflation and, by not acting aggressively enough, it is more than likely that the recession which is engulfing us as we speak will end up doing considerably more damage here in Europe than in the US.

Bank lending is responding

Meanwhile, in the US, bank lending is already responding to Fed's tactics. Total commercial and consumer bank lending has grown by an annualised rate of almost 50% in the last month and a half. Quite impressive in an economy which is supposedly in recession.

So far so good. The problem is, however, that the near meltdown has unleashed an asteroid storm of problems. Take Iceland. As most investors know by now, Iceland is in very serious trouble. According to at least one estimate, European banks stand to lose about $75 billion on Iceland - not exactly pocket change. And that is on a population the size of Coventry! Earlier this week, the Central Bank of Iceland raised the policy rate from 12% to 18%. Inflation is now running at about 16% and will undoubtedly peak at much higher levels. According to Danske Bank, expect it to hit 75% before things get better. That is ugly.

The canary in the coalmine

I have an increasingly uneasy feeling that Iceland is the canary in the coalmine. Hungary is struggling. So are Pakistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania and Argentina. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President of Argentina, took everyone by surprise last week when she announced that the country's private pension funds (about $26 billion) would be transferred into the state pension system. The official line is that she is aiming to protect the country's pension funds from the global turmoil. Who is she kidding?

Now, the Federal Reserve Bank has decided to provide emergency loans to Mexico, Brazil, Singapore and South Korea. Not that long ago, it was Singapore (amongst others) which provided emergency funding to the ailing US banking sector. If countries such as South Korea and Singapore require help from the outside, the state of affairs in other and less developed nations could be much worse than generally perceived.

Looking at the evidence produced in a new Goldman Sachs research paper¹, it is primarily Eastern Europe one has to worry about. Credit growth in Eastern Europe and Latin America has been much stronger than in emerging Asia (chart 2).

However, if you then look at the state of the current account (chart 3), it is evident that Eastern Europe is facing a much bigger challenge than the other two regions. Their current account deficit has grown dramatically since the turn of the Millennium and now stands at close to 10% of GDP.

This puts Eastern Europe in a very vulnerable situation. When Asia was in a similar situation back in the late 1990s, it ended in tears with currencies blowing up and consumer spending collapsing. Ultimately, though, it resulted in much improved current accounts as the weak currencies led to an export boom, but there was considerable pain before they got to that point.

Stephen Jen and Spyros Andreopoulos at Morgan Stanley have further explored the subject². They suggest that an already weak banking sector in the OECD could be further stifled by non-performing loans to emerging market countries.

European banks at risk

Worldwide cross-border lending now stands at $37 trillion with about $4.7 trillion going towards Eastern Europe, Latin America and emerging Asia. Cross-border lending by European and UK banks to emerging market countries accounts for 21% and 24% of respective GDPs compared to 4% for US banks and 5% for Japanese banks (see chart 4). Europe has about $3.5 trillion of debt outstanding to emerging market countries whereas the US has only about $500 billion on the line.

The country most exposed to emerging markets is Austria with total emerging market loans accounting for no less than 85% of the country's GDP - most of it to Eastern Europe. Austrian banks have been aggressively pursuing opportunities in Eastern Europe for years. They have in fact been so aggressive that their total lending to the region (approximately $300 billion) exceeds the amount lent by Germany to Eastern Europe. Even more worryingly, Austrian banks are the largest holders of debt on Hungary and Ukraine - two of the most fragile economies on the old Soviet bloc. As an aside, when the global banking system collapsed in May 1931 in the midst of the Great Depression, it was a run on the Austrian banks which acted as a catalyst.

Italy is possibly in an even more dire condition. According to a recent article in The Daily Telegraph³, Italy's public debt is now the third largest in the world, behind the US and Japan. And, at 107% of GDP, it is almost twice the limit set by the Maastricht Treaty (so much for treaties!). Italy is also a big lender to Eastern Europe. Unicredit alone has about $130 billion of debt outstanding to Eastern European countries. Italy's predicament is well recognised by fixed income investors. 10-year Italian government bonds now yield 1.08% more than their German sister bonds. The market is telling us that something rather unpleasant could happen to Italy. It is even possible that Italy could be forced to pull out of the euro, unless they can turn the ship around fairly quickly.

Meanwhile, UK banks are primarily exposed to emerging Asia and Latin America. Only Poland stands out in Eastern Europe as a major recipient of loans from UK banks and Poland is perhaps not up to its neck in problems the way Hungary and Ukraine are right now, but the situation is deteriorating there as well. Sweden is mostly exposed to the Baltic countries. The three Baltic countries owe a total of $123 billion, $83 billion of which originate from Sweden. Knowing that Latvian banks in particular have been rather innovative with the structure of their mortgage products (such as Yen based loans), would you sleep well if you were the credit officer of one of the major Swedish banks?

Spain is the Latin juggernaut

Spain is another worry. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not the largest lender to Latin America - Spain is. Just under $1 trillion of cross-border debt is outstanding across Latin America. Only 17% of that comes from US banks. Spanish banks, on the other hand, have more than 30% of the debt on their books. Let's hope for Spain's sake that Ms. Kirchner is telling the truth when she claims that the nationalisation of the private pension funds was done to protect them from the evils of this world. Somehow I doubt it.

The sharp rise in the value of the US dollar and the Yen is not helping emerging market economies either. We do not know exactly what proportion of the $4.7 trillion of loans to emerging market countries are denominated in US dollars and Yen respectively, but we suspect that it is a significant share. As long as the world is deleveraging, you should expect both currencies to continue to appreciate in value, as most carry trades have been based on either US dollars or Yen. Meanwhile, some countries are putting up a brave fight (e.g. Hungary and Romania). However, as we learned in 1992, a wounded currency is like a bleeding torso in shark infested waters. You can rest assured that speculators will finish off the job. No central bank can win that battle.

One might argue that a devaluation of the Hungarian currency or a collapse of the Pakistani economy won't really affect your portfolio, but that misses the point. It is the risk to an already wounded banking industry you have to worry about. And, as I have pointed out above, European banks are much more exposed to emerging market countries than their US competitors.

Annus Horribilis

Enough said about emerging market risk for now. My other big worry at the moment is what is happening to (some) hedge funds. Clearly, 2008 has been to hedge fund investors what 1992 was to Queen Elizabeth II - Annus Horribilis (see chart 5).

Merrill Lynch did a study recently, showing that the 30 biggest US equity holdings amongst US hedge funds were amongst the poorest performers in the S&P500⁴. In other words, it is likely that much of the recent sell-off in equity markets around the world can be traced back to hedge fund liquidations.

There is no question that hedge funds are downsizing at present. The problem is to obtain precise data on the phenomenon. If we estimate that the global hedge fund industry controls about $2 trillion of capital, and we assume that 15-20% is going to be pulled out between now and year-end (which is not far from the truth according to our sources), $3-400 billion must be returned to investors between now and 31^st December.

Deleveraging continues

That is not the whole story though. The average hedge fund uses leverage, to the tune of about 1.4 times (see chart 6). This is down significantly from a year ago, but it still means that hedge funds need to liquidate investments of at least $500-550 billion in order to meet current redemption requests. And the real number is probably higher because some of the worst performing strategies this year are the ones using the most leverage. The real number is therefore more likely $6-800 billion, and that is a big enough sum of money to put downward pressure on the markets.

Add to this the fact that some hedge funds (mostly the bigger ones) have been selling credit default swaps (CDSs). A CDS is an insurance against corporate default. The buyer of a CDS supposedly makes money if the underlying credit blows up. I say 'supposedly' because the payment is a function of the seller's ability to pay up. That was why Morgan Stanley had to be saved at all cost. MS has been, and continues to be, one of the largest players in the CDS market.

There is no way we can establish precisely how many CDSs hedge funds have on their books, but please consider the following: The CDS market is a $50 trillion market (give or take). Before they blew up, AIG were one of the biggest sellers of CDSs with approximately $500 billion on their books. They ran into problems (partly) because they were heavily exposed to the financial services industry which is already in recession.

Recession in the early stages

The rest of the economy, however, is not yet in recession - or rather, we do not have the statistics to prove it. Corporate defaults are still low, both here and in the US. But corporate defaults will go up as they always do in recessions. If AIG, one of the largest and most sophisticated financial institutions could get themselves into trouble with barely a 1% share of the global CDS market, what will happen to the sellers of the remaining 99%?

Who 'owns' this risk? Is it hedged or not? Is it even possible to hedge the risk, knowing that your counterparty might not be able to pay up? What we do know is that only the larger hedge funds have participated in the practise of selling CDSs. Right now it feels very good not to be invested in those types of hedge funds (as you may be aware, our focus is on alternative investment strategies away from mainstream hedge funds). I also suspect that the extreme volatility in recent weeks is somehow related to this phenomenon. Investor redemptions are not the whole story.

Conclusion

I pointed out several months ago that the world's stock markets would present several 'false dawns' before we could finally declare victory against the bear market. Last week's more upbeat tone was one such 'false dawn', in my opinion. There are three reasons for that:

Firstly, investors have not yet fully capitulated, and that is a necessary condition for markets to turn around. It is best illustrated by a survey conducted by BCA Research at the end of their two-day investment conference held in New York on 20-21^st October. Only five or six of the more than 250 people in the room expected the stock market to be lower a year from now⁵. Not consistent with capitulation! Having said that, it is perfectly normal to experience powerful rallies in the midst of a major bear market. The sharpest rallies in history have actually been bear market rallies.

Secondly, de-leveraging has a long way to run yet, not so much in the hedge fund community where I suspect that much of the damage will be behind us once we pass the next major redemption hurdle on 31^st December, but in society more broadly. Governments, banks, (some but not all) companies and, most importantly, the majority of households are more leveraged than good is. I have borrowed Chart 7 below from BCA Research, and it shows total US bank loans as a percentage of US GDP. Unfortunately, the picture would be much the same for many of the European countries. We are now facing a major de-leveraging cycle and it will suppress economic growth and put a lid on the stock market for years to come.

Thirdly, whereas I fully agree that the worst of the financial crisis might now be behind us, bear in mind that we have not yet seen the full effect of the economic crisis. We are only in the first or second innings of this recession, and the emerging market story has the potential to wreak further havoc. So do credit default swaps - or something else. Recessions are by nature quite unpredictable. There is one thing I am sure about, though. Just as for New Year's Eve, the more extravagant the party, the bigger the hangover. Prepare for this one to linger for a while yet.

Niels C. Jensen

¹Global Economic Weekly, 29^th October, 2008

² "Europe more exposed to EM bank debt than the US or Japan", Morgan Stanley, 27^th October, 2008

³ "Traders warn of Italian iceberg", The Daily Telegraph, 31^st October, 2008

⁴ Source: "Hedge Funds in Trouble", The Economist

⁵ BCA Research Global Investment Strategy, 24^th October, 2008

The International Economic Crisis and Stratfor's Methodology

John Mauldin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:08:48 GMT

Dear Friends:

Exhale for a moment, forget your losses for the time being, and try to appreciate the fact that you're living through the single most important development in global finance since Bretton Woods. This is a "tell the grandkids about it" moment, when governments all around the world have essentially decided in unison that it's time to rewrite the rules, the very framework, in which financial transactions take place. Stock trading, interbank lending, commercial paper, the very concept of private sector ownership are all up in the air right now.

The only thing I can tell you with certainty is that if you try to evaluate your investments using the same metrics you've always relied on - P/E ratios, market share, interest rates, etc. - you're going to be as successful as a football-turned-baseball coach evaluating a pitcher by the number of touchdowns he throws. The rules are changing, gentle reader, changing at least for awhile from market-driven inputs to government-driven inputs. If you try to apply what you know from the "old game" without understanding that you're playing a "new game," the rules might not make sense.

I'm sending you today a piece from my friend George Friedman on how his company Stratfor looks at economics. More precisely, this piece explains how they look at Political Economy. And from here on out, it's political economy that's going to be driving markets. If the old rule was "Never fight the Fed." It's now, "Never fight the Fed. And the Treasury. And the ECB. And the Bank of England. And the Bank of Japan...." You get my point.

George has very kindly arranged for a special offer on a Stratfor Membership for my readers. I strongly encourage you to click here to take advantage of this offer. Now more than ever, you need the kinds of insights that you can't get from traditional finance sources. You need a wider lens, and there's no one better than George and his team at Stratfor at this kind of analysis. I know you'll find them as valuable as I do.

Your Taking-It-All-In Analyst,
John Mauldin

The International Economic Crisis and Stratfor's Methodology

By George Friedman

Stratfor's focus is on geopolitics. That means that it focuses on the behavior of human societies organized into complex, geographically defined systems. In our time, that means that we study nation-states. In order to understand the behavior of nation-states, it is necessary to focus on three major dimensions: economics, war and politics. The nation has to be studied in terms of producing wealth, defending (and stealing) wealth, and the internal and external relations by which humans shape their lives.

Economics, war and politics are not separate spheres. They are a single entity together constituting the reality of the nation-state. There are those who argue that economic life should be left alone, not interfered with by political or military power. We won't engage in that argument. What we know, empirically, is that political and military power constantly impinge on economic life, and vice versa. It is impossible to imagine war without taking into account politics and economics. It is impossible to think of domestic or foreign policy without considering economic and military issues. By the same token, it is also impossible to think about economics without thinking about military and political matters. If it can be made otherwise, then someone will do so and then we will change our opinion. Until then, we cannot think of the free market as a meaningful independent reality. It is always shaped by other factors. Perhaps it should be otherwise. It isn't.

An integrated approach to social reality requires that these distinctions, so important in the organization of a university or a newspaper, be overcome. They were created in order to organize human activities into manageable pieces. Our argument is that in so doing, reality is only apparently made more manageable, and in fact is falsified. The standard approach to these issues creates distinctions that don't exist and complexities that conceal rather than reveal the nature of the problem at hand. A general who tries to wage war without consideration of political ends and economic means is going to fail. An economist who tries to understand and predict the behavior of the economy without a comprehensive understanding of the political and military realities which shape the economy will not do particularly well.

Geopolitics is in one sense also an abstraction, but it has the virtue of not creating artificial distinctions. The price that the geopolitician pays for a comprehensive view of reality is a forced simplification: there is just too much happening to state it comprehensively. Geopolitics is the search for the center of gravity of reality, those overwhelming forces that drive the system in the direction it is going to take. These forces are never solely political, military or economic in nature. Usually, they are in plain sight and are overlooked because, being simple, they appear insufficient. Indeed, they may be insufficient, but others can add the details. Our goal is to lay bare the essentials and identify the general direction in which things are moving.

Take, for example, our recent analysis of the Russo-Georgian war. It derived from this central reality: Russia by the 19th century had achieved the borders essentially held by the Soviet Union. In 1992 it had collapsed to a position in which it had not been since perhaps the 17th century. That condition was untenable. Either Russia would implode or it would reassert itself fairly quickly. By early 2000s, it was our view that it would choose to assert itself. When the United States tried to make an ally of Ukraine, which Russia sees as crucial for its economic, military and political well-being, we became certain that Russia would push back. As the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, a window of opportunity opened up and the Russians began the process of reassertion.

There are, obviously, endless things left out of this analysis. People of every discipline could rip it apart as being insufficiently sophisticated. In one sense they would be right. By avoiding the complexity of sophistication, we could see the fundamental shape of things -- which was that the Russian collapse, if halted, would have to reverse itself for economic, military and political reasons. There were obviously many details we could not predict and some we didn't know. But we captured the essential geopolitical condition of Russia in order to understand what it had to do. We left it to others to do the important work of mapping the complexity. Our task was to capture the simplicity.

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.

From the point of view of many Russian experts in 2001, our analysis of the future of Russia was seen as simplistic and naïve. From the standpoint of professional economists and traders in the markets, the same is being said of our current analysis. But just as our critics among Russian experts failed to see the main thrust of Russian history, many economists fail to see the main thrust of what is now happening. 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.

One can like or dislike the outcome, and we certainly agree that this will cause long-term dislocations and imbalances. But we also know that America as a nation-state has the resources to manage its way through this crisis if the government intervenes. And that intervention is as hard-wired into the American political-economic-military system as the law of supply and demand.

We do not speak the language of economics. There are numerous economists who can do that. And we certainly don't speak the language of the financial markets. We speak our own language, designed to reveal the elegant essence of the problem rather than its enormous complexity. Certainly, if our analysis is wrong because we failed to identify a crucial problem, then we haven't identified the center of gravity properly. And we will be wrong, which is far worse. But as in February 2000, when we published a piece called "Recession Time?" which forecast the market collapse that happened a few weeks later and the recession that followed it, we will be criticized for not understanding some essential point -- in 2000 it was that we had no understanding of the impact of increased productivity on the business cycle. They were right. We didn't understand it and we were right not to. The complexities of productivity did not trump the obvious, which was that the NASDAQ had reached unsupportable levels and there had been no recession in nine years and that was way too long.

So, too, we are criticized for our failure to understand the spread between T-Bills and LIBOR or myriad other things. But we do understand this: The political reality is that the size of the American economy, deployed by the state, trumps the financial problems created by the fall of the housing markets. It will be ugly and painful for some and there will be a recession, but things are always ugly and painful when there is a recession.

This series is about the economic problem, therefore, but is not written about the economy and certainly not by economists. Their work is valuable but it differs from ours. Rather this is about geopolitics and therefore about the different regions and nation-states of the world. It is a geopolitical analysis subsuming economics, politics and military affairs in a single system. And it is designed to extract the obvious rather than drill into the complexity.

We hope this series has some value to our readers in clarifying the current moment. That is its intention: to highlight the main tendency, not to detail the complexity. Understanding the trees has value, but seeing the forest clearly has value as well.

Why The Worst Will Soon Be Over

John Mauldin — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:21:08 GMT

The credit crisis is global. Interestingly, some of the more creative and straight forward solutions are coming from England. This week in Outside the Box I am presenting you with a very well written (even entertaining) letter from Bedlam Asset Management from London www.bedlamplc.com on their view of the crisis. It is always instructive to look at your problems from the point of view of another party, and even more some when they give you some thoughtful and cogent analysis.

I have to admit, seeing green on my screen feels good, but we are in a recession that is global and is likely to get worse. What we need to do now is assess what our response will be. First, we need to avoid the pitfalls and then look around for the opportunities which will be presented us. I think this week's Outside the Box will help you think through your personal situation.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

"I've seen an elephant fly",
weather forecasts, and why the worst will soon be over

It is almost sad for us that the worst of the world's largest ever bank crisis is just about to or may even have passed its peak. It was fun not to hold any and be thought a crazy, even though if any bank director was asked the right questions, it was clear the system had to fall over. Now that it has, we move on (but still hold no financials). There are other aspects we'll miss too. The impotence of Politicians revealed -- no power to affect the direction of the business cycle, and even less understanding of the economies over which they portentously believed themselves in charge. Who will forget the British Chancellor's vacant stare whenever asked a simple financial question, even as his eyebrows squirmed like caterpillars in their death throes thus betraying his ignorance?

Then there's the regulators, so far behind the curve it's embarrassing. No wonder in recent speeches PM Brown announced that he and the Treasury would sort out the banks, even though the role is split between the FSA and the Bank of England. We won't miss the shocks after combing through the balance sheets of Bradford and Bingley, Anglo-Irish, Northern Rock, RBS, Soc Gen and UBS to discover how weak and sloppy were their business models; and we look forward to illogical panic reactions ending. For in the midst of the largest financial fire in history, more effort has been expended on arguing who is to blame, rather than trying to find the extinguishers. Happy, happy days. Farewell.

If you do not weep uncontrollably whilst watching Dumbo (the movie, not the people above), then you have no soul. The climax of the story is that without his white feather he could not fly, and was but a terrified and rather badly drawn pachyderm at the top of the high dive. With a little persuasion however, he realised the lack of his comfort blanket did not preclude him from his destiny, so off he flew. The multiple financial implosions of September and early October reduced governments, central banks and regulators into a Dumboesque, catatonic inertia. Fortunately, the panic in all markets has made them realise that they did have sufficient powers: if not to fly, then at least to prevent an immediate Depression. Thus for the first time this century, there is good clarity on the medium term future, both for the global economy and stock markets. This is one of a steep recession, followed by several years of a mild and stuttering recovery. Surprisingly, this is a good result.

The eye of the storm has just passed over

As long ago as 1999, a long and thoughtful front page article in the New York Times highlighted the dangers of the world's two largest mortgage underwriters, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They had just been blessed by the regulators, Congress and President Clinton to tear up the risk book: to offer large and easy mortgage terms to those Americans who could never realistically hope to own a home. This relaxation of prudent lending rules was soon widely imitated, particularly in economies with a property owning mentality. The consequence was a global economic growth chimera, accelerated by the reduction of the dead hand of bureaucracy in third world countries such China and India. This allowed them to achieve far better growth rates.

From 1999 onwards the hurricane started to build, moving ever closer to the world's financial system, obvious even to the man in the street. Yet the near-term gains were so beneficial to individuals and government budgets that every Finance Minister threw prudence down the well. Chancellors even became popular. Bizarrely, the only people who did not recognise the inevitable were the regulators, senior bankers and fund managers. In 2007, the storm ripped into the banks. There was a brief calm as the eye came overhead, within which complete regulatory and political paralysis developed, even as institution after institution imploded. Now the eye is passing; we're back into the other side of the storm. Initially the winds will be extreme, but each crisis will be a little less than the one before. It is the best possible outcome, for the alternative was an immediate vertical drop into a deep economic Depression. This would have made the 1930s look a picnic. The 'positive' alternative may not seem that glamorous as many small countries are already in recession and the major ones will follow before the end of this year. Yet this recession will be a 45 degree slope, not a 90 degree fall. This is because the correct response is now in train. It means that as early as 2010, a stuttering recovery could commence.

The British solution goes global?

It is a great surprise that three small islands off North Western Europe have been the cause, and the cure, of the crisis. It was Ireland's emergency guarantee of all deposits which set off the nuclear reaction: risible, because its blanket nature covering all deposits for its six banks worked out at $576bn, nearly three times gross domestic product, $130,000 per head or $200,000 per person in employment. Within these numbers was a sub-liability of nearly $50,000 per head over foreign deposits, mostly British. Despite now excellent Anglo-Irish relations, if these guarantees had been called, they could never have been paid. Immediately Germany, Spain, Greece and smaller countries followed suit. Mildly anti-EU British politicians then peculiarly started to bleat about supra-national solutions - an impossible dream - and did nothing. More sensible foreign leaders reacted nationally to the inevitable consequences of their electorates seeing their local banks disappear in a puff of smoke. Fortunately, market mechanisms then kicked in. Large British deposits were being sucked out, into unreal Irish bank guarantees at an alarming rate. Meanwhile in Iceland, the third offshore island, the entire bank system finally decided to die. Although this was assured much earlier (see Pick of the Week No. 48, "Abdul and Jorvik Go Shopping"), it had staggered on for a surprisingly long time. The twin Irish/Iceland events resulted in dramatic falls in British asset prices and even worse gridlock in the lending markets. Outflows to Ireland were swiftly followed by a sudden realisation that simply idiotic deposits worth over £5bn had been placed into hopeless Icelandic-owned institutions and were about to disappear. Depositors included over 100 UK local government authorities as well as unwise financial intermediaries. Without warning and in a single bound, the British governing class leapt from narcolepsy to sprinting at gold medal speed.

The key change has been the rapid implementation of the most comprehensive bank bail out package ever seen. It should work, because it addresses the overlapping problems of too little Tier 1 capital, the fear of bank counterparty risk, the inability to roll over corporate loans and the risk of deposit flight. The result is state directed capitalism. It has lead to howls of outrage across the investment and political spectrum, from the purists who believe market forces should be allowed to work themselves out, to the mob baying for capitalist blood. The cacophony of noise and finger pointing will continue for many years, but both arguments are irrelevant. They are based on old rules. For just as in war habeas corpus and other rights are torn up, so in a financial meltdown the old rules are shredded.

The British decision has been to save the core of the national banking system and create a more realistic structure than the blanket guarantees of Ireland. The sums pledged are large enough to meet all the capital required to support the capital of each major domestic bank. The use of high yielding preference shares and permanent income bearing securities is likely to mean the government may end up owning perhaps a mere quarter of three to six banks, yet its ability to control them all, and their lending, is a certainty. This multiple approach is already being favourably viewed in other countries; it is speedy, cheaper and turns the all-important psychology from one of utter despair to merely gloom. It is more effective, and overall less burdensome on the taxpayer than any other solution. In the UK and elsewhere, the previous drip feed of liquidity into the markets, started by Mr Paulson in the US, simply proved the law of diminishing returns. Ever larger funds had to be provided to produce ever weaker results. To be fair, the unique (so far) British solution is almost the same as Mr. Buffet's bail-out of Goldman Sachs. His very high yielding preference stock and presumably many other strings must have provided a guide.

Britain's Treasury mandarins had also dusted off and absorbed the lessons of earlier French, Swedish and Japanese models. The result is a more effective hybrid. Since President Mitterand nationalised the banks in 1980 (later part re-listed), France has had state directed capitalism dominated by three banks. Inevitably these are ponderous and suffer poor shareholder returns, but in a whacky way, the system works. In Sweden, the necessary nationalisation of anything with 'bank' on its nameplate also proved effective; although the stock market did not recover for 18 months, the economy managed weak growth in almost every quarter. Japan's Resolution Trust Corporation initially failed because the government dithered for six years after the 1990 crash, before taking any meaningful action. Subsequently, vast amounts of debt were issued to hoover up bankrupt banks and duff corporate loans. It worked. We believe that most G7 (i.e. including America) and G20 countries will adopt Britain's hybrid ruse in the near future; if so, the storm is passing for sure.

Foreseeable consequences

Some are most unpleasant. The authorities will have little control over these and it would be foolish if they seek to cover every eventuality. Staying with our three islands, one result is that Britain has probably exacerbated the Irish banking crisis; the depositors who fled there for "safety" will soon work out they are better off and better covered in government controlled banks back home. As the new UK rules bite, runs on some mutual groups such as building societies or Spain's equivalent, the Caixas are likely; in both cases their prime purpose is to take deposits to fund property purchases. Government guarantees do not and cannot extend to such groups. Banks like Santander will be forced to absorb dozens of these local mutuals, as will Commerzbank in Germany. This trend is extant already with the large banks in America. Most major industrial countries therefore will end up with a handful of large semi state banks which will dominate the domestic deposit markets.

Other casualties may include leasing companies. With no deposit base, often no overall regulator and dependence on wholesale funding, their future is not exactly bright. More casualties abound in Eastern Europe; many countries there needed to devalue even before the storm hit. Now devaluations are imminent. Elsewhere, several larger countries will have their own particular problems. One we fear for is Australia, ironically because of a very good policy. After Singapore and Chile, it has one of the most logical and best funded pension schemes in the world (curiously, this is a legacy of its most socialist Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam; even more curious, he was 'deposed' by the British High Commissioner and Mr Rupert Murdoch in 1975). The scheme is beautiful in its simplicity. From the first day at work, employees and employers put large percentages of salary until retirement into a personal, untouchable pension pot. Tax-free and ring-fenced, these huge flows are managed by a host of competitive and usually efficient 'Superfund' managers. Of all reasonably sized advanced countries, Australia alone has ensured that an ageing population will be able to fund itself without drawing down from the state. Yet a flaw has developed. The industry is competitive, Australians are ruggedly entrepreneurial. Personal pensions are portable at the push of a button. Recently, some Superfund valuations have been exuberant. Many have as much as a third of investments in unlisted property, private equity and other opaque vehicles. Often performance seems remarkable: to June 2008 perhaps +20% in a year, usually based on internal valuations. Yet similar investments listed on the public markets have seen large falls in value. It unlikely there's much, if any, fraud, merely denial and over-optimism. Given Australians are well-educated and financially literate, it seems only a matter of time before some awake and transfer their pensions from the optimistically priced super funds and switch to those whose prices are more realistic, and low. It is the smart thing to do. If there is one lesson from the crisis, it is 'if there can be a run, there will be one'.

Another country is Italy. It seems to think itself relatively safe. Italians (and most Europeans) have shown a hubris over financial implosions in America. It is worth recalling that in absolute terms, and pro rata to national GDPs, European institutions own more of America's mistructured and bankrupt sub-prime debt than the Americans themselves. Where is it? Too much we believe in Italy. There, opaque bank balance sheets make Japan's look as clear as glass. The industry is fractured. Like Iceland (but to a far lesser extent), there are considerable cross holdings, mystery nominee companies and asset shuffling by feisty entrepreneurs. These in turn are often highly geared, with a maze of cross-holding debt structures. When the giant hornet of the recession flies into this web, it will simply it snap.

Embrace the recession

A global Depression is likely to be avoided by a whisker; a fast and vicious recession now is a certainty. Although key forecasts are being revised lower, they still lag this outlook. The IMF's latest suggestion that China will grow next year by 9.6%, and that the volume of World trade by 4% are but two examples of excess optimism. China will enter a recession, defined as 4-6% growth. At this level, social unrest tends to accelerate. The collapse in commodity imports, from copper to steel, show a slowdown already under way. Another obvious cause is the once insatiable appetite of American consumers, to import at least five toasters and three refrigerators for each home has already ceased. As regards growth in world trade, the 4% forecast is also optimistic, given demand for bulk commodities, such as oil and iron ore, is tumbling.

Consumer incomes will be squeezed until the pips squeak, because of correct government actions to focus only on saving the major banks. National budgets are blowing up into huge deficits. The idea that America, the world's most important economy, is sure to have a budget deficit of 10% of GDP in 2008/9 is simply eye-popping, as is the 40% increase in the last six months in the public sector borrowing requirement in the UK. To finance these giant deficits, governments will have to tax more and spend less. Just as the bank rule book has been torn up, so the global abattoir is hardly large enough to slaughter the queue of sacred cows. In Britain, the burgeoning black hole in of state sector pension funds will have to be minced. Apart from the fact that many have been mismanaged for years (their leap into Icelandic deposits because they were approved by discredited rating agencies, or their belief that the higher the deposit rate, the better the bank, prove the statement), their over-generous terms are now unaffordable. Whether the government achieves this through a wholesale rise in the retirement age, increased taxation on pensions, or a cap on the payout rate like utilities to RPI minus, is a moot point. Another chopper must be taken by all governments to welfare.

Although welfare abuse is rampant across Europe, statistically it is worst in British and is both unaffordable and wasteful. As we have reported before, false unemployment statistics have dominated the last decade. Unemployment sank from well over two million to under a million. Meanwhile, those of working age but permanently incapacitated soared from under a million to well over two million. Cute trick. So Britons are the puniest people on the planet, according to officialdom. Aggressive steps will have to be taken to prune the number, if only because of the certainty that unemployment will rise, thus busting the budget even further. State directed capitalism must emerge with heavier-handed, state monitoring of its population.

Whilst liquidity and lending will gradually improve, governments will want to rebuild 'their' banks' balance sheets as fast as possible. Globally, official interest rates will be slashed; the unusually co-ordinated cuts earlier this week by six major central banks is but the start. Lending rates however, will stay high thus increasing the margin between deposit rates and the price of loans. Fees will also soar, such as new extra charges in most economies for arranging a mortgage. Many did not exist at all even a year ago. Credit card companies will lower credit limits to individuals, irrespective of true personal wealth, as their imperative has switched from maximising profits to minimising losses. Only the best personal balance sheets will get decent-sized limits. If individuals cannot obtain credit, they are forced to save if they want to buy a new car, or a home. In the 1970s and early 1990s recessions, savings rates in advanced countries rose dramatically: in Britain from 2% to 12%, in America a slightly smaller rise. 12% again seems a good educated guess, especially as the starting point is record low savings rates (-1.1% in the UK for the first quarter). Thus the impact on retail economic activity is dire. As governments tax more and cut expenditure, and the consumer is forced to save, this is why for 2009 we pencil in at least two quarters of serious GDP contraction for the UK, US, Spain, Australia, Ireland and Italy.

Unforeseen consequences

We did not expect that within two weeks of a financial meltdown, Russia would have achieved a key military ambition. As four Scandinavian governments dithered over supporting their fifth cousin a window opened, in through which Putin flew like Count Dracula, with a $4bn lifeline to Iceland's government: "no strings attached". Oh yes? Russia in Europe has always been "choked". The Black Sea/Bosporus ext is tricky. Large naval vessels can leave Petersburg but the Baltic straights too, are narrow. Hence much of the fleet is in the only other port, Murmansk. Even from there, the problem has been that to get the navy into the North Atlantic, it is blocked by other straits such as the English Channel. In 2005/6, NATO schizophrenically decided to poke Russia in the eye by putting missiles along its European border, and also to close its Keflavik Airbase in Iceland (although there are still a few odd American planes there). It has handed Russia at worst a neutral sea passage, almost certainly a refuelling base/friendship zone. This makes us slightly dither about defence stocks. They look cheap but historically in recessions, governments have slashed military expenditure. The UK could cut back its still quasi-imperial ambitions and become a Belgian-type power. Even so, across all Western Europe, so antiquated are many armaments and so poorly equipped many of the troops, it may be that defence, usually the first cow to the slaughter is actually fattened up instead.

America too has usually slashed defence budgets in previous recessions, and could do so now. Any one of the 14 battle fleets has more fire power than the entire Chinese navy. The totality of America's naval firepower is nearly 60% of the entire world's navies combined; such overwhelming superiority is unnecessary in terms economic expenditure or national security. Yet operating in two oceans, with Russia sending off a fleet to Venezuela in one (we're amazed the rust buckets got there at all) and a Chinese naval building programme which is accelerating, we suspect America's military will continue to claim its full funding. So too wills NASA: rocket launches already planned from Asia will allow more communist cadres to peer down at Houston from space than ever before. This is not going to be popular.

This is cheerful?

For all these imponderables and uncertainties, investors can start to do that 'light at the end of the tunnel' thing. If the hurricane had hit in 2005 or 6, the damage would have been less; but this is spilt milk, move on. The light is that correct actions are now in train. Many savers will still lose money in those weaker institutions which the governments have rightly decided to sacrifice, to preserve the core of the system. It will be unfair and unpleasant, but the right action. More important is that just as banks in each country will consolidate down to a core handful, so the same will apply in many other sectors. Consolidation is the new trend. Normally the advice would be to buy small bombed-out niche companies with good businesses, knowing that giant multi-nationals, most of whom have surprisingly strong balance sheets, will be buyers. However, the number of already wounded, as their banks reduce or refuse to roll over their loans at all, mean these multi-nationals can be very picky, and wait. Just as government-induced bank consolidation ensures their balance sheets should recover far faster than had there been no intervention, so more voluntary consolidation in other sectors will have a similar result. Consider the semi-conductor industry (if only for a moment). It is about to be obliterated. Huge over-capacity and rapidly tumbling demand. By as soon as end 2009, it is a good bet the number of manufacturers will have halved. Their profit cycle will then boom. Consolidation in pharmaceuticals has already started, one of the few sectors with very strong free cash flow and growth. In telephony, the parasitic companies are about to be sprayed with DDT. These lived off the incompetence of once state owned incumbents to move into the mobile market and almost universally, are highly borrowed, rely on ever-available bank credit and ever-rising sales. The consumer always foregoes trips to the cinema or theatre in a recession. This time he will hunker down in front of his broadband-fed, all singing and all dancing pc/TV/call-centre/work station. Only the ex-national monopolies can proved this service, the rest blow away like chaff.

Despite consensus forecasts for corporate profits in 2009 being still way too happy -- we are pencilling profits ex the banks for the MSCI World Index in 2009 of minus 9% - the return to an almost forgotten world of national and international cartels to reboot the economic cycle may well ensure that after a steep recession, a return to mild profit growth may be none too far away. The 'death' of free markets is sad: for a while we were all rich, it was fun and you didn't have to work much either; just own a house and a lot of debt. The imminent brave new world of state directed banks and cartelisation of sectors is inherently corrupt and less efficient, but should work. It is certainly the least bad solution for us all; yet this very different and cartelised world could be rather interesting, and profitable. Although indices have every chance of a roaring bounce soon, in 2009 many will sink again. Even so, too many large company valuations are already forecasting a Depression. We think state owned banks are temporarily rather a good idea, and many company valuations look pretty interesting, especially versus bonds, property or even cash. Growing huge ears or sticking a white feather up your nose is another option, but not advised.

The International Currency Crisis

John Mauldin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:35:24 GMT

Many of us in the US are focused on our own woes. But this is a global credit crisis. In today's Outside the Box, we take a look at the currency markets, which are in an historic upheaval and also look at what is going on in Europe. I suspect that Europe is in for a period of much distress, as the world begins to deleverage That is why one government after another will back the deposits of banks within their countries, for otherwise capital will flee to countries like Ireland and Germany which ARE guaranteeing the deposits for all banks in their borders. Many European banks are leveraged 50 to 1 (not a misprint). I suspect that more government will do like Belgium and the Netherlands and inject capital directly into their local banks deemed too big to fail.

I am going to give you three brief pieces which all look at a different part of the crisis, but looking at the crisis from a more international perspective. The first is from Dennis Gartman's letter (www.thegartmanletter.com) with his views on the overnight currency markets. (Note: the yen has risen even more since he wrote!)

The second piece is a short note from my friends at GaveKal (www.gavekal.com) in which they ask can the euro survive and if so, what will it look like? Very provocative, but in line with my thoughts that the euro will one day be once again at par against the dollar.

The last piece is a column by Wolfgang Munchau writing in today's Financial Times. Munchau argues that the fact that EU member nations managed to survive their first series of bank failures does not mean it can afford to take the risk of defaulting to continued improvisation. Munchau comes out squarely in favor of a coordinated, funded rescue program. Again, thought provoking, and as I noted in this week's letter, something that the US could face within a few weeks as well.

Fascinating markets and times we live in. Let's hope for a rally tomorrow.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

First, from Dennis Gartman:

The dollar and the Japanese yen reign absolutely supreme as the world continues the rush to exit from the EUR in whatever form it now holds them. Stock markets around the world are imploding it seems, and as they do, "risk" in any form is being unwound, forcing the Yen/EUR cross to move several "Big Figures" in the shortest span of time we have seen in our years of trading. Only in the "Russian/Emerging Markets Panic" in August of several years ago have we seen movements such as these. We stand in awe and we stand in fear.

Thus to begin, we say here this morning, mincing no words whatsoever, we are more frightened now for the future of the global capital markets than we have been at any time in our thirty+ years of watching, commenting upon and taking part in them. We are fearful... and we mean this fully... that we have passed the tipping point; that things are now spinning out of control; that forces have been unleashed that cannot be stopped without some truly massive, truly strong-handed, governmental action including the closure of markets and limits upon bank withdrawals, et al. These are troubling times, and our fear is palpable and growing. Worse, these concerns are giving rise to the likelihood that the Left shall be in ascension, and that manifestly left-of-centre, interventionist government lies ahead here in the US and in Europe. Higher, rather than lower taxes will be the end result. Greater... indeed very much greater... intervention in the capital markets lies ahead. Trade and act accordingly.

To put things into proper perspective, it is reasonable to see the Yen/EUR cross move within a 1 Yen range, high to low in any twenty four hour period of time. Beyond that, the situation becomes uncommon. 1.5 Yen movements, although not rare, are unusual, and 2 yen movements in the cross as "Black Swans" indeed. Now, it seems the world is filled with black swans, looking about for the few white ones that remain, for the Yen/EUR cross, having closed near 144.50:1 on Friday afternoon... which was already rather weak for the cross was trading 156 only a bit more than a week ago...is this morning trading 140.50!

We have long said that this cross relationship is the barometer of the relative health of the global capital markets, for over the course of the past several years as risk was embraced Mr. and Mrs. Watanabe would sell their Yen holdings and "swap" them for investments abroad that might return them more money. At the same time, foreign non-Japanese investors were very willing to borrow in Yen terms, take that low cost capital outside of Japan and invest elsewhere. This was the "Carry Trade" and it was one of the driving forced in the global capital market. Hedge funds around the world employed the "carry," borrowing cheap Yen and investing into anything, anywhere around the world where the returns were larger. Once confidence began to ebb, however, and once the losses on the carry trade itself began to wane, the pressure upon those exposed grew.

Now, not only are those who borrowed Yen and bought EURs, or Aussie dollars, or Russian Rubles, or gold, or equities anywhere around the world, or debt securities of almost any kind, finding that they are losing money on the "cross" itself, they are losing more and vast sums on the investments they made. It is horror story writ large and getting larger.

Is there any fundamental investment reason to be bullish of the Japanese Yen? No there is not. The demographics of Japan are horrid as her population ages and begins to actually decline. We have written often of this demographic time-bomb that is exploding consistently over time in Japan. The country's population is imploding and it continues to do so despite government policies aimed at changing that trend. However, once demographics as consequential as what is happening to Japan become entrenched, time... and very, very long periods of time,... decades certainly; centuries perhaps... are needed to reverse the course.

Thus, the only thing driving Yen higher is the panic liquidation of the "carry trade." This unwinding has been going on for several months, having begun in earnest in July when the cross touched 170:1 ever-so-briefly. It took years to build the trade up as Yen was borrowed and the EUR bought since the turn of the Millennium. It may take months yet to unwind these years of accumulation. The process is not pretty. The damage wrought is enormous. The panic lies still ahead.

Moving on, the unwinding of the long EUR/short Yen cross is being made all the more dramatic as investors find reason to shun the EUR and investments in Europe generally as confusion regarding the EUR's future has leaped dramatically to centre stage. As we pointed out last week, Dr. Milton Friedman once said regarding the EUR... in which he tended to have very little confidence...that he doubted it would last through its first real recession. His fears are being put to test today. The world is testing the very mettle of the European confederation experiment, and investors the world wide are watching to see just how well the officials in Brussels and Frankfurt can resolve their large and growing differences.

When the economic weather is mild, the "boat" that is a unified Europe runs pleasantly upon the water. The passengers may be a bit unruly, and they may argue amongst themselves, but their arguments rarely will tip the boat for at least the waters are calm. However, when the waters around the boat are riled, the least bit of unruly activity amongst the passengers is amplified and made serious. When the waters are riled, what would have passed for mere annoyance during periods of quiet become life-threatening instead. We are at that point.

The unravelling began last week when Ireland, fearful of a run on its capital markets, touched off by the frightening weakness of her stock market last Monday, moved to guarantee all deposits within the Irish banking system. The other nations of Europe, then fearful that capital would logically rush to Ireland to seek protection, said that Ireland's decision was at best unwise, perhaps un-European and unconstitutional, and simply downright wrong. They protested. Frankfurt and Paris led the way. Mr. Trichet said that Ireland's unilateral decision was wrong and that all decisions of this matter should be a pan-European decision, not a parochial one. Confusion, as we have always, said, breeds contempt, and with that confusion the EUR came under assault.

Matters have gotten worse... and indeed much, much worse over the weekend, for Germany, having taken Ireland to task only last week, moved to follow Ireland's lead as Chancellor Merkel moved to guarantee all deposits in Germany. She really had no choice. Acting to stem these swift changes in the European banking landscape, the EU's Competition Commissioner, Ms. Neelie Kroes, said that blanket guarantees on bank deposits by individual countries within the European Union shall be considered "discriminatory." Mr. Kroes made her comments on Dutch television over the weekend.

Ms.Kroes said that Ireland is moving to change its deposit insurance plan so that it will conform with European rules, although we have not seen in what ways Dublin is moving... or even if Dublin IS moving at all. Were we Dublin, we'd not change, for our first responsibility is to the depositors in Ireland's banks and to the Irish capital markets, not to depositors on the Continent. Ms. Kroes said that on television that

We are now in close contact. My people were in Dublin on Friday and Saturday and returned with reports that changes will be made.... A guarantee without limits is not allowed ... [but we expect] that it will be brought into a form for which we can together state that it is in line with the treaty.

Germany disagrees with Ms. Kroes and Brussels, apparently, for a spokesperson for Germany's Finance Ministry, Mr. Torsten Albig said over the weekend that "The state guarantees private deposits in Germany" while a second spokesman said the guarantee was and can be unlimited. Now that Ireland has moved in this fashion, and now that Germany has followed, Greece has said that it shall also. Others will follow, overwhelming Brussel's ability to protest Ireland's and Germany's decisions, and thus forcing Ireland to take other actions to continue to draw capital to her. Ireland's Finance Minister, Mr. Brian Lenihan, openly defended his government's plan to guarantee the deposits and debts of six Irish-owned banks for the next two years and pointed to the panic felt by investors over Irish financial stocks this week. We can find no fault whatsoever with Mr. Lenihan's position. Were we he, we'd do precisely the same thing... perhaps even a bit faster.

And from my friends at Gavekal:

Was it just ten days ago that Peer Steinbruck railed at the US for the banking crisis and mentioned that, because of the pneumonia in the US, Europe may well have to endure a cold? Ten days later, a cold seems like wishful thinking. Instead, it looks as if the US pneumonia is inflicting a serious case of tuberculosis across Europe!

In the past ten days, not only have we seen European governments forced to offer blanket guarantees for depositors in banks (e.g., Ireland, Greece...) but we have also witnessed a number of banks coming hat in hands to their respective governments (Hypo Real Estate, Glitnir, Fortis, Dexia, Bradford & Bingley...). Which of course begs the question of what the respective European governments can do? Some (Finland, Holland...) with overall low government debt and small budget deficits, can afford bank bail-outs. For others, whose economies may already be in a recession (e.g., Italy, Spain, Ireland...), financing large-scale bailouts may be more of a challenge. Which brings us back to a long-standing GaveKal theme, namely how the (no) Growth and Stagnation pact (see The European Divergence Trade) hampers EU governments from taking necessary action in the face of a banking crisis. Worse yet, in Europe, investors simply have no idea who the lender of last resort is, or if there is one. And, as we are finding out, this question is no longer a rhetorical question. After all, if the numbers bandied about by Der Spiegel of a necessary €100bn to recapitalize Hypo Real Estate (and that is just one bank!) are even close to the mark, where will the money come from? As we see it, there are two possible options:

The first option is that the ECB prints money aggressively to finance a European-wide bank bailout. This could prove rather inflationary for the Old Continent as wages there tend to be very sticky. It would also entail an absolute collapse in the Euro.

The second option would be for the ECB to tell the various European governments that the banking mess is their own problem, and that they have to deal with it. This would most likely entail a continued divergence in the yields at which European governments borrow (currently standing at post-Euro introduction record highs).
And this brings us back to a long- standing GaveKal theme: for the Euro to survive, either a) it will have to be a structurally weak currency or b) some of the weakest links (i.e.: Portugal? Italy? Greece? Spain?...) may end up being forced out. The path of least resistance is, of course, for the Euro to a structurally weak currency.

Which seems to be where we are heading. Indeed, despite the baffling decision by the ECB to maintain rates unchanged last Thursday, the Euro has been in a serious freefall against the US$, CHF, Yen, etc... Of course, this weakness could also be a sign that the ECB, with its stubborn unwillingness to adjust monetary policy in the face of rapidly changing events, has seriously undermined investor confidence in the Euro area. After all, 48 hours after the ECB board met, the rescue plans for both Hypo RE and Fortis were struggling. Surely, the ECB had to know that two major banks were in dire straits? Or was the ECB board drinking the same Kool-Aid as Peer Steinbruck?

However one cuts it, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Europe is not only experiencing its own credit crunch, but will experience a nasty recession. This recession will put most European government budgets into serious deficits; foreign investors may thus start to question the logic of owning the debt of governments whose balance sheets and income statements keep on deteriorating, and whose currency is free-falling? Milton Friedman once said that the Euro would likely not survive its first major "bump in the road". We will soon find out. The great "European Divergence Trade" is no longer about theory; it is happening before our very eyes.

And from Wolfgang Munchau in today's Financial Times:

This has been a week of self-congratulation in Europe. We have saved a handful of banks. We have, in effect, started to cut interest rates. We even had a summit of European leaders that produced warm words of solidarity. It looks as though the Europeans have reached substantive agreement that no systemically important bank should ever be allowed to fail....The rescue of Fortis and Dexia last week, two large, but not too large, cross-border European banks, should be seen as a sign that our emergency procedures are working. Look, they say, we met quickly and decided what needed to be decided. It was fast and unbureaucratic. We do not need a European rescue fund, let alone any new institutional set-up to deal with this, they say. We can do it ourselves.

I agree that the few ad hoc rescues have worked. But do not fool yourself. They worked because they were the first wave of rescues and because they involved banks such as Fortis - of just the right size, based in just the right small- to medium-sized country where political leaders are sufficiently rational not to hold each other to ransom as midnight approaches on Sunday.

But what if this had been a bank with a name of a large European country, or an acronym that refers to a large European city, banks that are simultaneously too big to fail and too big to save? I shudder to think what would happen when Silvio Berlusconi, Angela Merkel, Lech Kaczynski and the next Austrian leader have to meet to discuss the future of a large cross-border European bank.

What worked for banking rescues numbers one to five may not work for rescues number six to 50 - the estimated number of systemically important banks in Europe. And that number does not include some banks we have already rescued, which politicians judged to be important for their domestic banking system, like Germany's IKB Bank, but with no European relevance whatsoever. We have been squandering money.

Nor does it include the likes of Hypo Real Estate, which is not even a bank at all....

The Europeans are of course right in their overall ambition not to allow systemically important banks to fail. They are also right in their scepticism about their ability to distinguish between illiquidity and insolvency during an emergency. But I fear we are still well short of a strategy. We might be lucky, and scrape through what could well become the most dangerous month of the crisis so far. If, for example, the credit default swap market were to blow up in the next couple of weeks - a non-trivial probability - we have no plan.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, was therefore right when he appeared to back a €300bn rescue fund. Regular readers of this column will probably recall my somewhat constrained enthusiasm for his economic policies. But this had the makings of a good plan. He ended up distancing himself from it, when it became clear that Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, would not support it. But he was right and she was wrong. Of course, a European plan should not have been a copy of the bail-out that was finally adopted by Congress on Friday. The US plan failed to address the problem of an undercapitalised banking sector. That issue is even more important in Europe where many banks have an extremely weak capital base, with leverage ratios of 50 or more.

Europe does therefore not need any bail-out plan, but a plan that specifically addresses the capitalisation problem. Concretely, three things are needed: the first and most important is money. A sum of €300bn will not cover the EU in a worst-case scenario, but it is a sensible number to start with; secondly, you need a semi-permanent crisis committee empowered to take decisions; and finally you need a strategy to apply symmetrically and based on clear rules about when to recapitalise, and when not.

If you pursue a strategy of taking purely national decisions, you run the risk that at least one government will hit its own financial ceiling before this crisis is over, or that decisions have negative spillovers on the banking systems of other countries. Moreover, you end up with a beggar-thy-neighbour regulatory race, as we saw last week when Ireland and Greece unilaterally issued blanket guarantees for large parts of their banking sector. Last night, Germany was preparing a full deposit guarantee for its own banking system. Last but not least is the risk of violent political setback against a process that lacks transparency.

For Europe, this is more than just a banking crisis. Unlike in the US, it could develop into a monetary regime crisis. A systemic banking crisis is one of those few conceivable shocks with the potential to destroy Europe's monetary union. The enthusiasm for creating a single currency was unfortunately never matched by an equal enthusiasm to provide the correspondingly effective institutions to handle financial crises. Most of the time, it does not matter. But it matters now. For that reason alone, the case for a European rescue plan is overwhelming.

Banking Crises Around The World

John Mauldin — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:45:11 GMT

Do government bailouts in times of banking crises work? Philippa Dunne & Doug Henwood of The Liscio Report highlight a major study of 42 fairly recent banking crises around the world. Result? Some types of government intervention works and some don't. One characteristic that is needed though is speed. Dithering, a la Japan, is a recipe for disaster. This is a brief summary of the report (to which they provide a link) and their conclusions as to the basic outlines of what the US should do. Given that Europe is already in the throws of its own bank crisis, and the rest of the world could experience problems, this should be useful reading. They also provide graphs of banking crises and comparisons with developed countries and the resulting market experience.

One major point? This is like the old Fram oil filter commercial line "Pay me now or pay me later." As this study points out, the tax payers and citizens of the US (and the world) are going to pay for this crisis in one way or another. Either a major recession (with high and persistent unemployment), reduced incomes and tax collections or a collective efforts to stabilize the banking system. The costs of inaction are much higher. It is not a matter of cost or no cost. We are going to have to pay in one form or another.

We cannot avoid the costs given where we are today. The time to avoid cost was years ago reigning in Freddie and Fannie and proper oversight of the mortgage industry. We (Congress) missed that opportunity. (Sadly, we are going to re-elect the very leadership to both parties largely responsible for the neglect. There is plenty of blame to go around. No amount of partisan finger pointing by Speaker Pelosi shifts that blame.) However, we can choose the form of the cost will be paid in. Personally, I prefer collective efforts to 10% or more unemployment and the risk of an extended recession and its costs. I know this is not pure free market theory, and sticks in the craw of many of my readers, but when many of my neighbors and friends will be unemployed and businesses are suffering theory will not make a very good meal. Congress must act now. This report is a good reminder of what has worked in the past.

My thanks to Philippa and Doug for allowing me to send this as a Special Outside the Box. You can see their work and blog at http://www.theliscioreport.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Banking Crises Around The World

The Liscio Report On the Economy
October 1, 2008

Having rejected Henry Paulson's rescue plan, it's not clear what Congress --or those in the broad population opposed to a "bailout"-- propose to do to keep the financial system from imploding. But a database of systemic banking crises recently assembled by IMF economists Luc Laevan and Fabian Valencia (www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk=22345.0) provides a useful map of how crises play out and what does and doesn't work.

Laevan and Valencia identify 124 systemic banking crises between 1970 and 2007, and assemble detailed information on 42 of them, representing 37 countries. (Some countries, like Argentina, appear multiple times.)

In almost every case, governments took active measures to mitigate the crisis, so there is no real test of whether rescue schemes actually work; no politician seems willing to face the consequences of letting the chips fall where they may. But the work of Laevan and Valencia does offer some guidance as to what works best.

Dithering Costs

One crucial lesson stands out: speed matters. This is obvious to anyone who followed Japan's dithering in the 1990s; standing aside and hoping the problem goes away is not a good idea. Relatedly, "forbearance" --regulatory indulgence, such as permitting insolvent banks to continue in business-- does not work, as has been established in earlier research. As the authors say, "The typical result of forbearance is a deeper hole in the net worth of banks, crippling tax burdens to finance bank bailouts, and even more severe credit supply contraction and economic decline than would have occurred in the absence of forbearance." This suggests that suspending mark-to-market requirements is not a good idea.

Since forbearance does not work, some sort of systemic restructuring is a key component of almost every banking crisis, meaning forced closures, mergers, and nationalizations. Shareholders frequently lose money in systemic restructuring, often lots of it, and are even forced to inject fresh capital. The creation of asset management companies to handle distressed assets is a frequent feature of restructurings, but they do not appear to be terribly successful. More successful are recapitalizations using public money (which can often be partly or even fully recouped through privatization after the crisis passes); recaps seem to result in smaller hits to GDP. But they're not cheap: they average 6% of GDP, which for the U.S. would be about $850 billion.

Total fiscal costs, net of eventual asset recoveries, average 13% of GDP (over $1.8 trillion for the U.S.); the average recovery of public outlays is around 18% of the gross outlay.

But those who don't want to spend that kind of taxpayer money should consider this: Laevan and Valencia find that "[t]here appears to be a negative correlation between output losses and fiscal costs, suggesting that the cost of a crisis is paid either through fiscal costs or larger output losses." And if the economy goes into the tank, government revenues take a big hit, so what's saved on the expenditure side could well be lost on the revenue side.

Oh, and about half the countries that have experienced crises have had some form of deposit insurance. So merely expanding the FDIC's coverage is not likely to do the trick --and, in any case, it's going to be hard to escape the huge expense of a systemic recapitalization, though using the FDIC might simplify the politics of the rescue.

(A note on the politics of the rescue: an ABC poll shows the public to be far more worried about the economic consequences of the bailout's defeat than Congress seems to be. There's not a lot of enthusiasm for what's seen as handing money over to Wall Street --but if properly structured and sold, say with more cost recovery prospects for the government, more relief for debtors, a rescue is not as unpopular as some would have it.)

Relevant Examples

Most of the countries in the Laevan/Valencia database are in the developing world, and are of questionable relevance to the U.S. But TLR has taken a closer look at four countries that offer more relevant models: Japan, Korea, Norway, and Sweden. Some major stats for the four and the U.S. are in the table at the end of the newsletter, and graphs of some important indicators are there as well.

Sweden, now widely seen as a model of swift, bold action, kept its ultimate fiscal costs relatively low --3.6% of GDP at first, almost all of which was recovered through stock and asset sales-- but was unable to avoid a deep recession. At the other end of the spectrum, Japan, the model of foot-dragging half-measures, saved no money through its procrastination; its fiscal outlay was 24% of GDP, almost none of which was recovered. And it was unable to avoid recession.

Note, though, that some of the worried talk surrounding the financial market impact of bank bailouts looks misplaced, at least on these models. Three years after the outbreak of crisis, inflation was lower and stock prices higher in all four countries, and government bond yields were lower in all but Japan. It's likely that the deflationary effects of a credit crunch outweigh the inflationary effects of debt finance.

Although the U.S. in 2007 had a lot in common with other countries on the brink of a banking crisis, one thing stands out: the depth of the current account deficit. Of the four comparison countries, only Korea comes close to the U.S. level of red ink. The unweighted average current account deficit of the 42 countries in the Laevan/Valencia database was 3.9% of GDP --compared with 6.2% for the U.S. That suggests that the U.S. has more to deal with than just resolving a banking crisis.

A Better Bailout

So, with the modified Paulson plan dead for now, what might a better bailout scheme look like in light of the Laevan/Valencia historical database?

First, it must be adopted quickly. Perhaps operating through the FDIC would be a way to accomplish that, though the FDIC will almost certainly need to have its coffers copiously refilled.

Second, forbearance would be a bad idea; it does no one any good not to face reality.

Third, purchasing bad assets and turning them over to an asset management corporation is not a promising strategy.

Fourth, recapitalizing the banks should be the heart of any policy; as the authors say, it should be selective, meaning supporting those institutions with hope of revival, and letting the terminal go down.

And fifth, targeted relief for distressed debtors, supported with public funds, has also shown success in earlier banking crises, and should be part of any rescue scheme in the U.S. as well.

Crises like this are manageable. They're expensive and painful to resolve, but even more expensive and painful when left to fester.

-- Philippa Dunne & Doug Henwood

Bailout Stats And Graphs

The Elusive Bottom

John Mauldin — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:26:05 GMT

In this weekend's Thoughts from the Frontlines, I quoted from part of a very thoughtful, right-on-target analysis by David A. Rosenberg entitled "The Elusive Bottom." Over the weekend, I decided that you should read the whole piece, as Rosenberg makes some very solid points about how the markets and the economy may play out over the next few years. He has a non-consensus viewpoint, but that is what I like for Outside the Box. In fact, I think this is one of the more thought-provoking pieces I have used in OTB for some time.

Rosenberg is the North American Economist for Merrill Lynch. They were gracious to give me permission to send this letter out on such a short notice, and I believe you will well served to take the time to think through his analysis. And rather than try and give you a quick summary, let's just jump right in.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Elusive Bottom

Conference Call Notes
14 August 2008
David A. Rosenberg

We aren't past the halfway point of this recession

My sense is that we probably aren't even past the halfway point yet of this recession, the credit losses or the house price deflation. Looking at whether equities may have bottomed or not on an intermediate basis, maybe the recent action to the negative side was an important inflection. In terms of what I do, which is trying to tie the macro into the markets, I have a very tough time believing that we have reached anything close to a fundamental low, either in the S&P 500 or in the long-bond yield, for that matter.

300-point rallies in the Dow happen in bear markets

We're in a very confusing atmosphere. People didn't really know what to make of a 300-point rally in the Dow the other day, but my main message was that 300point rallies from the Dow don't happen in bull markets. In fact, they never happened in the bull market from October '02 to October '07, but it has happened 6 times in this bear market and happened 12 times in the last bear market. You don't get moves like that in bull markets. As Rich Bernstein has said time and again, "This is the hallmark of a recession and a hallmark of a bear market."

How can there be recession with GDP still positive?

We are at a crossroad in the economy. The 2Q GDP numbers recently came in at plus 1.9%. The details of the number left a little to be desired, but it was still a positive number. Turn on CNBC, and everybody says, "How can there possibly be a recession with GDP positive?"

Employment has been down seven months in a row

The very next day we got nonfarm payrolls. It prints down 51,000 and frankly, it doesn't matter whether it was below or above Wall Street expectations. The bottom line is that employment is down seven months in a row. In 60 years of sifting through the data here, that's never happened before without the economy being in a classic recession.

GDP is useful but it has its limitations

I think the point that has to be made as an economist talking to a group of portfolio managers or FAs or investors, it is important to convey to clients that there is a lot of noise out there. GDP is useful, but it has its limitations. First, GDP is going to get revised. We thought we had a plus 0.6 in the fourth quarter; all of a sudden, it's minus 0.2. Twenty percent of GDP is government. So, you really can't fully concentrate on GDP when a fifth of it is state, local and federal government, unless you're trading defense stocks.

You'll miss a lot of action waiting for GDP to go negative

More to the point, if you're waiting as an investor for GDP to actually turn negative, you're going to miss a lot of action along the way. I think the best example is to just go back to Japan. They had a real estate bubble that turned bust and they had their own credit contraction back in the early 1990s. Guess what; Japan didn't post its first back-to-back contraction of real GDP until the second half of 1993. By the time the back-to-back negative that people seem to be waiting for happened, the Nikkei had already plunged 50%, the 10-year JGB yield rallied 300 basis points, and the Bank of Japan had cut the overnight rate 500 basis points, which said a thing or two about the efficacy of using the traditional monetary policy response of cutting interest rates into a credit contraction (as we're now finding out here in the US).

Dating the recession is a very scientific process

The point is we can't make the assumption that we've avoided a recessionary condition in the economy, just because we have so far managed to avoid back-toback quarters of negative GDP. I'm just telling you as the economist that it is basically irrelevant. The only body that officially makes the call on the broad contours - when the recession started, when it ends, when the expansion starts, when it ends - is the National Bureau of Economic Research, the NBER. It's a very scientific process. It's not a gut check or a judgment call.

We should actually be welcoming the recession call

When they make the determination - it's very interesting, by the way - when they make the announcement that the recession began, when they actually date it for us, traditionally we're a month away from the recession actually ending. The announcement, in fact, is going to be a rather cathartic event, something we should actually welcome happening, but so far they are still taking their sweet time in making the proclamation.

Four factors used to determine recession

1) Employment

The NBER relies on four different variables. The first is employment. Now I've told you before; employment is down seven months in a row. Does employment go in the GDP? The answer is no. Is it correlated? Yes. Does it help grow the business cycle? Of course.

2) Industrial production

The next variable is industrial production. Does that go into GDP? The answer is no. Does it help grow the business cycle? The answer is yes. This is a number that comes from the Fed. The GDP comes from the Commerce Department. It's a very important variable.

3) Real personal income net government transfers

The next variable, the third one, is real personal income excluding government transfers. This metric is now down four months in a row. Does personal income go into GDP? The answer is no; of course, it doesn't. GDP is all about spending. Personal income goes into gross domestic income, which is another chart of the national accounts.

4) Real sales activity

The fourth variable and the only variable that actually feeds into GDP is real sales activity in manufacturing, retail and wholesale sectors.

Recession probably started in January

When I take a look at these four key indicators that define the broad contours of the business cycle, they all peaked and began to roll over sometime between October of last year and February of this year. I am convinced that when the NBER does make the final proclamation, it will tell us a that recession officially began in January. Of course, to any market person, this would make perfect sense, because of when the S&P 500 peaked. It did a double top into October, right when it usually does, before a recession begins.

This recession won't end before mid-2009, in our view

Now I'm just giving you the rearview mirror. What's most important to you folks is let's look through the front window and see when this recession is going to end. The tea leaves that I'm reading at this point in time show that this recession is not ending any time before the mid part of 2009, which would mean that, if you're looking for, not the Mary Ann Bartels intermediate bottoms, but the fundamental bottom, I don't think you can expect to see it before February or March of next year, if I'm correct on when this recession ends. Historically the S&P 500 troughs four months before the economy actually hits its bottom point.

Profit as a share of GDP was at unheard of levels

The next question, of course, is what levels are we talking about? Again, I'm going to take what I do, which is earnings, and then talk about the appropriate multiple. What is the appropriate multiple at the low in a recession? In terms of earnings, I think that we have to understand where we're coming from in this cycle. We're coming from a situation where, because of all the leverage in the system, profits in the share of GDP went into this recession and bear market at 14% of GDP, which is unheard of. That's never happened before. A lot of the reason why profits soared was because everybody turned to financials. There was this tremendous amount of leverage, and that accounted for half of just about everything in the cycle from GDP growth to employment to profits.

The profits share of GDP, again, as a proxy for margins, is now down to 12%. Think about that for a second. This terrible earnings recession so far has taken the share of profits from 14% down to 12%. The question is, if I'm right on a recession, where does the profit share of GDP go to at a recession trough? Well, consistently it goes to 7%.

We could get below $50 on operating earnings

Even the economists who are predicting a recession are going say, "Playing in a little recession, on average, troughs go down 25%." The problem this time is that we have to overlay the revenue decline that actually comes from a recession with a much more significant margin, considering the levels from which we headed into this bear market and recession. So when I'm talking about that historically, what's normal in a recession is that this profit share equals to 7% and we started at 14%, we are talking about a 25% decline in earnings. We can be talking about something closer to 50% peak to trough. The peak is $90 on a full-quarter trailing basis. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities that we get below $50 in operating earnings. The first call consensus numbers is $105 earnings for next year. I give the odds of that happening at exactly 0.0%.

There is a good chance we test the 2002 lows

Now, I'm not at $50 for next year. We're at $63 for operating EPS, but that means that the answer is no, I don't feel that we're too low on earnings. Usually you slap a historical trough multiple on in a recession. But typically, during a recession coupled with a credit crunch, the multiple bottoms at 12. You're at a 12 multiple with $63 in earnings and you're going to ask the question, "Are you talking about the possibility that we can actually test the ... 2002 lows?" And the answer is that it is certainly not outside the realm of the possible. I'm not making that forecast, but what I am telling you is that there is a good chance that that could happen.

We are in a secular bear market

With that being respectful to the fact, I believe we're in a secular bear market. I don't even think that's an opinion anymore. I think it's a stylized fact. If you saw it, Rich Bernstein put out his performance asset mix table. Out of all the asset classes, stocks, cash, bonds, commodities, the only one to have a negative inflation-adjusted return over the past 10 years is the S&P 500. So I think we have to be honest about this. If it's something like a 1929 and 1955 or 1966, 1982 type of secular bear market, I think this one actually started in 2000, it doesn't mean that you don't get cyclical bull markets along the way. We actually had a cyclical bull market in the context of a secular bear market that actually took the S&P to a new high. Of course, as I said before, half of that was unprecedented leverage, the stone process of unwinding.

I think that it is important now to recognize for our clients that we have a cyclical bear market being overlaid into a secular bear market. I think the message that we're trying to send is that there is a different investing style and strategy for every part of the business cycle. One part of the business cycle is all about adding ... data and risk to maximize your turns. Then there are times when it is all about preserving your capital and focusing on income, earnings, stability and dividend growth. I think that's where we have been, and I firmly believe that's where we will continue to be, at least over the course of the next 12 months.

Chapter 1 was the end of the res construction bubble

When I look at where we are in this book, and we continue to write chapters in this book and it is a book; this is an epic period. We are living through history. People will be writing about this in the future, no different than they wrote about the 1920s and the 1930s. Chapter one of the book was the end of the residential construction bubble, which I would tag as the first quarter of 2006, when housing started to peak and began to roll over at 2.3 million units. I continue to look back at that, 2.3 million units.

The natural level of demographic demand for housing in this country is annual demand of 1.45 million units. From 2003 until 2007, builders added on average nearly 2 million residential units per year, or 30% more, than the natural demand could absorb, because, of course, we were in a new paradigm. So the builders were building homes and condos as if we had the same demographics as the 1970s when the Boomers were buying their first refrigerator. This is a case of Global Crossing meeting D.R. Horton, and we are paying the price for that, even today.

Chapter two was the end of the home price bubble

Chapter two of the book was the end of the home-price bubble, and I would date that to the first quarter of 2007 when the Case-Shiller Index began to deflate year over year. Now, I want to make this point, and I want to make this point emphatically. Home prices in this country on average rose 20% per year for six years. That has never happened before. When you take a look at home prices in real terms, they're still more than 30% higher today than they were when this mania morphed into a bubble back in 2001. So to those people who are thinking that we're only 5% away from the low, I'd say I don't think so. Make no mistake that there is going to be more deflation in home prices ahead - I think significant deflation - just as Freddie Mac put us on notice yesterday.

Chapter three was the end of the credit cycle

The third chapter was the end of the credit cycle, which, again, I would tag at exactly a year ago. I think the way we have to look at this, and we're talking about how this affects our ability to navigate the portfolio and manage the macro forecast. This cycle saw the end of a 20-year secular credit expansion that went absolutely parabolic in the last 6 years and accounted for half the growth in just about every segment that's forecast.

Chapter four was the end of the employment cycle

This is very big stuff and it's taking on different forms. We have the end of the credit cycle as chapter three. Chapter four was the end of the employment cycle, which I discussed earlier, which started in December of 2007.

Chapter 5 is the first consumer recession since 1990-91

We're heading into chapter five, and chapter five is the onset of the first consumer recession since 1990-91. I would argue this could end up being very similar to that six-quarter consumer recession that we endured from 1973-75. There are differences, but there are similarities. A lot of people like to compare this to 199091, because of the real estate flavor and the credit crunch, but there is actually a lot more going on that compares it to 1975.

I was around in the 1980s, and I remember that it played out very similarly. What people called resilience and people called contained and people called decoupling were all very pleasant euphemisms for lags. That's what they are; they're lags. There are built-in lags. Housing peaked in 1988, rolled over, the credit crunch intensified in 1989 when RTC got into real action. Then 1990 ... two years after housing peaked, we had this very surprising consumer recession that caught even the Fed off guard.

The Four Horsemen

I wrote a report late last year titled The Four Horsemen. It was a regretful choice of words, because I kept on fielding questions as to whether or not I was, in fact, calling for the end of the world. I got to a point where my answer was "Just wait; it's going to get worse than that." In any event, who are the four horsemen? The four horsemen are credit contraction, deflation of both housing and equities, and that happened in the mid-1970s. Usually you'll get one or the other. To have both housing and equities deflate on the household balance sheet, we're talking about $30 trillion of assets. Half the assets on the household balance sheet are compressing dramatically right now. That last happened in the mid-1970s. We got credit contraction. We got deflation on the asset side of the household balance sheet that's forcing the savings rate higher. We have employment, which I mentioned before.

Of course, food and energy - and, again, not just energy, but energy and food - and food is a bigger deal. Food is 15% of the household budget; energy is 10%. That's a quarter of the household budget constrained by food and energy. Food is going to come down at a slower rate than energy will, but it's already too late.

Oil prices are going down because demand is going down

People are saying to me all the time, "Gee, aren't you going to turn more bullish with oil prices going down?" Well, oil prices are going down, because for the first time in this cycle it took $145 to break the back of the consumer. Quite amazing that it took that long, but it has happened. So we're seeing true demand destruction in energy at a rate we haven't seen in almost two decades.

It's something to get an oil price decline that's predicated on a new oil supply. I would keep that as a de facto exogenous tax cut; but when you're getting oil price declines because of recessionary pressures cutting into energy demand, it's no different than what happened in late 2000. That was the last time we had oil peel off as much as it is right now. I think it would have been a bit of a mistake for the economists at the end of 2000 to say, "Ah-ha, oil is coming down; I'm going to raise my 2001 GDP forecast." You have to take a look at the reason why oil is going down, and the reason is not because of supply. The reason is because consumer demand is starting to go down. Again, the last time you had food and energy deviating so much from the long-run norm was in the mid-1970s.

Cash flow drain to household sector is $800 billion

When I take a look at the four horsemen and I try to come up with a number, the number I'm trying to come up with is a cash flow number. What is the cash flow drain on the household sector from the four horsemen in the coming year? The answer is $800 billion. So Uncle Sam, give me six more of those tax stimulus plans. That is a huge number. It's equivalent to 12% of discretionary spending, which, by the way, is exactly the peak-to-trough decline in real consumer cyclical spending back in that 1973 to 1975 recession. The S&P 500 goes down peak to trough not by 20%, but more like 40%.

Three markers to turn us bullish

In terms of what are some of the markers that I'm weighing down to turn more bullish? I think this is very important. I look at not so much where am I going to be wrong, but looking at what are the things that will turn me more positive? There are three markers that I have laid down. The first marker is the personal savings rate. I have to see the personal savings rate go back to the pre-bubbles, normalized levels, which was 8%. I'm not talking about the Jurassic period here. I'm talking about where we were in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, before the last two bubbles. That's why I said plural.

We had a tech stock bubble followed very quickly by a housing bubble. This had tremendous implications for perceived net worth and perceived future asset growth of the household sector. It had monumental impact on how people spent their after-tax income. That's why we got to a point last year where briefly the savings rate got to negative for the first time since the 1920s. There was a belief system that we could retire on our assets, and now these assets are deflating and people's expectations of how they're going to retire is going to force that savings rate higher. That's going to be very disinflationary, by the way.

I think it's important to note that, in 2002, as the tech sector was deflating, Greenspan and Bernanke decided that it was a good idea to re-slate the housing stock as an antidote to the deflation in the tech capital stock. This is almost a piece of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; we built the monster, now we have to tear it down. I don't know what else is left. We've had an equity bubble followed by a housing bubble, followed by a credit bubble. I don't think there are any more rabbits in the hat to create the next bubble, unless that bubble is going to be in Treasuries, and maybe that is, in fact, going to happen. It's pretty clear that the Fed is going to be concentrating a lot more in the future on non-traditional measures to ease monetary conditions, and not just cutting the Fed fund rate. Part of that may be reflating by expanding its balance sheet, which means that it's not just talk. The Fed is actually going to add to its balance sheet, and that's exactly what happened.

1) Need to see the savings rate go to eight percent

With the Bank of Japan and the operations they conducted back in the 1990s, this is just stuff to consider for the future. Let me just say that a savings rate of 8% would leave me feeling very good about the fact that we would have gone to a level of pent-up demand that would help us embark on the next bull market and economic expansion. That's going to take quite a bit of time. This is a process. This a process we're talking, even after the recession ends, that's going to be an elongated recovery, as there was in the early 1990s, after that asset cycle. Remember, the recession might have ended in November 2001, but that did not give you a "get out of jail free" card as an equity investor, and certainly the recovery was a good two years away, even if the recession technically ended at the end of 2001. I'm talking about the markers that will turn me bullish for the next cycle. An eight percent savings rate, to me, would be a very critical launching pad.

2) Months supply below eight months

What else? Well, I doubt that anything is really going to bottom, including the financials, until we're convinced that house prices have hit bottom. For that we have to look at the inventory to sales ratio, and there are different measures. There is the new inventory, which is a 10-month supply. There's the resale; that's 11-month supply. When I take a look at the Census Bureau data, which includes total vacant units for sale, single-family, condo, it's more like 17-month supply. We need to include everything, including foreclosed properties. I have to see that number sliced in half. I have to see it down below eight months supply before I'll be convinced home prices don't bottom, at least the second derivatives start to turn positive. I have to see that metric at the eight-month supply. I'm keeping a very close eye on it. That will make me feel a lot more comfortable with turning bullish for the next cycle.

3) Interest coverage ratio has to come down to 10.5%

The third and last marker comes down to the household balance sheet. What I'm referring to here is interest coverage in the household sector. We have a record debt-income ratio, but that's a stop-to-flow concept. I'm talking about interest coverage, how much are principal and interest payments from the record debt absorbing out of household income? It is 14.1%. It's at a near-record high. We have never been in a recession with this metric at this level. So, that means there are too many things that are levels we've never seen before. The whole thing about economic bottling is you run the rest of it based on the past, and there are so many things that we're entering into this thing that I've never seen before.

There is, I'd have to admit, a wide dispersion around the forecast I am providing. What I am really trying to do is put things into a certain perspective. What I know, being an economist, is that in some sense you're a glorified historian. So when I take a look at the chart of interest coverage in the household sector, what do I see? I see that after the recession of the early 1980s, this interest coverage ratio got down to 10.5% by 1982 and, voila, that was the touch-off point for a multi-year bull market and economic expansion.

Then we had the recession of the early 1990s, and what do you know? In 1992, interest coverage went down to 10.5% again. That was the launching pad for a multi-year bull market and economic expansion. We're 14.1% in this metric today. I know this historical record tells me that there is something about a 10.5% ratio that is a very cathartic event. The problem is that to get there from here would require the elimination of $2 trillion of household debt. So, maybe when NYU's Nouriel Roubini talks about that the total losses could be up to $2 trillion, maybe he's not talking through a paper bag.

Frugality is going to set in

As far as I know, there are only two ways to eliminate debt. You either walk away from it, which people obviously are doing, which is why we got these write-downs and these foreclosures, or you pay it down. I think people with a FICO score that they are concerned about are going to pay that down. That means that the savings rate is going to be forced higher. This, again, is going to be very, very disinflationary. It means that fashions are going to change. It means frugality is going to set in. We're going to be living in smaller houses, driving smaller cars and living more frugally. It's not going to be the end of the world; it's going to be a necessary process to truly embark on getting the balance sheets down to more comfortable levels so that we can actually embark on the next cycle.

Intense deleveraging in the banking sector

The whole thing about being an economist is that you're being requested to model behavior. What I found recently was three signs of significant changes in behavior. We obviously know of at least one investment bank that is taking aggressive action to sell assets and to deleverage. That's going to force a lot of action in other parts of the industry. What we're talking about here is intensified deleveraging in the banking sector.

Inventories cut by $62 billion despite tax stimulus

What else did we see? Well, those GDP numbers were just fascinating when you dig through them. Think about it for a second. How did businesses respond to the biggest tax stimulus of all time? They cut their inventory by $62 billion. Can you fathom that? Instead of boosting production as a result of the stimulus, they just allowed the stimulus to absorb past production. We already know that the inventory component went down another five points based on the July ISM number, so this inventory liquidation process is continuing.

Savings rate boosted despite stimulus too

Alan Greenspan cut his teeth on inventory investment cycles. So banks are deleveraging, and companies are liquidating inventories. How did households respond to the biggest tax stimulus of all time? They boosted their savings rate from 0.3% in the first quarter to 2.6% in the second quarter, which is only the third steepest increase in the savings rate in any given quarter in the past 55 years. Now you probably didn't read that in the front page of The Wall Street Journal, but I find that to be a very relevant statistic.

So we have financial sector deleveraging. We have business sector inventory liquidation overlaid with the households boosting their savings rate. These are new themes, and the theme is about getting small. That's going to play very well into Rich Bernstein's decision two months ago to allocate an extra 15 percentage points to his fixed income portfolio. Now we're talking about fixed income. We're talking about bonds that are high quality and have non-callable protection.

Nominal GDP growth has highest correlation with yields

I'll tell you that the really key forecast next year coming from the economics department here is the nominal GDP, nominal, price times quantity, because we're calling for nominal GDP growth next year to average 1.5%. That is going to be very bullish for sectors that have proven earnings stability and reliable dividend growth, and it's going to be very bullish for bonds. I say that, because I know that the critical driving factor for bonds is not fiscal deficits. It's not the dollar and, guess what, it's not commodities. Nominal GDP growth has the highest correlation. People look and they say, "Four percent 10-year note; who'd want to touch it?" The reality is that nominal GDP growth this year is averaging 4%. The fact that the 10-year note is averaging 4% is not really a big mystery, if you're looking at the macro underpinnings.

Now, if I'm right on 1.5% nominal GDP growth for next year, all I can tell you is that the last time we had a condition like that was in 1958. All I can tell you is that 1958, the funds rate averaged to 1.5% and the 10-year note averaged 3%. If you're going to ask me if we have a realistic chance of going back and retesting the June 2003 lows and the 10-year note or the March 2008 lows and the 10-year note, I firmly believe that's going to happen. I believe that's going to also provide you with very handsome total returns.

Your glad to see oil dropping in price analyst,

John Mauldin

Survival of the Unfittest

John Mauldin — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:09:20 GMT

It is indeed a very interesting time in which to live, especially watching the financial markets. The disconnect among authorities, regulators, companies and investors is almost too much to comprehend. There are no precedents for the turmoil we are in. This week we read an essay by a name familiar to readers of Outside Box, Michael Lewitt of Hegemony Capital Management (www.hegcap.com). As usual he offers us some very cogent comments on the continuing efforts by those in authority to bail out the system, along with insights on the deal by Merrill and the woes at GM. It is a very interesting letter, so I will stand aside and let Michael jump in.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Survival of the Unfittest

by Michael Lewitt

"Can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others would have the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest."

- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

Honest to God, HCM is trying to find the light at the end of the dark tunnel that the U.S. economy and financial markets have become. But every time we turn around, regulators and other power brokers continue to avoid making the hard choices necessary to deal with the problems at hand. As a result, the practices that led the current credit crisis are being preserved, and changes that could lead to more stable and healthy markets are being pushed into the future (perhaps forever). The last month has provided so much grist for this mill that we hardly know where to begin, but begin we must. Our survey of what can only be described as a regulatory wasteland begins with the SEC's misbegotten short-selling legislation.

Regulatory Malfunction

On July 21, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a $550,000 indecency fine against CBS for airing singer Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission had "capriciously departed" from its policy over the past 30 years of policing the airwaves with "practiced restraint" when it imposed the fine. Importantly, the court stated that, "[l]ike any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second- guessing. But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure." This demand for consistency and fair warning in the law has been absent from enforcement of the nation's securities laws for many years, resulting in botched prosecutions, inconsistent regulation, and damage to the system.

The latest example of regulatory malfunction in the financial markets is the SEC's limitations on selling short the stocks of 19 financial firms. Readers should understand that this stopgap measure will have absolutely no impact on the underlying value or the long-term stock prices of these companies. This is merely a political bone being thrown to those who would sooner blame short-sellers for the credit crisis than the institutions (and the individuals responsible for mismanaging them) who acted in a wholly irresponsible manner. Leon Cooperman, one of this generation's great investors and a man always willing to speak his mind, described the situation very frankly in a recent interview in Barron's: "The financial economy is in disarray and that is really a result - and you can quote me on this - of imprudent financial activity by the commercial banks and investment banks. They levered themselves up. They did things that were foolish. They should be ashamed of the way they conducted themselves, and now they have to right that, and they are de-leveraging."¹

By engaging in selective protectionism of a few favored companies rather than re- imposing the uptick rule and treating all companies equally, the SEC furthered the appearance of favored treatment for large institutions that raises serious moral hazard concerns and dampens confidence in U.S. financial markets. The following is the list of the 19 firms that the powers-that-be decided were worthy of special protection from market forces:

BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Bank of America Corporation
Barclays PLC
Citigroup Inc.
Credit Suisse Group
Daiwa Securities Group Inc.
Deutsche Bank Group AG
Allianz SE
Goldman, Sachs Group Inc.
Royal Bank ADS
HSBC Holdings PLC ADS
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
UBS AG
Freddie Mac
Fannie Mae

Among the more interesting aspects of this list is the fact that more than half the names are non- U.S. firms enjoying the protection of the U.S. regulators and the fact that some large U.S.-based firms that are clearly being pummeled by short-sellers are missing from the list (i.e. Wachovia Corp., AIG International Group, Inc., Washington Mutual). The ostensible basis for inclusion on the list - status as a primary dealers plus Fannie and Freddie - speaks to the reactionary nature of the rule-making. Finally, this desperate measure is yet another example of the capitalism-for-the poor, socialism-for-the-rich economic model that American financial authorities have adopted over the past two decades.

As has been widely noted, the SEC effectively restricted "naked short selling" several years ago but failed to adequately enforce the rule. ("Naked short selling" involves selling short shares of stock that one has not borrowed or determined are borrowable. As The King Report points out, SEC Release 34-50103 dated July 28, 2004 states that Rule 203(b)(3) "requires any participant of a registered clearing agency...to take action on all failures to deliver that exist in such securities ten days after normal settlement date, i.e., 13 consecutive settlement days. Specifically, the participant is required to close out the fail to deliver position by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity." A "threshold security" is defined as a stock experiencing an unusually high number of fails to deliver. A "fail to deliver" is a failure to actually deliver shares that have been borrowed to effect a short sale and are most commonly associated with "naked" short sales. Rule 203(b)(3) is the rule that the SEC has failed to enforce with sufficient teeth, effectively allowing "naked" short selling to run rampant.)

As a result, when it announced that it would enforce the rule selectively with respect to a select number of financial stocks that had been battered by short sellers (ignoring the fact that a number of these companies had posted tens of billions of dollars of losses due to gross mismanagement and deserved to be sold), the agency effectively admitted that it had been failing to enforce its own rules. The SEC's announcement predictably sent holders of naked short positions scrambling to borrow stock while other short sellers ran to cover their positions in these and other financial stocks in anticipation of a rally in these shares. The result was a historic rally in financial shares that was given a boost by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie but was wholly unrelated to any improvement in the underlying businesses of the companies whose stock prices rose so sharply.

The real question is why the SEC did not reinstitute the uptick rule, which, in one of the those coincidences that you can't make up, was repealed on the same day that the Bear Stearns' hedge fund problem came to light, June 13, 2007. Re-imposing the uptick rule on all stocks rather than trying to protect a handful of financial stocks from the verdict of the market would seem to be a far more enlightened method of regulation. HCM has made this point before, writing in April (The HCM Market Letter, April 1, 2008, "How To Fix It") the following:

"Short selling is an absolutely legitimate way to invest or hedge a portfolio. The SEC made a major error when it repealed the [uptick] rule last year. The repeal of this rule increased downside volatility exponentially and contributed to the ability of quantitative and other computer-driven selling to push the market lower based on technical rather than fundamental investment considerations. The SEC should reinstitute the [uptick] rule immediately." (emphasis in original)

In addressing concerns that short-sellers are unfairly targeting financial stocks, the SEC had a choice about how to proceed. By taking the path it did, it appears to have continued an unfortunate tradition of enforcing rules that are already on the books but that practitioners have practiced with relative impunity because regulators have allowed them to. The King Report noted that the New York Stock Exchange fined and censured J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Daiwa Securities, Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse two years ago for failing to enforce rules against naked short selling.³ Apparently these penalties (which were a couple of million dollars) were insufficient to end the abuses, and the fines were treated as just another cost of doing business.

Wall Street firms that lend stock and bonds to short sellers earn enormous profits from such activities. According to a recent article in the Financial Times, "US prime brokerage firms, most of which are owned by big Wall St. banks, will reap revenue of $11 bn this year" from lending stock to facilitate short-selling.⁴ Accordingly, the securities industry has very little interest in seeing any crackdown on short-selling. Fines of a couple of million dollars are hardly sufficient to dissuade them from ignoring the rules when they stand to earn billions of dollars from the activity in question. As distasteful as it is to see the largest financial institutions in the world thumb their noses at the rules, it is even more discouraging to see the regulators allow them to do so.

What most disturbed HCM about the SEC's decision was the fact that it is just the latest example of the beggar-the-poor, boost-the-rich policies that the American financial authorities have followed over the past two decades. HCM understands perfectly well that allowing financial institutions to fail is not a viable policy either politically or economically. But while the government acted literally overnight to protect Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers and 17 other financial institutions and their already wealthy executives, Congress took much longer to debate and pass a mortgage rescue plan to help the millions of less fortunate homeowners who are on the verge of losing their homes. There is obviously an enormous difference between an agency's ability to issue a rule overnight and Congress's ability to legislate, but at some point - and that point is coming sooner rather than later in HCM's opinion - the American people are going to ignore that distinction and ask why Wall Street continues to get bailed out before Main Street. There is nothing pre- ordained about the policy choices that are being made. As Professor Lawrence E. Mitchell writes in his recent book, The Speculation Economy, "modern American corporate capitalism is the result of human choices. It is a system we maintain out of choice. It is a system that has ramifications beyond the economic that have helped to embed social norms of individualism that interfere with the cooperation necessary for a successful economy and a thriving society. It is within our power to change it, to modify its rough edges or to accept it as it is. But these choices can only be made with understanding."⁵ Smoothing out the rough edges is a very mild version of what needs to be done. What needs to be done is to make difficult policy choices that will necessarily involve the infliction of pain on certain constituencies that have thus far been protected from the consequences of their own sins.

HCM is not proposing that the authorities stand by with their hands in their pockets while firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or Bear Stearns face collapse. What HCM is arguing, however, is that such rescue plans should not provide protection for the shareholders of these companies. The minute the U.S. government was compelled to open the discount window to the investment banks, it should have made it very clear that there would be no support for the shareholders of these companies. Bear Stearns' shareholders received $10/share more than they deserved when that company was bailed out by the Federal Reserve and J.P. Morgan Chase.

This leads to a conclusion that was discussed several months ago in this publication (The HCM Market Letter, April 1, 2008, "How To Fix It"). Since it is apparent that we are not prepared to allow certain firms to fail, then we must take steps to limit their ability to endanger the system in the first place. This requires rules that impose limitations on financial institutions' leverage; eliminates their ability to conceal assets and liabilities in opaque off-balance sheet entities; restricts asymmetric compensation schemes that reward insiders for taking indecent risks with their firms' capital at the expense of shareholders and ultimately taxpayers; and adopt economic and monetary policies that encourage productive investment rather than speculation. This is no small order, but it is eminently achievable. Moreover, it is absolutely necessary if American capitalism is going to continue to flourish and maintain the confidence of the keepers of the world's capital in the years ahead.

Sticking One's Head In The Sand

In April, HCM wrote the following about the egregiously leveraged off-balance sheet entities known as Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) that inflicted so much damage on the global financial system (The HCM Market Letter, April 1, 2008, "How To Fix It"):

"Off balance sheet entities should be outlawed immediately, plain and simple. If first Enron and now the SIVs haven't taught us the necessary lessons about hidden liabilities, the system probably doesn't deserve to survive. Speaking as someone with extensive knowledge of these off-balance sheet entities, it would not be difficult to render them extinct relatively easily. It would be doing the world a favor."

On July 30, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) reluctantly caved in to pressure from the very institutions that created these off-balance sheet monstrosities and agreed to delay for one-year (a period that will undoubtedly become extended if the financial industry remains under pressure a year from now) the introduction of rules that would have forced banks to consolidate more off-balance sheet vehicles onto their balance sheets. FASB Chairman Robert Herz did not go gently into the good night, however, admitting, "t does pain me to allow something that has been abused by certain folks, to let that go for another year." Mr. Herz also noted that he was "chagrined" by what had been uncovered about these vehicles as the new rule was being prepared, noting that a combination of poor reporting and lax enforcement had led to the current situation.

The FASB was caught between a rock and a hard place. The reality is that banks can't absorb additional liabilities onto their balance sheets at the current time without violating capital rules. These institutions are barely capable of remaining solvent as it is. They are continuing to report massive write-offs and are experiencing tremendous resistance when they try to go back to the well to raise additional capital. Accordingly, requiring the addition of what may amount to several trillion dollars of off-balance sheet liabilities onto banks' balance sheets is simply inconceivable at the present time because it would automatically render several of the world's largest financial institutions (including several on the protected species list from attacks from short-sellers) instantly insolvent. But giving banks a one-year reprieve may simply buy them time to develop other strategies to keep these assets hidden in the opaque shadow banking system.

Moreover, regulators need to assure global investors that no new vehicles of this type will be permitted to be formed in the future. News that the new rule has been delayed suggests that the balance-of-power still lies with institutions that remain too large to fail and can still lord it over regulators by pointing to the catastrophic consequences that hard-and-fast accounting standards will unleash on the financial industry. But the result is that the system sticks its head in the sand for another year as it prays for a recovery in the value of the trillions of dollars of highly complex and illiquid securities (many of them derivatives). HCM would wager heavy money that we have not heard the last about delaying adoption of this rule.

Merrill Lynch: The Dundering Herd

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s decision to dump $30.6 billion of mortgage securities at an average price of $0.22 on the dollar barely a week after its quarterly earnings announcement (which itself included a $10 billion write-down on such securities!) raises more questions than answers about the firm and the prospects for credit markets to recover from their current crisis. Merrill Lynch agreed to sell these securities to Lone Star Funds for $6.2 billion, yet barely two weeks earlier the sale the firm had valued those identical securities at $11.1 billion. Moreover, the sale is structured in such a way that Merrill Lynch is financing 75 percent of the transaction. This means that Lone Star is on the hook for the first $1.7 billion of losses, and then Merrill Lynch will eat any losses beyond that. In other words, another $0.05 drop in the value of these securities would leave Merrill Lynch back on the hook for more losses. Either this will prove to be one of the most desperate transactions done in the annals of the current credit crisis, or John Thain knows something the rest of us don't want to know about the real value of the toxic waste he just sold to Lone Star. At the same time, Mother Merrill announced the sale of 380 milion new shares of stock to raise $8.5 billion in new equity capital. The issuance of additional shares at current prices triggered a make-whole provision in an earlier share sale to Singapore's state investment agency, Temasek that cost Merrill Lynch $2.5 billion. Temasek, the firm's largest shareholder, turned around and reinvested this $2.5 billion in Merrill's new share offering along with an addition $900 million. These announcements not only left Merrill Lynch shareholders severely diluted but, if they had been paying attention to the quarterly earnings call, deluded.

This transaction may constitute one of the oddest corporate announcements in recent memory.⁶ First, it suggests that Merrill Lynch's quarterly earnings announcement was grossly inaccurate since, with respect to these assets alone, the firm's valuation was apparently off by a factor of 40 percent. Second, it raises serious questions about the values all financial firms are placing on their mortgage securities. Either Merrill is alone in mis-marking its book by 40 percent, or other firms are grossly over-valuing their holdings and will be forced to report large write-offs in the third quarter. What is particularly troubling (but gives the anti-quantitative HCM a wonderful dose of schadenfreude) is the enormous gap in valuations that different firms (i.e. Lone Star and Merrill Lynch) can apparently derive from securities that are allegedly valued according to mathematical models whose precision is such that they would have problems hitting the side of a barn.

And naturally Merrill Lynch's announcement, which included a highly dilutive share sale to compensate for the multi-billion capital loss suffered by the firm, led to a rally in the firm's stock price. Let us get this straight - the firm admits that it grossly mis-marked its book, reports a(nother) multi-billion dollar loss, announces a hugely dilutive stock offering, and the stock rallies? Makes perfect sense to us. And people wonder how and why the financial markets continually fall into crisis!

Fannie and Freddie

Merrill Lynch' actions raise a more serious question, however, which is why investors would bet on a recovery in financial institutions at all at this point in time? The reason to do so, it seems, lies more in a bet on what public officials will do than on whether these companies are worthy investments or will have any future value. Investors betting on a turnaround in financial shares are really betting on whether government officials are going to allow these companies to fail. Thus far, it appears that the answer is a resounding "no." The government has demonstrated that it will do everything in its power (and sometimes more than its power expressly permits) to prevent failure. The question, of course, is whether the size of the problems at some point will exceed even the government's grasp.

The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is particularly bizarre in this respect. The very fact that a bailout was necessary demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the entities were insolvent and that the public shareholders should have lost all of their money. The only reason these two companies were not forced to declare bankruptcy is that the U.S. government agreed to stand behind their obligations. Yet the stocks continued to trade at a value greater than zero and will not be wiped out by the government support plan. Yet the real shareholders in terms of bearing the biggest risk of loss in these companies are no longer the holders of the publicly traded shares but the American taxpayers, who are effectively guaranteeing the companies' multi-trillion dollar obligations. Accordingly, the taxpayers should be the ones who received any gains on the equity value of these dinosaurs as they are restructured to operate in the future.⁷ Just because government officials state that they don't "expect" such guarantees to be called upon doesn't erase the fact that such obligations are in place and must be honored. To put it politely, Treasury Secretary Paulson and Congress effectively picked the pockets of the American people by denying them the upside on their new investment in Fannie and Freddie.

And despite passage of the bailout plan, investors in the agencies are not necessarily out of the woods, as HCM suggested earlier this month. On July 9, HCM warned that investors should be cautious in betting on the unsecured obligations of Fannie and Freddie, writing "investors should not presume that a federal bailout will provide a lifeline to all of the companies' investors....subordinated debt holders also should not expect protection in a bailout that would not only be unprecedented in size but also cast the United States' balance sheet and currency in a wholly unfavorable light." (The HCM Market Letter, July 9, 2008, "The Deepening Crisis"). HCM's cautiousness contrasted sharply with the statements and actions of bond giant PIMCO, which has effectively bet the ranch on the debt securities of Freddie and Fannie based on a belief that the government would never permit these institutions to fail. But sure enough, proving once more that even paranoids have enemies, S& P announced on July 25 that it was placing Fannie and Freddie's subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings on CreditWatch Negative. This was based on the fact that the language in the government plan "increases the likelihood that subordinated debt holders and preferred stockholders would face greater subordination risk. This heightened risk is not incorporated into [S&P's] current subordinated debt and preferred stock ratings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We may lower these issue ratings one to two notches at the conclusion of our review of the final legislation."⁸ We very much admire the individuals at PIMCO, but we are entering uncharted territory and recommend investors act with an extra degree of caution. It wouldn't be the first time that investors learned the hard way that a security that was deemed riskless turned out to be nothing of the sort.

Demolition Derby

The slow motion death of the American automobile industry is almost too painful to watch. The flood of bad news coming out of Detroit has literally swelled into a tsunami in recent days, and there is no end in sight.

First came another credit rating downgrade. On July 31, Standard & Poor's did another number on the industry. In three separate reports, it downgraded General Motors Corp. and GMAC LLC, Ford Motor Co. and Ford Motor Credit Co., and Chrysler LLC and DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas LLC (DCFS). The stated rationale for these downgrades (S&P could have chosen a dozen reasons) was basically concern over shrinking cash flows and liquidity at all three companies and their finance arms. While S&P can hardly be blamed for stating the obvious, the rating agency probably didn't go far enough in continuing to rate the automakers ‘B-,' one notch above the once infamous CCC+ level. In today's world, of course, a CCC+ rating no longer bears the stigma that it once did, but in the case of these companies, it is only a matter of time before they bear the insignia of insolvency that such a rating portends. The world is witnessing a classic case of an industry in denial. Rather than taking the truly radical steps necessary to address its problems, Big Auto's management is still engaging in incremental change in the hope that it can buy itself enough time to effect a changeover to more fuel efficient models. Unfortunately, these executives are doing nobody any favors by delaying the inevitable balance sheet restructurings that are going to be a necessary component of the endgame for their industry.

Just prior to S&P's move came the effective collapse of the automobile leasing industry. In the days prior to the S&P downgrade, the automobile financing industry came totally unglued. This is the latest indication of how severely credit is being rationed at all levels of the U.S. economy. Chrysler Finance was the first of the Big Three automakers' finance arms to announce that it would stop extending automobile leases. This decision, which is nothing less than catastrophic for Chrysler's vehicle sales despite unconvincing protests to the contrary by the privately-owned carmaker, was due to the fact that leasing has been rendered unprofitable by Chrysler Finance's rising borrowing costs and the plunging residual value of Chrysler's gasguzzling vehicles. Chrysler debt is trading at levels that suggest an imminent bankruptcy filing.

GMAC and Ford Motor Credit are not expected to eliminate leasing entirely but are likely to severely cut back on auto leases since they can't make any money on these transactions. Wells Fargo has also withdrawn from the business of financing car leases. Other financial institutions are sure to follow.

The dramatic reduction in the availability of auto financing will be another nail in the coffin of the American automobile industry (at some point the coffin will have so many nails in it that it won't need any wood). Leases account for roughly 26 percent of annual auto sales. Just as subprime mortgage financing led many consumers into homes that they couldn't afford, low-cost auto leases allowed many people to lease cars to which they otherwise wouldn't have had access. Leases also led many consumers to replace their vehicles in a much shorter period of time than they ordinarily would have done, leading to higher auto sales. Automobile manufacturing and financing is a significant component of the American economy, and we are watching it being deconstructed piece-by-piece before our very eyes. The economy is seeing the dark side of what happens when financial engineering creates false demand for consumer goods that is unsustainable on a fundamental basis.

Finally, on the last day of July and first day of August, GMAC and GM issued two lackof- earnings releases that not even the happy faces on financial television could spin in a positive way. On July 31, GMAC released its second quarter 2008 results, a loss of $2.5 billion (that would have been much worse without $1.55 billion of lease support payments that GM is obligated to make to GMAC under risk-sharing and support agreements dating from 2006.) GM reported that it has $30 billion in North American leases, including $12 billion in SUVs and $6 billion in other trucks. If current trends hold, GMAC is looking at further multibillion writedowns on these vehicles. Residential Capital LLC contributed $1.9 billion of losses to GMAC during the quarter compared with a $254 million loss a year earlier. HCM will leave it to others to try to find a silver lining at GMAC. The hard truth is that the deterioration of every aspect of this company is accelerating.

Not to be left out in the cold, on August 1, GM announced a grotesque $15.5 billion loss for the second quarter of 2008 ($27.33/share on an $11.00 stock price for those who are still counting such things). Global sales plunged by 18 percent during the quarter, with U.S. sales fading by 16 percent through June. July trends continue to point sharply downward, and the effective elimination of leasing by GMAC can only further reduce sales. A significant portion of the loss was attributable to charges for attrition programs (i.e. job reductions), an adjustment to its reserve for its former parts-maker Delphi Corp., and a $2 billion loss attributable to lower residual values for leased vehicles. But at this point, HCM would seriously discount the one-time nature of these charges, which continue to hit GM's balance sheet with depressing regularity as the company continues to try to dig out from the detritus of its past business structure and history. Backing out these so-called one-time charges left GM with a $6.6 billion quarterly loss, which was still 450 percent larger than analysts projected (which is further evidence that nobody, and HCM means NOBODY, has a clue about how GM is going to survive as a going concern).

The latest news out of Detroit makes it abundantly clear that the endgame for the Big Three is going to be massive bankruptcy restructurings. One would hope that politicians in Washington, particularly the two Presidential candidates, would begin formulating national energy plans that include restructuring plans for the American automobile industry. No viable energy plan will meet this country's needs without creating the proper tax and other economic incentives to build fuel-efficient vehicles. Rather than continuing to be one of the problems that lie at the heart of the American economy, the recovery and revitalization of the auto industry could be a major component of an economic and energy policy that could lead this country out of the difficult times we are experiencing and are doomed to repeat unless we take some bold steps right now.

Footnotes:

1 Barron's, July 28, 2008, "The Market's Down, Not Doomed," p. 35.
HCM/August 1, 2008

5 Lawrence E. Mitchell, The Speculation Economy How Finance Triumphed Over Industry (San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2007), pp. x-xi.

6 Christopher Wood calls attention to a similar announcement by the National Australia Bank (NAB), which wrote-off nearly 90 percent of its US conduit loans, which consisted of 10 CDOs consisting of two "super senior" strips and eight AAA senior strips (in layman's terms, mortgage-related securities). See GREED & fear, 31 July 2008. The Merrill Lynch and NAB write-offs contrast with much smaller writeoffs at other institutions holding the same type of instruments and suggest that future write-offs remain likely and large.
HCM/August 1, 2008

7 In this respect, we are reminded of a statement by Joseph A. Schumpeter: "The only realistic definition of stockholders is that they are creditors (capitalists) who forego part of the legal protection usually extended to creditors, in exchange for the right to participate in profits." See Joseph A. Schumpeter, Business Cycles (McGraw-Hill, New York: 964), p. 79.
HCM/August 1, 2008

8 Standard & Poor's, Research Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Ratings Placed on CreditWatch Negative; Senior Debt Rating Affirmed, July 25 2008.
HCM/August 1, 2008

Your wishing he was still fishing analyst,

John Mauldin

Why We Must Fix It

John Mauldin — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:18:00 GMT

This week in Outside the Box we take up a topic that should be on the top of the agenda of every regulatory authority, executives at financial services firms of all types, and average investors: How do we fix the credit markets to make sure we do not have such a crisis again? Good friend Michael Lewitt of Hegemony Capital Management gives us his observations, some of which go further than I would personally like to see us go. But this is the conversation that must happen if we are to steer clear of future crises. It is clear to me now that a laissez faire approach to regulating certain financial instruments exposes the entire economy to risks much larger than the loss of a business here or there. While better disclosure is certainly appropriate, it is not enough.

I think that we should seriously consider having an exchange for credit default swaps and other similar OTC derivatives. If Bear Stearns is deemed too big to fail because of the extent of its CDS book, and taxpayers are put at risk in a bailout, which I agree was necessary, then rules must limit taxpayer exposure. Having futures and options trade on an exchange certainly hasn't limited commerce or restrained business, and with instantaneous execution and inexpensive transactions there is little friction from using an exchange.

Getting the rules right in the future is going to be difficult and contentious. But it is something we must begin to do as soon as possible. The footnotes that Michael uses are at the end.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Why We Must Fix It

By Michael Lewitt

"Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure -- but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, callico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primaeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and moral natures, each in their appointed place."

Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Last month's issue of this publication ("How To Fix It," March 1, 2008) attracted more reaction than usual. Like several previous issues, it was featured in John Mauldin's Outside the Box and Kate Welling's welling@weeden, and was also widely circulated on the Internet and elsewhere. While many readers agreed that drastic steps are needed to avoid continuing down the dangerous path that our economy and society are on, there were a few individuals who felt that HCM's proposals were too radical.¹ But in the face of the wholly inadequate plan that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson offered up in response to the current crisis, it is painfully apparent that our suggestions were not radical enough. Mr. Paulson's recommendations do little to address the regulatory black holes that permitted some of the most powerful institutions in the world to make hundreds of billions of dollars of worthless loans.² Moreover, his plan fails to address the asymmetric compensation structures that allow financial industry executives to leverage their firms to the hilt and then walk away with pots of gold before their institutions all too predictably tumble into the abyss, inflicting damage on all parts of the financial system except the executives' own wallets.

Despite the fact that the financial markets have temporarily recovered their equilibrium, virtually none of the profound imbalances that led to the current crisis are being addressed. The markets, and those with the power to regulate them, continue to cling to the false ideologies that maintain that markets can correct themselves and that government regulation should be kept to a minimum. In fact, it has been the government that has had to bail out the markets each time they have nearly collapsed in recent years. George Soros makes this argument quite compellingly in a recent interview in The New York Review of Books ("The Financial Crisis: An Interview With George Soros," May 15, 2008).

"[T]he system, as it currently operates, is built on false premises. Unfortunately, we have an idea of market fundamentalism, which is now the dominant ideology, holding that markets are selfcorrecting; and this is false because it's generally the intervention of the authorities that saves the markets when they get into trouble. Since 1980, we have had about five or six crises: the international banking crisis in 1982, the bankruptcy of Continental Illinois in 1984, and the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, to name only three. Each time, it's the authorities that bail out the market, or organize companies to do so. So the regulators have precedents they should be aware of. But somehow this idea that markets tend to equilibrium and that deviations are random has gained acceptance and all of these fancy instruments for investment have been built on them."

This time, the authorities were not only forced to bail out Bear Stearns but were also compelled to take a series of unprecedented steps to infuse massive amounts of liquidity into the banking system in order to fend off a collapse. Some of these steps broke new legal ground. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who is enjoying a resurgence in idolatry for his tough love policies of the early 1980s, castigated³ the current Federal Reserve for breaking new ground (and maybe the law): "The Federal Reserve has judged it necessary to take actions that extend to the very edge of its lawful and implied powers, transcending in the process certain long embedded Central Banking principles and practices." HCM imagines that Mr. Bernanke's response, faced with a potential collapse of the credit system, would be, "So sue me!" Over the past two decades, each successive crisis has required more draconian governmental action to ward off disaster, because the global financial system has grown exponentially larger and more complex. This growth is largely attributable to the uncontrolled and unregulated growth of derivatives and other financial products that have never been truly stress-tested. This is what HCM meant when we wrote last month that "n spite of claims to the contrary, the American economy has become increasingly unstable in recent decades." The only adjustment we would make to that statement would be to change the word "American" to "global" as the American economy has become increasingly linked to the global economy. The economic stability that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan used to brag about was just a veneer -- under the surface, forces of instability were building due to the fact that the system was becoming increasingly leveraged and unregulated. That is why we have to fix the system before it is too late (if if is not already too late). Mr. Soros points out in his interview, "[t]here are now, for example, complex forms of investment such as credit-default swaps that make it possible for investors to bet on the possibility that companies will default on repaying loans. Such bets on credit defaults now make up a $45 trillion market that is entirely unregulated. It amounts to more than five times the total of the US government bond market. The large potential risks of such investments are not being acknowledged." The CDS market, which is properly understood as an insurance market that is most likely under-reserved (not an insurance market without reserves, as some have incorrectly described it), now looms as everybody's candidate for the next accident waiting to happen. At the very least, it is somewhere between grossly and criminally irresponsible for the financial authorities to permit such a vast market to remain unregulated. The real question is whether there is anybody in our government who is even remotely qualified to regulate this market. Even the slightest tinkering with a market of this breadth without a proper understanding of the potential consequences could add a frightening new chapter to the law of unintended consequences. Doing nothing, however, is no longer an option. The failure to make the regulation of this market the top priority of government regulators is nothing less than a national disgrace. Let us hope it does not turn into a national tragedy.

We wish we could be as optimistic as Morgan Stanley's highly respected economist Richard Berner, who writes: "Re-regulation and a safer, better-capitalized financial system are coming. Intermediaries with little to no regulation will get new oversight, new disclosure responsibilities, and new capital requirements."⁴ Unfortunately, addressing the regulatory flaws that led to the current crisis won't be nearly as easy as Mr. Berner makes it sound. While HCM believes that more regulation is absolutely necessary, it is going to have to be implemented in a more enlightened and creative manner than in the past. The last time regulators took aggressive action to address flaws in the system, they badly missed the mark. They outlawed the type of off-balance-sheet investments done by industrial companies such as Enron Corp. but completely ignored the much larger and more highly leveraged shadow banking system (the Structured Investment Vehicles [SIVs]) until it collapsed under its own weight five years later. Federal prosecutors engaged in a series of high-profile show trials that featured far more abuses of prosecutorial power than findings of guilt against significant defendants. And the SEC stepped in too late, after billions of dollars were stolen from investors, to outlaw blatantly unethical but widely tolerated conduct such as lax underwriting standards verging on fraud, the participation of research analysts in the underwriting process, and after-hours trading in mutual funds. This time, we don't need political sound bites. We need independent parties with market experience who are not afraid to offend the powers-that-be to write and enforce the rules so our markets can function properly. Secretary Paulson is compromised, unfortunately, by his background as the former chairman of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. His reaction to the crisis appears to be far too protective of the industry in which he made his fortune and does not go far enough to address the issues of leverage and asymmetric compensation structures that are ruining our markets and destroying our economy. The need to change how our markets are regulated is not merely a matter of law or economics; it is a matter that will affect the future of our country as it moves forward into a globalized world characterized by commodity shortages, religious conflicts that have economic overtones, and increasingly rapid technological change. The financial markets lie at the center of our way of life, and our obligation to insure that they operate fairly and efficiently extends beyond mere economic considerations. Nothing that has occurred in the past month dissuades HCM from the view that the long-term economic trends facing the United States are ominous and demand radical policy action. The continuing debasement of the U.S. dollar, the incessant (and only partially dollar-related) rise in the price of oil, and the unceasing flow of financial institution losses attributable to derivatives and structured products blunders convince HCM more than ever that the United States is set on a path that can only lead to a loss of its lead role in the global economy. The consequences of this will be deteriorating U.S. living standards on a relative and absolute basis, continued financial market volatility, further economic instability, and a long-term weakening of the United States' ability to influence world events in its favor. Americans, particularly the most advantaged, have sold their souls to the twin devils of immediate gratification and overconsumption. Unless we radically rethink our priorities and then put into action a drastic new policy regime, we will end up living in a world that is significantly more economically, culturally, and spiritually impoverished than today's before the current century has reached its midpoint.

Long-Term Threats

HCM sees several long-term threats that are being ignored by the markets as they struggle for some type of short-term stability. While we see many opportunities to invest profitably in the near term, we remain extremely concerned about long-term economic trends. We realize, with sadness, that there are very few long-term investors left in the world. Investors seem to have taken to heart, in a manner that borders between irony and self-delusion, John Maynard Keynes' famous statement that "in the long run, we are all dead." Since we are all not going to be dead tomorrow, however, HCM thought it would be useful to discuss some of the trends that are working against us as we live out our days. At the very least, these factors should be taken into account by investors as they fashion investment strategies for short- and intermediate-term time horizons.

Inflation: The first significant long-term threat is inflation -- both asset inflation and product inflation. The steps taken by the Federal Reserve to rescue the U.S. financial system from collapse have created the conditions for a long-term inflationary boom. Simply put, the authorities did what they always do in the face of a threatened systemic collapse: they reflated like crazy. Allowing the Federal Home Loan Banks and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to further swell their balance sheets with mortgage paper is hardly going to contribute to fiscal discipline. All it did was stick a finger in the dyke in the hope that other leaks wouldn't spring out right now. Second, the demographic and political pressures lifting the prices of both soft and hard commodities remain unrelenting. Oil is just the tip of the iceberg, though the best analogy is one that places the U.S. economy as the Titanic sailing straight at it. The long-term energy picture is nothing less than ruinous for the United States and other oil-dependent Western economies, as well as for the environment of our entire planet. The shift of wealth away from the U.S. and Western Europe toward countries that do not share our political values or interests is nothing less than potentially catastrophic for the future of world peace. That may sound like a terribly harsh statement to make now, but looking back on it in 50 years, it is likely to ring painfully prescient.

HCM's inflation view is somewhat different from that of Van R. Hoisington and Lacy H. Hunt of the highly regarded Van Hoisington Investment Management Company. We mention these gentlemen's views because their recent track record in economic forecasting has been second to none, and because we never believe we have cornered the market in knowing what's going to happen. In its most recent Quarterly Review and Outlook, Van Hoisington downplays the risks of a near-term inflation spiral. Conceding that CPI over the last twelve months has increased by 4.1 percent, much higher than the 2.8 percent average annual increase this decade, Van Hoisington points to four mitigating factors. First, inflation is a lagging rather than a leading indicator, and they believe that the historical pattern will persist of major reductions in inflation occurring in the early stages of the recovery from the current recession. Second, inflation gauges peaked well before the inception of the growth recession that began in mid-2007. Third, Van Hoisington believe that the upturn in headline inflation is transitory because higher food and fuel prices have not fed into wages (which is critical since labor costs comprise almost 70 percent of production costs in the U.S.). Finally, Van Hoisington believe that monetary policy is actually restrictive, not expansionary, pointing to the reversal of prior financial innovations (securitization) and absence of new ones, as well as the well-known refusal of banks to lend. HCM would never dismiss the views of Van Hoisington, which remains among the most accurate inflation and economic forecasters around. One question HCM would ask Van Hoisington about its forecast is whether tightness outside the Federal Reserve system (i.e. the collapse of the shadow banking system -- SIVs) will override the looseness being exercised by the Federal Reserve and other central banks themselves. In the near-term these two forces will struggle, but in the long-term HCM expects that it will be hard for the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury to put the Jack back in the box. But on a broader level, HCM is looking out much further in time than Van Hoisington. Van Hoisington's view is not intended to be a long-term (i.e. 5 to10 year) view of inflation (at least HCM does not read it that way). One cannot manage money very effectively these days based on such long-term views, although such forecasts should play some role in the process. The almost exclusive focus on the short term must be counted among the most profound flaws plaguing our markets and society today. And this is not merely a theoretical lament. This is one reason why so many investors end up losing years of returns in short periods of time through so-called "Black Swan" events. They invest in strategies that are sustainable in the short run, such as highly leveraged credit arbitrage strategies, but are susceptible to blowing up at some point in the future when conditions change. Such changes in conditions are always a certainty; the question is the timing of such changes, and the ability of investment managers to exit positions before the Black Swan drops a turd on their heads.

Dollar Debauchment: The second threat to U.S. economic hegemony is the demise of the U.S. dollar standard. There is no way to avoid the conclusion that wrong-headed economic and political leadership have all but completely debauched the American currency. Jason Rotenberg noted recently in Bridgewater Daily Observations⁵ that "we think we are now experiencing a breakdown in the US dollar system that is similar to the 1971 breakdown of the Bretton Woods system. Recent financial developments and the extreme provisions of liquidity that they have and will require are extremely bearish for the US dollar and are accelerating the process." HCM concurs with the view that the U.S. dollar breakdown is accelerating. With the Euro surpassing $1.60 for the first time (we take little long-term comfort in the recent "rally" to $1.55), the better play for investors concerned about the U.S. dollar continues to be South Asian currencies and the Chinese Yuan. But the fact that the dollar trades so poorly against the European currency, which represents an economic region that suffers from even more long-term structural deficiencies than the United States, raises serious concerns (however legitimate the view that the dollar is oversold in the short-term against the Euro).⁶ HCM remains squarely in the camp of those who believe that the dollar is a terminal short play absent radical changes in economic policy in the U.S. and around the world.

Corporate Earnings Weakness: The third threat is slower U.S. economic growth than in the rest of the world. This is a more complex question that deserves some discussion. Bridgewater Associates places the gap between U.S. and global GDP growth at 4 percent.⁷ Dr. Marc Faber warns that corporate profits are going to be far weaker than Wall Street analysts are projecting. Dr. Faber writes: "[m]y impression from talking to a large number of investors and from attending numerous investment conferences is this: yes, the mood among institutional investors is negative due to recent losses, but the urge to buy the dips is still far greater than the urge to sell on rebounds. Institutions perceive the current credit problems to be temporary and still expect S&P earnings to recover strongly in late 2008 and 2009."⁸ Dr. Faber cites a March 17, 2008 research report by Morgan Stanley economist Richard Berner entitled "Downside Risk for Corporate Profits," in which Mr. Berner writes: "I think the earnings outlook will disappoint. The US economic outlook has darkened and fading operating leverage, dwindling pricing power, and deteriorating credit quality will squeeze margins. Despite the benefit of a weaker dollar, slower growth abroad seems likely to tame the overseas earning boom."⁹ Mr. Berner points to two areas of concern. First, the fact that operating leverage is currently far higher than in the 1990s, meaning that "a deeper recession, especially one that spreads abroad, would promote a much more serious profit squeeze." Second, overseas earnings represent 31.5 percent of earnings today, compared with only 15 percent twenty years ago, so a non-U.S. slowdown would bode poorly for U.S. corporate profits. Mr. Berner already sees signs of the U.S. slowdown impacting foreign earnings (particularly in Europe): "Together with tighter financial conditions, I'm concerned that weak earnings at European companies could contribute to a sharp deceleration in capital spending and in European growth. That would complete the circle, because it would also hurt US earnings abroad. About half of those overseas earnings originate in Europe." Morgan Stanley's European analysts recently projected a 16-percent drop in European corporate earnings this year, something that has not been carried through into U.S. analysts' earnings projections for U.S. companies with European exposure. U.S. stock market investors are still looking for a free lunch, and that lunch may be served cold (and stale). Weak corporate earnings are a particular concern in a recessionary environment in which the balance sheets of many companies have been larded with debt as a result of leveraged buyouts and similar speculative transactions. Retailers and airlines have already begun to default in packs, and more are of their brethren are certain to follow. Even as we appear to be well into the middle of the mortgage collapse, we are only in the very early innings of the corporate credit slowdown. There is a counterargument to the weak corporate earnings thesis, however. Many U.S. companies are continuing to post extremely strong results, particularly in the capital goods, energy infrastructure, commodities, and chemicals industries. Many U.S. companies retain unparalleled expertise in these industries and are exporting record amounts of products to the emerging markets around the world. One reason why the U.S. economy has not suffered as severely as some economists have expected from the housing industry collapse is that the global industrial economy has remained robust. HCM is working on a separate research report on the global industrial economy that explores this theme in detail, but our tentative conclusion is that many opportunities still exist to invest in the equity and debt of many U.S. companies providing goods and services to the global economy in the industries enumerated above. The question remains whether the strength in these sectors will be sufficient to counter the pronounced slowdown in the financial, housing, and consumer sectors that will continue to hang as an albatross around the neck of corporate profitability in the U.S. and Europe in coming quarters. On a long-term basis, the outlook for growth in these segments, and for the U.S. companies selling into them, remains very bullish. We hope to have our report completed sometime in June and will be making it available to readers of The HCM Market Letter at that time.

Relief Rally

Risk assets have rallied off their lows since JP Morgan Chase's acquisition of Bear Stearns in mid-March. The S&P 500 Index has jumped by 9 percent since that event, and the Merrill Lynch High Yield Bond Index has tightened sharply to a spread of 685 basis points over Treasuries from a high of 860 basis points. The prices of leveraged loans, which saw their worst drop in the history of that relatively new market in the first quarter of 2008, have also recovered sharply as dealers have managed to work down their backlog of unsold loans to under $100 billion from over $250 billion at year end. A key factor in the recovery in high-yield bonds and bank loans has been the continued low level of defaults, which have increased but remain confined thus far to the airline and retail industries. In the meantime, financial institutions such as Citigroup have had little trouble attracting additional debt and equity capital, and the markets are acting as though the worst of the crisis has passed. After all, compared to facing Armageddon, just waking up the next morning feels pretty good.

HCM is not surprised by this market recovery, particularly in the corporate credit markets. The bank loan market was bound to recover in the absence of any significant defaults, since its sell-off was entirely technically driven. The high-yield bond market, which remains a treacherous market for long-term investors, was also oversold in the absence of a rash of credit problems. At 680 basis points, however, it is again a poor value and should be avoided like the plague that it is (for everyone except the private equity firms who take advantage of its inability to price risk to purchase companies at exorbitant multiples). There is no question in HCM's mind that default rates will increase significantly in the second half of 2008 and 2009. When that occurs, the worst losses will be experienced by the holders of high-yield bonds in transactions that were completed in the 2005-2007 period, when acquisition multiples were mostly in the double digits. At anything less than 1000 basis points, high-yield bonds do not compensate investors for the risks they bring in today's economic environment.

Bank loans, on the other hand, continue to offer excellent value even after their recent rally. As floating-rate instruments that offer a senior position in the capital structure and collateral, bank loans offer extremely attractive risk-reward trade-offs. The market for Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs) remains moribund, but CLO liabilities remain an attractive way for investors to take advantage of the madness of crowds that have fled this asset class. Bank loans are not mortgages. One of the great lessons of the subprime debacle is that whatever fancy packages mortgages and other types of loans are wrapped up in, the only thing that matters in the end is whether borrowers can meet their obligations. Mortgage CDOs were flawed because the underlying borrowers couldn't make their mortgage payments, and all of the financial hocus-pocus in the world couldn't compensate for that. The same is true of CLOs. Either corporations will repay their loans or they won't. HCM believes that most will, and that most CLOs will end up repaying their liabilities and rewarding their equity investors handsomely. We are highly confident that those CLOs managed by our firm will do so.

The Road to Hell

As we said last month, the U.S. is being buried beneath the self-satisfied grins of investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and private equity tycoons who have figured out how to make personal fortunes without contributing commensurate amounts to the productive capacity of our economy. We can only join in Jeremy Grantham's recent lament:

"This has indeed not been our finest hour in the U.S. Times are bad enough, in fact, to make us mourn the American leadership skills of WWII and the generosity and foresight of the Marshall Plan. We can all wonder at the incredible vision, drive, organizational skill, and willingness to sacrifice resources that were required by the Manhattan Project and compare it to the rudderless or even deliberate avoidance of leadership of the greatest issues today: climate change and energy security. We can only wonder what a Manhattan Project aimed at alternative energy might have accomplished by now, had it been started 15 years ago. What we have had in lieu of vision, leadership, and backbone is a series of easy paths taken."¹⁰

It is a national tragedy that so much of the intellectual capital of this country is being directed at financial speculation rather than scientific and creative thinking. HCM believes that this is a problem of moral education. Our educational institutions need to teach the best and brightest students that there are rewards in this world other than pecuniary ones. Then it is up to the rest of society to insure that the financial rewards of doing good are commensurate with the benefits that such conduct confers on our communities.

PIMCO's Bill Gross is one of the few public figures in the market willing to speak out against the obscene compensation schemes that result from the asymmetric reward system that institutional investors have somehow been conned into believing align their interests with those responsible for generating the investment returns that will enable them to fund their future obligations. Jeremy Grantham's recent comments are consistent with Mr. Gross's and our own views:

"What's worse, those who took on unjustified risk live to prosper and reinforce the existing agency problems. These problems were big enough already: stock options, for example, that encouraged risks by rewarding upside success and punishing failure. If you win, you take some of the shareholders' company, and if you lose, you lose nothing. In fact, if you lose, you rewrite your options at depressed or crisis prices, just as some financial companies are doing as we write. Similarly some hedge funds and private equity firms can take a level of leverage that might guarantee failure in the long run but with asymmetrical returns they pocket gains and sidestep the worst impacts of a potential terminal loss. To maintain a healthy respect for risk taking, it is surely necessary to punish egregious over-reaching or spectacular misjudgment with the spectacular penalties they deserve and used to get but no longer."¹¹

Despite the performance of the occasional outliers, pension funds, endowments, and the like continue to experience shortfalls and other serious strains as professional money managers fail to provide sufficient returns to meet growing future spending needs. Moreover, outperformers continue to reap Brobdingnagian pay packages that sweep away a disproportionate amount of the upside from overall portfolio performance that never recycles back when conditions return to the mean. Some may think that we can simply continue on the road we are on. HCM believes otherwise. We believe that we must fix it.

Footnotes:

1 Most readers who disagreed with our approach took the high road, with the exception of one smug fund-of-funds executive who quoted a dead Nazi while accusing me of being a liberal fascist. He will no longer be receiving this publication from us. We are happy to listen to all types of criticism, however expressed, but we cannot stomach moral obliquity.

2 Estimates of total losses from the credit crisis keep mounting. Morgan Stanley is beginning to think that its current estimates of $400 million of total losses from mortgage lending and $750 million of overall credit losses may be too low. See Morgan Stanley Research North America, US Economics, "Funding Pressures, Adverse Feedback Loops and Monetary Policy," April 14, 2008. Some are estimating that the losses will exceed $1 trillion. However you measure it, there aren't enough guillotines to chop off the heads of all of the responsible parties.

3 "Castigation" may sound like an overstatement, but one has to understand Fedspeak to appreciate the harshness of Mr. Volcker's words.

4 Morgan Stanley Research North America, US Economics, "Fixing the Credit Crunch -- The Growing Case

for 'Unconventional' Tools," March 25, 2008.

5 Bridgewater Daily Observations, April 10, 2008.

6 Just to be clear, at this point HCM would not recommend shorting the dollar against the Euro but would recommend shorting the dollar against a basket of South Asian currencies and the Chinese Yuan.

7 Bridgewater Daily Observations, April 10, 2008.

8 Dr. Marc Faber, The Gloom, Boom & Doom Report, April 5, 2008, p. 5.

9 Morgan Stanley Research North America, US Economics, March 17, 2008.

10 GMO Quarterly Letter, April 2008, "Immoral Hazard."

11 GMO Quarterly Letter, April 2008, "Immoral Hazard."

On a lighter note, I am in South Africa after a 15-hour flight, landing to perfect weather. I watched the movie The Great Debaters, with Denzel Washington. It is a great movie. Rent it when you get a chance.

Your hoping that the authorities get it analyst,

John Mauldin

John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Credit Crisis

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

The Man Card

It is the banks, Stupid!

The Life Cycle Hypothesis

Our export dependency

A walk in the park

Europe is toasted

BRICs versus PIGS

Cheating is omnipresent

Too much of a good thing

Credit Crisis Watch

Credit Crisis Watch: Thawing – noteworthy progress

Long-Term Outlook: Slow Growth And Deflation

Long-Term Outlook: Slow Growth And Deflation

Extended Expansion

Not Sustainable

The Tide Turns

Financially Unprepared

Economic Effects

Foreign Effects

Export-Dependent China

No Winners

First And Last Resort

Financial Deleveraging

Eastern Europe

Like Asia 1997-1998

Commodity Crisis

Budget Signals

Stress Tests

Auto Bailout Payback

Bonuses

The Trouble With More Regulation

Confusion

Protectionism

U.S. Leadership

Competitive Devaluations

Stealth Protectionism

Deflation

The 1930s

2009 Seems Easy

Wage Cuts

Prices In Recovery

Too Much Money?

In Sum

Reality Bites

Reality Bites

The Economic Policy Conundrum

Dow 5000 Update

The "D" Word

Investing Today

Bank Nationalization

Let GM Go

Obama's Budget

The Coming Meltdown in Eastern Europe

Europe On the Ropes

Europe On the Ropes

Policy mistakes 'en masse'

Policing must improve

More leverage in Europe

Not much of a cushion left

The wheels are coming off

The problem is widespread

US banks are better off

The great mortgage show

Austria is in greatest trouble

An extra $250bn to the IMF

Conspiracy or...?

Public debt to rise and rise

Can Germany rescue us?

Market Vertigo

Market Vertigo

Barrack Hussein Obama -- America's 44th President

Aging and Saving -- The Face of the American Consumer

A Market of Hope

The Investor Psychology

Semi-Annual U.S. Economic Outlook: Collapsing On Schedule

Semi-Annual U.S. Economic Outlook: Collapsing On Schedule

Housing Horrors

Barrack Hussein Obama -- America's 44^th President

"I've seen an elephant fly",
weather forecasts, and why the worst will soon be over