Thoughts From The Frontline : Housing

How Not to Run a Pension

John Mauldin — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:23:00 GMT

How Not to Run a Pension
Stupid Government Tricks
Illinois Is Digging a VERY Deep Hole
Catastrophic Success
Time to Buy a House?
Looking Over My Shoulder
Palm Springs, Argentina, and Singapore

"The government is the prisoner of the bureaucracy. We have 4,021 associations and 6,200 codes. You simply cannot change things. There are 600,000 tax elements. No one really knows who pays what."

– A journalist in Greece

For all the focus on the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, there is another unfunded crisis brewing, and this one is in your own back yard. It's coming to you even if you live outside of the US; it just might take a little longer to get there. I wrote ten years ago that state and local pension funds might be underfunded by as much as $2 trillion. It turns out that I was being overly optimistic. New government research suggests that the figure might be as high as $3 trillion. But what if you take into account that retirees are living longer? An IMF study that we'll look at in a few minutes does just that. And if we live a lot longer? Oh my. The problems are not universal – some cities and states will do fine, while others are already in deep kimchee – but it's a big problem and getting worse.

At the end of the letter, I'll add a personal note on housing. Longtime readers know that I was bearish on housing well before the bubble. I sold my home (for personal reasons) and decided to lease until things became more settled. I have said several times that I would tell you if and when I decided to buy a home. Now, I have put an offer in on an apartment and it has been accepted. But it's more complicated than that. (Isn't it always?)

Before we get rolling, though, I want to announce the speaker lineup for my 10^th annual Strategic Investment Conference, May 1-3. Here they are, in alphabetical order: Kyle Bass; Ian Bremmer; Mohamed El-Erian; Niall Ferguson and his wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Lacy Hunt; Charles and Louis Gave; Jeff Gundlach; Anatole Kaletsky; David Rosenberg; Nouriel Roubini; and Gary Shilling. The noted geopolitical analyst Ian Bremmer (a professor at Columbia and founder of the Eurasia Group) has now been added to the list. I heard Ian last year speak on his theme of a G-Zero World and was blown away. You have to hear this one. We subsequently met in NYC and compared notes. I am really happy we could get him.

Seriously, where else can you find a roster like that? And the attendee list has a "who's who" feel to it, as well. Those who come regularly know that the real value is in meeting the other attendees. David Rosenberg noted last year that this is the top investment conference he has ever addressed. The speakers all seem to bring their "A" game. The attendees agree, and this year we will have more interaction than ever.

The conference is cosponsored by my longtime partner Altegris Investments. All the credit for hosting a first-class conference goes to the staff at Altegris, who do a massive amount of work to pull off an event of this size and scope. All I do is get a few friends to come and speak. Oh, and this year Bloomberg will cover the conference live.

The conference always sells out, so I suggest you register at your earliest convenience. Invitations have been sent out to past attendees and those who are members of the Mauldin Circle. Registration is now open. Because of security regulations, we do have to limit attendance to accredited investors and those in the securities/investment business. You can start the process by going to the Strategic Investment Conference page. There is a significant early-bird registration discount.

How Not to Run a Pension

It is almost too easy to pick on California and Illinois, but I am going to do it anyway in order to create a teaching moment. Plus, this sorry tale will make us think about the nature of the social contract and the fabric of society. It would be almost be funny if it were not so serious.

Let's start with a few paragraphs that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Carl Demaio writes this week:

Consider California, where just 10 individual pensioners will cash $50 million in pension checks from state and local governments over the next 25 years. Already some 30,000 retired California government employees pull in pensions higher than $100,000 a year. One retired librarian in San Diego receives a $234,000 annual pension. Beach lifeguards in Orange County are retiring at age 51 with $108,000 annual pensions plus health-care benefits.

Note that those benefits are cost-of-living-adjusted. But the problem is not just in California; it is nationwide.

A 2011 study by the Congressional Research Service pegged the combined liabilities faced by state and local pension funds at over $3 trillion. That is more than all the bonded debt officially listed on state and local balance sheets combined. To put the issue in perspective, all the federal tax hikes approved by Congress on Jan. 1 would pay less than 20% of America's state and local pension debt over the next 10 years. (Wall Street Journal)

Another study by the Congressional Budget Office comes to the same general conclusion. You can read it here.

Steven Malanga wrote a powerful essay for the City Journal exposing the huge problems in just one California pension fund, CalPERS (California Public Employees' Retirement System). It is a well-written chronicle of how one fund has locked California into a debt spiral that threatens the solvency of the state: The Pension Fund that Ate California.

It is almost impossible to read Malanga's report without comparing it to Michael Lewis' essay on Greece. For the past two weeks I have written about regulatory capture in Greece and how the Greeks must break the control of vested interests over government. The corruption that Malanga chronicles is similar: the vested interest of public employee unions trying to get the "best deal" for their members is no different from what I described going on with various Greek industries. Whether it is Greek or California taxpayers, someone has to pay for all those promised benefits.

The State of California recently passed a "balanced budget." But it is only balanced if you ignore the sound accounting practices detailed in the Congressional Research Service report cited above. And even that report assumes investment returns that CalPERS has not achieved for the last five years.

CalPERS manages $230 billion. The fund now calculates that it is underfunded by $80 billion. The management arrives at this number by assuming they will make 7.5% (which they only recently dropped from 7.75%). In 2009, they estimated that the fund was underfunded by only $49 billion. That means they missed their targets by $30 billion in a roaring bull market.

In a December 2011 study, former Democratic assemblyman Joe Nation, a public finance expert at Stanford University, estimated that CalPERS's long-term pension debt is a sizable $170 billion if CalPERS achieves an average annual investment return of 6.2 percent in years to come. If the return is just 4.5 percent annually – a rate close to what more conservative private pensions often shoot for – the fund's long-term liability rises to a forbidding $290 billion. (Malanga)

I was just in Norway. It has a sovereign fund that is larger than CalPERS but that benefits from some of the best management in the world. My talks with people involved in the fund and those who are very familiar with it suggest that they would be very happy to get 4% over the next 5-10 years. And CalPERS ranks in the bottom 1% of all pension fund managers. Given all the resources they have, they are spectacularly bad at managing money. And when I say "they," I mean the board of directors.

Malanga points out that CalPERS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the government-employee trade unions that control the board. He painstakingly chronicles the extent to which the unions dictate policy and investment decisions, leaving the professional management shackled.

Remember the Greek journalist who told us this?:

The government is the prisoner of the bureaucracy. We have 4,021 associations and 6,200 codes. You simply cannot change things. There are 600,000 tax elements. No one really knows who pays what.

The number of regulations differs from Greece to California, but the principle is the same: regulatory capture of the bureaucracy by government workers' unions has handcuffed government, not just in California but all over the US.

Let's think about what it means for a pension fund to be $290 billion underfunded in a state with a (plus or minus) $100 billion annual budget. And bear in mind that instead of the $3 billion a year in taxpayer support CalPERS assumes it will need, it could soon be 4-5 times that much. Go to your own state budget and figure out how to carve out 10-15% from it. Given that a huge percentage goes to health care, education, and security, there is just not that much "waste" in state budgets. And the states with pension problems tend to be the ones with higher taxes already.

CalPERS now consumes (or will shortly) more than the 23-campus California State University System, which gets $2 billion annually. And that is not the entire shortfall in California; it is just one fund, albeit the largest. Other funds have similar issues. Taxpayers' costs are projected to rise to more than $7 billion by 2014-'15 – if you believe the funds' own expectations for investment returns. You shouldn't.

Above we see a chart of projected CalPERS returns, showing what they would be over the next 30 years if they ran at 7.5% or 5% or 2.5% (hat tip to Mike Shedlock). The numbers on the left are in billions. The fund might be doing quite well in 30 years at a steadily compounded 7.5%, but at 2.5% or even 5%? Not so good.

The next chart shows that even if you assume a 5% return, you are down almost $1 trillion in 30 years.

Think 5% or 2.5% is pessimistic? CalPERS made a 1% return over the past year it reported, to June 2012. In a bull market, thank you. Over the last five years? A negative 0.1%, basically flat. (CalPERS annual report)

Let me say a small word in defense of the CalPERSes of the world. If you are a fund this size, you don't invest in the market; you are the market. The fund did very well in the '90s. CalPERS has lagged its peers badly, but I know of no very large ($50-100 billion+) public pension fund that has gotten 7.5% over the last five years. There may be one, but I can't find it. Smaller funds can be more nimble in selecting investments. CalPERS has to invest an average of $230 million in 1,000 different assets and funds and strategies. That is an impossible task and one that will only get harder as it grows, which it must if it is to meet the needs of its 1.3 million (and swelling) current and future beneficiaries.

I must admit, it is fascinating to Google "California pension problems." You can spend hours swept up in the sheer scandal of it all. Hundreds of state employees who are managers and who theoretically get no overtime are allowed to work second jobs in their departments and get paid for them. Doctors in the prison system can make hundreds of thousands of extra dollars a year. Prison guards retire with $100,000 a year – and can then take another job and get more benefits from another pension fund! Cool.

Stupid Government Tricks

Until this past January 1, California state employees were allowed to buy "air time" of up to five years to shorten their required time on the job before they would qualify for a full pension. The rationale by CalPERS was that as long as the fund got 7.5% annually there would be no risk to the fund.

"Ultimately, we don't truly know until everybody who has purchased dies," said Amy Norris, a Calpers spokeswoman, referring to the size of the payouts. "Our actuaries say that it is safe to say it is cost-neutral at this point." Fifty thousand employees have elected to participate.

California public-sector employees now earn approximately 30% more for doing the same jobs as workers in the private sector. California did pass some modest pension reforms last year, mostly affecting future workers and retirees. Current retirees saw no reductions. But within a few months legislation was introduced that exempted 20,000 workers, and unions are looking for other such exemptions. In a Democrat-controlled legislature, they could quite possibly pass.

"Double dipping" is my personal favorite of the scams that are being run. Why not retire with your $100,000 pension and then take another job and earn another $100,000 pension? One San Jose police chief now gets over $400,000 a year, after he retired from his San Jose job and went to work in San Diego.

The current San Jose police chief will retire at 51 with a $150,000 pension, and he too can take another job, although he has "no immediate plans." He is not alone.

Illinois Is Digging a VERY Deep Hole

Illinois has a $33 billion state budget – and five pension funds that are officially underfunded by almost $100 billion. Remember that sky-high projection of investment returns by CalPERS? Illinois pension funds estimate they will earn anywhere from 7.5% to as much as 8.5%. But the state-employee fund made less than 0.1% last year, barely beating out CalPERS.

(By the way, you can see the projected returns of your state funds in a January 2013 NASRA Issue Brief. Scroll to the bottom. I was aghast to see that much of Texas was looking to make 8%! The Houston firefighters project 8.5%! I keep reading about problems with the funding of liabilities in Houston. As I said, this is a nationwide scandal. California and Illinois are just the easiest to pick on.)

Without 8% returns, the shortfall for the Texas Employees Retirement System (ERS) could be twice the current projections. The system is scheduled to pay out $133 billion between now and 2045. It has $11 billion. For these assets to cover future payouts, ERS would need to see average investment returns of 21.5% per year – or see big-time payouts from the government budget. Think they can find an extra $5 billion a year for the next 20 years? From a $30 billion budget? And get 8%?

But back to Illinois, which has a legal problem. It is one of two states (New York being the other) that in its Constitution is prohibited from impairing promised retiree benefits. This makes for a rather tough negotiating stance.

You can find the same exotic stories about large pensions in Illinois that you do in California; but it seems to me the pension for rank-and-file teachers is not overly generous, considering that they pay 9.5% of their salary into the pension fund, while the state is supposed to fund less than 10% of that amount and then doesn't even manage to do that. Putting the teachers on Social Security would cost the state a lot more (6.2% in matching funds).

Yes, there are the 28 Illinois state troopers who retired at 51 and draw over $100,000 a year. And the politicians get eye-popping amounts, but their retirement fund is underfunded by 74%. Care to make a wager which pension fund gets enough money to survive, the teachers' or the politicians'?

And while all this sounds delectably scandalous, it is actually very sad. Consider this story:

Last Thursday night, 57-year-old Dick Ingram, a bald guy in a dark suit, stepped onto the stage in a cramped, muggy auditorium at a south suburban high school. In his remarks to an audience full of teachers, Ingram repeated the same message he's been delivering for months: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Ingram is in charge of Illinois' biggest pension fund, called the Teachers Retirement System. With $52 billion in unfunded liabilities, it's arguably worse off than any state pension fund in Illinois – which is saying something, considering Illinois has the worst-funded pensions in the country.

"I don't think it's any secret that finances in the state of Illinois are a train wreck," he told the crowd of about 350 working and retired teachers. "We cannot, today, feel secure in telling a 45-year-old or a 25-year-old teacher in Illinois that they're gonna get their pension," he told the crowd. "We face the possibility, and the real likelihood, of insolvency."

Several teachers at last week's meeting excoriate Ingram for talking too much, saying he's just providing fodder to politicians who want to cut teachers' retirement benefits.

But if you stop and consider what's going on here, it's pretty radical: Ingram, the guy in charge of the retirement savings for 370,000 people, is telling anyone who will listen that the money may not be there when they quit working – that teachers, in his words, have "been getting screwed for decades." (Illinois Public Media)

These teachers put in 9.5% of their salaries, and their retirement could be in jeopardy. Think about what it would be like to work for 35 years, doing the right thing and saving. You make your retirement plans, and then at some point, say 10 or 15 years into your career, the deal changes.

This is rubber-meets-road sort of stuff. Much of our society is finding itself severely burdened to meet past promises made by politicians. It is pretty easy to make them when you are spending someone else's money, especially when that someone is 30 years in the future. Except that now the future is here. The bellwether is San Jose, whose citizens voted last year (70% in favor) to cut current pensions and benefits for municipal employees. That's liberal, socially progressive San Jose, which finds itself under severe funding pressure just to fulfill basic city services.

I have talked about the "abuse" of the California pension system, with double-dipping by policemen, et al. – except they are doing nothing illegal or even unethical. They are taking deals offered to them under terms both parties agreed to. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in our politicians and we who elect them.

Catastrophic Success

Underfunded pensions are not a problem that is going to go away. Let's assume that the secular bear market finally runs its course, the financial repression of the Fed and ECB ends, and interest rates go back to normal so that pension funds again have a chance at those juicy 7% returns. We make up for lost time with a few more dollars of funding, and then it's problem solved, right? That is the line you hear from pension consultants.

But what almost no pension fund does is to plan for the current trend of people living longer to continue. We have added almost two years of life expectancy every decade for the past century, although the number of additional years you can expect to live if you make it to 65 is not as dramatic. Still, the increase is significant.

The International Monetary Fund did a study last year that asked, "What if we live three years longer by 2050?" That is far less than trend for the last century, but even that small increase yields some very interesting conclusions:

...if individuals live three years longer than expected – in line with underestimations in the past – the already large costs of aging could increase by another 50 percent, representing an additional cost of 50 percent of 2010 GDP in advanced economies and 25 percent of 2010 GDP in emerging economies.… [F]or private pension plans in the United States, such an increase in longevity could add 9 percent to their pension liabilities. Because the stock of pension liabilities is large, corporate pension sponsors would need to make many multiples of typical annual pension contributions to match these extra liabilities.

Thus, we may need to add 50% to the pension underfunding I highlighted earlier. It gets ugly. (You can access the IMF study and see commentary here.)

I can hear a few of you objecting that this is a problem that remains far in our future. Why worry about 2043? Well, because pension returns rely upon compound interest, the eighth wonder of the world. A dollar in a pension fund doubles every 10 years at 7.5%, and in 30 years that dollar invested now is $8. If we wait for ten years to invest it, it only becomes $4 in 30 years. And there will be only $2 in the pot if we wait 20 years to find out that today's retirees are living another three years on average.

Pensions require initial savings and compound interest to work. If you fail to properly fund your pension or if you get low returns, your retirement will suffer. We all know that is the case for private funds, but it is the same for public funds as well. Taxpayers will have to make up the difference if returns are lower or benefits rise due to longer lives. Or retirees will not get what they were promised. Ask Irish pensioners what a 15% cut in their pensions feels like. Ask people in any country that has seen the ravages of inflation.

When you sit down with your financial planner, you make assumptions about how long you will live. And then, if you are prudent, you make plans to live much longer than that. You want to make sure you will have enough funds to meet your needs for your entire life. And that means planning on living a few years longer than the average person in your family has in the past.

Yet we don't do that with our pension funds. Just as we assume that the past performance of 8% returns in the last bull market will somehow materialize in our future, we also assume that the actuarial tables of the past will continue to apply, even though they have been regularly updated for a century.

Most of us would deem it a success if we lived ten years longer than the current average. Yet such a success on the personal level would be catastrophic for our pension funds, if we all managed it. Thus, living longer may turn out to be a catastrophic success!

I happen to be part of the bunch who thinks the biotech revolution is just beginning and that we will end up living a lot longer (on average) than anyone now expects, and be healthier to boot! Of course, the counterargument is that many of us won't get there because we refuse to take care of the basics of eating right, exercising, not smoking, and taking our medicines.

Whatever your view on longevity, a three-year average increase over the next 40 years seems a most reasonable and conservative assumption – which means that every dollar our public and private pension funds save now is even more important for future retirees. Unless we want to burden our children and grandchildren in the rapidly approaching future, we need to deal with our pension issues today, before we find them consuming the funds we need for basic services or forcing tax increases that will hurt overall growth and job creation. The choices are difficult now, but they will only get harder if we wait.

Time to Buy a House?

Let's move briefly to another topic. The lease on my home here in Dallas was going to be up at the end of this year, and I more or less intended not to renew it and to start to pay attention to what the housing market is doing, come fall. Then my landlord dropped me a note a few weeks ago saying he would let me out of my lease if I moved out in a month. He evidently thinks the real estate market is good in Dallas, which is what I am hearing from my realtor friends.

A few months ago I dropped by the new apartment of my good friend David Tice. (Some of you will remember him as the man who started and ran the Prudent Bear funds.) He had purchased two apartments in a local high-rise with stunning views of downtown Dallas, and combined them into one apartment. I fell in love with the energy of the views and the location.

As it turns out, I can get two adjoining spaces in the same building with slightly different views but still that dramatic downtown view I love. The odds of getting two adjoining apartments to come on the market at the same time are not high, so I decided to go ahead and accept the offer to move. Prices have dropped considerably for comparable places in Dallas and are now beginning to find a market. So we made an offer, and it was accepted. Now comes the hard part: getting financing, taking on a construction project to turn the two units into one, finding a place to live in the meantime, and then moving.

I am finding out that financing is not straightforward. I asked my investment-banker friends what the loan would be and got quoted a very nice rate for a ten-year ARM. But the mortgage desk would not do it (this is a very large, name-brand bank). Since it is two apartments and two titles and someone is leasing one of the units right now, and since there will be significant construction costs, what I want to do does not fit into a simple, check-the-box home mortgage. No exceptions allowed! I was rather surprised that it would be that hard. I clearly qualified, or so I thought. I dropped back to punt, and the realtor quickly introduced me to two local banks that do custom projects like this. So that process begins this week.

Additionally, David (and another local friend) did something that I want to do, too. He got a yen-denominated loan. We are working out how to do that. (I would love to speak to a senior investment-bank executive of a large Japanese bank. I sense an opportunity here.)

As I promised years ago when I last talked about buying, I will let you know the details as they develop – costs, interest rates, interim loans, etc. But at least here in the Dallas market (and I know it's true in other markets as well), this bear is coming out of hibernation. Stay tuned.

Looking Over My Shoulder

The world doesn't sit still, and as you all know, neither do I. Each week I delve into 100-plus articles, economic forecasts, investment outlooks, financial reports, etc., all of which come to me through my own extensive network. My goal, of course, is to be constantly building on my own research, staying right on top of what's going on out there. This learning experience is a labor of love for me, and one I'm pleased to share with you through my Over My Shoulder service.

As I filter through my weekly reading, I pick out the 5-10 items that I think will be most important to your investments and money management. This research, compiled by my contacts, is generally information you will not come across in your own ongoing reading – and that's why I think you will find a subscription to Over My Shoulder very useful. Subscribers have given me very positive feedback, and I encourage you to join us in reading, thinking, and preparing for the events of 2013 – this most pivotal of years.

Palm Springs, Argentina, and Singapore

I will be in Palm Springs at the California Resource Investment Conference February 23-24. My good friend Grant Williams, who writes the blockbuster Things That Make You Go Hmmm… and the Mauldin Economics' Bull's Eye Investor letter, will be there, as will the best resource investor I know, Rick Rule, along with my favorite data maven, Greg Weldon. There is a full two-day slate of speakers. The event is free to investors and is always fun, and it's a great time of year to be in California (hate the pensions, love the weather). Come see us! You can read all about it and register at the Cambridge House website.

I will be in Cafayate, Argentina in the middle of March, working on a book and relaxing a little while with my partners and friends at their resort. (If you are interested, you can come as well. Just click on this link.) In April, I will do a speech in Singapore and hope to take a few days off to visit Cambodia and Angkor Wat. My old friend Tony Sagami is planning to come over from Bangkok to show me around Cambodia.

It has been an emotional day for me. I attended the memorial for Chris Kyle, whom I wrote about last week. He is the former Navy SEAL and author of American Sniper who was tragically murdered last week. They had to hold the service in the Dallas Cowboys stadium. His casket rested on the star in the center of the field. I will never again be able to look at that star without thinking of him.

A remarkable number of former SEALs and other military attended, honoring a gentle man who is now legend. Hearing the stories from his comrades and friends made for the most moving memorial service I have ever attended. You can donate to a family trust fund being set up for his wife and two young children at Craft International.

Then I went to yet another funeral service, this one for an elderly relative, only a few miles away. The contrast in emotions was palpable. And then on the way home, I got a text from my daughter Melissa. Last year about this time she had her thyroid and some large tumors in her lymph nodes removed. They felt they got it all, and subsequent checkups seemed OK. But today they noticed some large lymph nodes in various parts of her chest and neck. They got her in to see her specialist on an hour's notice, which seems fast. It could be just an infection, but more scans are now on order.

And now I face the joys of jury duty in a few hours, although no sane attorney would want me on a jury. At least I will get in some reading time, waiting for them to reject me. And with that I will hit the send button.

Your contemplating life more than usual analyst,

John Mauldin
subscribers@mauldineconomics.com

All Spain All the Time

John Mauldin — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:27:00 GMT

All Spain All the Time
Structural versus Cyclical Dilemmas
The Mother of All Housing Bubbles
Spanish Banks en Bancarrota
Meanwhile in the Rest of Europe
And Two More Leaked Documents
The Fat Lady Has Not Sung
San Francisco, New York, and Philadelphia

Last Monday I was in Paris and was asked to do a spot on CNBC London. I arrived at the studios an hour early due to a misunderstanding of the time zones, so while trying to catch up on the news I listened to CNBC. I had just written about Spain in last week's letter and guessed that was what they wanted to talk to me about, but for the full hour before I got on it seemed like every guest wanted to talk about Spain. When I had my turn and indeed got the Spain question, I smiled and noted that we were now in a period when it would be "All Spain All the Time," for at least the next year. I should have noted that there would be brief interruptions where we glanced at Portugal and perhaps Ireland, but the real focus would be on Spain.

I fully intended to write about something other than Europe this week, but the events of the last 24 hours compel me to once again look "across the pond" at the problems that not only plague Europe but will be a drag on world growth as well, as Europe goes through its continued painful adjustment as a consequence of trying to adopt a single currency. Since Spain is going to be on the front page for some time, it will be useful to look at some of the problems it is facing, to put it all into context. And what I heard while in Europe in private meetings is troubling.

All Spain All the Time

Spain is in a recession, though only down an estimated 1.7% in 2012, if things go well. Unemployment is at 23%, which is higher than Greece for the latest Greek data that I can find. But more than half of young Spaniards (over 51%) are out of work, creating a lost generation that has been hardest hit by Spain's economic woes. The total number of unemployed has climbed above five million, and Spanish under-25 unemployment has nearly tripled, from 18% just four years ago.

" 'This is the least hopeful and best educated generation in Spain,' said Ignacio Escolar, author of the country's most popular political blog and former editor of the newspaper Publico. 'And it's like a national defeat that they have to travel abroad to find work.' Young Spaniards are now living in the family home longer than ever before, pushing the average age of independence from their parents to well into their thirties." (The Telegraph)

Unions called a general strike on Thursday as the recently elected Spanish government delivered its new austerity budget. While the protests were mostly peaceful, the pictures we see are of youth in partial riot mode. It is eerily similar to the onset of riots in Greece just a few years ago – except that unemployment is higher than when the Greek crisis started. And while Spanish leaders will protest that Spain is not Greece, there are striking similarities .

As an aside, let's remember that Habsburg Spain defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696 and also succumbed to inflation due to a surfeit of New World silver. Portugal has defaulted on its national debt five times since 1800, Greece five times, Spain no less than seven times. There have been more than 250 sovereign debt defaults since 1800.

Structural versus Cyclical Dilemmas

A country (or a family) can face two different types of crises. A cyclical crisis is typically temporary and due to a business-cycle recession. When the problem that caused the recession is dealt with, the economy comes back and employment returns to normal.

Structural problems are more difficult to deal with. Structural unemployment is a more permanent level of unemployment that's caused by forces other than the business cycle. It can be the result of an underlying shift in the economy that makes it difficult for certain segments of the population to find jobs. It typically occurs when there is a mismatch between the jobs available and the skill levels of the unemployed. Structural unemployment can result in a higher unemployment rate long after a recession is over. If ignored by policy makers, it can then even lead to a higher natural unemployment rate.

Structural unemployment can be created when there are technological advances in an industry. This has happened in manufacturing, where robots have been replacing unskilled workers. These workers must now get training in computer operations to manage the robots and employ other sophisticated technology, in order to compete for fewer jobs in the same factories where they worked before. (about.com)

But structural unemployment may also be caused by government policies that make it difficult or even uneconomic for businesses to hire workers. Typically these policies are put in place by well-meaning if economically ignorant politicians (nobody wants to create unemployment), but the problems are there no matter what the intentions were. Let's look at a few Spanish structural problems.

The first is a rather poisonous employment environment. The graph below was created by The Bank Credit Analyst to discuss structural employment problems in France, but the country that is even higher on the employment protection index is Spain. Note that both countries are higher than 3^rd and 4^thplace Greece and Portugal.

In an open market, the large majority of jobs are created by small businesses. But when you make it difficult and more expensive for small businesses to hire workers, it is not surprising that you get fewer jobs. In the US, our experience is that when the minimum wage rises, youth unemployment rises as well, even in times of recovery. This has been consistent over the last few decades, when statistics have been kept. There are a lot of reasons for this, which we will not go into today, but there is every reason to believe that Spain in particular and Europe in general would be no different in that respect from the US.

The Mother of All Housing Bubbles

Spain had its own housing bubble, in most ways worse than that of the US. In 2006, the Guardian wrote that 50% of new EU jobs had been created in Spain during the previous five years. But in 2011 housing starts were down by 94% and new mortgages by 81% (IMF, 2011). The IMF notes that "The stock of unsold units may take around another four years to clear. The lowest estimates of the stock of unsold units are at close to 700,000 units, with considerable regional variations but with a downward adjustment that has only started at the end of 2010. These only include newly completed units, and do not fully include units repossessed by financial institutions, unsold secondary market houses, or unfinished units."

TheWall Street Journal suggests the number may be more than double that:

"Some 1.5 million unfinished, unsold or unwanted residential units stand scattered across the country, products of a still-deflating housing bubble that threatens to undermine Spain's broader economy for years to come. It is the hangover after an epic fiesta, a period Spaniards now refer to as "cuando pensábamos que éramos ricos"—'when we thought we were rich.'"

Let's put that in context. The US has about 6.5 times more people than Spain. There are 2.43 million existing homes for sale plus shadow inventory in the US, estimates of which vary. Using the WSJ number, this would suggest Spain has the equivalent of 15 million-plus homes for sale. That in a country where unemployment is more than double ours and where population growth and household formation is certainly slower than in the US. Only Ireland can rival Spain for the largest housing bubble.

The number of homes being foreclosed on is estimated to triple in Spain. About 120 evictions take place every day. Those who default on their mortgages cannot walk away from the debt, as in the US. A story is out tonight about one resident who lost her job and is being foreclosed on. She will still owe over about half her debt, or more than €100,000, plus court costs and penalties. From the Huffington Post:

"If the bank manages to sell a foreclosed home, that amount is struck off the remaining debt. But the norm these days is that the property is put up for auction and nobody bids. That has meant the bank then takes over the house for just half its originally assessed value, and wipes the amount off the remaining debt – leaving the borrower still owing a bundle. The legislation passed last week raises the proportion the bank has to effectively pay in the event of non-sale to 60 percent."

Home prices have fallen just 10-20%, as banks cannot afford to write down mortgages (more on that later). Realistic estimates assume a 40-50% total drop is more likely, and anecdotal evidence suggests it could be even more if the economy does not recover soon. And as we will see, that is going to be tough.

Spanish Banks en Bancarrota

I am not sure if the Spanish term for bankrupt is en bancarrota or quebrado, as Google didn't make it clear.

(Sidebar: The former sounds suspiciously Italian, as it is the term for "broken bench," which was the medieval term for what happened when a merchant bank went under. Its bench was literally broken. Our guide pointed to a spot in Sienna where she said the first banks and the term originated. And it is where the English word bankrupt comes from.)

In any event, there is widespread agreement that the regional Spanish banks, the cajas, are bankrupt, as they made massive loans for construction and mortgages. The government has taken some action, forcing 45 caja savings banks that were threatened by bankruptcy due to bad property loans to consolidate down to 14. But although bank regulators have estimated that Spanish banks will need €26 billion in extra capital, many skeptics believe this severely underestimates future losses and that the government may have to step in with a much larger bailout for the financial sector. The Bank of Spain contends that construction debt to banks stands at some €400 billion, of which repayment of€176 billion is questionable, with €31.6 billion of those considered nonperforming. (WSJ)

Spanish private debt is 220% of GDP, dwarfing government debt, which is high and rising. So not only are banks being forced to raise capital and reduce their loan books, consumers and businesses are also overextended. The government wants to increase taxes or reduce spending by 17% to get the deficit down from over 8% to 5.5%, a combination that is not geared for growth.

€12.3bn will be raised in new taxes, with €5.3bn coming from corporations, and €2.5bn is projected to come from a temporary amnesty on tax evasion (you've got to love the optimism). We have seen how such policies worked in Greece. They meant lower, not increased, revenues. Note that Britain also raised taxes on "the rich" and saw revenues fall in that category, not increase as projected.

Further, as we go along this year, watch for "breaking" news that off-balance-sheet guarantees by the Spanish government will be huge, adding multiples of 10% to total debt-to-GDP. Spain's admitted government debt is over 70% of GDP, which in comparison to other European countries is not all that bad. Except that is not the extent of the problem. There is regional debt, bank-guaranteed debt, sovereign guarantees, etc. that take it to roughly 85%.

And then we add the guarantees that Spain has made to the EU for all the stabilization funds, ECB liabilities, etc., at which point Mark Grant suggests that Spanish debt may be closer to 130% of GDP. (Of course, if we count all debt and guarantees, something that a normal bank would make you or me do if we wanted a loan [at least since the subprime debacle], then Italy has over 200% debt-to-GDP. Just saying.)

Spain is going to have an uphill struggle to keep its deficit down to 5.5%. Unemployment is still rising, as Spain is after all in a recession and costs will be up and revenues down. But the current budget buys time and what will amount to good will from the rest of Europe, as Spain will be seen to be trying, conducting yet another experiment in austerity. When those deficits come in higher, then what will Europe do? With each piece of bad news, the problem of funding Spanish debt will grow. Right now, Spanish banks are buying Spanish government debt with everything they can muster, which is to say, ECB loans at 1% for three years, invested in 5.5% bonds. With 30 times leverage. All the while trying to cut losses and reduce their loan books – a trick worthy of Houdini.

Meanwhile in the Rest of Europe

Let's quickly take a turn around Europe. Germany is preparing to reduce its budget, which will reduce inflation and also relative labor costs, which will make it more difficult for peripheral Europe to catch up on their massive trade deficits. In a story tonight in the Telegraph, with the headline "Germany launches strategy to counter ECB largesse," Ambrose Evans-Pritchard notes that "The plans have major implications for monetary union, dashing hopes in Southern Europe that Germany might accept a few years of mini-boom at home to help lift the whole system off the reefs.... 'The Bundesbank does not want to be blamed for making the same mistakes as central banks in Ireland and Spain where they did not address asset bubbles early enough,' said Bernhard Speyer from Deutsche Bank.... The German authorities are in effect preparing a form of quasi-monetary tightening to offset ECB largesse."

I keep noting that the third leg of the euro crisis, the trade imbalance between northern and Southern Europe, must be addressed or there is no real solution, just short-term Band-Aids. Ambrose's column goes on to note that Germany is hoping the rest of the world will do their job to provide a positive trade balance for peripheral Europe, all the while continuing its own massive surpluses. Unless and until the peripheral countries adopt their own currencies, the adjustment will be slow and painful, and the countries will be in recession for years, until wage costs (income to workers) drop by 30% relative to Germany. That is the ugly reality.

Wolfgang Munchau, writing in theFinancial Times, notes that even with the proposed increases in the European bailouts funds (the sources and variety of which are quite confusing, so let's look at them in the aggregate) there is not going to be enough for Spain:

"The current ESM is big enough to handle small countries, but not Spain. I expect Madrid eventually to apply for a programme, specifically to deal with the debt overhang of the Spanish financial sector. But even a minimally enlarged version of the ESM will not be big enough.

"What this stand-off tells us is that we are approaching the political limits of multilateral programmes. If you want to claim funds of such size, you need joint and several liability – ie all eurozone countries need to be jointly liable – not individual liability among member states. Call it a eurobond, call it what you like. If you do not want that either, then you have to accept that there is simply no backstop for Spain. As I said, welcome back to the crisis."

And Two More Leaked Documents

And also tonight, we get two leaked documents from today's meeting of the European finance ministers. (I am not certain why they keep trying to keep these documents secret, as the press typically gets them before the ministers do.)

The first document tells us that€1 trillion in ECB largesse is not enough and has simply calmed the storm. "Contagion may ... re-emerge at very short notice, as demonstrated only a few days ago, and re-launch the potentially perverse triangle between sovereign, bank funding risk and growth," one of the analyses, prepared by the EU's economic and finance committee and seen by the Financial Times, said.

From the Financial Times:

"The second document, which was prepared by the Commission, warned bluntly: 'The euro crisis is not over. Many of the underlying imbalances and weaknesses of the economies, banking sectors or sovereign borrowers remain to be addressed.'

"The paper argued the elements of the recent restoration of confidence – finalising a second Greek bailout, increasing the eurozone's rescue fund, EU-wide bank recapitalisation, new eurozone fiscal discipline rules, and efforts to pass policies to encourage growth – must be fully implemented or leaders risk losing their last chance to act.

" 'If this window of opportunity is not most effectively used ... we might have missed the last chance for a considerable amount of time,' the analysis said."

The Fat Lady Has Not Sung

As I wrote last week, I was at the Global Interdependence Center conference on central banking in Paris. It was the coming out of the GIC Global Society of Fellows, ably headed up by my friend Paul McCulley, formerly of PIMCO. David Kotok, who runs Cumberland Advisors (and who runs the annual August fishing trip in Maine) is the GIC vice-chair. He wrote a short note of his take-aways, and I found it striking and worth a few minutes of your time, as a few years ago he wrote a very bullish book on Europe. His candor, given that former view, is sobering. The rest of the letter is his:

Back from Paris
David Kotok

We are back from Paris. The head is filled with new info. For the publicly available portion of the conference, see the GIC website, www.interdependence.org. The remaining comments will be my personal "takeaways" from both public and private conversations. By Chatham House Rule and Jackson Hole Rule, these words are attributable only to me. All errors are mine.

1. In my view, the situation in Portugal is unraveling. This may be the second shoe to drop in the European sovereign debt saga. Now that Greece has paved the way, the speed of unwind with Portugal may be much faster. I do not believe the markets are prepared for that. Runs are affecting Portuguese banks. Euro deposits are shifting to other, safer countries and the banks that are in those countries. Germany (German banks) is the largest recipient. Remember, deposits in European banks are guaranteed by the national central banks and the national governments, not the ECB. There is no FDIC to insure deposits in the Eurozone.

2. The issue is that Greece was supposed to be "ring-fenced." Notice how European leaders have stopped using that word. Their new word is firewall. If a second country (Portugal) restructures, the sovereign debt issues become systemic rather than idiosyncratic. That becomes the second game-changer. Systemic risk needs big firewalls. We learned that the hard way with Lehman and AIG, which were systemic, vs. Countrywide and Bear Stearns, which were "ring-fenced" – or thought to be ring-fenced at the time.

3. A game-changer was the use (not threat) of the collective action clause by Greece. CAC altered the positions of the private sector. It rewrote a contract after the fact. That is why Portugal's credit spreads are wide: the private-sector holders of Portuguese debt know that a CAC can be used on them, too. The same is true for all European sovereign debt. A re-pricing of this CAC risk is underway.

4. Private holders of Greek debt had several years to get out before the eventual failure. Those that did not get out were crushed in the settlement. Greece is now a ward of governmental and global institutions like the ECB, IMF, and others. It is unlikely to have market access for years. This is another game-changer. In the old crisis days, the strategy was to regain market access quickly and restore private-sector involvement. In the new Eurozone-CAC crisis days, the concept is to crush the private-sector holders, and that means no market access for a long time. Instead, we will have ongoing and increasing sunk costs by governmental institutions. Caveat: government does not know how to cut losses and run. Government only knows how to run up small losses until they are huge. Witness Fannie Mae in the US. Witness the sequence that allowed Greece to fester for years. Government does not know how to take the "first loss," which is usually the smallest lost. Government does know how to run up moral hazard.

5. The term moral hazardmeans the action is done today and the price is determined later, after the chickens come home to roost and crap all over the coop. That is the nature of government everywhere. By the time the chickens return, the political leaders have changed. Those who took the moral hazard risk are gone. Those who inherited their mess are blamed during the cleanup. That is where we are today in Europe. Hence, the political risk is rising daily. Elections could change these governments, and the new governments may repudiate the actions of the old ones. We expect more strikes and unrest. That is how elections can be influenced.

6. European debt-crisis issues are lessons for the US. They belong in the political debate. Both political parties are responsible for our growing debt issues. Bush ran up huge deficits. Obama continued them. Each party blames the other. Neither takes on the responsibility of their actions. We shall see how this evolves between now and November.

I am more pessimistic about peripheral Europe than I have been. All that my co-author Vincenzo Sciarretta and I wrote in our book several years ago is now being reversed by policies. In the beginning, the Eurozone benefited immensely from economic integration and interest-rate convergence. Now it faces disintegration and divergence. Reverse the chapters in the book and play the film backwards.

Can Europe find a stabilizing level and resume growth? Time will tell. Meanwhile, political leaders and central bankers are going to be tested again.

This ain't over. Yogi is correct.

San Francisco, New York, and Philadelphia

It is time to hit the send button, but let me first mention a few important things. I have had a number of readers ask me about the skin care crème I mentioned a few times early last year. As many of you know, I acquired the rights to market a revolutionary new skin crème that contains skin stem cells, and that has showed very positive results. Bottom line, the product works as I said; but it was too much for us to take on and to remain focused on my main mission, which is research and writing about investments and economics. So I gave those rights back to the company, Lifeline Skin Care, a subsidiary of International Stem Cell Corporation.

I still use the crème every day. I also have heard from a LOT of readers who, like me, use it and love it. It does stimulate your skin to grow. Most of my readers may not be interested, but those who are you might look at the following link. Guys, your wives will love you. Trust me on this. And if you are like me, you will like the results as well. You can see a one-minute video of a TV news story and get all the details:http://www.lifelineskincare.com/ahead-of-the-curve.

I am off to San Francisco in a few hours to attend a conference on life extension, where I will catch up with my good friend Pat Cox and (editor of Breakthrough Technology Alert). Pat is introducing me to several biotech executives from the area, and I am going to one of the more important companies anywhere. I will also get to have lunch with Colonel Doner, an old friend and one of the great raconteurs. It is possible that we were separated at birth. I may also get to once again spend extended time with Dr. Mike West, the chairman of BioTime, which I consider to be one of the true leading lights in the rejuvenation world. Mike West has a handle on stem cell technology like none other.

Then it's back to Dallas for a night and then on to New York to speak at an Investorside independent research program cosponsored by Bloomberg. It is at the Bloomberg building on 59^th and Lexington. Attendance is limited. http://www.investorside.org/events/IndependentsDay2012_agenda.html

The next day I do some media spots in the morning, finish up with lunch with Barry Ritholtz, and then hop a plane back to Dallas.

It will be a full week, while trying to get the next book done. Have a great week and make sure you see some old friends who mean a lot.

Your fading fast, too far past midnight analyst,

John Mauldin

John@FrontlineThoughts.com

The Subprime Debacle: Act 2, Part 2

John Mauldin — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:26:00 GMT

The Subprime Debacle: Act 2, Part 2
They Knew What They Were Selling
Warning to Mr. Robert Rubin and Management
Popping Through
It's Time for Some Putback Payback
The Worst Deal of the Decade?
And Now to the World Series

At the end of last week's letter on the whole mortgage foreclosure mess, I wrote:

"All those subprime and Alt-A mortgages written in the middle of the last decade? They were packaged and sold in securities. They have had huge losses. But those securities had representations and warranties about what was in them. And guess what, the investment banks may have stretched credibility about those warranties. There is the real probability that the investment banks that sold them are going to have to buy them back. We are talking the potential for multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in losses that will have to be eaten by the large investment banks. We will get into details, but it could create the potential for some banks to have real problems."

Real problems indeed. Seems the Fed, PIMCO, and others are suing Countrywide over this very topic. We will go into detail later in this week's letter, covering the massive fraud involved in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Frankly, this is scandalous. It is almost too much to contemplate, but I will make an effort.

But first, let me acknowledge the huge deluge of emails I got over last week's letter, the most I can ever remember. I thought about just making this week's letter a response to many of them, but decided I needed to go ahead and finish the topic at hand. Maybe another time. As a side note, I quoted a letter that came to me anonymously via David Kotok. I said if I found out who wrote it, I would give them credit. It was originally written by Gonzalo Liro, at www.gonzalolira.blogspot.com.

Many of you wrote to point out that his argument about the tracking of title was not correct, but others pointed out many other issues as well. This is one of the most complex problems we face, and I got a lot of good information from readers. It just makes me wish I had our new web site finished so you could avail yourselves of the wisdom among my readers. We are close, down to final changes. And now, on to today's letter.

They Knew What They Were Selling

It's hard to know where to start. There is just so much here. So let's begin with testimony from Mr. Richard Bowen, former senior vice-president and business chief underwriter with CitiMortgage Inc. This was given to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Hearing on Subprime Lending andnd Securitization andnd Government Sponsored Enterprises. I am going to excerpt from his testimony, but you can read the whole thing (if you have a strong stomach) at http://fcic.gov/hearings/pdfs/2010-0407-Bowen.pdf. (Emphasis obviously mine.)

"The delegated flow channel purchased approximately $50 billion of prime mortgages annually. These mortgages were not underwriten by us before they were purchased. My Quality Assurance area was responsible for underwriting a small sample of the files post-purchase to ensure credit quality was maintained.

"These mortgages were sold to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac [We will come back to this - JM] and other investors. Although we did not underwrite these mortgages, Citi did rep and warrant to the investors that the mortgages were underwritten to Citi credit guidelines.

"In mid-2006 I discovered that over 60% of these mortgages purchased and sold were defective. Because Citi had given reps and warrants to the investors that the mortgages were not defective, the investors could force Citi to repurchase many billions of dollars of these defective assets. This situation represented a large potential risk to the shareholders of Citigroup.

"I started issuing warnings in June of 2006 and attempted to get management to address these critical risk issues. These warnings continued through 2007 and went to all levels of the Consumer Lending Group.

"We continued to purchase and sell to investors even larger volumes of mortgages through 2007. And defective mortgages increased during 2007 to over 80% of production."

Mr. Bowen was no young kid. He had 35 years of experience. He was the guy they hired to pay attention to the risks, and they ignored him. How could a senior manager not get such an email and not notify his boss, if only to protect his own ass? They had to have known what they were selling all the way up and down the ladder. But the music was playing and Chuck Prince said to dance and rake in the profits (and bonuses!). More from his testimony:

"Beginning in 2006 I issued many warnings to management concerning these practices, and specifically objected to the purchase of many identified pools. I believed that these practices exposed Citi to substantial risk of loss.

Warning to Mr. Robert Rubin and Management

"On November 3, 2007, I sent an email to Mr. Robert Rubin and three other members of Corporate Management... In this email I outlined the business practices that I had witnessed and attempted to address. I specifically warned about the extreme risks that existed within the Consumer Lending Group. And I warned that there were 'resulting significant but possibly unrecognized financial losses existing within Citigroup.'"

And now taxpayers own 75% of Citi, and our losses to them are huge. They are going to get worse, as we will see.

Now let's turn to the testimony of Keith Johnson, who worked for various mortgage companies and in 2006 became the president and chief operating officer of Clayton Holdings, the largest residential loan due diligence and securitization surveillance company in the United States and Europe. This is testimony he gave before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Part of the testimony is by his associate Vicki Beal, senior vice-president of Clayton. The transcript is some 277 pages long, so let me summarize.

Investment banks would come to Clayton and give then roughly 10% of the mortgages that they intended to buy and put into a security. Clayton rated them on whether the documentation was what it was supposed to be, not as to whether they thought it was a good loan. Still, 46% of the loans did not have proper documentation (out of a pool of 9 million loans) and 28% had what was determined to be level 3 disqualifications that simply had no mitigating circumstances. Understand, these were loans that were already written, and there was no effort to check the facts, just the documentation.

And ultimately 11% of these loans (39% of the level 3's) were put back in by the investment bank. And what happened to the loans that were rejected? (This might require an adult beverage and a few expletives deleted.)

Popping Through

They were put back into another pool, where again only 10% of the loans were examined. Quoting from the testimony:

"MR. JOHNSON: I think it goes to the 'three strikes, you're out' rule.

"CHAIRMAN ANGELIDES: So this was a case of - okay, three strikes.

"MR. JOHNSON: I've heard that even used. Try it once, try it twice, try it three times, and if you can't get it out, then put -

"CHAIRMAN ANGELIDES: Well, the odds are pretty good if you are sampling 5 to 10 percent that you'll pop through. When you said the good, the bad, the ugly, the ugly will pop through."

Yes, you read that right. If a loan was rejected a second time, it went back into yet another pool for a third try. The odds of coming up three times, when only 5 or 10 percent are sampled? About 1 in a thousand. Popping through, indeed.

Clayton presented their data to the ratings agencies, investment banks, and others in the industry. They were frustrated that no one was really paying attention or taking heed of their warnings.

Here is what Shahien Nasiripour, the business reporter for the Huffington Post, wrote (his emphasis). For those interested, the entire article is worth reading. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/25/wall-street-subprime-crisis_n_739294.html):

"Johnson told the crisis panel that he thought the firm's findings should have been disclosed to investors during this period. He added that he saw one European deal mention it, but nothing else.

"The firm's findings could have been 'material,' Johnson said, using a legal adjective that could determine cause or affect a judgment.

"It's unclear whether the firms ended up buying all of those loans, or whether Wall Street securitized them all and sold them off to investors.

"'Clayton generally does not know which or how many loans the client ultimately purchases,' Beal said. That likely will be the subject of litigation and investigations going forward.

"'This should have a phenomenal effect legally, both in terms of the ability of investors to force put-backs and to sue for fraud,' said Joshua Rosner, managing director at independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co.

"'Original buyers of these securities could sue for fraud; distressed investors, who buy assets on the cheap, could force issuers to take back the mortgages and swallow the losses.

"'I don't think people are really thinking about this,' Rosner said. 'This is not just errors and omissions - this appears to be fraud, especially if there is evidence to demonstrate that they went back and used the due diligence reports to justify paying lower prices for the loans, and did not inform the investors of that."

"Beal testified that Clayton's clients use the firm's reports to 'negotiate better prices on pools of loans they are considering for purchase,' among other uses.

"Nearly $1.7 trillion in securities backed by mortgages not guaranteed by the government were sold to investors during those 18 months, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Wall Street banks sold much of that. At its peak, the amount of outstanding so-called non-agency mortgage securities reached $2.3 trillion in June 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Less than $1.4 trillion remain as investors refused to buy new issuance and the mortgages underpinning existing securities were either paid off or written off as losses, Bloomberg data show.

"The potential for liability on the part of the issuer 'probably does give an investor more grounds for a lawsuit than they would ordinarily have', Cecala said. 'Generally, to go after an issuer you really have to prove that they knowingly did something wrong. This certainly seems to lend credibility to that argument.'

"'This appears to be a massive fraud perpetrated on the investing public on a scale never before seen,' Rosner added."

It's Time for Some Putback Payback

Investment banks large and small originated a lot of subprime garbage in the 2005-2007 era. This week PIMCO, Black Rock, Freddie Mac, the New York Fed, and - what I think is key and no one has picked up on - Neuberger Berman Europe, Ltd., an investment manager to a managed-account client, came together and sued Countrywide for not putting back bad mortgages to its parent, Bank of America. This is the first of what will be a series of suits aimed at getting control of the portfolio and peeking into the mortgages. (Text of lawsuit at http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/full-text-of-letter-to-bofa-from-ny-fed-maiden-lane-freddie-mac-pimco-western-asset-mgmt-neuberger-berman-kore-advisors/)

Basically, if buyers of 25% or more of a mortgage-backed security can come together, they have standing to sue the mortgage servicer to do its duty to the investors and make putbacks of bad mortgages, and if they fail to do so the plaintiffs can take control of the process and take the issuer to court directly (that's a very simplistic description but roughly accurate).

There are two key take-aways. First, note that a European entity is involved. Hundreds of billions of dollars of this junk was sold to European banks and funds. And these guys get together at conferences (sometimes they even invite me to speak). So Helmut will be talking to Lars who will talk to Jean Pierre and they will realize they all own some of this junk. They will be watching with very real interest to see how the big boys at PIMCO and Black Rock and the New York Fed fare in their efforts. And then you can count on them all piling on (more later on this).

Second, little noticed this week was the fact that The Litigation Daily wrote that Philippe Selendy of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has been retained by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to investigate billions of dollars in potential claims against banks and other issuers of mortgage-backed securities.

Who? Not on your celebrity list? Just wait. He will soon be getting the best tables everywhere. He and his firm are the guys representing MBIA in all their cases against Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. And they are kicking ass. Slowly to be sure, but very steady. That means Fannie and Freddie are getting ready to get serious.

They were sold well over $227 billion of the subprime garbage issued in 2006 and 2007. And the bad stuff started before then. But they have one advantage that the guys at PIMCO, et al. don't have: they (or actually the FHFA) are a federal agency. That means they have subpoena power. The agency has sent 64 subpoenas to issuers of mortgage-backed securities, and although they have not said who they went to, they obviously include almost everyone and clearly all the big players. (They couldn't have ignored Goldman, could they? Naah. Too obvious.)

From American Lawyer.com (I know, this website is probably already on your favorites list, but for those souls who actually have a life I provide the text):

"Through those subpoenas, the agency could gain access to the loan files for the mortgages that backed the securities it bought and thus establish whether the mortgages were what the issuers represented them to be in securities contracts. According to the Journal, the difficulty of obtaining loan files has been a big obstacle for investors trying to force issuers to repurchase bonds.

"If the FHFA were to decide down the road to initiate litigation, it would still have to have the support of a percentage (usually 25 percent) of its fellow bondholders for each issue. But given what the agency and its Quinn lawyers will be able to see before bringing suit, it probably won't be too hard to get other investors on the bandwagon." (http://www.quinnemanuel.com/media/183456/hurricane%20warnings%20fannie%20mae%20and%20freddie%20mac%20hire....pdf)

It is tough not to jump to the conclusion, but we need one more piece of the puzzle before we get there.

The Worst Deal of the Decade?

Arguably Bank of America had Merrill shoved down their throats, but no one can say that about the acquisition of Countrywide. And Countrywide could end up costing BAC $50 billion or more in losses. That may prove to be a serious candidate for worst deal of the decade. (Although WAMU is a leading candidate too!)

Let's look at a report by Branch Hill Capital, a hedge fund out of San Francisco. And before we start on it, let me point out they are short Bank of America. You can see the full PowerPoint at http://www.businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-mortgage-report-2010-10#-1.

(And let me say a big thanks to the author of the report, Manal Mehta, for all the background material he sent me and his help with this week's letter. It helped make it a lot better. Of course, any erroneous conclusions or outrageous statements are all mine.)

First, they point out that the potential size of Bank of America's (BAC) liabilities is $74 billion (with a B). And that is just for Countrywide. That does not include Merrill, which is also large. Against that they have set aside $3.9 billion. You can count on more suits than just the PIMCO, et al. mentioned above.

In the MBIA case, the judge has ruled that the suit can proceed even though BAC has denied responsibility. Although on appeal, this is high-stakes poker. Countrywide originated over $1.4 trillion of mortgages in 2005-2007. MBIA alleges that over 90% of the defaulted or delinquent loans in the Countrywide securitizations show material discrepancies. Care to take the under in the over/under bet on that?

Further to the case on BAC, Merrill was the largest originator of subprime CDOs during the housing boom, for another $120 billion, along with about $255 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities.

And then there are all those CDOs (collaterized debt obligations). Merrill did a lot of those that went sour. This deserves it own leter, but a gentleman named Wing Chau went from making $140k a year to $25 million in just a few years, putting together CDOs from Merrill, some of which were completely bankrupt in just six months.

Countrywide has already settled with the New York pension funds for $624 million, one of the largest securities fraud settlements in US history. And the line is growing longer.

Of course, BAC CEO Brian Moynihan denied this week that there is a problem. Let's look at Moynihan's statements at the last earnings call and compare them to what the judge in the case said earlier. Moynihan:

"... we execute repurchases on a loan by loan basis... And as we learn more, and again, our perspective on this - we're going to be quite diligent as I said in defending the interest of our shareholders. This really gets down to a loan-by-loan determination and we have, we believe, the resources to deploy against that kind of a review."

Back in June the judge on the case (a Judge Bransten) said (from the transcript):

"I think that it makes all the sense in the world that you can use a sample to prove the case because otherwise I can't imagine a jury listening to 386 thousand cases. Even if you have that available, nevertheless you are not going to present that to a jury or even to a judge. I'm patient but not that patient. So therefore it is going to be a sample in the end..."

OK, let me get this straight, Brian. Your company committed fraud, with robosignings and all the rest, and you won't man up and take responsibility? You and your lawyers want to thrash this out, case by case, fighting a trench-warfare, rear-guard action? Well I'm afraid that's not going to work out for you. There are so many examples of Countrywide outright fraud that it is going to be hard to convince a jury that BAC is not on the hook. Will it take years? Of course.

You can read the PowerPoint for details. Bottom line: BAC is probably liable for putbacks that could total over a hundred billion. And that is just BAC.

Think Citi. And any of the scores of mortgage originators and investment banks. There were a couple of trillion dollars in these securitizations issued. Plus how many hundred of billions of second-lien loans? And can we forget CDOs? And CDOs squared?

And let's not forget all those completely synthetic CDOs that were written at the height of the mania. Most of it AAA, of course. Frankly, anyone stupid enough to buy a synthetic CDO should lose their money, but that is not what the courts will base their decision on. It is all about representations and warranties. And maybe a little fraud.

I picked on BAC because that is the analysis I saw. But it could be any of dozens of banks. Look at this list from the Branch Hill PowerPoint.

Could we see a hundred billion in losses to the major banks? In my opinion we will for sure, over time. $200 billion? Probably. $300 billion? Maybe. $400 billion? It depends on how organized the investors in the securities get and what gets settled out of court. Out of a few trillion dollars in securitizations? It's anybody's guess. I just made mine.

But let's not forget the $227 billion sold to Fannie and Freddie. Taxpayers are on the hook for $300-400 billion in losses. Those putbacks could save us a lot. Will this threaten the viability of some banks? Maybe. But most will survive. BAC made $3 billion last quarter. A steep yield curve (with the help of the Fed) can cure a lot of evils. But it will absorb the profits of a lot of banks for a long time.

And that of course, will come back to haunt the rest of us as banks have to raise more capital and get more conservative.

Anyone who owns stocks in banks with relatively large MBS exposure is not investing, they are gambling that the losses will not be more than management is telling them. There will be no bailouts (at least I hope not) this time around. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. There will be little sympathy for shareholders or bondholders this time, if it comes to that.

One more sad point. The FDIC (read taxpayers) is liable for some of this, as they took over some of these institutions. It just keeps on coming.

Final rant. If you were part of a group that knowingly created or sold flawed and fraudulent mortgage-backed securities to pensions and insurance companies and took home tens of millions in bonuses, up and down the management chain, maybe you should consider moving yourself and your money to a country that does not honor US extradition, because my guess is that, as all this comes out, you may have to hire some very expensive lawyers and get measured for pinstripes.

And the Mozilo agreement was a sham. Sigh. That would be the equivalent of fining me $10,000 and letting me keep my tanning bed. I don't have the space to go into the fraud at Countrywide, but their internal documents show they all knew what was going on.

And Now to the World Series

Ok, it is past time to hit the send button. There may be a few more gaffs in this letter than normal. It is 2 AM. I admit I stopped writing to watch the Rangers beat the Yankees. You gotta have priorities. It is kind of bittersweet, as for 15 years I had an office in the Rangers Ballpark, where I could look out my window or walk onto my balcony to watch the games, often with friends. And the year I leave we get into the World Series! And now I find I will be in a mad scramble to get tickets, along with the rest of Texas, and I HAVE TO go to at least one game of a World Series. As do some of my kids. And friends.

I have to thank Barry Habib for letting me sit in the second row behind home plate, behind Mayor Bloomberg, for the Monday night Yankees-Rangers game, to watch Cliff Lee shut down the Yankees. What memories! I got to meet my favorite all-time musician, Paul Simon. And the Mayor was gracious enough to autograph a picture we took last year. And of course to I got to meet Nolan Ryan (and get a picture!), who had seats behind us. (Nolan, any chance you can sell me a lease for two days to my old office? It's still empty. You remember me, don't you? Your new best friend?)

There did not seem to be many Ranger fans at the game, unlike when the Yankees are in Texas, when half the crowd is wearing Yankees jerseys. But after that 9th inning, where we pasted them for 6 runs, the Yankee crowd left (even Barry), and so the few hundred Ranger fans stood out. It was a great night, sharing that moment. You have to understand, this franchise has been around 49 years without getting past the first round in the playoffs. We were 1-9 against the Yankees in the three times we even got to the first round. There were a lot of demons that were haunting this team.

And now we have Cliff Lee ready for three potential games. And what a story Colby Lewis is. And the Phillies and Giants both have superb pitching. It will be a great World Series. The good guys have a real shot at this. I intend to enjoy it.

I will be on Fox Business with Liz Claman on Monday at 3:30 Eastern, and at the Bank Credit Analyst Conference in NYC for the first of the week.

And you have a great week. Despite the financial issues we all face, it is the real part of life that makes it worthwhile. Family, friends and, every now and then, maybe a World Series.

Your tired but contented analyst,

John Mauldin

The Subprime Debacle: Act 2

John Mauldin — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 04:10:00 GMT

The Subprime Debacle: Act 2
Where is the Housing Recovery?
The Foreclosure Mess
Some Foreclosure Takeaways
Yankees, Rangers, and The Endgame

Trouble, oh we got trouble, Right here in River City!
With a capital "T" That rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool, That stands for pool.

We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City,
Right here! Gotta figger out a way
To keep the young ones moral after school!
Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...

- From The Music Man

(Quick last-minute note: I think this (and next week's) is/will be one of the more important letters I have written in the last ten years. Take the time to read, and if you agree send it on to friends and responsible parties. And note to new readers: this letter goes to 1.5 million of my closest friends. It is free. Now, let's jump in!)

There's trouble, my friends, and it is does indeed involve pool(s), but not in the pool hall. The real monster is hidden in those pools of subprime debt that have not gone away. When I first began writing and speaking about the coming subprime disaster, it was in late 2007 and early 2008. The subject was being dismissed in most polite circles. "The subprime problem," testified Ben Bernanke, "will be contained."

My early take? It would be a disaster for investors. I admit I did not see in January that it would bring down Lehman and trigger the worst banking crisis in 80 years, less than 18 months later. But it was clear that it would not be "contained." We had no idea.

I also said that it was going to create a monster legal battle down the road that would take years to develop. Well, in the fullness of time, those years have come nigh upon us. Today we briefly look at the housing market, then the mortgage foreclosure debacle, and then we go into the real problem lurking in the background. It is The Subprime Debacle, Act 2. It is NOT the mortgage foreclosure issue, as serious as that is. I seriously doubt it will be contained, as well. Could the confluence of a bank credit crisis in the US and a sovereign debt banking crisis in Europe lead to another full-blown world banking crisis? The potential is there. This situation wants some serious attention.

This letter is going to print a little longer. But I think it is important that you get a handle on this issue.

Where is the Housing Recovery?

We are going to quickly review a few charts from Gary Shilling's latest letter, where he review the housing market in depth. Bottom line, the housing market has not yet begun to recover, and it is not only going to take longer but the decline in prices may be greater than many have forecast. I wrote three years ago that it could be well into 2011 before we get to a "bottom." That may have been optimistic, given what we will cover in this letter.

First, existing and new single-family home sales continue to slide, in the wake of the tax rebate that ended earlier this year. We have declined back to the down-sloping trend line. If you are a seller, this is not a pretty picture.

The homebuilding industry, which was the source of so many jobs last decade (aka the good old days), is on its back. This country needs a healthy housing construction market to get back to lower unemployment, and until the overhang in the foreclosure market is cleared out, that is unlikely to happen.

Lending is tighter, as is reasonable. Banks actually expect you to have the ability to pay back the mortgage you take out (solid FICO scores) and want reasonable down payments. Only 47% of applicants have the FICO score to get the best mortgage rates.

(Sidebar: Gary writes, "Furthermore, false appraisals rose 50% in 2009 from 2008. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers cost taxpayers about $15 billion, twice the official forecast, in part due to fraud. Over 19,000 tax filers claimed the credit but didn't buy houses, while 74,000 who claimed $500 million in refunds already owned homes." Where are the regulators?)

Shilling thinks prices are likely to fall another 20%. Given what I am writing about in the next section, that is a possibility. There is certainly no demand pressure to push up housing prices.

Finally, two charts on foreclosures. Residential mortgages in foreclosure are near all-time highs, close to 1 in 21 of all mortgages, up from 1 in 100 just four years ago. That's got to be bad for your profit models.

Anyone who tells you the housing problem is "bottoming" either has an agenda or simply does not pay attention to the data. I really want to see housing bottom and then turn around and the home builders come back; the nation desperately needs the jobs. But my job is to be realistic. When we see 3-4 months of non-stimulus-induced housing sales growth, then we can start talking about bottoms.

But housing sales are not really the issue. Let's look at the next leg of the problem.

The Foreclosure Mess

OK, in a serendipitous moment, Maine fishing buddy David Kotok sent me this email on the mortgage foreclosure crisis just as I was getting ready to write much the same thing. It is about the best thing I have read on the topic. Saves me some time and you get a better explanation. From Kotok:

"Dear Readers, this text came to me in an email from sources that are in the financial services business and with whom I have a personal relationship. The original text was laced with expletives and I would not use it in the form I received it. Therefore the text below has had some substantial editing in order to remove that language. The intentions of the writer are undisturbed. The writer shall remain anonymous. This text echoes some of the news items we have seen and heard today; however, it can serve as a plain language description of the present foreclosure-suspension mess. There is a lot here. It takes about ten minutes to read it. - David Kotok (www.cumber.com)

"Homeowners can only be foreclosed and evicted from their homes by the person or institution who actually has the loan paper...only the note-holder has legal standing to ask a court to foreclose and evict. Not the mortgage, the note, which is the actual IOU that people sign, promising to pay back the mortgage loan

"Before mortgage-backed securities, most mortgage loans were issued by the local savings & loan. So the note usually didn't go anywhere: it stayed in the offices of the S&L down the street.

"But once mortgage loan securitization happened, things got sloppy...they got sloppy by the very nature of mortgage-backed securities.

"The whole purpose of MBSs was for different investors to have their different risk appetites satiated with different bonds. Some bond customers wanted super-safe bonds with low returns, some others wanted riskier bonds with correspondingly higher rates of return.

"Therefore, as everyone knows, the loans were 'bundled' into REMICs (Real-Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, a special vehicle designed to hold the loans for tax purposes), and then "sliced & diced"...split up and put into tranches, according to their likelihood of default, their interest rates, and other characteristics.

"This slicing and dicing created 'senior tranches,' where the loans would likely be paid in full, if the past history of mortgage loan statistics was to be believed. And it also created 'junior tranches,' where the loans might well default, again according to past history and statistics. (A whole range of tranches was created, of course, but for the purposes of this discussion we can ignore all those countless other variations.)

"These various tranches were sold to different investors, according to their risk appetite. That's why some of the MBS bonds were rated as safe as Treasury bonds, and others were rated by the ratings agencies as risky as junk bonds.

"But here's the key issue: When an MBS was first created, all the mortgages were pristine...none had defaulted yet, because they were all brand-new loans. Statistically, some would default and some others would be paid back in full...but which ones specifically would default? No one knew, of course. If I toss a coin 1,000 times, statistically, 500 tosses the coin will land heads...but what will the result be of, say, the 723rd toss? No one knows.

"Same with mortgages.

"So in fact, it wasn't that the riskier loans were in junior tranches and the safer ones were in senior tranches: rather, all the loans were in the REMIC, and if and when a mortgage in a given bundle of mortgages defaulted, the junior tranche holders would take the losses first, and the senior tranche holder last.

"But who were the owners of the junior-tranche bond and the senior-tranche bonds? Two different people. Therefore, the mortgage note was not actually signed over to the bond holder. In fact, it couldn't be signed over. Because, again, since no one knew which mortgage would default first, it was impossible to assign a specific mortgage to a specific bond.

"Therefore, how to make sure the safe mortgage loan stayed with the safe MBS tranche, and the risky and/or defaulting mortgage went to the riskier tranche?

"Enter stage right the famed MERS...the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.

"MERS was the repository of these digitized mortgage notes that the banks originated from the actual mortgage loans signed by homebuyers. MERS was jointly owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (yes, those two again ...I know, I know: like the chlamydia and the gonorrhea of the financial world...you cure 'em, but they just keep coming back).

"The purpose of MERS was to help in the securitization process. Basically, MERS directed defaulting mortgages to the appropriate tranches of mortgage bonds. MERS was essentially where the digitized mortgage notes were sliced and diced and rearranged so as to create the mortgage-backed securities. Think of MERS as Dr. Frankenstein's operating table, where the beast got put together.

"However, legally...and this is the important part...MERS didn't hold any mortgage notes: the true owner of the mortgage notes should have been the REMICs.

"But the REMICs didn't own the notes either, because of a fluke of the ratings agencies: the REMICs had to be "bankruptcy remote," in order to get the precious ratings needed to peddle mortgage-backed Securities to institutional investors.

"So somewhere between the REMICs and MERS, the chain of title was broken.

"Now, what does 'broken chain of title' mean? Simple: when a homebuyer signs a mortgage, the key document is the note. As I said before, it's the actual IOU. In order for the mortgage note to be sold or transferred to someone else (and therefore turned into a mortgage-backed security), this document has to be physically endorsed to the next person. All of these signatures on the note are called the 'chain of title.'

"You can endorse the note as many times as you please...but you have to have a clear chain of title right on the actual note: I sold the note to Moe, who sold it to Larry, who sold it to Curly, and all our notarized signatures are actually, physically, on the note, one after the other.

"If for whatever reason any of these signatures is skipped, then the chain of title is said to be broken. Therefore, legally, the mortgage note is no longer valid. That is, the person who took out the mortgage loan to pay for the house no longer owes the loan, because he no longer knows whom to pay.

"To repeat: if the chain of title of the note is broken, then the borrower no longer owes any money on the loan.

"Read that last sentence again, please. Don't worry, I'll wait.

"You read it again? Good: Now you see the can of worms that's opening up.

"The broken chain of title might not have been an issue if there hadn't been an unusual number of foreclosures. Before the housing bubble collapse, the people who defaulted on their mortgages wouldn't have bothered to check to see that the paperwork was in order.

"But as everyone knows, following the housing collapse of 2007-'10-and-counting, there has been a boatload of foreclosures...and foreclosures on a lot of people who weren't sloppy bums who skipped out on their mortgage payments, but smart and cautious people who got squeezed by circumstances.

"These people started contesting their foreclosures and evictions, and so started looking into the chain-of-title issue, and that's when the paperwork became important. So the chain of title became crucial and the botched paperwork became a nontrivial issue.

"Now, the banks had hired 'foreclosure mills'...law firms that specialized in foreclosures...in order to handle the massive volume of foreclosures and evictions that occurred because of the housing crisis. The foreclosure mills, as one would expect, were the first to spot the broken chain of titles.

"Well, what do you know, it turns out that these foreclosure mills might have faked and falsified documentation, so as to fraudulently repair the chain-of-title issue, thereby 'proving' that the banks had judicial standing to foreclose on delinquent mortgages. These foreclosure mills might have even forged the loan note itself...

"Wait, why am I hedging? The foreclosure mills did actually, deliberately, and categorically fake and falsify documents, in order to expedite these foreclosures and evictions. Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism, who has been all over this story, put up a price list for this 'service' from a company called DocX...yes, a price list for forged documents. Talk about your one-stop shopping!

"So in other words, a massive fraud was carried out, with the inevitable innocent bystanders getting caught up in the fraud: the guy who got foreclosed and evicted from his home in Florida, even though he didn't actually have a mortgage, and in fact owned his house free -and clear. The family that was foreclosed and evicted, even though they had a perfect mortgage payment record. Et cetera, depressing et cetera.

"Now, the reason this all came to light is not because too many people were getting screwed by the banks or the government or someone with some power saw what was going on and decided to put a stop to it...that would have been nice, to see a shining knight in armor, riding on a white horse.

"But that's not how America works nowadays.

"No, alarm bells started going off when the title insurance companies started to refuse to insure the titles.

"In every sale, a title insurance company insures that the title is free -and clear ...that the prospective buyer is in fact buying a properly vetted house, with its title issues all in order. Title insurance companies stopped providing their service because...of course...they didn't want to expose themselves to the risk that the chain of title had been broken, and that the bank had illegally foreclosed on the previous owner.

"That's when things started getting interesting: that's when the attorneys general of various states started snooping around and making noises (elections are coming up, after all).

"The fact that Ally Financial (formerly GMAC), JP Morgan Chase, and now Bank of America have suspended foreclosures signals that this is a serious problem...obviously. Banks that size, with that much exposure to foreclosed properties, don't suspend foreclosures just because they're good corporate citizens who want to do the right thing, and who have all their paperwork in strict order...they're halting their foreclosures for a reason.

"The move by the United States Congress last week, to sneak by the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act? That was all the banking lobby. They wanted to shove down that law, so that their foreclosure mills' forged and fraudulent documents would not be scrutinized by out-of-state judges. (The spineless cowards in the Senate carried out their master's will by a voice vote...so that there would be no registry of who had voted for it, and therefore no accountability.)

"And President Obama's pocket veto of the measure? He had to veto it...if he'd signed it, there would have been political hell to pay, plus it would have been challenged almost immediately, and likely overturned as unconstitutional in short order. (But he didn't have the gumption to come right out and veto it...he pocket vetoed it.)

"As soon as the White House announced the pocket veto...the very next day!...Bank of America halted all foreclosures, nationwide.

"Why do you think that happened? Because the banks are in trouble...again. Over the same thing as last time...the damned mortgage-backed securities!

"The reason the banks are in the tank again is, if they've been foreclosing on people they didn't have the legal right to foreclose on, then those people have the right to get their houses back. And the people who bought those foreclosed houses from the bank might not actually own the houses they paid for.

"And it won't matter if a particular case...or even most cases...were on the up -and up: It won't matter if most of the foreclosures and evictions were truly due to the homeowner failing to pay his mortgage. The fraud committed by the foreclosure mills casts enough doubt that, now, all foreclosures come into question. Not only that, all mortgages come into question.

"People still haven't figured out what all this means. But I'll tell you: if enough mortgage-paying homeowners realize that they may be able to get out of their mortgage loans and keep their houses, scott-free? That's basically a license to halt payments right now, thank you. That's basically a license to tell the banks to take a hike.

"What are the banks going to do...try to foreclose and then evict you? Show me the paper, Mr. Banker, will be all you need to say.

"This is a major, major crisis. The Lehman bankruptcy could be a spring rain compared to this hurricane. And if this isn't handled right...and handled right quick, in the next couple of weeks at the outside...this crisis could also spell the end of the mortgage business altogether. Of banking altogether. Hell, of civil society. What do you think happens in a country when the citizens realize they don't need to pay their debts?"

(I am not sure who wrote this, but if you want your 15 minutes of fame, I will be glad to credit you next week. - John)

Some Foreclosure Takeaways

Let me add a few thoughts. First, I agree, this is very serious. It has the possibility of seriously hurting the housing market, which as we saw in the first section is already on the ropes. But at the end of the day, there is a cure.

Someone borrowed money for a mortgage. Some entity is cashing a check if that person is paying. That entity should have the title until it is paid off. If someone is not making their mortgage payments, they should be removed from the house and it should be sold to the benefit of the ultimately correct and what everyone thought was the proper title holder.

If you took out a mortgage and now the title is in some doubt because the investment banks and mortgage banks and all the middle guys screwed up (big-time!) because they wanted to save some bucks and make some commissions, you did not win the lottery. That is not America as I know it. You can't pay the mortgage, I am sorry. But you do not get to keep the house. The people who (thought) they bought the mortgage in a fair deal need to end up with that mortgage.

If you pay your mortgage, you get to have the American Dream.

We CANNOT allow this debacle to continue. It will bring the system down. Who will want to buy a mortgage that is in a securitized package with no clear title? Who will get title insurance? Some judge somewhere is going to make a ruling that is going to petrify every title company, and the whole thing grinds to a halt.

Let's be very clear. If we cannot securitize mortgages, there is no mortgage market. We cannot go back to where lenders warehoused the notes. It would take a decade to build that infrastructure. In the meantime, housing prices are devastated. Whatever wealth effect remains from housing gets worse, and the economy rolls over.

This is beyond my pay grade, but there have to be some adults who can make everyone play nice in the sandbox. Ideally, someone in authority at the Treasury, with bipartisan support steps in and says everyone follow these rules, whatever these rules need to be.

I had a very spirited conversation with good friend Barry Ritholtz today (of The Big Picture). Barry runs money but is also a lawyer and has a somewhat different perspective. He thinks we do not need any legislation and there is a legal cure. He says that real trained people (lawyers and paralegals) need to look at each mortgage and figure it out, and that it can get resolved. It is expensive to the banks; but I agree, if it is just dollars I don't care. Fix it.

But that is a maybe. Other people I talk to disagree. Some think we need some regulatory fixes. Some think we will need a legislative cure. But if we need to, there need be no finger pointing, no partisan BS. This needs to get solved.

Someone took out a mortgage. Some entity thinks they are owed money. Fix the damn paper trail so that happens, whether in a legal if time-consuming manner, in a regulatory fix, or with legislation.

Now, that is not to say the people who did this stuff did not commit felonies and such. We can sort that out over time. The longer we wait the worse it will get. Fix the problem and then go round up the bad guys. There are bigger issues in play here. (I know this will be somewhat controversial. Oh well.)

I get the fraud being done here. I am regulated by FINRA, the NFA, various states, the British FSA, and ultimately the SEC. If I did something in my business like the stuff described above, someone would come in and justifiably shut me down, fine me, and ban me from the securities business. Oh, wait. These guys ARE regulated by the above groups.

Finally on this topic, I shake my head when I think that the FDIC is now running several of the banks (think IndyMac) that are part of this foreclosure crisis. These are the guys who are supposed to be preventing something like this. Again, where are the adults?

The Subprime Debacle: Act 2

OK, this letter is already getting too long. I am going to finish it next week, as the next topic needs a lengthy treatment. But I will not leave you hanging. A quick preview.

All those subprime and Alt-A mortgages written in the middle of the last decade? They were packaged and sold in securities. They have had huge losses. But those securities had representations and warranties about what was in them. And guess what, the investment banks may have stretched credibility about those warranties. There is the real probability that the investment banks that sold them are going to have to buy them back. We are talking the potential for multiple hundreds of billions of dollars in losses that will have to be eaten by the large investment banks. We will get into details, but it could create the potential for some banks to have real problems.

And all this coming as European banks are going to have to sort out their own sovereign debt problems. Shades of 2008. I hope I am wrong, but it's all connected.

Yankees, Rangers, and The Endgame

I travel on Monday to New York, where good friend Barry Habib is going to take me to the Yankees-Rangers game. I will be the guy on the second row behind home plate, behind the mayor, wearing the Rangers jacket. Barry assures me I will be safe. Cliff Lee pitching. Can the Rangers hold up to the pressure against the best there is? Stay tuned.

My book, The End Game, is coming along. It is out for comments from friends, and then I will sit down with my co-author in London for four days and we will finish this the first week of November, and then Wiley will push as fast as they can to get it out.

This has been a very tumultuous week for a host of reasons. It's all good, but exhausting. I am more than ready to hit the send button. I just turned on the TV to watch the last few innings. The Rangers have gone from up 5 to zip to losing 6-5. Can we say disheartening?

Your really wanting to see a World Series analyst,

John Mauldin

Pushing on a String

John Mauldin — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 03:09:00 GMT

Pushing on a String
Let's Shift the Focus
An Invitation to an Inflation Party
Ten Years and Counting

This week the Fed altered their end-of-meeting statement by just a few words, but those words have a lot of meaning. It seems they are paving the way to a new round of quantitative easing (QE2), if in their opinion the situation warrants it. A trillion dollars of new money could soon be injected into the system. Tonight we explore some of the implications of a new round of QE. Let's put our speculation hats on, gentle reader, as we are moving into uncharted territory. There are no maps, just theories, and they don't all agree. (Note: this letter may print a little long, as there are a lot of charts.)

But first, as a reminder, next Wednesday, September 29 (9:00 AM PST/12:00 PM EST), I will be doing a special "webinar" with Jon Sundt, President & CEO of Altegris Investments, where we'll discuss the forces that are shaping today's economy and their potential influence on financial markets (the very things I write about in this week's letter and in my new book!). This is an excellent opportunity to learn about alternative investment strategies designed to provide noncorrelated diversification for your investment portfolio in the "new normal" economy. We'll set aside a lot of time to answer your questions.

A replay of the call will be available for two weeks starting Thursday, September 30, for registered participants only. Even if you can't make it at this specific time, I recommend you still register so you can listen to the replay at your convenience after the event.

You can register by going to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and signing up for my free accredited letter, and a representative from Altegris will call you to give you the details. Sadly, this is available only to accredited investors ($1.5 million net worth and up) and/or registered financial professionals, due to current regulations. I will be giving a preview of the conclusions from my new book, The End Game, which I think you will find interesting. (In this regard, I am president and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.)

Let's Shift the Focus

The Fed issued the usual statement at the end of their meeting this week, and Fed watchers poured over the words, looking carefully for any sign of change in Fed policy. The consensus seems to be that the most important change was the statement concerning inflation, the first such change in over a year.

"Measures of inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability."

The next (and only other real) change was:

"The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate." (my emphasis)

Translation: inflation may be getting too low, but don't worry, we are on the job.

One of my laugh lines in my speeches (I don't have that many) is: "When you are appointed to the Federal Reserve they take you into a back room and do a DNA change on you. After that, you are viscerally and genetically opposed to deflation."

Bernanke made his famous helicopter speech about not allowing deflation to happen back in 2002. He happily assured us that the Fed has many tools to fight deflation and that it won't happen here. Of course, he also told us the subprime problem would be contained, but I am sure that we have to give him a bit of slack - we all miss a few, including your humble analyst. (Well, I didn't miss the subprime thingie. Nailed that one.)

Anyway, the Fed seems to be setting us up for another round of quantitative easing. That is Fed speak for buying a few trillion or so dollars of government debt and injecting said cash into the economy.

Before we get into the wisdom of such a move, let's look at what might prompt them to do so. This is where we get into speculation.

Recessions are by definition deflationary, but if we go into recession when inflation is already as low as it is, the Fed will be behind the curve. But telling us they are going to start easing because they are worried about a recession is not a good recipe for a positive market reaction.

So? Why not just say that they are worried about the lack of inflation, "at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability." That way they are not fighting a weak economy but rather something that everyone understands, i.e., deflation.

I agree with David Greenlaw from Morgan Stanley. He writes:

"Growth data still take precedence. The change in the inflation language, while important, does not, in our view, signal an elevated emphasis on the incoming inflation data itself as a possible trigger for asset purchases. To be sure, the inflation data do matter, but the growth indicators matter more because, from the Fed's perspective, the pace of growth in economic activity is a leading indicator of inflation. Here is a key excerpt from Bernanke's Jackson Hole speech that helps explain the perceived link between growth and inflation:

" '...the FOMC will do all that it can to ensure continuation of the economic recovery. Consistent with our mandate, the Federal Reserve is committed to promoting growth in employment and reducing resource slack more generally. Because a further significant weakening in the economic outlook would likely be associated with further disinflation, in the current environment there is little or no potential conflict between the goals of supporting growth and employment and of maintaining price stability.' " (emphasis added)

The key driver for whether the Fed enters into another round of quantitative easing, likely to be in the trillions, is the growth in the US economy. If we are above 1.5-2%, I think they will hesitate, for reasons I go into below. If we drop below 1% and it looks like we are getting weaker, then they are likely to act. A slide into recession would bring about deflation. As noted, they are viscerally opposed to deflation.

An Invitation to an Inflation Party

The question in my mind is whether a few trillion dollars spent purchasing government debt would do the trick. What if they sent out invitations to an inflation party and nobody came? Let's look at some data points.

The Fed purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage assets last year. The theory was that injecting money into the economy would cause banks to take that money and lend it, jump-starting the economy and bringing us back into a normal recovery. Let's see how the lending part went. Here are a few graphs from the St. Louis Fed FRED database.

The first is "Bank Credit of All Commercial Banks." Please note that the straight upward line in the middle of 2010 is an accounting change. Without that the trend would still be down.

Then we have "Total Consumer Credit Outstanding." That had been growing steadily for 65 years until this last recession.

Next we have "Commercial and Industrial Loans at All Commercial Banks."

We could look at total residential mortgages (down); credit card debt (down); and commercial mortgages (down). The list goes on.

Sidebar from Greg Weldon:

"Also, the value of Commercial Property Loans classified as Special Servicing (restructured and-or- extended) rose to a NEW HIGH, pegged at 11.74% of all CMBS, as evidenced in the chart below."

No wonder commercial mortgages are down.

So, what happened to the trillion-plus dollars? It doesn't look like it went into bank lending. As it turns out, it went back onto the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve. Banks put it back into the Fed. There are several ways you can measure this with the FRED database, but one way is to look at "Reserve Balances with Federal Reserve Banks, Not Adjusted for Changes in Reserve Requirements."

If banks are not lending now, with what seems like lots of reserves, then what is to make us think that another $2 trillion in QE will make them feel like they have too much money in their vaults?

If it is because they don't have enough capital, then adding liquidity to the system will not help that. If it is because they don't feel they have creditworthy customers, do we really want banks to lower their standards? Isn't that what got us into trouble last time? If it is because businesses don't want to borrow all that much because of the uncertain times, will easy money make that any better? As someone said, "I don't need more credit, I just need more customers."

How much of an impact would $2 trillion in QE give us? Not much, according to former Fed governor Larry Meyer, who, according to Morgan Stanley, "...maintains a large-scale macro-econometric model of the US economy that is widely used in the private sector and in public policy-making circles. These types of models are good for running 'what if?' simulations. Meyer estimates that a $2 trillion asset purchase program would: 1) lower Treasury yields by 50bp; 2) increase GDP growth by 0.3pp in 2011 and 0.4pp in 2012; and 3) lower the unemployment rate by 0.3pp by the end of 2011 and 0.5pp by the end of 2012. However, Meyer admits that these may be 'high-end estimates'.

"Some probability of a resumption of asset purchases is already priced in, and thus a full 50bp response in Treasuries is unlikely. Moreover, a model such as Meyer's is based on normal historical relationships and therefore assumes that the typical transmission mechanisms are working. For example, a drop in Treasury yields would lower borrowing costs for consumers and businesses, helping to stimulate consumption, business investment and housing. But there is good reason to believe that the transmission mechanism is at least partially broken at present, and thus the pass-through benefit to the economy associated with a small decline in Treasury yields (relative to current levels) would likely be infinitesimal." (Morgan Stanley)

That is not much bang for the buck, so to speak, but it would be pointing a gun with a very big bang at the valuation of the dollar. If QE were attempted on that scale, it would not be good for the dollar. My call for the pound and the euro to go to parity with the dollar would be out the window for some time, and maybe for good.

Now, if the strategy is to lower the dollar, then QE might make some sense; but of course no one would admit to that, not when we are accusing other countries of manipulating their currencies (as in China). No, we would just be fighting deflation. The fact that the dollar dropped would just be a coincidence, a necessary but sad thing in the important fight against deflation. (Please note tongue firmly in cheek. Not you, of course, but some other readers sometimes miss my sarcasm.)

Of course, not all agree that a lower dollar would necessarily be a bad thing. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in the London Telegraph, concludes a column in where he notes that there is a lot of opposition to QE2 from some fairly significant economic luminaries, and that:

"Dr Bernanke said in November 2002 that Japan had the economic instruments to pull itself out of malaise but failed to do so. 'Political deadlock' and a cacophony of views over the right policy had prevented action. He insisted that a central bank had 'most definitely' not run out of ammo once rates were zero, and retained 'considerable power to expand economic activity'.

"Yet eight years later, the US is in such 'deadlock'. Worse, Fed officials now say 'the ball is in the fiscal court', arguing that budget policy should do more to 'complement' the Fed's existing stimulus. Oh no!

"This is the worst possible prescription. What is needed is fiscal austerity (slowly) before debt spirals out of control, offset by easy money or real QE for as long as it takes. This formula rescued Britain from disaster in 1931-1933 and 1992-1994.

"Damn the rest of the world if they object. They have been free-loading off US demand for too long. A weaker dollar will force the mercantilists to face some hard truths. So keep those helicopters well-oiled and on standby."

Hmmmm. If everyone else wants to devalue their currency, should we play along? Can you say buy some more gold?

But back to the inflation party invitation. If the economy is recovering, QE is not needed. Note that the US economy in the current quarter may be doing better than last. And if you looked at the bank lending charts I presented above, an optimist could note that it looks like we might be seeing a bottom forming and even some increase in lending. Perhaps we have turned the corner. Again, the banks have plenty of reserves, so another $2 trillion is not needed.

But what if they went ahead and threw $1-2 trillion against the wall? If it showed up back at the Federal Reserve, it would only serve to show that the Fed does not have the tools it needs, or would have to be really willing to monetize debt. It would be Keynes' "liquidity trap" or what Fisher called debt deflation. Neither are good.

That's called pushing on a string. If the markets sensed that, it would not be pretty.

The Fed has been buying government debt for several months, taking the money from the mortgages that are being amortized and buying the debt. Let's maybe see how that works out before we bring out the big guns. Just a thought.

I agree with Allan Meltzer, a historian of the US central bank:

" 'We don't have a monetary problem, we have 1 trillion or more in excess reserves, so it's literally stupid to say we're going to add another trillion to that,' Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said today in an interview on Bloomberg Television's 'InBusiness With Margaret Brennan.'

" 'One of the major mistakes that the Fed makes all the time is too much concentration on the short-term,' said Meltzer, author of a history of the Fed. 'Aiming at that is just a fool's game.' " (Business Week)

That being said, we live in a world where we need to act in terms of what will be rather than what should be. And if the economy continues to weaken, I think it is likely the Fed will act preemptively and start QE2. So the next few months of economic data are very important.

And even more important is whether Congress will extend the Bush tax cuts at least until the economy is growing respectably, when they come back for the lame duck session in November. Not extending them would be a policy mistake bigger than QE2, and might force even more precipitous action. We do live in interesting times.

Ten Years and Counting

Ten years ago I started this letter online with about 2,000 email addresses. Now the letter goes to over 1.5 million of my closest friends and is still growing. It is on dozens of web sites and is quoted everywhere. I have to admit to be somewhat overwhelmed by it all. I had literally no idea when I put that first letter on the Internet that it would become what it has. Of course, I made the lucky decision back then to make it free, when there were not that many free letters, so people sent it to their friends, who subscribed.

Every letter since the beginning of 2001 is in our archives. Good, bad, or indifferent, they are all there, just as they were sent out. I sometimes wish I could edit a few sentences here or there (what was I thinking?!?!?), but we made the decision early on to just let the chips fall where they may.

It wasn't long after that that Tiffani came to work for me (temporarily, we thought). She literally started in a closet, filing and doing data entry. Now she runs the businesses and Dad just reads and writes and does a little traveling and speaking, and from time to time finds a few new opportunities for her to add to her growing list.

And I have to mention my business partners around the world who have helped me create a dream job that gives me a comfortable lifestyle while having more fun than any one man should have. Jon Sundt and the team at Altegris, Steven Blumenthal at CMG, Niels Jensen and his team at Absolute Return Partners, Prieur du Plessis (and Paul Stewart) in South Africa, Enrique Fynn in South America, and John Nicola in Canada. Thanks so much. And of course this whole letter would not be possible without my great friend and publisher Mike Casson.

The last ten years have been a great ride, but the next ten are going to be even better. We will be launching several new web sites in the next few weeks, and reworking our old ones with total makeovers. There will be a forum where you can respond to this letter and talk with each other. I will respond to questions. We will soon be introducing audio podcasts ("The Mauldin Minute") and, when I get the concept down, go to video. Some new subscription services, too. And a much easier and better way to find alternative investments that have the potential to work for you in this crazy economic environment. We are excited.

But the letter will stay the same. It is just you, me, and a few other of my closest friends sharing a few thoughts every weekend. At the end of the day, it is you, gentle reader, who is the reason for the growth of this letter. Your kind words and persistence in forwarding to your friends have been the reason for whatever success there has been. I am grateful and humbled.

There is not a week that goes by that I do not acknowledge my great debt to you. My most sincere thanks. I will do my best to continue to deserve your valuable time that we share each week.

And now it is time to hit the send button. Eight cities in seven countries in nine days (ten planes!) have left me a little tired. I think I will rest a great deal this weekend, although I will spend some time editing my book. We are getting close. I am ready to be finished, but it has to be right. Have a great week.

Your ready to be in his own bed for a week analyst,

John Mauldin

The Chances of a Double Dip

John Mauldin — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:39:00 GMT

The Chances of a Double Dip
Houston, My Book, and New York

I am on a plane (yet again) from Zurich to Mallorca, where I will meet with my European and South American partners, have some fun, and relax before heading to Denmark and London. With the mad rush to finish my book (more on that later) and a hectic schedule this week, I have not had time to write a letter. But never fear, I leave you in the best of hands. Dr. Gary Shilling graciously agreed to condense his September letter, where he looks at the risk of another recession in the US.

I look forward at the beginning of each month to getting Gary's latest letter. I often print it out and walk away from my desk to spend some quality time reading his thoughts. He is one of my "must-read" analysts. I always learn something quite useful and insightful. I am grateful that he has let me share this with you.

If you are interested in getting his letter, his website is down being redesigned, 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 Thoughts from the Frontline, and you will get an extra one month on your subscription. And now, let turn to Gary.

The Chances of a Double Dip

By Gary Shilling

Investor attitudes have reversed abruptly in recent months. As late as last March, most translated the year-long robust rise in stocks, foreign currencies, commodities and the weakness in Treasury bonds that had commenced a year earlier into robust economic growth - the "V" recovery.

As a result, investors early this year believed that rapid job creation and the restoration of consumer confidence would spur retail spending. They also saw the housing sector's evidence of stabilization giving way to revival, and strong export growth also propelling the economy. Capital spending, led by high tech, was another area of strength, many believed.

Not So Fast

But a funny, or not so funny, thing happened on the way to super-charged, capacity-straining growth. In April, investors began to realize that the eurozone financial crisis, which had been heralded at the beginning of the year by the decline in the euro, was a serious threat to global growth. Stocks retreated (Chart 1 ), commodities fell and Treasury bonds rallied and the dollar rose. It is, after all, just one big trade among these four markets, so their correlated actions on the down as well as the up side aren't surprising.

Furthermore, investors began to worry about the health of the U.S. economy and the prospects for a second dip in the Great Recession that started in December 2007. The gigantic 2009 fiscal stimuli of close to $1 trillion was running out, threatening a relapse in an economy that was running on government life support. The $8,000 tax rebate for new home buyers was expiring April 30 and might be followed by a drop in house sales as had its predecessor that expired in November 2009 as the spike in activity early this year only borrowed from future sales. The outlook for exports had turned negative with the robust buck, sagging European economies and the current "stop" phase of China's "stop-go" monetary and fiscal policies. With unemployment remaining high last spring, investors began to fret that consumer spending would falter as fiscal stimuli was exhausted.

Deleveraging

Although investor views of the economy have reversed in the last five months, the reality probably hasn't. The good life and rapid growth that started in the early 1980s was fueled by massive financial leveraging and excessive debt, first in the global financial sector, starting in the 1970s and in the early 1980s among U.S. consumers. That leverage propelled the dot com stock bubble in the late 1990s and then the housing bubble. But now those two sectors are being forced to delever and in the process are transferring their debts to governments and central banks.

This deleveraging will probably take a decade or more - and that's the good news. The ground to cover is so great that if it were traversed in a year or two, major economies would experience depressions worse than in the 1930s. This deleveraging and other forces will result in slow economic growth and probably deflation for many years. And as Japan has shown, these are difficult conditions to offset with monetary and fiscal policies.

The deleveragings of the global financial sector and U.S. consumer arena are substantial and ongoing. Household debt is down $374 billion since the second quarter of 2008. The credit card and other revolving components as well as the non-revolving piece that includes auto and student loans are both declining. Total business debt is down, as witnessed by falling commercial and industrial loans.

Meanwhile, federal debt has exploded from $5.8 trillion on Sept. 30, 2008 to $8.8 trillion in late August. Many worry about the inflationary implications of this surge, but the reality is that public debt has simply replaced private debt. The federal deficit has leaped as consumers and business retrenched, which curtailed federal tax revenues, while fiscal stimulus, aimed at replacing private sector weakness, has mushroomed.

Four Cylinders

As discussed in our May 2010 Insight, in the typical post-World War II economic recovery, four cylinders fire to push the economic vehicle out of the recessionary mud and back out on to the highway of economic growth. At present, only one - the ending of inventory liquidation - is generating significant power. The other three - employment gains, consumer spending growth and a revival in residential construction - are sputtering at best.

The Inventory Cycle

Historically, the liquidation of excess inventories accounts for major shares of the decline in economic activity in recessions. Around business cycle peaks, the sales of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers begin to weaken but their managers can't tell whether that's the beginning of a major drop in business or just a minor dip in an upward trend. So they delay cutting production and orders until the downward trend is firmly established. Meanwhile, inventory-sales ratios leap as the numerators, inventories, rise and the denominators, sales, fall. That makes cuts in production and orders imperative and propels the economic downward trend in the process.

That was also the case in the Great Recession. In our view, it really started in early 2007 with the collapse in subprime residential mortgages, and then spread to Wall Street that summer with the implosion of the two Bear Stearns hedge funds in June. But these were financial declines, and recessions are measured by production, employment and spending, which are dominated by the goods and nonfinancial services segments of the economy. So the recession didn't officially start until December 2007.

Consumers Go On Strike

Furthermore, it wasn't until late 2008 that the collapse in home equity as house prices nosedived (Chart 2), rising layoffs (Chart 3) and the drying up of consumer lending drove consumers into retrenchment. But they suddenly went on a buyers strike in the last four months of 2008, and the results were leaps in inventory-sales ratios. Consequently, the cuts in inventories to get rid of unwanted stocks were far and away the biggest in the post-World War II era.

The reduction in inventory liquidation has been key to economic growth starting in the second half of 2009. In the third quarter of last year, it accounted for 66% of the 1.6% annual rate real GDP gain and 58% of the fourth quarter's 5.0% advance. The inventory-building in the first quarter of this year was responsible for 67% of the 3.7% annual rate rise in real GDP and 36% of the rise of 1.6% in the second quarter. In total, in the last four quarters, the inventory swing provided 58% of the 3.0% rise in real GDP.

Whether inventories will continue to hype the economy remains to be seen. As of June, the inventory-sales ratio for retailers had returned to its downtrend, but was still above trend for wholesalers and, especially, manufacturers. Furthermore, it's one thing to complete the liquidation of unwanted inventories but another to rebuild them significantly. The latter probably requires sales strength originating in other areas of the economy, and the other three cylinders of the economic engine aren't providing it in meaningful ways. Quite the opposite. It appears that recently disappointing retail sales have stuck merchants with unwanted goods that may be liquidated if consumers continue to retrench.

Employment Lags

In post-World War II recessions before the 1990-1991 decline, payroll employment's bottom came close to the low point in the overall business decline and was followed by rapid rebounds (Chart 4 ). In the mild 1990-1991 and even shallower 2001 recessions, however, the job market remained weak for over a year into economic recovery. The same is true this time, assuming the economic decline ended in July 2009, as many believe. What's changed?

It isn't that a shallow recession results in weak job recovery because even though the 1990-1991 and 2001 downturns were mild, the Great Recession certainly wasn't in terms of jobs (Chart 4). A more likely explanation is that globalization, starting in the 1980s, forced American business to cut all costs vigorously, including labor costs, by outsourcing to domestic and foreign suppliers, promoting productivity and curtailing hiring. This has been especially prevalent in the last decade.

Jobs Lost Forever

Despite the huge employment losses since the end of 2007, many of those jobs are unlikely to return. Of the 7.7 million net nonfarm jobs eliminated between December 2007 and July of this year, 86% were in construction, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, finance and leisure and hospitality. These six sectors accounted for 44.5% of nonfarm payrolls in July, only about half as much as their losses. Furthermore, job losses in those industries spawned employment losses in service and other sectors that depend on them. Home building, for example, spurs employment in the production of appliances, furniture, home furnishings and homeowner insurance and provides revenues that support state and local employment.

Given the gigantic overhang of excess house inventories and resulting further price declines, it will be years before residential construction shows any meaningful revival, as we've explained in past Insights and will update next month. Similarly, financially troubled and massively vacant commercial real estate will inhibit new construction and jobs for many years.

The inventory cycle did stabilize manufacturing employment in recent months, but that inventory-related bounce is over and the 2 million manufacturing jobs lost since December 2007, if anything, will probably become an even bigger number. Goods production continues to move offshore. job-reducing productivity gains continue in manufacturing, and consumer retrenchment and deflation will continue to curtail consumer durable goods consumption. Wholesale and especially retail trade will continue under pressure with the 25-year consumer borrowing and spending binge now replaced by a saving spree (Chart 5). That retrenchment as well as persistent business spending restraint will continue to retard jobs in leisure and hospitality.

Financial activities jobs stabilized with the March 2009-March 2010 revival of Wall Street, but the likely continuance of more recent weakness in many securities markets will lead to more layoffs and bonus cuts. The federal government, naturally, has added people, 262,000 since December 2007, as it expands in response to the weak economy. But state governments cut 6,000 on balance and local municipalities 128,000, largely in education.

Diligent Cost-Cutting

American business has been diligently cutting costs since the recession started in December 2007, especially labor costs. A recent survey shows that over half of adults have been affected by some combination of layoffs, wage and benefits cuts, involuntary furloughs and involuntary shifts to temporary jobs. Many may never be restored to their earlier statuses. Those layoffs lucky enough to find new jobs often are paid less than earlier.

About 20% of major employers with over 1,000 workers cut or eliminated their 401(k) plan contributions during the downturn but half have failed to restore them so far. Of those with 500 or fewer employees that cut contributions, only 36% have reinstated them or plan to in the next 12 months, according to a Fidelity Investments survey. Furthermore, 10% of all employers plan to reduce or eliminate matching 401(k) contributions in the next year.

Consumer Spending

All the layoffs, involuntary furloughs, and temporary jobs and benefit and wage reductions have been instrumental in the rebound in corporate profits, but devastating to employee compensation. This spells weakness for consumer spending. Also, consumers are no longer saving less and borrowing more on credit card, home equity and other loans to bridge the gap between income and desired spending growth. Furthermore, home equity has evaporated (Chart 6 ) and tight lending standards on credit card and other loans prevail. So they're on a saving spree and debt reduction binge, further slashing the outlook for consumer spending, the third cylinder that normally fires to propel economic recovery from recessions.

In fact, without massive fiscal stimuli, subdued compensation and the recession would have pushed consumer outlays down substantially. Our calculations show that consumers saved 80% of the tax rebates they received in the summer of 2008. And they initially saved 100% of 2009's tax cuts and special payments of $250 for each Social Security beneficiary. Those actions resulted in the spikes in the saving rate shown in Chart 5. This is remarkable since the tax cuts did not go to highincome people, normally the only big savers. Also, those folks are relatively few in number so they received few of the extra Social Security checks. Consequently, middle- and lower-income households stepped out of character to save heavily.

Households are deleveraging their balance sheets with a vengeance. Since the end of the fourth quarter of 2007 when stocks began to collapse, personal sector assets have fallen $3.0 trillion. Some $1.8 trillion was in equities and $277 billion in mutual funds due to losses on balance and withdrawals from equity direct ownership and from mutual funds. Investors put money into mutual funds on balance in January, March and April, but cut their holdings, especially in stock funds, in May and June. Also, private pension reserves fell $754 billion from the end of 2007 to the end of March 2010 and government pension reserves in household accounts were down $290 billion. Increases of Treasury bond holdings of $533 only partially offset the decline in government agency and securities of $593 billion. Meanwhile, liabilities of the personal sector dropped $500 billion, largely due to the decline in mortgage and consumer debt as some debts were repaid while others were written off as hopeless.

Support By Government

Since the recession began in December 2007 through June 2010, personal income from wages and salaries, proprietors' income, rents, interest, dividends and transfers such as pension benefits, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments and unemployment insurance increased $285 billion. It would have declined $247 billion without a $532 billion increase in government transfer payments. These increases in government transfers also flowed through to Disposable Personal Income (after-tax income), which further benefited by lower personal taxes that fell $382 billion due to tax cuts and the lower taxable income resulting from layoffs, wage declines and bonus cuts.

In total, DPI was enhanced by $532 billion from the increase in government transfers and $382 billion from the lower taxes. Without these significant boosts, DPI would have fallen $247 billion since December 2007 instead of rising $667 billion. Without question, and much more so than in any previous post-World War II recession, the consumer has been supported by massive government money in the form of increased transfers and tax cuts. And these numbers do not include wages from jobs created by federal spending on infrastructure or saved by federal transfers to state and local governments to curtail teacher layoffs and other employment reductions.

Where Did The Money Go?

What happened to that $667 billion increase in DPI and what does it tell us about the likelihood of a chronic consumer saving spree? About 43% of it was spent and 64% saved, so maybe some of the earlier tax cuts were spent, but with delays. Nevertheless, a 64% marginal saving rate does seem to support our chronic saving spree thesis.

Also, in terms of spending and saving, note that whatever has been going on in the consumer arena has been supported by massive federal stimuli. Those stimuli may persist at near current levels in future years due to chronic high unemployment, as noted in earlier Insights, but seems unlikely to rise at the rates they did since the recession began due to their effects on the already massive federal deficits. Republicans and even some Democrats in Congress are so worried about the mushrooming deficit that current stimuli is unlikely to be renewed at least until unemployment leaps further. In that case, the resulting withdrawal of support for consumer outlays may push them down. So the leap in consumer spending as a share of personal income (Chart 7 ), which has been propelled by tax cuts that were only partially offset by saving increases, is highly unlikely to persist.

Evidence of recent consumer retrenchment is rampant. Consumer confidence has flattened as people worry about employment and income prospects as well as losses on their stocks and houses. Credit card loans outstanding fell 10% last year and promise to fall further as consumers repay debt, lending standards tighten and the new federal law cuts the profitability of credit card lending. Meanwhile, banks report that demand for consumer loans continues to drop, although at declining rates.

Increased saving is not only being used to repay debt but also to rebuild 401(k)s. Fidelity Investments found that in the second quarter, 5.3% of participants raised their contribution while 2.9% reduced them. That excess of increases over decreased has persisted for five quarters and follows three quarters of the reverse. Still, the numbers that tapped their accounts for loans or hardship withdrawals also rose.

Subdued Spending

On the spending side, vehicle sales in July were at an 11.5 million annual rate, up from the sub-10 million levels of 2008-2009, but well below the pre-recession levels. Consumer spending on TVs, computers, videos and telephone equipment rose 1.8% in the first half of 2010 compared with a year earlier while appliance purchases fell 3.6% and furniture outlays dropped 11%. Apparel sales also lost out to electronic gadgets. This shift reflects two forces. First, consumers are saving more and spending less on equipping their houses that are no longer appreciating but now depreciating assets. Second, they still want the satisfaction of buying iPads and other Small Luxuries, an investment theme we identified years ago and explained fully in our August Insight.

Housing Remains Depressed

The housing sector is an important generator of the normal economic recovery even though residential construction only accounts for 4.7% of GDP on average in the post-World War II years. It's the volatility that matters. Residential construction was 6.3% of GDP at its recent peak in the fourth quarter of 2005, but fell to 2.4% at its low in the first quarter of 2010. This 3.9 percentage point decline is very significant, considering that a 3% top to bottom decline in real GDP constitutes a major recession.

State and Local Government Spending

Spending by state and local governments is not one of the sources of economic revival after recessions end because it has been such a steady 12% to 13% share of GDP since the early 1970s. In the early post-World War II decades, it grew rapidly to finance the education of the postwar babies and the growth of mushrooming suburbs. Municipalities have also provided a steady source of jobs since, until recently, many fewer employees were laid off or fired than in the private sector and relatively few quit. Years ago, the "social contract" held that those employees received lower wages than private sector workers, so early retirement provisions and lush pensions allowed them to catch up in their later years. But since the early 1980s, the private sector has been globalized with very little growth in real incomes. Meanwhile, state and local government employees have continued to receive pay raises in excess of inflation and now have wages that are 34% higher than for private sector employees (Chart 8).

Federal Help

As part of its fiscal stimulus program, the federal government is transferring $246 billion to state governments to prevent more school teacher layoffs, help fund Medicaid cost increases and plug other holes in state budgets. Federal money is filling 30% to 40% of state budget gaps, but 46 states are projecting a collective deficit of $121 billion for the 2011 fiscal year that begins next July 1, equivalent to 19% of their budgets. And 39 states see gaps that total $102 billion for fiscal 2012. Unless federal assistance continues, these deficits will be much larger. All the states but Vermont are required to balance their budgets in one form or another, but most are honored in the breach as fiscal gimmicks and creative accounting get really creative.

Budget legerdemain no doubt is related to the rapid growth in state spending in recent years and leap in debt. State and local governments now use debt to fund investments that used to be done on a current budget basis, and some issue debt to cover up routine budget shortfalls. Total state and local bond debt outstanding leaped 93% between 2000 and 2009, from $1.2 trillion to $2.3 trillion.

It obviously takes a lot of gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness for state and local government to flatten, much less cut, their spending after a decade of 6% to 7% annual growth rates. Jumping municipal employment is the main reason for mushrooming spending in earlier years, and cutting often unionized state and local workforces is very difficult. Since the Great Recession started in December 2007 through April, private payroll employment has dropped 6.8%. Still, state and local jobs have declined but by much less, only 1.4%. In July, state and local governments, which employ 9.5 million, cut 48,000 jobs, 102,000 in the past three months and 169,000 so far this year.

Raise Taxes

In reaction to their financial woes, many state and local governments have attempted to raise taxes and fees. The usual suspects include higher sin taxes on tobacco and alcoholic beverages as well as taxes on companies based out of state but doing some business in the state. Attempts to raise taxes and cut spending have proved wholly inadequate to solving state and local government funding problems. And those woes appear chronic, especially if our forecast of slow economic growth and even deflation is valid. Rises in taxable personal and corporate incomes will be muted. Retail sales and taxes on them will be sluggish as consumers persist for the next decade in their saving spree, replacing the borrowing and spending binge of the last decade.

House prices are likely to fall further in the next year or so, under the weight of gigantic excess inventories. Even when those inventories are worked off, house prices will probably rise little, if at all, in a low inflation or deflationary climate. Historically, they've been flat after correcting for overall inflation and the growing size of houses over time. And now that house prices have fallen nationwide for the first time since the 1930s, home buyers no longer see their abodes as also great, leveraged investments, and want smaller, cheaper houses. That will also reduce assessments on property taxes.

Meanwhile, commercial real estate high vacancies and severe financial problems will take years to resolve, keeping prices depressed for some time (Chart 9 ). So, all things considered, local government property taxes are likely to be curtailed for many years. Meanwhile, municipal expenses will be hard to cut. Chronic high unemployment will spawn high Medicaid enrollment and costs. Welfare and unemployment benefit costs will no doubt rise as well.

Deteriorating finances are raising the risks of defaults on state and local obligations and even municipal bankruptcies. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania's capital, will not make a $3.3 million municipal bond payment on $51.5 million debt that's due in two weeks, and earlier this year, city officials discussed bankruptcy. Harrisburg also lacks the funds to continue payments for the $288 million debt on an incinerator project. Earlier, Jefferson County, Ala., home of Birmingham, defaulted on $227 million due on its disastrous sewer upgrades.

Taxpayer Revolt?

People working in the private sector apparently were willing to accept the higher pay, more job security and better retirement benefits for state and local employees in past years. High employment in the private sector and robust economic growth at least held out the hope that their lots would improve tomorrow. But with slow economic growth, limited income expansion and high unemployment now expected by them for years, voter attitudes appear to be changing.

Americans still want basic municipal services like police and fire protection, good schools for their kids, clean streets and garbage collection. But they apparently are deciding they're paying too much for those services; that 34% higher wages for state and local employees compared to private sector workers isn't justified as pay cuts multiply in the private sector and those laid off earn much less if and when they can find another job; that 66% higher benefit costs is over the top, especially as private sector employees are paying more of their health care premiums and seeing their defined benefit pension plans replaced by much more uncertain 401(k)s.

As taxpayers revolt, there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce state and local government costs in an orderly way. Following in the footsteps of bankrupt GM, two-tier wage structures are being established with existing employees continuing at current salary levels, but new hires paid the much lower wages adequate to attract qualified people. And the new people are enrolled in defined contribution pension plans that require employee contributions, not defined benefit plans, while their retirement ages are increased.

Foreign Trade

Another economic sector that normally isn't a significant engine of economic recovery but is important at present is exports since the Administration hopes they will double in the next five years and provide meaningful economic growth. The President's zeal to achieve that goal rises as he realizes that massive fiscal stimuli have not revived the economy, and already-huge federal deficits impede further rounds of big spending.

But two significant problems are likely to retard export growth in future years - rising protectionism that clearly impedes foreign trade, and finding foreign countries that will buy this doubling of American exports. It's like the story of the stockbroker who calls his client during May's Flash Crash to tell him that stocks are collapsing. "Sell my entire portfolio!" yells the distressed client. "Sure," retorts the broker, "but to whom? There are no buyers."

Foreign Buyers?

As far as foreign buyers of U.S. exports is concerned, the reality is that many of those markets that are showing robust growth and therefore might be able to absorb American products, lands like China and Germany, are major exporters themselves, not importers on balance. Indeed, it's no surprise that the EU's measures of both industry and household confidence shows that export-led Germany has the highest level while the economically weak Club Med net importers are at the bottom of the pile (Chart 10).

Currency changes have only limited effects on export or import prices. The volatility of U.S. import prices is only about one-fourth that of the dollar and a third in the case of American export prices. Why? Many products are sold under long-term contracts and immune from most currency fluctuations. Also, importers and exporters resist reflecting the full extent of exchange rate changes in their prices. If the yen is strong against the dollar, importers of Lexus cars shave their profit margins to offset some of the higher prices in dollars to avoid losing market share. Conversely, U.S. exporters to Japan don't pass on in lower yen prices the full extent of the dollar's decline in order to increase their profits.

The "processing trade" in which components are imported, assembled and then re-exported makes up about half of Chinese exports. This reduces the importance of the yuan's exchange rates. Furthermore, even goods with more domestic content aren't completely sensitive to exchange rates in a global world. About 50% of a Chinese manufacturer of children's clothes costs are fabric and around 50% of the fabric's costs are cotton, a globally-traded commodity priced in dollars. So, 25% of the total cost is not affected by yuan fluctuations. Also, another 25% might be in the combined profits of the clothing and the fabric producers, and could be adjusted to offset currency fluctuations - or production moved to lower-cost Vietnam or Bangladesh if the yuan leaped in value.

Double Dip Recession?

We've made our case for very slow U.S. economic growth in the quarters, indeed the years, ahead. The economic rebound due to the inventory cycle is over. Employment and consumer spending remain weak. Housing is too overburdened with excess inventory and the resulting price weakness to revive any time soon. State and local government spending and employment are retreating. And meaningful export gains are unlikely as economic growth abroad slips. Interestingly, the consensus forecast is moving toward our position as growth estimates have been reduced rapidly in recent months. In both April and June, the Wall Street Journal's poll of economists (not including us) expected 3% economic growth in the second half of this year. We wonder if they still do.

Will slow growth deteriorate into another recession, the so-called double dip scenario? Before exploring that question, let's define a double dip. It seems to mean a second period of economic decline following the 2007-2009 nosedive. That could imply that the recession that the accepted authority, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, pinpointed as commencing in December 2007, is still underway. Sure, real GDP grew in the last four quarters, but it's common to have quarters of gain within recessions. In the 11 post-World War II recessions so far, seven, including the 2007- 2009 decline, had at least one quarter of rising real GDP within the recession. In fact, two - the 1960-1961 and the 2001 declines - didn't even have two quarters of consecutive decline. Even in the 1929-1933 economic collapse, GDP rose in six quarters.

Still, to have a four-quarter interlude between the declining phases of the same recession would be unprecedentedly long, assuming that real GDP declines in the current quarter. So another period of economic weakness could be classified as a second recession, much as the 1981-1982 decline, which started in July 1981, only 12 months after the 1980 recession ended.

Slow Growth to Recession

We're on record for a 50% or higher probability of a second dip or another recession, whatever it would be called. The composition of the ECRI Weekly Leading Index remains proprietary, but its growth rate has fallen to the level that in the past was always associated with recessions (Chart 11). Historically, however, recessions have been propelled by shocks. The post- World War II downturns prior to 2001 were caused by Fed tightening in response to threats of economic overheating and the resulting higher inflation. Since then, other shocks have been responsible. The 2001 recession resulted from the 2000 collapse of the dot com bubble augmented by the 9/11 shock. The 2007-2009 downturn resulted from the collapse in subprime residential mortgages that commenced early in 2007.

In the current economic and financial climate, it's highly unlikely that the Fed will tighten credit for years. In fact, the central bank has shifted from planning last spring to withdraw liquidity as the economy grew to renewing quantitative easing and worrying about deflation and subpar growth. It said after its August 10 policy meeting that household spending is being retarded by high unemployment, slow income growth, lower home equity and tight credit conditions while bank lending "has continued to contract."

Pushing On A String

Conventional monetary ease is now impotent with the federal funds rate close to zero , the money multiplier collapsed and banks sitting on hoards of cash (Chart 12) and over $1 trillion in excess reserves. Sure, large banks report to the Fed that they are easing lending standards for small business, but after the intervening financial crisis, many fewer potential borrowers are deemed creditworthy than in the loose lending days. Furthermore, the small business trade group, the National Federation of Independent Business, reports that 91% of small business owners have had their credit needs met or business is so slow that they don't want to borrow. The Fed is pushing on the proverbial string.

The Fed also worries about deflation, which means that even zero interest rates are positive in real terms, as has been the case for years in deflationary Japan. Also, deflation encourages buyers to wait for still-lower prices in a self-feeding cycle, as is seen in Japan and as we have discussed often in conjunction with our forecast of 2% to 3% per year chronic deflation. In it s post- August 10 meeting statement, the Fed said that "measures of underlying inflation," already low, "have trended lower" lately and are "likely to be subdued for some time." James Bullard, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, recently warned of the risks of deflation.

Deflation is a scary phenomenon, but we can't resist noting that the Fed as well as many other forecasters are moving in the direction of our forecast. In contrast, an April 6 Wall Street Journal piece by Peter Eavis stated unequivocally, "No one in their right mind would bet on inflation remaining substantially below 4% for the next 10 years." Maybe we better have our head examined.

A Baby Step

So, with conventional monetary ease exhausted and further fiscal stimulus on hold because of the already-huge federal deficit, the Fed at its August 10 meeting took a baby step toward more quantitative ease by deciding to buy Treasury bonds to replace the maturing and refinanced Treasury and mortgage-backed securities in the $1.7 trillion hoard it finished buying earlier this year. With low mortgage rates, refinancings were projected to raise the Fed's portfolio contraction from an earlier estimate of $200 billion by the end of 2011 to $340 billion, with another $55 billion coming from retirement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt held by the Fed.

Furthermore, the Fed is open to further steps if the economy continues to slip. It could buy even more Treasurys or mortgage debt. But would the resulting lower interest rates encourage prospective home buyers who now know that house prices can and do fall? Would another $1 trillion in excess reserves induce more bank lending than the first $1 trillion? The Fed could also promise to keep short-term interest rates low, but it's already said it would for an "extended period."

It could cut out the 0.25% it pays the banks on their reserves, but would that induce reluctant banks to lend? Finally, the Fed could set an inflation target over its formal 1.5% to 2.0% range. That would be anathema for inflation-wary central bankers, and how could the Fed hit that target in a deflationary world where ample supply exceeds weak demand? Despite all the credit easing actions that Chairman Ben Bernanke, in his famous November 2002 speech, said the Fed could take if the federal funds target reached zero, the credit authorities are about out of ammo - except for dumping money out of helicopters. Remember the "Helicopter Ben" moniker?

Other Shocks

If the Fed is highly unlikely to shock slow growth into recession, what could? This brings us back to the series of seemingly isolated events that are occurring on the deleveraging road, such as further financial woes in Europe, a crisis in commercial real estate, a nosedive in the Chinese economy and a slow motion train wreck in Japan. They are all possibilities - as are other shocks here or abroad that we don't foresee. Maybe the exhausting of federal stimulus will be enough to trigger an economic downturn. Keep your eyes pealed, however, because it won't take much disruption to push the fragile global economy back into decline.

Houston, My Book, and New York

Tuesday was a very special day. My co-author, Jonathan Tepper of Variant Perception (based in London), and I spent the entire day reading the first complete rough draft of our forthcoming book, The End Game. We went cover to cover, making comments and notes. Of course, I had read the bits and pieces, but not in one sitting. I have to say that I am more than happy. It is a very good first draft, much better than I thought it would be. There is a lot of work ahead, of course, to try and make it a great book, but I can "feel" it. And I think we have managed to capture some very difficult topics and make them simple and maybe even a fun read. We are on target for a January 1 launch.

We make what I feel is an overwhelming case for a period of slow growth in the developed world, with more volatility as the base case. The research we review is very strong. But there are pockets of potential if you step back and take off your localized blinders.

I will be in Houston (along with Gary Shilling, David Rosenberg, Bill King, and Jon Sundt) at the one-day X-Factor Conference on October 1. Quite the lineup. You can learn more by going to www.streettalklive.com. Then I will be in New York in late October, speaking at the BCA conference and a few media events.

It has been interesting talking with investment types in Europe. They are very curious about the US and what they perceive as our lack of seriousness about the deficit. It appears that Greece has focused their attention. And of course, I get off the plane from Malta yesterday and the headline in the Financial Times says, "Greece rules out possibility of default." I know that made me feel better. And gave us all a laugh. If you have not, read the piece from Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair on Greece. And then share my amusement about the chances of no default.

It is time to hit the send button. I feel a nap coming on. Jet lag has been worse than normal this trip. And maybe another glass of Prosecco to ease me into slumberland.

Your excited about almost finishing this book analyst,

John Mauldin

The Multiplication of Money

John Mauldin — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:13:00 GMT

Where Is All that Greek Gold?
The Greeks Write Back
The Euro and a Conspiracy of Hedge Funds
So Where's the Inflation?
No Help for Homebuilders
The Singularity, San Antonio, Home, and Addictions

The economy grew in the fourth quarter by 5.9%, the most in years. The adjusted monetary base is exploding. Bank reserves are literally through the roof. The Fed is flooding money into the system in an effort to get banks to lend. An historically normal response by banks (to increase lending) would have been massively inflationary, causing the Fed to stomp on the brakes. Despite raising the almost meaningless discount rate (as who uses it?), this week Ben Bernanke assured Congress of an easy monetary policy, with rates remaining low for a long time. Many ask, how can this not be inflationary?

This week we look at some fundamentals of money supply and the economy. If you understand this, you won't get misled by people selling investments, telling you to buy this or that based on some chart that shows whatever they are selling to be what you absolutely have to have to protect your portfolio and/or make massive profits. And we touch on a few odds and ends. And yes, I can't resist, a few more thoughts on Greece. It will make for an interesting letter, as I'm writing on a plane to San Jose. And it will print a bit longer than usual, because there are a lot of charts.

Before we get into the meat of the letter, I want to give you a chance to register for my 7th (where do the years go?!) annual Strategic Investment Conference, cosponsored with my friends at Altegris Investments. The conference will be held April 22-24 and, as always, in La Jolla, California. The speaker lineup is powerful. Already committed are Dr. Gary Shilling, David Rosenberg, Dr. Lacy Hunt, Dr. Niall Ferguson, and George Friedman, as well as your humble analyst. We are talking with several other equally exciting speakers and expect those to firm up shortly.

Look at that lineup. These are the guys who got the calls right over the past few years. They called the housing crisis, the credit bubble, and the recession. And, in my opinion, these are some of the best in the world at giving us ideas about where we are headed.

Comments from those who attend the annual affair generally run along the lines of, "This is the best conference we have ever been to." And each year it seems to get better. This year we are going to focus on "The End Game," that is, on the paths the various nations are likely to take as they try to solve their various deficit problems, and how that will affect the world and local economies and our investments. We make sure you have access to our speakers and get your questions answered, and you'll come away with excellent, practical investment ideas.

This conference sells out every year, and it looks like it will do so this year. You do not want to miss it. There is a physical limit to the space. Every year I have to tell people, including good friends, that there is no more room. Don't wait to sign up. There is still an early-registration discount. And while it pains me to say it, you must be an accredited investor to attend the conference, as there are regulations we must follow in order to offer specific advice and ideas. Click on the link and sign up now. https://hedge-fund-conference.com/2010/invitation.aspx?ref=mauldin

Where Is All that Greek Gold?

Last week I mentioned the (what seemed to me and much of the world) odd incident of Greek politicians talking about the need for Germany to pay its debts to Greece. I got this response from a Greek reader. Comments afterword.

"Dear Mr. Mauldin,

I am an avid reader and I just wanted to correct you about a comment in one of your articles, "The Pain in Spain", specifically:

'Somehow they forgot about the German government paying 115 million deutschmarks in 1960 -- not a small sum back then.'

This repayment of 1960 is undeniable. but the total amount owed was $10 billion ($3.5 billion for the return of the gold stolen and the repayment of the war loans Greece was forced into giving Germany, and $7 billion in war reparations awarded to Greece in 1946). As the DM/$ parity was then four for one, this means they gave Greece $29 million out of the $10 billion owed.

Germany also proclaims that they have given Greece over the years, in one form or another, €16.5 billion. But the fact of the matter is that despite these alleged payments, the issue of the war loans and gold is still not settled.

Greece has never stopped asking for the money to be paid back ... it is estimated that this sum owed now totals $70 billion [I assume the Greeks want interest – JM]. So even taking into account the €16.5 billion, more than $50 billion is still owed.

Helmut Kohl refused to even discuss the repayment, presenting as an excuse that this amount was owed by the whole of Germany and until Germany is unified the issue could not be discussed.

Guess what, Germany is unified....

Best Regards,

Anthony Kioussopoulos

P.S. Do not take my e-mail as a refusal to acknowledge the fault of successive Greek governments in creating this mess; just take it as a correction for a specific issue."

+++++

The point here is not that Anthony is 100% right, though his statements have the ring of authenticity. The point is that the Greeks believe it. And thus my lack of surprise last week when I noted that leading Greek politicians of both the conservative and liberal parties were talking the same line. This is an issue that runs across the Greek political spectrum. And that makes the situation all the more intractable, as emotional responses are not the stuff of rational debates.

(I should note that if the US demanded payment from Europe of all the money we loaned them after the war, at full interest, our national balance would be a lot better. But I doubt that ever gets brought up, nor should it at a remove of 65 years.)

This week saw riots and a national strike as Greek unions demonstrated against budget cuts. Yet polls seem to indicate a majority of Greeks recognize the need for rather serious austerity measures. As I have documented, they really have no good choices, only very bad and disastrous choices. The austerity measures that will be forced on them by market realities if they default will be far worse than those they can self-impose over time. In fact, yesterday EU inspectors visiting Athens told authorities they see a deeper than expected recession.

Two very condensed reports from European media:

1. After the German magazine Focus ran an issue with a Photoshopped picture of Venus de Milo giving the middle finger to "Greek con artists" (referring to the fraud the Greeks perpetrated when they joined the EU by hiding debt), street protests demanding the boycott of German goods were organized in Athens and endorsed by the Greek administration. There was also name calling by the Greek administration, blaming Germany for all of Greece's economic and financial problems because the Nazis stole all of Greece's gold in World War II. In general, the Greek public believes that all this is just excuse-making on the part of the Government, but a boycott is loudly supported by members of all the public workers' unions. (Reuters report)

The situation is exacerbated by news today that Greece needs to refinance $27bn of bonds in March, vs. the statements JUST TWO DAYS AGO that only half that amount was coming due, and then not until April and May.

2. Financial Times Deutschland reported the results of a poll of German banks that was conducted yesterday. No German bank polled said it would make any further investments in Greek sovereign debt. The following banks and building societies are at risk of collapse due to excessive Greek bond holdings: Hypo Real Estate ($13 billion exposure), Commerzbank ($7 billion exposure, and the bank was bailed out last year by the German government), LBBW ($4 billion), Bayern Landesbank ($2.2 billion). It should be pointed out that Greece is a small country, with 11 million people and a GDP of $313 billion that is running a trade deficit of $11bn. Banking experts generally stated that any private purchases of Greek bonds are now completely out of the question. Any future aid will have to be government to government, and that will exclude Germany, as Angela Merkel stated earlier in the week. Within the eurozone, there are no other countries outside of Germany that have, or can raise, any capital to invest in Greece. (Hat tip to Steve Stough for the above points.)

For what it's worth, I do not see Germany bailing out Greece in the current climate. If Germany were to force Greece to undertake the severe measures they would be required to take for a bailout, the streets of Greece would be full of demonstrators denouncing Germany. I just don't see it happening.

If not Germany, who? France? Spain? Italy? They all have their own very real problems. Everyone else is too small. The US will not. Neither will China.

My guess is that at the end of the day (which will come soon) the IMF is going to have to step in. It will be a blow to European pride, but what else is there?

The Euro and a Conspiracy of Hedge Funds

The lead story in this morning's Wall Street Journal is that hedge funds are holding "idea meetings" and deciding that shorting the euro is a good bet. Der Spiegel called them "secret meetings," as if somehow a cabal of hedge funds is conspiring to push the euro down. A few points for the writers of Der Spiegel:

There is no secret about the problems with the euro. Let's see, when the head of Germany's leading debt-management agency warned this week that the euro would collapse if any member defaulted on its debt, was he part of a secret conspiracy? If he is right, do you want to bet that Greece will behave, and go long the euro?
The currency market is a $2 trillion dollar a DAY market. That's over $50 trillion a month. Even with 20:1 leverage, $50 billion in hedge funds shorting the euro is a drop in the bucket, and I seriously doubt anywhere close to that much is at risk. George Soros won his bet against the pound sterling because the pound was fundamentally flawed and overvalued, and he put his money where his mouth was.
If a hedge fund is betting against the euro, someone has to be on the other side of that trade. Are those guys (on the other side) conspiring in secret to drive the euro up and the dollar down? Are they in "secret" meetings to take advantage of the poor, dumb, misinformed hedge funds? Who are they? The world needs to know who is conspiring against the dollar and other currencies! Whatever. One side will be wrong. Fundamentals will out.
I get invited to "idea dinners" from time to time. They are indeed private, but they don't rise to the level of "secret." I do very little trading, but these meetings help to hone my ideas, and I hope that helps make this letter a better source for you.

The Journal wrote that these hedge-fund managers expect the euro to go to parity with the dollar, as if that is some novel idea. I made that prediction in 2002 when the euro was at $.88, suggesting that it would rise to $1.50 and then fall back to parity by the middle of the next decade. Maybe it will get there a little faster than I thought. Stay tuned, and I do NOT suggest making 20:1 bets on currency moves. A lot of those hedge funds will lose a lot of money if the market moves against them.

So Where's the Inflation?

Now for a series of graphs. First, let's look at the Adjusted Monetary Base (or M0). This is the one monetary aggregate that the Federal Reserve actually controls. Notice that it exploded in the middle of 2008, as the Fed started quantitative easing and pushed rates to zero. They were desperate to try and thaw out the credit markets that had frozen.

That in turn caused M1 to increase.

But the broader measure on money that is M2 rose into 2009 and has then gone sideways. Normally the stimulus of such raw money growth in M0 would have M2 exploding upward, as you get a money multiplier effect.

We all know that a US bank can lend out about nine times the deposits it has on hand. When the Fed puts money into the system, it can be multiplied rather quickly if banks choose to lend. This is called the money multiplier.

"Restated, increases in central bank money may not result in commercial bank money because the money is not required to be lent out – it may instead result in a growth of unlent reserves (excess reserves). This situation is referred to as 'pushing on a string': withdrawal of central bank money compels commercial banks to curtail lending (one can pull money via this mechanism), but input of central bank money does not compel commercial banks to lend (one cannot push via this mechanism)." (Wikipedia)

This described growth in excess reserves has indeed occurred in the financial crisis of 2007–2010, with US bank excess reserves growing over 500-fold, from under $2 billion in August 2008 to over $1,000 billion recently. Look at the chart below. This is what has all the gold bugs salivating. Where else has this happened without hyperinflation?

Now let's turn to our old friend Paul Samuelson and his textbook that we all read in Econ 101 to learn about the money multiplier:

"By increasing the volume of their government securities and loans and by lowering Member Bank legal reserve requirements, the Reserve Banks can encourage an increase in the supply of money and bank deposits. They can encourage but, without taking drastic action, they cannot compel. For in the middle of a deep depression just when we want Reserve policy to be most effective, the Member Banks are likely to be timid about buying new investments or making loans. If the Reserve authorities buy government bonds in the open market and thereby swell bank reserves, the banks will not put these funds to work but will simply hold reserves. Result: no 5 for 1, 'no nothing,' simply a substitution on the bank's balance sheet of idle cash for old government bonds."

–(Samuelson 1948, pp. 353–354)

And that is what has happened. And all those mortgage bonds and other assets the Federal Reserve has purchased? They have been put right back into the Fed by the banks. There has been no money multiplier. In fact, the money multiplier, as measured by the ratio of MO to M1 growth is at its lowest level ever. Look at the graph below:

What this graph shows, astonishingly, is that a dollar added to the monetary base now has a NEGATIVE multiplier effect. Without showing yet another chart, bank lending has fallen percentagewise the most in 67 years. The actual amount of bank loans is falling each and every quarter, with no signs of a bottom. Consumers are reducing their debt and leverage. Bank loans are being written off at staggering rates. Over 700 banks (I think that is the figure I saw) are officially on watch by the FDIC, with more banks being closed each week.

There is at least $300-400 billion in losses on commercial real estate waiting to be written down. Housing foreclosures are rising and hundreds of billions have yet to be written off. As more families fall into unemployment or underemployment, there will be more writedowns. Is it any wonder that banks are having to shore up their balance sheets and make fewer loans?

With capacity utilization just off all-time lows, why should we expect businesses to borrow to increase capacity? Inventory levels are much lower than two years ago. Businesses no longer need to finance as much inventory. They simply need less.

Dennis Gartman writes:

"Effectively the Fed had become a cash machine rather than a monetary expansion machine. At the end of last year, the multiplier had actually fallen to less than 1.0 and the trend remains downward. If anyone had told us five years ago that the money multiplier would be down to 1.0 we would have laughed. The laugh, however, would have been upon us, for it is there and it is still falling. Hard it shall be to sponsor strong economic growth when no one really wants to take a loan or when few banks want to make a loan. The "game" of banking has been turned upon its head, and the strength of the economy suffers while inflationary pressures (at least for now) remain virtually non-existent."

Next week (or within a few weeks) we will review the velocity of money, as the normal, accustomed relationships about money supply and inflation are proving to be wrong. We live in extraordinary times. We are coming to the End Game of the debt supercycle that has lasted for 70 years. Everything is changing in front of our eyes. It compels us to understand the basics of how economies function, and what is both different and not different about the times we are in.

No Help for Homebuilders

Before we close, this note from Mark Hanson about the home-building market:

"In January, builders sold a whopping 1000 houses per day nationally. During the same month, Foreclosures rang up at 4300 and Notice-of-Defaults at 5100 per day nationally. What a mess. I really thought earlier in the year with massive mortgage rate and tax stimuli -- and the purposeful lack of distressed inventory due to HAMP and other mortgage mod and foreclosure prevention initiatives -- that builders had a shot at some volume.

"But their window of opportunity has now passed. With HAFA coming on line and foreclosures, short sales and deeds-in-lieu about to dump significantly more distressed inventory on the market throughout 2010, the odds that of any meaningful pickup in builder output or sales is significantly decreasing daily."

The Singularity, San Antonio, Home, and Addictions

It is time to hit the send button. In order to have some mercy on you, gentle reader, I am saving the last 8 pages of this letter for another time. All things in moderation.

As noted above, I am on a plane to San Jose, where I will take a short ride to NASA Ames to spend the next 9 days listening to experts talk about how various technologies will change over the next 10 years, and how that will impact business, society – well, everything. I am really pumped about it. 12 hours a day of lectures and some local tours, with a small group that appears to include some very bright attendees (from their bios). Your humble analyst will speak for just an hour on the future of the world economy. Sadly, my assessment will not be as optimistic as theirs, at least with regard to the next 5 years. If I am allowed, I am going to publish my abbreviated notes in next week's letter, assuming I can take notes and keep up at the same time.

Then I must miss the final day, as I fly to San Antonio for a speech on Saturday morning to the top level of Cambridge brokers, then back home for a month! A whole month! Maybe I can catch up on my writing and emails.

I met with George Friedman of Stratfor this Tuesday. (Tiffani went with me, her first trip away from my granddaughter Lively. Ryan got to play Mr. Mom.) I was sitting in George's office at the end of the day, waiting for everyone else to show up so we could go to dinner. I had been busy trying to coordinate meetings and keep up with my reading and research, emails, and phone calls.

"George, I have a problem. I feel like I am drinking information through a fire hose. I am addicted to information. It is beginning to interfere with my productivity, as I get so much high-quality material from the best sources that I feel I need to absorb. Each bit of information becomes a clue to the larger puzzle. But I have to write more. I am going to have to start randomly deleting things every now and then if I am going to stay on top of it all, and get some of these books that are in me done."

I am determined to have a life outside of work (family and friends are important), and am for the most part successful at that, but I am not getting done all that I wish I could do when I'm at work. And there are books piled on my desk that simply scream for attention.

I thought George would understand. He has some 90 analysts all over the world feeding him up-to-the-minute analysis on country and issue situations. Surely, he must have an idea for me on how to handle the "download" problem.

"John," he replied quietly, sighing heavily, "I know what you mean. But if I started randomly deleting, I'd be afraid I would miss something important. What else can you do but keep at it?"

It is the conundrum of our age. I hope, gentle reader, that I help you in some ways to keep up and stay informed without overloading you! Have a great week, and learn something new!

Your really ready to think about the future analyst,

John Mauldin

The Statistical Recovery, Part 2

John Mauldin — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:49:00 GMT

The Statistical Recovery, Part Two
A Recovery Statisticians Can Love
A Few Thoughts on the Housing Market
Some Thoughts from Maine
Tulsa, Birthdays, Weddings, and Paul McCartney

A few weeks ago I first used the term "statistical recovery" to describe the nature of today's economic environment. Today we are going to further explore that concept, as it is important to have a real understanding of what is happening. This coming "recovery" is not going to feel like a typical one, and those expecting a "V"-shaped recovery are simply making projections from previous economic recoveries, which, based on the fundamentals, are not warranted. And of course, a few thoughts coming back from Maine are in order. There is a lot to cover, and this may take more than one letter.

But first, let me note to subscribers to Conversations with John Mauldin that we have posted my Conversation with George Friedman of Stratfor and will soon post a very interesting Conversation I had with John Burns (of John Burns Real Estate Consulting) and Rick Sharga of RealtyTrac. These may be the two most knowledgeable people on the housing market in the country. There is a lot of poorly informed speculation about the housing market, and I think this Conversation will help clear away a lot of the fog. PLUS, they both agreed to allow me to post their eye-opening PowerPoint stacks to Conversation subscribers (normally only available to their clients), so you get a very special bonus. And finally, David Galland of Casey Research is allowing me to post a most thought-provoking interview he did with Neil Howe. This is one of the best things I have run across in a long time. I do work on giving my Conversations subscribers good value.

George and I are going to be doing a regular quarterly Conversation called Geopolitical Conversations with John Mauldin and George Friedman. We believe that these new Conversations will help you better understand not only the global political landscape but also how it affects the financial umbrella that we are under. In this first Conversation, we talked about the "exogenous" risks to the markets (those from outside the markets themselves) posed by the geopolitical world.

We will offer this service, which will be priced separately, at some point in the near future. Now, here is the important part: all current subscribers and anyone who subscribes now will receive these Geopolitical Conversations free, as a thank you. (Current members can log in now.) If you have not yet subscribed, you can do so and receive a discount by clicking the link and typing in the code JM47 to subscribe for $149. This is a large discount from our regular price of $199; plus, we are including the bonus Geopolitical Conversations that are worth $59. And now, to the regular letter.

The Statistical Recovery

The unemployment numbers came out last Friday, and Steve Liesman of CNBC did several interviews live from Leen's Lodge in Maine. I postponed an hour of fishing to be on air with Martin Barnes (of the Bank Credit Analyst) to comment on the numbers. Everyone seemed quite excited that the US lost "only" 247,000 jobs. However, it is still almost twice as large as a year ago, and at that time 128,000 lost jobs seemed pretty bleak. However, comparing it to the average of 692,000 lost jobs per month in the first quarter, those looking for good news immediately started talking about how a recovery is around the corner.

The unemployment numbers are some of the most seriously revised numbers in all of government data. The first monthly estimate is notoriously imprecise. Why people make investment decisions based on this release is beyond me. As I mention continuously, because of seasonal adjustment factors, the unemployment numbers understate job losses in a recession and also understate job gains in a recovery. About the most we can get from the current data is the broad trend. Admittedly, the trend is getting better, but we are still in a hole and no one has stopped digging.

What we can see is that we are down 6.7 million jobs since the beginning of 2008! We have roughly eliminated the job growth of the last five years. And that does not take into account the 150,000 new jobs that are needed each month just to maintain the employment rate because of the increase in population. It took 55 months once the 2001 recession was officially over to get back to the previous employment peak. That is 4.5 years, gentle reader, and we are further down now and faced with massive deleveraging. It is going to take a lot longer this time. Let's look at some of the reasons why.

I took a different tack in the CNBC interview. I pointed out that even though it is possible (likely?) we will see a positive number for GDP for the third quarter, it is not going to feel like a recovery for quite some time.

By the middle of next year (2010), when I think we will finally hit an unemployment bottom, we will be down close to 8 million jobs, wiping out all the jobs created since the middle of 2004. Unemployment is likely to be more than 10%, unless they keep playing games with the number.

A Recovery Statisticians Can Love

What I mean by that remark is that the unemployment number went down even though we lost 247,000 jobs. How can that be, you ask? Well, the government assumes that if you were not looking for a job within the last month, then you are not unemployed; therefore, on a statistical basis the number of people unemployed went down by 400,000. (There are 2.3 million such discouraged workers.) More in a minute on the problem that will cause down the road.

Assume that we will need 9 million jobs over the next five years (150, 000 jobs a month for 60 months) and add the 8 million lost jobs. That means we have to add 17 million jobs in the next five years to get back to the 4.5% unemployment of 2007, let alone the under-4% we saw in 2000.

That means we need to grow employment by about 12% over the next five years. But it's worse than that. What is known as U-6 unemployment is over 16%. There are another approximately 8.8 million people who are either working part-time but want full-time jobs or are among the 2.3 million discouraged workers as mentioned above.

(The definition of U-6 unemployment from the BLS web site: "Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm.)

Let's make the assumption that the part-time workers want to go to full-time (which they say they do). Typically employers will increase the hours of part-time employees before adding new workers. That will be a major drag on potential job growth. It is the equivalent of creating at least 4 million jobs, except that no new jobs are created. Plus, those who want jobs but are not looking will come back into the market if jobs are available. That adds another 2 million. Now we are seeing the need for 23 million new jobs in five years, to get back to the "Old Normal."

That is an increase of 15% total employment from today's levels over the next five years. That type of jobs growth will only happen with significant economic growth. Normally, you should expect the economy to rebound to at least 3% trend GDP growth. That is what has happened historically. But we are not in the Old Normal. We are entering the era of the New Normal, where looking back at historical trends will prove to be misleading at best.

On average, and VERY roughly, you would think you would need a minimum of 15% real GDP growth over five years to get us back to what we think of as acceptable levels of unemployment. Actually you would need more, as productivity growth lessens the need for more workers. Oh, and add in the Boomer-generation workers who are not going to retire because they now cannot afford to.

(I think we will be lucky to have 10% real GDP growth in the next five years, for a host of structural reasons that we will be going into below and over the next few weeks.)

Unemployment will be rising for at least another two quarters and probably through the middle of next year. That should not surprise us too much, as unemployment kept rising for almost two years after the last recession, which many dubbed "the jobless recovery." The recession ended in 2001, but as the graph below shows, the unemployment rate rose until the middle of 2003.

We may have a "statistical recovery." The numbers may be positive for a variety of reasons only a statistician could love, but it is not going to feel like a recovery to the rest of us. Maybe that is why consumer confidence took another hit today, dropping to its lowest level since March, helping to drive the market down.

The economists at economy.com, who normally have a bullish tinge to their writing, said it succinctly: "Confidence will struggle to gain ground in the months to come, as consumer budgets remain stretched. Little wage income, prospects for reduced bonus payments, reduced access to credit, and no capital gains are all constraining consumers' ability to meet their financial needs and recover from the sharp drops in wealth they have experienced. Many consumers are struggling to pay their debts. Supports are coming from reduced layoffs, equity market gains, and stimulus such as the cash for clunkers program, but that is proving inadequate to lift spirits so far. It will likely be some time before conditions turn enough for confidence to improve decisively. Key drivers of confidence include developments in the labor and housing markets and the path of energy and equity prices."

(My friend Bill Bonner described the Statistical Recovery as being just like a female impersonator. He is just like a real woman in every way, except for the essential ones.)

The consumer's sense of discomfort is shared in executive suites across the country. "Chief Executive Magazine's CEO Index, the nation's only monthly CEO Index, dropped to 63 in July, after showing gradual improvement. All components of the index are down, with Employment Confidence taking the largest hit...

"What's worse is that pessimism over employment is reaching new heights. The Employment Confidence Index declined 25 percent with 57 percent of CEOs expecting continued decrease in employment next quarter. Over 95 percent rate the current employment environment as bad—the highest level for 2009. Less than 5 percent think employment conditions are normal and virtually no one (0.4 percent) thinks they are good." (The Bill King Report)

A Few Thoughts on the Housing Market

Bill also sent me a link to a very interesting survey of the real estate market. Those in the real estate business will find this of value, although it makes for grim reading. (http://www.campbellsurveys.com/AgentSummaryReports/AgentSurveyReportSummary-June2009.pdf)

Three (of the sixteen) of their summary bullet points stood out:

The market for home purchases can be divided into segments of 26% for damaged REO, 23% for move-in ready REO, 14% for short sales, and [only!] 36% for non-distressed properties. [REO means "real estate owned," typically by a bank as a result of a foreclosure.]
43% of homebuyers are first-time homebuyers, 29% are current homeowners (relocation or retirement homes), and another 29% are investors.
Only 31% of non-REO home sale listings are unforced or optional; other major reasons for listings include financial stress (including short sales), long distance relocation, and divorce or estate sales.

Think about that for a minute. Two-thirds of home sales are either foreclosures or banks taking a loss on the mortgage. Of the remaining 36%, only 10% are as a result of something we could call a normal selling process. And that is nationwide. There are lots of places where foreclosures are low. Reading this report anecdotally, there are large areas (California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida) where almost the only housing action is distressed or forced sales, that is, sales at a significant discount to original asking price.

Look at the chart below from Rick Sharga at RealtyTrac. Today we learned from them that foreclosures set a new monthly record of 360,149 properties that received a default or auction notice or were seized last month. One in 355 households got a filing, the highest monthly rate in RealtyTrac records. Many hard-hit areas have rates higher than 1 in 39 homes! Foreclosures are now running about six times higher than just four years ago.

And there is little relief in sight. There is typically about one foreclosure for every 6-10 jobs lost. It will be higher this cycle, as so many homebuyers are underwater on their mortgages and have little incentive to try and keep up payments while they are unemployed. Further, there are 500,000 REO-owned homes that are not on the market as of yet (what Sharga calls shadow inventory), and a wave of foreclosures will result from option ARMs and Alt-A loans resetting next year. Note: July's record numbers are not in the chart below.

John Burns gives us the next graph, which is an estimate of foreclosures for the coming years. (www.realestateconsulting.com)

Notice that he estimates more foreclosures next year than this year, with very little relief until 2014! This does not bode well for housing prices, which are a big factor in consumer sentiment, which is a big factor in consumer spending.

It does mean that renters can find some very good deals, as there are now areas (like Phoenix) where it is cheaper to buy smaller homes than to rent. Remember the statistic above that first-time home buyers are 43% of the market and investors another 29%? Lower prices make housing more affordable, and with the government incentive programs for first-time buyers really working (for once), the lower end of the housing market may actually stabilize sooner than the overall market.

As I wrote almost two years ago, the housing market will not bottom before 2011 and maybe into 2012. We just built way too many homes in our exuberance; and with tightening lending standards (as there should be) the number of people who can qualify for a mortgage is down, although (again) falling prices make homes more affordable. The median price in California is down by 60%. (Although I saw today where Bill Gross bought a tear-down on the water in Newport Beach for $23 million. That will help the average some.)

Homeowner vacancy rates are close to 3% of total homes, which is well over 2 million homes. Many of these are not yet on the market.

Retail sales were down in July. And that was with Cash for Clunkers in full force. The headlines said that economists were shocked. Really? Consumers are saving more, and actually paying down credit-card and bank debt. We will go into those details more next week, as it is getting close to time to hit the send button.

Some Thoughts from Maine

Last weekend I got to go to Leen's Lodge at Grand Lake Stream in Maine (www.leenslodge.com - highly recommended) to meet with 35 economics types and their friends. This is a very knowledgeable group, with a lot of well-known names. We fish in the morning, meet at a campsite for lunch (drink wine and eat what we caught), fish some more, go back to the lodge, eat a gourmet meal and drink some more wine, and then go on talking. This goes on for 2-3 days. I throw my diet to the wind, and pay for it over the next month, but it's worth it.

On Friday Steve Liesman and some local guides bring out their guitars and entertain, with a lot of loud, if somewhat off-key, singing from the crowd. (Liesman, by the way, really can play the guitar quite well.) On Saturday night we bet on the future of the markets and events - typically small amounts, and lots of side bets. This year I won five out of six side bets I made last year.

As usual, bets were all over the board. But a few interesting ones surfaced. David Kotok and George Friedman offered rather (for this crowd) large sums to take on all comers that Bernanke would not be reappointed. I took part of that offer, as did a number of others (for the record, the Fed economists at the meeting do not bet and were quite closed on the topic). I was surprised at the intensity of that debate. This is a well-informed crowd when it comes to Fed policy and actions, and if this question is (politely) contentious among friends in July of 2009, what will it be like in the latter part of the year, when Obama has to make the appointment (Bernanke's appointment is up in January of 2010)? And among those who do not get along? This could be a very noisy appointment process.

A few years ago (2006 and 2007), I was repeatedly told I was "too bearish." Now, my Muddle Through prediction was seen either as overly optimistic or the most likely scenario by a large number of attendees. The concerns about the credit markets are still quite strong, with many thinking we will be facing banking problems for years. There were more than a few who bet that Citibank will not be around in its current form by this time next year. (I did not take that bet.)

A number of participants saw a double-dip recession as a distinct possibility. I think it is a probability in 2011 as the Bush tax cuts expire. If Congress moves up the increase in taxes to 2010, which is what the House Democrats want, that recession could start in 2010.

Tulsa, Birthdays, Weddings, and Paul McCartney

Today is my mother's 92^nd birthday, so I need to leave soon, as she eats early. The order of the day is Luby's Cafeteria. Interestingly, she had me when she was 32, and Tiffani is 32 and will have her first around Christmas. Other than her hearing, mother is still going strong, if a little more slowly, and shows no real signs of letting up. She is now bionic, with two new knees and hips over the last decade.

Next week I leave for Tulsa on Thursday to prepare to give away my daughter Amanda on Saturday to a nice young gentleman, Allen Porter. They (along with her twin sister Abigail) say they intend to move to Dallas after the first of the year, which will make Dad happy, as all the kids will be in the local area. A little golf on Friday morning with the new in-laws, parties, and so on. It should be a large wedding and a fun weekend. They have lots of friends, it seems. I do intend to write my letter as usual.

I also intend to be in the bar on Thursday night at the Hilton at 9:30-45, assuming Southwest is on time. If anyone cares to meet, feel free to drop by.

Thinking about Mother's birthday reminds me that I turn 60 on October 4. For whatever reason, it is not bothering me like 50 did. Maybe 60 is the new 45? Paul McCartney is now 66, and is on the road with what I am told is a very good show. I will find out Wednesday when he plays Dallas and I get to go to the new Cowboy Stadium to see him play. With most of his set scheduled to be Beatles tunes, I am really looking forward to being there. I got to see Eric Clapton last month. He is on top of his game. Maybe blowing through 60 is not all that bad.

Have a great week. I shall.

Your hoping I can avoid paying for another wedding for a few years analyst,

John Mauldin

This Way There Be Dragons

John Mauldin — Sat, 30 May 2009 04:02:58 GMT

This Way Be Dragons
A Housing Update
More Prime Foreclosures In Our Future
Are We Paying Too Much for Health Care?
Naples, London, and Home for June

In fantasy novels the intrepid heroes come across a sign saying "This Way Be Dragons." Of course, they venture on, facing calamity and death, but such is the nature of fantasy novels. We live in a very real world, and if we don't turn around there will be some very nasty dragons in our future. This week we look at three possible paths we can lead the world down. We then review a number of charts and data on the housing market.

If you just read the headlines on this week's data, you could be forgiven for assuming the worst is over -- not. And then finally we look at some rather stark comparative data on the health-care systems of the US, Canada, and Great Britain. Everyone knows the US pays way more in terms of GDP than the latter two countries. Are we getting our money's worth? There is a lot to cover, and I hope to finish this on a flight to Naples, so let's jump right in.

This Way Be Dragons

More and more we read about the growing concern over $1-trillion-dollar deficits. Stanford professor John Taylor (creator of the famous Taylor Rule) jumped into the debate with a rather alarming op-ed in the Financial Times this week, echoing much of what I wrote last week, but with some real insights into what trillion-dollar deficits mean. Quoting:

"I believe the risk posed by this debt is systemic and could do more damage to the economy than the recent financial crisis. To understand the size of the risk, take a look at the numbers that Standard and Poor's considers. The deficit in 2019 is expected by the CBO [congressional Budget Office] to be $1,200bn (€859bn, £754bn). Income tax revenues are expected to be about $2,000bn that year, so a permanent 60 per cent across-the-board tax increase would be required to balance the budget. Clearly this will not and should not happen. So how else can debt service payments be brought down as a share of GDP?

"Inflation will do it. But how much? To bring the debt-to-GDP ratio down to the same level as at the end of 2008 would take a doubling of prices. That 100 per cent increase would make nominal GDP twice as high and thus cut the debt-to-GDP ratio in half, back to 41 from 82 per cent. A 100 per cent increase in the price level means about 10 per cent inflation for 10 years. But it would not be that smooth -- probably more like the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s with boom followed by bust and recession every three or four years, and a successively higher inflation rate after each recession."

You can read the rest at (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71520770-4a2c-11de-8e7e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1)

While Obama gives lip service to cutting the deficit in half, his actual budget increases it over the next 10 years. As I have been writing for some time, this is a very dangerous path. And it is one that the bond market seems to be concerned about, as interest rates are rising, even on mortgages that the Federal Reserve is buying in massive quantities in its effort to hold down rates and stimulate the housing market.

"The good news," Taylor concludes, "is that it is not too late. There is time to wake up, to make a mid-course correction, to get back on track. Many blame the rating agencies for not telling us about systemic risks in the private sector that lead to this crisis. Let us not ignore them when they try to tell us about the risks in the government sector that will lead to the next one."

Taylor is right that the massive tax increases necessary to fund these deficits and programs should not happen. But it is not clear to me that they won't. A Democratic Congress is talking of adopting John McCain's plan to tax health-care benefits. While this would be a tax on the middle class (on everyone) that Obama said he would not do, he is clearly willing to sign a bill that has such a tax.

The administration is starting to float trial balloons about a new VAT, or value-added tax. Many of my non-US readers will be familiar with VAT taxes, especially in Europe. A combination of a VAT and taxing health-care benefits would raise enough to get us to a deficit of "only" a few hundred billion. Take away the Iraq war and you get even closer. You can make an economic case that a VAT tax would be preferable to an income tax.

However, the administration is not talking about a substitute but an additional tax. There is momentum in the heavily Democrat-controlled Congress for large new health-care programs. While there is resistance to large deficits on the part of a few moderate Democrats, there is a chance they could be brought on board with a tax or a series of new taxes that would offer the potential to pay for the new programs. (Even though everyone knows that the cost overruns on new health-care benefits will be much larger than estimated.)

As much as it grieves me to say it, a tax on health-care benefits or a VAT tax large enough to hold the proposed deficits to something under 3% of GDP would be preferable to running decade-long trillion-dollar deficits, which would destroy the US economy and the dollar and do severe damage to the world economy. (For the record, I am assuming the Bush tax cuts are history.)

But while a large tax increase would keep the economy from crisis and collapse, it is not without very serious consequences. It will put a serious crimp in economic growth. It will lock in European growth rates and European-like unemployment rates. And we will be using those tax increases to fund new spending and will still not have solved the future problems with Social Security and Medicare, which are going to require massive increases in spending in another 5-7 years. Which of course means that either a cut in benefits or another round of growth-crippling tax hikes is down the pike.

A third path would be to simply go ahead and raise taxes on the rich, say no to increased spending on programs until we can afford them, hold the line on any new spending, and see if we can reintroduce the gradual budget control that was the result of the stand-off (and to some extent cooperation) between Gingrich and Clinton.

I put about a 5% probability on the third scenario happening. Better than the chances of a snowball in hell, but not much. The first disaster scenario is about a 35% probability, which is quite scary. If we do choose such a path, then short the dollar, buy gold, and invest abroad. It will be a very tricky and difficult environment.

I assign a 60% probability to the middle path. Maybe it's my basically optimistic nature and I am simply being naive, but I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and we will not run continual massive deficits larger than the growth of GDP. While that means rather large tax increases, since the current leadership wants to create massive new health-care entitlements and will do so, I would rather have to simply overcome higher taxes in my business rather than deal with a collapse of the dollar, high unemployment, high interest rates, and an extremely sluggish economy.

Each scenario will create a different investment environment. Ironically, the middle scenario could be good for the dollar over the long term. But it will be hell on corporate profits from US sources. Given the above, it seems like a 95% chance that we should start looking at investing a significant percentage outside of the US and Europe. Think Canada, Australia, Asia (not Japan), Brazil, South Africa, etc.

Normally, politics does not have all that much of an impact on the stock market. As an example, both Democrats and Republicans can take credit for the '90s, but it was really the dynamic of the free market that worked in spite of government. Same for the Bush years. While the tax cuts did help, it was the free market and increasing leverage that were the dominating factors.

This time it will be different. The choices we make as to how to fund, or not fund, the increases in spending that are our clear and sad destiny, will have a major impact on not just the US but the world economy. As US consumers have been a major part of the growth of the developing world, and especially Asia (China), a slowing of consumption in the US will mean a very slow recovery for the rest of the world. It will happen, but the choices made by politicians this year will have many unintended consequences. Just as deciding we would take a major part of the corn crop and turn it into expensive ethanol raised the price of tortillas in Mexico, raising taxes in the US will mean lower global consumer spending and trade. It is a very tangled web we weave.

A Housing Update

If you read the headlines the last few days you would think that the housing market has turned. Mostly they read something like "Home Sales Rise 0.3%," and of course the reflexive bulls started talking about green shoots and a bottom in housing. And while someday we will actually have a bottom in housing, it will not be this month. It has been awhile since we have looked at the housing market, and it is time to review.

First. Of course home sales rose. It is April. Look at the graph below. It is the time of the year when home sales rise. And 0.3%? Really? The margin of error is close to plus or minus 10% or so, so 0.3% is a meaningless number. It will be revised. Who knows which way? I don't. (I am on the plane so I cannot access the exact margin of error, but 10% is not that far off.)

My main thesis since 2006 has been that the housing market was in a bubble that would burst. We built something like an extra 3 million homes over trend growth, and those homes are going to have to be absorbed in the normal way, through growth of population and the economy. We "need" about 1 million new homes a year to take care of population growth and demand. Further, we have cut off home availability to buyers who are in the subprime category, whereas during the boom you simply had to have a pulse, even a lying pulse, to get a home for which you did not have a chance of actually paying the mortgage.

The earliest we see a real bottom to housing is late 2010 or 2011. By real bottom I am talking about housing values in general being to rise (assuming we do not visit scenario one and have significant inflation.) There is nothing that can be done about that. We have to work through the excess capacity. (More later on that below.)

We had the Case-Shiller home price data come out this week. Home prices are still in free fall. They are down almost 19% year over year and 32% from their 2006 highs (see chart below). If we get back to the long-term price growth trend, we would see another average 10% drop; and as prices tend to overshoot on the upside and the downside, in some markets they could fall even further.

Yet there is hope that we will not see a fall below trend. Housing in many areas is starting to once again become affordable (see chart from Moody's below) to more and more Americans and even first-time home buyers. The cure for the housing crisis is actually lower prices, as that brings more and more potential home buyers into the market. While housing sales are still quite depressed, what are selling are homes in foreclosure, as buyers perceive that there are bargains. And they are right.

On the negative side, the supply of homes available for sale is again rising, as more and more foreclosures come onto the market. And as we will see, this foreclosure trend is going to slow down soon. (Thanks to Greg Weldon at www.weldononline.com for the chart.)

Notice in the above chart that the supply of homes for sale is over ten months. But that average can be misleading. If you are in Florida, I read recently that in many areas it is over 40 months. And that is for homes that can be financed with government-sponsored "conforming loans," typically up to $719,000. But what if your home cost more than that? National Association of Realtors chief economist Lawrence Yun said that the supply of existing homes for sale over $750,000 has reached a forty-month supply.

Diana Olick, the very on-top-of-it CNBC real estate reporter, had the following to say (emphasis mine).

"That's going to mean a new phase of the current housing recession. So far we've seen the 'correction' of a boom market that was driven by faulty, exotic loan products, investors looking to make a quick buck, and average Americans using their homes as ATMs. Now the losses are being driven by traditional economic factors and by sweeping price drops across the nation.

"Yesterday Fitch ratings estimated that up to 75 percent of the modifications now being done through the administration's Making Home Affordable program will re-default in six months to a year. I'm not talking about the old modifications, which were largely repayment plans that could actually raise monthly payments. I'm talking about the new mods, which lower monthly payments to 31 percent of a person's income. I couldn't understand Fitch's reasoning, so I called them.

"Diane Pendley, managing director at Fitch, said the problem is not on that "front-end" ratio, but on the back end, which is all of the borrowers other debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc.). She said that in talking with servicers, she's hearing other debt is so high that most of today's troubled borrowers cannot afford any loan payment at all, even at a very modest debt-to-income ratio. 'Just getting the house payment done doesn't mean their lifestyle is sustainable,' she said.

"Another problem is that with home prices continuing to fall, more and more borrowers, who are essentially just renting their mortgages now because they will never see any home equity, are walking away. Even if the mortgage payment is low, the property taxes and home maintenance costs are padding that payment, and without an upside to the investment, there's simply no reason to pay. Suffice it to say, the foreclosure crisis, on the high and low ends, is not getting any better."

And it gets worse.

More Prime Foreclosures In Our Future

The Mortgage Bankers Association noted that a record 12%, or 1 in 8 homeowners, in the US are now behind on their payments or in foreclosure. 10.6% of the mortgages in Florida are now somewhere in the process of actual foreclosure. (My seatmate here on the flight says the prices on the condos where he lives are now back to 1998 levels. It would be scary, he said, if you had to sell. There are new developments that only have 10% actual occupancy, as the bulk of the condos were bought for speculation. Now those 10% of buyers are having to shoulder all the fees for upkeep. Nobody will buy, because the upkeep costs can be more than the mortgage. It is a vicious cycle.)

In Nevada foreclosures are 7.8%, Arizona 5.6%, and California 5.2%. 25% of subprime loans are now in foreclosure, 14% of FHA (government, taxpayer-guaranteed) loans and a growing 6% of all prime loans are now in foreclosure. (Note: the seasonal adjustments may overstate the actual numbers, as we are in new territory in terms of actual foreclosures.) Quoting from the MBA press release:

"In looking at these numbers, it is important to focus on what has changed as well what continue to be the key drivers of foreclosures. What has changed is the shifting of the problem somewhat away from the subprime and option ARM/Alt-A loans to the prime fixed-rate loans. The foreclosure rate on prime fixed-rate loans has doubled in the last year, and, for the first time since the rapid growth of subprime lending, prime fixed-rate loans now represent the largest share of new foreclosures. In addition, almost half of the overall increase in foreclosure starts we saw in the first quarter was due to the increase in prime fixed-rate loans." (emphasis mine)

How could so many prime loans be in foreclosure? These were people with good credit and jobs. The answer is the very deep and lengthy recession, coupled with high and rising unemployment. The number of foreclosures will not abate until unemployment starts to fall. And even optimistic forecasts assume unemployment will keep rising into 2010. As I have written for a long time, I think it is quite likely that we will see unemployment rise to over 10%. When I first wrote that a few years ago, many called me just another doom and gloom guy. Now, many think I am Pollyanna. Such is the life of those who believe in Muddle Through.

For those who think the end of the recession will be like all past recessions, the problems in the housing market should make for serious concern. As we will see on Monday in my Outside the Box, the average homeowner with a mortgage has very little, if any, equity. There is little room for home equity withdrawals -- if banks were lending. And recent data shows a very serious and un-American-like drop in credit card borrowing. US consumers are retrenching, and global trade figures echo that.

We are in for a slow, Muddle Through recovery, with the real potential to slip back into recession when the tax increases hit. Stay tuned.

Are We Paying Too Much for Health Care?

I want to pass on this quick note from Dennis Gartman's eponymous letter. It should give all of those who favor a nationalized healthcare system pause, before they jump right in. Quoting Dennis:

"Canada is a wonderful place to have a nasty gash on one's forehead stitched, or to break one's nose in a game of pick-up baseball; but have cancer, or need eye surgery, or want an MRI, and the business of medicine in Canada and/or the UK breaks down badly in favour of medical care here in the US. For example... and we wish to thank The Investor's Business Daily for the data noted here this morning...

"... here in the US men and women survived cancer at an average of just a bit better than 65%. In England only 46% survive. In the US, 93% of those diagnosed with diabetes receive treatment within six months; in Canada only 43% do, and in the UK only 15% do! For those seniors needing a hip replacement and getting one within six months, 15% get it done in the UK; 43% get it done in Canada ... and in the US 90% do! For those waiting to see a medical specialist, 23% of those in the US get in within four weeks, while 57% in Canada have not yet done so, and in the UK 60% are still waiting after four weeks.

"When it comes to proper medical equipment, in the US there are 71 MRI or CT scanners available per million people. In Canada there are but 18, and in the UK there are only 14! Ah, but the best figure of all is this: 11.7% of those 'seniors' in the US with 'low incomes' say they are in excellent health, which in and of itself sounds rather low ... rather disconcerting ... and an indictment of the system itself, doesn't it? But in Canada only 5.8% do!

"Yessiree bob, ya' jus' gotta' luv that collectivized, socialized medical care! Let's all go break a collective arm and enjoy the benefits of socialized medicine in the Commonwealth! (Canada) ... but heaven help you if you've got something really, really wrong. If that's the case, you'll be running south to the border faster than you can reach a specialist anywhere in Canada; of that we are certain."

Do we pay too much for health care here in the US? Everyone says yes. And there is a lot of waste (and waist) in the system. But if you are the person who needs treatment, maybe the answer is "not really." If you can't get the medical help you need when you need it, maybe the fact that it is theoretically free doesn't mean anything.

As an aside, I have two friends who have had immediate family members diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease. For all practical purposes, it is a death sentence. Yet one family was told (at a top-five cancer hospital) there could be a cure within a few years, or at least clinical trials. But just not now. Unfortunately, the prognosis is less than a year.

I can guarantee you, if that was me or my family, I would like to be able to make the decision whether to try a radical treatment. What's my downside if I die a little earlier? Shouldn't that be my choice?

And if I don't want some nameless bureaucrat dictating who gets to live or die in the name of his scientific system, why in God's name would I want a bureaucrat deciding to ration my access to health care? But that is what the majority in Congress are planning for our future. And bluntly, I find that far harder to swallow than my taxes going up.

Naples, London, and East Europe

I am literally in the taxi in Naples as I finish this letter (even for me, this is a first). I am supposed to go right into meetings when I arrive. Ground zero for the housing crisis. But it is still a pretty city. Hopefully I can get out and do a little power walking on the beach tomorrow. I am looking forward to being with good friend and fellow writer Gary Scott and business partner Steve Blumenthal, as well as my friends from Jyske Bank.

The schedule says I am home all of June. Then I am off to London in the middle of July for my partner Niels Jensen's 50^th birthday, and then a vacation to far Eastern Europe. Thanks to everyone who wrote with suggestions and offers to help.

School is just about over for youngest son Trey, and we have been spending a lot of time reviewing material for his finals (with some success!) But then you get a call from the vice principal. Seems there was a little trash talk and the other (bigger) kid hit first, and then ... "Really, Dad, it wasn't my fault. This is just so stupid." Well, you know how that goes. (Trey is fine.) After seven kids, I should get used to the regular surprises. Well, there is always next year to teach him how to avoid bullies. (Which of course Dad was soooo good at.)

It is time to hit the send button. We are pulling up to the resort. I have a good feeling about this summer. It will be busy (what else is new?), but I think it will be fun. Have a great first week of summer!

Your real life just keeps on coming at you analyst,

John Mauldin

Is That Recovery We See?

John Mauldin — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:08:20 GMT

Is That Recovery We See?
Those Wild and Crazy Analysts
The Shadow Inventory of Homes
Commercial Real Estate Starts a Long, Slow Slide
P/E Ratios Go Negative!
The Effect of Earnings Surprises
Corporate Earnings and Recovery in Recessions
The Implosion in Social Security
Copenhagen, London, Newport Beach, etc.

The market, we keep hearing and reading, is telling us that there is recovery around the corner. And pundits point to data that seems to suggest the worst is behind us. The leading economic indicators, while still down significantly, seem to be in the process of bottoming. There is a large amount of stimulus in the pipeline. Mark-to-market has been modified. Housing seems to be finding a bottom, if you look at the rise in sales from January. And so on.

In this week's letter, we look at what past recoveries have looked like in terms of corporate earnings; and we look at the continued slide in earnings on the S&P 500, which has a negative price-to-earnings ratio looming in future months (yes, that is not a typo, we have an unprecedented earnings multiple). We take a peek at housing and foreclosures. There is just so much bad news out there (like continued unemployment) that it just has to get better, doesn't it? This should make for an interesting letter.

Is That Recovery We See?

This week the market seemed to like financial stocks and was buoyed on news that Pulte Homes would buy Centex to create the largest US homebuilder. And with banks having some room to adjust their writedowns as mark-to-market is modified, the market saw significant increases in the financial sector. Everywhere I keep hearing the old saw that the market predicts a recovery about six months out, so won't we see a recovery in the fourth quarter of 2009?

If you look at earnings estimates for 2009, that is what is suggested. Bloomberg reports that profits at S&P 500 companies probably fell 38% on average in the first quarter. The stretch of quarterly declines is the longest since at least the Great Depression, data compiled by S&P and Bloomberg show.

Earnings may drop 31% in the second quarter and 18% in the next before gaining 74% in the last three months of the year, analysts predict. Banks are projected to account for all of the rebound in the final quarter. Without financial companies, the gain turns into a 5% decline, the data show.

The above estimates are based on operating earnings, not as-reported earnings. Long-time readers know that operating earnings are actually earnings before interest and Bad Stuff. As-reported earnings are what companies actually report on their tax reports, and as a gauge of profitability they are much more reliable. Before the mid-'90s the difference between operating and as-reported earnings was typically quite small. Then companies found they could play the market if they played games with their operating earnings.

Operating earnings typically do not take into account one-time, nonrecurring events. The number of items which get classified as "nonrecurring" has mushroomed to the point where projected operating earnings for 2009 are more than double the estimates of as-reported earnings. Operating earnings for 2008 were almost three times actual, or as-reported, earnings. We certainly seem to have entered an era of really bad one-time events, which just keep on coming and coming. As recently as 2006, there was less than a 10% difference between the two. In some quarters it was only 5%. A far cry from today's 100%-plus.

Those Wild and Crazy Analysts

Analysts, who as a group have been egregiously bad at predicting earnings of financial stocks for the last two years, would have us believe they are due for a large rise in the 4^th quarter. Let's visit those assumptions for a few minutes.

They contend that much of the bad news in the subprime-loan and housing market has been written off. And one would have to admit that a lot has been; and with the relaxation of mark-to-market, there may indeed be some truth to that suggestion. But there are still some issues that remain for housing. Take a look at the graph below. (Not sure where it is from, as it was sent to me, but I have seen the same data elsewhere.) Notice that monthly mortgage-rate resets declined markedly in 2009 from 2008, but are expected to rise again in 2010 and 2011. There is still some heartburn in the mortgage market.

The Shadow Inventory of Homes

And foreclosures keep climbing, though some point to that fact that they seem to be leveling off. However, a strange thing is happening. We are seeing what is being called a "shadow inventory" of foreclosed homes.

"We believe there are in the neighborhood of 600,000 properties nationwide that banks have repossessed but not put on the market," said Rick Sharga, vice president of RealtyTrac, which compiles nationwide statistics on foreclosures. "California probably represents 80,000 of those homes. It could be disastrous if the banks suddenly flooded the market with those distressed properties. You'd have further depreciation and carnage." (San Francisco Chronicle)

A Realty Trac survey found that only 30% of foreclosures were listed for sale in real estate listings like the MLS (Multiple Listing Service). Add in homes that people would like to sell but simply can't find buyers for, and must either hold or rent, and the unsold inventory numbers that are public are likely far below actual available homes.

Might some homes in foreclosure be held off the market because banks eventually want to negotiate with the homeowner? Possibly, but other surveys show that anywhere from 30-40% of homes in the foreclosure process in many areas are actually already vacant. There is no one with whom to negotiate.

Typically a foreclosed home sells within a few weeks, as banks take the first "reasonable" offer. But it normally takes about three months from foreclosure to when the home is put on the market -- it takes a few months to get a home ready. But surveys show it is taking a lot longer now, and many homes have not made it onto the market, even as more homes are being foreclosed each month.

The Chronicle suggests several factors may be at work. First, there is the "pig-in-the-python" problem. There are just so many homes that it is hard to get them onto the market and sold. Normally there are about 160,000 homes a year in foreclosure sales. We are now seeing 80,000 a month, or six times normal levels, and rising.

Second, lenders could be deferring sales to put off having to acknowledge the actual extent of their losses. "With banks in the stress they're in, I don't think they're anxious to show losses in assets on their balance sheets," one observer said.

Finally, banks may not want to flood the market with foreclosures, driving prices down even more. They are simply managing their assets so as to recover the most capital they can.

Given that the graph above says there will be more mortgage misery as large numbers of mortgages reset in the next two years, and given the unknowable nature of the losses, it is somewhat optimistic to think financial profits will rise by 74% in the fourth quarter. But it gets worse.

Commercial Real Estate Starts a Long, Slow Slide

We are now starting to see some real deterioration in traditional bank lending. Delinquencies on home equity loans are rising rapidly. The American Banking Association released a composite index of eight different types of consumer loans, and the delinquency rate on this 35-year-old composite jumped to a record high of 3.22%.

The above reflects 4^th-quarter data. As unemployment is up 2% since then and is rising, it is more than reasonable to assume that we will see another record rise in delinquencies this quarter. With unemployment headed to over 10% and maybe 11% from today's 8.5%, delinquencies are likely to continue to rise for the entire year.

David Rosenberg reports that "The National Federation of Independent Business found in a poll that 28% of small firms said they had a line of credit or credit card limit cut back in the second half of last year; 69% stated they are facing worse terms. A new FICO study found that 11% of US consumers -- 22 million people -- have had their credit lines cut or accounts closed even though they have been paying their bills on time and retain a solid rating." This is certainly not good news for those who expect a positive 4^th quarter. Cutting credit to small business, the engine of job growth in the US, is hardly a prescription for a growing economy.

Commercial mortgages are in trouble. S&P has warned they may cut ratings on $97 billion in commercial-mortgage asset-backed debt. The country's 10 biggest banks have $327.6 billion in commercial mortgages, according to regulatory filings. A projected tripling in the default rate would result in losses of about 7% of total unpaid balances, according to estimates from analysts at research firm Reis Inc. (Bloomberg)

I think, given the track record of the analysts who project a 74% rise in earnings for financial stocks in the 4^th quarter of this year, that we should remain a tad skeptical. And speaking of earnings, let's go to the S&P web site and see how things are progressing.

But first, let's look at just how badly analysts blew it in estimating 2008 earnings. In the table below we see that as recently as October 15 they were estimating AS-REPORTED earnings to be $54, down from $92 when I first saw the 2008 estimates. There were only two months to go in 2008. So, what are the actual 2008 earnings? Down to $14.88!!!

Not exactly a record to inspire confidence. So, how are we doing in 2009? We see the same pattern. There is a clear deterioration in earnings estimates. Yet, even with the ever lower estimates, they are still projecting nearly a doubling from 2008. Care to make a wager as to what the estimates will look like in a few quarters? Think we will see earnings rise?

P/E Ratios Go Negative!

When we last visited the S&P web site a few weeks ago, the P/E ratio for the quarter ending September 30 was around 181. I must confess that when I looked at it today, as jaded as I am, I was shocked. You can see the numbers for yourself at http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/xls/index/SP500EPSEST.XLS?GXHC_gx_session_id_=5350992f205e73e4&.

The P/E ratio for the end of the second quarter is 1944 (not a typo). The losses of the 4^th quarter wipe out almost all earnings for the 12 months ending June 30. But by the end of the 3^rd quarter, the estimated P/E ratio has dropped to a (negative) -467. That has never happened. We have never seen negative earnings over a 12-month period since WWII. (I don't have data for the Depression era.)

Then as the negative earnings of the 4^th quarter of 2008 drop off, we see the estimated P/E ratio rise back to 30, which is quite high. However, if actual earnings come in lower, as I think they will, the P/E ratio will rise and/or the market will fall as negative earnings surprises just keep on coming.

The Effect of Earnings Surprises

As William Hester of Hussman Funds writes in a recent article, the rise and fall of the stock market closely correlates with earnings surprises. Look at the following chart. (You can see the whole article at http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/econsurprises.htm. I highly recommend it.)

As Hester writes, "To track the trends in economic performance, we keep an ongoing tally of how data is announced relative to expectations -- a method of analysis originally inspired by Bridgewater Advisors . Economic data that surpasses expectations gets added to a 3-month running total. Data that comes in weaker than expected gets subtracted. A rising line means that economic data is generally coming in above expectations, while a falling line means that the data has disappointed. A descending line could be the result of an economy that is not expanding as quickly as economists predict or -- like in 2008 -- it could be the result of an economy that is contracting at a faster rate than expected.

"... Much of the excitement in the stock market -- at least that is related to the current performance of the economy -- seems to be centered on an economy that is performing less badly than expected. The risks here seem to be that if the trends in data surprises change, so could investors' attitudes toward stocks that are currently overbought on a number of measures.

"... If the high correlation between stock prices and data surprises holds, the recent rally in stocks might be tested. Even if the economy has bottomed, it's very likely that the eventual recovery will prove to be uneven, causing the flow of positive surprises to be uneven. During these periods, the risks to stocks will be greatest when the market is overbought and investors have priced in high expectations of positive data surprises continuing."

The projections of many market analysts assume that we will have something that will look like a normal recovery. I have objected that that could be a very bad assumption, since we are not having a normal recession. This is already a very lengthy recession, and is just going to get longer. As I will note below, there are reasons to think we could see a mild recovery late this year, only to dip back into recession next year.

Corporate Earnings and Recovery in Recessions

Next, let's look at a very interesting chart sent to me by one of my readers, Chad Starliper of Rather and Kittrell in Knoxville, Tennessee. It shows all the cumulative drops in earnings from major peaks, along with the recovery paths. What is interesting is the divergence between the pre- and post-WWII periods. Our experience since 1945 is one of rather quick recoveries, averaging about 3-4 years until earnings rise above the old highs.

The thicker black line shows a drop of 69.2% from peak earnings since 2007. Prior to World War II, it took 12-20 years for earnings to recover. Earnings are still dropping. As I will point out in the next few e-letters, we live in a world (not just the US) that is in a deep recession. There is massive deleveraging and deflation. The recovery is going to be quite slow, and that portends a slow recovery in earnings, which suggests protracted churning in the stock market. (By the way, for those of you who print out this letter, the next graph will be hard to read if it is not in color.)

Even ignoring the disastrous 4^th quarter of 2008, what if earnings drop by 80% or more, which is quite possible? That means they have to rise by 400% to get back to new highs. That could take some time. Even if they could rise at an unlikely 24% a year, it would take six years to see new highs. Look at what a mountain corporate earnings must climb.

Consumers are retrenching, and savings rates are likely to rise for at least 3-4 years, back to 7% or more, leaving consumer spending not at 70% of US GDP but closer to 63%. That will be a rather large adjustment, and will mean that a lot of productive capacity will have to be closed or allowed to lie in disuse for a long time. We just built too many strip malls and car factories and restaurants. It is going to take some adjustments.

Further, the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration are going to enact the largest tax increase in history in 2010, just as the economy is barely recovering. The Bush tax cuts go away, because the Republicans could not make them permanent when they had the chance. We are going to pay for that with a likely dip back into a recession in 2010, or at the very least a prolonged weak economy.

The Implosion in Social Security

And then there is the last piece of data I want to bring to your attention, which is the most troubling of all. Everyone knows that the government spends the Social Security surpluses on current needs, "borrowing" the money and putting it into a "Social Security Trust Fund," which is basically just US debt we owe to the trust fund. In other words, there is no trust fund with anything other than paper debt. It is accounting legerdemain.

Everyone assumed that the real problem would come sometime later next decade, when there would no longer be surpluses. In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected there would be $703 billion in surpluses from 2009-18. Recently, the CBO has revised those estimates downward. It now projects surpluses to be only $83 billion. Here is a table that was sent to me from a blog by Chris Martensen. (http://www.chrismartenson.com)

Writes Chris, "In the projections for the table above, the CBO has assumed no cost of living adjustments (COLAs) in 2010, 2011, or 2012 and a return to economic growth next year. If either of those assumptions proves wrong, the table above gets smoked to the downside."

Losing $700 billion (and likely a lot more) out of your budget projections is a huge blow to the US taxpayer. That money is going to have to be borrowed, or spending reduced. But the plans are for huge increases in spending.

In one of the great ironies, the Democrats and the Obama administration are going to have to deal with the Social Security crisis, and soon. Bush tried to do so, and he got torpedoed from both sides of the aisle. Politicians just do not want to be seen doing anything to SS. Given the massive, multi-trillion-dollar deficits that are projected, the US is going to face some difficulty in borrowing to meet those deficits in the not-too-distant future. Is it 3 years? 4? 5? No one can say for certain, but that day is coming and it now appears much closer.

Let's say that US consumers do save 7%. That's almost a trillion a year. The trade deficit dropped to $26 billion last month, as imports continued to drop. That's another $300 billion that foreign central banks could recycle. The Fed could print a few trillion here or there without really pushing up inflation in today's deflationary world.

But there is a limit to continued $2-trillion deficits without the appreciable rise in interest rates that will be needed to attract buyers of Treasury bonds, which of course would increase interest-rate payments on the national debt, while also crowding out corporate and personal borrowing. This is not going to end well, and the end game is getting a lot closer.

All in all, the next few years are going to be a very difficult environment for corporate earnings. To think we are headed back to the halcyon years of 2004-06 is not very realistic. And if you expect a major bull market to develop in this climate, you are not paying attention.

The original question was "Is that recovery we see?" I think the answer is no.

Copenhagen, London, Newport Beach, etc.

Last week's Strategic Investment Conference was the best we have ever had. Many attendees said it was the best investment conference they had ever attended. We are transcribing speeches and will make some of them available over time.

The Richard Russell Tribute Dinner was a great success. We had video crews there as well as photographers, and intend to allow those who wish they could have been there to see part of the evening. It was a very emotional evening, and I want to thank the roughly 450 people who came from all over the world just to pay tribute to one of the true wonders of the investment-writing world.

I leave Monday evening for Copenhagen, where I will meet with Tom Fischer of Jyske Bank, and then day-long, back-to-back board meetings with Niels Jensen of Absolute Return Partners, and back to London Wednesday night for more meetings.

I get back Friday in time to write the letter, then off the next Thursday to Orange County, where I will attend Rob Arnott's annual conference. More on that later. Back on Sunday, and then out Monday to the Charter Financial Analyst conference in Orlando, where I speak on the "state of the union" of the alternative investment world. Then I am home for awhile, and gladly.

We had 300 people in for the Strategic Investment Conference, and the staff of my partners and co-hosts, Altegris Investments, did a magnificent job making everything go smoothly. There were so many friends there, the only disappointment was that I did not have all the time I wanted to meet with everyone. It was like drinking from a fire hose for three days, but it was fun.

It's time to hit the send button, as all my kids are in town and most of us are going to have some dinner and then see the Dallas Mavericks play. Brunch on Easter, of course, with family and friends, and then the final day of the Masters to round out a perfect weekend. I have been watching some of it on ESPN, and seeing Augusta on high-definition TV is truly spectacular.

I hope your weekend will be as good as mine. Spend time with family and friends if you can. That time is an investment that will pay dividends forever, and doesn't run up the national debt. Well, a little bit, if you have to buy the tickets and pay for brunch for about 16. But that's what Dads are for.

Your starting to think about the end game more analyst,

John Mauldin

Why Bother With Bonds?

John Mauldin — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Why Bother With Bonds?
So Then, Bonds for the Long Run?
P/E Ratios at 200? Really?
Mark-to-Market Slip Slides Away
Housing Sales Improve? Not Hardly
La Jolla, Copenhagen, London, etc.

Investors, we are told, demand a risk premium for investing in stocks rather than bonds. Without that extra return, why invest in risky stocks if you can get guaranteed returns in bonds? This week we look at a brilliantly done paper examining whether or not investors have gotten better returns from stocks over the really long run and not just the last ten years, when stocks have wandered in the wilderness. This will not sit well with the buy and hope crowd, but the data is what the data is. Then we look at how bulls are spinning bad news into good and, if we have time, look at how you should analyze GDP numbers. Are we really down 6%? (Short answer: no.) It should make for a very interesting letter.

And for the last time, let me remind you of the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner this Saturday, April 4 in San Diego. We have had over 400 of Richard's fans (I guess you could say we are all groupies) sign up. A significant number of my fellow writers and publishers have committed to attend. It is going to be an investment-writer, Richard-reader, star-studded event. You are going to be able to rub shoulders with some very famous analysts and writers. If you are a fellow writer, you should make plans to attend or send me a note that I can put in the tribute book we are preparing for Richard. And feel free to mention this event in your letter as well. We want to make this night a special event for Richard and his family of readers and friends. So, if you haven't, go ahead and log on to https://www.johnmauldin.com/russell-tribute.html and sign up today. The room will be full, so don't procrastinate. I wouldn't want any of you to miss out on this tribute. I look forward to sharing the evening with all of you. I am really looking forward to that evening.

Why Bother With Bonds?

If stocks outperform bonds by as much as 5% over the long run then, for our truly long-term money, why should we bother with bonds? Why not just ignore the volatility and collect the increased risk premium from stocks? That is the message of those who believe in "Stocks for the Long Run" and also from those who want you to invest in their long-only mutual fund or managed account program. Indeed, it is always a good day to buy their fund.

One of my favorite analysts is my really good friend Rob Arnott. Rob is Chairman of Research Affiliates, out of Newport Beach, California, a research house which is responsible for the Fundamental Indexes which are breaking out everywhere (and which I have written about in past letters), as well as the only outside manager that PIMCO uses, for his asset allocation abilities. He has won so many industry awards and honors that I won't take the time to mention them. In short, Rob is brilliant.

He recently sent me a research paper that will be published next month in the Journal of Indexes, entitled "Bonds: Why Bother?" The publisher of the journal, Jim Wiandt, has graciously allowed me to review it for you prior to it actually being sent out. The entire article will be available when the Journal of Indexes goes to print in late April, at www.journalofindexes.com. Qualified financial professionals can also get a free subscription there to pick up the print copy. There is some very interesting research at the website. But let's look at a small portion of the essay. I am reducing 17 pages down to a few, so there is a lot more meat than I can cover here, but I will try and hit a few things that really struck me.

It is written into our investment truisms that investors expect their stock investments to outpace their bond investments over really long periods of time. Rob notes, and I confirm, that there are many places where investors are told that stocks have about a 5% risk premium over bonds.

By "risk premium," we mean the forward-looking expected returns of stocks over bonds. As noted above, if you do not think stocks will outperform bonds by some reasonable margin, then you should invest in bonds. That "reasonable margin" is called the risk premium, about which there is some considerable and heated debate.

Most people would consider 40 years to be the "long run." So, it is rather disconcerting, or shocking as Rob puts it, to find that not only have stocks not outperformed bonds for the last 40 plus years, but there has actually been a small negative risk premium.

In a footnote, Rob gets off a great shot, pointing out that the 5% risk premium seen in a lot of sales pitches is at best unreliable and is probably little more than an urban legend of the finance community.

How bad is it? Starting at any time from 1980 up to 2008, an investor in 20-year treasuries, rolling them over every year, beats the S&P 500 through January 2009! Even worse, going back 40 years to 1969, the 20-year bond investors still win, although by a marginal amount. And that is with a very bad bond market in the '70s.

Let's go back to the really long run. Starting in 1802, we find that stocks have beat bonds by about 2.5%, which, compounding over two centuries, is a huge differential. But there were some periods just like the recent past where stocks did in fact not beat bonds.

Look at the following chart. It shows the cumulative relative performance of stocks over bonds for the last 207 years. What it shows is that early in the 19^th century there was a period of 68 years where bonds outperformed stocks, another similar 20-year period corresponding with the Great Depression, and then the recent episode of 1968-2009.

In fact, note that stocks only marginally beat bonds for over 90 years in the 19^th century. (Remember, this is not a graph of stock returns, but of how well stocks did or did not do against bonds. A chart of actual stock returns looks much, much better.

Bill Bernstein notes that in the last century, from 1901-2000, stocks rose 9.89% before inflation and 6.45% after. Bonds paid an average of 4.85% but only 1.57% after inflation, giving a real yield difference of almost 5%. In the 19^th century the real (inflation-adjusted) difference between stocks and bonds was only about 1.5%.

In the late '90s, stock bulls would point out that there was no 30-year period where stocks did not beat bonds in the 20^th century. The 19^th century for them was meaningless, as the stock market then was small, and we were now in a modern world.

But what we had was a stock market bubble, just like in 1929, which convinced people of the superiority of stocks. And then we had the crash. Also, from 1932 to 2000 stocks beat bonds rather handily, again convincing investors that stocks were almost riskless compared to bonds. But in the aftermath of the bubble, yields on stocks dropped to 1%, compared to 6% in bonds. If you assumed that investors wanted a 5% risk premium, then that means they were expecting to get a compound 10% going forward from stocks. Instead, they have seen their long-term stock portfolios collapse anywhere from 40-70%, depending on which index you use.

So what is the actual risk premium? Rob Arnott and Peter Bernstein wrote a paper in 2002 about that very point. Their conclusion was that the risk premium seems to be 2.5%. Arnott writes:

"My point in exploring this extended stock market history is to demonstrate that the widely accepted notion of a reliable 5% equity risk premium is a myth. Over this full

207-year span, the average stock market yield and the average bond yield have been nearly identical. The 2.5 percentage point difference in returns had two sources: inflation averaging 1.5 percent trimmed the real returns available on bonds, while real earnings and dividend growth averaging 1.0 percent boosted the real returns on stocks. Today, the yields are again nearly identical. Does that mean that we should expect history's 2.5 percentage point excess return or the five percent premium that most investors expect?

"As Peter Bernstein and I suggested in 2002, it's hard to construct a scenario which delivers a five percent risk premium for stocks, relative to Treasury bonds, except from the troughs of a deep depression, unless we make some rather aggressive assumptions. This remains true to this day."

One other quick point from this paper. Just as capitalization-weighted indexes will tend to emphasize the larger stocks, many bond indexes have the same problem, in that they will overweight large bond issuers. At one point in 2001, Argentina was 20% of the Emerging Market Bond Index, simply because they issued too many bonds. If you bought the index, you had large losses. The same with the recent high-yield index which had 12% devoted to GM and Ford. In general, I do not like bond index funds, and this is just one more reason to eschew them.

So Then, Bonds for the Long Run?

Let me be clear here. I am not saying you should put your portfolio in 20-year bonds, or that I even expect 20-year bonds to outperform stocks over the next 20 years. Far from it! The lesson here is to be very careful of geeks bearing charts and graphs (it will be a challenge for my Chinese translator to translate that pun!). Very often, they are designed with biases within them that may not even be apparent to the person who created them.

Professor and Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson in late 1998 was quoted as saying, a bit sadly, "I have students of mine - PhDs - going around the country telling people it's a sure thing to be 100% invested in equities, if only you will sit out the temporary declines. It makes me cringe."

When someone tells you that stocks always beat bonds, or that stocks go up in the long run, they have not done their homework. At best, they are parroting bad research that makes their case, or they are simply trying to sell you something.

As I point out over and over, the long-run, 20-year returns you will get on your stock portfolios are VERY highly correlated with the valuations of the stock market at the time you invest. That is one reason why I contend that you can roughly time the stock market.

Valuations matter, as I wrote for many chapters in Bull's Eye Investing, where I suggested in 2003 that we were in a long-term secular bear market and that stocks would be a difficult place to be in the coming decade, based on valuations. I looked foolish in 2006 and most of 2007. Pundits on TV talked about a new bull market. But valuations were at nosebleed levels. And now?

I have been doing a lot of interviews with the press, with them wanting to know if I think this is the start of a new bull market. There are a lot of pundits on TV and in the press who think so. I also notice that many of them run mutual funds or long-only investment programs. What are they going to do, go on TV and say, "Sell my fund"? And get to keep their jobs?

Am I accusing them of being insincere? Maybe a few of them, but most have a built-in bias that points them to the positive news that would make their fund (finally!) perform. And believe me, I can empathize. It is part of the human condition. But you just need to keep that in mind when you are thinking about investing in a new fund, or rethinking your own portfolio.

P/E Ratios at 200? Really?

Just for fun, when I was interviewing with the New York Times today, I went to the S&P web site and looked at the earnings for the S&P 500. It's ugly. The as-reported loss for the S&P 500 for the 4^th quarter was $23.16 a share. This is the first reported quarterly loss in history. That almost wipes out the expected earnings for the next three quarters. For the trailing 12 months the P/E ratio, as of the end of the second quarter, is 199.97. Close enough to 200 for government work.

But it gets worse. The expected P/E ratio for the end of the third quarter is (drum roll, please) 258! However, taking the loss of the fourth quarter off the trailing returns allows us to get back to an estimated P/E of 23 by the end of 2009. The problem is that you have to believe the estimates, which I have shown are repeatedly being lowered each quarter, and which I expect to be lowered by at least another 25% in the coming months.

Now, much of that loss is coming from the financials, which showed staggering write-offs of $101 billion, $28 billion coming from (no surprise) AIG alone. Sales across the board are down almost 9%, with 290 companies reporting lower sales.

This quarter the estimated consensus GDP is somewhere between down 5% to down 7%. Last quarter we were down an annualized 6.3%. That would be two ugly quarters back to back. It is hard to believe earnings for nonfinancial companies are going to be all that much better.

Side note: The economy did not contract at 6.3% in the 4^th quarter. That is an annualized number. The quarter actually contracted at about 1.6%. If we go a whole year with a 6% contraction, that would be truly horrendous. We would blow right on through 10% unemployment. While it is possible, we should start to see somewhat better numbers in the second half of the year, although I still think they will be negative.

Mark-to-Market Slip Slides Away

But it is quite possible that the financial stocks see an improvement in earnings this quarter. The US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) changed the mark-to-market rules last week, which many (including your humble analyst) thought was needed. First, they suspended the mark-to-market rules for assets in distressed markets. Second, they widened the definition of "temporary" impairments of troubled assets, which will "allow banks to write up the value of some troubled assets if these have been hit by falling markets without (yet) suffering any significant credit losses." (www.gavekal.com)

Here's the important part. The board decided to make the new changes effective immediately, prior to full board approval on April 2.

As my friend Charles Gave noted, this will allow banks to write up their paper, and it happens before Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner starts putting taxpayer money at risk. Expect to see a pop in valuations. It will be interesting to see if Citi and B of A post profits this quarter.

(I should note that the International Accounting Standards Board sent out a scathing press release. I guess from that we should assume that European banks will not be so fortunate as their US counterparts.)

In theory, as I understand it, the information will still be there, but the way it will be recorded will not be reflected in the profit and loss statement. I understand that this is a very controversial proposal, and I expect many readers will disagree. The key is whether or not the information is available to investors and how the proposals are put into actual practice. If there is abuse, and regulators should be all over this, then the old rules must quickly go back into place.

This could put some strength back into financials, at least until the commercial mortgage and credit card problems start having to be written off. At the least, it could make for another solid rise in the stock market until we start to get what I expect to be very bad 1^st and 2^nd quarter earnings.

Housing Sales Improve? Not Hardly

I opened the Wall Street Journal and read that new home sales were up in February. Bloomberg reported that sales were "unexpectedly" up by 4.7%. I was intrigued, so I went to the data. As it turns out, sales were down 41% year over year, but up slightly from January.

But if you look at the data series, there was nothing unexpected about it. For years on end, February sales are up over January. It seems we like to buy homes in the spring and summer and then sales fall off in the fall and winter. It is a very seasonal thing. If you use the seasonally adjusted numbers, you find sales were down 2.9% instead of up 4.7%. But the media reports the positive number. Interestingly, they report the seasonally adjusted numbers for initial claims, which have been a lot better than the actual numbers. Not that they are looking to just report positive news, you understand.

Plus, as my friend Barry Ritholtz points out, the 4.7% rise was "plus or minus 18.3%". That means sales could have risen as much as 23% or dropped 13%. We won't know for awhile until we get real numbers and not estimates. Hanging your outlook for the economy or the housing market on one-month estimates is an exercise in futility, and could come back to embarrass you.

But that brings up my final point tonight, and that is how data gets revised by the various government agencies. Typically with these government statistics, you get a preliminary number, which is a guess based on past trends, and then as time goes along that data is revised. In recessions like we are in now the revisions are almost always negative.

There is no conspiracy here. The people who work in the government offices have to create a model to make estimates. Each data series, whether new home sales, employment, or durable goods sales, etc., has its own unique sets of characteristics. The estimates are based on past historical performance. There is really no other way to do it.

So, past performance in a recession suggests higher estimates than what really happens. Then, the numbers in the following months are revised downward as actual numbers are obtained. But the estimates in the current months are still too high. That makes the comparisons generally favorable, at least for one month. And the media and the bulls leap all over the "data," and some silly economist goes on TV or in the press and says something like, "This is a sign that things are stabilizing." It drives me nuts.

Ignore month-to-month estimated data. The key thing to look for is the direction of the revisions. If they are down, as they have been for over a year, then that is a bad sign. Further, one month's estimates are just noise. Look at the year-over-year numbers. When the direction of the revisions is positive and the year-over-year numbers are starting to stabilize, then we will know things are starting to turn around.

La Jolla, Copenhagen, London, etc.

April is a travel month. Next week I am going to a presentation in Irvine on the state of stem cell research, which I must admit fascinates me. Then I'm in La Jolla for my Strategic Investment conference, co-hosted with my partners Altegris Investments. Then home for a week. Easter weekend, all seven kids will be home. Then the next week I go to Copenhagen for a board meeting; and I will be in London, Thursday April 16 to meet with my European partners, Absolute Return Partners, and clients. The next weekend I go back to California for a conference, and then the next week I'll be a day or so in Orlando, where I'll speak at the CFA conference on the state of the alternative investment industry.

While I'm in London, I need to drop by and buy a pint for David Stevenson, a columnist for the Financial Times. Seems that he was asking his readers for nominations for best financial websites. For whatever reason, he decided I deserved a special award: "Best online commentator goes to US analyst John Mauldin, whose weekly letters at www.frontlinethoughts.com are required reading for all the big City-based bears I encounter." It's nice to be appreciated.

At the end of May (29-31), I will be in Naples, where I will be doing a seminar with Jyske Global Asset Management and Gary Scott. I will try to line up a web site where you can see whether you would like to attend.

It's after midnight and time to hit the send button. The day simply vanished on me, although I did get to the gym, at least. I am working hard, but somebody turned the dial down on my metabolism.

Have a great weekend. It is spring in the northern hemisphere, and the azaleas in Texas are awesome this year. Make sure you stop and enjoy nature a little this spring (or fall, for you blokes Down Under).

Your getting more skeptical of data as I get older analyst,

John Mauldin

Solving the Housing Crisis

John Mauldin — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:05:00 GMT

Solving the Housing Crisis
Housing Could Drop Another 20% in Pricing
Buy A Home, Get a Green Card
A Real Stimulus Package
Las Vegas, La Jolla, and the OC

This last Tuesday the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by my friend Gary Shilling and Richard LeFrak. They offer a simple solution for the housing crisis: give foreigners who will come to the US and buy a home resident status (green cards). This is a very important proposal and one that deserves national attention and action. Gary was kind enough to send me two lengthier white papers offering more facts. In this week's letter we are going to look at this proposal in more detail than the small space that an op-ed can offer. And while this letter will be somewhat controversial in some circles, I ask that you read it through, giving me the time to make the case. I will also add a few thoughts as to why this could not only help solve the housing crisis, but help put the nation back into growth mode.

Long-time readers know that I have been growing more and more bearish of late. I have been writing for a long time that we are in for a long period of slow Muddle Through growth as the twin crises of the housing bubble and credit bubbles require time to heal. Today we look at a serious proposal for cutting the time to healing for at least one of those bubbles (housing), and at least keep the other (credit) from getting worse. This is the most serious idea I have seen that could actually make a real positive contribution to the economy and help put us back on a growth path.

I will post Gary's papers and a link to the actual op-ed piece for those who want to do further research, but let me make one point at the beginning that he did not emphasize: the US is already allowing roughly 1 million immigrants a year into the country (which for a variety of reasons I and most serious economists of all stripes believe is a very good thing). We are suggesting that we simply change the nature of what constitutes the conditions for acceptance, so as to jump start the housing industry and the economy. We are not suggesting additional immigrants, although nothing would be wrong with that. I will also post a link for you to send this e-letter to your congressmen and senators.

Let me put up front a few benefits of a program that would allow legal status to immigrants buying a home. Housing values would stabilize and in many cases rise. The massive losses because of bad loans that are being subsidized by US taxpayers would be stemmed, saving many hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or more dollars. The excess inventory of homes would quickly disappear and the millions of jobs that were lost as home construction fell into a deep depression would come back. If housing values rise, many families would be able to refinance their homes at lower rates and have more income left over after paying their mortgages. $12 billion in commissions would end up in real estate agents' pockets, helping a very battered and bruised group. Hundreds of billions will flow into local businesses, as these new immigrants will need to furnish their homes. This could mean as much as a half trillion dollars in sorely needed stimulus in the next few years, without one penny of taxpayer money and actually adding taxes back to governments from local to national. And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans, which, if we are smart in how we do this, will result in more jobs for all Americans. So let's jump right in and look at the details.

Housing Could Drop Another 20% in Pricing

Let's review the situation as it will be if we do nothing. Shilling shows that we built 6.7 million more homes in this country between 1996-2005 than the normal trend would have projected, partially because we underbuilt the decade before that. New housing starts average about 1.5 million in normal times but have fallen to 500,000 recently, and could fall further as unemployment rises and demand declines. Even so, Shilling estimates that we still have about 2.4 million excess homes.

This compares rather well with estimates by independent analyst John Burns, which I cited in the e-letter early last year. What they both agree on is that it will take at least until 2012 to work through this excess inventory, and that assumes that foreclosures do not increase as housing prices drop.

Excess supply of anything means lower and continuously falling prices, and that has certainly been the case in housing. Here is what Shilling writes:

"We believe that if nothing is done to eliminate surplus housing, prices will fall another 20% between now and the end of 2010 for a total peak-to-trough decline of 37% (Chart 1 below). The resulting further negative effects on the economy will be devastating. At that point, almost 25 million homeowners, or almost half the 51 million total with mortgages, will be underwater… That's also a third of the 75 million total homeowners, with the remaining 24 million owning their houses free and clear. It would take a little over $1 trillion to reduce their mortgages to the value of their houses, compared to $449 billion for the almost 14 million currently underwater."

This is not inconsistent with similar projections by other acknowledged experts and independent analysts like John Burns and Professor Robert Shiller of Yale. If nothing happens to stimulate buying, there is a great deal more pain ahead for American homeowners.

For the great majority of Americans, their homes represent the largest portion of their assets. This is particularly true of Americans of more modest means, who have been hit the hardest. Watching their single biggest assert drop another 20% will be devastating and for many will mean they will not be able to retire as they had planned. More Americans own homes (68%) than own stocks (50%). This helps explain a recent poll which shows more Americans are worried about house prices than about the decline in stock prices.

Falling home prices means that consumers have to save more for retirement, which results in lower consumer spending, which translates into lost jobs and more homeowners coming under stress -- a vicious spiral that is increasing unemployment. Realistic estimates of unemployment rising to over 10% within the year abound.

Two years ago I and a few others foresaw the current housing crisis (and an accompanying credit crisis), predicting a protracted recession and a slow, multi-year Muddle Through recovery. Sadly, I was right about the housing crisis. Without some intervention, there is little to suggest that the prediction of a long, protracted recovery will not come true.

Lowering rates, as is being discussed in various circles, will help homeowners who can make their payments, but it does nothing to really bite into excessive inventory. Until we reduce the inventory, housing prices in many neighborhoods all across America are going to continue to come under pressure. And as Barry Habib points out, while the Fed may be lowering rates for securitized packages of loans, those low rates are not available to the average home buyer. The cost of packaging and securitization adds considerable cost.

Shilling discusses the "traditional" options for reducing home inventories, but in the end there is no real solution other than time, or massive amounts (read trillions) in taxpayer money being given to homeowners, which will be very unpopular, as homeowners who were responsible and are paying their mortgages would get no benefits. Waiting another two and a half years for the excessive inventory to sell will keep this country in a very slow or no-growth economy, and devastate the wealth of millions of homeowners.

But there is a solution. There are millions of foreigners throughout the world who would like to come to live in the US. In 2006, there were 1.1 million immigrants allowed into the US, some 63% of whom were allowed in simply because they already had relatives here. Only 13% of visas were granted to people because of their skills. While allowing relatives of current residents to come to the US may be a humane and reasonable policy, it does nothing to assure they bring more than that relationship to help them make their way in the US.

Buy A Home, Get a Green Card

What if we changed the rules for a few years? Starting as soon as possible, we should allow anyone to come into the country who would buy a home. They would be given a temporary visa which would become permanent if they had no problems after, say, five years.

While Gary proposes that they be allowed to borrow against the value of their homes, I lean toward suggesting that initially we take those who buy their homes outright (with a few exceptions). That means they have enough capital to purchase a home to begin with, which probably means they are educated and have skills. In fact, if they have enough cash to buy a home, that means they would have more actual savings than most US citizens. We would be attracting future citizens with the capital to invest in job-creating businesses and/or who have useful skills to assist in the recovery of the US economy.

Of course, there should be some rules that go along with this proposal. Background checks and references should be required. The home could not be rented for a period of time (at least two years), to help reduce the supply of available housing, and could not be resold for at least two years unless another home was purchased. There should be a minimal price, which could be somewhat different for various regions, but $100,000 would seem to be a good minimum for most areas, with higher minimums in certain areas.

The immigrant should demonstrate the ability to support himself and his family for a period of time (at least one year, preferably two), including the purchase of health insurance. Cash or letters of credit or other guaranteed commitments would be required. Only immediate family members (spouse and children) would be allowed to come with the immigrant. Cousins and siblings must buy their own homes. The permanent visa should be contingent on not having gone on welfare or public assistance at any time in the past five years. We are trying to solve a housing problem, not looking to create others.

I would make an exception in having 100% financing for immigrants with advanced degrees or special skills, especially those who did their schooling in the United States. If the US is to remain competitive in an increasingly technological world, we need more scientists and engineers. But getting permission to stay is becoming increasingly difficult. We are seeing a brain drain of those who would like to stay and create new jobs and technologies (and buy houses) here in the US. Shilling and Le Frak write:

"The authors of this report believe that a number of people have given up waiting for those visas or don't want to put up with the hassle and are leaving the country. This "brain drain" is unfortunate since many of these foreigners are highly productive. In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the U.S. were named as inventors or co-inventors on 25.6% of the 42,019 international patent applications filed from this country, up from 7.6% in 1998. Studies of the authorship of academic papers show the same trend.

"U.S. educational institutions are considered the best in the world by many and are magnets for foreign students, especially at the graduate level. Many of them are inclined to settle and work in this country after completing their studies, if they can obtain permanent resident status.

"The Council of Graduate Schools survey revealed that in the fall of 2007, 241,095 non-U.S. citizens were enrolled in graduate programs. Technological progress and the productivity it generates depends on people educated in biological sciences, engineering and physical sciences, but only 16% of U.S. citizen graduate enrollment was in these three disciplines. In contrast, 55% of total non-U.S. citizen enrollment was in those fields. Conversely, 53% of graduate enrollment by Americans was in education, business and health sciences while those three fields accounted for only 24% of foreign graduate students."

(There is a great deal more background detail in the second white paper. See link below.)

Much can be learned from similar programs already in place in immigrant-hungry countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The United Kingdom has recently added new programs. Many countries realize that in the coming years there is going to be increasing competition for the best and brightest of the world. Again, there are more details in the white papers, but let's turn to the effects that would result from such a program.

A Real Stimulus Package

First, upon Congressional approval, it would almost immediately stop the seemingly inexorable slide in house prices, as initial demand would be significant. Let's assume one million new immigrants would buy homes. At an average price of almost $200,000, that would be $200 billion injected into the economy. And each of those homes has to be furnished, food has to be bought, clothing will be needed, local taxes will be paid. Airplane tickets to research potential areas, hotels needed during the interim period, and other related expenditures would add up. Over two years, this could easily be another $100 billion.

Couple 1 million new buyers with current US demand, and the excess inventory would be worked through within a year, and possibly faster. This puts a floor under the housing market, and home values could once again to begin to rise in line with a growing economy.

Such a program would have a salutary effect on the value of the dollar, as not only the initial purchases of homes and materials would need to be converted to dollars, but it is likely that immigrants would bring even more capital into the country.

By stemming the fall of home values, it would decrease the likelihood of foreclosures and help homeowners get refinancing at lower rates. Refinancing now is difficult because most lenders want a substantial slice of equity to go along with any new mortgage. If your home value has dropped 20% and is likely to fall another 20%, it is hard to have enough equity to qualify for a new mortgage. Stopping the fall in prices is critically important; and maybe if prices rise in some areas, homeowners will be able to refinance at better rates, giving them more cash each month to save or spend.

As I have written in previous letters, the psyche of the American consumer is permanently scarred. We are on our way back to a savings rates that will look more like 1987 than 2007, when it was almost zero. Just a few decades ago, we saved 7-10%. Consumer spending was only 64% of US GDP in 1987. It was 71% in 2007. It is on its way back to that lower level.

Lower consumer spending will be a drag on growth for years. But bringing in 1 million already middle-class new immigrant families will help make up for a lot of that reduced spending. If you can spend $200,000 on a home, you are likely skilled at something and well-educated. You will find a job, or create one, as many immigrants do, and then you will add to our total consumer spending.

If you are a real estate agent, you should love this proposal, as it would result in an additional $12 billion in commissions.

If you are a home builder, what a great way to reduce inventory and get back to the conditions where there is a demand for your product. This would help put back to work those who have lost their jobs in the home construction collapse. Home Depot and Lowe's and local stores? It would help them to increase sales, which leads to more jobs.

We are on the cusp of the Baby Boomers beginning a huge wave of retirement, both in the US and elsewhere in the developed world. There is going to be a need for skilled workers to replace those Boomers, as well to provide services to the retirees. Further, the promised Social Security and Medicare expenditures are going to start increasing at a significant rate. We are going to need immigrants to help pay for those benefits. Given the controversy over immigration, we will look back with some irony in ten years when we find we are in a serious competition with other nations to attract skilled immigrants. We should start now. I think the concept is, let's not waste a good crisis.

Let's look at some of the potential critics of this proposal. I was on Yahoo Tech Ticker yesterday talking about this, and got a few irate emails and phone calls.

"Why," I was asked, "do I hate American workers? Isn't there enough unemployment? Why do we need more immigrants taking American jobs?" And there was considerable angst about illegal immigrants.

First, I am suggesting we transform the already existing legal immigrant flow, which is going to happen anyway, into a form which helps us solve a major crisis. I am not talking about adding another 1 million immigrants on top of the current legal inflow. Just change the nature of that inflow until the excess housing inventory is settled, and then we can go back to the current program, if that is what is wanted (more on that below).

Second, I am not suggesting we bring in or condone illegal immigrants. That is another issue altogether, for another debate at another time.

If we do nothing, unemployment is going to rise to at least 10%. That is certainly not good for the American worker. Home values are going to continue to fall. That is certainly not good for the American worker. The economy is likely to be stagnant for an extended period of time, which means job growth in a Muddle Through recovery will be slow and stagnant. That is not good for the American worker.

Hundreds of billions more of taxpayer dollars will have to go to banks to keep them solvent as falling home prices and increasing unemployment increase foreclosures. That is not good for the American worker and taxpayer.

And further, I am not talking about bringing 1 million foreigners to this country. I am talking about bringing 1 million future Americans, who want to work hard and live the American dream.

Let me say a few words to those who are opposed to immigration -- and I have heard from you. With few exceptions, US citizens reading this have an immigrant in their genealogies. Some of mine go back to the 1600s. Some of mine were not exactly considered welcome. "No Irish and Dogs allowed" read the signs. But immigrants and their children have been the driver for growth in this country for generations. It is hard-working immigrants who leave their homes for the dream of being Americans that have been the backbone of the building of the nation -- the hewers and shapers, if you will.

It is precisely that melting pot of human diversity that is the strength of the American idea. Each new wave of immigrants has been viewed with trepidation or scorn, yet within one generation they have become American. And in turn, their children's children forget that their forebears had to deal with discrimination.

America -- the US -- is not so much a country as it is an idea, the idea that anyone, regardless of race or religion or gender, can come here and with hard work and determination make their own way. Some end up owning the local deli, and some end up founding Google. Some 25% of Silicon Valley start-ups, I am told, are by immigrants, creating jobs at the bleeding edge of technology. They see the US as a land of opportunity. That is why so many want to come and that is why we can attract a new generation of affluent, self-reliant immigrants who can help us solve a problem that we created.

I can see no downside to changing our immigration policy for a few years. We solve the housing crisis, stabilize home values, brings hundreds of billions in stimulus to the US, and with no taxpayer outlay. For a short time, we substitute one class of immigrant for another, to solve a serious crisis. It is not a matter of immigrants or no immigrants, just which immigrants

So which do you want? 10% unemployment and a decade of lower home values and increasing foreclosures, with a slow, Muddle Through, jobless recovery, or a stable housing market and home construction back to trend?

If you agree with me, I suggest you contact your Congressman. You can go to http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ (selected at random from many such sites) and type in your address and get the name of your congressperson and senators. Just tell them you like this idea, and cut and paste the link where you read this into the letter. And tell them to get into gear! I would like to point out that this proposal is not Republican or Democrat, it is just common sense. I hope we can get broad bipartisan support.

The link to the Wall Street Journal editorial is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725421857750565.html

The links to the white papers are:

http://www.investorsinsight.com/samples/Housing_Whitepaper_1.pdf
http://www.investorsinsight.com/samples/Housing_Whitepaper_2.pdf

Las Vegas, La Jolla and the OC

I expect I will get a few new readers from this letter. Normally, at the end of my regular weekly letter, I make a few personal comments. I write this free weekly letter to my 1 million closest friends, and you can add yourself to the list at http://www.investorsinsight.com. You can find out more about me at www.johnmauldin.com.

Parts of this letter have been written in New York and Dallas, and as I write this I am on a flight to Las Vegas to speak at a conference on natural resources. I am sure the recent Fed actions will be at the center of conversation. There is not enough space now to comment on that; but I did do a few segments on Yahoo Tech Ticker (one of which evidently made the Yahoo home page), which you can listen to at the following links.

Links to the Yahoo segments:

D.C. to America: You Can't Handle the Truth
http://bit.ly/10rUiF

Plan to Solve Crisis: Let Immigrants Buy Houses 2
http://bit.ly/W0XLq

Fed Strategy: Spread Economic Pain Over Multiple Years
http://bit.ly/wgGjA

I will be in La Jolla for my annual Strategic Investment Conference in two weeks, as well as hosting the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner. The dinner is shaping up to be a big event, with hundreds of attendees and many of the brightest lights in the investment writing world present to honor Richard for 50 years of brilliant commentary.

I really enjoyed my trip to NYC. I had a great steak dinner with Art Cashin, everybody's favorite commentator on CNBC. Breakfast with Tom Romero and then a meeting with Jim Cramer, who I found to be very personable and genuinely likeable. Meetings in the afternoon with business partner Steve Blumenthal, then breakfast the next day with Barry Ritholtz, Yahoo at the NASDAQ, and then a speech at noon, back on the last flight and up writing -- and then this plane, which I hope ends up in Las Vegas.

In addition to being with old friends Doug Casey and David Galland (and their posse), I intend to see the inside of the gym and spa. I need it. Tiffani has been gone for two weeks, working on our book, and will get back on Monday; and the new chapter I was supposed to have for her has disappeared in a reboot from this laptop. I am quite distressed, but evidently the book gods decided it needed a major rewrite.

Have a great week, and find a few friends and share some laughs and your adult beverage of choice.

Ok, the computer crashed again, and this letter is going out on Saturday rather Friday night. But I did get to see the Jersey Boys (The Story and Music of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons) here in Vegas last night. One of the best shows I have seen in years. See it when it comes near you.

And if you are in Las Vegas, eat at Wolfgang Puck's new place, called Cut. One of the best pieces of steak I have inhaled in years. And now it really is time to hit the send button and go attend the conference.

Your wondering if we can actually get some action analyst,

John Mauldin

Forecast 2009: Deflation and Recession

John Mauldin — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:38:00 GMT

Forecast 2009: Deflation, Deleveraging, and the Stimulus Effect
Muddle Through on Hold
Lies, Damned Lies, and Government Unemployment Numbers
Central Bankers of the World, Unite!
Predictions 2009
La Jolla, Bermuda, and Europe

Where are we headed in 2009? We will explore that in detail over the next few issues of Thoughts from the Frontline, but today we will start with some of the larger forces which will have a major impact on the economies of the world, and I will end with my usual attempt to forecast the various markets. We will look at deflation, deleveraging, the fallout from the stimulus plans (note plural), housing, consumer spending, unemployment, and a lot more. There is a lot to cover. But first two quick announcements.

Along with my partners Altegris Investments I will be co-hosting our 6^th annual Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla, California, April 2-4. I have invited some of the top economic minds in the country to come and address us, giving us their views on what seem to be a continuing crisis. It will be a mix of economic theory and practical investment advice. Already committed to speak are Martin Barnes, Woody Brock, Dennis Gartman, Louis Gave, George Friedman (of Stratfor), and Paul McCulley. I anticipate adding another stellar name or two. This is as strong a lineup as we have ever had, and on par with any conference I know of anywhere.

Due to securities regulations, attendance is limited to qualified high-net-worth investors and/or institutional investors. Early registrants will get a discount. Last year we had to close registration, and I anticipate we will run out of room again, so I would not procrastinate. Simply click on the link below, give us your name and email, and you will be sent a form next week to register.

https://hedge-fund-conference.com/2009/interest.aspx?m=t

I should note that most attendees say this conference is the best investment conference they have ever been to. One of the benefits is being with several hundred very nice people in a relaxed setting. We do it up right.

Second, I and some of my fellow newsletter writers (Bill Bonner and Dennis Gartman, among others, are slated to be there) are going to be hosting a special tribute dinner to honor Richard Russell for his outstanding contribution of over 50 years to not only the craft of investment writing but also to the lives and investment portfolios of his readers. He is one of my personal heroes as well as a good friend. At 84, his writing today is better than ever, and now he writes every day, not just once a month! Richard is an institution in the investment writing world, and after talking with his wife Faye he has said he will let us plan the dinner.

Richard has some of the most loyal readers anywhere. I have personally talked to people who have been reading Dow Theory Letters almost since the beginning (1956), and their enthusiasm for all things Richard has not waned. We have a long list of people who want to attend.

Based on the response so far, we believe we can get a large roomful of Richard's friends, writing colleagues, and fans who have benefitted from his wisdom over the years, to honor him for a life well-lived and a true servant's spirit, as well as being a guide not just in the markets but in life. The dinner will be Saturday evening, April 4, 2009 in San Diego. In order to know how many people we should plan for, please send an email to russelltribute@2000wave.com indicating how many tickets you would like. If you have already responded, you will get an email with a link next week for you to register. If you have not and want to come, I suggest you do so quickly, as again we anticipate a packed room. The tickets will be $195, with any money left over going to Richard's favorite charity.

(Note: If you register for my conference, you must register separately for the Russell Tribute Dinner, which will be held at a different venue, after the close of my conference on Saturday. Thanks!)

And for new readers and those who get this letter forwarded to them, you can get a free subscription of your own just by going to www.frontlinethoughts.com. And now to our regular letter.

Fatten your 401K in 2009. Proven Trading System. AlphaKing.com

Quit worrying about your 401K and invest the AlphaKing way. We made money in 2008 while others lost big. Our Index Portfolio was UP 70% in 2008!

Free 30-day Trial to Portfolios, No credit card needed.

Proven trend following system. It works. Bull or bear, its all the same to us. Check us out. Read the Tours page. Read the Archives. See Performance page.

We do all the work. If your brokerage account or 401K needs fattening up then AlphaKing.com is for you. Click: http://alphaking.com

Muddle Through on Hold

First, a quick look back at how I did in my 2008 forecast issue. In general, it was not a bad year in terms of getting the direction right on many of the markets, including gold, oil, the dollar (especially against the pound sterling), and stocks. Some predictions were on target, like a second-half rebound in the dollar.

But I missed the economy. I noted then that I believed we were already in recession (which we have now found out that we were), and I wrote that a recovery would begin by the end of the year, but that it would be a very weak one for a long time -- my basic Muddle Through scenario. Obviously, the recession is a lot worse than I thought it would be at the time. Looking to the end of this letter, I now think we will be in recession through at least 2009 before we begin a recovery, which will again be a rather anemic Muddle Through period of maybe two years, for a variety of reasons, some of which I cover today and others over the next few weeks.

And I should note that it was not long into the year before I began to get decidedly more gloomy, as many of you noted. And I expect that this year will bring a few surprises that will cause me to change my opinions yet again. When the facts change, I will try and change with them.

Forecast 2009: Deflation, Deleveraging, and the Stimulus Effect

For a very long time, I have been adamant that deflation is in our future. In the next few pages I outline how inflation might come back, but I doubt it will be this year. For now, deflation is the economic factor that the Fed and central banks will be battling. And believe me, it will be a very large and controversial battle.

We had a brief period last summer where inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index or CPI) was over 5%, and the trend was clearly up. The increase was almost entirely due to food and energy costs. Core inflation (less food and energy) was around 2%. Many commentators noted that real people actually bought gas and food and we should look at overall CPI and not just core. Now, with the drop in food and energy costs, their impact has vanished.

For the three months ending last November, the compound annual rate for the CPI was a negative(!) -10.2%, reflecting the almost 70% drop in energy. Annualized core CPI for the last three months ending November was a very low 0.4%. November CPI was a flat 0.0%. It has been falling steadily for the last five months.

December is likely to be negative. There is a trend here, and if you are a central banker it is not one you like. And that trend is being manifested in every part of the developed and much of the developing world. It is a global problem.

Given how high inflation was last summer, how could I credibly maintain that deflation was in our future? For reasons that I wrote about extensively then. Briefly, we were in a recession. Recessions are almost by definition deflationary. We had two massive bubbles bursting: the very visible housing bubble which was massively destroying wealth, and the less visible but even more powerful bursting of the credit bubble, which was accompanied by profound deleveraging and the destruction of what Paul McCulley termed the Shadow Banking System.

It would be a strange, strange world indeed if inflation could get any real traction in such an environment, and it didn't.

But now we have a structural problem in that deflation has the potential to get some very real traction going forward. Why? Because not just in the US, but all over the world, we built too much of almost everything. Too many houses, too many manufacturing plants, too many retail stores -- and just too much stuff.

In the US, capacity utilization is falling rapidly. Typically, if we produce "stuff" (cars, food, lumber, etc.) in the range of 80% of potential capacity, that is considered to be a good economy. Capacity utilization has been dropping for some time and is down below 75% for all industries, but in many industries is close to 70%. And the clear trend when looking at ISM manufacturing statistics is that it has a lot further to fall.

That means industries have no pricing power, as they can make a lot more "stuff" than they can sell. And when demand due to the recession drops as well, prices fall as producers try to stay in business.

As a very visible example, global output capacity for automobiles is 92 million cars, but sales will probably be around 60 million. Output in the US will be around 12 million, but right now sales are only about ten million. The average American household has 2.2 cars. Evidently, consumers are reducing the number of cars they own, buying used cars, and making their current vehicles last an average of 6 months longer -- all in just the last year.

Many auto plants, both in the US and abroad, are simply going to have to be closed. "Super-efficient Toyota expects its first operating loss in 70 years in the fiscal year ending March 31. Weak sales in China will probably force many of her 80 automakers to merge. Russian sales dropped 15% in November and 25% in Brazil from a year earlier." (Gary Shilling)

Just as there are too many auto dealers and too much auto manufacturing capacity, there are too many stores for a country whose consumers are in retreat. Consumer spending could easily drop 7% as the saving rate heads back up to 5% (or even more). It is estimated that over 70,000 retail stores will go out of business in the next six months. That would be in line with the 140,000 that closed doors last year. The economy and its businesses have to adjust to a new level of spending that will be the first serious consumer recession in 26 years.

Looking at Federal Reserve data, both total household debt and mortgage debt outstanding dropped in the third quarter, for the largest drop in 40 years. As I wrote almost two years ago, the disappearance of Mortgage Equity Withdrawals is having a negative impact of about 3% on US GDP. Evidence shows that this is also happening in Great Britain and other parts of Europe where there was a housing bubble.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Government Unemployment Numbers

There are some who see a ray of hope in the recent jobless claims reports, which have dropped back to "only" 467,000 in initial unemployment claims, down from 491,000 for the last week, after being over 500,000 for several weeks. Those numbers are seasonally adjusted. That hope disappears if you look at the actual numbers. For the current reporting week ending January 3, 2009, the advance number of initial claims came in at 726,420. Last week's advance number was 717,000. We have been above 600,000 new initial claims every week since the third week of November. Continuing claims jumped massively, by 744,000 to 5,316,124.

No conspiracy here. This is what happens when you try to smooth a volatile trend by using seasonal adjustments. If you use past performance as the tool by which you smooth the trend, when the trend changes, the seasonally adjusted numbers will be either too large or too small. Thus, the data understated the growth of jobs in 2003 because recent past performance had been bad, and it is now understating the number of unemployment claims and actual unemployment.

In December, the number of unemployed persons increased by a seasonally adjusted 632,000 to 11.1 million and the unemployment rate rose to 7.2%. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has grown by 3.6 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 2.3% and is now at 7.2%.

I happened to be watching CNBC at the time of the release of the data, and several commentators remarked how much better the number was than they thought it would be. I wish they were right, but again, the actual numbers showed a loss of 954,000 jobs, over 50% more than the headline number reported in the press release. And that assumes that new businesses created 72,000 jobs from the birth/death model that I so frequently write about. It is possible that almost 1 million jobs were lost in December. I doubt the market would have liked that number.

I should note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not hide that number. You can find it if you dig for it. But most analysts seem to prefer just to take the press release and go with it. And most of the time that is fine. But in times like this, when trends are changing, you miss the bigger picture and get misleading data.

Unemployment could rise to 9-10% or more this year and on into 2010. That means we could easily see another 3 million lost jobs over the next year. That is going to put a lot of negative pressure on consumer spending. It also means that wages are not likely to rise, and we have already hard evidence of wages falling in many industries as companies try to find ways to remain solvent.

And that 9% will be the headline number. If you add people who have part-time jobs but would like a full-time job, and what are called marginally attached workers, the current rate is already 13.5%.

Average hours worked dropped to the lowest level since they began collecting data in 1964, as did hourly income. Given the increasing difficulty for consumers to borrow money and with income dropping, plus increased savings on the part of consumers, it is difficult to see how pricing power is going to come back any time soon.

This problem is multiplied throughout the developed world. The developing world, which sells products and goods to the US and European consumers, is starting to feel the pinch. Chinese and other Asian exports are dropping (more on that in future letters, but the data is ugly).

Overcapacity, rising unemployment, imploding leverage, lack of borrowing and/or lending, a serious retreat by consumers, and increased savings are all the conditions needed to bring about deflation. Left unchecked, we could soon see something like what Japan has experienced, and even potentially worse, as they started with a savings rate of 13%.

But deflation is not going to be left unchecked. It will be fought by central banks everywhere with low rates and the printing press, as well as government spending. And so, let's turn our attention to that process.

Central Bankers of the World, Unite!

There are many people who believe that the Fed and the Treasury increasing the money supply will bring about uncomfortably high inflation. And it is indeed their intention to "reflate" the economy. They are well aware of the problems that would develop if the US (and Europe!) caught "Japanese disease" or a prolonged bout of deflation. Bernanke has made it clear that "it" (as he called deflation in his 2002 speech) would not be allowe to happen on his watch.

And we have already seen a rather large growth in the monetary base. But as I wrote a few weeks ago, the velocity factor of money is slowing rapidly, creating the ability -- or dare I say it? -- the actual need to expand the money supply (you can read that in my December 5, 2008 post). But is it having an effect?

Good friend Gary Shilling raises some doubts (emphasis mine):

"Central banks around the world continue to cut their target rates, although in today's frozen credit market, that won't ever get the horse up on his feet, let alone to the water and drinking. The distrust of banks for even loans to other banks is shown by the still wide spread between LIBOR and the Treasury bills they covet.

"The M2 money supply is 60 times bank reserves, so normally when the Fed gives the bank another dollar in reserves, M2 rises by $60. But between August and November of last year, the $577 billion rise in reserves resulted in a mere $264 billion growth in M2, less than one half!"

See the chart below (the red, smooth line is M2, the dotted line is the adjusted reserves).

The Fed is aggressively expanding its balance sheet. They have made clear that they intend to purchase mortgage securities, consumer loans, and credit card securities. Corporate loans are on the table, as well as other forms of debt. (Finland is getting ready to purchase corporate debt. The list of countries that do so will rise very quickly.) This will be direct infusion of money into the system. As Bernanke said in 2002, he knows where the keys are to the room that has the printing press. And they are going to use it.

Obama and his advisors have signaled they intend to run a deficit of at least a trillion dollars. Right now, as I add it up, it is more like $1.3 trillion (the stimulus number keeps moving), and given that tax receipts are going to drop and unemployment benefits will rise (care to bet that unemployment benefits won't be extended to 52 weeks instead of the current 26?), it could be closer to $1.7-2 trillion. That would be almost 15% of GDP!

Let's get this straight. The only difference between the Treasury and the Fed under an Obama administration and the Bush administration is that Obama will be even more willing to spend (although Bush certainly showed little restraint). Incoming Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has worked at Treasury and is now president of the New York Fed. There will be little difference between his policies (and those of Larry Summers, Obama's economic advisor) and those of Bernanke and Paulson. And like Paulson, he is going to have to make up the play book as he goes.

The Fed and the new administration are "all in," as they say in Texas hold 'em poker, in the fight to defeat deflation and get the economy growing. And eventually England and Europe will get it and join the fight (both the European Central Bank [especially!] and the Bank of England are behind the curve).

But there is a problem.

Lowering rates isn't enough to get consumers to spend when they have seen their wealth erode from losses in the value of their houses and investment portfolios and retirement accounts. The stimulus last summer was largely saved or used to pay down debt. What was an annualized stimulus of 3% of GDP in the second quarter, which is quite large, only kept GDP growth positive for one quarter.

Obama talks about creating 3 million jobs. If he can do it, that would only partially offset the job losses that will happen in his first year in office. But it will take a long time for much of the stimulus he is talking about to make its way into the economy. You can't turn on infrastructure projects in one quarter. It takes a lot of time to plan. New green power plants? Wonderful. I'm all for it. But they take years to authorize and build. Tax cuts? Again, much of it will be saved or used for debt.

The reality is that the US and much of the world are going to see their economies shrink for at least another year. And when that new, lower level is reached, the economy will slowly start to grow again. Remember those 71,000 retail stores closing? That means that those left standing will get more business and will be able to expand and grow and hire people. That is how recessions work. Excess capacity is worked through. Businesses cut back until they can get positive cash flow.

In 1978, in the midst of high inflation, bear markets, and malaise about all our jobs going overseas, the correct answer to the question "Where will all the needed new jobs come from?" was "I don't know, but they will." That is the correct answer today. That is what free markets and capitalism do. They find a way to make new paths and new businesses where none existed before. And it will happen again. Just with a little lag this time.

In the meantime, there is a lot of pain. An Obama administration is going to do what it can to help relieve that pain, even at the cost of trillion-dollar deficits for several years.

This you can take to the bank: If the Fed buys $500 billion in assets of various kinds and if the US government spends an extra trillion dollars and deflation is still a concern, they are going to double down and do it again. And yet again if they think it is necessary. They are not going to stop until the nominal economy is growing and inflation is above at least 1%.

How much will that number finally be? No one really knows. This has never been attempted. Maybe the initial stimulus package and Fed debt purchases will be enough. My bet is that it won't be, but that is just a guess. We are in uncharted waters. But the captains of the boats are all Keynesians. They are going to fight a recession and deflation with old-fashioned stimulus. And that means we had better adjust our portfolios and businesses for that reality.

Just to give you a picture of what economists think about the effect of the stimulus, let's turn to the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, which is one of my favorite sources for original economic insight (http://www.levy.org/). They are a rather conservative lot. The graph below shows what two different levels of government stimulus will mean to the economy. They graph unemployment at no stimulus (top black line) and at two levels of "shock" or stimulus. Shock 1 is about $380 billion and shock 2 is about $760 billion. The dotted lines are what is known as "output gap," or the measure of the difference between the actual output (actual GDP) of an economy and what it could produce at its most efficient (potential GDP).

"The implication of these projections is that, even with the application of almost unbelievably large fiscal stimuli, output will not increase enough to prevent unemployment from continuing to rise through the next two years.

"It seems to us unlikely that U.S. budget deficits on the order of 8--10 percent through the next two years could be tolerated for purely political reasons, given the strong and widespread belief that the budget should normally be balanced. But looking at the matter more rationally, we are bound to accept that nothing like the configuration of balances and other variables displayed in Figures 3 and 4 could possibly be sustained over any long period of time. The budget deficits imply that the public debt relative to GDP would rise permanently to about 80 percent, while GDP would remain below trend, with unemployment above 6 percent.

"Fiscal policy alone cannot, therefore, resolve the current crisis. A large enough stimulus will help counter the drop in private expenditure, reducing unemployment, but it will bring back a large and growing external imbalance, which will keep world growth on an unsustainable path.

"É At the moment, the recovery plans under consideration by the United States and many other countries seem to be concentrated on the possibility of using expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.

"But, however well coordinated, this approach will not be sufficient.

"What must come to pass, perhaps obviously, is a worldwide recovery of output, combined with sustainable balances in international trade."

Let me wrap up with a quick note about housing. The economy is going to have a rough time getting back to trend growth with the housing market in the tank. New home sales fell 2.9% in November, while the median price declined 11.5%. Unsold inventories stood at a rate of 11.5-month supply. Housing starts fell nearly 19% in November, while the number of building permits was down 15.6%. Sales of existing homes in November fell more than 8%. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city housing index showed an 18% drop in prices in October from a year earlier, while the 10-city index declined 19.1%. Prices in the 20-city index have fallen more than 23% since their July 2006 peak, while the 10-city index is down 25% since its top in June 2006.

It will be 2011 before we work through the excess supply of homes, especially as we are seeing more and more come onto the market because of foreclosures. Prices are likely to drop another 10%. There will be more wealth destruction and more pressure on consumers. 10% of all mortgages are either delinquent or in foreclosure.

Predictions 2009

Let's close with some predictions. Ten out of ten analysts in the recent Barron's forecast saw stock prices rising 10-20% this year. For reasons I outlined last week, I think we could see a tradable rally in the next few months, but at the very least test the lows this summer, if not set new lows. Earnings are going to be far worse than any analyst's projections I have seen. And earnings drive stock prices.

Further, this recession is going to be the longest in anyone's memory. It is going to seem like it is never going to end (it will, I promise), and more and more investors are just going to give up on stocks. The buy and hold for the long run mantra is wearing thin. In inflation-adjusted terms, the stock market is about where it was in 1973! If you reinvested dividends, that gets you to 1991 (again, inflation-adjusted). It takes a lot of buying to make a bull market. It only takes an absence of buying to make a bear market.

Could we get a rally after the summer or fall lows? Sure. And it could be a good one. A lot depends on how fast the stimulus kicks in and whether it really has an effect. Will the Fed really buy large-cap corporate debt? I hope we can see something like a 1974 bottom in stocks develop.

I think the correlation between the US stock market, other developed markets, and emerging markets is close to one. I prefer to stand aside until the US economy has a clear direction and we can see whether the stimulus actually works. And then we can look at the world economy. I won't embarrass them by naming names, but those who argued for "decoupling" between the US and the rest of the world are not looking good. Someday, but not this decade.

I would be a buyer of quality bonds, both corporate and municipal. The key is to have a bond analyst who knows what they are doing and not just looking at ratings. There are some real values in the bond market today.

I would not be a buyer of US government debt. Treasuries, if not in a mini-bubble, have little upside potential and just don't yield enough. Why would I hold a ten-year treasury for 2.39%? I like TIPS at these prices. TIPS are pricing in deflation for ten years and, as I outlined above, I don't think the Fed will allow deflation to take hold.

With all the massive printing of money, you would think I expect the dollar to crash. I don't. The question is, what will it fall against? The euro? Really? The pound is better valued, but England and Europe are going to have to cut rates and apply massive stimulus as well. Every developed country will have problems. I can see holding Canadian, Australian, and other commodity-country currencies, but the leverage needed to make it a reasonable investment potential is too risky for individuals.

I can't see the Japanese letting the yen get too much stronger. China seems to want to halt the rise of the yuan, and the rest of Asia will devalue their currencies to maintain whatever they think of as a competitive advantage. Longer term, I like Asian currencies.

After a year of bouncing around, gold may be poised to rise against all major currencies. We could easily see new highs in the next year.

I think oil is going lower (and maybe much lower -- can you say $1-a-gallon gas?) in the near term. As I have written about before, oil is now in the steepest contango on record. That means oil is cheap today and more expensive in a few months. That is not normal. Oil is bidding for storage. You can make 20-25% on your money in a few months if you can buy oil and find somewhere to store it. At least 25 supertankers have been leased to store oil, and sources say another ten are being bid for. It remains to be seen if OPEC can really cut enough to make a difference in the near term.

As for the other metals, I think it is quite likely copper and its industrial allies will fall in price at least for the near term, until production can be cut and demand in Asia begin to rise again. I would not be a buyer of long-only commodity funds for the near term. Someday the bull market in commodities will return, but not until Asian demand picks up.

The risks to my forecasts are quite clear. The stimulus could happen quicker and be more effective than I think, and the economy and the markets could surprise to the upside. On the other hand, and more scarily, the Fed could be pushing on a string in a liquidity trap and the economy and markets could get hit harder, along with most assets.

Briefly, if you would like to look at a range of money managers I think have the potential to navigate the current market successfully, let me suggest you contact some of my partners around the world. If you are an accredited investor (net worth $1.5 million) and would like to look at a group of hedge funds and especially commodity funds in the US, go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and fill out the form, and my partners at Altegris Investments will get in touch with you. If you are in Europe, use the same link and I will get you in touch with Absolute Return Partners in London. In South Africa, my partner is Plexus Asset Management. We will soon be announcing new partners in Canada and in Latin America.

If your net worth is less than $1.5 million, my US partners at CMG have a platform of managers and traders that take direct-managed accounts with minimums of $100,000. These are liquid and fully transparent accounts with managers with long-term track records. You really should check it out. The link is http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp.

And if you are an advisor or broker and would like to see the managers on the Altegris or CMG platforms and how you can access them for your clients, sign up and note on the form you are in the business. It might actually be fun to make a client call with a recommendation for a fund or manager that was up in 2008.

La Jolla, Bermuda, and Europe

Tiffani and I head out to La Jolla Monday to meet with Jon Sundt and his partners at Altegris Investments. There have been a lot of positive developments of late, including new managers, and of course we will be talking about the upcoming conference. And I will get to have a quick happy hour with Richard Russell and his son. The Tribute dinner is going to be so much fun.

On Wednesday, I am hosting a dinner at my new home for a small group of family office heads, hedge fund managers, and local businessmen. We are calling it an "Idea Dinner" and will throw out thoughts on how to invest in the coming year. I will report anything interesting.

I will be in Bermuda January 28-31 for a speech and some time away from the office to write on the book Tiffani and I are doing on millionaires. It is a fun project. And I have to have it finished by the end of February so I can get to London and Europe and New York in March.

I am always optimistic at the beginning of the year. Even though I see a serious recession, I am working, like every businessman in the world, on making my business grow in spite of problems in the economy. Free markets with motivated entrepreneurs will be what really creates a growing economy.

It is time to hit the send button. There is a fire in the family room, and it is time to relax. Enjoy your week. I know I will.

Your more optimistic than this letter implies analyst,

John Mauldin

The Rise of A New Asset Class

John Mauldin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:44:36 GMT

This week I am in Maine on vacation with my son, and next week is my daughter Tiffani's wedding, so for the next two weeks I am going to send an updated version of a speech I have been giving the past few months on what I think is the likely potential for the rise of a brand new asset class. It is too long to be sent as one letter, so we will start with the first part today and finish with the second part next week. This first part can be read as a standalone letter.

The Rise of A New Asset Class

I think we're at a watershed moment, what Peter Bernstein defines as an "epochal event," with the very order of the investment world changing as it did in 1929, in '50, in 1981, where a number of things came together - it wasn't just one thing but a number of events happening that conspired to change the nature of what worked in the investment world for the next period of time. It took most people a decade after 1981-2 to recognize that we were in a different period, because we make our future expectations out of past experience. It's very hard for us to recognize a watershed moment in the process. We're going to look back in five or ten years and go, "Wow, things changed." As we will see, it's going to be a change that's going to cost people in their portfolios and in their retirement habits.

We're going to look at a number of different concepts and separate ideas that in and of themselves don't make that much difference. But I think their confluence in the present moment is going to change things.

Now, some of this is new, some of it is old. The old stuff we're going to fly through. Most of you have been reading me for a while now, and you've got the concepts down. So let's start.

The first thing to note is that we're in a Muddle Through Economy. We're in a recession that's fueled by the bursting of two bubbles: the housing bubble and the credit crisis. The real question is: when do we come out of the recession? At what time do we come back to trend growth, which is 3 to 3.5 percent a year?

I believe that over the next 20 years the US economy will grow at roughly a rate of 3 percent compounded, in real terms. But I believe that we have some headwinds for the next year or two. So I think the real bottom of this economic cycle will be later this year, during the fourth quarter and possibly into the first quarter of next year. But it will take two years, for some reasons we are going to get into, to get back to long-term trend growth. It will take much longer than normal because the things that created the problem – the housing bubble and the credit crisis – aren't things that can respond to Fed policy, and they aren't things that can respond to the normal cycles. It's going to take a long time to work through these.

First, we had an investor-driven transaction bubble in housing. There were 48% more houses built since 2005 than should have been built, if you were simply looking at trends.

What that means is there are 3.5 million homes we have to work through. Now, that means that the 8 or 9 hundred thousand homes that we're now down to building a year, is going to end up going down to 400,000. It's going to take some time to work through those excess homes – for the prices to drop enough that people can go in and buy them or rent them. We are probably talking 2011 before we finally work through this housing crisis and get back to a normal market where housing contributes significantly to GDP growth.

Sales activity is probably going to correct another 30 percent. That's not fun. By the middle to the end of this year, sales are going to be really low. As a side issue, those of you who like to invest in real estate and actually want to own a home to rent are going to have some good opportunities.

Let's look at the credit crisis very quickly. We vaporized 60 percent to the shadow banking system, the SIVs and CDOs, the people who actually bought US mortgages, who bought student loans, who bought credit cards, who bought car loans. That's gone and it's never coming back. As we'll see, it's going to take well into the next decade for us to create a completely new infrastructure to replace the broken one. It took decades to get to where we were last year. I don't think it will take decades to recover, but it's going to take five, six, seven years. That means things are going to be difficult if you want to borrow money. Credit spreads are going to be wider; it's going to affect you more. By the way, if you're in business, if you're paying more, it's going to put pressure on your profits.

Let's look at GDP growth for the last ten years, with and without mortgage equity withdrawal.

Without MEW, we would have had two years, in 2001 and 2002, with negative GDP growth. We're not going to go get those levels of mortgage equity withdrawals today, not in this environment. We're still seeing some cash-out borrowing, but it's getting more and more difficult; and as home values drop, there are going to be fewer and fewer people pulling less and less money out of the "home ATMs." As Paul McCulley says, your home ATM is starting to spit out negative twenty-dollar bills.

That means consumer spending is going to continue to slow. We haven't had a consumer recession since 1990-91. There are a lot of people today who have kind of forgotten that consumer spending can actually slow down. That's going to happen from lower mortgage equity withdrawals, and it's going to happen because of higher gas and energy costs that are displacing normal spending. You've got to fill up your Ford F-150 to be able to get to work. I saw $4 a gallon gasoline when we arrived in La Jolla. I mean, I guess around here people don't really pay attention, but that means it would cost a hundred bucks to fill up my big SUV. That's just a lot of money. That's a hundred bucks I can't spend on something else – on clothes or kids or education. It means I'm going to be consuming less.

We're in a recession. Recessions by definition mean that we're going to be seeing rising unemployment. We're already up past 5.5 percent. We'll probably see 6 percent and maybe higher. We're not going to see the 9 and 10 percents like we did in the '70s or '80s, because we're not as subject to the manufacturing cycle as we were back then. That's both good and bad. We don't have that boom-bust in the manufacturing world. We're seeing a bust in the construction world and we're starting to see commercial lending and commercial building go down. But I don't think we're going to see the large 8 and 9 percent unemployment rates that we typically see in a recession. But still, if you see rising unemployment – and unemployment rises by 20 percent, from 5 to 6 — that means those people are going to have less money and they're not going to be spending it.

We're seeing inflation in an environment of low real-income growth. Inflation is running over 4 percent now. And real-income growth is running a little bit less. While we may see some nominal growth in consumer spending, real spending is going to be dropping over the next year. That has some consequences that we'll talk about later. Also, consumer spending is going to drop because we have less availability of easy credit. Now, it probably hasn't hit this room. But there is a wave of letters going out from credit card companies, cutting people's credit lines, cutting people's home mortgage lines. There are a lot of people actually hitting their home equity credit lines and putting it in a savings account because they're afraid that it's going away. They're afraid that they may not be able to get the cash when they need it. "What happens if I lose my job? I better get the cash, and I'll pay the difference in interest costs just to make sure that I'm OK." That's happening a lot.

In summary, lower mortgage equity withdrawals, higher gas and energy costs, rising unemployment, inflation in an environment of low real-income growth, and less availability of cheap and easy credit are all contributing factors to slowing consumer spending.

This has three major effects. First, lower corporate earnings. We're in a period where earnings disappointments are going to be the rule and not the exception. We're going to go into this in detail in just a little bit. But GE wasn't a one-off announcement. Yes, it was their financial system. But we're going to see a lot of earnings disappointments from all sorts of retailers, from all sorts of companies, for a variety of reasons. We're going to look at the documentation for a minute to demonstrate that. Second, lower corporate profits put pressure on the stock market. There's a relationship between earnings, valuations, and stock prices. And third, that also means we're going to see lower than expected long-term returns. That's going to be a problem for people who are looking for traditional assets to be the bulk of the growth for their retirement portfolios.

Now, I think we're still in a bear market. Remember that in 2000 and 2001, we had three corrections of over plus 20% percent and one in the plus 30% range. It's not unusual to see large corrections inside an overall bear market.

Why do I think we're in a bear market? Long-term markets – and we're going to talk long term for a second and then come to the shorter term – long-term markets in bear cycles have several characteristics. Number one, they all start with high P/E ratios. Now, Vitaliy Katsenelson, who wrote my e-letter this week so that I could be here, lays out what he calls "cowardly lion markets," as distinct from bear markets, because stocks tend to go sideways for a long period of time. We'll talk about why that is in a minute, but I think he's right on that.

You are told that you should invest for the long run. Twenty years for a lot of people is the long run. However, what they do not tell you is that you can see negative real stock market returns over 20 years. It's happened four or five times. So when you're reading in somebody's book that says, "Hey stocks are going to compound at 11 percent a year" or whatever la-la number can be seduced from the data, think twice.

In secular bear markets, you can have returns for long periods of time from zero to 3 percent, every 15 to 30 years. We're kind of starting one here again. If you went to Standard and Poor's website in March of 2007 and you asked what the earnings were going to be for 2008, their analysts said that earnings would be $92 for 2008. Two months later, at the end of the year in December 2007 – this is four months ago – they were projecting $84. In February, it was $71.20. Today Merrill Lynch estimates that earnings could drop to as low as $45 next year. Notice a trend here?

When you go into a recession, analysts begin to project lower earnings. They keep ratcheting them down. What do they use to project future earnings? Past performance. There are very few analysts who actually go out and say, "OK, how is this company going to perform in a recession?" They all say, "The company that I cover is an exception." This is how they're going to cover it, because they're talking to management.

And when's the last time management said, "Oh man, we're really going to get clobbered; there's a recession coming." Not if they want to keep their jobs. John Chambers will be telling us that Cisco's going to be doing wonderfully, just like he did all of '99, all of 2000 and all of 2001.

Now, what does this mean for P/E ratios? About 30 days ago, it was estimated, based on prices, that the P/E ratio for the end of the last quarter would be 20.5. Today, as companies mark their earnings down, the P/E ratio is 22.5. For the end of September, third quarter, a month ago, they were saying the P/E ratio would be 21. Today they're projecting that if the market stayed at the same price, it would be 28. Now, does anyone think we're going to see a P/E ratio of 28 at the end of the third quarter? People are going to be projecting positive earnings forward – and we're going to see one earnings surprise after another.

Remember, it takes three to four really good earnings disappointments to reach a point where investors really begin to understand that things are different, because we project future performance from past performance. When past performance disappoints us three or four times, then we begin to project negative performance, and that's when the stock market drops. It's not that the stock market is telling us that things are going to be better. It's that we have expectations of things getting better because that's what our past experience has been – so we need those disappointments.

This is from Vitaliy Katsenelson's book: If you take 10-year trailing P/Es – you average them together so you don't have the effect of just one year – you find that valuations go from high to low from where bull markets start, in what he calls a range-bound market or what I would call a secular bear.

They go from high valuations to low valuations and back. Around 2000 we were at 48. It's down to 30 today on those long, ten-year runs, and it always corrects below the mean. Valuations are mean-reverting machines.

If you just look at one year, you get the same effect. You have a P/E average of 15 – remember they're projecting 28. You don't have a projection of 28 in a recession and not have the stock market feel that.

Maine, Maryland, and Weddings

It takes a full day to get from Texas to Leen's Lodge (http://www.leenslodge.com/) in Grand Lake Stream, Maine. Trey and I make the last part of the trip by float plane. This is the third time I've gone with Trey, and I really look forward to the trip. It's just a great bunch of guys. As I have noted, we do make predictions about the markets. Last year a number of readers sent in their predictions, and we have tabulated those. I will report back on how well we all did, and some of you will win a book for being the best predictors.

It looks like I am going to Maryland for a day in a few weeks, and New York is looming on the horizon again, as well as another trip to Baltimore to be with my really good friend Bill Bonner (of Daily Reckoning fame) for his 60^th birthday party. Now that should be a blast.

It is amazing how many details have to be worked out for a wedding. And it is just a few days away. Tiffani will be gone on her honeymoon for almost an entire month, so a lot of business details have to be worked out for the interim. She and Ryan will be in South Africa and Ireland, and I really do want to leave her alone. She deserves some time away. When she comes back, we will really start to work on our book.

Have a great week. Enjoy the summer with friends and family.

Your ready for some fishing analyst,

John Mauldin

The World Will Not End

John Mauldin — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:14:11 GMT

The World Will Not End
Take a Deep Breath
9% Growth in Housing or a 4% Loss?
A Little Stress

Housing starts rose 9% and the market cheerleaders proclaimed that we have seen a bottom. But not if you look at the actual numbers. New unemployment claims were OK, but not if you look at the actual numbers. And inflation was simply ugly, no matter what numbers you look at. However, oil is down and there is reason to think it may have further to go on the downside. We cover all this and more, as we first look at why the world is not going to end.

Take a Deep Breath

It is easy to find bad news these days, and the torrent that seems to keep coming can ruin a person's summer (or winter, for my southern hemisphere readers). The credit crisis, as noted last week, is nowhere near an end. Housing, as we will see, is actually getting worse. Foreclosures, auctions, government bailouts, higher taxes, inflation, the price of energy and food - the list goes on and on.

I thought, since so many think of me as a rather bearish person, I would show you my more optimistic side. Yes, I am bearish in the short term, for reasons I have documented at length in this letter. But long-term I am a wild-eyed optimist.

With all the negative news thrown at us today, why is the United States not in the midst of a deep recession? How, many of you ask, can I be so sanguine as to suggest a milder recession and a Muddle Through Economy?

First, things are somewhat different now than in the '70s and early '80s. Back then, a great deal of the US and developed world economies and their resulting employment were linked to manufacturing, which was largely geared to domestic sales. Exports were a much smaller part of the economy for most businesses. When the economy and consumption slowed down, manufacturers laid employees off rather rapidly. Unemployment would soar and a V-shaped recession would occur.

Now, the number of people employed in manufacturing is less in percentage terms than it was back then, and more of what is produced in the developed world is bought by a growing developing world. Exports from the US are booming. The number of TEUs (the large containers on ships: Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is up 23% in May year over year and up 26% since the beginning of the year. Because of the weak dollar, imports are down by 7% year to date. It is export growth that is keeping the US from sliding into the usual deep recession.

So, not only is manufacturing not down as in usual cycles, it is up quite handsomely for many products, except of course for automobiles, which are not just in a recession but facing a depression. But that growth in exports is keeping unemployment from going to 9%.

But let's take a longer-term outlook. My view has been, and is, that we are in for a period of very tepid growth that will last through at least 2009. We have to work our way through the after effects of the twin bubbles of housing and the credit crisis bursting. There is no magic Fed wand. That simply takes time. No (rational) government or Fed policy is going to change the facts on the ground (although they can make things worse). But, in the fullness of time, we will in fact get through this.

If you look back over the decades, things are getting better. Goldman Sachs estimates about 70 million people a year worldwide are entering the "middle class" and that by 2030 two billion people will be in a far better condition than the poverty they experience today. That will also keep demand steady for all sorts of products and services produced in the developed world, even as our population (except for the US) declines.

The old joke is that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. And a rise in unemployment and lower corporate profits are no laughing matter. But the simple trend is that we will adjust and free markets in America and the world will grow, as they have always done.

My daughter and business partner Tiffani is getting married in three weeks on 08-08-08. Next year there will be 2.3 million weddings in the US, at an average cost of $30,000 (we have helped increase the average this year considerably). That is $72 billion on weddings. And many of those new families start with the need to find a place to live, furnish a home, and build their nest.

Tiffani and her fiancée are an example. They have bought a home at a pretty good price in an older neighborhood that is fast becoming trendy, as there are a lot of wonderful restorations and teardowns. They have lived rather simply and find they "need" all sorts of items to make their house a home. Each day sees another delivery of gifts from their registry and a smile on her face.

(Sidebar: When I first got married I seem to remember getting three toasters and not a lot of other things we needed. Now, couples register online for what they need and want, and when an item is bought it is taken off the list. How cool is that?)

Last year a record 4.3 million babies were born in the US. Each of them will need all sorts of "stuff" - food, education, and places to live - in (hopefully) 20-25 years.

Yes, consumers are cutting back, but they are still buying the basics. (See more below.) Manufacturing in the US is starting to make a comeback, with the lower dollar and management driven to compete globally. In free-market economies, every economic slowdown is followed by a period of solid growth driven by innovation. The point is that life goes on. Births, weddings, eating, living and enjoying friends and family. It is all part of the cycle.

The next 20 years are going to see the most powerful wave of technologically driven growth the world has ever seen. The accelerating pace of technological change did not slow down last century through multiple world wars, scores of "minor" wars, a depression, all sorts of natural disasters, and an unbelievable amount of government folly. Why should that trend stop now?

As we add two billion people to the middle class, we are also going to bring the internet to even billions more. The explosion in information and creativity that we have seen in the last 20 years will double and double again. A small percentage of those people are going to invent amazing new technologies, new drugs, and create companies that will make life better for all of us.

That is one reason that technological growth will continue to accelerate. We will simply be throwing more people at an ever wider array of problems, and they will be able to share their discoveries at the speed of light.

We are on the verge of a revolution in biotechnology that is going to truly revolutionize medicine. No one in 20 years will look back on today as the good old days. And it will probably create yet another stock market bubble, but that is a story for another letter.

US diplomats are talking to Iran. Iraq may actually work out. In most places of the world, most people are better off today than they were 20 years ago. There is still a lot of progress to be made, but the point is that we are making it. There is a ton of opportunity for those prepared to look for it. It may not be in the usual places, it may not be where we would like it to be, but it is there. World GDP will have roughly doubled (or more) by the end of the next decade.

Yes, I know there are a lot of problems. Really big scary ones. I write about a lot of them all the time. But go back to any year ending in 8 for the last 100 years. When were there not problems? And in most times and places, the problems were bigger. And in the next ten years? There will be lots of problems. Some will be the same old problems and some will be new. I am not certain why mankind seems to have a need to find new ways to create mischief and lose money when the old ways work so well. But those too will pass.

So, when you read about current problems - and I will point some out in the next few pages - just remember that things will work out. Markets will adjust, and the world will be a better place. Things will work out better for you as an individual if you anticipate the problems and make the proper adjustments, as much as possible, in advance.

The next 20 years are going to be the most exciting time that the human race has experienced. Yes, there will be issues, but we will adjust. That is what we do. And now, let's look at some of the adjustments going on in the markets.

9% Growth in Housing or a 4% Loss?

When the news flashed on my screen that housing construction had jumped by 9%, I raised an eyebrow. That did not make sense given other data I was looking at. Immediately the media was full of talking heads and stories about the turnaround in housing and the end of the slowdown. I must admit to being a little confused.

Then we find the rest of the story. Asha Bangalore from Northern Trust actually took the time to read the details. It turns out that New York City had a change in its construction codes, and that affected what is considered a housing start in the Northeast, especially in multi-family construction, which "jumped" 42% because of the code change. If it were not for the change, housing starts nationwide would have fallen by 4%. Because of the code change, housing starts jumped 102% in the Northeast. However, single-family starts nationwide declined 9.3% in June, to an annual rate of 647,000 units. That level of single-family starts is the lowest since January 1991. Look at the following chart from Northern Trust. Does this look like a 9% increase?

More Government Statistical Fun

Each week we see a release of initial unemployment claims. This week initial claims jumped to 366,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis. But what are the real underlying numbers? Every Thursday, I get a thorough review of the actual data from John Vogel, going back and looking at trends over the past 8 years in the non-seasonally adjusted data. That can be more interesting.

This week the actual number of initial claims of unemployment was 475,954, compared to 383,839 last year (2007). And the number of actual claims has been trending up. Taking the three first weeks of the current quarter, we are still below the recession years of 2001-3; but the trend is not what you would like to see, and given the decline in consumer spending (see below) it is likely to continue to trend up.

The actual data is very "noisy" and jumps all over the place, hence the use of seasonally adjusted numbers for public consumption. Economy.com thinks the difficulty may be in accounting for auto-related plant shutdowns in the seasonally adjusted number. Vogel speculates that employers are no longer waiting until the end of the quarter to lay personnel off but are doing it at any time in the quarter.

Given the issues, it is likely we will see a rise in the number back toward the 400,000 range (SA) that we saw earlier last month. But just be aware that there can be something really different in the actual numbers.

Below is a graph from economy.com showing where the employment problems are. The majority of the states are seeing payroll employment drop.

Fannie and Freddie and Bears, Oh My!

Let me see if I have this straight. It is OK to short oil but not OK to short Fannie Mae? Or is it that it is OK to be long Freddie Mac but not long oil?

Oh, those evil speculators. As Barry Ritholtz points out, why is it that management blames speculators when their stock is being pummeled, when the usual reason is that management made some very bad decisions?

And let's not forget the importance of rumors. We all know rumors can bring down a stock. So, let's start one. Let's start a whisper campaign that Goldman Sachs is going to have to take down $100 billion in losses next quarter, and then we can all short the stock. What would happen is that we would all lose our money when we had to cover, because there was no basis in fact.

The best way for a company to deal with short selling is to increase earnings and blow the shorts out of the water. Good management trumps rumors.

This week the SEC has made it more difficult to short Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other large financial firms. They are actually going to enforce the rule already on the books that says you must actually be able to deliver the shares you are shorting.

"Naked" short selling has been against the rules for some time. (That is, short selling a stock that you cannot actually borrow to sell.) Institutions make rather tidy sums offering the shares they own to short sellers for a price.

Making it more difficult to short Fannie or Freddie is not going to do one thing for their balance sheets, which is the real source of their problem. As former Fed governor William Poole said a few weeks ago, they are basically insolvent. Five-year bonds sold by Fannie Mae yield 90 basis points (0.9%) more than US Treasuries of similar maturity, almost double the average over the past 10 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That spread, which translates to $90,000 in extra annual interest per $10 million of bonds, exists even after Treasury Secretary Paulson signaled the US would ensure the debt is repaid by offering larger amounts of backup financing and potential capital infusions.

Given Paulson's guarantee, why would you buy US bonds when you can get the same guarantee and almost 1% more?

Fannie and Freddie are private companies where the profits go to shareholders and losses go to taxpayers. There are a lot of people (including your humble analyst) who have complained about the current set-up. Basically, they were allowed to leverage their capital beyond what even your most leveraged hedge fund would think prudent. How could the value of homes go down? Leverage up and show huge profits, pay monster salaries and bonuses to management who did nothing but increase risk, and spend $170 million on lobbyists to make sure that no one changes the rules.

Paulson had no realistic choice but to do what he did. But the true point is, he should have never had to make that choice. A real regulator would not have let them leverage their capital to the extent they did. If taxpayers have to invest one penny before shareholders are wiped out, then there is no justice. Fannie and Freddie should be broken up into several much smaller firms which are not too big too fail, their shares floated to new owners, and taxpayers should get preferred shares until they are made whole. And the implicit, but now explicit, guarantee should be taken away.

And while we are on regulators, it is time for Bernanke and Paulson and SEC chairman Cox to force the credit default swap (CDS) market to move to a regulated exchange. If there is a major risk to my happy news scenario at the beginning of this e-letter, it is the credit default swap market collapsing. That is why Bear Stearns had to be rescued, and why other firms like them are too big to fail.

If the CDS markets were on an exchange like any futures contract, Bear could have been allowed to fail. It would have been a sad day, but the Fed would not have had to risk $30 billion. Greenspan was wrong when he said these derivatives did not need to be regulated. They are good for the markets, and I think they are necessary. But let's put them on an exchange where there is clear transparency and the entire economy of Western Civilization is not put at risk by some cowboys who decide to leverage up.

A Little Stress

This is my first really big wedding. As I said, it is as carefully planned as the Normandy invasion and about as expensive. I can really understand now when brides talk about stress. But poor Tiffani has had a triple dose. She moves next week into their new home (kind of). But then, there is not a lot to move.

Of course, we have also started on our new book project, and the response to our survey has been rather large. For those of you who want to do personal interviews, we will get back to you. As a reminder, we are doing on online survey about investors of all sizes and backgrounds. If you take the ten minutes to fill out this thought-provoking survey, we will give you a link to a recent speech I made about what I think is a new asset class that is being created because of the credit crisis. The link is here: http://survey.frontlinethoughts.com/index.php?sid=12431&lang=en

But then the real stress started a few weeks ago when FINRA (the former NASD) called and said it is time for an audit. We get one about every 3-4 years. It is about as stressful as any part of the investment business, and Tiffani has to deal with 98% of it, as Dad is clueless. So, she has spent very long hours getting ready for the audit. Yesterday, after three and a half days, we had our exit interview, and it went about as well as we could have hoped. But the timing would have been better either earlier or after the honeymoon. Oh, well.

We have had an audit from some regulator every year for the last five years. Just part of the business, but it does create some stress. We are due for an NFA audit sometime soon. I just hope they do not come when Tiffani is on her honeymoon in some fairly remote places in South Africa.

Below is a picture of Tiffani and Ryan in front of their new home. Dad is proud. You can see a lot more pictures (some VERY funny ones) if you care, at their wedding web site at http://www.fatedlove888.com/Site/888.html

It is time to hit the send button. I see a Batman movie with the kids in my future. It should be a great weekend.

Your having fun being an optimistic analyst,

John Mauldin