Thoughts From The Frontline : Muddle Through

Muddle Through, R.I.P?

John Mauldin — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:50:00 GMT

Muddle Through, R.I.P?
Savings Equal Investments
Japanese Disease
Who Will Buy the Debt?
The New Muddle Through Economy
On the Road Again

I first wrote about the Muddle Through Economy in 2002, and the term has more or less become a theme we have returned to from time to time. In 2007 I wrote that we would indeed get back to a Muddle Through Economy after the end of the coming recession. If you Google the term, at least for the first four pages more than half the references are to this e-letter. I get a lot of flak from both bulls and bears about being either too optimistic or too pessimistic. Being in the muddle through middle is comfortable to me.

Last week I expressed my concern that we as a country are taking actions that could indeed "Kill the Goose" of our free-market economy. I rightly got letters asking me how I could maintain Muddle Through in the face of that letter. I have given it a lot of thought and research. How likely are we to muddle through in the face of $1.5 trillion and larger deficits? Today we take another look at Muddle Through. It should be interesting.

But first, two housekeeping items. I want to welcome the 150,000 members of the National Association of the Self-Employed to this letter. They have asked me to be a special consulting economist to their group, and they will send this letter each week to their members. Since its beginning in 1981, the National Association for the Self-Employed has pioneered support for micro-businesses and the self-employed, and been a forceful advocate for small business in this country. (www.nase.org) I am honored. I am pleased to add you to my 1 million closest friends. I hope you find it useful.

Second, I will be going to South America at the end of next week, to Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Sao Paulo and Rio. I will be speaking in those cities and traveling with my new Latin American partner, Enrique Fynn of Fynn Capital (based in Uruguay). If you would like to find out about this tour or what services he can help you with, you can go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and sign up and Enrique will get in touch with you. And as always, if you are an accredited investor, you can go to that website and one of my partners in the world will get back to you. (In this regard, I am president of and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.) And now to the letter.

Muddle Through, R.I.P.?

I defined a Muddle Through Economy in the past as one of slow growth (in the area of 1-2%) and a slack employment environment, such as we had in 2002 and the early part of 2003. In early 2007, I suggested we would return at some point to such an environment at the end of the recession I was predicting.

I am not surprised about the response of the Fed to the current recession and credit crisis, whether it's the large monetization of debt or the low interest rates. Assuming they more or less remove the monetary easing in a reasonable manner, there is nothing that would make me think we do not eventually recover, albeit at a very slow Muddle Through pace, with a jobless recovery that lasts for several years. It will not be pleasant, but we'll survive.

However, gentle reader, never in my wildest dreams did I think we could be looking at government deficits of $1.5 trillion dollars and actually budgeting future deficits of over $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. And there is real reason to think that under current plans, $1 trillion deficits are optimistic. Look at the graph above from the Heritage Foundation. They suggest that current policy would bring us closer to a $2 trillion deficit by 2019.

And that assumes nominal growth that is north of 3% and unemployment dropping back below 5% in reasonably short order. If you make less optimistic assumptions, the number can become much larger rather quickly. Where do we find that much money to finance that large a deficit? We will look at what might be the answer, but first we need to look at a basic concept in economics.

Savings Equal Investments

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is defined as Consumption (C) plus Investment (I) plus Government Spending (G) plus [Exports (E) minus Imports (I)] or:

GDP = C + I + G + (E-I)

(For the wonks out there, GDP is usually termed "Y".)

You can calculate national savings as GDP minus consumption and government spending. That means that investment equals savings plus net exports. If there are no net exports, then money must come back into the US from outside the country to finance investments, along with savings.

This equation is known as an identity. An identity is an equality that remains true regardless of the values of any variables that appear within it. That means it is not a guess or an approximation. It is simple reality.

Thus, if there is a government deficit, there must be savings by both consumers and businesses, plus capital flows from outside the country, to offset that deficit in order for there to be any money left over for investments.

In the short run, an increase in government spending can offset a decline in consumption (a recession), but absent savings a government deficit crowds out investment in the long run. There must be savings in order for there to be investment. And without investment, you do not get job growth or economic growth.

Japanese Disease

Some readers wrote this week telling me I am far too worried about a rising government deficit. Right now we are at roughly 42% of debt to GDP. In 1989, at the start of the lost decades, Japan had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 51%. Now it is at 178%, and the world has not come to an end for them. In fact, they are running massive government deficits today and plan to do so for a long time. Why, I am asked, can't we be like Japan? And my answer is that it is possible, but the cost that Japan has paid has been high.

In 1989, private Japanese debt (businesses and consumers) was at a debt-to-GDP ratio of 212%. Now it is at 110%. And the total of both government and private debt is roughly the same (within 5%) of where it was 20 years ago. Along with running large trade surpluses, private debt has been exchanged for government debt. Savings have fallen from the mid-teens to about 2% today, as the country is rapidly aging and now using its savings to live on. And how much has all that government spending helped the country? Before I answer that, read these paragraphs from Hoisington Asset Management's latest letter (last week's Outside the Box):

"The federal government's promise to extricate the U.S. economy from this recession involves more spending (increasing public debt) and more subsidies for consumers, such as car rebates and home buying incentives (more private debt). In other words, more debt is supposed to solve the problem of over-indebtedness. The truth is that this policy merely indentures its citizens further without providing any income for repayment of debt. In previous letters we have discussed the fact that the government spending multiplier is zero (read Professor Robert Barro's book, Macroeconomics - a Modern Approach, p. 370).

"This means there is no long term income benefit from stimulus programs. According to the latest academic research, the most recent $800 billion stimulus plan will boost economic activity in the short run, but will surely depress economic activity over time. The government problem is complicated by the fact that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that a 1% change in taxes will change GDP by about 3% over time. More recent research (Barro & Redlick, September 2009, "NBER Working Paper 15369") suggests that a 1% cut in the marginal tax rate would raise GDP in the ensuing year by 0.6%. With the deficit rising due to a zero spending multiplier, the tendency will be to try to raise taxes to pay for this higher level of expenditures, which will further depress aggregate spending and output."

For all intents and purposes, Japan has had no growth for almost two decades. Their nominal GDP is where it was 17 years ago, and the number of employed people is at 20-years-ago levels. An aging population has masked their unemployment problems, as older citizens retire. Their savings went to government debt. Taxes were raised numerous times. Since government deficit spending has no long-term multiplier effect, growth has been nonexistent. (By the way, that research about multiplier effects has also been done by Christina Romer, the chairman of the current President's Council of Economic Advisors, and further explored by European economists. There is general agreement on these facts.)

In 1998, the US had a total debt- (government plus private) to-GDP ratio of 260%. Today it is 373%. We have added over $15 trillion in debt, yet total employment today is roughly where it was 9 years ago. But the current economic leadership wants to solve the problem of too much debt with even more debt. I am sympathetic with the idea that in the short run the government should step in and the Fed should print (within limits) money to keep us from deflation. But the equation we spent time on earlier suggests that if we continue to run massive deficits, we run the risk of catching Japanese disease - a decade-long (or longer) period of slow growth and high unemployment, especially since our population is growing and our Boomers are going back to work (and surveys suggest they intend to work longer).

Large government deficits choke off the very investment that we need to create jobs. In the name of doing good, the unintended consequence is to make it more difficult for small businesses to start up and create jobs. And we all know that small business is the engine for job creation.

The way out of the current morass is to create jobs and increase productivity. But if the government runs deficits of $1.5 trillion, that means whatever savings (corporate and consumer) we have will not go into the investments we need, but into government debt.

Who Will Buy the Debt?

Now, let's go back to the problem of who will buy the debt. How can we find $1.5 trillion each and every year? Some of it will come from foreign central banks, as we continue to run a trade deficit. Once those dollars leave our shores, they do not disappear. They can only go back into a dollar-denominated investment. Up to now, that has typically been US government debt. If China decides to use its dollars to buy commodities or other assets, whoever sells them the assets now has the dollars and must decide what to do with them. So give or take a few billion, about $400 billion will come back to the US from our trade deficit next year. That still leaves $1.1 trillion.

Upon reflection, and cutting to the chase, I think that the buyers of the debt could be US banks for quite some time. The next graph shows commercial and industrial loans at US banks falling precipitously. Banks have (correctly) tightened lending standards, but that means that small and medium-sized businesses, which account for over 85% of all jobs, have been cut off from the life blood of growth. Is it any wonder they are cutting jobs at a prodigious rate?

The next graph shows bank credit (of all types), going back to 1974. Notice that even during recessions (gray shaded areas) bank lending either grows or at the most goes flat. But now we are experiencing something new: bank lending is falling. Notice the sharp increase in lending in 2008 as corporations decided to draw down their banks' lines of credit, afraid that the banks might cut back. And with good reason, as banks did exactly that.

So where do banks put their cash and reserves they are not lending? At the Fed and in Treasury debt. If you can leverage capital at ten to one (as banks can) and if you get 2% (for longer-term debt) and if you only have costs of, say, 50 basis points (or 0.5%), you can make a return on equity of 15% with no risk.

And that is what we are seeing. Banks are taking the money the Fed is printing and the government is giving them and putting it back at the Fed. Bank reserves at the Fed are exploding. And they are likely to continue to do so, since bank balance sheets are still deteriorating, especially at smaller and regional banks exposed to commercial real estate loans. Banks own 45% of commercial real estate loans, compared to only 21% of single-family loans. Banks (in general) are going to have to raise capital and reduce their loan portfolios in order to keep within the guidelines for adequate reserve capital. Small wonder that my friend Chris Whalen (one of the real experts on banks) thinks we will see over 400 banks fail in this cycle.

One quick chart to further highlight the problem that banks are facing. I have been writing for several years that commercial real estate loans will be the next shoe to drop. Moody's calculates that commercial real estate prices have dropped 30%. Over a trillion dollars in commercial real estate loans are coming due in the next few years. Banks are going to continue to reduce their loan portfolios in order to deal with the massive write-offs they are going to have to make. And my bet is they put those reserves they are not lending into government debt.

Given that the current Congress is hell bent on massively raising taxes in 2011, we are likely to dip back into recession by then, if not before. Remember, taxes have a multiplier effect of three. That means tax cuts increase GDP (over time) by three times their amount. But tax increases reduce GDP by three times the increase. That will make deficits worse, and unemployment will again start to rise from already high levels. Twenty states have already raised sales taxes, and more are raising other taxes. It is a vicious spiral.

The New Muddle Through Economy

This is not a prescription for a return to normal growth. We are headed for a New Normal that is less than what the market currently believes. Unless the deficit comes under control at some point, we face the real prospect of catching Japanese Disease and suffering yet another lost decade. Can we Muddle Through? We have no choice but to do so. But it will not be fun. It will not be long-term 2% growth and employment going back to 6% any time soon. Can we reverse the course? With a different attitude and leadership in Congress, maybe we can. But it won't happen next year, and it's unlikely in 2011.

I am afraid we will have to put my old friend Muddle Through, as I previously defined him, back in his box for a while. But wait, if my friend at PIMCO, Mohammed El-Erian, can tell us we are going to a "New Normal," then I can decide that we are going to a "New Muddle Through Economy." Just not one as benign as I used to think.

In the end, that is what we will do. We will figure out how to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. That is what free markets and entrepreneurs do. Things will sort out, but not before we have what could be an even more difficult crisis, which will force us to make hard choices.

As an aside, I am not expecting that we will see the crisis I am thinking of any time soon. We can move along with positive GDP for some time. I am thinking of the longer term, 1-3 years out. We will become complacent. I will get letters telling me I am too pessimistic. Just as I did in late 2006 when I said we would be in a recession by late 2007. But I firmly believe we will see a double-dip recession within another 18 months (at the most). Stock markets drop on average about 40% in a recession. Adjust your portfolios accordingly.

On the Road Again

I am writing tonight from Detroit. Tomorrow I will be in New York watching the Yankees/LA game. I will be the guy in the second row behind home plate in the Dallas Cowboys jacket. I will be on Yahoo Tech Ticker on Monday morning, so you should be able to go to Yahoo and see me later that afternoon. Then Philadelphia on Tuesday, speaking at my partner Steve Blumenthal's CMG conference for investment advisors. They have a very interesting platform of trading advisors. You can see them at http://cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp

I had a great deal of fun at the New Orleans conference, being with old friends and meeting new ones. David Tice (of the Prudent Bear Fund) was an exceptional host for dinner at Emeril's. I was surprised that Karl Rove actually remembered me after nine years. I thoroughly enjoyed spending some quality time with my friend Ron Paul. We share a lot of concerns about the future of the Republic. I was pleasantly surprised by how thoughtful Howard Dean was. And very personable.

I go to Houston on Wednesday, Orlando on Thursday, and then South America on Saturday. I will be doing a lot of writing from hotel rooms, but all in all it will be fun. You have a great week, and remember that in 10 years none of us will look back and want to return to 2009. 2019 will be better than we can possibly imagine. We just have to make sure we all get there!

Time to hit the send button and find an adult beverage. All the best,

Your going to miss the Old Muddle Through analyst,

John Mauldin

The Statistical Recovery

John Mauldin — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 05:24:00 GMT

The Return of Muddle Through*
Can China Lead the Global Recovery?
The Statistical Recovery
The Last Bear Standing
New York, Maine and Tulsa

A lot of bullish commentators are talking about a recovery being in the works, and they may very well be right. But it is not going to look like any recovery worthy of the name. This week we look at what I will call The Statistical Recovery. But first we take a look at what China is doing, as we continue our look at the rest of the world and ponder whether it is time to brace ourselves for an extended bout with the Muddle Through Economy*. (And yes, there is an asterisk.)

Quickly, and importantly, tonight we are releasing the first in a new series of quarterly Conversations entitled 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 talk about the "exogenous" risks to the markets (those from outside the markets themselves) posed by the geopolitical world.

George and I are going to make it a regular quarterly gig. 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.

Further, we will post a separate interview next week that I have obtained permission to use from my friends at Casey Research, and which I personally found very valuable. When we launched Conversations, we promised eight interviews a year. We are now at six, and next week I will record the seventh with housing experts John Burns of John Burns Real Estate Consulting and Rick Sharga of Realty Trac, the two leading experts on housing in the country. There is SO much uninformed, simplistic misinformation in the media about housing that I thought subscribers might like to know what the real situation is.

When you subscribe, all of the past Conversations are there for you to review. I am going to make sure subscribers get way more than their money's worth. You don't want to wait another day to subscribe. And now, let's jump into this week's letter.

Can China Lead the Global Recovery?

China is growing by about 8% a year, which is amazing on the surface of it, as their exports are down about 20% (more in some sectors). How can that be? I continually read about how China is going to lead the world out of its global funk. And 8% growth in GDP does seem pretty strong. But we need to look a little deeper.

If I told you that the next US stimulus package would be $4.5 trillion dollars, mostly given to banks that would be forced to loan out the money quickly, do you think that might jump spending and GDP in the short term? Would you start looking for a few bubbles to be created? What about the dollar?

That is the equivalent of what China is now doing. The volume of credit that is flowing into China is equivalent to one-third of their GDP. Banks that already have large problem-loan portfolios are now lending even more, in a very short time frame. China has severe capacity-utilization problems, as trade has sharply fallen; and the US consumer is unlikely to return to anywhere near the level of consumption that was the case in 2006.

The Chinese stock market is up 85% this year, and commodity and real estate prices are rising. And no wonder: the money supply shot up 28.5% in June alone. That money is looking for a home. My friend Vitaliy Katsenelson has written a very perceptive essay for Foreign Policy magazine, talking about the nature of the current growth in China.

"But don't confuse fast growth with sustainable growth. Much of China's growth over the past decade has come from lending to the United States. The country suffers from real overcapacity. And now growth comes from borrowing -- and hundreds of billion-dollar decisions made on the fly don't inspire a lot of confidence. For example, a nearly completed, 13-story building in Shanghai collapsed in June due to the poor quality of its construction.

"This growth will result in a huge pile of bad debt -- as forced lending is bad lending. The list of negative consequences is very long, but the bottom line is simple: There is no miracle in the Chinese miracle growth, and China will pay a price. The only question is when and how much."

I am going to quote at some length from Simon Hunt's latest note. He travels very frequently to China and is one of the world's true experts on the copper market. If you want to know something about copper, ask Simon. Copper, we are told, is the metal with a PhD in economics. If copper prices are rising, then the economy is booming. And historically, that has more or less been the case. But there may be reason to believe that PhD may be no more useful this time around than a regular Ivy League degree.

"The world community has come to see that China is its savior. Growth picked up sharply in the second quarter, but it is based on fixed asset investment and renewed speculative activity in the real estate sector. It is not what the actual GDP or IP [Industrial Production] numbers will show that matters, but the quality of that growth. Money is cheap with loans and credit freely available, so much so that China risks developing new bubbles in the stock and commodity markets and real estate. Speculation is based on the simple premise that prices must rise. Foreigners as well as domestic participants are feeding this frenzy, especially in metal markets.

"The frenzied loan and credit growth is unlikely to be cut back until the fourth quarter at the earliest. It is not this year or next which worries us, but post 2010. What will China do when the world economy gets hit with its next big leg down?

"There is no better example of this speculative activity than what is being seen in the copper market. It is easy for global merchants, hedge funds etc to ship cathode into China and warehouse it outside the reporting system, so fuelling investors' sentiments that copper demand in China is soaring and at the same time draining copper from the rest of the market.

"It is not so much industry which is doing this buying in China, but individuals, financial institutions and even small companies divorced from the copper industry who are buying and holding the metal because copper is a store of value and prices will go up is the common response. We updated our numbers for the first half of this year. They are truly staggering. Over 1 million tonnes of cathode is sitting in China mostly outside the reporting system as a punt on rising prices." (Emphasis mine)

If it is happening in copper it is likely to be happening in other commodity markets as well. If you are trading the metals, you should be aware that a quick drop could happen if demand falls off due to there being a glut of supply coming back onto the market.

Why would China engage in what seems from our shores to be very risky behavior? Because from their point of view it makes sense. It is not a lot different in concept than what the US or England is doing to stimulate their economies. The scope and size are different, but China also has a much different problem. They are attempting to soften the transition from an economy dependent on the US consumer to one that is more balanced. Will they be successful? The answer depends on what they are actually trying to do. You could (and should) also ask whether Bernanke will be successful when he decides to remove reserves from the economy. Avoiding financial Armageddon may be the measure of success in both countries, with the reality that there will be some pain, no matter what.

Who Ends Up with the Old Maid?

But the important news out of China this week was the assertion that China was getting ready to use its massive $2.2 trillion reserves. From the Financial Times:

class=MsoBodyTextIndent>"Beijing will use its foreign exchange reserves, the largest in the world, to support and accelerate overseas expansion and acquisitions by Chinese companies, Wen Jiabao, the country's premier, said in comments published on Tuesday. 'We should hasten the implementation of our "going out" strategy and combine the utilization of foreign exchange reserves with the "going out" of our enterprises,' he told Chinese diplomats late on Monday. Mr. Wen said Beijing also wanted Chinese companies to increase its share of global exports. The 'going out' strategy is a slogan for encouraging investment and acquisitions abroad, particularly by big state-owned industrial groups such as PetroChina, Chinalco, China Telecom and Bank of China."

This is a very big deal, and from the Chinese point of view, quite smart. Right now they are stuck with $2 trillion in US Treasuries, agency paper, etc. They can't sell their dollars without really hurting the dollar, thereby forcing the renminbi to rise and hurting their own exports. But they, and much of the world, feel that the US is pursuing policies that are going to be harmful to the value of the dollar and therefore to China's largest reserve exposure.

What to do? Take those dollars and buy physical assets. Companies, natural resources, maybe a few small countries. (To my Chinese readers: that's a joke, although some in the West worry about that.)

In the card game called Old Maid we played as kids, the loser was the one who ended up with the "Old Maid" at the end of the game. For the past decade, the Chinese sent us "stuff" and we sent them dollars in the form of electrons. They in turn invested those dollars in our debt so we could buy more stuff. It was a form of vendor financing.

And now the Chinese have apparently decided to pass the Old Maid of the dollar on to other parties, who will sell them their assets for dollars. Seriously, did anyone not think they would do this? Massively selling the dollar, which so many conspiracy-theory types keep saying they will, was never really a rational option. But using those dollars to acquire productive assets? Very smart, very rational. If you figure out what they want to buy and get there first, there are profits to be had. Attention should be paid.

$2.2 trillion in reserves and growing can cover a lot of economic sins and bad bank loans. It can buy time for the companies with too much production capacity in China to find new customers. Will it be a smooth ride? Of course not. There will be a lot of bankrupt companies and a lot of angst among the entrepreneurial class. That is part of the process. But in five or ten years, China will be larger and stronger than it is today. Count on it.

That being said, is it likely China will pull the world out of its current slump? Not for a while. China is just 7% of global GDP. Even if they grow at 8%, that only adds 0.5% to global growth, and it is likely that we will see global GDP shrink by 2.7% in 2009. Look at the chart below from my friends at Hayman Advisors.

A few side observations on the above graph. China is roughly as big as the other three of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, and India) combined. Russia and Brazil are in recessions. Also, note that it will be decades before China's economy is as big as that of the US, even with growth of 5-6% a year more than that of the US. Will it eventually be as big? Of course, and it should be; tt has four times more people.

Will it matter? Not a bit. Does Denmark care that the US or Germany is bigger? Not that I can tell. Does Dallas care if New York is bigger? You just deal with the reality in front of you and try and make the most of what you have. If you focus on the other person or country, you lose sight of your own goals.

Further, I rather doubt that China will be growing by 8% a year in 15 or 20 years. Like all large economies, they will start to experience slower growth. And they will have their own demographic problems in a few decades as a result of the "one child" policy. Every country has to deal with its own specific issues.

That being said, will there be opportunities in China and other emerging-market countries? You bet. I rather think that the developing world will be where the real opportunities will be as the world figures out what the New Normal will look like.

And now, let's look at a few issues the US will have to deal with.

A Statistical Recovery

"I've been down so long it looks like up to me," went the song of my youth. The recessions is not quite two years old. Every day we are hit with increasing unemployment, lower incomes, rising taxes, and more - a relentless stream of bad news. We wonder whether it will ever end. And the answer is that of course it will. And it may be ending now. But this is going to feel like a very different recovery from what we normally think of as recovery. It will be more of a statistical recovery than a real one.

The easiest way to explain that concept is to look at the following graph. At one point, housing construction was over 5% of GDP. Now it is around 2.5%. The graph shows how much a shrinking home-construction industry has reduced GDP each quarter for the last two years.

Without going into a lot of detail, housing construction may be at a bottom, or at least there is less room to fall. Instead of housing subtracting 1% (or more) from GDP each quarter, it may become a nonfactor as a bottom is reached. Does that mean recovery? No, it just means that things aren't getting worse. We are finding that level of the New Normal.

Ditto for inventories. At some point, you have to restock the shelves. Rail shipments are down by almost 20% from last year, and UPS package volume is down 4.7%. And as Dave Rosenberg pointed out this morning, that is from last year's already depressed levels. As Alan Blinder noted today in the Wall Street Journal, at some point you finally get to bottom. Housing, inventories and business investment stop subtracting from GDP, and the GDP stops shrinking.

And as I pointed out a few weeks ago, the fact that we are buying less from outside of the US (imports) may show economic weakness, but from a statistical point of view that is positive for GDP.

All of this means that we could see – actually, we will see – a positive GDP number at some point. Those of bullish persuasion will talk of recovery. But for the 10%-plus people who will not have a job next year, it is not going to seem like a recovery. Nor for the additional 7% (at least) part-time employees looking for full-time work.

Go back to 2001. We had "the end of the recession." Bulls were out in force, trying to talk up the market. But unemployment still rose for almost a year. And the stock market noticed. The market did not really take off for well over a year, and actually continued to slide into 2002.

The Last Bear Standing

Notice in the chart below that unemployment continued to rise until the first quarter of 2003. And that is also when the stock market took off. Those who see green shoots need to think about that. Meanwhile, the market is clearly telling us that it sees nothing but blue skies in the future. I truly marvel at this rally, but I continue to think it is a bear-market rally. The weakest, high-beta names are rallying the most. This rally does not seem to be the basis for a sustained bull market. That being said, Richard Russell has removed the bear from his letter and put in a bull. I may be the last bear standing.

The media tells us earnings are coming in above expectations. But expectations have been lowered so much that the target is much easier to hit. Even then, the "upside profit surprises" are coming from cost cutting, which is not sustainable as a profit center, at least not if you are trying to grow the business. And laying off employees, while perhaps good for the profits of one company, is not good for the overall economic business environment.

The Muddle Through Economy*

This is going to be a long, jobless recovery. Hours worked per week are at an all-time low. As noted above, part-time work is very high. Employers, when things actually start to turn around, and they will, will first give current employees more hours and then expand the hours of part-time workers. There will be few new jobs for a long time.

Because our population is growing, between 130-150,000 new jobs are required each month to keep unemployment from rising. Initial and continuing claims suggest we are currently losing at least 300,000 a month.

(As an aside, the media talks about initial unemployment claims falling. That is actually not true. Unemployment claims are in fact quite high and rising, but the seasonal adjustments make them look smaller. Normally, this would not be a big deal. But the summer seasonal adjustment assumes a normal automobile manufacturing market, with layoffs in July. The layoffs came much earlier this year, distorting seasonal adjustments.)

Higher and persistent unemployment, lower incomes and wages, higher savings rates, capacity utilization at 50-year lows and still falling, rising home foreclosures, a deleveraging financial system, etc. are not the stuff of "V-shaped" recoveries. Throw in that Moody's estimates that US banks will have to write off $400 billion in 2010, and it's a very weak recovery indeed that shapes up for next year.

It's the return of The Muddle Through Economy*, which is better than what we have had, to be sure. But that asterisk is there for a reason. Congress and the Obama administration are seemingly hell bent on a massive tax increase. If that happens, it will push a fragile recovery back into recession. It will look like the twin recessions of 1980-82.

It will be a difficult investing environment, to say the least. If buy-and-hold is not your favorite style, there are alternatives. Quick commercial: my friends at CMG have a platform of alternative managers that can be tailored to your specific needs. These are traders who have weathered the storms of this last decade. These are individually managed accounts, with daily liquidity. You really owe it to yourself to see the managers on their platform. The link to their form is http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp.

I am encouraged by the fact that the radical health reforms look like they might not pass. The health-care system clearly needs a major overhaul. Let's hope that we get it right.

In a future letter, I am going to talk about taxes. I am concerned that we are going to raise taxes now to very high levels, and not leave any room for the tax increases we are going to desperately need in the middle of the next decade to pay for entitlement programs. That will mean a VAT tax and tax increases on the middle class. Again, not good for the economy. But enough for today. Time to hit the send button.

New York, Maine, and Tulsa

Next week I am going to take a few days off and head for a beach somewhere, along with my summer reading list. I will get back for one day, and then with my 15-year-old son head for New York for an evening dinner with Art Cashin, Ron Insana, and George and Meredith Friedman. That should make for interesting conversation.

Then off the next morning to Maine, after shooting a few spots with Aaron Task and Henry Blodgett at Yahoo! Tech Ticker. CNBC and Steve Liesman will be at the Shadow Fed fishing event, and it looks like I will do a few minutes with him, as they plan to do an hour-long special with many of the investment writers, economists, and analysts who will be there. I am really looking forward to that trip.

And then back home for a few weeks before going to Tulsa for Amanda's wedding on the 22^nd. Amanda was a competitive cheerleader for a long time, and she is bringing that drive to the wedding. If there is deflation in this country, it is not in wedding costs. Two weddings in two years has me breathing hard. And two more to go, although right now it looks like that might not be soon. And if the job market will help out, Amanda and Allen (her fiancée) and her twin sister Abbi intend to move back to the Dallas area after the first of the year, which will mean I'll have all seven kids close to me again. I really look forward to that.

We tend to get together as a family for brunch at least every other Sunday, and it's a fun day for me. Lots of love and laughing -- and now babies. And more on the way! There is a bull market in my joy in my kids, that's for sure. And now it really is time to hit the send button, as I am off to the local pub to have a drink with #2 daughter Melissa. She is going to have to have her gall bladder removed, and Dad likes to check in now and then. Have a great week, and enjoy your summer before it goes away,

Your doing better than Muddle Through analyst,

John Mauldin

The Endgame

John Mauldin — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:29:29 GMT

The Endgame
Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted
Aye, Captain, I'm Giving Her All I've Got!
Problem #1: Deflation
Problem #2: Pushing on a String
The Muddle Through Middle
Conversations With John

Deflation? Stimulus? Deleveraging? Recession? A soft depression? A return to a bull market? With all that is going on, how does it all end up? When we get to where we are going, where will we be? In chess, the endgame refers to the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board. The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick exchange of a few pairs of pieces. The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. And in the current economic endgame, your strategy needs to consist of more than hope for a renewed bull market.

Rather than looking at just one year, in this week's letter we take the really long view and ask what the end result or endgame will look like. There are three possible scenarios (and multiple combinations) that I can think of, we will explore each. Any of them could happen, so we will need to look at some signposts to get an idea of what is actually going to occur. I can make the following prediction that will be absolutely correct: Whatever scenario I lay out here, events and time will change what actually happens. But this will give you an insight into my longer-term biases, and that should be useful. As I tell my kids, put on your thinking caps.

There are a few housekeeping topics I need to cover, but I will do it at the end of the letter. I just did two interviews with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget at Yahoo Tech Ticker, and will provide the links. I also want to talk about the upcoming Strategic Investment Conference, April 2-4 in La Jolla, which is going to sell out. And make sure you get around to subscribing to my new information service, called Conversations with John Mauldin. I will be posting the first conversation very soon, and you don't want to miss it! So, stay with me and let's jump right into this week's letter.

Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted

First, I have to address some more government data that can be misleading. We were told Thursday that initial unemployment claims were "only" 524,000. The talking heads immediately said that was proof the economy is simply bad, not falling off a cliff. Again, like last week, that seasonally adjusted number masks the real number, which was 952,151. That is not a typo. There were almost 1 million newly unemployed last week! That is up over 400,000 from the same week in 2008, while the seasonally adjusted number was up only 200,000. Last week the real number was 726,000, so this is a material rise of over 225,000, yet the seasonally adjusted number suggests a rise of only 57,000 from last week.

The continuing claims data leaped over 500,000 to (again, not a typo!) 5,832,746. The length of time people are staying unemployed is also rising rapidly. We are up almost 1.5 million new continuing claims in just the last five weeks. That is a stunning rise of over 30% in unemployment claims in just over a month. The data is truly ugly, but it is what it is.

When you are in periods where there are deep outliers to the data because of very real turning points in the economy (such as we are going through now), the seasonally adjusted numbers can mask the real underlying trends, both up and down.

Aye, Captain, I'm Giving Her All I've Got!

Let me repeat a point I made last week, which is important and necessary for us to grasp if we are to understand where we are headed.

We are in completely uncharted territory in terms of the economic landscape. Like the USS Enterprise in Star Trek, we are boldly going where no man has gone before. But the captains of our fleet are Keynesians to their core (and they don't have any Vulcan advisors). They don't have any historical maps to guide us back to a functioning economy; they only have theory. The North Star they are guiding us by, for good or ill, is John Maynard Keynes, with a slight nod to Milton Friedman.

It is not a question of whether or not there will be massive stimulus. The question is simply how much and for how long. And my wager, as outlined below, is that it will be far larger than anyone would want to admit today. Think of Scotty, aboard the Enterprise, when Captain Kirk demands more power, "But Captain, I'm giving her all she can take. She's ready to explode!" (But he always finds a little bit more.)

Let's set the scene for where we are today. The US likely just experienced a 4^th quarter with GDP down over 4%. Some estimates suggest 5%. For all of 2009 we are likely going to be down at least 1-2%, which will make this the longest recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is headed to at least 9%. Consumer spending will be off by at least 3% this year and again in 2010, as consumers start to find virtue in savings, which should rise in the US to 6% within a few years. Housing prices are going to drop another 10-15%, taking homes back to a level where they may be more affordable.

Corporate earnings are going to be dismal for at least the first two quarters, with forward estimates being lowered again and again. (For a thorough analysis of earnings, look at the January 2, 2009 issue in the archives.) Global trade is falling rapidly, and it is likely that we will see a global recession this year, which will result in further negative feedback on US, European, and Japanese exports.

On a more positive note, oil is below $40, which is more of a stimulus to consumers than anything anticipated by the incoming Obama administration (at least as far as consumers go). With short-term rates at zero, adjustable-rate mortgages are actually not the problem anticipated a year ago, and many homeowners are rushing to refinance their homes at lower rates. Large banks have indicated a willingness to actually cut the principle and interest on troubled mortgages, which might lower the number of defaults.

Conversely, the number of defaults is high and rising -- throughout the developed world. It is likely to be 2011 before the housing market finds a real bottom and housing construction can begin to rise.

The credit markets are still in disarray. While there are some signs that the frozen markets are thawing, the Fed and the US Treasury are having to provide more bailout capital to large US banks. Citigroup is breaking up. Bank of America needs massive amounts of capital to digest Merrill. The hole that is AIG just keeps getting deeper. It is going to take several years for the credit markets to function at anything close to normal, as we simply vaporized a whole credit industry worldwide. To think it will take anything less is simply naive. And in the meantime, the various central banks of the world, along with their governments, are going to step in to fill the need for credit.

Obama has signaled that he needs the remaining $350 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program money as soon as possible, although his delegated Treasury Secretary, who will run the program, may be in some trouble, as he failed to pay taxes on his income from his stint at the IMF.

(This is not an "Oops, I forgot!" The IMF does not withhold income taxes from its employees. However, he was given a memo about the taxes he owed. And he did pay them for two years when he was audited and caught. He clearly knew the nature of the taxes due the two prior years, yet did not come clean on those years. Dumb move for someone on a fast-track career and who clearly has an impressive intellect. He has got to be kicking himself. Since the Treasury Secretary is in charge of the IRS, this is not good for Obama. Someone on his team should have vetted this more thoroughly. I do think Geithner is otherwise as qualified as anyone else on the short list, but this is a very large cloud hanging over him.)

The auto industry is reeling. Without a lot more government funds, it is unlikely that GM or Chrysler will survive without going through bankruptcy. The industry needs to shed about 20% of capacity. No amount of government funding will change that reality. Beyond autos, industry after industry is on the ropes.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture that is facing the Obama administration and the entire rest of the developed world.

So, how do we get out of this mess? As noted above, the captains of our collective ships are Keynesians. They are going to provide as much stimulus as needed.

Problem #1: Deflation

We got the Consumer Price Index numbers today, and they tell a tale of deflation. On an annualized basis, the CPI for the last three months was a negative -12.7%! Even core CPI, which is without food and energy, was a minus 0.3%. The CPI for 2008 was just 0.1% for the whole year. This was the smallest calendar-year increase since 1954, and it's down from 4.1% for 2007. (To see the whole release and data, you can go to www.bls.gov.)

I outlined the problem of deflation last week in my 2009 Forecast so I will not go into detail, except to note that central bankers are going to fight tooth and nail any tendency for deflation to catch hold in the economic mind of the country. It is simply part of their DNA.

Obama wants an extra $825 billion in his stimulus package, in addition to the $350 billion in TARP monies. The Fed has started to buy mortgage assets, and that could be $500 billion or more. That is in addition to some $300 billion plus and growing in commercial paper, in addition to bank assets, etc.

Let me predict right here that this is merely the first installment. The problems described above are very large. It is one thing to make credit cheap and yet another to make consumers either want to borrow more, or be able to convince a lender that borrowers can repay their debts. On the one hand, the government is providing capital to banks and hoping they will lend it, and on the other hand the regulators are telling them to reduce lending and increase their capital. Their commercial mortgages on a mark-to-market basis are imploding. Consumer credit risk is high and rising. What's a bank to do?

Let's add it up. In the US, we have seen massive wealth destruction on personal balance sheets. At the end of the third quarter the losses totalled $5.6 trillion, between housing and stocks. They could be over $10 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter. (Source: Hoisington) The losses will almost certainly top $12 trillion by the middle of the year as housing continues to deteriorate. Pick any country in the developed world or much of the developing world, and it's the same picture: wealth destruction.

We have seen at least a trillion dollars of capital on financial companies' balance sheets disappear; and given the recent spate of bailouts, it is likely to get worse.

As I have been pounding the table about, a credit crisis and imploding balance sheets, a housing crisis, and a massive earnings shortfall that yields a relentless stock market drop are all independently deflationary. The combined forces are massively so. To think that a mere trillion or so dollars in stimulus will be enough to reflate the US and the world economies is simply not realistic.

Let me offer a simplistic definition of what I mean by reflation: it's when the velocity of money stops falling for at least two quarters and the economy emerges from outright recession.

And much of the proposed stimulus is not really stimulus. Temporary tax cuts, as much as I like them, that are not targeted at getting small businesses recharged (which is where the real growth in jobs will come from) will likely be saved, much in the way that the last stimulus package did little real good for the economy, and simply put us another $177 billion in debt that our kids will have to pay. Helping keep people in their homes when they are already over their heads in debt is not really stimulus, however noble it sounds. Over 50% of mortgages that are reduced and rewritten are delinquent again within 6 months. That does not bode well for future efforts. Better to let the home go at some price to someone who can afford it. Tough love, but realistic.

Giving money to states to allow them to continue to spend beyond their budgets is not stimulus. And why should Texas pay for a profligate California? We have our own problems. The Robin Hood approach to stimulus programs is nonproductive and only encourages bad budgeting habits.

What will work? Infrastructure development, although that takes time, and some real thought should be given as to which projects are undertaken, rather than allocating according to which Senator has the most seniority. Spending on defense equipment, which must all have US content (which will be distasteful to the left), is real stimulus. Upgrading technology in a number of areas qualifies, although past experience suggests governments are not good at spending new tech money wisely.

Spending on green technologies? Creating a million new jobs in clean tech? Get real. How do we go from less than a 100,000 real clean-tech jobs to 1,000,000 in five years, let alone one? And three million new jobs? Really? From where? What government program could do this? In what universe? It makes for nice feel-good talk, but has no bearing on reality.

Don't get me wrong. In the midst of the late 1970s malaise, when the gloom was as thick as it is today, the correct answer to the question, "Where will all the new jobs come from?" was "I don't know, but they will." And it is still the correct answer. The US free market system is still the most dynamic economy in the world, and I truly believe that we will see new industries spring up, which will be a jobs dynamo. But that will take time. It is not a short-term solution, and by short-term I mean 1-2 years.

My bet is that in the third quarter, when earnings reports come out and are terrible, unemployment is over 8% and pushing 9%, and there is no evidence of a recovery, that we will see more stimulus from both the Fed and Congress. Count on it.

The Fed and the Keynesian captains of our economic ship are "all in." If the current plans do not reflate the economy, they are not going to say, "Well, that is too bad. We did what we could. Now we just have to go ahead and let the US economy catch Japanese disease." Not a chance. They will up the ante.

And they will keep trying to "jump start" the economy until it works. Obama told us to expect trillion-dollar deficits for years to come. Give him this: he is being candid and honest.

The Fed, and I think other central banks, are going to step in and be the buyers of last resort for a whole host of debts, both corporate and consumer. There are those who worry about creating inflation, because they actually do have to print money to buy these debts. While I would prefer a world where a central bank does not intervene in the markets, the time to fix the problem of excess leverage was a decade ago. Allowing banks to go to 30:1 leverage based on "value at risk" models and other financial wizardry that clearly neither the banks nor the regulators understood, was simply bad policy, and we are paying for it. As Woody Brock so wisely notes, 30:1 leverage is not three times more risky than 10:1 leverage, it is 25 times more risky. (Trust me, or at least Woody, on the math.) As an aside, many European banks were even more highly leveraged.

The End Game

The US (and indeed soon the whole world) is in a deep recession. The US is going to try and combat that recession with stimulus on a scale never before tried. It is a grand experiment. On the one hand is the theory that you can allocate stimulus and keep the velocity of money from falling. On the other hand is the theory that once the deleveraging process starts, there is not much you can do about it: it is going to work its way through the economy. We are about to find out which theory is correct.

So, let's look at three possible outcomes, with the best outcome first. The basic optimistic assumption is that, while this recession is deep and the worst in the post-WWII era, it is still just a recession. Free-market economies eventually recover. Recessions do their work of reducing excess capacity, and the businesses which survive enjoy increased market share and potential for profits to rise. And corporations do indeed have on balance stronger than usual balance sheets going into this recession, except for most financial corporations. Another exception is businesses that were bought by private equity firms with large leverage. Many of those will have to be restructured. And those that have too much leverage or were too aggressive with expansion programs? They will go the way of all overleveraged flesh.

Besides, the optimistic scenario holds, the massive amount of stimulus being applied to the US economy is on a scale never seen. It will work, just as an easy monetary policy has always worked. (Except in the '70s, but we won't make that mistake again! We learned our lesson, yes we did! Volker can stay in retirement.)

This scenario assumes that the psyche of US consumers has not actually been seared all that much, and that they will return to their spending habits as soon as they are able. It also assumes this is a normal business-cycle recession. There really is no endgame. It is business as usual. There has been no fundamental altering of the US dynamic. Banks will start lending again, businesses and consumers will start borrowing, and things get back to normal. Deflation is just some bugaboo that a weird coterie of economists and investment writers harp on to scare the children into behaving more rationally. It can't really happen here. And besides, the Fed can print enough money to make deflation go away. The real worry will be if they overshoot and inflation comes roaring back.

Problem # 2: Pushing on a String

The economy clearly let leverage run to an irrational level. You've seen the graphs. US debt to GDP is now over 300% and has risen precipitously in the last ten and especially the last five years. Leverage and debt fueled the growth of the economy, but debt growth hit a wall and now the deleveraging process is the painful result. This brings us to the worst-case scenario: that all the efforts of the Fed will go for naught and that we are in a liquidity trap.

A liquidity trap is a situation in monetary economics in which a country's nominal interest rate has been lowered nearly or equal to zero to avoid a recession, but the liquidity in the market created by these low interest rates does not stimulate the economy. In these situations, borrowers prefer to keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts rather than making long-term investments. This makes a recession even more severe, and can contribute to deflation. (Wikipedia)

And there is no question, at least in my mind, that the economy, if left to its own devices, would fall into a soft deflationary depression, which would take years to climb out of. The contention of those who believe that we are headed for such a state of affairs is that no matter what the Fed does, excesses on the part of consumers and unrestrained government deficit spending is going to create a Perfect Storm. First of deflation and then, because the Fed is going to try to re-inflate the economy by printing money, we will see a resurgence in inflation and a collapse or, at the very least, a serious drop in the value of the dollar. Further, to expect foreign governments to continue to buy depreciating dollars and allow the dollar to continue to be the world's reserve currency is not realistic. And of course, there are those who think we will eventually see hyperinflation as the Fed is forced to monetize the national deficits, with gold going to $3,000 (or higher!). And Obama, with his talk of trillion-dollar deficits for an extended period, certainly adds fuel to that fire.

If, and it is a big but possible if, the Fed is indeed pushing on a string, then we are likely to see 15% unemployment, yet another lost decade for the stock market, and a real calamity in the pension, endowment, and insurance worlds, which are planning on 8% long-term portfolio returns to meet their obligations. And while I think it is a possibility we must be mindful of, it is not the most likely scenario.

The Muddle Through Middle

Now, we come to the third scenario and -- no surprise to long-time readers -- the one I think is most likely. I think that after we climb out of recession, we Muddle Through for an extended period of time. Follow my reasoning, and remember that I am often wrong but seldom in doubt! And please allow me some room to speculate. I can guarantee that I have some (or most) of the particulars wrong. But I think I have the general direction we are heading in.

We are in a serious recession. We have to allow time for both the housing market and the credit markets to heal. This will take at least two years. I think we have permanently seared the psyche of the American consumer. Consumer spending is likely to drop at least 6-7% over the next two years, and maybe more. The combination of all three bubbles (consumer spending, credit, and housing), which were made possible by increasing leverage and poor lending standards, is by definition deflationary. (I know, I keep repeating, but most readers do not really get the rather disturbing implications.)

The US government in general and the Fed in particular will react to the problem. Most of the government stimulus, other than that used to reliquefy the banking system, build useful infrastructure, and encourage small business to expand, will be wasted or have little short-term effect. The Fed (and central banks around the world), on the other hand, do have the potential to succeed with a "shock and awe" type of stimulus program.

The problem is the Velocity of Money. (You can see this explained in my December 5, 2008 letter.) There is just no way of knowing when the Fed programs will really create some traction. Anyone who shows you a model that says such and such an amount of stimulus is needed is from the government, trying to tell you that this time we really do know what we're doing. Any such models are based on assumptions about things we have no way of knowing.

The Fed (and the US government) are going to continue to run deficits and print money until the economy begins to reflate. That is one thing I truly believe. Will it be a total of $2 trillion? Three? Four? More? I don't know. How large will the Fed balance sheet be in a few years? I don't know. And neither does anyone else. There are just too many damn variables.

But I do believe that at some point there will be some inflationary traction. And combined with an economy resetting itself at some new level of consumer spending, and with a basically resilient US free-market system, a recovery will begin.

But here's the problem. Let's assume, and we can, that we find this new set point for the US economy (see the "Economic Blue Screen of Death"). And that the economy begins to grow, but the Fed has injected a lot of liquidity. Now some of that liquidity is "self-liquidating." By that I mean, commercial paper is typically 90 days. The Fed simply has to begin to wind down its commercial paper investments, and it takes away some of the liquidity it created. Those mortgages they bought? Each month, as payments are made, a little liquidity is taken back from the economy.

And if inflation is an issue, they can begin to withdraw that liquidity or raise rates. Of course, that will serve to slow the economy down, but better a slower Muddle Through Economy than a return to the high stagflation of the '70s.

That gets us to 2011-12. The economy is growing, albeit slower than anyone would like, but government deficits are still in the trillion-dollar range, as Obama and the Democratic Congress have increased the entitlement programs, locking in big deficits for a long time. High deficits put the dollar under pressure. The demand from voters is to get the deficit under control. However, the Social Security surpluses are beginning to dwindle. And just like in the early '80s, we have a Social Security crisis. Some combination of higher taxes, reduced benefits for wealthier Americans, later retirement ages, and a different methodology of indexing for inflation will be the order of the day.

But Social Security is the relatively easy problem. Medicare benefits will be at nose-bleed levels and will swamp the ability of the government to fund it and other government programs. Democrats will never allow the programs to be cut back. And getting the 60-plus Republican senators needed for such cuts is just not likely to happen by 2012-2014.

The problem will be dealt with by cuts in some government programs, but mostly by tax hikes on the "rich" and increased contributions by participants. Since many of the rich are the very small business people who we need to create jobs, this is going to be very anti-growth, extending the Muddle Through Economy for yet another few years. And if taxes are raised too much in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts go away, then we could see a relapse back into a recession.

Such an environment of higher taxes and slow growth is not good for corporate earnings. Earnings in the recent years have been at all-time high levels as a percentage of GDP. Earnings as such are mean reverting, and thus are unlikely to rise back to previous levels in terms of percentage of GDP. (Of course, in nominal terms they should rise.) This is going to put a constraint on stock market growth.

Pension plans, endowments, insurance companies, and individual investors who are counting on 8% long-term compound returns from their stock portfolios are as likely to be disappointed in the next five years as they were in the last ten. The environment I am describing is one of compressing price to earnings ratios, much like the period from 1974 to 1982.

This environment is going to force the creation of new investment programs and products based on income generation. And that is one of the forces that will bring about a real recovery in the middle of the next decade. Investment capital will be made available to businesses that can generate low double-digit or high single-digit returns, as well as new technologies with the promise to deliver new paths to profits.

The second major force will be the arrival of new waves of technological change. We will see a biotech revolution beyond our current comprehension. It has the real potential for solving a great deal of the Medicare entitlement program problems. For instance, it is likely we will have a real cure for Alzheimer's within five years. Since that is as much as 7% of US medical costs, that can create a real cost reduction. The same for heart disease, obesity, cancer, and a host of other medical conditions that will start to be dealt with by a new generation of therapies. That is going to create a new, very real bull market in biotech.

I expect to see a new generation of wireless broadband that powers whole new industries. And it will not just be green tech, but entirely new forms of energy generation that drive the cost of energy down and, combined with other new technologies, make electric cars practical. And along about the end of the decade, the nanotech world begins to really get into gear.

And just as the tightly wound, low P/E ratios of the early '80s gave way to a spring-loaded major bull market as new technologies became the driver for a whole new set of public companies, we could (and should!) see a repeat of that performance. There is a new bull market in our future.

The problem is getting from where we are today to that next dawn. The definition of insanity is to keep repeating what you have done in the past and expect a different result. We are in a long-term secular bear market. P/E ratios are going to decline over time to low double digits. Hoping that stocks somehow rebound to new highs and that the economy is going to go back to what we saw in 1982-1999 or 2003-2006 is not a strategy. You need to be proactive and take charge of your portfolio, looking for absolute-return types of investments for the next 4-5 years. Simply using a traditional 60-40 split of stocks and bonds is not going to get you to retirement nirvana. It will lead to retirement hell.

Conversations With John

As we announced a few weeks ago, I am starting a new subscription-only service. While this letter will always be free, we are going to create a way for you to "listen in" on my conversations with some of my friends, many of whom you will recognize and some who you will want to know after you hear our conversations. Basically, I will call one or two friends each month, and just as we do at dinner or at meetings, we will talk about the issues of the day, with back and forth, give and take, and friendly debate. I think you will find it very enlightening and thought-provoking and a real contribution to your education as an investor. You can still subscribe now, before the actual launch of the service (in a week or so), at the holiday rate of 50% off. I will be having the first conversation next week, and it will include a spirited debate about the topics in this letter. Then, at some point in February, when Nouriel Roubini and I can match our schedules and continents, we will have a conversation you can listen in on as well. This is going to be a very fun project, and you won't want to miss one chat.

You will be able to listen online, download to your iPod, or read a transcript. To learn more, just click on http://www.johnmauldin.com/newsletters2.html, click the Subscribe button, and type in the code "JM44" to get your 50% discount. And read about the bonuses we will offer as well!

To see my interviews on Yahoo with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget, go to:

Along with my partners Altegris Investments, I will be co-hosting our 6th 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 seems 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.

For whatever reason, this letter has kept me up very late. At 4 AM (!), it is time to hit the send button. For those of you who can actually take a three-day weekend, enjoy it! Alas, Tiffani has me working on a tight schedule as our book deadline looms, although I will slip away tomorrow evening to watch the Mavericks. And hit the gym of course.

Have a great week! And seriously, there are lots of opportunities in the world today. Just open your mind to some "out of the box" possibilities.

Your enjoying the ride analyst,

John Mauldin

The Economy Gets a Margin Call

John Mauldin — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:05:00 GMT

The Economy Gets a Margin Call
Where Have All the Consumers Gone?
Why Is the Dollar Rising?
Can We Actually Muddle Through?
The Potential for a Large Stock Market Rally
Is GM too Big to Let Fail?
New York, Moving, and Another One Leaves the Nest

As long-time readers know, my daughter Tiffani and I are interviewing millionaires for a book we will be writing called Eavesdropping on Millionaires. This has been one of the more personally impacting projects of my life, as the stories we hear are so very provocative. I hope we can transfer to readers of the book at least half of the impact we are personally experiencing. But at the end of each interview, we let the interviewee ask me questions. Often, they are along the line of "Do you really think we will Muddle Through?" Sometimes they ask in need of assurance and sometimes they simply think that my stance is somewhat naïve. It is something of an irony that I am called a perma-bear in some circles and a Pollyanna in others. The Muddle Through middle has been lonely of late.

So, this week I take another look at my Muddle Through stance. We look at some of the recent data on unemployment and retail sales, think about the implications of a falling trade deficit and a rising US government deficit, speculate about the potential for a serious stock market rally, and also comment on the potential for a GM bailout. There is a lot to cover, so let's jump right in.

Where Have All the Consumers Gone?

Retail sales and prices of goods imported to the US dropped by the most on record, signaling the economy may be in its worst slump in decades. Purchases fell 2.8 % in October, the fourth straight decline, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Labor Department figures showed import prices dropped 4.7%, pointing to a rising danger of deflation, and a private report said consumer confidence this month remained near the lowest level since 1980. (Bloomberg)

Circuit City filed for bankruptcy and Best Buy said sales were down and gave even lower guidance for Christmas. Nordstrom's cut its profit forecast for the third time this year.

It is a perfect storm for retailers. Consumers are having a negative wealth effect as stock and housing prices have plunged, taking almost $20 trillion out of US consumer assets. Unemployment is rising and consumer confidence is at the lowest levels since the last major recession in 1980-82.

The unemployment numbers which came out this week were particularly grim. Jobless claims on a seasonally adjusted basis were 516,000 newly unemployed. But that masked an even deeper actual number of 540,000. The largest previous number for this week was back in 2001 and was 420,000. Actual weekly numbers can be volatile, but such an increase is certainly disconcerting.

I should point out that as of the end of September there were 3.3 million job openings, down slightly from August. It is not as if there are no jobs being created or available. But as pointed out last week, the number of people looking for work for over 8 months is high and rising fast, so there is a serious mismatch of the jobs available and the desire or ability of people to take them.

Continuing claims are now at roughly 3.5 million individuals who are getting unemployment insurance. Let's assume that each week we lose an average of 400,000 jobs. That is 20 million jobs a year. That means the US economy for the last year has created 16.5 million jobs (very roughly). So there is some robustness in the economy even as we slide deeper into recession.

But what happens if we see the number of new unemployment claims start to rise to an average of 500,000 for a period of time? Without more job creation, that would mean an increase in unemployment of 1,000,000 people in just 10 weeks. This week we have seen an increase in continuing claims of 141,000 from just last week. That, gentle reader, is very grim if it were to continue. Unemployment is likely to continue to rise throughout most of 2009, closing in on 8%.

This time of year should see some seasonal rise as retailers begin to hire for Christmas. But with retail sales down and facing the likely prospect of negative growth in Christmas sales for the first time ever, seasonal employment is evidently not responding. More comments on this below as I take up the Muddle Through economy.

Why Is the Dollar Rising?

The trade deficit is dropping slowly, from over $60 billion in July to $56 billion in September. Import prices fell and imports were down by 5.6%. On a less positive note, exports, which had been one of the bright spots in the economy, fell by 6%. The trade deficit would have been another $3 billion less if Boeing had not been on strike.

Oil prices were an average of $104 a barrel in September. For November prices will be closer to $65, down at least one third. That means the possible trade deficit for November could be a lot closer to $40 billion, the lowest since 2003 and well off the highs of almost $68 billion a few years ago.

Why is this important? Two reasons. First, it means that a lot fewer dollars are now going into the world economy. And demand for dollars is rising as the world seeks a safe haven in the current global recession, so it should not be a surprise that the dollar is rising.

The surprise is the violence, the amazing rapidity of the rise. We are seeing movements in currency prices in a week that would normally be a year's worth of volatility. It is a sign of the severity of the crisis, of the wariness of traders, that prices are so volatile.

Second, it also means fewer dollars will be coming back into the US to finance the rising government deficits. As Woody Brock (one of my favorite economists) in a recent essay points out, this is counter-intuitive, but it is nonetheless true. Dollars which go abroad must eventually find a home, and that home is going to be in US assets of some kind, usually government bonds.

Some worry about China or another large country might stop buying US bonds with their dollars. They worry that they might want to increase their holdings of euros, for example. But what that means is they take the dollars and sell them to someone who has euros. Then that country has dollars that they must then do something with. It is not as if the dollars disappear.

The only way for China (and/or the world) to really reduce their dollar balances is to stop selling products to the US consumer or to buy US assets like stocks or real estate or wheat, thus bringing the dollars back to the US.

But what in practice happens is that China and most Mideast countries on a net basis buy US government-backed debt. But if there are fewer dollars going abroad, that means there are fewer dollars to buy newly issued debt. And our government is issuing new debt at a rather startling rate.

The estimates for the deficit next year are close to $1 trillion. But if the trade deficit is "only" $500 billion, that means that the appetite of foreigners for US debt will be less than half what is needed to finance the deficit. Where does the difference come from? US citizens and corporations, primarily banks, are going to have to buy the difference or the Fed will have to monetize a portion. Or rates on longer-term debt could go high enough to entice foreigners to buy US debt.

Higher rates would be a drag on the US economy and especially the housing markets and would also cost the taxpayer a lot in additional interest-rate expenses. Total government debt is now $10.5 trillion, with the public (including non-US holdings) having $6.3 trillion. The average interest rate paid on that debt is 4.009%, and for fiscal year 2008, which ended October 31, the interest expense was $451 billion. Add another trillion and the interest paid would soon rise to $500 billion.

The US will face a serious problem in 2009. Tax revenues are going to take a very serious fall. Remember when capital gains taxes would produce a few hundred billion? Not in 2009. And income taxes will drop as unemployment expenses rise. The perceived need for government stimulus will be offset by the problem of funding the deficit. Resorting to monetizing the debt is a nuclear option. Expect even more volatility in the currency and interest-rate markets next year.

Can We Actually Muddle Through?

In addition to the above, let me list a few problems I have highlighted in the past few months. Roughly 3% of GDP growth for 2002-2007 was from Mortgage Equity Withdrawals and other debt. That stimulus is gone. Consumers are going to start saving once again, taking money from a consumer-spending-driven economy. Taxes are likely to rise, not only at the federal but at the state and local levels, as governments of all sizes are faced with growing deficits and needs. Financial institutions are deleveraging at a very fast pace. It is, as one friend told me, as if the economy at large is facing a massive margin call.

Given all of the above problems, how is it possible that we can Muddle Through?

In January of 2007 I forecast a mild recession beginning in late 2007. I was early. In January of this year, I still thought the recession would be more like that of 1990-91. Clearly, I was an optimist. It is now likely that we will see a recession as deep as 1974. This quarter is likely to see a negative growth number of 4% or more. That is deep by any standard. And I do not think that the economy will begin to actually grow before the third quarter at the earliest. It is quite likely that 2009 will be negative for the entire year, and possibly for all four quarters.

We are, as I have said, hitting the reset button on consumer spending. We are going to some lower level of consumer spending, and corporations and government are going to have to adjust their budgets. Corporate earnings will be under pressure for some time to come.

But, and this is a big but, this too shall pass. At some point we will hit a bottom. Just as irrational exuberance led us into foolish actions, we are now becoming too pessimistic. The pendulum will swing. Minsky taught us that stability breeds instability. The more stable things are, the more comfortable we are with taking risk, which ultimately creates the conditions for a normal business-cycle recession. This time, we took on a whole lot more risk than usual and are facing a deeper recession.

But the opposite is true as well. Instability will breed stability. It is, as Paul McCulley calls it, a reverse Minsky moment. We will adjust to the new environment by becoming more conservative. And that new conservative environment will bring about a new stability, albeit at lower levels. But it will be a level from which we can begin to grow once again. It has been this way since the Medes were trading with the Persians.

And here is where I may not have been clear, as the conversations mentioned at the beginning of the letter have called to my attention. My thought is that Muddle Through is the period after we are finished with the recession. I think that the future recovery when it comes will be a lot slower and longer in getting back to trend growth than normal. It will be a Muddle Through, slow-growth economy. I expect that period to now last through at least 2010. The credit crisis and the housing bubble are not problems that can be quickly or easily fixed. It will take time.

The Potential for a Large Stock Market Rally

Everyone knows that there are large amounts of hedge fund redemptions being processed. Some blame the current vicious sell-off on forced hedge fund sales as they have to meet these redemptions at the end of the quarter.

This brings up an interesting possibility. My guess is that the large bulk of that money is going back to institutions that will need to put the money to work. Where will they deploy it? If they are projecting 7-8% total portfolio returns, they cannot put that money in bonds. My guess is that it will go back to other hedge funds or into long-only managers. This money will start to go to work in mid- to late January. We could see a very large rally the first quarter of next year. For traders, this will be a chance to make some money. I think it will be a bear market rally, as the recession will still be in full swing, and we could see a pullback when that money gets fully deployed. But it will be fun while it lasts.

As traders begin to sense that possibility, we could see a serious year-end rally as well. Would I bet the farm? No, but I offer up the idea as a possibility. And I know a lot of people have large short positions that have made them a lot of money this year. Maybe it is time to think about taking profits.

And now a few thoughts on the possibility of bailing out GM.

Is GM too Big to Let Fail?

(Let me say at the outset I am truly sorry for those who have lost their jobs or are facing the possibility of a job loss, whether at GM or any other firm. I have been there, as have most people at one time or another.)

I wrote in 2004 that GM was essentially bankrupt. They owed more in pension obligations than it seemed likely they would be able to pay, without major restructuring of the union contracts. I was not alone in such an assessment, although there were not many of us. Now that assessment is common wisdom.

Bloomberg today cites sources that claim a collapse of GM would cost taxpayers $200 billion if the company were forced to liquidate. The projections also called for the loss of "millions" of auto-related jobs. GM, Ford, and Chrysler employ 240,000. They provide healthcare to 2 million, pension benefits to 775,000. Another 5 million jobs are directly related to the three auto companies. GM has 6,000 dealerships which employ 344,000 people. According to a recent study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR), if the domestic automakers cut output and employment by 50 percent, nearly 2.5 million jobs would be lost and governments would lose $108 billion in revenue over three years. (Edd Snyder at Roadtrip blog)

How did we get to a place where the market cap of GM is a mere $1.8 billion and its stock price has dropped from $87 in early 1999 to $3.10 today? (See chart below.) Where Rod Lache of Deutsche Bank has a "price target" of zero for GM? "Even if GM succeeds in averting a bankruptcy, we believe that the company's future path is likely to be bankruptcy-like," Lache wrote.

The litany of reasons is long. At the top of the list are union contracts which mandate high costs and pension plans which cannot be met. Then there is the problem of many years of poorly designed cars, although they are now getting their act together. We can also discuss poor management and bloated costs, like paying multiple thousands of workers who are not actually working. GM is structured for the 50% market share they used to command, whereas now they only have 20%.

Wilbur Ross, a well-known multi-billionaire investor, was on CNBC saying that allowing GM to go bankrupt would throw the country into what sounded like a depression. Of course, he does have an auto parts company which supplies GM; so he, as my Dad would say, does have a dog in that hunt.

Ross said that we as a nation are to blame for GM's problems (I am not making this up) because we do not have a national industrial policy. The US allowed other automotive companies to build plants in states that had lower labor costs, and that is the reason GM is uncompetitive. GM pays an average of $33 an hour, and those selfish other companies pay a mere $19 plus a host of benefits.

Ross evidently believes that because some states have lower taxes and right to work laws, that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to give GM a certain type of immortality rather than suggest GM deal with its problems directly. I assume that Ross also sides with the French when they suggest that Ireland should raise taxes so they will not have to compete with Ireland for business. Such thinking is nonsense and is also unconstitutional.

Let's all acknowledge that having GM go bankrupt would not be a good thing. But it is not the end of the US automotive industry, nor even of GM. Let's think about what a GM bankruptcy might look like. In a bankruptcy, the debt holders line up to come up with a restructuring plan so that they can maximize the return of their loans or obligations. The shareholders get wiped out, but with GM down over 95%, that has largely been accomplished. That process has happened with airlines, steel companies, and tens of thousand of other companies. It is called creative destruction.

First, let's understand that the real owners of GM are the pension plans, as I wrote in 2004. They are the entities with the largest obligations and the most to lose. They are the biggest stakeholders in a successful GM. Giving them the responsibility for making a new, leaner, meaner GM with realistic union contracts would be rational; otherwise they would lose most of what they have.

Factories need to be closed. Auto sales are down to 11 million cars a year, the lowest since 1982, which was the last major recession. Automotive companies sold cars at such low prices in the last few years that sales went to 16 million a year. But the cars that have been sold will last for a long time. Few people are going to buy a new car when the old one is working fine, especially in a recession and a Muddle Through economy. Further, does GM really need eight automotive lines, some of which have been losing money for years?

A restructured GM with realistic costs could be quite competitive. They have some great cars. I drive one. It is four years old and so good I am likely to drive it for at least another four.

At some point after the restructuring, the pension plans could float the stock on the market and get some real value. If actual pensions need to be adjusted, then so be it. While that is sad for the GM pensioners, is it any sadder than for Delta or United Airlines or steel company pensioners who saw their benefits go down? For the vast majority of Americans, no one guarantees their full retirement. Why should auto trade unions be any different?

Taxpayers in one form or another are going to have to pay something. Unemployment costs, increased contributions to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, job training, relocation, and other costs will be borne. So, it is in our interest to get involved so as to minimize our costs, as well as help preserve as many jobs as possible.

Sadly, I think it is likely that a Democratic majority next year will quickly pass a bailout that will not solve any of the longer-term problems. Obama evidently wants to appoint an "automotive czar;" and the name being floated is the very liberal Michigan former Representative David Bonior, whose anti-trade and pro-union positions are well known. This is appointing the fox to guard the hen house. It is not a recipe for the restructuring that is needed.

The bailout for GM is a bailout for the trade unions and management (who not coincidentally both made large contributions to the Democratic Party and candidates). US consumers are simply going to buy fewer cars in the future. That is a fact. Spending $50 billion does not address that reality. That $50 billion can be better spent by helping workers who lose their jobs. Without serious reforms a bailout will simply postpone the problem, and there will be a need for more money in a few years. And do we think that the management which got GM into the current mess is the group to bring them out?

And as to the argument that "We bailed out Wall Street, so why not GM?" it doesn't hold water. What we did and are doing is to try and keep the financial system functioning, so we don't see the world economy simply shut down. But don't tell the 125,000 people who have lost jobs on Wall Street that it was a bailout. That number is likely to go to 200,000. No one thinks that a restructured GM would see anywhere close to half that number of job losses.

Do we protect Circuit City? Sun just announced plans to lay off 6,000 workers. Where is their bailout? Citibank announced 10,000 further job cuts today. This is a recession. And sadly that means a lot of jobs are going to be lost. GM workers should have no more right to their jobs than a Sun or Citibank or Circuit City worker.

Now, would I be opposed to a bridge loan to help in the transition? No, because a viable Detroit is good for the country and will cost the taxpayer less in the long run than if we have to pick up their pension benefits. But any money must come with realistic reforms that put in charge new management and a realistic cost structure so GM can compete.

New York, Moving, and Another One Leaves the Nest

Today, while I am writing this letter, my #2 son Chad is moving out, to an apartment not far from me, but still no longer in the house. He is 20 and eager to be on his own. He has recently taken a job at Best Buy, while trying to decide what to do next. I am happy for him, as you can clearly see the anticipation on his face. Six down and one left. Trey, the youngest, is 14, and I suppose the day will come when he too decides it is time to be on his own. That is what we as parents hope for. But there is a part of me that will miss Chad being under my roof.

Thanksgiving is coming up and I am making plans, not just for the usual big dinner but also for moving that weekend to another home not too far away. I will move my office into the same house in mid-December. The savings will be substantial, but the savings in commute time will be even more valuable. I will miss this Ballpark office, though.

I will be in New York next month (December 4) for Festivus, a holiday fundraiser sponsored by my friends at Minyanville.com. If you are there, be sure and look me up. It will be a fun weekend, as there will be dinners with friends, and Barry Habib (of the Mortgage Market Guide and one of the show's producers) has arranged for tickets to the musical Rock of Ages.

It is quite late. For some reason, this letter was harder to write than usual, but even letter writing comes to an eventual end. Have a great week.

Your ready already for recovery analyst,

John Mauldin

General Motors

A New Asset Class, Part Two

John Mauldin — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:57:07 GMT

The Rise of A New Asset Class, Part 2
Unrealistic Expectations
The Boomers Break the Deal
A Nation of Wal-Mart Greeters
Weddings and 08-08-08

Last week's letter was the first part of a speech I have been giving on what I think will be the rise of a new asset class. This week will be the second and final part. Let me set up this section with a few paragraphs from last week's letter and then a quick summary. If you want to read the entire letter from last week, you can go to the website archives.

But first, a quick note. George Friedman from Stratfor was at my daughter's wedding rehearsal dinner last night. He had just found out about the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia and was keeping track of the events over his Blackberry from his correspondents on the ground in Georgia.

The media is not particularly excited over the events in Ossetia and Georgia, and the markets seem indifferent. It's much more important than it looks. This the first time since the fall of Communism that the Russians have directly and openly intervened in the former Soviet Union under the claim, made by Dmitri Medvedev, that Russia is the guarantor of security in the Caucasus. That's what the Russian Prime Minister Putin also said. Russia has claimed a sphere of influence in the Caucasus. And that is of historical importance. (Think Monroe Doctrine.)

This is payback for Kosovo. Putin didn't want an independent Kosovo and was ignored with contempt. Payback is an independent Ossetia, with Russian military intervention guaranteeing it. If it's good enough for the Americans and Europeans, it's good for the Russians too. Why the Georgians invaded Ossettia is opaque. For some reason they felt they had to move. The Russians were clearly ready and by dawn had armored formations in South Ossettia and air strikes in Georgia. (The Russian army is about 40 times the size of Georgia, and far better equipped.)

The question on the table now is whether the Russians will stop there or are going into Georgia proper. US embassy personnel are being evacuated - at least some of them - so the US takes this seriously. The US has no military options at this point. We've been talking about the window of opportunity Iraq has created by diverting US forces. Well, the Russians just climbed through the window.

The important thing to watch isn't the US or Europe. It is what the states of the former Soviet Union do, from the Baltics to Ukraine to Kazakhstan. The Russians have announced that there is a new sheriff in town, and this does not apply only to Georgia. These countries hear the message - the foreign minister of Lithuania went to Georgia this morning. All of them are calculating what this means for them in the future. And you need to be thinking about world energy, grain, and other primary commodity markets if Russia dominates the FSU and starts to manage everyone's commodity production and sales. While Georgia has little oil or gas, the pipelines from Russia go through there.

Ossetia is a province (country?) of 70,000. Normally, one would think these events were of little importance. But if Russia is making a statement of a new policy and intends to rebuild the former empire in at least a de facto manner? The US has training troops and personnel in Georgia. They are quite pro-American. While the world focuses on the Olympics, the real show may be in the Caucasus. Let's hope cool heads prevail. It is interesting to note that Bush and Putin were meeting in Beijing over this topic. I wonder what Bush will see when he stares into Putin's soul this time.

I asked and George agreed to establish a free page on his web site for the next few weeks, which they will update periodically on the situation there. This is something we should monitor. The link is http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/intelligence_guidance_conflict_south_ossetia This is one of the reasons why I read Friedman and Stratfor. No major news media had eyes on the ground when the trouble broke out. George did. In an interesting twist, the Russian news media is quoting Stratfor as a source. The world is truly strange. And now on to my speech.

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 1950, 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.

Last week I pointed out that we are in:

A Muddle Through Economy for at least another 18 months, caused by
the bursting of the housing bubble
and the concurrent onset of the credit crisis, neither of which will really respond to a lower Fed funds rate, but simply have to be worked through.
This situation will lead to reduced growth (or even contraction) in consumer spending, which we are seeing now, from lower mortgage equity withdrawals, higher energy costs, rising unemployment, inflation in an environment of lower real income growth, and less availability of cheap and easy credit.
I went into a detailed analysis of earnings, showing that corporate earnings are likely to continue to drop precipitously, which will eventually weigh upon the stock market. Price to earnings ratios are mean reverting over long cycles, and there is no reason to expect that not to be the case in the future. This will be a drag on long-term growth in US stock portfolios.

Let me offer one chart (courtesy of Vitaliy Katsenelson) from last week on this last topic, which illustrates the problem, and then we will jump into the final part of the speech. The current situation is worse than the chart depicts, because on Wednesday of this week the as-reported 12-month P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was 22.87 through the end of the second quarter. We have a LONG ways to go to revert to the mean. The only way for that to happen is for earnings to rise or for stock prices to fall, or some combination of both. Otherwise, you have to suggest we are in an era of permanently and significantly higher stock valuations. (Remember, these cycles last an average of 17 years. We are only 8 years into this one.)

Unrealistic Expectations

Valuations are important. They are the key to long-term returns. Your expected returns in any one 10-year period highly correlate with where you start investing. If you start when stocks are cheapest, you're going to compound at about 11 percent. But if you start when they're the most expensive, at an average PE of 22, you're going to compound at about 3.2 percent over the next 10 years. For the people and the pension funds that are expecting to get the 8 or 9 percent that they've got written into their returns in their equity portfolios, that's not good news. The following chart from my friends at Plexus illustrates the point. I should note that this calculation works not just on US stocks but in every market that I have seen studied. This is a fundamental principle of investing.

So, what we have is a situation where many aging Baby Boomers and the pension funds and insurance companies which are investing on their behalf are not likely to be able to get the returns they need in order to meet their obligations from traditional US equity holdings.

The Boomers Break the Deal

Now, let's jump to another subject. Boomers (and that would be me and most of the people in this room) are going to break the deal our fathers and grandfathers made with our kids: that we would die in an actuarially and statistically definable timeframe. Without being able to know how large populations will "shuffle off this mortal coil," things like planning for Social Security and Medicare, insurance, and pension plans become a very dicey business.

And the news we Boomers have for our kids and the actuaries who actually care about these things? We're not going to die on time. We're going to live longer, and this is going to have consequences for everyone's investment portfolios. We're not going to get into why we're going to live longer; the simple answer is that medicine is advancing. The boomers are going to live, on average, about 10 years longer than they statistically should; my kids and those under 40 are going to live, on average, a lot longer. But that is a topic for another speech.

Simple fact: the majority of Boomers don't have enough savings. Numerous studies show they haven't saved enough to be able to retire. They certainly haven't saved enough if they're going to want to live longer and take advantage of medicine to do that.

If we start living longer, there are going to be massive problems with pensions and annuities, because there are actuarial tables that say people are going to die along this timeline. If all of a sudden - and over a ten- or fifteen-year period would be all of a sudden from an actuarial or pension fund point of view-people start living longer, it's going to mean that those who pay will run out of money sooner rather than later. Since they will notice the problem long before they get to the end of the money, they will have to make adjustments. That means they are either going to have to lower pension payments, or they're going to have to get more money from somewhere (either increased contributions or increased returns).

Now, if they're in a period where they're projecting 8-percent returns from their equity funds, and they're not getting 8 percent - if they're only getting a long-term 4 to 6 percent from here over the next ten or fifteen years - that's a big problem in funding. Public pension funds have the same problem, but it is much worse. They're a couple of trillion dollars underfunded. This is why you're seeing California cities beginning to declare bankruptcy, because they're having to tell their firemen and policemen, "We can't pay you what we agreed to pay you; let's renegotiate something." It's going to get ugly in a lot of cities. For those of you who live here in San Diego, it's a huge problem. Politicians promised the police and fire and the city people all sorts of wonderful things, they got their votes, and they are not going to have to be there to deal with the problem when it becomes a crisis in a few years. Isn't politics wonderful? Promise anything for votes today and let our kids pay for it tomorrow.

The problems that we're projecting for Social Security and the underfunding today are massively understated. We're going to have to pay a lot more for Social Security than we expected, because we're going to live longer. And the younger generation isn't going to be real happy about having to pay a lot more money to older people who are living longer and don't want to (or can't) go back to work. When they started Social Security, retirement was at 65 and the average person died at 66. There wasn't a lot of expected payout. Now people who make it to 65 will on average live well into their 80s and are soon going to live well into their 90s. This is going to create generational issues.

It will also demand an increase in taxes. It's coming guys, and you are the target. You've got a big target right on your wallet. Like in California: "If you're making over a million, we want to take an extra one percent" - that's going to happen in so many states.

A Nation of Wal-Mart Greeters

Now, let's look at it from another angle. Let's say you're getting ready to retire, you're 65, and you put your money into the most aggressive portfolio you can that historically has given the best returns - that's the stock market - and you're going to take 5 percent out a year. That seems a reasonable number. A lot of people say, "We can take 5 percent of our money out every year." What would happen? Well, remember that graph I just showed you? Depending on the P/E ratio when you retired, if you started out when stocks were the 25 percent most expensive, over 50 percent of the time you'd run out of money in an average of about 21 years. Look at the table below from my good friend Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research.

Even if you started when stocks were the 25 percent least expensive, you would run out of money before the end of your remaining 30 years about 1 out of 20 times. If I came to you and said, "You know, you got a medical problem and we're going to have to have an operation tomorrow. And oh, by the way, you've got a 5 percent chance of dying," you would probably be quite nervous. What I'm telling you now is, if you get too aggressive with your retirement and investment assumptions in a Muddle Through World, especially at the beginning, you're going to end up with problems. We could end up with a nation of Wal-Mart greeters. (Not that there is anything wrong with those happy people who greet me! It is just not the retirement many people plan for.)

But many in the Boomer generation that is getting ready to retire have not made adequate plans and are assuming very optimistic future returns. So are their pension plans. You're going to be living with neighbors and friends who have this problem. And not just neighbors and friends but voters looking for someone to solve their financial problems with your tax dollars.

The Wealth of Nations

Now, let's look at the next topic: the wealth of nations. From 1981 to 2006, our national wealth in terms of the houses we own, stocks we own, real estate, bonds, businesses - everything - our national wealth (or maybe it's better to say, the prices we put on our assets) grew from $10 trillion to $57 trillion. Over very long periods of time national wealth is by definition a mean-reversion machine. Over 40 or 50 years national wealth has to revert to the growth in nominal GDP. That's just the way the economics and the math work out.

Basically, the principle is that trees cannot grow to the sky. Just as total corporate profits cannot grow faster than the overall economy over long periods of time, neither can national wealth. Think of Japan. At one point in 1989, relatively small areas of Tokyo were worth more than the total real estate of California. And then the bubble burst and Japanese national wealth decreased and grew much less than GDP and is now in line with the long-term nominal growth of GDP.

In the US, long-term growth of nominal GDP is about 5.5 percent. We've actually grown by 7.2 percent for the last 25 years. To revert to the mean means that over the next 15 years, maybe more if we're lucky, we're going to see nominal wealth grow between 2.5 and 3 percent. That's a major headwind and a major dislocation from the experience that we've had. Investors have been expecting to get the past 25 years to repeat themselves. The laws of economics suggest that cannot be the case.

We have seen a monster growth in equities in terms of total market cap, even given the flat growth of the last ten years. We all know about the housing market.

Remember the part above where we talked about stock market valuations being mean reverting? We are watching housing values come down. What we are going to see is a very difficult period for asset growth in precisely the two areas where investors tend to concentrate their portfolios: US stocks and housing. Using history as our guide, that period could last for another 5-7 years.

Let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting that the stock market will not go up over the next seven years. What I am suggesting is that we could be in a period like 1974 through 1982 where the stock market did indeed go up over those eight years (in fits and starts), but profits went up even faster. Thus, P/E ratios were in single digits by 1982.

Let's begin to put all this together. What are the requirements of retirement, whether for individuals or pension funds? I think I made the case that traditional investments are going to underperform - that's the stock markets of all the developed countries and to some degree the emerging markets.

But, you've got to have income and savings if you want to retire. You can't throw caution to the winds and invest in the most risky and volatile assets in hopes of getting the returns you need. Hope is not a strategy. You do not want to take much risk with retirement assets, which will be hard to replace.

You've got to figure out, "How do I get income in an era of low interest and low CD rates?" And, "How do I convert my savings, and what do I put them in that will give me that income?" If you're a pension fund, if you're expecting 8 percent from your equity portfolios and you're only getting 2 to 3, at some point you're going to get nervous. You're going to realize you've got to do something else. Same thing with insurance companies and annuities. That means there's going to be a drive for more absolute-return-type funds. The problem is, the place to go for reliable absolute returns is smaller funds. But most large pension funds are trying to put one or five or ten billion to work, not a few million. And if everybody tries to get in the water at the same time, the pond could get very crowded.

Now, full circle. This is where I think the credit crisis is going to come to the rescue. I think we're having a reverse-Minsky moment. Hyman Minksy said that stability breeds instability. The longer something is stable, the more instability there is when that moment of instability happens. The crisis period of instability is called a Minsky moment. So we had a long period of time of remarkable stability in the credit markets, then there were a few cracks here and there, and now we're having the crisis which started in July of 2007. The losses in both housing values and bonds will be in the trillions of dollars. Why? Because stability creates an environment for people to feel safer taking on more risk and leverage. It's just part of human nature. Note: This is not just an American disease. It has happened since the Medes were trading with the Persians and in every corner of the earth.

But now I think we will get kind of a reverse of this pattern, a reverse-Minsky moment, where instability will breed stability, because we as investors, we as human beings, don't like instability; and we'll do whatever it takes and whatever we need to do to demand a return to a stable investment environment.

So, two forces that I have touched on in this speech are going to come together. First, we have destroyed - we've vaporized - 60 percent of the buyers for the structured credit market and badly wounded the survivors. We've got to create something to substitute for that, as we need a smoothly functioning debt market to allow for growth and a healthy business environment. It is absolutely necessary for individuals to have access to credit for purchases. If we all had to go to cash, it would be a disaster of biblical proportions.

Second, there is a need for equity-like returns on the part of investors of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest pension funds. If you can't get 8-10% from equities over the next ten years, where do you turn?

I think what we're going to end up creating, and what we're already beginning to see happen, is going to grow into a huge wave: we're going to see the creation of a series of absolute-return funds that I think of as private credit funds. I don't really want to call them hedge funds, because they're not really hedging anything.

For all intents and purposes they're going to look like banks. They're going to put their green eyeshades on, and when they loan you money, they're actually going to expect it to come back. And they're going to expect it to come back with a level of risk return commensurate with the level of risk they're taking. Instead of going through the messy business of getting depositors to put money into accounts, depositors who can come in and out, and having to service them and let them write checks and all of that stuff, they're going to go to investors and say, "Give me $100 million or $200 million or $500 million, and I can attack this market and give out loans in this manner, and I can generate these returns - 8 percent, 9 percent, 12 percent."

Maybe some of these markets we can lever up two or three times. Two or three times leverage sometimes sounds like a lot. But our average commercial bank is leveraged 10 times. Our investment banks are leveraged 25 times or more. Two to three times in a properly structured debt portfolio isn't a lot of leverage, but it can give you high single-digit or low double-digit, relatively stable returns.

These private credit funds will look like private equity, in that they will have long lock-up periods, so that the duration of the investment somewhat matches the duration of the loans made. It is the mismatch of duration that has created much of the problem in the current market. All sorts of investment vehicles like SIVs, CDOs, etc. borrowed short-term money and made long-term investments.

So, we've got demand from two sources. We've got a demand from a retiring generation, from a pension generation, demanding equity-like return, when they can't get equity-like returns from the equity market. We've got a demand for credit funds - we've got to replace the people we've vaporized.

We're going to see the creation, I think, of a multi-trillion-dollar marketplace of people, pensions, and investors looking to be able to attack those credit markets. Initially it will be for large funds and investors, but it will eventually filter down to structures that the average person can get into.

For a lot of us, we're going to see the ability to find stable returns, equity-like returns, show up at our door. And one way to attack this initially may be funds-of-funds, where you can spread your risk over a number of these types of funds and managers. It's going to require somebody to go in and actually analyze the banker who's making the loans to see if he's, you know, a real banker. Because we know we don't want the guys from Wall Street who made the last set of loans running our funds, at least not until they've gone back to school to learn what a loan is.

I know I am leaving a lot to be said, but my time is coming to an end. Let me say in closing that while a broad asset class that I call private credit funds will share some characteristics, the individual funds themselves will be quite different as to what type of credit they provide (housing, commercial real estate, auto, corporate, credit card, student, and a score of other areas), what types of returns they target, who their customers are, and who their investors are.

Further, while private credit will initially compete with banks, I think that at some point banks will see this as an opportunity to return to their recent and very profitable model, which is to originate loans and then sell them off. Properly run, private credit will be good for the managers as well as the investors. And there is no reason that the management cannot be the banks. In some ways, they have an obvious advantage in this market, as it will be easier for them to attract large investors like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.

This is a new era. We're going to have to shift from thinking that broad-based stock funds are for the long run. Over the last ten years, if you invested in the S&P 500, your net asset value is flat and dividends have badly underperformed inflation. With today's high inflation and lower earnings, that underperformance could last another lengthy period. If your time horizon is 30 years, then maybe you can talk about the long run. But if your time horizon is 5-10 years before retirement, you need to think about your definition of long run.

Now, you can buy individual stocks if you're a great stock picker or find a manager who is rather good at picking stocks. Donald Coxe was talking to us about agriculture, which I agree is in a bull market. There are other types of technologies - I think the biotech world is going to be huge, starting in the next decade. There are going to be places where we can go into specific target areas and make equity-like returns from equities. But I don't think we are going to be able to do it in a cavalier, "I'm going to put my 401(k) into the Vanguard 500" manner and walk away. It's going to be a challenge for your retirement portfolio if you do.

Retirement in today's world is going to take considerably more thought (and funds!) than was traditionally believed. I encourage you to look at your own situation and carefully analyze the assumptions you have made.

Weddings and 08-08-08

The wedding in a few hours has been the occasion for friends from far and near to gather. Most you will not know, but as noted above George and Meredith Friedman and Paul McCulley got to town in time to have a long leisurely lunch with us. Dr. Mike Roizen just called to say he's off the plane. My friend from first grade, Randy Scroggins, and my first business partner, Don Moore, have come in. It now seems there will be 150 people at the wedding. We first thought 75. Oh well, so much for my forecasting ability. It is great to have so many friends from both sides of the aisle here.

It is not just the Olympics that begin on 08-08-08. In about two hours, Tiffani will be saying her wedding vows to Ryan. They picked a most auspicious date, and I trust it will bode well for them.

It is an interesting set of emotions I am dealing with. I am happy for her and Ryan. It is a start of a new chapter in their lives, and in mine. They are talking about kids, and are committed to making me a grandfather, if Henry and Angel don't beat them to it. (With seven kids, I will ultimately have more than my share.) They all grow up so fast. Where did the time go?

My 91-year-old mother is in the hospital and can't come to the wedding. We almost lost her last week, from an infection she apparently caught in the hospital while there for minor surgery. She is fine now, but can't make the wedding. The contrast of old and new, looking back and looking forward, is food for some serious meditation.

The wedding is going to be something special. As anyone who knows Tiffani will attest, she cannot do anything without a serious dash of her own unique flair. Several national TV series have asked about getting options on the video.

I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that there are going to be some serious fireworks at the wedding when we do the formal toasts. Tiffani was most insistent about having fireworks, and they will be choreographed to music. And while we were going over the plans, I met with the man who is directing the fireworks. For a little extra on the side, he threw in some special effects. What Tiffani and Ryan do not know is that when the minister says, "I now pronounce you man and wife," there will be a round of fireworks going off, and when they kiss an even larger display will erupt over their heads. Every woman says they want to see fireworks when they kiss their new husband. Tiffani will. And Dad's eyes may just get a little moist.

It is time to hit the send button and put on my tux. I am not supposed to be late for this one. All the best, and have a great week.

Your getting a tad sentimental 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.

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 Muddle Through Question

John Mauldin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:01:00 GMT

A few weeks ago I asked for readers to send me questions and said I would try and answer them while I was in Switzerland. Some of them were quite good and have given me ideas for whole newsletters but will require a lot of research. But a lot of them fell into two basic camps. This week we look at a number of questions from readers about my thoughts on the Muddle Through Economy....(read more)

More Thoughts on the Continuing Crisis

John Mauldin — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:14:00 GMT

There is so much that is happening each and every day as the Continuing Crisis moves slowly into month 8, so much news to follow, so many details that need to be followed up that it can get a little overwhelming. Where to begin? Maybe with a "minor" change of the rules on how we value assets, then a look at the proposed changes in regulations...(read more)

Muddle Through and Your Long Term Returns

John Mauldin — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 19:28:39 GMT

Muddle Through Gets A Boost Honey, I Vaporized My Customers Consumer Spending is Going, Going...South The Boomers Break the Deal Today we drop back to take a look at the economy and its long term effect on our portfolio returns. I am in Orlando this week...(read more)

What's That Hissing Sound?

John Mauldin — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 06:02:11 GMT

The BS from the BLS Help Me, Obi-John A New Program for All Investors 2,500,000 "Lost Jobs" and Counting Taking a Long-Term Perspective Leverage in Reverse Gear What's That Hissing Sound? A Response from Tiffani The official number for employment...(read more)

The Muddle Through Fed

John Mauldin — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:36:23 GMT

The Muddle Through Fed Risks to the Downside Consumers Gone Wild Leaving the Ballpark After All these Years This week the Fed offered us their forecasts for 2008-10 for the economy, inflation and employment. We will look at some of the details which I...(read more)

The Return of Muddle Through

John Mauldin — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 08:13:00 GMT

The Return of Muddle Through The dollar reaches new lows. The housing market shows no sign of a bottom. Oil almost touches $84 before backing off. Interest rates go up after the Fed cuts. So naturally the stock market keeps climbing. But then, consumer...(read more)

The Return of the Muddle Through Economy

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

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

Forecast 2006: On the Gripping Hand

John Mauldin — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 06:23:00 GMT

Introduction Once again it's time for me to demonstrate the foolhardy part of my nature by putting to electronic pen my forecast for 2006. I spend more research time on this one letter than on any four or five combined, simply reading hundreds of...(read more)

Be careful what you wish for

John Mauldin — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:20:00 GMT

Introduction We are awash in debt, assert numerous authorities. And they point to the charts which show debt mounting seemingly to the sky. But not all debt is bad. Some of it is good. We should save more and spend less. But if we do, there are consequences...(read more)