John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Financial Crisis

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

John Mauldin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:50:00 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. His web site is down being re-designed, but you can write for more information at insight@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 until the end of the year. Gary is good but not that good!) I trust you are enjoying your week. And enjoy this week's Outside the Box....

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

(excerpted from the August 2009 edition of A. Gary Shilling'sINSIGHT)

Beyond the current recession, the worst since the 1930s, lies years of slow growth, as we've discussed in pastInsights. The next economic recovery, which will probably start around mid-2010, will likely be so subdued that it may not feel like the recession has ended. And economic growth in the bulk of the next decade will probably be slow -- so slow that it will force the federal government to take continuing actions to prevent high and chronically rising unemployment.

Six Causes of Slow Long-Term Growth

As explored in detail in pastInsights, six forces will promote slow long-term growth in the U.S. and, indeed, on a global basis -- U.S. consumer retrenchment, financial sector deleveraging, weak commodity prices, increased government regulation and involvement in the economy, protectionism and deflation.

Consumer Retrenchment. First and foremost is the dramatic switch by American consumers from a 25-year borrowing and spending binge to a saving spree that should extend a decade or more. As we pointed out last month, in the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. consumers regarded their soaring stock portfolios as continually filling piggybanks that would fund their kids' education, early retirements and a few round-the-world cruises in between. So they slashed their saving rate and pushed up their borrowing to fund spending growth that consistently exceeded the rise in after-tax income. When stocks nosedived with the collapse in the dot com bubble in 2000-2002, leaping house prices seamlessly took over to finance oversized consumer spending growth.

But now stock and house prices -- the vast majority of most Americans' net worth -- are not only depressed but also unlikely to revive to their former glory days for many, many years. Furthermore, our earlier research found no other major consumer assets that could be borrowed against. So consumers are being forced to embark on the saving spree we have been predicting for some years.

For the next decade, we're forecasting an average one percentage point rise in the saving rate annually, raising it to 10% in 10 years. That still would not return the saving rate to the early 1980s level of 12% even though the demographics for saving have gone from the worst to the best in the interim. And even a decade of vigorous saving will probably not return household net worth even close to its former peaks or eliminate completely the three decades of ever-increasing household financial leverage.

Financial Deleveraging. Financial deleveraging will also reduce long-term economic growth. As we've discussed in many past Insights, the recession really started in early 2007 in the financial arena with the collapse of subprime residential mortgages. Then it spread to Wall Street in mid-2007 with the complete mistrust among financial institutions and their assets, too many of which were linked to troubled mortgages. A huge gap opened up back then between the 3-month LIBOR and Treasury bill yields, and that panicked Washington into opening the money floodgates. The Fed started its interest rate-cutting campaign that ultimately drove its federal funds rate target to the zero-to-0.25% range (Chart 1 ).

But the central bank soon found the banks were too scared to lend and creditworthy borrowers didn't want to borrow when Bear Stearns and Lehman collapsed and other large banks and Wall Street houses were on the brink. So the Fed embarked on quantitative easing that exploded its balance sheet. And Congress and the Administration joined in with the $700 billion TARP, the $787 billion fiscal bailout and many other programs, as witnessed by the exploding federal deficit.

The Bank for International Settlements recently said only limited progress has been made in clearing up the global financial system, and any economic recovery will be short-lived and followed by a long period of stagnation unless bank balance sheets are corrected.

Except for hotels, commercial real estate woes aren't so much the result of overbuilding, as is the case with residential. Rather, the problems are due to aggressive refinancing and pricing in earlier years as well as current slumping demand. As retailers close stores or fold completely, mall space becomes vacant. Warehouses are empty as consumer retrenchment curtails goods imported from Asia and elsewhere. Excess space and weak business and leisure travel is axing hotel room rates and occupancy. Layoffs result in sublease office space competing with landlords for tenants.

Furthermore, a great deal of real estate debt must be refinanced soon amidst falling occupancy, rents and sales prices as well as tight credit markets. Estimates are that $155 billion in securitizations are coming due by 2012 and two-thirds won't qualify for refinancing as prices drop 35% to 45% from their 2007 peaks. Meanwhile, $525 billion of commercial mortgages held by banks and thrifts will come due by 2012. About 50% won't qualify for refinancing since they exceed 90% of the underlying property value. Lenders prefer loans of no more than 65%.

Deleveraging of the financial sector will obviously have negative ramifications for the real economy it finances. We've already seen plenty of effects. Many small businesses that depend on outside financing are starving as banks tighten lending standards. In a sense, many derivatives were financial cobwebs spun among bank and other speculators, but they did finance much of the housing boom.

Commodity Crisis. The earlier collapse of the commodity bubble (Chart 2) will also subdue global economic growth in future years. Sure, commodity consumers benefit from lower prices by the same amount that producers lose. But the share of total spending on commodity imports by consumers, especially in developed lands, is tiny while they account for the bulk of exports for producers, many of them developing countries such as Middle East oil producers.

Furthermore, security losses last year devastated sovereign wealth funds, many of them in oil-rich countries as well as Asian exporters. A year ago, they were estimated to hold $3 trillion in assets on their way to $10 trillion. Now the estimate is $1.8 trillion and optimistically forecast to rise to only $5 to $6 trillion by 2012. Lower oil prices have a lot to do with the downward revisions. Singapore's huge Temasek Holdings fell more than $28 billion, or 22%, at the end of March from a year earlier.

More Government Regulation. So, U.S. consumer retrenchment, global financial deleveraging and weak commodity prices will keep worldwide economic growth subdued for many years. So, too, will vastly increased regulation here and abroad, the normal reaction to financial and economic crises, as noted in our earlier reports. When a lot of people lose a lot of money, there is a cosmic need for scapegoats and increased regulation. Sure, many embarrassed financial wizards have sworn off their wayward ways and will be cautious for years, probably the balance of their careers. But that won't stop witch hunts.

The Administration has proposed a substantial overhaul of financial regulation. It doesn't plan to combine regulators to eliminate overlaps and gaps, as originally discussed. Still, it would empower the Fed to monitor financial risks to avoid systemwide instability; create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with control of mortgages, credit cards, savings accounts and annuities; push public companies to give shareholders say on pay; bring hedge funds under federal regulation; require firms to hold some of mortgage securitizations they create and sell; force derivatives to be traded on exchanges; beef up oversight of insurance; force industrial loan companies to obtain bank holding company charters; urge the SEC to stem runs on money market funds and to strengthen regulation of credit rating firms; create a mechanism for government to takeover large, failing financial institutions; and amends the Fed's lending powers to require the Treasury Secretary's approval.

The first Obama federal budget also points clearly to more government regulation and involvement in the economy, in health, education and the environment. Beyond the financial sector, the bailout of U.S. auto producers led to considerable government control of that industry, almost day-to-day management by Washington.

Rising Protectionism. Without question, protectionism will slow or even eliminate global economic growth as international trade slumps. As noted in earlier Insights, recessions spawn economic nationalism and 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 offshore 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.

As noted earlier, initially this recession was in the financial arena -- the collapse in the residential mortgage market led by the Subprime Slime that started in early 2007, and the follow-on Wall Street woes that commenced in the middle of that year when two big Bear Stearns hedge funds imploded. So it's not surprising that protectionism began in the financial arena and took the form of competing to safeguard a country's financial institutions. But at least that competition was positive for financial systems and economies, even if expensive for taxpayers.

Now, however, protection has spread to its more classical import-export arena with the advent late last year of massive U.S. consumer retrenchment and globalization of the downturn. Both forces are severely depressing the goods and services sectors as U.S. consumer spending falls the most since the 1930s and unemployment here and abroad leaps.

Since the early 1980s, world trade has functioned in a smooth but unsustainable fashion. The rest of the world produced and America consumed. In many foreign lands, households were weak consumers and big savers, so production exceeded domestic consumption. Their production surpluses were exported, directly or indirectly, to the U.S. where consumers were saving less and less and spending more and more. With their growing trade surpluses, foreign nations had growing piles of dollars that they recycled into Treasurys and other American investments, helping to hold down interest rates and making it cheaper for spendthrift American consumers to borrow easily and cheaply to fund their leaping debts.

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 be promoting exports to spur domestic activity. When every country wants to export and none want to import, the pressure for protectionism leaps.

Deflation. Chronic deflation is the sixth reason we forecast slow economic growth in the next decade or so. Chronic deflation spawns self-fulfilling deflationary expectations. Today, who would have the guts to tell a friend he paid the full sticker price for a vehicle? Years of rebates have trained car buyers to expect continuing and even bigger rebates. So they wait to buy. That leads to excess inventories that require even larger price concessions. Buyer suspicions are confirmed so they wait longer, promoting more inventory buildup, more price cuts, etc. in a self-feeding cycle. A key effect, of course, is to retard spending and slow economic growth.

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. We earlier forecast 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 and depress prices. As a result of rapid productivity growth, fewer and fewer man-hours are needed to produce goods and services. Big output growth also results from the globalization of production and the other deflationary forces we discussed in and since we wrote our two Deflation books a decade ago. With U.S. consumer retrenchment and a shrinking pool of global imports, export-dependent lands will be competing even more fiercely for the remaining markets.

In contrast to good deflation, bad deflation reigned in the 1930s as the Great Depression pushed demand well below supply. Japan also suffered bad deflation over the last two decades after the collapse of her 1980s housing and stock market bubbles. But in Japan, the lack of demand wasn't caused by a dearth of employment and income as in the U.S. in the 1930s, but because the government delayed cleaning up her financial institutions while consumers refused to spend their incomes.

We've consistently predicted the good deflation of excess supply, but we've also 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 obvious threats, as explained earlier.

Few agree with our forecast of chronic deflation. 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. Excessive monetary and fiscal stimuli are also key reasons why most observers forecast chronic and severe inflation in future years. They may concede that deflation is more likely in the balance of the recession (Chart 3) for the reasons we've cited in pastInsights. Past weakness in commodity prices is still working its way through the production and distribution system. Surplus inventories (Chart 4) -- the result of producers, wholesalers and retailers being caught unaware when consumers suddenly retrenched last fall -- are still being worked off and depressing prices in the process.

Wage cuts and mandatory furloughs for the first time since the 1930s, as well as layoffs are obviously deflationary as they depress purchasing power. In addition, the excess of supply overdemand has clear implications for deflation.

Nevertheless, the vast majority still maintain that inflation is inevitable in the long run. All the money being pumped out by the Fed and the Treasury deficits is sure to stimulate too much demand in relation to supply, they believe. But before money can promote excess demand, it's got to get into circulation, and scared lenders and creditworthy borrowers are unlikely to convert massive bank reserves into money until rapid economic growth resumes. And that, we believe, is unlikely for many years. Furthermore, if economic growth and loans mushroom, contrary to our forecast, major central bankers, with their congenital fear of inflation, will no doubt withdraw much of that liquidity.

Slow And Weak Recovery

We continue to forecast that the recession will extend into early 2010. Only by then is enough fiscal stimulus likely to be pumped out to stabilize consumer retrenchment. By then, most of the global financial woes should be at least stabilized. And by then, enough excess house inventories may be absorbed to end the downward pressure on prices.

Excess house inventories were built up in the 1996-2005 boom and still number about 1.5 million new and existing houses above normal working levels despite the collapse in housing starts and recent stabilization in sales. Excess inventories are the mortal enemy of prices in any goods-producing industry, especially housing. We continue to believe it will take at least until the end of next year before excess house inventories are reduced to levels that no longer depress prices. Meanwhile, prices -- already down 32% from their second quarter 2006 peak -- are likely to fall to reach a total 37% decline we've forecast for the last two years.

The decline in house prices is evaporating home equity. In the early 1980s, those with mortgages had almost 50% equity in their houses on average, after subtracting all mortgage borrowing from the market price of their homes (Chart 5). Due to increasing mortgage leverage and, more recently, collapsing house prices, that equity was only 20% in the first quarter and continuing to fall.

If house prices drop about 37% from their peak to their final bottom, that equity will be down to about the 15% range. At that point, over 25 million homeowners, or half those with mortgages, will be under water, compared to about 25% today.

After the recession ends as the economy stops falling, a weak recovery is likely to follow, one so tepid and with such high unemployment that you may not know it has arrived. The two normal forces that generate economic recoveries are missing this time. As usual, the Fed eased monetary policy once it saw that the economy was headed for recession.

But unlike the past, Fed action is not reviving housing (Chart 5), given the overhang of excess house inventories. And the normal pop in production when the liquidation of overall inventories ends (Chart 6 ) will be muted and overshadowed by the unusually large slashing of consumer spending. It's hard for businesses to cut inventories fast enough to keep up with dropping consumer demand.

2.0% GDP Growth

A chronic 1 percentage point annual rise in the consumer saving rate for the next decade or so will knock around 1 percentage point off real GDP growth after its effects work their way through the economy. That's a big contrast with 0.5 annual percentage point declines in the saving rate over the previous quarter century that added around 0.5 percentage points to growth. That total swing of 1.5 percentage points will reduce real GDP growth from 3.6% per year in the 1982-2000 salad days (Chart 7 ) to 2.1%.

So with the five other inhibitors to growth in coming years -- financial deleveraging, weak commodity prices that will retard spending by producing countries, more government regulation and involvement in the economy, rising protectionism and deflation -- our forecast of 2.0% real GDP growth is probably even optimistic.

With 2% to 3% deflation, nominal GDP might not gain at all. And with slower growth in the years ahead, economic expansions are likely to be shorter and less robust while recessions will probably be deeper and more frequent.

Consumer Spending Growth

We're also forecasting real consumer spending growth of 1.4% per year in the next decade. That, too, may be optimistic as consumers retrench and slash real debt which far outran real housing wealth even before it collapsed, outran real annual growth in real stock wealth before it nosedived, and bested real disposable income growth. Much of the explosion in debt was residential mortgage-related borrowing in the mid-1990s - mid-2000s housing bubble, fueled by low borrowing costs, weak lending standards, exotic mortgages and securitization, which distributed toxic mortgage loans to unsuspecting investors.

The deleveraging of consumers that we expect to continue for years is a reversal of the same longrun phenomenon of past decades that was measured in different ways -- the decline in the saving rate, the rise in debt and debt service rates and the rise in consumption's share of GDP, reflecting what consumers did with the money they didn't save and did borrow.

Consumption vs. GDP

With real consumer spending forecast to grow 1.4% annually over the next decade and real GDP 2.0%, real consumption's share of GDP falls from 71.0% last year to 66.5% in 2018 (Chart 7). That would bring it back to the level of the early 1980s when the consumer spending binge began (Chart 8 ). It may seem inconsistent that we're forecasting a rise in the household saving rate of 10 percentage points but a decline in real consumption's share of real GDP of only 4.5 percentage points from 71% to 66.5%. But note that the reverse occurred in the last 25 years -- the saving rate fell from 12% to zero, or 12 percentage points while consumption's share of real GDP rose from 67.5% to 71%.

These differences are in part because household saving is being measured as a percentage of disposable (after-tax) income, which is less than GDP, so the effects of the change in the saving rate on GDP are muted. In the earlier 1980s, real disposable income was about 78% of GDP. Furthermore, the rise in consumption's share of real GDP in the 1982-2000 boom years (Chart 8) was actually held back by the drop in the real DPI/real GDP ratio. That in turn was largely the result of employee compensation's share of national income falling while corporate profits' share leaped during those years.

In the years ahead, however, it's unlikely that DPI will decline as a share of GDP. As we discussed in earlier years when profits' share was at its zenith, a big decline in corporate earnings' piece if the pie was probably in the cards. In a democracy, we noted, neither capital nor labor can continually increase its share indefinitely while the other one's share chronically shrinks. We also suggested that the recession and financial mess we were forecasting, the worst since the Great Depression, would depress profits. We also opined that Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Congress would be adverse to shareholders while smiling on their labor constituents.

Where's The Growth?

If consumer spending grows slower than GDP in the next decade, other GDP components must grow faster. Which ones? As shown in our forecast table (Chart 7), it's unlikely to be residential construction, which we see growing 1.0% per year in real terms compared with 5.2% in the 1982-2000 years. Housing should remain weak even after the huge excess inventory is worked off. Earlier, homeowners were convinced that house prices never declined -- and they hadn't on a nationwide basis since the 1930s.

But the recent collapse in house prices and the prospect that they will move with overall prices in the future -- which means chronic declines with chronic deflation -- are shattering the scales that blinded homeowners. So they're beginning to separate places to live from investments. That means they'll want smaller quarters, and the new houses that are built will be smaller and less expensive.

Capital Spending

Real spending on nonresidential structures grew only 0.6% per year in the 1982-2000 era as overexpansion in the earlier years curtailed spending later on. With slow economic growth in the years ahead, demand for warehouse, factory, office and hotel space is likely to be subdued. Ongoing consumer retrenchment will keep retail vacancies high and new building low. On balance, we project about the same growth rate for real nonresidential construction, 0.5% per year, in the next decade.

Equipment and software real spending advanced briskly in the 1982-2000 years, 8.2% annually as new technologies such as computers, semiconductors, the Internet, biotech and telecom absorbed tremendous amounts of spending. Furthermore, inflation and interest rates were declining (Chart 9 ) to the benefit of the corporate sector, and operating rates were generally high while profits growth was robust. Those new technologies will continue to attract heavy spending in the next decade, but their initial huge bursts of spending are probably over. Furthermore, although the interest costs to finance capital investment will probably remain low, especially with deflation, profits will probably remain under pressure in an era of slow revenue growth and deflation. And most important, capacity utilization rates are likely to remain low.

A statistical model that we've run many times over the years and just updated shows that year-over-year changes in corporate profits, interest costs and capacity utilization in the post-World War II era are all statistically significant in explaining year-over-year growth in both the equipment and software component of GDP and equipment and software plus nonresidential construction. But in either case, capacity utilization is much more important with coefficients almost three times as large as those for interest costs and even bigger relative to those for profits in both models (Charts 10 and 11).

We forecast annual real growth in equipment and software investment of 3.0% per year in the next decade, faster than the 2.0% we foresee for real GDP but much less than the 8.2% in the 1982-2000 golden years.

Imports and Exports

With weak consumer spending growth and overall muted economic advance, real imports are likely to rise only 2.8% annually in the next decade, much less than the 9.0% growth in 1982-2000 when U.S. consumer spending was booming and free trade ruled the world. This forecast is even lower than suggested by our 1.4% annual growth in real consumption. Historically, a 1% rise in consumer spending results in a 2.8% rise in imports, but rising protectionism is likely to dampen that relationship.

This weakness in U.S. imports will leave profound effects on the many foreign economies that have depended for growth on American consumers buying the excess goods and services for which they have no other ready markets. The net effect of subdued growth in U.S. imports will be sluggish economic growth abroad, perhaps even slower in other developed lands than in the U.S. That should limit the growth in U.S. exports to 3.0% per year compared with 7.4% in the 1982-2000 years (Chart 7). Still, government policies in Asia and elsewhere that promote consumer spending are likely to result in U.S. exports growing slightly faster than American imports, the reverse of earlier years. Severe protectionism, however, may stymie even these low growth forecasts for foreign trade.

State and Local Government Spending

Real state and local government spending, as recorded in the GDP accounts, rose slower than real GDP in the 1982-2000 years, 3.2% vs. 3.6%, and no doubt would in the years ahead -- except for federal government stimuli that's spent by municipalities, as discussed later. State governments are in terrible financial shape and likely to continue so in the years ahead. In the first four months of this year, state income taxes plunged 26%. In the economic climate we foresee, corporate, sales and individual income taxes will all remain depressed.

At the local level, collapsed real estate prices will hold down property tax collections in the years ahead while reductions in aid and revenue-sharing from state governments will persist. In a recent survey, 18 states reported cuts in local aid. California Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed that low-level crimes like auto theft and drug possession be considered only misdemeanors so those convicted would do time in county jails. That would reduce state prison expenses and save the state $1.1 billion in the next three years, but raise local government costs. Furthermore, California's latest budget stopgap will take, temporarily, $4 billion from local government funds.

We're forecasting 5.0% annual growth in state and local government spending in the next decade, but the majority of it will probably come from Washington, which will be forced to spend heavily to prevent high and chronically rising unemployment.

Rescued By Slow Productivity

Some suggest that slower economic growth will bring slower growth in production. That would reduce the upward pressure on unemployment since more people would be needed for work than with faster productivity growth. But there's no evidence that productivity growth necessarily slows with a chronically weak economy. In the depressed 1930s, productivity grew 2.39% annually, among the highest decades since 1900. In that decade, much of the new technologies of the 1920s -- electrification of homes and factories and mass-produced automobiles -- was being implemented, despite the Great Depression and its slow growth aftermath.

Similarly, the new tech burst of the last decade or so in computers, the Internet, biotech, telecom and semiconductors will no doubt promote rapid productivity growth in coming years.

Finally, the mindset of American business will probably promote robust productivity growth in future years. Throughout this decade, the emphasis has been on producing more with fewer people. Note (Chart 12) that even at the top of the expansion in 2007, job openings were fewer than in 2000 at the peak of the previous expansion, despite the growth in the economy in the meanwhile. And since 2007, job openings have collapsed.

Unemployment will also remain high since many of the people who have lost jobs were in construction and finance, two areas that will probably do little net hiring for many years. Normally, a 2 percentage point drop in real GDP causes a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate. But June's 9.5% rate is 1.5 percentage points higher than this rule of thumb would predict, given the drop so far in real GDP.

Big Federal Spending

If we're right, then, on our forecast of slow economic growth in the next decade, unemployment will be high and chronically rising -- absent huge federal intervention. And that intervention is assured since no government -- left, right or center -- can withstand high and rising joblessness for long. And don't forget current as well as future increased federal immersion in the economy builds constituencies that fight fiercely to preserve their government goodies.

Some of this federal intervention will probably take the form of more federal employees and direct purchases of goods and services, which show up in the GDP breakdown (Chart 7). But most of it won't be recorded as the federal spending GDP component since it will be transferred to individuals as federal unemployment benefits, extra Social Security checks, etc. and to state and local governments to fund leaf-raking and other make-work projects.

Notice that in 2018, we project real federal spending to account for only 7.2% of real GDP, up from 5.9% in 2008. Of course, nobody but economists look at these measures of federal spending, but instead concentrate on the ratio of total federal budget spending to GDP. This ratio mixed apples and oranges since budget spending includes transfers that GDP does not, but it does measure federal involvement in the economy.

In 2008, federal spending equaled 21% of GDP, outdistancing the 17.7% from revenues. This gap is likely to widen even after the current extraordinary spending to combat the recession and financial mess is over. Anti-unemployment spending will jump to higher levels while federal revenues languish. How will the resulting large deficit be financed?

Savers To The Rescue

In the past, federal deficits were financed by foreigners as they recycled back to the U.S. the dollars gained from their trade surpluses, as noted earlier. The growing U.S. current account deficit measures the increasing gap between domestic saving and investment, or, in effect, and the need for foreigners to not only finance government deficits but also make up for declining U.S. consumer saving.

But now, the current account and trade deficits are shrinking as American consumers retrench and slash imports. Further declines will accrue in future years if exports grow faster than imports (Chart 7), so foreigners will have smaller American current account deficits to finance. At the same time, much more of federal deficits will probably be financed by rising U.S. consumer saving.

Household saving is basically what's left from wages, salaries, rent, interest, dividends and transfers like pension benefits after subtracting spending on durables like autos and appliances, non-durables such as food and clothing and services like recreation and medical services. That amount, divided by the after-tax income in the period in question, is saving rate. Saving can be used to either reduce debt or increase assets.

Debt Reduction

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. The 6.9% saving rate in May, mentioned earlier, was a result of consumers saving their tax cuts and extra Social Security payments, and is unsustainable. Still, since after-tax income was about $11 trillion at annual rates in May, this saving rate produced annual rate saving of $769 billion. That money was basically used for debt reduction and since money is fungible, it ended up financing a major part of the mushrooming federal deficit. As consumer saving grows in future years, it will increasingly finance the federal deficit, indirectly.

Repaying debt will be attractive to many Americans in future years as they shun many investments after their huge losses in stocks throughout this decade and their shocking setbacks in real estate. A number will want to be less leveraged as slower economic growth makes employment less stable and unemployment more likely. Chastened lenders, pressed by regulators, will be pushing individuals to lower their leverage by repaying debt.

So will the deflation we foresee. Incomes may grow on average in real or inflation-adjusted terms, but shrink in current dollars. Still, debts are denominated in current dollars and therefore will grow in relation to current dollar 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.

Future Insights

In futureInsights, we'll update our 2006 study that showed that over 50% of Americans depend in a meaningful way on government spending. The number will probably be much higher in the coming decade of likely slow growth and greater government involvement in the economy. We also plan to discuss our investment themes for an era of slow growth and deflation.

Meanwhile, don't expect the burst of federal government spending and immersion in the economy to disappear with economic recovery. It's likely to persist, not only because it spawns self-perpetuating constituencies, but also because the slow economic growth in the years ahead and threats of high and chronically rising unemployment will force continuing high levels of government involvement.

Where Will the Growth Come From?

John Mauldin — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:51:28 GMT

One of my most significant learning experiences came from a basic forecasting mistake. Back in 1998, I looked at 40 years of documented evidence that 50% of all large programming projects ended up coming in late. That set of data was consistent over all industries and over decades. I checked it out with industry experts. I really did my homework. And thus I said that the Y2K bug would be a problem, as a sufficient number of corporations around the world would have bugs that would create supply and management problems, which would slow the economy down. I did not suggest that we would see blackouts or major problems, just enough to slow things down and, when coupled with other macro issues (like the tech bubble), could trigger a recession. We had the recession, so my investment advice actually turned out to be right (lucky?), but it was not caused by Y2K.

Almost 100% of the Y2K fixes came in on time. From a metric that said 50% was the norm, we went straight to 100%. What caused the change? I had a debate with (my good friend) the late Harry Browne, who many of you will remember as a very wise investment counselor, multi-book best-selling author, two-time presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, gold bug, and from the school of Austrian economics. He said that Y2K would be a non-event. When presented with my marshaled facts, he said, "John, each company will figure out what it has to do to survive. That is the way markets work." And sure enough, faced with extinction if they failed, it seems that CEOs found ways to get the programmers to meet a very clear deadline. Besides knowing they fudged deadlines in the past, we now know if you hold a gun to their heads and give them resources, they can in fact perform.

Why this comment to open today's Outside the Box? Today we read a piece sent to me by my friend Louis Gave of GaveKal (and who will be at my conference in April). It is entitled "Where Will the Growth Come From?" It reminds us of the lessons that Harry gave me. Each person and company is responsible for their own part of the recovery. You can't rely on mass statistics, or you miss the important lesson in individual responsibility.

I don't think anyone can accuse me of being bullish the past few years. Interestingly, I get a lot of emails from people telling me the end of the world is coming, and deriding my longer-term optimism. They are convinced we are going into some deep national morass worse than the Great Depression (and such deflationary times will somehow make their gold go to $3,000!?!?). Yet they are working to make sure their own personal worlds are covered. I get no letters from people who are simply giving up. What company will keep a CEO who does not work hard to figure out how to keep the company alive? If you lose your job, do you not try and get another one or figure out how to make ends meet? Do you not put in extra hours to try and make your personal life or business or job better? Even if it is terribly difficult, the very large majority of people don't throw in the towel. Each of us, in our own way, gets up every morning to fight the good fight, even when the swamp is full of more alligators than we ever counted on. We just pick up a baseball bat, wade into the swamp, kill as many alligators as we can in one day, and then go home to get ready to fight the next day.

The lesson from Harry is the same as it was in 1998: It is the individual working to get his or her own house in order that will help us all collectively get our national house in order. This is not to diminish the Herculean tasks we have in front of us, collectively. We have dug ourselves into a very deep hole of credit and leverage. It is going to take lots of time. The way back is not entirely clear at this point. This is not an ordinary business-cycle recession. But each of us will do what we can to make our small corner of the world better. And in the fullness of time, we will collectively get back to trend growth and a rational market.

Of course, we will then find we have other problems to face. There is no nirvana. There will always be more problems. But that's what a free-market collection of motivated individuals does: We face problems and solve them to the best of our ability. And as a group, the clear path for centuries is one of growth and progress. Cautious optimism is the proper long-term stance.

So, today Louis speculates about what sectors might come back first, and offers a good lesson in economics along the way. I think you will enjoy this Outside the Box, unless you just want to believe in the end of the world.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Where Will the Growth Come From?

In a book written in 2005 and entitled Our Brave New World (now out of print but available for free download from our website), we argued that the defining feature of the global economy was overcapacity. Back then, it was hard to fully appreciate the overcapacity that existed in the world, and in the subsequent years, we can not remember how many debates we had with clients trying to dispel the notion that the world was going through simultaneous "peak oil", "peak copper", "peak wheat", etc. One of the pillars of our case was that what was masquerading as consumption was really investment; global growth dynamics were running full steam, and OECD manufacturing capacity was very quickly being replaced by ASEAN capacity. Fast forward to today, and with production now collapsing at unprecedented rates around the world, the overcapacity to produce everything is now blindingly obvious. In the race to the bottom:

The International Labor Office recently warned in its annual report that 51 million jobs are likely to disappear by the end of 2009 as a result of the economic slowdown, pushing the global unemployment rate to 6.5% by the end of the year.
The IMF warned that global growth would slow to 0.5% this year, well below the 2.5% typically used to define a global recession.

We could go on but our readers know the dismal stats by heart. Everywhere one cares to turn to, one finds recession, and a grim economic outlook and nowhere more so than in the US where overcapacity is manifest in falling capacity utilization and declining employment. We combine these variables in what we call Economic Utilization (which is just capacity utilization minus unemployment) and compare that to the OECD's output gap measure for the US. As the chart below makes clear, given the continued rise in the unemployment rate and drop in and capacity utilization, predicting a much deeper drop in the output gap is not really heroic:

Most investors have a natural tendency to project their most recent experiences far out in the future. Thus, we probably should not be surprised that the question on everyone's lips today is "where will the growth come from". And undeniably, answers to that question are hard to find - which means that we should probably go "back to basics" in a bid to identify the winners of the next cycle.

1- A Quick Theoretical Primer on Different Growth Models

In his Law of Eponymy, statistician Stephen Stigler wrote that "no scientific discovery is named for its original discoverer". As far as we can tell, this is definitely true of economics!

Take the notion of "comparative advantages" as an example. It was first introduced by Robert Torrens in 1815 in Essays on the External Corn Trade but it was David Ricardo who formalized the idea in On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation in 1817. And the idea, like all good economics idea, was simple enough: Ricardo showed conclusively that a country can gain from trade even if it is technologically inferior in producing every good. Instead, a country is said to have a comparative advantage in the production of a certain good if it can produce that good at a lower opportunity cost than any other country. And by introducing this notion of relative opportunity cost, Ricardo identified the first potential source of growth for an economy: the rational reorganization of production that results when an economy moves form a state of autarky to one where trade becomes the norm, whether through better infrastructure, lower barriers, less regulations etc... In our research we have called such impetus the "Ricardian growth".

Or take the notion of "creative destruction" which we all associate with Joseph Schumpeter's explanations that it is the entrepreneur's job to break out of the steady-state circular flow of the economy and develop new methods, techniques, and products and which, as highlighted in Our Brave New World (calling it Schumpeterian growth), is the second pillar on which economic growth rests. That notion was actually first developed by Johann Heinrich von Thunen who transformed the incomplete marginalism of classical Ricardian theory into comprehensive neoclassical marginal productivity. Indeed, Ricardo assumed that there was only a single factor of production—labor. But this does not account for improvements in capital, nor for a deepening of the capital base. Thunen was the first to treat labor and capital symmetrically, showing that each is subject to diminishing returns and that labor's marginal productivity is an increasing function of the quantity of capital per worker. Thunen's work on capital deepening and the resulting productivity addressed the chief shortcoming of the mistaken Malthusian and Ricardian prophecies of doom.

In his book Isolated State, Thunen also wrote the first algebraic production function—a set of recipes or techniques for combining inputs to produce output. His original algebraic production function, it turns out, is basically the same as the well known Cobb-Douglas production function, created in 1927 by University of Chicago economist Paul Douglas and Amherst mathematics professor Charles Cobb. And further confirming Stigler's rule, Robert Solow also built on the work of the Cobb-Douglas duo, creating the Solow Growth Model, for which he won the Nobel prize in 1990. The Solow Growth Model is the most modern and simple algebraic production function one can use to illustrate the different foundations for growth. The equation is simply:

q = Ak.5, where:
q = output per worker
A = multifactor productivity
k = capital per worker

This equation gives us a simple tool to illustrate economic growth based on capital accumulation, productivity, or some combination of the both. In other words, it helps us understand the constraints on growth offered by Ricardo and the opportunities for growth offered by Schumpeter.

2– The Concrete Use of Multi-Factor Productivity

Consider, in our first example, a country like China that has recently moved out a state of autarky and is saving, and accumulating capital, furiously. For illustration sake, let us say that China is not yet generating multi-factor productivity (MFP) as it is still figuring out how to organize its enterprises and is still learning how to use its capital efficiently. Still, despite the lack of MFP, China's output is still growing at a very rapid pace due to the low starting point and a rapid accumulation of capital financed by a very high savings rates (25% in our example). But, in due course, rapid growth rates slow and, within twelve periods, output per worker grinds to a halt, resulting in the stationary state that Ricardo predicted. From that point onwards, growth becomes solely a function of workforce growth, i.e.: demographics.

Now, let us consider a second example of a country like the United States with a lower rate of capital accumulation, say 15%, but MFP of 1%. In such a case, output very quickly falls, but it never falls to zero. For as long as the US maintains a MFP rate of 1%, output per worker—or labor productivity—remains at 2%. Combined with a small incremental growth of the workforce of say 1%, the US can thus maintain 3% GDP ad infinitum.

From the above two examples it is easy to understand:

Why the growth dynamics of countries like China (or other emerging markets) are so different from those of mature economies like the US or Europe.
Why productivity growth is so important for a country to achieve as it opens the door to endless growth and wealth creation.
Why emerging economies need to have high savings rates, while developed economies need to have sustained productivity.

While the Solow growth model is designed to take a macro-economic perspective looking at countries, it is easy to translate the ideas into micro-economic terms looking at companies. Companies generating sustainable productivity growth have, in theory, limitless growth as the continuous achievement of multifactor productivity allows for infinite capital accumulation, output and wealth creation. And this brings us back to the pet theory that ran through Our Brave New World, namely the fact that a new business model has emerged (in our book, we called it the "platform-company" business model) whereby companies increasingly focus on the processes in which they have the most value-added and outsource the rest.

3– The Emergence of Platform Companies

Our work on platform companies has led us to some simple conclusions that we will briefly reiterate:

Platform-companies have fractionalized their production process, keeping knowledge intensive activities like design and distribution in-house, while outsourcing low-value added physical production. For those companies that still have significant manufacturing assets, they are devoted to complex processes or products, where knowledge is embedded in the fixed capital.
Platform-companies have worked furiously to develop new products, new markets, and new products for new markets. The US in particular has been very aggressive about investing in foreign countries. Foreign direct investment accounts for some 10% of total nonfinancial corporate assets and generates some $4.7 trillion a year in sales and some $700 billion a year in earnings.

Platform-companies have piled up huge cash hoards as they optimize supply chains and monetize productivity. Due to the backward tax laws, US multinationals have hundreds of billions of dollars stored up in overseas bank accounts. It is estimated that the nine largest US pharmaceutical companies alone have $113 billion stashed abroad. US companies have so much money squirreled away that Allen Sinai of Decision Economics concluded that, if the US lowered tax rates temporarily on repatriated earnings, companies would repatriate US$545 billion. There is a precedent for this: we saw US companies bring home $360 billion in 2004 as a result of the temporary 5% tax rate contained in the American Jobs Creation Act.

The net result of all this is that platform companies are productivity passthrough vehicles that monetize the continuous evolution of the global production possibility frontier. In other words, platform companies are the beneficiaries of both Ricardian and Schumpeterian growth.

4– Platform Companies & the Financial Crisis

As everyone knows, one feature of the current financial crisis has been a complete evaporation in trade finance. Letters of credit to secure shipping have become hard to come by and local producers have suddenly found it challenging to secure financing from local banks. And while this is undeniably a consequence of the global credit crunch, it is also a side-effect of the overcapacity discussed above. In the current environment, no one wants to take the risk of a ship full of rapidly depreciating widgets making their way from Shenzhen to Long Beach. As a result of these new trends, the Institute for International Finance, a Washington association of international financial firms, estimates that private capital flows to emerging markets will tumble over 60% in 2009 to $165 billion, further exacerbating the global squeeze.

Undeniably this new landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for astute platform companies and the question now has to be how platform companies navigate, and thrive, in this tricky environment? As we see it, there is tremendous opportunity for platform companies to take advantage of the dislocations now prevalent in the global economy. These companies can further their aspirations through any of Peter Drucker's three conditions for success:

Businesses Can Improve. A good example here would be IBM, who, faced with the current highly challenging environment, has chosen to make its current offerings more efficient rather than embark on the more costly endeavor of developing something entirely new. In recent months, IBM has found a number of new uses for old software that was originally designed to help casinos apprehend card counters; now, with minor modifications, the same software is used to monitor immigration in both the US and UK. Another system, developed to mitigate traffic congestion in Stockholm, has been adapted to function in London and Singapore. In a similar fashion (pardon the pun), American Eagle has taken steps to trim 4-8% from its pergarment manufacturing costs by moving its production from Chinese factories to cheaper labor markets in Southeast Asia. And with the collapse in transportation costs, some embroidering and bead work will further move to India to help cut costs.
Businesses Can Expand. The decision to expand into new markets also presents significant prospects for companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Inditex, H&M, Fast Retailing and many others. Wal-Mart (not to mention other retailers) is on a rather aggressive expansion schedule in international markets, with plans to add more square footage abroad in the next year than in the U.S. With a new, internationally-focused CEO, Wal-Mart plans to add 80-90 new stores in Brazil as well as continue expansion in second-tier Chinese cities (the company already has 217 retail units in China) in an effort to boost its international sales, which currently account for about 24% of its total sales. Coca-Cola is yet another example of a business that is surviving in spite of the downturn. In Russia, for example, the company's impressive distribution system stocks some 480,000 stores—a critical asset in a time where many distributors are unable to secure credit in order to deliver goods. And, to take advantage of falling advertising rates across the country, Coke has opted to maintain its ad budget in the hopes of increasing its market share. Then there is Inditex, Fast Retailing and H&M—all apparel retailers planning to continue growing, each opening hundreds of new stores from Cairo to Beijing to Singapore in order to take advantage of the current, rather favorable, leasing terms.
Businesses Can Innovate. Finally, platform companies can choose to innovate their way to achievement. Both Cisco and SAP appear ready to delve into the world of cloud-computing and software as a service. Cisco's potential foray into the computer market have spurred discussion of the commoditization of computers and networking. In its response to the economic slump, SAP has plans to allow users to pay for and use specific pieces of the product, rather than an entire system. As large, maturing tech companies, Cisco and SAP are seeking other avenues of growth; this volumemonetizer, platform company-esque strategy highlights the increasing importance of cloud computing. In a similar vein, Siemens plans to offer lowcost products—simpler versions of goods, based on the same technology as their high-tech counterparts—in the hopes of capitalizing on faster growing markets such as China and India. Capitalizing on Clayton Christensen's concept of low-end disruptive innovation, it can't hurt to sell those same lower-cost products in newly budget-conscious developed markets, too; when the production costs are kept low by manufacturing them in countries where labor is relatively cheap, margins can look the same as those of more sophisticated designs.

In a combination of each of these three attributes, we are hearing rumblings that a large, U.S. multinational household retailer, started last week to offer guarantees and financing to its Chinese manufacturers, in exchange for heavy discounts on current finished inventories and future production. Additionally, this company is actively buying inventories from bankrupt firms at deep discounts. Far from being deterred by today's extraordinary circumstances, the company is seizing the opportunity to improve its procurement efficiency, strengthen its supply chain, advance its open innovation, and possibly gain a better foothold in the local market.

5- Conclusion

The platform model came to the fore a little over a decade ago as: 1) information and communications prices plummeted, 2) global trade soared and 3) global capital flows surged. This convergence of factors enabled emerging economies to specialize, accumulate capital, and establish new comparative advantages, leading to a dramatic increase in the efficiency of global production. This process also triggered an accelerating pace of creative destruction among the world's developed countries, raising the stakes on the achievement of multi-factor productivity.

The current financial crisis is the first real test of the twin Ricardian and Schumpeterian growth dynamics that gave rise to the platform business model and the growth trends that we have witnessed in recent years. And today, most of our clients seem to believe that the crisis actually marks the death-knell of the model; the coming years are bound to be marked by growing protectionism, collapsing productivity and consequent economic misery.

We disagree and instead believe that recent evidence suggests that, far from being the beginning of the end for the platform-company model, we are simply going through the end of the beginning. With every day that goes by bringing another spate of earnings disappointments, bankruptcies, and examples of mismanagement, it would seem intuitive to expect corporate behavior to reflect these grim times, with companies retreating, retrenching, and regressing. But, in recent weeks, we have started to pick up on examples of the exact opposite, as the well-capitalized platform companies have used this period of turbulence to position themselves for the next phase of growth.

Our bet is thus that the platform model itself will emerge stronger from the current crisis, and play a larger role in future global economic development than most investors currently believe. Globalization is far from dead and the companies that are positioning themselves today to reap its rewards will be the winners of tomorrow.

Can The Euro Survive?

John Mauldin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:30:47 GMT

Milton Friedman famously predicted that the euro would not last past their first economic crisis. This week we look at commentary by Niels Jensen that explores the news from Euroland. Can the euro survive? He explores a number of options which are most definitely not on the radar screen for most investors. It is good to get a perspective from those outside of our own back yard. Note that when he says "our country" he is referring to Great Britain.

Niels is the Managing Partner of Absolute Return Partners based in London (which is my European partner). I work 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. The numbered footnotes are at the end of the letter.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Do BRICs (and Germans) Eat PIGS?

When the euro was introduced about ten years ago, the pessimists didn't give it much chance of reaching its tenth anniversary. The euro, or so the argument went, was doomed from the outset because of the wide spread in economic performance and discipline amongst the member countries. At one end you had, and still have, the highly disciplined, but also slow growing, economies of Germany and the Netherlands. At the other end you find the faster growing but poorly disciplined countries such as Spain and Greece. As icing on the cake, you also had, and still have, countries that lack in both departments, such as Italy, making it difficult for the union to 'gel' – well, according to sceptics.

There is admittedly an embedded weakness in the way the European currency union is structured. In the United States, arguably that largest currency union in the world, fiscal transfers between member states allow for the federal government to adjust for variances in economic performances. There is no such mechanism within the euro zone, which explains why the member states are subjected to a number of rules¹. These rules require for everyone to exercise a high level of economic discipline. The problem is that there is little or no such discipline.

The best example is the huge spread in the rise of unit labour costs over the past few years. Unit labour costs measure labour (wage) costs adjusted for changes in productivity. It is probably the best measure that exists in terms of tracking the changes in competitiveness between nations. When the Stability and Growth Pact behind the euro was established, there was no reference made to unit labour costs which, with the benefit of hindsight, was a major mistake. Even Jean-Claude Trichet, the Head of the European Central Bank, who rarely admits mistakes, has publicly stated that if he could design the currency union all over again, he would push for a unit labour cost stability pact.

Back to the sceptics. What they failed to realise was that Europe, together with the rest of the world, was about to enter a period of unprecedented prosperity. The good times would not only gloss over the deeper problems, but the euro would actually go from strength to strength to a point where it now threatens to unseat the US dollar as the premier reserve currency of the world. It is therefore perhaps a mystery to some of you, why one should question the longer term viability of the euro. That is nevertheless what I intend to do.

The problem, as I have already alluded to, is poor discipline amongst several of the member states. Ever heard of the four PIGS? This less than flattering acronym stands for Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, four members of the euro zone which are all in much deeper trouble than they are prepared to admit. They are often considered the 'antidote' to the BRIC countries, the fast growing emerging market economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Let's take a closer look at the unit labour cost index for various countries (see table 1).

Table 1: 2007 Unit Labour Cost Index (2000=100)

Notes: *2006. PIGS countries in bold. Source: http://stats.oecd.org/

Since the introduction of the euro, the PIGS have failed miserably to keep up with Germany on this measure of competitiveness. So has Ireland by the way, hence its current predicament. On the other hand, Brazil (the only BRIC country which the OECD reports unit labour costs on) scores very well on this account, a fact which is not going to make life any easier for the PIGS.

EU countries outside the euro zone, such as the UK, have also lost out to Germany in recent years, but the UK has been able to play a card which is not at the disposal of the euro zone members. That card is called devaluation. Whether by design or otherwise, the UK has received a massive boost to its competitiveness in recent months as a result of the sharp fall in the value of the pound. Italy used to play this card repeatedly back in the days of the Lira. So did countries like Denmark in the dark days of the 1970s.

Back in those days there was less economic integration and recessions were rarely global. Devaluations could therefore be used to stimulate exports. The situation today is fundamentally different. The global nature of the current crisis makes it far more difficult for any country to grow its way out through higher exports. The UK will offer a great case study to test whether devaluations are still a powerful tool.

Another issue, which is potentially even more destabilising for the euro longer term, is the massive liabilities facing Europe as its population ages. We have borrowed table 2 below from Goldman Sachs which makes no secret of the challenges facing a number of European countries. Greece is clearly facing the biggest challenge. Public debt, which currently stands at about 95% of GDP, will grow to a whopping 555% of GDP by 2050 if the current pension and social security programme is left unchanged. The Greek government is painfully aware of this and have been working on several new initiatives. It was the passing of one of those new laws which caused the riots in Athens before Christmas.

Table 2: Actual Debt & Age Related Contingent Liabilities

Source: Goldman Sachs, European Weekly, 22/01/2009

Considering the poor record of fiscal discipline, many euro zone members will probably allow their debt to grow much larger before decisive action is taken. The problems are so massive – and the solutions so painful - that most politicians chicken out and pass the problem to the next generation of politicians.

A third problem facing Europe is the sheer scale of the banking crisis. Although this is not just a European problem, European countries are probably worse off than the US because a larger part of European debt has to be financed externally. As you can see from chart 1, more than $2 trillion of European and U.S. bank debt needs to be re-financed before the end of next year. Unless there is a material improvement in market conditions, re-financing at such a massive scale is simply not doable.

Chart 1: Maturing Bank Securities in 2009/10 (USD)

Source: UBS

The European approach, at least until now, has been to save the banking system at any cost. It is therefore possible that a significant share of the re-financing cost will find its way to the sovereign balance sheets and hence ultimately to the tax payer. This could further destabilise the currency union.

All these challenges are surfacing as the global economy faces the worst year since World War II. I have noted that most economic forecasters are still quite sanguine about the prospects for 2010. Be careful. The models upon which these forecasts are built are based on experience from prior recessions; however, this is no ordinary recession and historical data is therefore largely irrelevant. I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of us are underestimating how long it will take to get the global economy firmly back on its feet again.

Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart published a research paper about a month ago which should be mandatory reading for all investors². They have studied every single banking crisis of the past 100 years and reach some rather unsettling conclusions. As they point out: "Broadly speaking, financial crises are protracted affairs".

Following a banking crisis, asset prices fall more and for longer than most investors realise (see charts 2a and 2b). So do output and unemployment. Most importantly, though, the real value of government debt explodes (see chart 2c) but not for the reasons you might think. Yes, the bailout costs are significant, but the main driver of rising government debt is actually the subsequent collapse of tax income.

Chart 2a: Decline in Real House Prices during Banking Crises

Peak to Trough Decline & Duration

Source: See footnote 2.

Chart 2b: Decline in Real Equity Prices during Banking Crises

Peak to Trough Decline & Duration

Source: See footnote 2.

Chart 2c: Cumulative Increase in Real Public Debt

First 3 Years following the Banking Crisis

Source: See footnote 2.

So when we are told that the bailout cost, although large, is still manageable, it is only half the story. The loss of tax revenue is another nail in the coffin and could lead to a dramatic – and unpredicted - rise in public debt. Have you heard any mention of that from your government?

At this point I need to introduce something as alien as the "flow-of-funds accounting identity"³:

Δ(G-T) = Δ(S – I) + ΔNFCI⁴

I rarely throw formulas at you for the simple reason that it scares many readers away. I urge you to stay with me for a bit longer, though, because this formula is critical in order to understand how the government response to the current crisis is likely to impact interest rates longer term. The equation states that any change in fiscal stimulus (Δ(G-T)) must equal the change in private sector net savings (Δ(S-I)) plus the change in net foreign capital inflows.

Translation: If our government stimulates the economy through public spending, as it is currently doing in spades, we must either save more or we have to rely on foreigners being prepared to invest in our country. There are no exceptions to this rule.

The key question, as our economic adviser Woody Brock points out, is what will cause this equation to hold true? It is quite simple. We will save more if we get paid more to do so (through higher interest rates) or if we are so scared of the future that we stop spending and start investing instead.

Foreign investors are no different. Now, with the trillions of dollars being spent around the world to shore up our financial system, the fear factor alone is not going to be enough. Higher – possibly much higher - interest rates will be required to ensure sufficient savings.

Obviously, there is another option at the government's disposal. The central bank can monetize some or all of the deficit by buying the bonds issued by the government. This line of action will keep Δ(G-T) down; hence the need for increased private savings (and/or capital inflows) drops accordingly. The problem with this approach, as an old Danish saying states, is that it is like wetting your pants to stay warm. Monetization executed on a big scale is highly inflationary in the long run, inevitably driving bond yields higher.

The good news is that we are very unlikely to loose control of inflation in the short run. The economy is simply too weak for that to happen. In Frankfurt, the 'eurocrats' are currently congratulating themselves that they, through strict monetary discipline, killed inflation in the aftermath of last year's explosion in commodity prices. The reality, however, is that the credit crunch killed inflation – they didn't - and Europe is now at a junction where even the smallest policy mistake could be very expensive indeed. In my opinion, the ECB has been way too slow in responding to the current crisis and they must act swiftly and reduce the policy rate to near zero levels in order to avoid a deep recession throughout the euro zone.

So, could all this lead to the destruction of the euro? Could the currency union actually break up? It is not that the risk to the PIGS has not been recognised by bond investors. As you can see from chart 3 below, investors in long dated Greek government bonds now earn about 2.5% more than they do by investing in correspondent German bunds.

Chart 3: PIGS Sovereign Debt Spreads over Germany

Source: Goldman Sachs, European Weekly, 22/01/2009

On the other hand, I may disappoint one or two readers (I will certainly disappoint Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph who appears to have declared war on the euro), but I firmly believe that the euro will almost certainly survive the current crisis. I am much more worried about some of the member countries.

There is nothing in the Maastricht treaty which prevents a member country from leaving the euro, yet the decision to join is effectively irreversible. There are a number of reasons for this, the most important being economic costs. Take Italy which has a history of compensating for lost competitiveness through regular devaluations. If Berlusconi did the unthinkable tomorrow (sorry – nothing is unthinkable in Berlusconi's world), Italy's borrowing costs would explode. My guess is that bond investors would demand double digit returns on a Lira denominated bond to compensate for the dramatically increased devaluation risk. Already in a precarious fiscal position, Italy could quite simply not afford that.

So, if any country were to leave the euro, it would more likely be from a position of strength, and only one country possesses enough strength to pull that off in the current environment. That country is Germany. And, although the euro is not particularly popular in Germany, I believe it is extremely unlikely for Germany to make such a move unilaterally. There are several reasons for that – Germany's history in Europe being the most important.

At the same time, the fact that the euro has saved the bacon of more than one country in recent months - Ireland being the most obvious example - should not be ignored. For this very reason, the euro membership is actually far more likely to grow than to shrink as a result of the financial and economic crisis engulfing the world. The issue the EU has to deal with is whether the new applicants should actually be welcomed. Most of those who would want to join will bring plenty of baggage.

Another possible outcome, which you hear almost no mention of, is the possibility of a new Transatlantic currency. When I mention this possibility, everyone laughs, but think about it for a second. The economic crisis on both sides of the Atlantic is enormous. Both are resorting to the same formulas – large fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing (a word invented by central bankers because 'printing money' smacks too much of Zimbabwe). There is a real risk that the entire financial and monetary system on either side of the pond needs to be re-designed. If that were to happen, I am pretty confident that the Fed and the ECB would at least sit down and discuss the possibility of a joint currency. That would also allow the UK to join a currency union without too much egg on its battered face.

In the short to medium term, though, there is no such bailout on the horizon. In recent years, the weaker members of the euro, such as Italy, have managed to 'muddle through' (to borrow one of John Mauldin's favourite terms), mostly because the global economy has been strong enough to gloss over any weaknesses. D-day is now firmly on the horizon. As I see things, it is not inconceivable that a member country could be forced to default on its sovereign debt. Interestingly, any euro member country defaulting on its debt could (and probably would) carry on as a full member of the currency union. And I will bet almost anything that the EU would rather have one of its members defaulting on its debt than having to break up the currency union.

Another, and more likely, outcome is the possibility of one or more member countries coming under EU administration. This would almost certainly include the most painful of all cures – mandatory wage reductions in order to get unit labour costs back in line. It would be a lot easier for the government of, say, Greece to get the EU to do the dirty job than to do it itself. Civil unrest will no longer be the privilege of countries such as Indonesia or Thailand. The recent crowd trouble in Greece could very well turn out to be the dry run for much bigger and more organised labour market unrest across Europe as reality begins to bite.

For the time being, though, European governments continue to be in denial. When the IMF recently recommended that Spain implement various structural reforms, the idea was flatly rejected by Prime Minister Zapatero. In the meantime, you can sit back and prepare for the drama to unfold. Very simplistically, it is a choice between Zimbabwe and Japan. Our central bankers can choose to monetize their way out of the current slump and run the risk of much higher interest rates and a rapidly deteriorating currency like Zimbabwe or they can show fiscal discipline and accept perhaps ten years of below par growth a la Japan. Or they can find the delicate balance in between the two and everyone will live happily thereafter. But that requires both skill and luck.

Footnotes:

¹ The Stability and Growth Pact is the main tool to keep economic policies (and hence performance) broadly synchronized within the euro zone. The pact states that no member country's gross stock of debt must exceed 60% of GDP and that the public deficit in any year must not exceed 3% of GDP. However, the pact allows for these limits to be broken under certain circumstances.

² "The Aftermath of Financial Crises", Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, December 2008.

³ This part is taken from Woody Brock's latest research paper, SED Profile, February 2009. See www.sed.com.

⁴ G = government spending, T = tax revenues, S = private sector savings, I = private sector investments and NFCI = net foreign capital inflows.

After I finished writing this month's Absolute Return Letter, I came across an article on Spiegel Online which offers further thoughts on the same subject. You can read the article by clicking on the following link: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,604523-3,00.html

Geithner, China, and the Specter of Technical Insolvency

John Mauldin — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:28:30 GMT

This week I bring you two different articles as an offering for Outside the Box. As a way to introduce the first, let me give you the quote from Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg about the rising threat of global trade protectionism:

"The Financial Times weighs in on the rising threat of global trade protectionism in today's Lex Column on page 14 ("Economic Patriotism"). The FT points out that the stimulus packages of many countries include "buy local" provisions. At home, there is a proposed inclusion of a 'Buy American' provision in the economic recovery package and this could set off trade retaliation from importers of US goods. Here is what the FT had to say, 'It was trade protectionism that made the 1930s Depression "Great". Congress would do well to understand that it is in everyone's interest to keep trade open today.'"

I have long written that the one thing that could derail my Muddle Through (at least eventually) view point is a return to trade protectionism. Nothing could be more devastating to the hopes of a recovery. Nothing could more surely turn a recession into a depression, and a global one at that.

David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors notes the very real problem with Tim Geithner's written testimony, threatening China and calling the manipulators, clearly making the point that this is Obama's policy. I did not have time to touch last Friday on the dangerous policy if it is that and not just rhetoric, but David says everything I would want to say and does it shortly and eloquently.

Second, several people requested a chance to look at the actual paper I cited in last week's Thoughts from the Frontline by Nouriel Roubini and Elisa Parisi-Capone of RGE Monitor (www.rgemonitor.com) on how they come up with an estimated potential loss of $3.6 trillion dollars in the US financial system. It makes for rather grim reading, but they go sector by sector to show where the losses are coming from.

Tomorrow I will hold my first "conversation" with Ed Easterling and Dr. Lacy Hunt. To find out more about how to listen in and still get the half price discount for the rest of this week at https://www.johnmauldin.com/newsletters2.html. Just enter the code JM44 when asked. Have a great week.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Geithner, Obama and China

By David Kotok

Following Treasury Secretary designee Tim Geithner's public confirmation hearing, an extensive Q & A occurred in writing. We have posted a copy of the US Senate Finance Committee's 100-page text on our website. See: http://www.cumber.com/special/geithnerquestions2009.pdf. This is must reading for any serious investor, economist, strategist, analyst, or observer. In this text you will find what is on the minds of the Senators, and you will gain insight into the policies that will be forthcoming from the Obama administration.

One telling example is found in the following quote that has already created international consternation. Geithner twice answered questions about currency and China. In so doing he has placed the Obama administration squarely in the middle of the tension between the United States and the largest international buyer and holder of US debt: China. This happened as the same Obama administration is unveiling a package that will add to the TARP financing needs and the cyclical deficit financing needs and cause the United States to borrow about $2 trillion this year. Two trillion dollars of newly issued Treasury debt -- and this is how the question was answered. Not once but twice.

Geithner (on page 81 and again on page 95) answered: "President Obama -- backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists -- believes that China is manipulating its currency. President Obama has pledged as President to use aggressively all the diplomatic avenues open to him to seek change in China's currency practices."

"Manipulation?" "Aggressively?" This is strong language. Geithner did not do this on his own authority. These are prepared answers. He is citing the new President, not once but twice.

China's response was fast and direct. China's commerce ministry said in Beijing that China "has never used so-called currency manipulation to gain benefits in its international trade. Directing unsubstantiated criticism at China on the exchange-rate issue will only help US protectionism and will not help towards a real solution to the issue."

Are we seeing the world's largest and third largest economies calling each other names in the middle of a global economic and financial meltdown?

The world is in recession. The economic growth rates in the major and mature economies are now negative numbers. In China the growth rate is at least 4 and maybe as much as 8 points below last year. All the governments of the world that are running deficits are enlarging them in order to finance stimulus packages. Their central banks are bringing the policy interest rates toward zero. Trillions will need to be borrowed by those governments. Either they will be financed by the outright massive printing of money through the central bank mechanism, or they will be financed by those in the world who have savings. China is the largest single holder of financial savings in the world. Japan is next.

Why are we picking a fight with China? The implied question is why are we alluding to one with Japan, whose currency is currently the strongest of the G4 majors? In a world where global finance is mostly in US dollars, British pounds, euros, and yen, this is engaging in a dangerous sport.

The pound has lost one third of its value against the dollar since the crisis began. It is destined to weaken more. The euro struggles because of the structural issue of having to conduct monetary policy in the sovereign debt of the various euro zone member countries. The gap between those sovereign interest rates has reached nearly 3% between the weakest and strongest. This is an extremely difficult task for the European Central Bank to manage.

And Japan is getting killed by the flight to the strong yen. Japan will intervene soon to weaken the yen; they have as much as said so. The yen is strengthening against the Chinese Yuan; that is Japan's largest trading partner. The yen is 1.5 standard deviations above the JPY/USD exchange rate. It is nearly 3 standard deviations above the JPY/EUR cross rate that has been established during the ten years the euro existed. And it is over 3 standard deviations above the JPY/GBP cross rate.

So that leaves the dollar likely to get stronger. Right now it is the default choice of the world. We have currency strength not because we are so desirable but because we are currently better than the others. All bad; we're not as bad as they are. Or all bad and the others are even worse.

So what do we do within 72 hours of launching the Obama administration that says it is seeking "change?" We fire the first public salvo in what could easily become a trade war or a threat to global financial integration.

What makes us so credible? Is it our proven record of regulatory oversight of our financial markets, as demonstrated by the Madoff scandal and the SEC? Is it the way our rating agencies work so diligently to place a coveted "AAA" on paper that was peddled to the rest of the world and was found out to be highly toxic? Is it the way we honor the promises of federal agencies by having tier-one-eligible Fannie and Freddie preferred held in the US and abroad by institutions, and then essentially cause a structural default on that preferred (actually, dividend suspension)? Or is it the way the actions of Treasury and the Federal Reserve allowed a primary dealer (Lehman) to fail, thus triggering a global contagion?

C'mon? Where is the plan to restore confidence and credibility and transparency and consistent policy for the United States? And how does the Obama administration believe that launching a fight with China is beneficial?

In the 1930s the severe recession of 1929-1931 was turned into the depression of 1931-1933 because of protectionism. Every historian knows that. Every economist learns it in school. This is well-known by Geithner and even better-known by Larry Summers and Paul Volcker. They are the three members of the Obama economic troika.

The statement Geithner repeated twice was certainly known to them in advance. Why did they not temper it? What is the plan? Do they want to threaten and see if China backs down? This, too, is dangerous. Do they intend to pursue the Schumer tariff scheme? There are more questions than answers.

Lastly, Larry Summers was going to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He has cancelled. Why? Was it because he did not want to have to face the private conversations that would follow such statements as have been made by Geithner in the name of the President?

Watch Davos closely. And remember that the absence of statements is as revealing, if not more so, than the presence of them. Not one mention of trade openness appears in our reading of the 100 pages of answers to the Senate. Maybe someone else can find an affirmation of free and open trade. I cannot.

We fear protectionism. It starts with rhetoric. We now have that threat. If it is pursued, it ends badly for everyone. No one wins.

Geithner's answers are sobering. We are now in the realm of fiscal policy and national policy. This is not in the realm of the central bank; the Federal Reserve is not the player here. The Fed is doing all it can to unfreeze the financial system and restore it to functionality. If permitted to complete its task, that policy will work. If stymied or corrupted by conflicting policy in trade or federal finance, the recession will worsen and the pain will become more severe.

Specter of Technical Insolvency for the Banking System Calls for Comprehensive Solution

By Nouriel Roubini and Elisa Parisi-Capone

Back in February 2008, we at RGE Monitor warned that that the credit losses of this financial crisis would amount to at least $1 trillion and most likely closer to $2 trillion.

At that time such estimates were derided as being exaggerated as the market consensus at that time was around $200-300 billion of subprime mortgage related losses. But we pointed out that losses were not limited to subprime mortgages and would rapidly mount -- following a severe US and global recession -- to near prime and prime mortgages, commercial real estate loans, credit card loans, auto loans, student loans, leveraged loans, muni bonds, industrial and commercial loans, loans to real estate developers and contractors, corporate bonds, CDS and the securities (MBS, CDOs, CMOs, CPDOs, and the entire alphabet soup of derivative instruments) that -- via securitization -- represented claims on these underlying loans.

Soon enough, market estimates of loan and securities losses mounted: by April 2008 the IMF estimated them to be $945 billion; then Goldman Sachs came with an estimate of $1.1 trillion; the hedge fund manager John Paulson estimated them at $1.3 trillion; then in the fall of 2008 the IMF increased its estimate to $1.4 trillion; Bridgewater Associates came with an estimate of $1.6 trillion; and most recently, in December 2008, Goldman Sachs cites some estimates close to $2 trillion (and argues that loan losses alone may be as high as $1.6 trillion and expects a further $1.1 trillion of loan losses ahead).

In mid-November 2008, the threshold of $1 trillion in global financial writedowns was finally reached. Thus, as we argued throughout 2008, our $1 trillion estimate was only a floor - not a ceiling - for eventual losses and our upper range of $2 trillion would become more likely.

We have now revised our estimates and we now expect that total loan losses for loans originated by U.S. financial institutions will peak at up to $1.6 trillion out of $12.37 trillion loans . Our estimates assume that national house prices will fall another 20% before they bottom out some time in 2010 and that the unemployment rate will peak at 9%. If we include then around $2 trillion mark-to-market losses of securitized assets based on market prices as of December 2008 (out of $10.84 trillion in securities), total losses on the loans and securities originated by the U.S. financial system amount to a figure close to $3.6 trillion.

U.S. banks and broker dealers are estimated to incur about half of these losses, or $1.8 trillion ($1 -1.1 trillion loan losses and $600-700bn in securities writedowns) as 40% of securitizations are assumed to be held abroad. The $1.8 trillion figure compares to banks and broker dealers capital of $1.4 trillion as of Q3 of 2008, leaving the banking system borderline insolvent even if writedowns on securitizations are excluded.

Arguably, mark-to-market losses on private sector securitizations have so far been largely compensated for by increased activity in the government-sponsored sectors, but mark-to-market writedowns may become a more important factor going forward for bank capitalizations and credit provision to the private sector (see discussion in Hatzius (2008))

Moreover, even assuming that securitized assets may have fallen in value excessively because of a liquidity premium -- rather than credit risk alone -- we still get very large losses. Assume -- generously -- that securities are now underpriced because of illiquidity and that market losses will be eventually 20% lower than we currently estimate because of such temporary factors. Then writedowns on market securities would be $1.6 trillion rather than $2 trillion and total credit losses would be $3.2 trillion rather than $3.6 trillion.

In this paper we argue that, in order to restore safe credit growth, the U.S. banking system thus needs an additional $1 -- 1.4 trillion in private and/or public capital. These magnitudes call for a comprehensive solution along the lines of a 'bad bank', or preferably a restructuring of the financial system through an RTC or our through our HOME proposal.

Loss Estimates

Our data on outstanding loan and securities amounts are as in IMF Global Financial Stability Report, Table 1.1, as well as the weights in assigning loss shares to banks and non-bank (see data in Appendix 1).Different from the IMF which focuses on charge-offs only, we look at both charge-off and delinquency rates as we assume a high proportion of delinquent loans will turn bad in this cycle, especially as financial institutions have thin capital bases inadequate to deal with unexpected losses.

Compared to the IMF we estimate for loan losses based not on current default/ delinquencies rates but rather what those losses will be when such default and delinquencies will reach their peak some time in 2010. Our calculations are assume a further 20% fall in house prices (Case/Shiller) and unemployment peaking at 9% during this cycle as discussed in the RGE 2009 Global Economic Outlook.

With respect to credit losses on unsecuritized loans, recent research by the Federal Reserve Board (Sherlund (2008)) using comparable house price assumptions (but assuming high oil prices) concludes that over half of 2006-2007 subprime mortgage originations are set to default (i.e. $150bn out of $300bn in our data). The loss trajectories for Alt-A loans are similar, resulting in a 25% default rate ($150bn out of $600bn). Even prime mortgage delinquencies display a very high correlation with subprime loan delinquencies (Doms/Furlong/Krainer (2008), implying an approximate 7% default rate when the potential for 'jingle mail' is taken into account ($266bn out of $3,800bn). Our dollar losses for the subprime and Alt-A categories (incl. RMBS) are broadly in line with similar estimates in the literature.

The cycle has also turned in the commercial real estate (CRE) area with the traditional lag of around 2 years. Current serious delinquency plus default rates of 5.9% of CRE loans (Fed data) are projected to increase to up to 17% by industry experts cited in a Fitch study referring to CMBS data and assuming a 25% fall in prices ($408bn out of $2.4 trillion.) This compares with a 1991 peak charge-off plus delinquency rate of 14.5%.

In the consumer loan area, we estimate credit card charge-off rates could increase to 13% in the worst case scenario. Adding a typical 4% delinquency rate during recessions, the total loan losses on unsecuritized consumer loans are projected to increase to $238bn out of $1.4 trillion.

The IMF warned that commercial and industrial loans (C&I) losses are likely to climb to historical peaks and potentially beyond in this cycle. Compared to past C&I loan loss rates, we project charge-off and delinquencies to reach 10% or $370bn out of $3.7 trillion of unsecuritized C&I loans. With regard to leveraged loans, the latest research by Boston Consulting/IESE Business School based on the 100 largest PE firms engaged in LBOs calculates an expected book loss from default of about 30%. This translates into $51bn in losses out of $170bn unsecuritized leverage loans.

Based on these calculations, RGE now expects total loan losses to the financial system to reach about $1.6 trillion out of $12.37 trillion of unsecuritized loans alone,

implying an aggregate default rate of over 13%. Applying IMF weights, the U.S. banking system (commercial banks and broker dealers) carries about 60-70% of unsecuritized loan losses, or around $1.1 trillion.

Total mark-to-market (mtm) writedowns on a further $10.8 trillion of U.S. originated securities outstanding reached about $2 trillion by the end 2008 based on cash bond and derivatives prices. In particular, applying Markit ABX prices to $1.1 trillion of outstanding subprime RMBS results in a mtm loss rate of 50%, or $550bn. Markit TABX prices also show that $400 billion ABS CDOs consisting of mostly junior subprime RMBS tranches are all but worthless by now and expected to remain that way (95% or 380bn month-to-month loss.)

Writedowns in the prime MBS universe are primarily driven by jumbo mortgages which we assume to trade at 97% based on the record 3% spread between the 30-year jumbo mortgage and the 10-year Treasury yield with comparable average maturity. Mtm losses on prime MBS are therefore assumed to be $114bn out of $3.8 trillion outstanding. CMBX spreads spiked up implying a month-to-month write down of about $282bn out of $940bn outstanding.

The aggregate consumer debt ABS price index across all ratings trades at 80% thus implying $130bn in month-to-month writedowns out of $650bn outstanding. The high-yield corporate debt index traded at 75% (month-to-month $150bn out of $600bn), whereas high-grade corporate debt traded at 95% before moving back to 100%: we assume a writedown of $190bn out of $3.8 trillion. Derivatives indices for securitized leveraged loans implied a month-to-month loss of 123bn by the end of 2008 out of $350bn in CLOs outstanding. Flow of funds data show that 40% of U.S. originated securitizations are held abroad, leaving U.S. institutions with 60% of m-t-m writedowns, and U.S. banks in particular with a share of 50-60% thereof, i.e. $600 --700bn, when applying IMF weights.

Expected U.S. banks loan losses of about $1.1 trillion out of a total $1.6 trillion, plus bank month-to-month writedowns of $600 - $700bn on securities based on December 2008 prices amount to about $1.8 trillion. Compared with a total bank capitalization of $1.4 trillion (incl. FDIC insured plus investment banks as of Q3), the estimated capital shortfall amounts to around $400bn in the worst case scenario before recapitalization.

(Our colleague Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics -- one of the leading experts of U.S. banking - has long predicted that peak charge-offs for the US banking industry will reach 2x 1990 levels during 2009, which would mean 4% charge-offs against total loans and leases for all FDIC insured banks or some $800 billion in realized losses. In reviewing a draft of our paper, Chris noted that the Q4 2008 results from Citi, JPMorgan, Bank of America show that charge-offs were running at a rate roughly double 2007 levels and that he expects charge-offs for these larger banks to double again by Q2 2009 and to continue rising through the second half of 2009. He thinks that our "$1.1t loss estimate is very reasonable for the financials in terms of charge-offs". The total accumulated loss for all FDIC insured banks will depend upon how long the industry remains at this peak level of loss experience; thus, our loss estimates for U.S. banks losses could be conservative and losses may end up being much larger than we predict.

Even including the TARP 1 injection of capital of $230 billion into the banking system and the further $200 billion of capital injected by private investors and sovereign wealth funds since the start of the crisis, the overall banking system would still be borderline insolvent.

Moreover, in order to restore the capital of the banking system to the previous level of $1.4 trillion (a level close to the 8% capital requirement of Basel II) an additional $1.4 trillion of private and public/government capital would have to be injected in the banking system to restore safe credit growth. If a reform of the regime of regulation of banking institutions were to argue that banks and broker dealers need more than the Basel II 8% criteria to operate safely even more than $1.4 trillion of new capital will have to be injected in the banking system.

Thus, even the release of TARP 2 (another $350 billion) and its use to recapitalize banks only would not be sufficient to restore the capital of banks and broker dealers to internationally accepted capital ratios. A TARP 3 and 4 of up to $1.05 trillion (assuming generously that all of TARP 2 goes to banks and broker dealers) may be needed to restore capital ratios to adequate levels.

Even assuming that private and foreign capital would contribute to 50% of this additional required recapitalization an additional TARP 3-4 of $560 billion may be needed in the form of public capital injections in banks and broker dealers alone. This would leave out the insurance companies, finance companies and other financial institutions (the GMAC, GE Capital, etc.) which may also need further public capital. Our estimates may turn out to be too pessimistic as the current illiquidity premium in prices of securities may disappear over time and a faster than expected growth recovery may reduce the expected losses on loans. But even in that case the current shortfall of capital in the banking system would be close to a staggering $1 trillion rather than an even bigger $1.4 trillion.

Conversely, credit losses may turn out to be even larger than we estimate: if instead of a U-shaped recession that is over by the end of 2009, the US recession were to last well into 2010 and turn out to be a Japanese style L-shaped recession, total loan and especially securities losses would end up being much larger than our benchmark of $3.6 trillion, potentially as high as $5 trillion.

Thus, the release of TARP 2 is welcome news for the banking sector but the prospect of further month-to-month losses and feedback loops that are not yet priced in calls for a more comprehensive solution for toxic assets along the lines of the proposed 'aggregator bank' or preferably an outright restructuring of the banking system a la RTC. Moreover, in order to address the root causes of the financial crisis in the mortgage and the household sectors, we proposed recently the "HOME (Home Owners' Mortgage Enterprise): A 10 Step Plan to Resolve the Financial Crisis" that includes an RTC to deal with toxic assets, a HOLC to reduce homeowner mortgage debt, and an RFC to refinance viable banking institutions.

The US banking system is borderline insolvent in the aggregate and it will take a huge amount of public financial resources and complex and time-consuming work-out of insolvent institutions to restore its financial health and allow it to lend again in ways that support sustained economic growth.

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.

Eyeing Opportunities in the Global Financial Crisis

John Mauldin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:37:25 GMT

As various companies go hat in hand to Washington for a bailout, a recurring topic is what guaranty do the taxpayers get that they're not just throwing more money down a hole. Good question. Who wants warrants or preferred shares if the company is doomed anyway? What you're seeing take place are negotiated backstops between the US Government and pools of capital. A couple of examples:

The Big 3 may get a bailout. Financially the US taxpayer will get a stake - in what will surely be radically reshaped companies. Citibank just got a large infusion from Saudi Arabia's Prince al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saud - just days before a US government orchestrated rescue helped rocket the share price. Maybe these are just coincidental moves. Maybe not.

What we're witnessing isn't finance or investment as usual. We're watching a shift to a managed economic structure, where government officials determine who will live and who will die. It's a shift from investments to agreements, where having access to large pools of ready cash is the ultimately persuasive argument. And lacking access means doing whatever you're told.

I've long been encouraging you to read George Friedman's work at Stratfor, but it becomes more important every day. Stratfor is producing a series on Countries in Crisis, and I've enclosed the latest piece which is the exception to the rule, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. This series is a fascinating look at how those with the gold get to make the rules. Unless you've got your own sovereign wealth fund, you'll probably want to read it...

As you're structuring your own portfolios, understanding the geopolitical drivers behind where the markets are going is now more important than ever. Because these insights are so important, I've arranged a special deal for you on a Stratfor Membership which also includes a free copy of George's new book, The Next 100 Years. Click here to take advantage of this offer today. These are the drivers for the coming year, and I encourage you to factor them in today.

Yours,
John Mauldin

GCC States: Eyeing Opportunities in the Global Financial Crisis

Editor's Note: This article is part of a series on the geopolitics of the global financial crisis. Here we examine how the global financial crisis will affect the Persian Gulf states.

One of the most influential aspects of the global financial crisis, which has taken many forms around the world, is the shrinking and increasingly risk-averse global capital pool. As investors around the world began to experience heavy losses in the wake of, and partially triggered by, the U.S. subprime crisis, capital around the world began to dry up. At the same time, those who retained access to capital became increasingly risk-averse and have, in effect, begun to hoard capital.

For the time being, this means that risky borrowers or capital-intensive projects around the world are desperately in need of loans that are nowhere to be found. The impact in the short term is that major projects -- such as Brazil's development of its massive offshore oil fields -- will have to be postponed. In the long term, this lack of willing investment will mean a slowdown in growth in the areas of the world that are dependent on foreign capital for the development of infrastructure and industry, such as Latin America, emerging Europe and the Balkans.

A secondary impact of the shortage of capital is the devastating effect it can have on banking sectors. As the capital pool shrinks, liquidity becomes a serious problem for banks as they struggle to meet reserve requirements and avoid contagion. Banks all around the world have been hit by a shortage of credit but nowhere harder than in Europe, where the banking sector is so heavily intertwined with its industrial sectors that the entire underpinning of the economy relies on a highly liquid and supportive (critics would say "too supportive") banking industry. The U.S. market, by comparison, relies primarily on securities markets for external financing needs, and the kind of reciprocal, slightly incestuous relationships between banks and industries that characterize Europe do not exist in the United States. Furthermore, the common monetary policies of the eurozone have left many European states with over-stimulated economic sectors -- such as Spain's real estate sector -- that have been pushed forward by extremely low consumer lending rates (relative to what these countries experienced prior to joining the eurozone) backed by the stability and strength of the euro.

Yet another challenge facing world economies is the global slowdown of growth, which means a decline in demand for goods and a resulting decline in manufacturing. This will mean a slowdown in the Asian countries -- particularly China -- that are home to much of the world's manufacturing. The secondary impact will be on commodity-producing states, which provide the basic materials used in the construction of manufactured goods. These states (including most of Latin America) are facing an export crisis as the markets dry up.

Financial Crisis and the GCC

Fortunately for the Persian Gulf states that constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman -- these financial challenges are mitigated, or entirely eliminated, by enormous oil wealth and economies that have been carefully managed.

The GCC states are largely insulated from the global credit crunch because they are the proud owners of some of the world's largest oil deposits. Saudi Arabia alone boasts the largest oil reserves in the world, at well over 250 billion barrels, and all of the GCC states -- with the exception of Bahrain -- are ranked in the top 20 of world oil producers, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE leading the pack. Saudi Arabia alone made $194 billion from oil exports in 2007, and $212 billion (in real dollars) between January and October 2008. The GCC states are so capital-rich that their usual financial management strategy involves attempting to soak up as much liquidity as possible in order to contain inflation.

Indeed, with massive current account surpluses, the six GCC states are creditor nations -- meaning they supply capital to the rest of the world. As net providers of capital, these countries remain much less vulnerable to a shrinking global capital pool than net capital importers, as they can simply let up on the outflows for a bit to recapitalize their systems.

Given that this wealth is controlled for the most part by the GCC monarchies, much of this cash flow goes first into government coffers. This granted every single one of the GCC states a budget surplus, reaching as high as Kuwait's 42 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in 2007 (this was before the oil price spike of 2008, so while the fall in oil revenue will affect budgets in 2009, the impact will not be as drastic as it would be using 2008 as a baseline). This gives Kuwait a great deal of flexibility in dealing with financial issues as they arise. Qatar, Oman and Bahrain all have surpluses, but they were less than 7 percent of GDP in 2007, so although they do maintain flexibility, they are much more limited than Kuwait.

Despite their budget surpluses and status as net capital exporters, the GCC states do maintain external debt -- used to finance corporate projects and government functions. However, public-sector external debt amounts to less than 30 percent of GDP for most GCC states. The outlying state is Bahrain, which has a public-sector external debt of around 36 percent of GDP. While this is not an insignificant level of debt, it is far outweighed by their sources of wealth. Measures of total external debt paint a different picture, however, and both Bahrain and Qatar have net external debt (which includes both public and private foreign capital borrowing) at between 50 and 60 percent of GDP. Although the UAE does not appear to be in trouble, the Dubai emirate has incurred a massive amount of debt in the process of overheating its real estate sector. The net impact of this high level of borrowing is to put the emirate at a disadvantage when it comes to seeking short-term capital to adjust to the international financial crisis.

Much of this debt has been caused by massive infrastructure and development projects such as Qatar's liquefied natural gas facilities, Dubai's fanciful real estate explosion and Bahrain's attempts to convert itself into a financial mecca. Indeed, the GCC states have used the past several decades of oil wealth to engineer massive development projects and have become, in the process, quite reliant on foreign direct investment (FDI) and the technology and expertise that accompany it. Though Qatar and Kuwait are net exporters of FDI, the other four states are importers of FDI, from Bahrain's modest 0.51 percent of GDP to Oman's more substantial 4.67 percent of GDP.

Offsetting this debt (and just about every other problem they might encounter) are the pools of capital that the GCC states maintain. One of the most important mechanisms for this capital accumulation -- because of its political and financial implications -- is the sovereign wealth fund (SWF). These SWFs are massive investment funds that make strategic investment choices for the GCC states. GCC SWFs maintain holdings that range from Saudi Arabia's relatively modest $5.3 billion to Abu Dhabi's massive $875 billion nest egg (and Abu Dhabi has even more money socked away in other SWFs). These SWFs are invested primarily in the equity markets of developed nations, and some have taken sizable stakes in Western businesses. In addition to the SWFs, the GCC states also maintain large caches of reserves. In Saudi Arabia, the state-owned bank SAMA (in addition to the kingdom's SWF) has $365.2 billion of foreign holdings, and the elite of the al-Saud family has reportedly stashed away somewhere around $1 trillion, though exact figures are difficult to track.

These pools of capital allow the GCC states to exercise great flexibility, especially during credit crunches. Gulf oil is controlled by the monarchies that rule each state, and these strong governments not only can draw on their large reserves but also can run their yearly budgets with substantial built-in surpluses. This gives the governments a great deal of room to intervene in the local markets to compensate for the effects of the financial crisis.

Trouble Spots

There are a couple of notable exceptions to this relatively rosy picture. Saudi Arabia has postponed bids on two major refinery projects until sometime in late 2009. The projects include a $6 billion, 400,000-barrel-per-day (bpd) refinery in the Red Sea port city of Yanbu to be built by Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Aramco) and ConocoPhillips and a $12 billion joint venture with French energy company Total for another 400,000-bpd facility in Jubail. But these projects are hardly an issue of economic survival. Instead they are a part of Saudi Arabia's effort to move up the energy supply chain -- from crude production to refined products - - and while these facilities would be nice to have, their delay will not cause any sleepless nights for Saudi Arabia.

A more serious issue for GCC states is that many of them have young banking sectors that have trembled at tightening global liquidity and disappearing capital. Bahrain, an island nation, has capitalized greatly on its location at the heart of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region and has used its proximity to massive capital flows to build a powerful banking sector. This proliferation of banks has been shaken by the financial crisis, but true crisis is not on the horizon because the GCC states have avoided incurring massive amounts of debt.

The impact of the financial crisis on the oil markets is unquestionably a concern for GCC states, and oil prices have fallen to nearly $50 a barrel after reaching highs of over $140 per barrel earlier in 2008. But their cash reserves have given the GCC states a great deal of staying power in the medium term. Saudi Arabia alone raked in more than $1 billion per day when oil prices spiked. With the global slowdown, there will certainly be a decline in the rate of cash flowing in to the GCC states, so they will have to spend what they have wisely. In some respects, this slowdown in cash inflow is a blessing. Until the financial crisis broke, the biggest financial worry for these states was high inflation, and the slowdown in growth will reduce inflationary pressure.

Among the GCC states there are a few with their own unique challenges. In the UAE, for example, there has been a rapid increase in corporate borrowing over the past two years. Most of that borrowing has been to fund massive development projects in the emirate of Dubai. These fantastical projects have included the construction of islands in the shape of palm trees and the continents of the world. Dubai has been planning to build the world's largest suspension bridge across the entire city of Dubai (connecting one suburb to another) that was to be completed in 2012. The real estate sector in Dubai, which sports the world's only seven-star hotel, has reached unprecedented heights of growth.

Its 10-year growth spurt has come to an end, however, as the heavily overheated real estate sector readjusts to something closer to reality and as bank stability is in question, although the UAE has set up a task force to address the problem. According to the head of the task force, Mohammed al-Abbar, state-owned and affiliated companies owe approximately $80 billion in debts, while the government's assets stand at $90 billion, and state-associated companies hold about $260 billion in assets. In addition to across-the-board needs for refinancing, Dubai companies have suffered huge losses in the Dubai Financial Market, which has taken the biggest hit of the GCC-state stock markets so far this year, with losses of up to 66 percent.

Qatari firms have also borrowed some $40 billion over the past two years to finance hydrocarbon projects such as the construction of natural gas liquefaction plants -- though these will certainly pay for themselves as demand for liquefied natural gas rises amid very tight market conditions. A massive outflow of equity investments sent the Doha Securities Market for a spin as it lost 22 percent in the first half of September. Though this serves to tighten Qatar's credit options, it will not have catastrophic consequences.

The massive credit expansion in Qatar and the UAE has put the banking sectors of both countries in a delicate position. Liquidity crises will, as a rule, hit first in the place where commercial banking and lending has exploded the quickest. The relatively young Qatari banking sector has been affected by this phenomenon, and the government intervened in the banking sector by offering a $5.3 billion investment package on Oct. 12. Similarly, the Abu Dhabi Central Bank has intervened with $32.7 billion to ensure the liquidity of UAE banks.

According to reports from Bahrain, the country's Islamic lending facilities appear to be faring better than interest-based lending facilities. The Central Bank of Bahrain is controlling the sector's involvement in the volatile real estate market, as a precaution, and has been adjusting interest rates to maintain liquidity, which appears to be holding. Similar moves have been made in Oman, although the kingdom appears to have weathered the storm with high levels of capitalization.

As these market fluctuations demonstrate, depending on how bad things get, the GCC states may be forced to cut back on programs -- such as Dubai's development projects and Saudi Arabia's refineries. But in the end, the massive reserves they have built up, as well as their relative financial discipline, have made the decline in commodity prices a concern but hardly a crisis. And ongoing hydrocarbon production capacity improvements in Saudi Arabia and other GCC states mean that as soon as the price of oil rises again, these states will once again be positioned to rake in stratospheric levels of oil revenue. In fact, the financial crisis for the GCC states can be viewed as an opportunity for the GCC states to exploit this moment of relative economic power, both internally and on the international stage.

Geopolitical Implications

The strongest player in the region, by far, is Saudi Arabia, and Riyadh uses its massive oil wealth to exert political pressure throughout the region and the world. The kingdom's primary objective in the region is the containment of Iran and Shiite influence as Iran tries to assert dominance over Iraq. The financial crisis has been a huge boon in this endeavor. As a major oil exporter that has failed to achieve the kinds of financial solvency that the GCC states have secured, Iran is staring down the barrel of a gun as oil prices sink. Without a buffer of cash, Iran is very poorly positioned to handle a fall in oil prices.

Though the fall in oil prices threatens Saudi Arabia as well, the Saudi budget is set for an oil price of $45 per barrel, and oil prices have not dropped to levels that would threaten Saudi stability. Saudi Arabia maintains the ability to manipulate oil prices for its own foreign policy objectives and could use them against Iran. (Saudi Arabia is poised to assume an even more powerful position when prices rise again if an ambitious $129 billion project to raise its oil production capacity to 12.5 million bpd comes through as planned in 2009.)

If Saudi Arabia chooses to pursue macro-level adjustments to oil prices in order to target Iran, it will certainly do so cautiously. Though the kingdom has a solid cushion of petrodollars, it still relies on oil for 75 percent of government income. That income is necessary to meet a variety of domestic needs and to counter Iranian moves in the region by bribing political parties and militant groups in places like Iraq and Lebanon.

After Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is perhaps the GCC state best positioned to weather the financial storm. With a SWF of $264 billion, the country is very capital-rich and the government has a huge budget surplus. There has been turmoil in Kuwait's equity markets and banking sector, which has prompted the kingdom to repatriate some $3.66 billion worth of SWF investments, but the government's resources are substantial enough to handily offset these problems. Kuwait stands to gain from the decline of Iranian influence in the region, in terms of limiting both the influence of its own Shiite minorities and Iran's entrenchment in neighboring Iraq. Kuwait's foreign policy goals are thus in line with Saudi Arabia's, and Kuwait will follow the Saudi lead.

Abu Dhabi, the largest emirate of the UAE, is the wealthiest and most tightly run ship in the country. The UAE's problems lie in Dubai and its excessive real estate boom of the past decade. Dubai's financial indiscretions have put it in a position where it will need to be underwritten (to a certain extent) by Abu Dhabi. This presents a strategic opportunity for Abu Dhabi to rein in the political power and excesses of the al-Maktoum family, which rules Dubai and holds the UAE prime ministerial post. Dubai has so far remained staunchly uninterested in Abu Dhabi's offers of aid, declaring that there are no negotiations between the emirates.

Though Qatar has found itself mildly vulnerable to the international financial crisis because of its large debt burden, it is still in a reasonably safe financial position. Qatar's regional and global goals are quite ambitious, as it seeks to increase its holdings overseas and serve as a diplomatic hub for the Middle East. Qatar has already made moves toward acquiring major stakes in companies overseas -- including Citibank -- and these kinds of activities will likely continue. For Qatar, the danger may be in overextending itself in a time of depressed markets and relatively little competition.

For Bahrain and Oman, the smallest of the GCC states, their ability to take advantage of the financial crisis is relatively limited. Bahrain is constrained by domestic political factors as it seeks to balance the needs of active opposition elements with its economic outlook. This will limit Bahrain's ability to use the economic crisis as a stepping-stone toward a larger geopolitical role in the region. Oman, for its part, maintains a very low profile in the region and is very unlikely to make any moves at this time.

For all of the GCC states, the global slowdown offers investment opportunities the world over. On the political stage, the Western states are crying out for capital injections as their economies slow down. In fact, on a tour of the region, Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt called on the Persian Gulf Arab states to continue investing in the United States to help restore financial stability. This represents an excellent opportunity for GCC states to charge to the rescue -- with hefty expectations for future cooperation, of course.

The United Kingdom has also asked the GCC states to help the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assist countries in desperate need of a bailout. Herein lies an opportunity for the GCC states to engage in long-term financial positioning. By giving money to the IMF, the GCC states could enhance their say in the affairs of the lending institution and, by extension, in the geopolitical arena.

For the moment, however, the GCC states have not responded enthusiastically to these pleas (although Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal did announce that he would boost his stake in Citibank just days before a U.S.-announced government bailout of the company). Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (which have other options and a variety of needs to balance) see only limited direct political benefit from bailing out the West instead of investing that money at home. This is an outlook that could change once the new U.S. administration is up and running and able to make political deals and security guarantees.

As these openings demonstrate, the GCC states are among few in the world that can view the current crisis and see potential opportunities. While there will certainly be bumps in the road as these relatively young economies settle and shift in the face of a turbulent world economy, responsible management of vast oil wealth has put the GCC states in a position to weather the financial crisis, and weather it well.

The Paradox of Deleveraging Will Be Broken

John Mauldin — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:30:58 GMT

We are clearly not having as much fun taking off leverage as we had putting it on, or at least the vast majority are not. This week in Outside the Box we look at some very thought-provoking insights from my good friend Paul McCulley, who helps us think about how we got here and what will be the end point. From the letter:

"But what ailed Lehman was but a manifestation of what ailed, and ails the global financial intermediary system: the presumption that grossly levered positions in illiquid assets can always be funded, because those doing the funding will always assume the borrower is a going concern."

You need to read this when you have the time to think. The quotes from Keynes are important.

Paul is a managing director, generalist portfolio manager, and member of the investment committee in the Newport Beach office of PIMCO. In addition, he heads PIMCO's short-term bond desk. And is an avid fisherman

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Paradox of Deleveraging Will Be Broken

By Paul McCulley

I've only written this essay once since the Kansas City Fed's annual symposium in late August. But it hasn't been because I've been lazy. Rather, I've been working virtually around the clock ever since, in my day job as head of PIMCO's Money Market and Funding Desk. On Wall Street, this desk is frequently viewed as a backwater, a temporary home for new MBAs getting their feet wet before moving on to higher-value-added desks, or a retirement home for those with more senior moments than fresh ideas.

That's never the case here at PIMCO, even though a number of now PIMCO partners spent their first days trafficking in the money markets and I, of ever-graying hair, still make my home here in the early hours of the day. Money markets frequently are a backwater, except when they are not, in which case they are cascading rapids. Liquidity pressures inevitably are the precursor of solvency and/or going-concern problems. Just ask Wall Street's independent investment banks.

We here at PIMCO have always known this. Accordingly, we've always been conservative beyond conservative in our money market operations, on both sides of the balance sheet – no asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) for us, and no tri-party repo without regard to collateral types or haircuts either. Meat and potatoes only, no fancy garnishes necessary. But the meat and potatoes must be cooked properly.

Hence, the work load of PIMCO's money market and funding desk. My new deputy, Jerome Schneider, hit the ground running in early August, a most propitious time, just before the global money markets became not just cascading rapids, but roaring waterfalls. The financial world will never be the same after the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve's fateful decision of the weekend of September 13-14 to stand aside as Lehman Brothers plummeted to death on the rocks below.

Whether that decision was the right one or not, we will never know. Yes, I know that many are quick to take the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to task, maintaining that the on-going global financial crisis – and, thus, growth crisis – would not be nearly so severe if Lehman had been tossed a life line. I simply don't know. What I do know is that the global financial system was fundamentally broken long before Lehman's watery death.

Thus, I believe the powerful, systemic policy responses that have unfolded in the post-Lehman world were destined to come about. Lehman was but the unfortunate tipping point. My heart still aches for the pain suffered by my many friends there. Fate is not always fair and at times, is arbitrary and capricious.

But what ailed Lehman was but a manifestation of what ailed, and ails the global financial intermediary system: the presumption that grossly levered positions in illiquid assets can always be funded, because those doing the funding will always assume the borrower is a going concern.

To understand the nature of this systemic malady, we need to return to first principles. Bear with me, please; this is going to be a bit academic. But, I submit, it was the loss of understanding of first principles that lies at the heart of the on-going paradox of deleveraging, which is the proximate cause of the on-going downward spiral of asset and debt deflation.

The Nature of Banking

When I studied the origins of banking in college, we started with the Medici Family of 15th century Italy. I'm quite sure banking existed long before then, just that I haven't studied it. But regardless of the origins of banking, its founding premise has always been the same: In normal times, the public's collective, ex ante demand for access to at-par, immediately-available bank money is always greater than the sum of the public's individual, ex post demand for access to such liquidity.

Thus, the genius of banking, if you want to call it that, is simple: a bank can take more risk on the asset side of its balance sheet than the liability side can notionally support, because a goodly portion of the liability side, notably deposits, is de facto of perpetual maturity, although it is notionally of finite maturity, as short as one day in the case of demand deposits.

It's the same alchemy that permits mutual funds to commit to next-day redemption at tonight's NAV, even though all reasonable people know that a mutual fund – with the possible exception of a money market fund – could not possibly liquidate all assets on the wire tomorrow at tonight's NAV marks. Systemically, it's the illusion of liquidity, as so elegantly described by John Maynard Keynes:

"The spectacle of modern investment markets has sometimes moved me towards the conclusion that to make the purchase of an investment permanent and indissoluble, like marriage, except by reason of death or other grave cause, might be a useful remedy for our contemporary evils. For this would force the investor to direct his mind to the long-term prospects and to those only. But a little consideration of this expedient brings us up against a dilemma, and shows us how the liquidity of investment markets often facilitates, though it sometimes impedes, the course of new investment.

"For the fact that each individual investor flatters himself that his commitment is ‘liquid' (though this cannot be true for all investors collectively) calms his nerves and makes him much more willing to run a risk. If individual purchases of investments were rendered illiquid, this might seriously impede new investment, so long as alternative ways in which to hold his savings are available to the individual. This is the dilemma.

"So long as it is open to the individual to employ his wealth in hoarding or lending money, the alternative of purchasing actual capital assets cannot be rendered sufficiently attractive (especially to the man who does not manage the capital assets and knows very little about them), except by organizing markets wherein these assets can be easily realized for money."

Yes, liquidity for all at last night's marks is an illusion. But for banks, unlike mutual funds, it's not so much an illusion after all, for two simple reasons: banks have access to deposit insurance underwritten by fiscal authorities and to a discount window underwritten by the monetary authority (and one step removed, the fiscal authority). Thus, banks are unique institutions, providing a "public good:"

Liquidity on demand at par for their depositors, because of the safety net underwritten by the sovereign, yet
The ability to invest in longer-dated, more risky, not-always-at-par loans and securities, because the existence and credibility of the public safety net systemically renders the public's ex post demand for liquidity at par below the public's ex ante demand.

Yes, banking with a sovereign safety net against deposit runs is a really cool business. Indeed, the difference between the public's ex post and ex ante demand for at-par liquidity could be called the banking system's "float," similar to that of a Buffet-style insurance company.

But since it's a really cool business and since the sovereign providing the liquidity safety net is a de facto equity partner in the business, the sovereign quite rationally wants a say in how the business is run – the degree of leverage, corporate governance, risk management controls, etc. Kinda like I do when I pay the insurance premium on my 19-year old son's car. Jonnie doesn't like it, and neither do bankers. Or would-be bankers.

Thus, both bankers and would-be bankers have, from time immemorial, sought to get the benefits of the sovereign's liquidity safety net without shouldering the associated regulator nuisance. And I'm sure that 19-year old sons and daughters, too, have been doing the same for just as long.

Over the last three decades or so, the growth of "banking" outside formal, sovereign-regulated banking, has exploded, in something that I dubbed the Shadow Banking System. Loosely defined, a Shadow Bank is a levered-up financial intermediary whose liabilities are broadly perceived as of similar money-goodness and liquidity as conventional bank deposits. These liabilities could be shares of money market mutual funds; or the commercial paper of Finance Companies, Conduits and Structured Investment Vehicles; or the repo borrowings of stand-alone Investment Banks and Hedge Funds; or the senior tranches of Collateralized Debt Obligations; or a host of other similar funding instruments.

The bottom line is simple: Shadow Banks use funding instruments that are not just as good as old-fashioned sovereign-protected deposits. But it was a great gig so long as the public bought the notion that such funding instruments were "just as good" as bank deposits – more leverage, less regulation and more asset freedom were a path to (much) higher returns on equity in Shadow Banks than conventional banks.

And why did the public buy such instruments as though they were "just as good" as bank deposits? There are a host of reasons, not the least of which was lust for yield. But most fundamentally, Keynes again gives us the systemic answer (his italics, not mine):

"In practice we have tacitly agreed, as a rule, to fall back on what is, in truth, a convention. The essence of this convention – though it does not, of course, work out quite so simply – lies in assuming that the existing state of affairs will continue indefinitely, except in so far as we have specific reasons to expect a change. This does not mean that we really believe that the existing state of affairs will continue indefinitely. We know from extensive experience that this is most unlikely.

"The actual results of an investment over a long term of years very seldom agree with the initial expectation. Nor can we rationalize our behavior by arguing that to a man in a state of ignorance errors in either direction are equally probable, so that there remains a mean actuarial expectation based on equi-probabilities. For it can easily be shown that the assumption of arithmetically equal probabilities based on a state of ignorance leads to absurdities.

"We are assuming, in effect, that the existing market valuation, however arrived at, is uniquely correct in relation to our existing knowledge of the facts which will influence the yield of the investment, and that it will only change in proportion to changes in this knowledge; though, philosophically speaking, it cannot be uniquely correct, since our existing knowledge does not provide a sufficient basis for a calculated mathematical expectation. In point of fact, all sorts of considerations enter into the market valuations which are in no way relevant to the prospective yield. Nevertheless the above conventional method of calculation will be compatible with a considerable measure of continuity and stability in our affairs, so long as we can rely on the maintenance of the convention.

"For if there exist organized investment markets and if we can rely on the maintenance of the convention, an investor can legitimately encourage himself with the idea that the only risk he runs is that of a genuine change in the news over the near future, as to the likelihood of which he can attempt to form his own judgment, and which is unlikely to be very large. For, assuming that the convention holds good, it is only these changes which can affect the value of his investment, and he need not lose his sleep merely because he has not any notion what his investment will be worth ten years hence.

"Thus investment becomes reasonably "safe" for the individual investor over short periods, and hence over a succession of short periods however many, if he can fairly rely on there being no breakdown in the convention and on his therefore having an opportunity to revise his judgment and change his investment, before there has been time for much to happen. Investments which are "fixed" for the community are thus made "liquid" for the individual.

"It has been, I am sure, on the basis of some such procedure as this that our leading investment markets have been developed. But it is not surprising that a convention, in an absolute view of things so arbitrary, should have its weak points. It is its precariousness which creates no small part of our contemporary problem of securing sufficient investment."

And so, Keynes provides the essential – and existential – answer as to why the Shadow Banking System became so large, the unraveling of which lies at the root of the current global financial system crisis. It was a belief in a convention, undergirded by the length of time it held: Shadow Bank liabilities were viewed as "just as good" as conventional bank deposits not because they are, but because they had been. And the power of this conventional thinking was aided and abetted by both the sovereign and the sovereign-blessed rating agencies.

Until, of course, convention was turned on its head, starting with a run on the ABCP market in August 2007, the near death of Bear Stearns in March 2008, the de facto nationalization of Fannie and Freddie in July, and the actual death of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Maybe, just maybe, there was and is something special about a real bank, as opposed to a Shadow Bank!

And indeed that is unambiguously the case, as evidenced by the on-going partial re-intermediation of the Shadow Banking System back into the sovereign-supported conventional banking system, as well as the mad scramble by remaining Shadow Banks to convert themselves into conventional banks, so as to eat at the same sovereign-subsidized capital and liquidity cafeteria as their former stodgy brethren.

The new conventional wisdom: levered capitalism is good, and made even better with a bit of socialism to protect the downside.

Well Maybe

I'm quite sure that last sentence is not going to sit well with some of you. It's not supposed to sit well. It doesn't sit well with me, I must acknowledge, nay confess. Like most of us, I've always had a separation in my mind between strictly capitalist activities and strictly public activities. Not that the demarcation is always clean. But it's a useful way of thinking.

As far as I know, the place where I buy my fishing tackle is a capitalist outfit. If we customers don't buy enough rods and reels, the owner will go broke; his operation is simply not systemically important enough to be bailed out by the taxpayers, including my neighbors who don't fish. In contrast, the local Department of Motor Vehicles, sometimes called the DMV, is unambiguously not a capitalist outfit, but a public outfit. It cannot go broke, as evidenced by our tolerance of its fluctuating service level, because it provides a public service that the private sector can't provide. To be sure, AAA can get you new plates for your car, but you can't renew your driver's license at the AAA; for that, you have got to go to the monopoly called the DMV.

Well actually, that's not entirely true, either. The DMV is actually an oligopoly, with offices in many surrounding neighborhoods. And rumor has it here that the service is a lot quicker at the San Clemente office than the Costa Mesa office, which serves Newport Beach. So the consumer does have the choice of driving to San Clemente, a form of time arbitrage versus going to the Costa Mesa office. However, rumor also has it that this rumored better service in San Clemente is so widespread that, as Yogi Berra might say, the San Clemente office has become so popular nobody goes there anymore.

But you get the point: there is private enterprise and there is public enterprise. And then there is banking, a hybrid of the two. There is no way ‘round this, for good or bad, because fractional reserve banking depends upon the sovereign's safety net against liability runs, a safety net that the private sector definitionally can't universally supply. In this sense, the safety net is like national defense: we all need it, but since nobody individually has the incentive to pay for it, we collectively tax ourselves to pay for it.

Yes, sometimes we collectively end up paying $800 for military toilet seats, as was the case about 25 years ago. But that doesn't change the proposition that public goods do exist, and a stable system of intermediation of private savings into private investment is indeed a public good. The maturity transformation power of a fractional reserve banking system provides an unambiguous benefit to society and as such, must be underwritten by society.

Bottom Line

I could regale you yet again about the power of the analytical thinking of Hyman Minsky, complete with his Forward Journey turning into his Moment, followed by his Reverse Journey. But I don't need to do that any more: we've collectively lived it and are now caught in the debt-deflationary pathologies of "the paradox of deleveraging." Not everybody in the private sector can delever at the same time without creating a depression. Accordingly, the sovereign must go the other way, levering up the public balance sheet. And Washington has finally started to do so with appropriate vigor and enthusiasm.

It's not a pretty picture. In fact, it's repugnant, giving proof to the proposition that breaking the paradox of deleveraging does involve socializing the downside of previously profitable private sector activities. In a recent speech, I called it "creeping socialism" and was interrupted by an irate, older man in the back of the room bellowing, "It ain't creeping socialism, it's galloping socialism!" I really didn't have a soothing come back, noting that many things are what they are only in the eye of the beholder. But his point wasn't lost on me or anybody else in the room.

And it is not lost on Washington, DC either, I can assure you. If the sovereign must backstop a private sector activity that produces a public good, then the sovereign will, at least in a democracy, rightfully demand both bottom-up and macro-prudential rules to harness the greed that lubricates the invisible hand of capitalism. Yes, the visible fist of government and the invisible hand are presently engaged in a massive arm wrestling contest in the provision of financial services. And the fist is winning.

At least for now. Capitalism, and especially financial market capitalism, brought this outcome upon itself through greed and hubris. Capitalism is now re-grouping and learning how to play by new rules, which are still being written. And ultimately, I'm sure, capitalistic bankers will once again bend those rules in the pursuit of higher profitability. And that's okay, I think. In the end, we really don't want to turn our banking system into the DMV. At the same time, we also don't want our banking system to be nothing more than a betting parlor.

Or, in the famous words of Keynes again:

"Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done."

Paul McCulley

Your watching the bubbles deflate analyst,

John Mauldin

On G-20 and GM: Economics, Politics and Social Stability

John Mauldin — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:32:36 GMT

The Big Three have a new customer, and it isn't you. As Detroit's former heavyweights fight for a slice of a $25 billion bailout package, more than humble pie is being eaten. If the automakers fail and take their companies into bankruptcy, Michigan as we know it ceases to exist economically. The trickle-down impact could rapidly become a waterfall: the seat supplier in Georgia loses three major customers. The factory worker who makes seats is out of a job. The bank who holds his mortgage takes another hickey. Commercial lending at that bank dries up. Ad nauseum. In the best of economic times, this would be a troublesome scenario. In today's economy, it's easy to see how policymakers are as worried about social stability as they are economics.

No astute person thinks that the Big Three will be able to return to the business practices of last year. And no intelligent investor should be trying to evaluate portfolio decisions the same way this year either. We have moved from the realm of finance to political economy, and for that you need a different set of tools and a different mindset.

I've enclosed an article by my friend George Friedman, the founder of global intelligence firm Stratfor. This is a fascinating, must-read piece that examines US policy options by looking at the Chinese as an example. The parallels are illuminating. I've stressed before the importance of reading Stratfor's intelligence in order to gain a clear understanding of the political and economic landscape you're investing in, but you need it now more than ever.

George has arranged a special offer just for my readers. And I'm excited to tell you that in addition to a Stratfor Membership, you'll also get a copy of his new book, The Next 100 Years.

Click here to take advantage of this special offer. You'll find George's new book as fascinating and insightful as Stratfor's daily work.

Yours,
John Mauldin

On G-20 and GM: Economics, Politics and Social Stability

November 17, 2008 | 1840 GMT

By George Friedman

From Financial Crisis to Cyclical Recession

The financial crisis has been mitigated, if not solved. The problem now is that we are in a cyclical recession, and that every country is trying to figure out how to cope with the recession. Unlike the past two recessions, this one is more global than local. But unlike the 1970s, when recession was global, this one is not accompanied by soaring inflation and interest rates.

All recessions have different dynamics, but all have one thing in common: They impose punishment and discipline on economies run wild. This is happening around the world.

China, for example, faces a serious problem. China is an export-oriented economy whose primary market is the United States. As the United States goes into recession, demand for Chinese goods declines. Chinese businesses have always operated on very tight - sometimes invisible - profit margins designed to emphasize cash flow and to pay off debts to banks. As U.S. demand contracts, many Chinese firms find themselves in untenable positions, without room to decrease prices, lacking operating reserves and insufficiently capitalized. Recessions are designed to cull the weak from the herd, and a huge swath of the Chinese economy is ripe for the culling.

If the world were all about economics, culling is what the Chinese would do. But the world is more complex than that. A culling would lead to massive unemployment. Many Chinese employees live on Third World wages; indeed, the vast majority of Chinese have incomes of less than $1,000 a year. To them, unemployment doesn't mean problems with their 401k. It means malnutrition and desperation - neither of which is unknown in 20th century Chinese history, including the Communist period. The Chinese government is rightly worried about the social and political consequences of rational economic policies: They might work in the long run, but only if you live that long.

Economic Restructuring vs. Stability

The Chinese have therefore prepared a massive stimulus package that is more of a development program to make up for declining U.S. demand. It aims to keep businesses from failing and spilling millions of angry and hungry workers into the street. For the Chinese, the economic problem creates a much larger and more serious issue. It is also an issue that must be solved quickly, and the amount of time needed outstrips the amount of time available.

This is not only a Chinese problem. Wherever there is an economic downturn, politicians must decide whether society - and their own political futures - can withstand the rigors recessions impose. Recessions occur when, as is inevitable, inefficiencies and irrationalities build up in the financial and economic system. The resulting economic downturn imposes a harsh discipline that destroys the inefficient, encourages everyone to become more efficient, and opens the doors to new businesses using new technologies and business models. The year 2001 smashed the technology sector in the United States, opening the door for Google Inc.

The business cycle works well, but the human costs can be daunting. The collapse of inefficient businesses leaves workers without jobs, investors without money and society less stable than before. The pain needed to rectify China's economy would be enormous, with devastating consequences for hundreds of millions of Chinese, and probably would lead to social chaos. Beijing is prepared to accept a high degree of economic inefficiency to avoid, or at least postpone, the reckoning. The reckoning always comes, but for most of us, later is better than sooner. Economic rationality takes a back seat to social necessity and political common sense.

Every country in the world is looking inward at the impact of the recession on its economy and measuring its resources. Countries are deciding whether they have the ability to prop up business that should fail, what the social consequences of business failure would be, and whether they should try to use their resources to avoid the immediate pain of recession. This is why the G-20 ended in meaningless platitudes.

Each country is also trying to answer the question of how much pain it - and its regime - can endure. The more pain imposed, the healthier countries will emerge economically - unless of course the pain kills them. Ultimately, the rationality of economics and the reality of society frequently diverge.

Recession and the U.S. Auto Industry

For the United States, this choice has been posed in stark terms with regard to the dilemma of whether the U.S. government should use its resources to rescue the American auto industry. The American auto industry was once the centerpiece of the U.S. economy. That hasn't been true for a generation, as other industries and services have supplanted it and other countries' auto industries have surpassed it. Nevertheless, the U.S. auto industry remains important. It might drain the U.S. economy by losing vast amounts of money and destroying the equity held by its investors, but it employs large numbers of people. Perhaps more important, it purchases supplies from literally thousands of U.S. companies.

There can be endless discussions of why the U.S. auto industry is in such trouble. The answer lies not in one place but in many, from the decisions and makeup of management to the unions that control much of the workforce, and from the cost structure inherent in producing cars in the American economy to a simple systemic inability to produce outstanding vehicles. There might be varying degrees of truth to all or some of this, but the fact remains that each of the U.S. carmakers is on the verge of financial collapse.

This is what recessions are supposed to do. As in China and everywhere else, recessions reveal weak businesses and destroy them, freeing up resources for new enterprises. This recession has hit the auto industry hard, and it is unlikely that it is going to survive. The ultimate reason is the same one that destroyed the U.S. steel industry a generation ago: Given U.S. cost structures, producing commodity products is best left to countries with lower wage rates, while more expensive U.S. labor is deployed in more specialized products requiring greater expertise. Thus, there is still steel production in the United States, but it is specialty steel production, not commodity steel. Similarly, there will be specialty auto production in the United States, but commodity auto production will come from other countries.

That sounds easy, but the transition actually will be a bloodletting. Current employees of both the automakers and suppliers will be devastated. Institutions that have lent money to the automakers will suffer massive or total losses. Pensioners might lose pensions and health care benefits, and an entire region of the United States - the industrial Midwest - will be devastated. Something stronger will grow eventually, but not in time for many of the current employees, shareholders and creditors.

Here the economic answer, cull, meets the social answer, stabilize. Policymakers have a decision to make. If the automakers fail now, their drain on the economy will end; the pain will be shorter, if more intense; and new industries would emerge more quickly. But though their drain on the economy would end, the impact of the automakers' failure on the economy would be seismic. Unemployment would surge, as would bankruptcies of many auto suppliers. Defaults on loans would hit the credit markets. In the Midwest, home prices would plummet and foreclosures would skyrocket. And heaven only knows what the impact on equity markets would be.

In the U.S. case, the healthful purgative of a recession could potentially put the patient in a coma. Few if any believe the U.S. auto industry can survive in its current form. But there is an emerging consensus in Washington that the auto industry must not be allowed to fail now. The argument for spending money on the auto industry is not to save it, but to postpone its failure until a less devastating and inconvenient time. In other words, fearing the social and political consequences of a recession working itself through to its logical conclusion, Washington - like Beijing - wants to spend money it probably won't recover to postpone the failure. Indeed, governments around the world are considering what failures to tolerate, what failures to postpone, and how much to spend on the latter. General Motors is merely the American case in point.

The Recession in Context

The people arguing for postponement aren't foolish. The financial system is still working its way through a massive crisis that had little to do with the auto industry. Some traction appears to be occurring; certainly there was no crisis atmosphere at the G-20 meeting. The economy is in recession, but in spite of the inevitable claims that we have never seen anything like this one before, we have. There is always some variable that swings to an extreme - this time, it is consumer spending - but we are still well within the framework of recent recessions.

Consider the equity markets, which we regard as a long-term measure of the market's evaluation of the state of the economy. In March 2000, the S&P 500 peaked at 1530. This was the top of the market. In October 2002, 18 months later, the S&P bottomed out at 777. Over the next five years it rose to 1562 in October 2007, the height for this cycle. It fell from this point until Nov. 12, 2008, when it closed at 852.30. This past Friday, it was at 873.29.

We do not know what the market will do in the future. There are people much smarter than we are who claim to know that. What we do know is what it has done. And what it has done this time - so far - is almost exactly what it did last time, except that in 2000-2002 it took 18 months to do it, while this time it was done in about 16 and a half months (assuming it bottomed out Nov. 12). But even if the market didn't bottom out then, and it falls to 775, for example, it will have lost 50 percent of its value from the peak. This would be more than in 2000-2002, but not unprecedented.

The point we are making here is that if we regard the equity markets as a long-term seismograph of the economy, then so far, despite all the storm and stress, the markets - and therefore the economy - remain within the general pattern of the 2000-2002 market at the 2001 recession. That recession certainly was unpleasant, what with the devastation of the tech sector, but the economy survived. At the same time, however, it is clear that things are balanced on a knife's edge. Another hundred points' fall on the S&P, and the markets will be telling us that the world is in a very different place indeed.

A massive bankruptcy in the automotive sector could certainly set the stage for an economic renaissance in the next generation. But at this particular moment in time (it's no coincidence that the crisis in the U.S. automotive industry comes as we enter a recession), a wave of bankruptcies would dramatically deepen the recession. This probably would be reflected by the destruction of trillions more in net worth in the equity markets.

There is a powerful counterargument to bailing out the U.S. auto industry. This argument holds that the auto industry is a drain on the U.S. economy, that it will never be globally competitive, and that if it is dragged back from the edge, no one will then say it is time to push it to the edge and over. The next time it will be on the brink will be during the next recession, and the same argument to save it will be used. In due course, the United States, like China, will be so terrified of the social and political consequences of business failure that it will maintain Chinese-like state owned enterprises, full of employees and generation-old plants and business models. Clearly, short-run solutions can easily become long-term albatrosses.

The only possible solution would be a bailout followed by a Washington-administered restructuring of the auto industry. This causes us to imagine a collaboration between the auto industry's current management and Washington administrators that would finally put Detroit on a path to where it can compete with Toyota. Frankly, the mind boggles at this. But boggle though we might, hitting the economy with another massive financial default, a wave of bankruptcies, massive unemployment surges and another blow to housing prices boggles our mind even more.

The geopolitical problem confronting the world at the moment is that it has been forced to offer massive support to the global financial system with sovereign wealth - e.g., via taxes and currency printing presses. The world might just have squeaked through that crisis. Now, the world is in an inevitable recession and businesses are on the brink of failure. A wave of massive business failures on top of the financial crisis might well move the global system to a very different place. Therefore, each nation, by itself and indifferent to others, is in the process of figuring out how to postpone these failures to a more opportune time - or to never. This will build in long-term inefficiencies to the global economy, but right now everyone will be quite content with that.

Thus the financial crisis became a recession, and the recession triggered bankruptcies. And because no one wants bankruptcies right now, everyone who can is using taxpayer dollars to protect the taxpayer from the consequences of mismanagement. And the last thing any one cared about was the G-20 concept for the future of the economic system.

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.

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 Fall of Lehman and The Terrible Lessons of Bear Stearns

John Mauldin — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:17:34 GMT

The weekend has brought us events that can only be described in large, over-the-top terms. The Fed agreeing to take equity on its balance sheet? How bad can things really be? Clearly much worse than most people thought last Friday. Moral Hazard has been re-introduced as Lehman is allowed to go down. I will admit to being surprised. I thought Paulson and Bernanke would put it in the too big too fail category. I think they did the right thing by refusing taxpayer money for a bailout, but it is clearly going to roil the credit markets for weeks and months. It will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

I am in La Jolla today, working with my partners at Altegris, and looking over their shoulders while they monitor the performance of some of our managers. Interesting times. But I have had the time to read two short but very interesting commentaries on the current crisis. I will have more to say on Friday, but for now let's read old friends (to Outside the Box readers) Michael Lewitt of Hegemony Capital Management (www.hcmmarketletter.com) and Barry Ritholtz of Fusion IQ (www.fusioniqrank.com).

As I send this, credit default swaps spreads are simply blowing out. I have been writing about how we would see significant problems in the CDS markets for almost two years. This is something that you could see coming yet nothing was done. I know we are now in crisis, but let's hope that the authorities learn some lessons and put in place some sensible regulations of the CDS market soon. And for the love of Pete (insert your favorite expletive here) put these (more expletives) things on a regulated exchange.

And I agree with Michael below. This is not a time to try and catch a falling knife. That time will come, but not yet. And remember things will get better and we will get through this. As I just said to Barry, "We do live in interesting times."

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Fall of Lehman: How To Fix It - Part II

By Michael Lewitt

History has a funny way of humbling men. So do markets. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Lehman Brothers' fall is that it comes almost seven years to the day after 9-11. That day was supposed to teach us humility, and the fall of Lehman, coming six months after the collapse of Bear Stearns and coupled with Merrill Lynch's disappearance as an independent company, are the result of a complete lack of humility on the part of those executives charged with leading the world's most important purveyors of capital in the post-9-11 world. For all the talk of pulling together in the wake of the terrorist attacks that shook America to the core and that supposedly set our priorities straight, Wall Street rushed headlong back to its mindless pursuit of profits and speculation without consideration for the consequences of its actions. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

In April 2008, HCM published a controversial essay entitled "How To Fix It," in which we outlined our (unsolicited) recommendations for how to correct the excesses that led to the credit crisis that began in mid-2007 and brought us to this historic day. We are republishing that issue of the market letter by attachment for those who did not read it the first time. Our key recommendations, which seemed much more radical in April than they do today, were the following:

Improve financial industry regulation and replace substance over form in the regulation we have.
Place absolute leverage limitations on financial institutions at much lower levels than the 30:1 levels that led to this crisis.
Place an absolute limitation on hedge fund leverage.
Regulate Wall Street compensation by basing it on multiple years' performance, add clawbacks and high water marks, and limit cash compensation that is paid out and weakens these firms' balance sheets.
Tax private equity firms' carried interests at ordinary interest rates rather than capital gains rates and restrict private equity firms' ability to go public.
Outlaw off-balance sheet entities.
Reinstitute the uptick rule with respect to short selling.

Finally, we made the point that too much economic activity in the United States was aimed at speculation rather than production. For example, the equity markets are increasingly dominated by quantitative investment strategies that are driven by considerations that are totally divorced from considerations of fundamental value. At the same time, the credit markets are increasingly utilized to finance change-of-control transactions for private equity firms that are done simply because low cost financing is available, not because a project is going to add to the productive capacity or capital account of the nation. As we wrote in that April issue, "t some point, society has to figure out that the way an investor earns his money is even more important than the amount of money he makes. This is why human beings were vested with moral sentiments, so they could distinguish the quality of human conduct from the quantity of its results."

These changes cannot and will not be effected simply by legislative fiat. It is incumbent upon the gatekeepers of capital - the fiduciaries that make the decisions about allocating capital - to bring discipline to the system. This will require a rethinking of their priorities and a willingness to add to their investment calculus considerations that exceed their own narrow interests about short-term investment returns. Our system requires a new concept of fiduciary duty that encompasses systemic as well as single-firm interests, and that focuses to a greater degree on risk-adjusted returns than raw numerical returns. Obviously the forces that led to this weekend's events have been building for many years, and the changes needed to fix the system will not be made overnight. But we should not let this occasion pass to reflect on what has occurred.

Imagine You Are On the Deck of The Titanic (Because You Are)

It is clear to us that the Federal Reserve and United States Treasury are not underestimating the enormity of the crisis. Continuing to write checks to bail out the private sector would have been the wrong decision, but the fallout is going to be severe. The next domino to fall may be the insurance giant, American International Group, Inc. (AIG), which is facing credit rating downgrades that will force it to post more collateral (that it doesn't have )on a large volume of credit insurance contracts. AIG is a much larger systemic threat than Lehman Brothers ever was, so this situation is profoundly serious. In HCM's judgment, investors should not try to pick a bottom in today's or this week's market. The market is going to experience extraordinary volatility today and over the immediate future. Play the market at your own risk and only with money you can afford to lose. The indices are heading significantly lower, as we have previously forecast. Gold, short-term U.S. Treasuries, short-term Swiss and German government paper, the Swiss franc, and certain Asian currencies like the Singapore dollar are the safest places to park your cash for the moment. The U.S. dollar continues to be debased (less against the Euro, which remains compromised, than against Asian currencies and the Swiss franc), particularly by the startling and historic decision by the Federal Reserve to accept equity securities at its discount window. If nothing else, that decision alone suggests the enormity and depth of the crisis we are facing. We never thought we'd live to see the day that the American central bank would accept equity as collateral for loans. We have to admit that took us by surprise and made us very nervous.

The Terrible Lessons of Bear Stearns

Posted by Barry Ritholtz on Monday, September 15, 2008 | 07:09 AM
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/the-terrible-le.html

As Lehman Brothers (LEH) turns into a single digit financial midget on its way to zero, as Washington Mutual (WM) works its way towards a buck, as Wachovia (WB) drops more than 80% over a year, as Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) become divisions of the United States of America, and are now priced in pennies -- we need to reflect upon the ongoing lessons learned from all these interventions by Treasury, Congress and the Federal Reserve.

The lesson from the Bear Stearns' bailout -- $29 Billion in Federal Reserve bad paper guarantees -- are quite stark:

Go Big: Don't just risk your company, risk the entire world of Finance. Modest incompetence is insufficient -- if you merely destroy your own company, you won't get rescued. You have to threaten to bring down the entire global financial system. The fear and disruption caused by a Bear collapse is why it was saved. (AIG has the right idea on this)
If you cant Go Big, Go First: Had Lehman collapsed before Bear, then the same fear and loathing of the impact to the system might have worked to their advantage. But having been through this once before, the sting is somewhat lessened -- especially for a smaller, lets interconnected firm like LEH.
Threaten your counter-parties: Bear Stearns had about 9 trillion in its derivatives book, of which 40% was held by JPMorgan (JPM). Some people have argued that the Bear bailout was actually a preventative rescue of JPMorgan. Its a good strategy if your goal is a bailout -- risk bringing down someone much bigger than yourself.
Risk an important part of the economy: If your book of derivatives is limited to some obscure and irrelevant portion of the economy, you will not get saved. On the other hand, if Mortgages are important, credit cards and auto loans are too. Securitized widget inventory is not.
Balance Sheets Matter: Focus on the media, complain about short sellers, obsess about PR. These are the hallmarks of a failing strategy -- and a grand waste of time. Why? Its call insolvency. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE FIRMS' BALANCE SHEET. Lehman's liabilities exceed its assets, and they are now toast. Merrill Lynch got a lot of the junk off of its books, and got a takeover at 70% premium to its closing price. And Credit Suisse, who dumped much of its bad paper many quarters ago, is in a better tactical position than most of its peers.
Unintended Consequences lurk everywhere: When the Fed opened up the liquidity spigots via its alphabet soup of lending facilities, the fear was of the inflationary impacts. But the bigger issue should have been Complacency. The Dick Fulds of the world said after Bear, these new facilities "put the liquidity issue to rest." Lehman got complacent once liquidity was no longer an issue -- perhaps they acted to slowly to resolve their insolvency issue in time.

Unfortunately, Moral Hazard has created terrible lessons in 2008 -- via Bear Stearns (BSC), Lehman (LEH), Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE).

Your wishing I had not been so right 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

Two Essays on the Continuing Financial Crisis

John Mauldin — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:00:00 GMT

This week in Outside the Box we look at two brief essays which give us different perspective on the Continuing Crisis. The first is by Mohamed El-Erian, the co-chief executive and co-chief investment officer of Pimco. His book, 'When Markets Collide: Investment Strategies for the Age of Global Economic Change', will be published by McGraw Hill in June, and it will be on my summer reading list. El-Erian argues in the thought-provoking piece from the Financial Times that the crisis is still far from finished, and that those who think we are returning to more placid times may be surprised when volatility suddenly becomes even more pervasive.

The second is by good friend and Maine fishing buddy David Kotok, the chief investment officer of Cumberland Asset Managers (www.cumber.com). He was recently in Africa where he met with the head of the central bank of a small country with headline inflation of 10%. The problem is that "core inflation" is 5% and food inflation is 15%, yet accounts for 50% of the GDP. He asked a group of financial thinkers (including your humble analyst) to ponder what that central banker should do. Do you set high rates and target overall inflation or set lower rates and not worry about food inflation.

Why should we worry about inflation in a small African country? Because the principles are the same, and it makes a real difference where the Fed comes down at the end of the day on this very question.

This week's reading should be very helpful and thought-provoking. I hope you enjoy this read as much as I did.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Why This Crisis is Still Far From Finished

By Mohamed El-Erian

During the past few weeks we have seen a growing number of market participants predict an end to the dislocations that erupted last summer and claimed victims throughout the financial system and beyond. While their predictions are understandable, they are premature. The dynamics driving the disruptions are morphing and may again move ahead of both the market and policy responses.

The optimistic view is based on two distinct elements. First, that the deleveraging process is reaching its natural end as valuations stabilize and institutions come clean about their losses and raise capital; second, that a series of previously unthinkable policy responses have been effective in restoring liquidity to the financial system.

Both views have merit. Financial institutions, particularly in the US, have recognized the scale of the problem and are taking remedial steps. Just witness the recent round of capital raising by Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan and Wachovia. At the same time central banks in Europe and the US have opened up their financing windows, expanding the size of the financing, the range of institutions that can access it and the list of eligible collateral.

Yet, consistent with what we have seen since last summer, the dislocations are entering a new phase. As such, bold reactions on the part of policymakers may, once again, prove to be too little and too late.

Persistent financial dislocations have now caused the real economy to become, in itself, a source of potential disruption. During the next few months there will be a reversal in the direction of causality: the unusual adverse contamination by the financial sector of the real economy is now morphing into the more common phenomenon of recessionary forces threatening to undermine the financial system.

Economic data in the US have taken a notable turn for the worse. Most importantly, the already weakening employment outlook is being further undermined by a widely diffused build-up in inventory and falling profitability. History suggests that the latter two factors lead to significant employment losses.

Pity the US consumers. Their ability to sustain spending is already challenged by the declining availability of credit, a negative wealth effect triggered by declining house values, and a lower standard of living as the result of higher energy and food prices and a depreciating dollar. Job losses will accentuate the pressures on consumers, leading to income declines and a further loss of confidence.

While the financial system has taken steps to enhance balance sheets, they speak essentially to addressing the consequences of excessive leveraging and imprudent financial alchemy. As such, the nasty turn in the real economy may fuel another wave of disruptions that, this time around, would also have an impact on mid-size and smaller banks.

It is thus too early to declare the end of the turmoil that started last summer. Instead, during the next few months we may witness a new phase of dislocations, led this time by the real economy. The blame game will intensify; political pressure will continue to mount; momentum will build for greater and broader regulation of financial activities within the banking system and beyond.

The focus will also be on the reaction of policymakers. Here the outlook is mixed. The good news is that the crisis is now moving to an area where traditional policy tools are more effective. This is in sharp contrast to the situation of the past few months, where central banks were forced to use instruments that were too blunt for the purpose at hand.

But there is also bad news. The sharp slowdown in the US real economy will occur in the context of continued global inflationary pressures. As such, the Federal Reserve's dual objectives - maintaining price stability and solid economic growth - will become increasingly inconsistent and difficult to reconcile. Indeed, if the Fed is again forced to carry the bulk of the burden of the US policy response, it will find itself in the unpleasant and undesirable situation of potentially undermining its inflation-fighting credibility in order to prevent an already bad situation from becoming even worse.

It is still too early for investors and policymakers to unfasten their seatbelts. Instead, they should prepare for renewed volatility.

And our next essay:

Food Price Inflation, Monetary Policy & Financial Markets

By David Kotok

Suddenly food price inflation has become the premier hot topic. The media is now attuned to food issues including emerging market country riots.

In the US, the politicians are gearing up to castigate the speculators and blame everyone but themselves. They conveniently forget that they are the ones who passed the ethanol subsidy and they are the ones who appropriate taxpayer money to pay farmers not to grow crops. And so the political circus begins.

Notice how the three presidential candidates are silent on how the US ethanol subsidy has caused a food price explosion in grains. They avoid the issue of US policy starving many in the world. 1 billion very poor people sustain themselves on $1 or less a day. We have doubled the cost of their food.

Ethanol directly impacted corn which, in turn, also drove up maize. In addition, the substitution of wheat and rice are not easily occurring because of crop issues and concomitant price inflation in those items.

Well Cumberland is in the financial market and money management business. We eat food. We don't grow it and we don't process it. So let's try to inject some serious monetary policy issues into this media hysteria and political cacophony.

In the mature countries, food is a minor portion of the price index. And some of the food costs originate from eating out and some come from food processing. Processed food cost is heavily dependent on the inputs which are non-food items. Labor, machinery, transportation and distribution all come in to play. So in the mature countries we see that the food price inflation may be topical and attention getting but it is not a crisis.

Also, the major mature countries are mostly in food surplus. In the US we are very efficient in running our agriculture enterprise. We actually pay farmers not to till their soil. This is dumb. It occurs only because of our sorrowful Congress who has learned how to bribe the farm belt for votes at the expense of the rest of us.

In the US food has a 14% weight in the consumer price index. Compare that with Canada at 17%, the Euro zone at 16%, England at 11% and Japan at 25%. Only Japan lacks the fullness of food self sufficiency. Sure, food price inflation is important. But it is not the most important issue in these major economies.

The reverse is true for the emerging markets. In some of them the food price component is as much as half the price index. In a few it is above half. Since many of these economies are open to some degree, the importation of food price inflation is hitting them particularly hard. Some are responding with tariff adjustments. Others have actually embargoed food exports. Of course they ultimately make matters worse when they restrict world trade and in the end all suffer because of this protectionism.

What about monetary policy?

Here is where it gets difficult. We will admittedly simplify now and we acknowledge to our critics that we know there are second order effects and are ignoring them to make our point. In our view, monetary policy cannot easily and directly address food price inflation when the source of the inflation is in the raw food commodity. This is also true for energy costs when the source is in the oil or natural gas. The whole concept of "core" inflation vs. total inflation originates in this notion that monetary policy should be directed at the price level changes it can affect.

Let's get to the inflation problem in an emerging economy. Our example is imaginary for simplicity's sake. But it reflects characteristics that are very similar to many countries and regions in the emerging markets of the world.

We developed this simple and theoretical case study and then sent it to a number of economist friends. We suggested that following facts: the economy in question is a small and open emerging market. The food price component is 50% of the price index and is inflating at 15%. The non-food component is inflating at 5%. Thus the overall index is inflating at 10%. In this small and open economy, the main items in the food component are based on maize; therefore, the US ethanol policy which has raised the corn priced has also pressured an increase in the maize price.

Suppose you are the governor of the central bank. You have to set your policy interest rate. Do you base that decision on overall inflation rate of 10% or on the core inflation rate of 5%? Or are you going to confront the food inflation rate of 15%. Let's further assume that your economy is growing at a trend rate of 5% and all other aspects are in trend or neutral position. You have no negative output gap and no above trend pressures. Your only direct problem is what to do about inflation.

My economist friends who answered offered a suggested policy rate as low as 6% and as high as 13.5%. The answers were about equally divided and the respondents sample size is over 20. The distribution of answers was distinctly bi-modal. About half the answers were bunched in the lower range of 6%-8%; the other half were in the double digit area between 11% and 13.5%.

The divided views centered on whether or not to target food, ignore food, or blend policy. No one wanted to set the interest rate above the 15% food price inflation. Nearly all acknowledged that this central bank would have difficulty in communicating whatever it decided. Most respondents worried about changes in inflation expectations because of the complexity of this issue. Most believed the citizens in the country would not understand the monetary policy dynamics that led to the decision.

Some worried that setting the policy interest rate in double digits would impose a very high financing cost on the non-food portion of the economy and cause it to go into recession. They argued that the real (inflation-adjusted) rate of interest for that non-food half of the economy would be 7% or so. That would set the threshold of finance too high.

Others argued that the monetary policy expectation effect would cause the rate of inflation to accelerate if the policy rate was not set in double digits. They were willing to take the recession in the non-food area in order to keep inflation expectations under control. No one mentioned substitution effects. Perhaps that was overlooked. Or it may be because rice and wheat are not easy cultural substitutes and those grains are each experiencing their own price pressures.

In sum, almost two dozen folks with some monetary economics expertise were equally divided on this technical question. It is a question that impacts billions of citizens in this world and many countries, their governments, their currencies and, possibly, their political stability.

We do not know the correct answer. Our view would support the lower interest rate and we would focus on the non-food portion of the economy but we can argue the other side with equal vigor. For us a lot would depend on how the food price inflation spreads into wages and if it could trigger a broader wage/price spiral.

In many respects this question is now being asked of the major and mature economy central banks as well. It appears that the European Central Bank (ECB) favors the higher mode while the US Federal Reserve is positioned in the lower one. For the emerging markets it appears that there is quite a mix of policy and that it is made more complicated by the management of each currency's foreign exchange rate. In sum, our simple case study is actually quite complex when applied in the real world.

David R. Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer

I trust you enjoyed this week's Outside the Box. And for the record, I thought rates in our hypothetical African country should be at the lower end. Targeting food inflation with high interest rates would hammer the productive, job creating portion of the economy. I have been to 15 countries in Africa and they are in desperate need of jobs. Better to target inflation through control of the money supply and encourage capital formation and foreign direct investment. But it is a tough question.

Your glad I don't have to be a African central banker analyst,

John Mauldin