Thoughts From The Frontline : Bond Market

Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Bailout?

John Mauldin — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:52:04 GMT

Who's Afraid of a Big, Bad Bailout?
It's the End of the World As We Know It
The TED Spread Flashes Trouble
The Transmission Mechanism
Let's Make a Deal
Colorado, California, London, and Sweden

"A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.
Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
(It's time I had some time alone.)"

- Lyrics from R.E.M., 1987

Flying last Tuesday, overnight from Cape Town in South Africa to London, I read in the Financial Times that Republican Congressman Joe Barton of Texas was quoted as saying (this is from memory, so it is not exact) that he had difficulty voting for a bailout plan when none of his constituents could understand the need to bail out Wall Street, didn't understand the problem, and were against spending $700 billion of taxpayer money to solve a crisis for a bunch of (rich) people who took a lot of risk and created the crisis. That is a sentiment that many of the Republican members of the House share.

As it happens, I know Joe. My office is in his congressional district. I sat on the Executive Committee for the Texas Republican Party representing much of the same district for eight years. This week, Thoughts from the Frontline will be an open letter to Joe, and through him to Congress, telling him what the real financial problem is and how it affects his district, helping explain the problem to his constituents , and explaining why he has to hold his nose with one hand and vote for a bailout with the other.

Just for the record, Joe has been in Congress for 24 years. He is the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the three most important committees and is usually considered in the top five of Republican House leadership. He is quite conservative and has been a very good and effective congressman. I have known Joe for a long time and consider him a friend. He has been my Congressman at times, depending on where they draw the line. I called his senior aide and asked him how the phone calls were going. It is at least ten to one against supporting this bill, and that is probably typical of the phones all across this country. People are angry, and with real justification. And watching the debates, it reminds us that one should never look at how sausages and laws are made. It is a very messy process.

I think what follows is as good a way as any to explain the crisis we are facing this weekend. This letter will print out a little longer, because there are a lot of charts, but the word length is about the same. Let's jump right in.

It's the End of the World As We Know It

Dear Joe,

I understand your reluctance to vote for a bill that 90% of the people who voted for you are against. That is generally not good politics. They don't understand why taxpayers should spend $700 billion to bail out rich guys on Wall Street who are now in trouble. And if I only got my information from local papers and news sources, I would probably agree. But the media (apart from CNBC) has simply not gotten this story right. It is not just a crisis on Wall Street. Left unchecked, this will morph within a few weeks to a crisis on Main Street. What I want to do is describe the nature of the crisis, how this problem will come home to your district, and what has to be done to avert a true, full-blown depression, where the ultimate cost will be far higher to the taxpayers than $700 billion. And let me say that my mail is not running at 10 to 1 against, but it is really high. I am probably going to make a lot of my regular readers mad, but they need to hear what is really happening on the front lines of the financial world.

First, let's stop calling this a bailout plan. It is not. It is an economic stabilization plan. Run properly, it might even make the taxpayers some money. If it is not enacted very soon (Monday would be fine), the losses to businesses and investors and homeowners all over the US (and the world) will be enormous. Unemployment will jump to rates approaching 10%, at a minimum. How did all this come to pass? Why is it so dire? Let's rewind the tape a bit.

We all know about the subprime crisis. That's part of the problem, as banks and institutions are now having to write off a lot of bad loans. The second part of the problem is a little more complex. Because we were running a huge trade deficit, countries all over the world were selling us goods and taking our dollars. They in turn invested those excess dollars in US bonds, helping to drive down interest rates. It became easy to borrow money at low rates. Banks, and what Paul McCulley properly called the Shadow Banking System, used that ability to borrow and dramatically leverage up those bad loans (when everyone thought they were good), as it seemed like easy money. They created off-balance-sheet vehicles called Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) and put loans and other debt into them. They then borrowed money on the short-term commercial paper market to fund the SIVs and made as profit the difference between the low short-term rates of commercial paper and the higher long-term rates on the loans in the SIV. And if a little leverage was good, why not use a lot of leverage and make even more money? Everyone knew these were AAA-rated securities.

And then the music stopped. It became evident that some of these SIVs contained subprime debt and other risky loans. Investors stopped buying the commercial paper of these SIVs. Large banks were basically forced to take the loans and other debt in the SIVs back onto their balance sheets last summer as the credit crisis started. Because of a new accounting rule (called FASB 157), banks had to mark their illiquid investments to the most recent market price of a similar security that actually had a trade. Over $500 billion has been written off so far, with credible estimates that there might be another $500 billion to go. That means these large banks have to get more capital, and it also means they have less to lend. (More on the nature of these investments in a few paragraphs.)

Banks can lend to consumers and investors about 12 times their capital base. If they have to write off 20% of their capital because of losses, that means they either have to sell more equity or reduce their loan portfolios. As an example, for every $1,000 of capital, a bank can loan $12,000 (more or less). If they have to write off 20% ($200), they either have to sell stock to raise their capital back to $1,000 or reduce their loan portfolio by $2,400. Add some zeroes to that number and it gets to be huge.

And that is what is happening. At first, banks were able to raise new capital. But now, many banks are finding it very difficult to raise money, and that means they have to reduce their loan portfolios. We'll come back to this later. But now, let's look at what is happening today. Basically, the credit markets have stopped functioning. Because banks and investors and institutions are having to deleverage, that means they need to sell assets at whatever prices they can get in order to create capital to keep their loan-to-capital ratios within the regulatory limits.

Remember, part of this started when banks and investors and funds used leverage (borrowed money) to buy more assets. Now, the opposite is happening. They are having to sell assets into a market that does not have the ability to borrow money to buy them. And because the regulators require them to sell whatever they can, the prices for some of these assets are ridiculously low. Let me offer a few examples.

Today, there are many municipal bonds that were originally sold to expire 10-15 years from now. But projects finished early and the issuers wanted to pay them off. However, the bonds often have a minimum time before they can be called. So, issuers simply buy US Treasuries and put them into the bond, to be used when the bond can be called. Now, for all intents and purposes this is a US government bond which has the added value of being tax-free. I had a friend, John Woolway, send me some of the bid and ask prices for these type of bonds. One is paying two times what a normal US Treasury would pay. Another is paying 291% of a normal US Treasury. And it is tax-free! Why would anyone sell what is essentially a US treasury bond for a discount? Because they are being forced to sell, and no one is buying! The credit markets are frozen.

Last week, I wrote about a formerly AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) composed of Alt-A loans, better than subprime but less than prime. About 5% of the loans were delinquent, and there are no high-risk option ARMs in the security. It is offered at 70 cents on the dollar. If you bought that security, you would be making well over 12% on your money, and 76% of the loans in the portfolio of that security would have to default and lose over 50% of their value before you would risk even one penny. Yet the bank which is being forced to sell that loan has had to write down its value. As I wrote then, that is pricing in financial Armageddon. (You can read the full details here.)

Let's look at the following graph. It is an index of AAA-rated mortgage bonds, created by www.markit.com. It is composed of RMBSs similar to the one I described above. Institutions buy and sell this index as a way to hedge their portfolios. It is also a convenient way for an accounting firm to get a price for a mortgage-backed security in a client bank's portfolio. With the introduction of the new FASB 157 accounting rule, accountants are very aggressive about making banks mark their debt down, as they do not want to be sued if there is a problem. Notice this index shows that bonds that were initially AAA are now trading at 53 cents on the dollar, which is up from 42.5 cents two months ago.

Accountants might look at the bond I described above, look at this index, and decide to tell their clients to mark the bonds down to $.53 on the dollar. The bank is offering the bond at $.70 because it knows there is quality in the security. They are being forced to sell. And guess what? There are no buyers. An almost slam-dunk 12% total-return security with loss-coverage provisions that suggest 40% of the loans could default and lose 50% before your interest rate yields even suffered, let alone risk to your principal – and it can't find a buyer.

One of the real reasons these and thousands of other good bonds are not selling now is that there is real panic in the markets. The oldest money market fund "broke the buck" last week, because they had exposure to Lehman Brothers bonds. We are seeing massive flights of capital from money market funds, including by large institutions concerned about their capital. What are they buying? Short-term Treasury bills. Three-month Treasury bills are down to 0.84%.

It gets worse. Last week one-month Treasury bills were paying a negative 1%!!! That means some buyers were so panicked that they were willing to buy a bond for $1 that promised to pay them back only $.99 in just one month. The rate is at 0.16% today. If something is not done this weekend, it could go a lot lower over the next few days. That is panic, Joe.

I don't want to name names, as this letter goes to about 1.5 million people and I don't want to make problems for some fine banking names; but there is a silent bank run going on. There are no lines in the street, but it is a run nevertheless. It is large investment funds and corporations quietly pulling their money from some of the best banks in the country. They can do this simply by pushing a button. We are watching deposit bases fall. It does not take long. Lehman saw $400 billion go in just a few months this summer. Think about that number. Any whiff of a problem and an institution that is otherwise sound could be brought low in a matter of weeks. And the FDIC could end up with a large loss that seemed to have come from out of nowhere.

The TED Spread Flashes Trouble

There is something called the TED spread, which is the difference between three-month LIBOR (the London Inter Bank Offered Rate which is in euro dollars, also called The Euro Dollar Spread, thus TED) and three-month US Treasury bills. Three-month LIBOR is basically what banks charge each other to borrow money. Many mortgages and investments are based on various periods of LIBOR. Look at the chart below. Typically the TED spread is 50 basis points (0.50%) or less. When it spikes up, it is evidence of distress in the financial markets. The last time the TED spread was as high as it is now was right before the market crash of 1987. This is a weekly chart, which does not capture tonight's (Friday) change, which would make it look even worse. Quite literally, the TED spread is screaming panic.

The Fed has lowered rates to 2%. Typically, three-month LIBOR tracks pretty close to whatever the Fed funds rate is. Starting with the credit crisis last year, that began to change. Look at the chart below.

Remember, LIBOR is what banks charge to each other to make loans. Lower rates are supposed to help banks improve their capital and their ability to make loans at lower interest rates to businesses and consumers. Look at what has happened in the past few weeks, in the chart above. The spread between three-month LIBOR and the Fed funds rate is almost 200 basis points, or 2%! That is something that defies imagination to market observers. On the chart above, it looks like it has not moved that much, but in the trading desks of banks all over the world it is a heart-pounding, scare-you-to-death move. The chart below reflects what traders have seen in the past two weeks, and it moved up more today.

Now let's look at the next chart. This is the amount of Tier 1 commercial paper issued. This is the life blood of the business world. This is how many large and medium-sized businesses finance their day-to-day operations. The total amount of commercial paper issued is down about 15% from a year ago, with half of that drop coming in the last few weeks. Quite literally, the economic body is hemorrhaging. Unless something is done, businesses all over the US are going to wake up in a few weeks and find they simply cannot transact business as usual. This is going to put a real crimp in all sorts of business we think of as being very far from Wall Street.

I could go on. Credit spreads on high-yield bonds that many of our best high-growth businesses use to finance their growth are blowing out to levels which make it impossible for the companies to come to the market for new funds. And that is even if they could find investors in this market! There are lots of other examples (solid corporate loans selling at big discounts, asset-backed securities at discounts, etc.), but you get the idea. Suffice it to say that the current climate in the financial market is the worst since the 1930s. But how does a crisis in the financial markets affect businesses and families in Arlington, Texas, where my office and half of your district is?

The Transmission Mechanism

The transmission in a car takes energy from the engine and transfers it to the wheels. Let's talk about how the transmission mechanism of the economy works.

Let's start with our friend Dave Moritz down the street. He needs financing to be able to sell an automobile. To get those loans at good prices, an auto maker has to be able to borrow money and make the loans to Dave's customers. But if something does not stop the bleeding, it is going to get very expensive for GM to get money to make loans. That will make his cars more expensive to consumers. Cheap loans with small down payments are the life blood of the auto selling business. That is going to change dramatically unless something is done to stabilize the markets.

Credit card debt is typically packaged and sold to investors like pension funds and insurance companies. But in today's environment, that credit card debt is going to have to pay a much higher price in order to find a buyer. That means higher interest rates. Further, because most of the large issuers of credit cards are struggling with their leverage, they are reducing the amount of credit card debt they will give their card holders. If they continue to have to write down mortgages on their books because of mark-to-market rules which price assets at the last fire-sale price, it will mean even more shrinkage in available credit.

Try and sell a home above the loan limits of Fannie and Freddie today with a nonconforming jumbo loan. Try and find one that does not have very high rates, because many lenders who normally do them simply cannot afford to keep them on their balance sheets. And a subprime mortgage? Forget about it. This is going to get even worse if the financial markets melt down.

We are in a recession. Unemployment is going to rise to well over 6%. Consumer spending is going to slow. This is an environment which normally means it is tougher for small businesses and consumers to get financing in any event. Congress or the Fed cannot repeal the business cycle. There are always going to be recessions. And we always get through them, because we have a dynamic economy that figures out how to get things moving again.

Recessions are part of the normal business cycle. But it takes a major policy mistake by Congress or the Fed to create a depression. Allowing the credit markets to freeze would count as a major policy mistake.

I have been on record for some time that the economy will go through a normal recession and a slow recovery, what I call a Muddle Through Economy. This week I met with executives of one of the larger hedge funds in the world. They challenged me on my Muddle Through stance. And I had to admit that my Muddle Through scenario is at risk if Congress does not act to stabilize the credit markets.

Let's Make a Deal

Why do we need this Stabilization Plan? Why can't the regular capital markets handle it? The reason is that the problem is simply too big for the market to deal with. It requires massive amounts of patient, long-term money to solve the problem. And the only source for that would be the US government.

There is no reason for the taxpayer to lose money. Warren Buffett, Bill Gross of PIMCO, and my friend Andy Kessler have all said this could be done without the taxpayer losing money, and perhaps could even make a profit. As noted above, these bonds could be bought at market prices that would actually make a long-term buyer a profit. Put someone like Bill Gross in charge and let him make sure the taxpayers are buying value. This would re-liquefy the banks and help get their capital ratios back in line.

Why are banks not lending to each other? Because they don't know what kind of assets are on each other's books. There is simply no trust. The Fed has had to step in and loan out hundreds of billions of dollars in order to keep the financial markets from collapsing. If you allow the banks to sell their impaired assets at a market-clearing fair price (not at the original price), then once the landscape is cleared, banks will decide they can start trusting each other. The commercial paper market will come back. Credit spreads will come down. Banks will be able to stabilize their loan portfolios and start lending again.

Again, the US government is the only entity with enough size and patience to act. We do not have to bail out Wall Street. They will still take large losses on their securities, just not as large a loss as they are now facing in a credit market that is frozen. As noted above, there are many securities that are being marked down and sold far below a rational price.

If we act now, we will start to see securitization of mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and business loans so that the economy can begin to function properly.

What happens if we walk away? Within a few weeks at most, financial markets will freeze even more. We will see electronic runs on major banks, and the FDIC will have more problems than you can possibly imagine. The TED spread and LIBOR will get much worse. Businesses which use the short-term commercial paper markets will start having problems rolling over their paper, forcing them to make difficult cuts in spending and employment. Larger businesses will find it more difficult to get loans and credit. That will have effects on down the economic food chain. Jim Cramer estimated today that without a plan of some type, we could see the Dow drop to 8300. That is as good a guess as any. It could be worse. Home valuations and sales will drop even further.

The average voter? They will see stock market investments off another 25% at the least. Home prices will go down even more. Consumer spending will drop. What should be a run-of-the-mill recession becomes a deep recession or soft depression. Yes, that may be worst-case scenario. But that is the risk I think we take with inaction.

A properly constructed Stabilization Plan hopefully avoids the worst-case scenario. It should ultimately not cost the taxpayer much, and maybe even return a profit. The AIG rescue that Paulson arranged is an example of how to do it right. My bet is that the taxpayer is going to make a real profit on this deal. We got 80% of AIG, with what is now a loan paying the taxpayer over 12%, plus almost $2 billion in upfront fees for doing the loan. That is not a bailout. That is a business deal that sounds like it was done by Mack the Knife.

This deal needs to be done by Monday. Every day we wait will see more and more money fly out the doors of the banks, putting the FDIC at ever greater risk. Panic will start to set in, moving to ever smaller banks. Frankly, we are at the point where we need to consider raising the FDIC limits for all deposits for a period of time, until the Stabilization Plan quells the panic.

I understand that this is a really, really bad idea according classical free-market economic theory. You know me; I am as free market as it comes. But I also know that without immediate action a lot of people are really going to be hurt. Unemployment is not a good thing. Losses on your home and investments hurt. It is all nice and well to talk about theories and contend the market should be allowed to sort itself out; and if we have a deep recession, then that is what is needed. But the risk we take is not a deep recession but a soft depression. The consequences of inaction are simply unthinkable.

Joe, I am telling you that the markets are screaming panic. Yes, Senator Richard Shelby has his 200 economists saying this is a bad deal. But they are ivory tower kibitzers who have never sat at a trading desk. They have never tried to put a loan deal together or had to worry about commercial paper markets collapsing. I am talking daily with the people on the desks who are seeing what is really happening. Shelby's economists are armchair generals far from the front lines. I am talking to the foot soldiers who are on the front lines.

Every sign of potential disaster is there. You and the rest of the House have to act. It has to be bipartisan. This should not be about politics (even though Barney Frank keeps talking bipartisan and then taking partisan shots, but I guess he just can't help himself). It should be about doing the right thing for our country and the world. I know it will not be fun coming back to the district. Talking about TED spreads and LIBOR will not do much to assuage voters who are angry. But it is the right thing to do. And I will be glad to come to the town hall meeting with you and help if you like.

With your help, we will get through this. In a few years, things will be back to normal and we can all have stories to tell to our grandkids about how we lived through interesting times. But right now we have to act.

Colorado, California, London, and Sweden

It is time to hit the send button. This was personally a great week. For whatever reason, I did not suffer jet lag flying to South Africa for just two days, then overnight to London, and back the next day. It was a good trip. I will report more about South Africa in a later letter, but this e-letter is already a little long.

I leave Sunday for a quick trip to Longmont, Colorado (near Boulder) to look at a very interesting technology company (InPhase) that makes holographic memory disks, with good friend Dr. Bart Stuck of Signal Lake Partners.

I will be in San Diego and Orange County the 16^th and 17^th of October for back-to-back speeches, then I leave Sunday for London for two days and then on to Sweden for a conference and speeches there, a quick trip to Malta, and then back home, where I will be chained to my desk by daughter Tiffani as we do interviews and write a book.

I do enjoy traveling from time to time, seeing the rest of the world. One of my secret pleasures is reading International Living and thinking about what it would be like to have another home somewhere. Cheap thrills. You can subscribe if you like by following this link.

Have a great week. I fully believe (OK, deeply hope) that Congress will act. We can all breathe a collective sigh when they do.

Your still believing in Muddle Through analyst,

John Mauldin

Whatever Happened to Decoupling?

John Mauldin — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:52:00 GMT

A Mid-Year Correction
Whatever Happened to Decoupling?
The UK Starts to Slow
A Recession by Any Other Name
What's a Central Banker to Do?

The old mantra was that if the United States sneezed, the rest of the world would catch a cold, as the US was seen as the main driver of world growth. That was then. Economists and analysts began to argue that China and the developing markets were starting to provide a consumer base for the world. And Europe's new and growing markets would be able to stave off problems from abroad and stay on their own growth path. The world, we were assured last year, would not suffer from problems in the US economy.

Today, we look at evidence that this might not quite be the case. And if it is not, those who look for diversification in global markets may be disappointed. Also, I quickly look back at my January forecasts and feel it may be time for a mid-course correction. It seems I may have been a little too optimistic. It should make for an interesting letter.

But first, a quick commercial. I spent two days at the Caves Valley Golf Club outside of Baltimore with good friend and business partner Steve Blumenthal, the president of CGM. He has developed a platform of money managers who can take direct accounts, and I recommend that readers interested in outside money management take a look at them. Normally, to take a look at the managers, we have you sign up to get a "pass" to take a peek behind the curtain. We decided we would change that policy, at least for this week. If you would like to look at a manager I think quite highly of, you can click on this link to see a few details about him. http://www.cmgfunds.net/sys/docs/118/ARS%20Scotia_new.pdf (Remember, past performance is not indicative of future results.) If you would like to talk with Steve or his team about this manager or the others that are on the platform, simply click on the following link, fill out the form, and they will call you. http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp

And as always, if you have a net worth of $1.5 million or more and are interested in hedge funds, commodity funds, and other alternative investments, you can go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and one of partners from around the world will show you what is available on their platforms. (In this regard, I am president and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.) And now to the letter.

A Mid-Year Correction

I wrote in my January 4 letter the following predictions:

"So let's get to the predictions. I think that we are in a recession for most of the first half of this year, and that we begin a slow recovery in the second half. It will be a Muddle Through Economy for at least another year after that. That would suggest that most companies will come under serious earnings pressure. If history is any indicator, that means we should see a bear market in the first half of this year. How deep will depend on how fast the Fed cuts, but I don't think we are looking at anything close to the bear market of 2000-2001. Still, I wouldn't want to stand in front of a bear market train.

"Consumer spending is going to slow, and it will be slower to rebound, for reasons outlined above. That will also make the recovery in the stock market a little slower. But I expect to become bullish on the market sometime this summer, if not before. I'm looking forward to it."

To be blunt, that optimism now seems misplaced. I think we are likely to stay in recession for perhaps the rest of the year and well into 2009 before we start a very slow recovery. It is not time to get bullish on stocks, as I have been writing for the past few months. Earnings are going to continue to come under pressure, and earnings are what drive the stock market over the long term. We could see total S&P 500 as-reported earnings drop below $50. You do the math. Even with a 20 multiple, that does not yield a pretty picture.

I think we are going to test the recent lows and then watch the market go lower as the market gets disappointed in the earnings from the third quarter, and re-test those lows again. We are in for an extended period of Muddle Through, while we wait for the housing market to find a bottom and the credit crisis to abate. Banks and other institutions have written off about $500 billion. There is at least another $500 billion to go. The amount of capital that is going to need to be raised is astronomical, and it is going to be very dilutive to current shareholders.

I did predict that the euro would top out against the dollar this summer, and that looks to be the case, although the dollar went lower against the euro than I thought it would when I forecast $1.50 about 4-5 years ago.

Whatever Happened to Decoupling?

I was reminded of an article by Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute (by Leo Kolivakis of www.pensionpulse.blogspsot.com). Lachman wrote these very prescient words last January in a paper called "The Myth of Decoupling." Quoting:

"Sadly, the 'decoupling' thesis has little support in theory or in practice. Its proponents overlook the fact that during the past five years the U.S. economy grew faster than all the other G-7 economies. During that time, America's economy remained the principal generator of global aggregate demand, accounting for around one-fifth of global imports and 25 percent of global production. This evidence suggests that, as in the past, if the U.S. economy sneezes the rest of the world will catch a cold.

"... A number of the shocks presently affecting the U.S. economy are global in nature, and are already slowing European and Japanese growth. The credit crunch flowing from America's subprime woes is causing a global increase in market interest rate spreads and a global tightening of bank lending standards. This is hardly surprising: almost half of all U.S. asset-backed subprime mortgage securities were distributed abroad.

"... The 'decoupling' optimists are ever hopeful that China's rapid growth, together with the rest of Asia's emerging market economies, will offset any U.S. economic downturn. But they tend to forget that Asia is filled with export-dependent economies: in some countries, exports to the United States alone [emphasis mine] account for more than 10 percent of annual GDP. The "decouplers" also forget how relatively small these Asian economies still are, at least in relation to the G-7 industrialized economies. Even the vaunted Chinese economy is barely 15 percent the size of the U.S. economy."

We are now seeing the major economies of the world go into simultaneous recessions and in many of them elevated inflation as well, giving way to stagflation. Let's first take Europe. Today we learned that "GDP growth is easing in a number of European economies as highlighted by national accounts figures out during the week. The flash second quarter GDP data for the euro zone noted a 0.2% q/q contraction, following a 0.7% expansion in the first three months of the year. This was primarily the result of a 0.5% downturn in the region's largest economy, Germany, and a 0.3% contraction in second biggest, France." (www.economy.com) The chart below shows the latest data results.

And it's not just Germany and France. "Preliminary data suggest the Italian economy also contracted 0.3% during the quarter, the Netherlands reported no growth, and Spain grew at its slowest pace since the 1993 recession, with a minimal 0.1% expansion. The Spanish government fears recession in the second half of the year and called for emergency discussions on Thursday to deal with the situation. Latvia and Estonia also contracted in the second quarter, with Estonia reporting a technical recession after also shrinking in the first three months of the year. While no flash estimate is available for Ireland, the economy is on the brink of recession."

Inflation in Europe is running at 3.6%. Since the European Central Bank has just one mandate, and that is to provide for a stable currency, it will be difficult for them to ease this year.

The UK Starts to Slow

The Bank of England is forecasting a flat (0%) GDP over the next year. The United Kingdom is probably already in recession, but the problem is that the central bank is going to have difficulty cutting rates, with inflation at 4.4%; and that problem may get worse, as major energy suppliers like British Gas are announcing price increases of as much as 35%. Producer prices in the UK rose by 10.2% in July. The head of the British central bank, Mervyn King, is forecasting an inflation of 5%.

And in Asia? Real GDP declined 0.6% in the second quarter in Japan. Chinese stocks are forecasting trouble, as stocks are down more than 54% this year and 60% since the peak last year. And it is not just China. Stock markets all over Asia are in serious decline, although my friends at GaveKal note that Chinese stocks may be seriously oversold and a buy from here. I think I would wait until we see just how much a prolonged US slowdown will affect Asian economies and exporters. And inflation pressures are evident all over Asia. Producer prices in China are rising more than 10%. Inflation is at 12.4% in India, a 16-year high.

Inflation in the US? Data came in this week that was rather shocking. July CPI rose by 0.8% in July and 5.5% year over year, and core inflation on a three-month basis (less food and energy) rose by 3.4%.

A Recession by Any Other Name

Remember the comfort the bulls took in the fact that GDP when first reported was a positive 0.6% in the fourth quarter of 2007? Now is has been revised to a negative 0.2%. As I have repeatedly said, GDP numbers will be revised downward in this part of the cycle, but maybe a few years after the fact when real data and not estimates are available.

Let's look at this piece from David Rosenberg, the North American Economist for Merrill Lynch. He does a good job of telling us why GDP estimates that suggest the economy is not on recession may not reflect the facts on the ground.

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

Dating the recession is a very scientific process:

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

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

"Four factors used to determine recession:

1) Employment

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

2) Industrial production

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

3) Real personal income net government transfers

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

4) Real sales activity

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

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

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

I agree with Rosenberg. And if we see a recession lasting into 2009, then earnings are going to be under a lot of pressure. Buying index funds today could be very risky to your portfolio.

What's a Central Banker to Do?

Central bankers everywhere are faced with a serious dilemma. Do they raise rates to fight inflation, cut rates to stimulate their economies, or sit tight and hope that prices moderate as the world economy slows? Hope is an interesting strategy for a central bank, but it may have come to that.

In short, the world has not decoupled, but is more closely intertwined because of the global financial community. Housing problems and excesses in California (and the rest of the US, the UK, Spain, etc.) affect banks in Europe and Asia and the US simultaneously.

You cannot have a worldwide recovery until the financial crisis in the major lending institutions is dealt with. A functioning banking system is the lubricant for a world economy, and the banking industry is cutting back on loans and tightening the standards by which they do make loans. Look at these survey results from Northern Trust:

In reality, it is not just mortgage lending that is getting tighter. Every survey done on any type of lending worldwide shows bankers are setting tougher standards; and most are simply lending less, partially as a result of shrinking capital ratios. Until lenders have adequate capital to be able to make loans, it will be hard to see anything other than a very tepid recovery sometime next year.

Look at the graph below. The spread of the difference between US 10-year treasuries and a 30-year mortgage is the highest in over 22 years. In May of 2007 it was 1.37%. Today it is 2.53%. The historical average is 1.68%. That means a mortgage costs almost 1% a year more than it would under a normally functioning market. That reflects that lenders are having trouble finding investors who will buy their mortgages, and of course it makes housing less affordable and puts off the day when inventories will again be reasonable.

Bottom line is that there is a long way to go before either the world economy or markets will be seen as functional. I continue to believe the data suggests we are still in a secular bear market and that valuations are not anywhere close to signaling a new bull market. Paying attention to daily market movements to confirm your bias one way or another is pointless. Daily market moves are random noise.

Pay attention to the fundamentals like earnings and valuation. In this type of market, you should be looking for absolute-return types of investing rather than relative-value index funds. And absolutely avoid anything linked to the US consumer or financial stocks unless you have some special knowledge of a specific situation. There are more write-downs and earnings disappointments to come.

Weddings, Baltimore, and South Africa

As noted above, I met with Steve Blumenthal and wealth manager Cliff Draughn at the Caves Valley Golf Club on Wednesday and Thursday this week for a quick trip to talk business and get in my first real game of golf in over two years. This maybe is the most beautiful course I have ever played, and Cliff was a great host. Oddly, as the game went on, I started to get some twinges in my right arm, but I thought it was just a little stiff from not playing golf for so long and tried to work it out. By the 17^th hole I just couldn't follow through as the pain in the forearm was too much, and so I called it quits. The pain continued through the night coming back on the plane. And this morning I woke up to find my right forearm and up to my middle inner bicep was one ugly bruise. Not sure what happened. That is a first for me. But I worked through the pain and finished the letter tonight.

I will be in Cape Town, South Africa, on September 21-23 to do a speech. I will go back to Baltimore to attend my good friend of 25 years Bill Bonner's 60^th birthday party the first weekend in September. He is the one of the best pure writers I know. You can read some of his essays and subscribe to the free Daily Reckoning (be warned: Bill is quite bearish) by clicking on the following link: http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/mauldin.html

The wedding was a spectacular success, and I know Tiffani and Ryan will post pictures and video when they get back from South Africa. I have to confess that when I saw Tiffani she was so beautiful that I actually teared up, and then we both got misty-eyed. It was a very special moment. I surprised myself getting so emotional.

As I was walking through the dining area before the wedding, I noticed that they had put out a treasure chest on one of the tables. I assumed that it was for putting gifts into. As I walked by, I tried to lift the lid. Turns out it was a very realistic looking cake and I put my thumb through the top of the "lid." Tiffani had personally designed every aspect of this wedding, and I had just left a very large impression on one part of it. When I sadly told Tiffani, she just laughed. She said it was such a "Dad thing" to do and made the night perfect. I just wish the Dad things I do weren't so embarrassing. Oh, well.

As I did my toast, right before the fireworks, I welcomed Ryan into the family as Tiffani's six brothers and sisters, plus in-laws, gathered around. Part of it went something like this. I mentioned to the crowd that Tiffani had been responsible for the total design of the tables, decorations, dinner, the flower arrangements, the (very) elaborate cake, etc. No detail went by without her input. And then I added:

"Ryan, the bad news is that you have married a lady who, just as she organized this wedding, is going to pay attention to every detail in your life, making sure you stay on your toes. I know that from personal experience from working with her for ten years. But the good news is that she will also make your life as beautiful as this wedding. You have my treasure. Take care of her."

Your still misting up analyst,

John Mauldin

The Return of the Muddle Through Economy

John Mauldin — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 07:05:00 GMT

Introduction With each new slice of economic data the past few weeks, the bond market decided that the economy was getting softer and the potential for the Fed to start cutting rates was growing. Rates have been drifting down for the past few weeks. And...(read more)

The Visible Slowdown

John Mauldin — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 06:54:00 GMT

Introduction Yesterday the Philadelphia Fed Business Economic Survey came in at the lowest level since the recession in 2001. Some argue that it is just one month's worth of data, and "...besides, it is Philadelphia. Those numbers are always...(read more)

Mid-Year Forecast - More See-Saw Fed

John Mauldin — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 02:49:00 GMT

Mid-Year Forecast Where will Treasury rates go? What about inflation/deflation? The dollar? The stock markets? Gold? We cover all this and more in this week's letter. I normally do an annual forecast at the beginning of each year. In conversations...(read more)