Thoughts From The Frontline : Recession

If This Is Recovery…

John Mauldin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:31:00 GMT

If This is Recovery, Where Are the Taxes?
Last Business Standing
Stimulus, What Stimulus?
The Reality of Unemployment
Let the Good Times Roll
The Quick Double-Dip Scenario
Phoenix, New York, and Thoughts on the Internet

No one goes into Wal-Mart and asks to pay extra sales tax. Thus sales taxes are reasonable barometers for retail sales. This week we look at how taxes are doing in a period of economic recovery. Then we turn our eyes to a very interesting (and sobering) analysis of possible future unemployment rates. This is an anecdote to the happy-face analysis of employment numbers you get from establishment economists. There will be a lot of charts and tables, so this letter may print a little longer, but I think you will find it very interesting.

If This is Recovery, Where Are the Taxes?

I keep reading about surveys that show that retail sales are up. But as noted above, no one pays extra sales taxes, or decides they need to pay more income taxes. The surest way to measure retail sales is sales taxes. Want to know how incomes are doing? Look at income tax receipts. Let's look at sales taxes first.

First off, I can find no single source of recent sales tax information. It is all one-off, but it is consistent. Sales taxes in my home state of Texas are down 12.8% year-over-year, and we're in the fifth straight month of decreases of 11% or more. Projections are for sales taxes to continue to decline into 2010.

There is a very revealing study by the Pew Center on state taxes, called "Beyond California" (http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/). Everyone knows how bad California is. The Pew Center looks at how the rest of the states are doing, and focuses on 10 states that also have severe problems. Sales tax receipts are down 14% in Arizona, and state income taxes are down 32%.

On average, revenues are down almost 12%. Oregon has seen their revenues collapse a stunning 19%. New York is down 17%, with a deficit of 32%. Illinois has a projected deficit of 47% of its budget, second only to California with 49%. You can see how your state fares at http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/Beyond_California_Appendix.pdf.

The Liscio Report notes that all states had negative year-over-year sales tax collections in October, and the weighted average decrease was 10.2%, down from a negative 7.2% in September. (www.theliscioreport.com)

Sales at Wal-Mart stores slipped by 0.4% in the third quarter. Actual government figures show that retail sales were down 1.5% in September from the previous month and 5.8% year-over-year. So how do we keep seeing headlines about retail sales being up, as unemployment keeps rising?

Remember that such reports are usually based on surveys, and generally cover mid-sized and up retailers, leaving out smaller businesses. Further, if you are a retail chain that has closed 10% of its stores, the remaining stores should in theory benefit from getting your loyal customers into them.

Last Business Standing

Yesterday I was with an associate, and I hesitated in asking them how their business was doing, because I knew things had been tough at the beginning of the year. But I did ask, and they said sales were up over the last months and business was looking better. Surprised, I asked them what made the difference. "Ah," they said, "less competition. Our competitors have gone out of business."

Best Buy and other electronic retailers had to benefit from Circuit City disappearing. That is Schumpeter's creative destruction at work. Not very good for total employment, but it does help the profitability of the survivors.

So, if things are so bad, how did we have 3.5% growth in the third quarter? First off, things are not as bad as they were in the past year. We are in fact getting close to an economic bottom, at least for now. Second, the 3.5% number is a preliminary estimate. A study by Goldman Sachs suggests that the number will be revised down by at least 0.5% and maybe as much as 1%.

Why? The estimate does not really take into account how poorly small businesses are performing. If you look at small-business indexes and compare them to historical GDP numbers, you get the smaller number mentioned above. And since at least 2% of the GDP was from the stimulus package (Cash for Clunkers, houses, tax cuts), the economy on its own was flat. That begs the question, what happens when the stimulus runs out?

And the answer is that we won't know for some time, as the stimulus is just getting ramped up. "According to CBO estimates, only 21% of [the stimulus] spending will occur in 2009; another 38% will come in 2010, and 22% in 2011. After that, its effect will dissipate quickly." (The Liscio Report)

But David Rosenberg notes that what the federal government is giving, the states are taking away. The Pew Study shows that at least nine other states are in appalling shape, so it is no wonder that David writes:

Stimulus, What Stimulus?

"Fully nine states are in fiscal distress and only two have balanced budgets. States like Michigan are planning 20% budget cuts for the coming year. Indiana is planning a 10% spending cut in light of a 7.4% YoY revenue decline. How can the economy really be out of recession if government revenues are still deflating?

"The states are filling around 40% of their fiscal gaps with the federal stimulus (so much for spending on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects). Even after the fiscal help from Washington, the state governments will still face a projected deficit of $142 billion for 2011 (versus $113 billion in 2010). All in, the restraint in the state and local government sector is estimated to drain a full percentage point from U.S. GDP growth in 2010 and more than fully offset the stimulative efforts from Washington. The U.S. economy is more likely to post growth of little more than 2% next year, rather than the 5% currently being discounted by the equity market."

The Reality of Unemployment

All this is, of course, going to put continued pressure on employment. As I noted last week, the number of unemployed actually soared by 558,000, to 15.7 million, as measured by the household survey, not the 190,000 you read about in the mainstream media. Unemployment is sadly continuing to rise by significant amounts.

In August, I did an interview with CNBC from Leen's Fishing Lodge in Maine. The unemployment numbers had just come out. I did a back-of-the-napkin estimate that we would need about 15 million new jobs over the next five years just to get back to where we were when the recession started.

That works out to a need for about 125,000 new jobs each month to handle new workers coming into the market (which comes to a total of 7.5 million over five years), plus the 8 million and rising jobs we've lost. That is a daunting number. It amounts to 250,000 new jobs a month every month for five years. And we are still losing more than that number a month, let alone adding the needed 250,000.

Look at the chart below. It shows the establishment survey employment figures for the last ten years. Only once, in 1999, did we actually add over 250,000 jobs a month for a whole year. And that was during the internet boom.

Sadly, the private sector has shed over 300,000 jobs since 1999. Think about that. We have had a decade where there have been no new jobs added by the private sector. Real incomes are roughly where they were, and the stock market is down. Talk about a lost decade.

I love it when someone does the really heavy lifting for me, and my friend Mike Shedlock of Sitka Pacific Capital Management has done a wonderful job of taking that speculation of mine and putting it into a spreadsheet that helps us get a real handle on what unemployment is likely to look like for the next ten years. I am going to make use of his basic analysis and then modify some of his assumptions in the spreadsheet he provided me, in order to think about different scenarios.

All three scenarios are based on assumptions, so let's see what Mish started with. There is a wealth of data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. According to the Census Bureau Population Estimates we are going to add about 2.5 million working-age (16 years old and up) citizens a year, from now until 2020. The numbers varies slightly year to year. Mish used an estimate of the average, summing up the buckets from 16 to 100+ for the years in question and rounding the result.

You can go to the BLS site and look at Table A-1, which shows the civilian noninstitutional population (those over 16 not in prisons), the participation rate (those who are working and/or want to work), the unemployment rate, the number employed, those not in the labor force, and those who want a job. Those are starting numbers for the charts below.

For those interested, you can read Mish's very full (and quite detailed) analysis at his blog site http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/mish-unemployment-projections-through.html). But let's look at his assumptions:

Job losses are likely to continue for a minimum of another year.
When job gains start, they will be very slow at first, then pick up.
An extremely generous monthly job gain stat over the course of the year would be 150,000 jobs.
A falling participation rate (boomers retiring) will continue to mask reported unemployment.
Starting in 2013 the labor pool will start decreasing because of Boomer demographics.
The noninstitutional population will rise by 2.5 million workers a year.

The spreadsheet below needs a little explanation. Let's start with the assumptions. Mike starts with current working-age population and adds 2.5 million people a year. He assumes that Boomers will retire at 65 (something which all the surveys say is not going to happen). And his last estimate is what the unemployment numbers will be. Everything else is based on those assumptions, which leads to the first column, or the expected unemployment number.

By the way, we know that everyone will want to make different assumptions. I am going to create three scenarios, but you can go to Mike's blog and at the bottom of the post is a link to the actual spreadsheet. Have fun. Let's look at scenario 1.

This assumes there is no double-dip recession, and jobs roughly rise along the same lines as the last recovery. Actually, Mish is far more optimistic, as in the very first chart you will notice that job losses were negative in the first year after the end of the recession and flat the second year. Mish has jobs rising by 120,000 next year and 600,000 the second year (2011), and then a fairly robust recovery. Below is the graph of the unemployment numbers under such a scenario.

Notice that unemployment stays at or above 11% for three years. Pessimistic? Mainstream and usually very optimistic Mark Zandi of www.economy.com predicted this week that unemployment would rise to 11% by the middle of next year, right in line with this scenario. Also note that total jobs rise by 14 million over ten years. Hardly doom and gloom. Again, Boomers all retire on time and there is no double-dip recession.

Let the Good Times Roll

What would it take to get back to 5% unemployment? I played with the spreadsheet and came up with the following numbers, which get us below 5% by 2020. I assume no recessions for the next ten years, and 2 million new jobs a year after 2011, which I start off with almost 1.5 million jobs. Of course, we have never done that, but let's be optimistic.

And the graph below shows the unemployment numbers for the Good Times Scenario.

Want to get to 5% within five years? Add 3 million jobs a year starting now. With no housing recovery, a smaller auto industry, and financial firms getting leaner.

The Quick Double-Dip Scenario

When I called the last two recessions about a year before they happened, it was not all that hard. We had inverted yield curves, falling leading indicators, and a lot of other data that pretty much pointed to a recession. Believing that we had a housing bubble and a looming credit crisis also helped my conviction in calling the last recession.

I think we are in for a double-dip recession in 2011, yet I readily admit there will be little if any statistical evidence in advance this time. This is more of an instinct call. I have serious doubts that we can have what amounts to the largest tax increase of all time in what will be a very weak (albeit growing) economy, without putting us back into recession. And Speaker Pelosi thinks it is a smart thing to add another 5.4% surtax on what will already be a rising capital gains and dividend tax.

Taxing small businesses, and that is what the tax increase amounts to, is a very bad idea in a weak economy. Small businesses are where the job growth comes from. Taking money from productive businesses and giving it to government is a fundamentally flawed concept.

Now, if they decide to postpone the tax increase, or phase it in slowly, then maybe we avoid the double dip. But right now it doesn't look like that will be the case. So, let's quickly see what a double-dip scenario might look like. Let's be optimistic and assume we only lose another 1.2 million jobs in the next recession, since we have already lost so many in this one (8 million and counting). And then the economy comes roaring back in 2012 with 1.5 million jobs and continues to grow rather smartly for the rest of the decade. No further recession. We absorb the tax increases and move on with our economic lives.

Unemployment under such a scenario would rise to just under 13% and stay above 10% for 8 years. Take a look at the chart and graph.

Think 13% is too dire? This week David Rosenberg said unemployment would rise to between 12-13%. The former Merrill Lynch economist was one of the few mainstream economists who called the recession and the credit crisis. The so-called "Blue Chip" economists told us at the beginning of 2008 that unemployment would peak out at 6%. While Rosie is not optimistic of late, he has a rather solid record of being right.

We are at 10.2% unemployment today. The economy lost jobs for 21 months after the end of the last recession. That would easily take us into 2011. Another million lost jobs will take us well over 11% and close to 12% (remember, you have to add in the increasing population), even without my double-dip scenario.

The letter is getting long and it's getting late, so let me close with a few thoughts.

First, 12% unemployment is horrendous by American standards. But Spain is now at 20%, and much of Europe has been in the 10% range for years.

Second, Americans are not used to the concept of 12% unemployment or 10% rates for extended periods. That is going to cause a serious backlash across the political spectrum. Couple that with the discomfort over $1.5-trillion deficits and there could be some serious political changes in the coming years. I think the message will be more anti-incumbent than one party or the other.

Third, the only way out of this morass is to create an environment where small business can thrive. As I've noted for the last several weeks in this letter, government spending does not increase GDP over time. It is a temporary nonproductive stimulus. It takes private investment to create jobs and increase productivity. Over the next few months, I will write more about how to do that.

Phoenix, New York, and Thoughts on the Internet

Next week I take a quick one-day trip to Phoenix, then back to do a satellite-remote speech to a South African hedge fund conference. I will be in New York the first weekend of December (the 4th) for Festivus, a great fundraiser for kids sponsored by Todd Harrison and the team at Minyanville (http://www.rpfoundation.org). Interestingly, they hold it every year at a "Texas" barbecue joint. Look me up if you are there.

The 7 kids, spouses, and grandkids are starting to gather. We will all have brunch Sunday and then a shower for Tiffani. She has another 6 weeks before she is due, and she is really uncomfortable. Walking is literally a pain.

Permit me to reminisce. A little over 9 years ago I started this letter on the internet with about 2,000 email addresses. It was a new version of what had been a print letter, as that was the business I knew. The internet was still a new thing to me, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Little did I know.

I am still amazed at the growth and the direction my business and life have taken. My letters are sent out by various publishers and affiliates to over 1.5 million readers and posted on dozens of web sites, and the numbers have been growing rapidly of late. I am grateful. But I wonder what would happen if I started it today. Ten years ago there was little in the way of free economic letters. Not a lot of competition.

Today, there is so much free information that it's staggering. There have to be thousands of blogs and hundreds of free letters, some with very large circulations. It seems a new star is born every few months. While much of it does not add to the level of conversation, some of it is quite excellent. I think I am lucky to have started when I did.

And I am grateful for the kind attention you give me. As I turn 60, I note that this has been a rather overwhelming last ten years. A lot of changes for me, and almost all of them very good. But there are more to come. The last two flights I was on I was connected to the internet at 35,000 feet. I sense a lot more changes coming. I am thinking a lot about how to keep up and not get left behind, how to make sure that you, gentle reader, continue to get my best. That is what, at the end of the day, drives me.

Have a great week. I know I shall. Dad loves it when his kids (from 15 to 32) and spouses and grandkids are all under one roof.

Your amazed at it all analyst,

John Mauldin

Catching Argentinian Disease

John Mauldin — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 02:47:00 GMT

Catching Argentinian Disease?
The Ascent of Money
The Independence of the Fed Threatened
A Few Quick Thoughts on the Dollar, GDP, and the Recession
Uruguay, Philadelphia, Orlando, and then...

I have been in South America this week, speaking nine times in five days, interspersed with lots of meetings. The conversation kept coming back to the prospects for the dollar, but I was just as interested in talking with money managers and business people who had experienced the hyperinflation of Argentina and Brazil. How could such a thing happen? As it turned out, I was reading a rather remarkable book that addressed that question. There are those who believe that the United States is headed for hyperinflation because of our large and growing government fiscal deficit and massive future liabilities (as much as $56 trillion) for Medicare and Social Security.

This week, we will look at the Argentinian experience and ask ourselves whether "it" - hyperinflation - can happen here.

The Ascent of Money

I will be quoting from Niall Ferguson's recent book, The Ascent of Money. I cannot recommend this book too highly. In fact, I rank it up with my all-time favorite book on economic history, Against the Gods, by the late (and sorely missed) Peter Bernstein. There are very few books I read twice. There are too many books and not enough time. This book I will have to read at least three times, and soon, and I have a lot of underlines and mark-ups in it already.

If there were one book I could require every member of the Congress to read, it would be this one. As I read it, I am struck again and again by how fragile and yet resilient our economic systems are. Fragile in the sense that governmental policy mistakes, no matter how well-intentioned, can destroy the wealth of a nation, and resilient in that it doesn't happen more often.

In his introduction Ferguson writes, "The first step towards understanding the complexities of the financial institutions and terminology is to find out where they came from. Only understand the origins of an institution or instrument and you will find its present day roles much easier to grasp."

As is often said, those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. If you want to understand what is happening in the economy, what the consequences of our choices could be, then I strongly suggest you get The Ascent of Money. It is easy to read, engaging, full of moments where you are led to pull together different ideas into an "Aha!" Ferguson is a brilliant writer and historian, and we are lucky to have this book at a time when it is sorely needed. (order it at Amazon.com)

As I have been writing, the United States in particular, and the developed world in general, are faced with a series of very unpleasant, if not downright bad choices. The time for good choices was ten years ago. Now we face the prospect of painful decisions, no matter what we do. It is not a matter of pain or no pain, of somehow avoiding the consequences of our bad decisions, it is simply deciding how much pain we will take and when, or allowing the pain to build up to a climactic event. Today we look at what I think would be the worst choice of all.

Catching Argentinian Disease

At the beginning of the 20^th century, Argentina was the seventh richest nation on earth. It's very name means "silver." "As rich as an Argentine" was a byword. Even after falling from the heights through a series of bad decisions, the country was still so wealthy that, in 1946 when new president Juan Peron first visited the central bank, he could remark that "There was so much gold you could barely walk through the corridors."

Argentina had actually defaulted on its debt in the late 19^th century, not once but twice! But still they managed to avoid destroying the currency and devastating the country. But in 1989, after years of massive budget deficits that were financed with borrowing from abroad and Argentinian citizens, the country was left with so much debt and no one was willing to lend it any more money, that the leaders felt compelled to resort to the printing press.

My Uruguayan friend and Latin American partner, Enrique Fynn, tells me of his experience of going to Buenos Aires and buying a pack of cigarettes one evening. He went into the store the next morning for another pack, and the price had doubled. He came back that evening and the price had doubled again (thankfully for his health, he has quit!). There were no prices on any items in the grocery stores. There was a man with a microphone who would announce the prices of various items, often increasing the price every few hours by 30% or more.

Workers would get their pay in cash and rush to the store to buy anything, as by the end of the week their pay would be worthless. Of course, shelves were empty. The US dollar was king, and could purchase things at amazing prices. I heard stories that were truly compelling. (It made me wish I had gone shopping in Buenos Aires at the time!)

Interestingly, the dollar is still the real medium of exchange. I was told by several people that if you want to buy a house for half a million dollars, you bring the physical cash to the closing. One person counts the money and the other checks the paperwork and title. Argentina has the second largest hoard of physical dollars in the world, only exceeded by Russia. Is it any wonder they are concerned with the value of the dollar?

Let's look at some quotes from Ferguson (emphasis mine):

"The economic history of Argentina in the twentieth century is an object lesson that all the resources in the world can be set at nought by financial mismanagement... To understand Argentina's economic decline, it is once again necessary to see that inflation was a political as much as a monetary phenomenon...

"To put it simply, there was no significant group with an interest in price stability...

"Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, as Milton Friedman said. But hyperinflation is always and everywhere a political phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a fundamental malfunction of a country's political economy."

Look at the chart below. Using realistic assumptions, It suggests that the annual US government fiscal deficit will approach $2 trillion in 2019. How can we come up with what looks to be about $15 trillion over the next ten years? The Argentinian answer was to print the money.

In the US, the short answer is that unless the US consumers become a massive saving machine, to the tune of 8% or more of GDP and rising each year, and willingly put their savings into US government debt, it's not going to happen. So sometime in the coming years, interest rates are likely to start to rise in order to compensate bond investors for what they perceive as risk. That will bring us to some very difficult and painful choices.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, this scenario could be averted IF the Obama administration produced a credible plan to lower the deficit over time and stuck to it. But today's thought process is about what happens if they don't.

Ferguson pointed out in the quotes above that hyperinflation is always and everywhere a political decision. Governments have to choose to print money. In theory and in practice, what would happen if the Fed decided to accommodate a politicized US government that wanted to spend money on favorite projects and support groups, maybe even deserving programs like health care or defense or pensions or Social Security? Money they could not borrow?

Then Peter Schiff and like-minded thinkers would be right. Once you start down that path, it is hard to stop short of the brink. Brazil got to 100% inflation per month and has really lowered that level over time, but it is not easy.

In such a scenario, you want to own hard assets. Gold. Foreign currencies. Stocks. Almost anything other than the currency that is being printed.

I was asked at almost every speech about that scenario. In Latin America, hyperinflation is not a theoretical issue; it has been reality. More than one person commented on that no one in US economics schools studies hyperinflation. It is required material in Latin America. For many Latin Americans, the dollar has been their safe haven. And now they are worried, with good reason.

For the record, I do not think the US will experience hyperinflation as long as the Fed maintains its independence. Read the speeches from various Fed governors and regional presidents. These are strong personalities, and they understand that going down that path ends in massive tears. Bernanke warned just a few weeks ago that the government needs to get serious about the fiscal deficit. Watch the rhetoric from the Fed heat up after his reconfirmation and the confirmation of two new governors in the first quarter.

The Fed has committed to buy a fixed amount of government debt in its quantitative easing program. That commitment will be finished by the end of the first quarter (if I remember correctly). Then comes the tricky part.

I have been writing for a long time that the main force in the economy right now is deflation. The Fed will fight deflation tooth and nail. But they don't have to buy government debt to fight deflation. They can buy mortgage securities, credit card securities, commercial paper, etc. That will have the effect of easing without encouraging the government to run massive deficits. And such debts are naturally self-liquidating, while government debt is not, at least not in the same way.

I believe the Fed will maintain its independence. Not to do so is to court economic disaster of the first order. These are bright and serious men and women. They get it.

The Independence of the Fed Threatened

The risk is that something changes to compromise their independence. And sadly, there is some risk. Let me quote my fishing buddy friend David Kotok:

"It's now official. The proposed legislation to reform America's financial service supervision includes granting the Secretary of the Treasury a veto over Section 13(3) emergency action by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. If this becomes law, it will be a sad day for the independence of America's central bank.

"The Secretary of the Treasury, a very senior cabinet position, is appointed by the President and meets with the President in the Oval Office weekly. The governors of the Federal Reserve Board are also appointed by the President. Both cabinet officers and Federal Reserve governors are confirmed by the US Senate. There are supposed to be seven governors; politics has purposefully limited this to five throughout the three-year financial crisis period.

"The Federal Reserve governors are supposed to serve staggered 14-year terms with all seven seats filled. Instead, we have been governed by the present five-member, politically configured board.

"The original seven-governor construction was designed to insulate them from political pressure, for very good reasons. Decades of monetary history throughout the world have disclosed what happens when political influence on a central bank intensifies. The Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe are evidence of the worst inflationary effects of politics. The Great Depression in the US and the nearly two-decade deflationary recession in Japan demonstrate that monetary policy is not only inflation-prone. When central banks are under political influence you can get fire or you can get ice.

"In Japan, the central bank contends with two members of the cabinet sitting in on its deliberations. There is no way to know how much of the last 15 years of deflation and recession is attributable to the inside political pressures placed on the governors of the Bank of Japan. But there is evidence to suggest political influence, especially when you observe how little the Bank of Japan has engaged in asset expansion during this crisis."

This is the nose of the camel under the tent. Starting down this road is very worrisome indeed. I find it appalling that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers went along with this. This is a very clear attempt by the political class to put political pressure on the Fed. I hope the Fed responds with vigor. I can tell you that the officials of whom I am aware will not take kindly to pressure. And that might be an understatement.

(Yes, I am aware of the problems of the Fed being able to decide whom to bail out and why. It is not a perfect world. But better the Fed than Congress.)

All that being said, if the Fed starts to increase its buying of government debt above its initial commitment, then my "optimistic" scenario of a very rough economic patch, which I have been outlining the past few months, is far too rose-colored. I do not think it will happen, but I can guarantee you, I and a lot of other people will be watching.

A Few Quick Thoughts on the Dollar, GDP, and the Recession

Just a few quick notes. When world trade collapsed, so did the need for US dollars, which is what the world uses to transact business. The data looks like world trade is finding a bottom and maybe even recovering somewhat. That means there will be the need for more dollars. And since everybody and their mother are short the dollar, there could be a vicious snap-back rally. I am still bearish the US dollar (and the yen and the euro and the pound) over the long term, but there is the potential for a real rally here.

And my friend Mish Shedlock commented on the US GDP report, which said the US GDP rose 3.5%:

"Today the market is cheering over what is actually an ugly report. A misguided Cash-for-Clunkers added a one-time contribution of 1.66 percentage points to GDP. Auto sales have since collapsed so all the program did is move some demand forward. Government spending increased at 7.9 percent in the third quarter which is certainly nothing to cheer about. Personal income decreased $15.5 billion (0.5 percent), while real disposable personal income decreased 3.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 3.8 percent last quarter. Those are horrible numbers. The savings rate is down, which no doubt has misguided economists cheering, but people spending more than they make is one of the things that got us into trouble. The only bright spot I can find is exports. However, even there we must not get too excited as imports rose much more."

John Williams notes that one-time stimulus or inventory items represented 92% of the reported quarterly growth. The nature of the stimulus-related gains was that they tended to steal business activity from the future. The months ahead are the future. Accordingly, fourth-quarter quarterly GDP change will likely turn negative, again. (The King Report)

And David Rosenberg writes: "Only economists see the recession as being over; the man on the street sees it a little differently, perhaps less enthused by the fact that a lower rate of inventory destocking is arithmetically underpinning GDP growth at this time. Put simply, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll just found that 58% of the public believe the economic recession still has a ways to go -- and that is up from 52% in September and means that the private investor, unlike the hedge fund manager, is not interested in adding risk to the portfolio even after a 60% surge in the equity market.

"Only 29% of those polled believe the economy has hit bottom -- imagine having that psychology with nearly zero interest rates, a bloated Fed balance sheet and unprecedented fiscal deficits (poll was taken from October 23-25). Nearly two in three (64%) said the rally in the stock market (still a bear market rally -- not the onset of a new bull market) has not swayed their view (or ours for that matter)."

Uruguay, Philadelphia, Orlando, and then...

I am finishing this letter in Montevideo, Uruguay. I have been in Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro this week. I must say that Rio is beautiful, very green and lush with marvelous beaches, which I sadly only got to drive past. I will come again. I fly back Sunday and am home for a week, then speaking trips to Philadelphia and Orlando. Then my schedule only shows a few days in New York in early December for Festivus with the gang from Minyanville, and Europe in January. I am sure other things will come up, but I am looking forward to being home for awhile.

My friends at International Living have been writing about Uruguay, and I was really looking forward to visiting the country. I have spent a few days with partner Enrique Fynn in this delightful place. Turns out it is the Switzerland of South America. Reasonable bank secrecy laws, and trades zones where you are not taxed on any business you do outside of Uruguay. Many international companies set up their headquarters here. Beautiful beaches, friendly people, and the charm of a small country, plus what will be a brand new airport in a few weeks, which can get you several times a day to any part of the region, directly to Europe, and one hop away from any major city in the world. You can learn more about the country, and other countries you may want to live in or have a second home in, by subscribing to International Living.

One of the laugh lines I use in my speeches down here is that if the Fed actually does start to monetize the debt, I will have to move to Uruguay. I could make worse choices.

Have a great week. I think this weekend I will switch it up from the heavy reading I have been doing and find some science fiction. Reality is way too scary.

Your ready to be in his own bed analyst,

John Mauldin

Welcome to the New Normal

John Mauldin — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:59:00 GMT

What We See
And What We Don't See
The Statistical Recovery
A Double-Dip Recession?
Welcome to the New Normal
Birthdays, New Orleans, and then the Road Trip from Hell

Unemployment is high and rising. But if the recession is over, won't employment start to rise? The quick answer is no. We look deeper into the Statistical Recovery and find yet more reasons to be concerned about near-term deflation. This week we consider all things unemployment and ponder the need to create at least 15 million jobs in the next five years to return to a full-employment economy - and the implications for both the US and world economies if we don't. Economic is often about what we can clearly see, and yet it is understanding what we can't see that gives us true insight. We start with a collection of facts that we can see and then begin a thought exercise to find the implications.

What We See

First, the unemployment rate is now officially at 9.7%. We are approaching the official high we last saw at the end of the double-dip1982 recession. In the chart below, notice that unemployment rose throughout 1980 and then began to decline, before rising rapidly as the economy entered the second recession within two years. Also notice the rapid drop in unemployment following that recession, as opposed to the recessions of 1991-92 and 2001-02, which have been characterized as jobless recoveries. Unemployment was as low as 3.8% in 2000 and saw a cycle low of 4.4% in early 2007.

(For the record, all this data is available on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. There is a treasure trove of data. They are quite open about what they do and how they do it. When I call to ask a question, they are quite helpful. How people interpret the data is not their fault.)

This headline unemployment number (9.7%) is what we see when we read the paper. What we typically don't see is the real number of unemployed. For instance, if you have not actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, even if you would like one, you are not counted as unemployed. You are called a "marginally attached" or "discouraged" worker. Often there are very good reasons for this. You could be sick, dealing with a family emergency, going back to school, or not have transportation.

Right now, about one-third of marginally attached workers actively want jobs but have not bothered to look because they believe there are no jobs in their area, at least not for them. If you add that extra 758,000 to the unemployment data, you get what is called U-4 unemployment, which today is 10.2%. If you count all marginally attached workers the unemployment number is 11% (U-5 unemployment).

And if you add those who are employed part-time for economic reasons (i.e., they can't get full-time jobs) the unemployment number rises to 16.8%. (That is called U-6 unemployment.)

Now, stay with me for the next two tables taken directly from the BLS website. The first is the total number of people in the US civilian work force. Notice how each year the number of potential workers rises. In fact, the number of workers has risen by about 15 million over the last ten years. This is from population growth and from immigration. Also notice that the normal rise did not happen last year. That is because the number of discouraged workers has risen rapidly and, as noted above, they are not counted. We will revisit this point later. But for now, there are 154,577,000 people in the available work force.

Next we look at the tables for the actual level of employment. Here we note that we are down almost 8 million jobs sincd the onset of this recession, and that there are almost 15 million people unemployed.

Going back to the part-time workers, there are roughly 9 million people who are working part-time because of business conditions, or those are the only jobs they could find. The average work week is at an all-time low of 33 hours. The chart below is from my friend David Rosenberg.

David wrote in a special report today:

"What does all this mean? It means that when the economy does begin to recover, when we finally get to the other side of the mountain, companies are going to raise their labour input first by lifting the workweek from its record low. Just to get back to the pre-recession level of 33.8 hours would be equivalent to hiring three million workers. And, the record number of people working part-time against their will are going to be pushed back into full-time, which will be great news for them, but not so great news for the 125,000 - 150,000 new entrants into the labour market every month. They won't have it so easy because employers are going to tap their existing under-utilized resources first since that is common sense. Also keep in mind that there are at least four million jobs in retail, financial, construction and manufacturing jobs lost this cycle that are likely not coming back. In fact, the number of unemployed who were let go for permanent reasons as opposed to temporary layoff rose by more than five million this cycle. This compares to the 1.2 million increase in the 2001 tech-led recession and in the 1990-91 housing-led recession (when Ross Perot talked about the sucking sound of jobs into Mexico)."

Then there is the matter of average weekly earnings. If you adjust for inflation, workers are making roughly what they did in 1980. The chart is straight from the BLS website.

And What We Don't See

Those are the facts. Now it's time to look at what we don't see, and what you don't read or hear from the mainstream media.

We saw above that we are adding about 1.5 million workers to the workplace every year. That means over the next five years we are going to need 7.5 million jobs just to maintain that growth, or about 125,000 a month. That is on the low side of what economists normally estimate, which is around 150,000 per month. If we used the 150,000 estimate, it would mean we need 9 million jobs.

There are at least 1 million (and probably more like 2 million) discouraged workers who would take jobs if the economy got better. You can derive that number by going back to early 2007 and seeing the level of discouraged workers. That means, by the end of 2014 we are going to have 163 million people in the work force (see table above).

Today we have 139.6 million jobs, and that number is likely to slip at least another half million (last month the economy lost 216,000 jobs, with a very suspicious birth-death ratio accounting for a lot of job creation). So let's call it 139 million current jobs.

Let's assume that we would like to get back to a 5% unemployment rate. That would not be stellar, but it would certainly be better than where we are today. Five percent unemployment in late 2014 will mean 8.1 million unemployed. To get to 5% unemployment we will have to create 14 million jobs in the five years from 2010-2014. (163 million in labor pool minus 8 million unemployed is 155 million jobs. We now have 139 million jobs, so the difference is roughly 15 million.) Plus the equivalent of 3 million jobs that Rosenberg estimates, just to get back to an average work week. And maybe the extra 1.5 million a year I mentioned above.

But let's ignore those latter jobs and round it off to 15 million. Let's hope that by the beginning of next year we stop losing jobs. That means that to get back to 5% unemployment within five years we need to see, on average, the creation of 250,000 jobs per month. As an AVERAGE!!!!!

Look at the table below. It is the number of jobs added or lost for the last ten years. Do you see a year that averaged 250,000? No.

If you take the best year, which was 2006, you get an average monthly growth of 232,000. If you average the ten years from 1999, you get average monthly job growth of 50,000. If you take the average job growth from 1989 until now, you get an average of 91,000 a month. If you take the best ten years I could find, which would be 1991-2000, the average is still only 150,000. That is a long way from 250,000.

Want to get back to 4%? Add another 25,000 jobs a month to 2006.

Let's jump forward to next September. We will need at least 1.5 million jobs to take into account growth in the population. Plus another half million jobs that we are likely to lose before we start to grow again. What is the likelihood of average job growth of 160,000 a month? Anyone want to take the "overs" bet?

Go back to 2003, the year after the end of the last recession. A few hundred thousand jobs were created. Why so slow? Because employers gave more time to those who were already employed and to part-time workers. Because of the near-certain loss of jobs for the next few months and the slow recovery, it is a very real possibility that unemployment will still be well over 10% a year from now.

Even with robust growth of 200,000 jobs a month thereafter for the next two years, unemployment will still be close to or over 9%. That would only be an additional 1.8 million jobs (making the most optimistic assumptions) over the new jobs needed for population growth.

A Double-Dip Recession?

And that is before this administration makes the economically suicidal move to raise the top tax rate by 10%. The popular image is that those who pay the highest tax rate are Wall Street execs, bankers, and corporate moguls. The reality is that 75% of them are small business owners, and they are responsible for the large majority of new jobs that are going to be needed, not to mention a large part of consumer spending. If you tax them more you are going to get fewer jobs (as they will have less to invest) and less consumer spending.

A tax increase of the size being contemplated, with unemployment at today's level, will guarantee a double-dip recession, which of course means that unemployment will rise, not fall. Go back and look at that chart on unemployment. Notice the very steep rise in the second recession of the early '80s. That is what we could be facing.

Without getting too political, think about elections in 2010 with unemployment levels still rising. And fast-forward to 2012, with deficits (optimistically) projected to be almost $1 trillion and rising. With a tax increase giving us another recession? Will the bond market provide another $4 trillion? My question is, from where?

There has never been a period of serious inflation in the US without wage inflation. But real incomes are falling, and there is little reason to believe we will see wage pressures within the next few years. The opposite is likely to be the case.

Today's Wall Street Journal tells us that 5 million people have been unemployed for over 6 months. And the longer you are unemployed, the harder it is to get a job. That means you have to settle for a job with less income than you had before.

The only group to see a rise in employment? Those over the age of 55, as they have to take a job, any job, so they can save for retirement.

The Statistical Recovery

The economy is in the process of bottoming. The year-over-year comparisons are getting easier. We will find that new level of spending and economic activity and grow from there. But it is going to be awhile before we get back to full employment. While the numbers may say recovery, it is not going to feel like one.

Let's review quickly what I have written about the last four weeks. We have enormous excess capacity - capacity utilization is about 68%. Banks are cutting back on their loans, and consumers and businesses are borrowing less. Housing is likely to be in a funk for at least two years. We are deleveraging, which is causing the velocity of money to slow.

All of this is very deflationary. Will the Fed print enough money to reflate the economy? You better hope so. Will we have to deal with it later? Of course. We have no good choices. We are in for a long five years, at the least. Yes, there will be opportunities, and new industries will be created. But it won't happen overnight.

Welcome to the New Normal.

Birthdays, New Orleans, and then the Road Trip from Hell

Next weekend I celebrate my 60^th birthday, and family and friends from around the world are flying in. We are going to party for at least 2-3 days. All I can say is, I have a very eclectic group of friends and it is going to be fun for all of us. If I write a letter, it will be earlier in the week.

I will be in New Orleans the following weekend, then start a 17-day trip with only a few nights in my bed, and every day a plane or new city. Although I enjoy traveling and meeting people, this may be a little much, though I must say I am looking forward to Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. It has been awhile since I have been south.

I stopped by to visit my #2 daughter (Melissa) last night. She works in a local watering hole while going to school. It is quite popular and is usually quite crowded. Last evening it was untypically quiet.

I asked, "What's up?" The manager and Melissa began talking about how slow things were getting, about how friends who were regulars had lost their jobs and had to move back in with parents. With few exceptions, it is slower than a few years ago everywhere I go. A recent Gallop poll said 71% of people are cutting back and 90% are watching what they are spending. 33% said their companies are cutting back on hiring.

Every poll or survey I see shows businesses deciding to cut back. Talking with my kids (the six who are young and in the work force), it is a rather difficult time. But then I think that I had to enter the workforce in 1975, not a very good year or decade. And we all made it, if not very easily. We lived very modestly (to say the least) for those first years.

And so it goes. Each generation has to learn how to deal with adversity and the problems of starting out. Many of those in my generation are now trying to figure out how to deal with a retirement that does not look nearly as comfortable as it did a few years ago.

I still hope we can Muddle Through.

Have a great week. I see parties, barbeque, golf, and lots of friends in my week ahead. And you make some time to enjoy life as well.

Your glad to get to 60 analyst,

John Mauldin

The Statistical Recovery, Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Statistical Recovery

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

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

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

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

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

A Recovery Statisticians Can Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Few Thoughts on the Housing Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts from Maine

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

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

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

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

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

Tulsa, Birthdays, Weddings, and Paul McCartney

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

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

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

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

Have a great week. I shall.

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

John Mauldin

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 End of the Recession?

John Mauldin — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:55:59 GMT

The End of the Recession?
The New Normal Is Still In Our Future
The Hidden Problem Within Unemployment Data
Was Income Really Up?
Tulsa, London, and The Baltics

Last week we began a series on data abuse, about how various commentators twist and torture data to make it say what they want, or fail to look at the details underneath the headlines. Predictably, there is a lot of fodder this week as we forge ahead into this ripe territory. The headlines screamed that US income data went up unexpectedly. Green shoots were everywhere. But if you look at the actual data, you find something much different. And, I keep hearing the insistent refrain that the market is telling us that the recovery is around the corner. Well, the recovery may be, but can the market really tell us that? I have about 25 windows open in my computer, with tons of misleading data. Let's see how much we can cover in this week's letter.

But first, I want to focus your quick attention on a new "Conversation" I will have next Monday. (For those readers who are new, I have a subscription service where I hold conversations with friends on a variety of current topics. I am gratified that it's getting rave reviews.)

I have been writing about the New Normal of late, and for my next Conversation I have invited two of the sharpest analysts I know to talk about what the New Normal will look like.

What levels do we get to? What does the world economy look like? What will the path to recovery look like? And so on! David Rosenberg, former chief economist for Merrill Lynch, one of the few mainstream analysts who got it right (now with Gluskin Sheff in Toronto) and the brilliant Michael Lewitt of Harch Capital Management, someone who was writing about the credit crisis long before it happened, are both deep thinkers, and both have strong ideas about how our future will unfold. I can't wait to get them at the same table and see if we can flesh out a few concrete ideas.

And if you subscribe today, you also can get the recently released and widely praised Conversation I did with Donald Coxe and Gary Shilling on commodities and where those markets are going. That ended up as a very powerful debate, and one from which listeners said they really came away with meaty ideas.

You can subscribe now at $109 (using code JM75), before we raise the price when we add a new quarterly Conversation service with good friend and head of Stratfor, George Friedman. He gets back from Australia this week, and we will schedule a meeting soon!

And now to funny-looking data. Where to begin? There are so many targets of opportunity!

The End of the Recession?

I walked into the office yesterday evening and there was someone on CNBC talking about how the 50-day moving average of the S&P 500 rising above the 200-day moving average was telling us the market was getting ready to rise and the recovery had started. I listened to his babbling for another 2-3 minutes and couldn't take it anymore (and no, it was not my friend Larry Kudlow, who is a lot more balanced than whoever was on.)

We keep getting told that the market is telling us "something," usually that the recession is going to end. For some reason, people keep repeating the bromide that the market looks out about 6 months. To that I politely say, rubbish.

Riddle me this, Batman. Did the market see the recession in October of 2007? We were already in recession and the S&P 500 (see below) was making new highs! Where was the market prescience? Did it see the 25%+ drop in January of this year? And I could go back and cite scores of examples where the market "missed" the future turning points over the past ten decades.

What about the shibboleth that the market turns up 6 months before the end of a recession? Sometimes that is true. But does it mean anything? The same people who said it meant something last December and January are saying it means something now. But now it's June and the recovery is not here, so maybe the market wasn't telling us something in January after all.

Gentle reader, there will be a recovery. We will talk about what kind in a few pages, if we have the time. And it is (statistically speaking) likely that the markets will have turned up before the actual recovery. But does that mean anything today?

Go back to the chart above. Notice that in 2003, when the market finally turned up, we were already well out of recession. And the market had a very quick 12% or so drop while we were in recovery, while later we went on to a 90% run-up! Was the drop telling us anything, or do we explain it away?

"In the short run," St. Graham said, "the market is a voting machine. In the long run it is a weighing machine." The voting is based on current sentiment, but what the market weighs in the long run is earnings. The market tries to forecast future income streams. And it gets it wrong as often as it gets it right.

Let's look at this yet another way. This is an important concept, and it should be a component of your economic BS detector. The CNBC host talked in breathless terms about the importance of the 50-day average moving above the 200-day average. It means nothing until it means something, and we won't know what that something is for some time.

Earlier this week (Monday, I think) the 50-day average moved BELOW the 200-day average. The analysts at Bespoke Investment Group noted:

"Going back to 1928, this is the 25th time that the S&P 500 has declined through both of these levels on the same day. On page two we have provided a table showing each of these occurrences as well as the index's returns going forward. Based on those prior instances, the S&P 500's returns going forward have been notably negative. While the S&P 500 has averaged positive returns over the next week, average returns have been negative over the next month, three months, and six months." (emphasis mine)

But 33% of the time, the markets were up six months later, often by quite a bit. And sometimes down quite a bit, but on average only slightly. Which means that as a forward-looking indicator it is interesting but not anything I would put my money (or client money) on!

(I saw some reports that differed, selecting fewer such data points and suggesting that market returns were up after such an event. Logically, that can't be. Let's be generous and just assume sloppy research.)

Before major market moves down, the 50-day average will always move below the 200 average. And the reverse is also true. It is not a sign. It is just what statistically MUST happen. And sometimes they reverse themselves, and sometimes they don't. We have no way on God's green earth of knowing whether the two moves (both up and down) this week will be bullish or bearish six months from now, based simply on the moving averages crossing. You can make the data say anything you want, but you are still just guessing.

Sidebar note: Trend Following 101. I spend a lot of time analyzing trend-following money managers of one kind or another. Basically, they look at data and try to spot trends and then invest in them. A trader who is right 70% of the time is amazing and very rare. 50% is more like it for successful traders. But they have sharp risk controls that cut their losing trades and let their winning trades "ride." Being right 50% of the time can be profitable over time. (Being right 50% of the time is harder than it looks!)

But in the media you get these "analysts" who talk a good game, acting as if a 50-70% probability is something meaningful. "The market has turned. The recession is over." And they say that when we have the first balance-sheet recession in 70 years, yet they want to compare garden-variety recessions to what we have now. Again, we can only know which of the moves (above and below the 200-day moving average) will be the real "indicator" in six months. It is only an indicator today to the extent that we can drive our cars forward looking in the rear-view mirror.

The New Normal Is Still In Our Future

Now let's take that principle a little further. Last week I detailed how air, trucking, and rail shipping is down 20% year-over-year. Global trade is down about 30% in the major exporting countries (see below).

World trade shrinks : Chart 1: Year-over-year change in total exports from 15 major exporting
countries (1991-02/2009) / Chart 2: Year-over-year change in exports from 15 major exporters
between February 2008 and February 2009 (size of circles reflects volume of exports in 2008)

End of the world? Do we just keep falling? No. At some point, six months or a year from now, the year-over-year comparisons become easier. If you are at 100 and fall to 80, then a year later you are at 88 and voila! you have a 10% increase! And the perma-bulls will be talking it up. The fact that you are still down 12% from the peak is ignored.

The point is that we have fallen quite a bit in a lot of major categories. There is really only so much you can fall. And then when you reach that new lower level of the New Normal, you begin to rise. At some point, we will be on the path to "recovery." That does not mean that we will be back to the halcyon days of mid-2007 within a year. It just means that we have stopped falling and now have to adjust to the levels of the New Normal.

The Hidden Problem Within Unemployment Data

This is going to be most evident and painful in the unemployment numbers. Last month saw the number of unemployed rise by 345,000. What was not in the headline data was that 217,000 of those jobs were estimated from the "birth-death" ratio. The US economy creates new businesses that do not get counted in the data, so the BLS estimates what that number is, using previous data patterns. When the economy turns, it overestimates new jobs in recessions and underestimates them in recoveries. No conspiracy, it is just the best methodology we currently have.

But does anyone really think 200,000 jobs were created last month? The real number of lost jobs is worse than the headline. And next month the birth-death number will likely be over 200,000 again. Add another 100,000 or so to the headline number to get closer to reality,

Again, analysts talked about a turnaround because job losses were "just" 345,000. That is a higher number than any month in the 2001-02 recession, and larger than the month after 9/11. That is a green shoot? Yes, we will see the monthly unemployment numbers fall, but they are falling from historic highs. And based on some research by the San Francisco Federal Reserve, it is likely that we will see still higher unemployment that will persist for a while longer.

Let me quote and summarize through the research at http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2009/el2009-18.html. (It is not long, and worth reading.)

"Our analysis generally supports projections that labor market weakness will persist, but our findings offer a basis for even greater pessimism about the outlook for the labor market. Specifically, we suggest that the relatively low level of temporary layoffs and high level of involuntary part-time workers make a jobless recovery similar to the one experienced in 1992 a plausible scenario."

Essentially, there are always workers moving into and out of employment. What they note is that the patterns seem to be changing. In the '70s and '80s, job losses were quick and deep, but the recovery was also quick. In the last two recessions, job recovery was noticeably slower, giving rise to the term "jobless recovery." It was the lack of hiring, and not firing, that was responsible for the slow employment recovery. MY thought is that before 1990 many of the job losses in recessions were from manufacturing. Businesses were quick to lay off and quick to rehire. We now have fewer manufacturing jobs, so the rehiring process has been much slower in recent recessions.

"The long and gradual return to pre-recession unemployment levels implied by the Blue Chip consensus forecast is consistent with a labor market recovery that is slightly weaker than that experienced in 1983 and slightly stronger than that experienced in 1992. However, should labor market conditions instead proceed along the path taken in the 1992 recovery, the unemployment rate could peak close to 11% in mid-2010 and remain above 9% through the end of 2011."

That is not in any Congressional budget forecast. Want to run an election campaign at 10% unemployment levels?

"... What does all this mean for the course of the labor market? We combine data on involuntary part-time workers with the standard unemployment rate to arrive at an alternative measure of labor underutilization. We plot this measure in Figure 3, which shows that the labor market has considerably more slack than the official unemployment rate indicates. The figure extends this labor underutilization measure using the Blue Chip consensus forecast for the unemployment rate as a benchmark and then adding a share of involuntary part-time workers based on the proportion of workers in that category to the unemployed during the current recession. This projection indicates that the level of labor market slack would be higher by the end of 2009 than experienced at any other time in the post-World War II period, implying a longer and slower recovery path for the unemployment rate. This suggests that, more than in previous recessions, when the economy rebounds, employers will tap into their existing workforces rather than hire new workers. This could substantially slow the recovery of the outflow rate and put upward pressure on future unemployment rates." (emphasis mine)

Was Income Really Up?

Now, let's turn our attention to today's headline. Income is surprisingly up. That has to be a green shoot, right? Well, not if you look at the underlying data.

Personal income from wages and salaries was down $12 billion in May. So how did income go up? A large increase in "government social benefits" and a decline in personal taxes accounted for all the gain, and then some. The increase was the effect from the recent stimulus package, which is (for now) temporary, and not the result of a recovering economy. Hardly green shoots. It is just borrowed money from another (government) source. In principle, it is not much different than home equity withdrawal, except that taxpayers are on the hook.

And those government subsidies are going to increase. Look at the graph below. What it shows is that the average duration of unemployment is at a 60-year high, and rising. It is now at 22.5 weeks. Unemployment benefits stop at 39 weeks, temporarily up from 26 weeks. More and more people each week are thrown into very dire circumstances when they fail to find jobs and lose the benefits. Care to wager whether, when Congress comes back from vacation, the time people are allowed to be on unemployment will be increased?

And speaking of the increase in government payments to individuals, what did they do with them? In aggregate, what is happening to this stimulus? The data came out today, and I must admit I was surprised. I have been writing for years that American consumers would start to save in this recession, but I (and nearly every credible observer I read) thought that we would see a more gradual rate of increase in the savings rate. The increase in savings has been nothing short of remarkable. (See graph below.)

From a negative 3% in late 2005 (the result of massive borrowing, primarily mortgage equity withdrawal and credit cards), we have risen to a positive 6.9%. That is the highest rate since 1993. The savings rate was less than 1% last August. And totals savings (on an annualized basis) was $608 billion in April, rising to $768 billion in May. That is a 30% month-over-month increase! Maybe the American consumer has found a new religion!

But, there is more than just a new savings fervor at work. Spending rose more than disposable income, so without that increased level of government transfer payments, it is unlikely that savings would have risen as much. Before we get too giddy about savings going through the roof, we need to wait a few months to see if this was the result of new savings religion or government transfer payments (stimulus), which will soon wind down

That being said, given the sharp increase in savings, it's no wonder shipping is down 20% and global trade in the exporting economies by 30%. No wonder retail sales are down, except for Wal-Mart and other lower-price venues.

Final thought for today. The Congressional Budget Office released another report this week, saying that the current deficit levels are unsustainable. They suggest that either taxes must increase by $440 billion or spending must be cut by a like amount, or some combination. If you assume some of the new health-care and other programs are enacted, the number comes closer to $700 billion.

This is not a Congress that wants to cut other parts of the budget by $700 billion. Raising taxes by $700 billion (over 4% of GDP) will dip us back into recession. Not raising taxes will result in debt that cannot be funded at anywhere close to today's rates. A recent IMF study is very sobering about the worldwide problem of growing country debt. Finding a trillion dollars in the market every year, when every other country is also trying to raise debt is simply not going to happen. It will destroy the dollar. There are few good choices in front of us, and fewer still good choices that are likely.

OK. One final suggestion for your weekend reading. Atul Gawande, writing in The New Yorker, weaves a very sobering picture of the problem of reining in health-care costs. He contrasts two Texas border cities with similar demographics, yet one spends twice as much on health care. One town has doctors who order every possible test and the other doesn't. There is no real difference in outcomes. And then compare it to other areas, and the problem facing any health-care policy becomes all too evident. Reportedly, Obama has had everyone read this, and you should too. It provides a very different angle on the problem. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?yrail

Tulsa, London, and The Baltics

Last Tuesday I went to an Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood concert. At 64, Clapton can still play the guitar as well as anyone on this planet. It is always fun to see a man at the top of his game.

I get up early tomorrow, flying with family to get to Tulsa to be at my daughter Amanda's wedding shower, and then celebrating the twins 24^th birthday tomorrow night. Amanda's wedding is August 22, right around the corner. If there is a recession going on, no one in the wedding industry seems to know. This is the second wedding in two years, and I still have two more unmarried daughters. It's a good thing the word retirement is not in my vocabulary. If we can't get the wedding budget under control, I am going to need about 600 new Conversations subscribers in July.

July 15^th I leave for London and will guest host CNBC Squawk Box from 7-9 on Friday the 17^th. Then on to Finland, St. Petersburg, and the Baltic capitals, and ending in Rome. (Why Rome? Because that is where we could get mileage tickets back to Dallas. But I might as well spend a few days.)

Then I (and my son Trey) will spend one evening and morning in New York August 5-6 before going on to Maine for the regular August fishing extravaganza with David Kotok and a rather fun crowd of economists and other ne'er-do-wells. It is a tough ticket to get, and I am glad to be invited.

There are lots of exciting things happening in my business, and we will be making announcements in the next few weeks. You have a great week.

Your going to listen to more hard blues analyst,

John Mauldin

This Time its Different*

John Mauldin — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:53:00 GMT

This Time It's Different*
Peter Bernstein, R.I.P.
Welcome to the New Normal
The Three Amigos
Credit Spreads - Bullish or Bearish?
ISM - Is Less Bad That Good?
Contain Your Enthusiasm
London, The Baltics, and Rome

I have often written that the four most dangerous words in the investment world are "This Time It's Different." If memory serves me, I have written several e-letters disparaging various personages who have uttered those very words, and gone one to confirm later that it wasn't different. It almost never is. And yet - and yet! - I am going to make the case over the next few weeks that it really is different this time, with only a lonely asterisk as a caveat. What prompts my probable foolishness to tempt the investing gods is the rather large amount of bad analysis based on unreasonable (dare I say lazy or surface?) readings of statistics that is coming from the mainstream investment media and investment types with their built-in bias for bullish analysis. Normally, gentle reader, your humble analyst is a paragon of moderate sensibilities, but I have been pushed over a mental edge and need to restore balance. I anticipate that this topic will take several weeks, as trying to cover it all in one sitting would exhaust us both. It should be fun. But first...

Peter Bernstein, R.I.P.

Sadly, Peter Bernstein passed away at 90 years young on June 5. One of the great honors and privileges of my life has been getting to know Peter and his lovely wife, Barbara. Introduced at a small dinner five years ago, I have been privileged to share many dinners and meetings with him in the years since, soaking up his wisdom. Only a month ago, he made a presentation (by satellite) to Rob Arnott's annual conference and was at the top of his intellectual game. His writing of late has been some of his best. Peter cofounded the Journal of Portfolio Management and truly was the dean of investment analysts.

He wrote 10 books (five after the age of 75!). I am often asked what books I would recommend for insight into the economic world. At the very top of my list has always been Against the Gods: the Remarkable Story of Risk. If you have not read it, then get it and put it on top of your summer list. Capital Ideas is also brilliant. The Power of Gold is a must-read. You can get all three in a set at Amazon.

Jason Zweig wrote a very moving obituary in the Journal and reminded me of a few quotes I've heard from Peter. "'What we like to consider as our wealth has a far more evanescent and transitory character than most of us are ready to admit.' He urged investors to regard their gains as a kind of loan that the lender - the financial market - could yank back at any time without any notice.

"Asked in 2004 to name the most important lesson he had to unlearn, he said, 'That I knew what the future held, that you can figure this thing out. I've become increasingly humble about it over time and comfortable with that. You have to understand that being wrong is part of the investment process.'"

Peter and I chatted several times during the last year, and he continued to tell me that those who thought we were in for a typical recovery were probably going to be wrong. In private conversations he was very worried about the world, and added much wisdom to those of us privileged to sit at his feet.

Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." In the world of investment wisdom, there is no shoulder higher than that of Peter Bernstein. Rest in gentle peace, my friend. You will be greatly missed.

This Time It's Different*

Ben Bernanke's career will be analyzed and written about for many years. But the one thing that has caused me the most pain is his bringing of the term "green shoots" into the investment lexicon. These may be the two most overused and annoying words of my investment career. Every possible sign of a recovery is anointed with the phrase.

Of late, there has been a tendency for analysts to see numbers or statistics that are "less bad" and interpret them as signs that we are in recovery or at least almost there. They glance back at previous recoveries and say, "Doesn't this look like the last time? When such and such happens it means that recovery is on the way. We should therefore buy stocks" (or whatever).

That we are condemned to read such musings is part of the investment landscape. But that does not mean we shouldn't take the time to look at what the writer of those words is actually looking at. All too often of late, I find these people grasping at straws or failing to understand the data.

My premise for uttering the heresy "This Time It's Different*" is that the fundamental nature of the economic landscape has so changed that comparisons with post-WWII recoveries is at best problematical and at worst misleading.

As we will see next week, we are on a track that looks far more like the Great Depression than the recessions of our lifetimes. To expect a normal recovery cycle, whether it is corporate profits or lending or consumer spending or capital investment or (pick a category) is just not reasonable. This is a period that is fundamentally, in so many ways, different. And the recovery (and there will be one!) will also be of a different warp and woof throughout the entire world economy.

Let me see if I can summarize my thinking before we get into the reasoning behind it.

First, we are at the end of a huge cycle of increasing private debt that ended in an overleveraged society. The process of reducing debt and unwinding leverage is going to take a rather long time. It will not be the typical one or two years and then things get back to an ever-higher normal. We are, using a phrase coined by my friend Mohammed El Erian at PIMCO, on our way to a new normal. We are hitting a massive reset button on our economic world, taking us to some new and lower level of consumer spending, leverage, etc. No one knows what the new level will be, although admittedly we are closer to it than we were a year ago.

At this new normal, we will not need as many malls or factories or stores or new-car plants or car dealerships or any number of other things to satisfy the new normal of consumer desires. As an example, and jumping ahead to a statistic for one minute, capacity utilization is now approaching 65%. Anything under 80% is anemic. Does anyone really think that businesses (in general) are going to invest more money in expanding capacity, in the face of the lowest level of production relative to potential since the 1930s?

The savings rate has shot up from zero to 6% in just a very short time. It used to be 12%. It would not be all that unusual historically for savings to go to 9% or more in a few years. That means that consumer spending will drop by 9%. Since consumer spending was 70% of GDP, that new lower level will become our new normal. And of course, due to population growth and hopefully increasing incomes, consumer spending will once again grow from whatever that new normal will be. But it is going to take some time for spending to reach the level of our productive capacity of a few years ago. We are going to have to shutter a few factories and businesses.

David Rosenberg, now with Gluskin Sheff, offers us this insight:

"What really struck us in the employment report of a few weeks ago was the fact that the only segment of the population that is gaining jobs is the 55+ age category. This group gained 224,000 net new jobs in May while the rest of the population lost 661,000. In fact, over the last year, those folks 55 and up garnered 630,000 jobs whereas the other age categories collectively lost over six million positions. This is epic." [See chart below.]

"Moreover, the number of 55 year olds and up who have two jobs or more has risen 1.1% in the last year, the only age cohort to have managed to gain any multiple jobs at all. Remarkable. These folks have seen their wealth get destroyed by two bubble-busts less than seven years apart ... the Nasdaq nest egg back in 2001 and the 5,000 square foot McMansion in 2007. Both bubbles ended in tears ... and so close together."

As we will see, the housing market is going to take at least two more years to truly recover. Looking at one month's data that shows housing starts up a few thousand as a sign of recovery in the housing market is, well, silly. Housing starts are anemic and the inventory of unsold homes is still at all-time highs (a ten-month supply) with more and more homes coming onto the market through foreclosure.

The multiple causes of the recession are not subject to a quick fix. Offering to pay someone $4,500 to trade in an old car for a new one is a rather pathetic way to try and jump-start consumer spending and the auto industry. Is it not enough that we will "invest" $50 billion in GM, while shrinking the company to a size where it will be difficult for profits to ever pay back that investment? We have to add insult to injury and borrow more money to buy cars. Care to wager whether GM will need more money within five years? (And by the way, I love my GM (Cadillac) car, and will likely buy another one at some point, so I wish them well.)

The "stimulus plan" was ill-conceived and not very stimulative. But the combination of the Fed and Treasury and massive monetary infusions has pulled us back from the brink of Armageddon. But we are not out of the woods yet. There is much heavy lifting to be done on the way to the land of the new normal.

Welcome to the New Normal

Secondly, my premise is that the recovery is going to take longer and be much less robust than any recovery since WWII. With unemployment likely to go over 10%, and with our new normal world not needing as much production of so many things, unemployment is going to stay stubbornly higher for longer than in any previous recovery. We are going to look next week at a very sobering report from the San Francisco Fed that suggests we may be for a longer than usual jobless recovery.

Thirdly, all this is going to affect corporate profits, especially for companies that depend on consumer spending. Those investors who expect corporate profits to rebound in 2010 are likely to be disappointed. (For the record, if you go to the S&P web site, analysts are projecting anywhere from a 40% to a 60% rebound in earnings for 2010 for the S&P 500. I would willingly take the "under" on that bet if I could find any takers.) I think whatever profit recovery that is built into the market at today's prices is generous. It is going to be tough to get much of a return from traditional buy-and-hold equity index investing for some time.

Fourthly, this is a global problem and primarily one in the "developed" world. I think we will find that much of Europe will be in a worse state of affairs than the US. If there are bright spots in the developed world, I tend to think they will be Canada and Australia/New Zealand. The opportunities are more likely to be in emerging markets, after they adjust to the new normal.

What this all means is that we as investors, entrepreneurs, managers, employees, and consumers need to adjust our expectations. For those of us in the US, this is complicated significantly in that we really have no idea what new level of government spending and taxation we will be faced with in 2010 and beyond. For one of the few times in my life, what the government does is likely to have a huge impact on the economy, as there is the potential for a significant shift in the very fundamental nature of government involvement in the economy. It is difficult to see what the new normal will be.

In Continental Europe, your new normal is going to be further complicated by an eroding banking crisis that is likely to put a real crimp in any recovery. China and Asia must adjust to lower US consumer spending. They have built too many factories to supply what seemed like an inexhaustible US consumer. They have to find new internal markets or face their own new normal.

All that being said, at some point, perhaps as early as the third quarter, we could see a positive number for GDP, although I think it will be later. Part of the reason that we will see some positive numbers is that year-over-year comparisons are going to get easier to make. Last summer, when inflation was close to 5% and I was writing that deflation was the real danger, oil was rising from $40 to $160 and food prices were going through the roof. Now oil is back to $70 and so we get lower year-over-year inflation numbers. Over the last two years the price of oil/energy is up, but we measure inflation on a yearly basis.

Housing construction was once about 5% of GDP. Obviously, the collapse of housing construction has had a rather negative impact on recent GDP numbers. But housing is probably close to, if not at, a bottom. Even if it dropped by another 20%, it would have far less of an impact on GDP at the much-reduced level where it is now.

It is similar with inventories. They can only drop so much, and eventually they get to the new normal and stop being a drag on the statistical GDP. We are not in an unrelenting death spiral. There is a bottom. It is like a person jumping out of an airplane. They fall rather rapidly until the parachute opens, and as they get closer to the ground they manipulate the chute to further slow the descent. But until they reach the ground, they are still falling. That is the case today. The economy is still falling, but the parachute has opened. We are going to reach the bottom at some point. We will find that new normal. We just need to adjust our activities and plans around that new destination.

I truly believe we get back to 3% GDP growth and 4% unemployment at some point in the future, but it is going to be more than a few years, especially if taxes are raised as much as is talked about in some circles. But just as in the late '70s, when the outlook was not very bright, things will change for the better. When asked back then where the new jobs would come from, the correct answer was "I don't know, but they will come."

It is the same today. There are whole new technologies and industries that are going to be created in the next decade. Entrepreneurs will respond with new innovations and businesses. Jobs that are not now on the horizon will spring up.

As a society, we are having to work through the excesses of a lifestyle that was propped up by ever-increasing debt and an out-of-control consumerism. That will happen in the fullness of time. But it WILL take time, and we need to adjust our expectations to account for that.

Over the next few weeks, I am going to drill down into the data to show why recovery will take longer and to help you withstand what will be an onslaught of out-of-control bullishness over data that is simply less bad. Let's start with a few easy targets.

The Three Amigos

In 2001, I wrote about what I called the Three Amigos that I watched to give us an indication of the direction of the economy. They were capacity utilization, high-yield bonds, and the (now-renamed) ISM numbers. Watching the direction they go gives us a good idea where the economy is headed. I have not written about them for years (as a trio), so let's revisit our old friends. We saw above that capacity utilization is still in a cliff dive. For there to be an actual recovery, we need to see capacity utilization start to climb back up. That is not currently a very positive indicator.

Credit Spreads - Bullish or Bearish?

A number of commentators have been effusive about how credit spreads have "come back in." And indeed, junk-bond yields have fallen. That is a good thing. Look at the graph below (courtesy of Tony Boehk).

Note that yields have simply come down to levels associated with recessions, and not with actual recovery. What happened last year is that junk-bond yields priced in Armageddon. Now they simply price in a recession and slow recovery. Could they improve more? Certainly. But the easy lifting is done. The direction is right. Let's see how they do the next few months. If those yields keep falling, that would be a very positive sign.

ISM - Is Less Bad That Good?

The Institute for Supply Management released their data for May, and again, commentators were enthusiastic about the increase in the manufacturing index. Green shoots and other signs and wonders were all over the media.

The ISM is a survey of manufacturers about how their businesses are doing. They are surveyed on ten criteria, like new orders, employment, inventories, backlog of orders, etc. (for the full report, you can go to http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12942).

From these responses the ISM creates an index. An index number above 50 means that the manufacturing sector is growing, and below 50 means it is shrinking. At the web site above, you can get quite a bit of detail. It is quite true that we have come back from what was the lowest overall index number in 30 years. But we are simply back to the level that was the low in the previous two recessions. The ISM number is "less bad" and that is a good thing, but it is still a bad number. Yes, it is headed in the right direction. Let's look at the actual chart.

Of course, as businesses adjust to the new normal, whatever that level is, year-over-year comparisons will start to be positive. Simplistically, if a business makes 500 widgets a month and sales fall to 300, they will likely report falling production and rising inventories. Over time, inventories will finally settle out as management adjusts, and at some point inventories and production will (hopefully) start to rise. This gets reported as positive. The actual numbers may be down from the peak, but the direction of the company is once again on a positive slope.

When you look at the actual numbers comprising the release, the manufacturing part of the US economy is still contracting. Is it less bad than a few quarters ago? Yes, but it is still bad. The recent number is only slightly higher than the average for the last 12 months. We need this number to be above 50 to talk about an actual recovery in the here and now, as opposed to the future.

Contain Your Enthusiasm

Shipping containers moving into US ports rose by 2% in April, from March. That was cause for celebration in some circles. Buried way down, if mentioned at all, was the fact that compared to a year ago shipping is down 22%. And year-over-year comparisons have been worse for 22 months in a row. At some point, you get to a bottom. We find the new normal. But if the new normal is down 20%, that is a different-looking economy.

This quote came from good friend Dennis Gartman:

"'Stuff' moves by air when it is needed swiftly, but we can compare year-on-year data to get an idea of the relative weakness or strength of the economy. At the moment, the data is still very, very weak. According to the data reported out by the International Air Transport Association, after having touched just barely under $60 billion in '07 and '08, this year the IATA 'guesstimates' that only $40-$42 billion will move into the US.

"We are effectively back to the levels of '00-'04 and we are well below anything since '05. Having reached its worst year-on-year comparison back in December of last year when there was 23% air-transported cargo moving into the US from abroad, these yearly comparisons have remained about 20% lower since. Inventories of 'goods' on the nation's shelves remain high, and so long as that is true then we are going to see horrid, recessionary year-on-year comparisons in this very timely data."

Dennis also looked at rail shipments: "Since the start of this year this year, when the year-on year comparison was a relatively tepid -8%, the trend has been steadily 'from the upper left to the lower right' on the charts. By March, the year-on-year comparisons were averaging -15%. By April, -22%; by May -25%; and now, after a week or two of June, they are -26%. This is not a trend to be tampered with; this is a trend of some very real severity, and for now we fear that it is a trend rather firmly intact. Thankfully, it looks back, not forward; but if the past is prologue to the future, the future still looks rather bleak.

"Finally, there is a glimmering of hope on the rail horizon, and that is that the June figures, as they are compiled, are showing some signs of life. According to the AAR, 'freight traffic on US railroads during the week ended June 13 continued to show signs of gradual improvement ... [as] rail car loadings and intermodal were up from the previous week with carloads at their highest level in 10 weeks.'"

Welcome to the new normal. It is a quite distinctively different world than that of 2006. Global trade is off 10% and there is outright deflation in many places. We will have lots of data to look at over the next few weeks as we explore the new normal, but that is enough for today.

Oh, I almost forgot. The asterisk on "This Time It's Different*"? Human nature hasn't changed. We are still driven by fear and greed. The business cycle has not been repealed. Free-market capitalism will get us back (with a few new rules of engagement). What's different will be the nature of this recovery. All the other eternal truths will remain.

London, The Baltics, and Rome

I leave for London in mid-July and will co-host CNBC Squawkbox from 7-9 AM on Friday, July 17. Then the plan was to go to Eastern Europe. Things have changed, and now I am thinking of doing a tour through the Baltics, starting with Finland, then going down through the three Baltic nations, maybe a side trip to St. Petersburg, and then end up in Rome for a few days. That should be a fun vacation. We will see how much I can really pack in! But I do love to go to new places and meet new friends.

It is Father's Day weekend and all seven kids are in. The house is full. Tomorrow night we all go to see the new grandchild. Brunch on Sunday. The US Open at the Black. This weekend just can't hardly get any better. I may do my part to help the economy and go get the new Apple iPhone. My youngest son's phone broke, and my excuse is that I can give him mine and the new one then only "really" costs me $100. Consumer spending is not dead yet, to judge from the lines. But technology is a necessity, I keep telling myself.

Have a great weekend. I hope you enjoy yours as much as I am going to enjoy mine.

Your still missing his own dad analyst,

John Mauldin

The Paradox of Deficits

John Mauldin — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:44:50 GMT

Things That Go Bump in the Night
A Trillion Dollars as Far as the Eye Can See
The Global Recession Gets Worse
Where Will the Money Come From?
The Paradox of Deficits
Naples, London, and Eastern Europe

From ghoulies and ghosties

And long-leggedy beasties

And things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!

--Old Scottish Prayer

There is something that is bumping around in my worry closet. The bond market is not behaving as if there is deflation in our future, and the dollar is getting weaker. Unemployment keeps rising, but most of all, the US government deficit looks to be spinning out of control. This week we look at all of this and take a tour around the world to see what is happening. There is a lot of interesting material to cover.

But first, I am proud to announce that thanks to your donations the net proceeds from the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner totaled $17,000! A donation was made in that amount to the Autism Society of America, San Diego County Chapter, in Richard Russell's name.

The evening was captured in both video and photographs, and we would like to share those with you. We have put together a DVD that captures all the wonderful moments, including tributes from Richard's longtime friends and family, an entertaining skit by Richard's daughter Daria, and another touching tribute by Richard's daughter Betsy. Perhaps the best speech, however, came from Richard himself -- which is of course included on the video. For those who could not attend in person, we have already made copies of the video and will mail it to you as soon as you order it. The cost is $29.95, and that includes shipping. You may order as many copies as you like.

To order the video, please visit: http://www.johnmauldin.com/russell-tribute-dvd.html

The photographs were placed on Shutterfly, an online gallery where you may view them and choose the ones you would like to order. We have created a web page specifically for these photos. To access that page, please use this link: http://richardrusselltributedinner.shutterfly.com or you can link from the page above. Now, let's jump right into the letter.

A Trillion Dollars as Far as the Eye Can See

As of this week, total US debt is $11.3 trillion and rising rapidly. The Obama Administration projects that to rise another $1.85 trillion in 2009 (13% of GDP) and yet another $1.4 trillion in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office projects almost $10 trillion in additional debt from 2010 through 2019. Just last January the 2009 deficit was estimated at "only" $1.2 trillion. Things have gone downhill fast.

But there is reason to be concerned about those estimates, too. The CBO assumes a rather robust recovery in 2010, with growth springing back to 3.8% and then up to 4.5% in 2011. Interestingly, they project unemployment of 8.8% for this year (we are already at 8.9% and rising every month) and that it will rise to 9% next year. It will be a strange recovery indeed where the economy is roaring along at 4% and unemployment isn't falling. (You can see their spreadsheets and all the details if you take your blood pressure medicine first, at www.cbo.gov.)

Just a few quick thoughts. This year the proposed administration plan is to borrow 50% of every dollar spent. The CBO projects than nominal GDP will grow by about 50% over the next 10 years (which is historically reasonable), but also that revenues will double, which suggests massive tax increases in relation to GDP. Interestingly, the International Monetary Fund says growth next year will be tepid at best (more below). The deficit in 2010 is almost 10% of GDP. The average proposed deficit is almost a $1 trillion average for the next ten years. Ten years from now, the deficit is projected to be $1.2 trillion. And that is if government costs do not go up and inflation only averages 1.1% for the next six years.

The Global Recession Gets Worse

Let's take a quick trip around the world. In the first quarter, the German economy fell by 14%, Japan by 15%, Mexico by 21%, and England was down almost 8%.

Global trade is simply collapsing. The chart below is the ugliest it has ever been. Chinese exports are down 41%, Japanese exports down 38%, Germany's down by 32%, and so on. (chart courtesy of www.variantperception.com )

Let me quote from the very interesting study the team at Variant Perception did.

"As we have repeatedly said, Spain is set for a long, painful deflation that will manifest itself via a spectacularly high unemployment level, a real estate collapse and general banking insolvencies. Consider this: the value of outstanding loans to Spanish developers has gone from just €33.5 billion in 2000 to €318 billion in 2008, a rise of 850% in 8 years. If you add in construction sector debts, the overall value of outstanding loans to developers and construction companies rises to €470 billion. That's almost 50% of Spanish GDP. Most of these loans will go bad.

"Spanish banks are now facing a very bleak outlook. Spain's unemployment rate reached over 17% last month; there are now four million unemployed Spaniards and over one million families with not a single person employed in the family. Spain and Ireland had the worst housing bubbles in the world and now Spain has as many unsold homes as the US, even though the US is about six times bigger.

"Why are Spanish banks not insolvent? Spanish banks are not marking their real estate loans to market. We've often wondered how it is that our thesis for Spanish real estate and industrial collapse has not created more victims. The answer is simple according to an article in Expansion, the Spanish equivalent of the Financial Times, from the 19th of April titled 'Spanish banks control half of all real estate appraisals.' You can't make this stuff up. We haven't even begun to see the worst in Spain yet."

European banks are in far worse shape than their US counterparts. That is because they utilize far more leverage, on an average about 30 times leverage. How can that be, in what is supposed to be a conservative industry?

"European banks were only restricted on the basis of risk-weighted assets, unlike the US where it is the total leverage ratio that matters, so most European banks bought assets that were rated by Moody's and S&P, who couldn't rate their way out of a paper bag, and for anything that wasn't highly rated, they bought credit default swaps or guarantees from AIG and MBIA. Because of that European banks were able to lever up a lot more than their US counterparties. Given the much higher leverage levels and general worsening of collateral values, we think that all the shoes in Europe have not dropped."

European banks have assets of about 330% of their GDP, compared to US banking assets, which are about 50%. They have over $700 billion in loans to Asian businesses (which are watching their exports collapse) and $1.3 trillion in loans to Eastern Europe, which is in a very serious recession, and so many of those loans are simply not going to be worth anything. Simply put, there is going to be a need for massive amounts of money to bail out European banks, or we'll watch their economies simply implode.

Where is the money for the bailouts going to come from? Germany? That will be a tough sell politically in a country that is in a much worse recession than the US. How do you tell your citizens you need to bail out banks in other countries with their tax dollars? Italian and Austrian banks are going to need a lot of capital, more than their governments can pay. It is going to be a very tough problem.

Governments around the world are responding to the global recession by running massive deficits. In addition to the US, the UK, Japan, Russia, Spain, and Ireland are all running deficits of over 10%.

And, as in the case of the US, these are not going to be one-time deficits. The IMF predicts that England will shrink again next year and the recovery in the US will be modest at best. The US economy is expected to grow by 0.2% (far from the optimistic projections of various US government agencies), the 16-nation eurozone will eke out a modest gain of 0.1%, and the Group of Seven (G7) leading industrial economies will, as a whole, only grow by 0.2 percent. They project that Japan's economy will stagnate next year.

Where Will the Money Come From?

And now let's look at what is bumping in my worry closet. The world is going to have to fund multiple trillions in debt over the next several years. Pick a number. I think $5 trillion sounds about right. $3 trillion is in the cards for the US alone, if current projections are right.

Just exactly where is that money going to come from? The US trade deficit is now down to under $350 billion a year. The Fed can monetize a trillion. Maybe. Look at the yield curve on US government debt below (Bloomberg). US savings are going to go up, but where is the incentive to buy ten-year debt at 3.5%? Four-year debt under 2% doesn't do much for your savings growth. Even with monetization and the Chinese buying our debt with the dollars we send them, that still leaves the bond market about $1.5 trillion short, give or take $100 billion.

The world is deleveraging. Debt is being drawn down. Securitization of various types of debt has seriously slowed. Banks are cutting back on lending. Home prices are dropping all over the world. Commercial real estate is rolling over, and banks all over the world are exposed. "Recession turns malls into ghost towns" is the headline in today's Wall Street Journal. Personal savings are rising and retail sales are flat to down. Unemployment is rising.

All this should be massively deflationary. Interest rates should be falling or at least not rising. But a funny thing is happening. In the past two months, the yield on the ten-year bond has risen by 1%. It has moved 0.38% or almost "4 big handles" in just two weeks. Look at the chart below. What is happening?

According to Merrill Lynch, the size of the world bond market is estimated to be approximately $67 trillion, with the shares of US, Euroland, and Japanese securities each representing less than 50 percent of this total. (PIMCO)

England has been put on negative watch for its debt rating. Bill Gross said yesterday that it is not unthinkable that the US could lose its AAA rating. I think the bond market is looking at the mountain of debt that will have to be somehow sold and wondering where such a colossal sum will come from. Where do you find $10 trillion in the next ten years for US debt?

And that is just for US government debt. $5 trillion for new global debt in the next two years? In a deleveraged world? How much will the other countries need? What about money needed for businesses and mortgages and credit cards and so on?

If you add $10 trillion to the current $11.3 trillion (including Social Security trust funds, etc.), that totals $21 trillion in 2019. Let's be generous and suggest that interest rates will only be an average of 5%. That would be an interest-rate expense of over $1 trillion. That is 25% of projected revenues and 20% of expected expenses. And that assumes you have nominal growth of over 4% for the next ten years. If growth is less, tax revenues will be less. It also assumes massive tax increases from carbon credits.

The Paradox of Deficits

I think the bond market is looking a few years down the road and saying that $1-trillion deficits are simply not capable of being financed. And if the debt is monetized, then inflation is going to become a very serious issue.

When you run deficits that are 4-6-8% or more than nominal GDP, at some point things simply back up. Can we ride along for a few years? Certainly. Japan is getting ready to see its debt-to-GDP ratio rise to almost 200%. But everybody can't do it all at once.

Call it the Paradox of Deficits. We have been running a large trade deficit in the US for years, because the people (China, Japan, and the Middle East) who wanted to sell us "stuff" were kind enough to turn around and invest the money in our bonds. This in turn created Greenspan's conundrum, as it helped keep down US (and global) interest rates. Combine that with a massive increase in leverage, a few bubbles, and we now arrive at a true crisis.

Deficits are not necessarily a bad thing if kept in check and restraint is shown. But everyone cannot run deficits at the same time. If we don't buy $700 billion in goods, then that money cannot be recycled back to our debt. It is that simple.

(Sidebar: And now, China and Brazil are moving to do their trades in their own currencies rather than dollars. Very smart on their part.)

Europe, Japan, and the US cannot try to borrow $5 trillion in the next two years without a serious distortion of the bond market, not to mention the entire economic landscape.

I have long thought that "crunch time," the end game, would show up around 2013-14. But I never in my wildest imaginings thought we could run an almost $2 trillion deficit. That crazy guy on the corner telling us "The end is nigh"? He may be right.

Long before we get to 2015, let alone 2019, I think the bond markets will have called a halt to $1 trillion deficits. There will be a real crisis. The deficits will not be funded at anywhere close to an interest rate that will not break the budget. Taxes will get raised beyond what they were in the Clinton years. And Obama's budget makes some very optimistic judgments about how much will be saved in medical costs, as if no one has tried to rein in medical costs before. The crisis may come much sooner if his universal health-care bill is passed as proposed without offsetting cuts somewhere else.

Watch the bond market. Rates should be going down, not up. The bond market is telling us the deficit simply can't be financed down the road. Now, maybe a few cool heads in the Democratic Party will prevail in the US Senate and the deficits will be brought under control. (The Republicans have so far seemed as clueless as they are impotent.) We could (theoretically) run $400 billion deficits for a very long time, as GDP would be growing somewhat faster.

It would be best to run budget surpluses, but the game does not end if there are reasonable deficits. It ends with deficits that cannot be funded except by monetization. And that will tank the dollar, except against all the other countries that are monetizing their debt.

I am increasingly inclined to think that as the world comes out of its current malaise – and it will – US investors should think more globally with their investment portfolios. That is something we will explore over the coming year. But that's enough for today.

Naples, London, and Eastern Europe

Next Friday I go to London to speak at a conference for my friends at Jyske Bank. International investing expert Gary Scott will be there, as well as my friend and business associate Steve Blumenthal. It should still be possible to attend, if you would like. You can see more at www.jgam.com. And then, in theory, I will be home all of June.

The plan now is for me to return to London on July 15^th. I will co-host CNBC London Squawk Box on July 17^th, see clients, and then be with London business partner Niels Jensen for his 50^th birthday party on the 18^th. (And here's wishing him a speedy recovery from his back surgery last week!)

And then I am actually going to take a vacation. I am slowly trying to expand the list of countries I have been to. This year I am thinking of venturing further into Eastern Europe. Romania and Bulgaria are on the top of the list, and perhaps Slovenia? I would love to hear from readers in those countries, or from others who have visited them. I will have about 12 days and want to be able to see the sights and relax as well.

Then I come back, go to Maine with young son Trey for our annual get together with all the guys at the Shadow Fed fishing trip run by David Kotok, and get back in time for daughter Amanda's wedding on the 22nd. It is going to be a full, fun summer.

And speaking of Trey, he turns 15 on Wednesday. He is the last of my seven in the house. The rest are all out and (more or less) on their own. But then I get three new grandkids between now and the end of the year, so the next generation is starting.

These are interesting and serious times we find ourselves in, but we should all try and remember to enjoy life as much as possible. I am grateful that I am so busy, and count it as a blessing when so many are not. Have a great Memorial Day, and take a few moments to remember those who have sacrificed so that we can be free.

Your looking forward to summer analyst,

John Mauldin

Faith-Based Economics

John Mauldin — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:19:31 GMT

Can I Have Some More of that Data, Please?
The Fault, Dear Brutus, is Not in Our Stars
Faith-Based Economics
Is Unemployment a Lagging or a Leading Indicator?
An Unsustainable Trend in Debt
Some Thoughts on the Health Care Problem

Why does government data need to be revised so often? Is it conspiracy, as some claim, or is it methodology? And if it is methodology that leads to faulty data, then why not change the methodology? Is unemployment a lagging indicator, as conventional wisdom suggests? We look again at the underlying assumptions to suggest that things are not always the same. And finally, we look at unsustainable trends, fiscal deficits, and health care -- there is a connection.

But first, a quick note about the latest "Conversations with John Mauldin" that I just did with Don Coxe and Gary Shilling. These two esteemed analysts have different views on whether commodity prices will rise or fall, and are not afraid to make their views known. I edited the final transcript today, and I can tell you that even though I was "at the table" I learned a lot reading it the second time. If you want to understand the nature of what is a very central debate, this is a must-read. This was a VERY lively debate. Most of my friends know that I am not shy, but it was hard to get a word in edgewise as these guys went at it. It was great fun to watch.

And if you have not yet subscribed, you can go back and listen to my Conversation with Chris Whalen and Rick Lashley on the banking crisis, and see if you can figure out what motivated the Manhattan district attorney's office to call me asking for clarification. Plus the quintessential piece with Lacy Hunt and Ed Easterling on the fundamentals of the current economic crisis, which many subscribers said was worth the price of an annual subscription. And then there is the Conversation I did with Nouriel Roubini. It is all there for you.

The new Conversation will be posted early next week. Subscribers will get an email notifying you when it is up. Also, George Friedman of Stratfor and I are going to start doing a regular quarterly Conversation that will be a separate product, but if you subscribe today you will get it as part of the regular service for a year.

Right now, we are offering a subscription for $109, $90 off the regular $199 price. To learn more, you can click here and subscribe, if you haven't already. Insert code JM75 for this special offer. You can enter that code on the final screen of the subscription process.

Note: When George and I record that first piece sometime in the next few weeks, the price will rise to $129 a year, so you should act now. As we add more features like the one with George, current subscribers will simply get the new services, but the price for a new subscription will rise. New subscribers will however get access to the previous Conversations, at least for now.

Can I Have Some More of that Data, Please?

One of my regular reads is the blog The Big Picture. They featured a short piece by Michael Panzner this week. He put together some rather interesting data and then asked a question, which gives me an opportunity for discussing government data. Let's see what he had to say, and then I will make my comments.

"Many market-watchers claim that U.S. economic statistics are increasingly being revised downward in subsequent periods, suggesting that the figures initially being reported by Washington are "puffed up," so to speak, most likely for political purposes.

"Well, I went back and had a look at the differences between the reported and revised data for various series, including monthly retail sales, nonfarm payrolls, industrial production, and durable goods orders, to try and figure out if the cynics are right.

"Using data from Bloomberg, I calculated whether the revised data for each month was lower than the first-cut estimate. Then I tabulated 12-month running totals for each series to see if there has been some sort of systematic bias (in other words, whether the pattern of monthly downward revisions was trending higher instead of undulating up and down).

"To make the comparisons easier, I subtracted the 12-month tally as of May 2002 (an arbitrarily chosen date) from the monthly totals for all four economic series so that the starting point for each would be the same — zero.

"Based on a quick read of a graph of the data (see below), it does seem as though the pattern of negative revisions has been trending higher lately, especially during the past year or so, suggesting that the cynics may be on to something.

"That said, I am not a statistician, and the results may be nothing more than "noise." There is also the possibility that my methodology is lacking (because, for example, the margins-of-error for each month's data are relatively large, or because of certain quirks that crop up when an economy is in transition). Still, you gotta wonder..."

Actually, Mike (can I call you Mike?) your last thought is the correct one: "or because of certain quirks that crop up when an economy is in transition."

Go back to 2003-04. Notice that the numbers of downward revisions in non-farm payrolls are negative in your graph? Remember all the talk back then about the "jobless recovery"? We can now look back and see there were a lot of jobs being created. They just did not show up in the early statistics. And look at the opposite reaction in industrial production: here they revised strongly downward for a the better part of two years, yet it turned out there was a production boom going on.

Was all this a conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration to make things look worse than they actually were? Hardly seems like rational political behavior.

The "problem" comes from the methodology. There is no exact data for any of those statistics. They have to get as much data as they can and then make estimates. Part of the process of estimation uses previous trends. It is as if we were using past performance of a mutual fund or stock to project future returns. Even though we look at the past performance, we should know that past performance is not indicative of future results. Just look at some of the top-performing value-oriented mutual funds in the recent bear market, like superstar Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust fund (LMVTX), the after-fee returns of which had beaten the S&P 500 index for 15 consecutive years, from 1991 through 2005. It did rather poorly last year, even in comparison with the S&P, which was horrid. Past performance is interesting, but it can disappoint. And sometimes rather viciously.

Now, just as saying that a fund on average will produce a 10% return does not mean that it will yield 10% every year, neither do government statistics work that way. While the methodology for each series of data is different, they all are more or less trend-following. They take past relationships in the data they can gather and use them to estimate current numbers. And -- this is important -- on average and over longer periods of time, they are pretty accurate.

They will revise the data many times over the coming years, getting closer and closer to the actual numbers. For instance, I can't remember exactly when, but it was several years later that we learned that we were already in a recession in the third quarter of 2000, at the very time most economists were calling for a robust economic future! (Except for your humble analyst, who was predicting a recession, and had been for some time because of the inverted yield curve, but that's another story.)

But in the short run, at economic transitions they are going to get it wrong, because the backward-looking data is mean-reverting. But how else would you do it? One of the keys to economic transitions is to look at the direction of the revisions. Recently, the revisions have all been negative. Things are actually getting worse than the initial data suggested. And during the last recovery the data kept getting revised upward, especially six months and one year later.

The Fault, Dear Brutus, is Not in Our Stars

Look again at the very useful chart above (great work, wish I had thought of it!). Non-farm payrolls, which for some odd reason everyone pays attention to, is especially wrong at the turns. Anyone trading on non-farm payroll data deserves the losses they will get.

One of the reasons that non-farm payrolls are so often revised is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is forced to estimate the number of new businesses being created each month that are simply under the radar screen of government statisticians. This number is called the birth/death ratio. You could not create a useful payroll number without this estimate, yet it is simply a wild-eyed guess based on past trends, which by definition we know will change at economic turning points.

Further, almost no one pays attention to the fine print in the data, which talks about margin of error. The statisticians clearly understand the limits of their data, even if the public does not. Often, the margin of error is larger than the number being given, so that a positive number may actually turn out to be negative, and vice versa, when viewed from a few years out.

As Cassius said in Julius Caesar, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

Faith-Based Economics

Should we cast aspersions on the data creators? I rather think not. The various government statistics creators are doing their best to give us information that, over time, will be useful. Some is more useful than others in real time. Some has large time lags before it is accurate. To expect the BLS or the Commerce Department to have accurate current data is expecting them to know the future. The very people who are the most critical would never presume to be accurate about the prices of stocks six months out (or even one month), on a consistent basis. Yet that is the kind of prescience they want from government statisticians.

Do you really want data from government sources that makes assumptions about economic recoveries and recessions? That is the job of independent economists, and they generally do it pretty badly. There is no need for the government to compound the errors.

Again, repeating myself, anyone who trades on government statistics as being anywhere close to accurate in real time deserves any losses they get. They are at best a foggy window through which we peer into the future. Taken together, and with some seasoning of time, they can be rather useful; but to pin hopes of a recovery or a bull-market run on one week's data is hazardous to one's wealth.

Reading and watching all the analysts and economists who "see" recovery in one set of data or another makes me wonder what sort of faith-based economics they actually practice. Just as it requires faith to believe in God, it also requires a lot of faith to believe in forecasts made on a single month's set of data, or based on past performance.

Are you interested in finding a real green shoot? Let's look for a quarter when the economic data keeps getting revised upward, two and three months out. That will signal a real recovery. As long as the data is being revised downward, the economy is "having issues," as my kids would say.

Quick sidebar to those who keep asking: Yes, I think we have seen the worst of the economic data, as far as GDP goes. But that does not mean we don't have further negative quarters in our future. I just don't think they will be a negative 6 like they have been the last two quarters. And we may even see a quarter this year with a positive number. But take it with a grain of salt when the usual suspects declare the end of the recession. Look into the data that produces the numbers. As Gary Shilling points out, eight of the last eleven recessions have had a positive quarter, only to see more negative quarters follow. GDP numbers are quirky. But here's to hoping for a real recovery when we do see the next positive number.

Is Unemployment a Lagging or a Leading Indicator?

There is a very interesting animated graphic done by Chris Wilson at Slate.com (http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/). It shows the progression of unemployment by US county over the last two years. I reproduce the beginning and ending stages of the graph for you below, and apologize to those of you who are reading this in black and white, as it will not be as dramatic. But if you watch the entire series, it shows how rapid the deterioration in unemployment has been. (It takes about ten seconds.) The first graph shows that there 2.6 million jobs had been created in 2006. The last one shows that job losses were 5 million through March and, if we add in April and estimates for May, it will be close to 6 million. Again, the actual animation is dramatic, and made my daughter go "Ouch!"

It's been 50 years since we have seen unemployment drop as rapidly as it has in the current recession. Given that we have a much smaller percentage of manufacturing jobs now, that volatility is breathtaking. Look at the data since 1930 from the St. Louis Fed:

The typical pundit keeps telling us unemployment is a lagging indicator, and that the recovery will be well under way before it shows up in the job numbers. Therefore, you should buy what they are selling, because the recovery is on its way. But that may not be the case this time. One of my favorite reads, when I get to see it, is the economic analysis from Bridgewater. They are among the best thinkers anywhere, and everyone who follows them gives them a great deal of credence. This is what they wrote about unemployment being a lagging indicator last month:

"Normally, labor markets lag the economy because incremental spending transactions are financed via debt, stimulated by interest rate cuts. But as long as credit remains frozen, spending will require income, and income comes from jobs. And debt service payments are made out of income. Therefore, in a deleveraging environment job growth becomes an important leading, causal indicator of demand and other economic conditions.

"... The bounce in the economy and the stabilization in markets reflect government actions that are big enough to impact near-term growth rates, but are not sufficiently directed at the root problem of excessive indebtedness to produce permanent healing. The deterioration in employment markets will continue because companies' profit margins are so deeply damaged that a little bounce in growth won't do much to alter their need to cut costs. This deterioration in labor markets will undermine demand and continue to pressure loan losses, which will keep the pressure on the banks and elevate the cost of capital for tentative borrowers, inhibiting credit expansion."

This again illustrates the problem of using past performance to project future results. You have to look at the underlying conditions in order to get a real comparison, and we have not seen a deleveraging recession in the US for 80 years. Using the past data in today's world is statistical masturbation: it may make you feel good, but it is not producing anything really useful, and may be harmful to your portfolio.

An Unsustainable Trend in Debt

This week, the federal government published two important reports on long-term budgetary trends. They both show that we are on an unsustainable path that will almost certainly result in massively higher taxes. By 2016 we will have to fund Social Security out of general revenues, as the surplus we now have will be gone. And there are no trust funds. They are a myth. It as if I wrote myself a check for $2 trillion and then declared I was worth $2 trillion. The money is just not there. Social Security makes Bernie Madoff look like a small-time crook.

And Medicare is in far worse shape. For those with the stomach, you can read Bruce Bartlett's analysis at http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html. He estimates that taxes will have to go up by 81% if we are to pay the obligations as they now stand.

Now that is unsustainable. It won't happen. And as the saying goes, if something is unsustainable, at some point it will stop. No getting around it. Long before we get there, change you will not like will be forced on the US.

The following headline caught my eye: "Obama Says US Long-Term Debt Load is 'Unsustainable.'" Yet they announced a $1.8 trillion deficit, which is really going to be at least $2 trillion, and are getting ready to pass health-care programs that will mean at least a trillion in deficits for as long as one can project.

How will they pay for it? Even getting rid of the Bush tax cuts will only produce a few hundred billion a year, which is nowhere near enough. They project much lower medical costs in the future, because they assume they are going to figure out ways to cut costs and make medical care more efficient. As if no one has ever tried that.

Yes, there are some savings on the margin; but the only way you really cut costs is to ration health care, especially health care in the last year of life, which is about 30% of health-care expenses. That is going to be very tough in the US. But when faced with a real budget crisis, the choices are going to be stark. And that crisis is coming if we do not control spending.

You cannot propose massive increases in spending without either creating crushing debt that the markets will simply not allow, pushing interest rates much higher and really slowing growth and hurting the economy. It is a simple fact that you cannot increase the debt-to-GDP ratio without limit.

We found the limit on personal and corporate debt this past year. We pushed the limits until the system crashed. And now the US government wants to basically do the same thing. They are planning to see where the limits on government debt-to-GDP will be. Unless cooler and more rational heads in the Democratic Party prevail, this is not going to be pretty. Sometime in the middle of the next decade we will hit the wall, and it will make the current crisis pale in comparison.

The only way to solve the problem is to grow GDP more rapidly than debt, and for that to happen you have to have policies which are shaped for the growth of the economy or massive savings by consumers. And right now we have neither. Cap and trade is hugely anti-growth. So are high corporate taxes, and Obama is proposing to effectively raise corporate taxes by closing loopholes for income earned outside the US. Much better would be to lower the overall corporate level to a competitive world rate and then require the offshore income to be taxed. A lower rate would actually increase tax revenues.

Looming protectionism worldwide is a problem. (See the article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30758018.) Towns in Ontario, Canada with a population totalling 500,000 have effectively barred US contractors from doing business with them, in retaliation for job losses stemming from US protectionism in the stimulus plan. That movement is spreading. A US steel mill with 600 union jobs will have to close down because its owners are not US-based, and thus it is not technically a US supplier. They are losing jobs to US-owned mills -- but those are US jobs. The insanity goes on and on. As I have written for many years, the one thing that really gets me worried is protectionism. That can make this very significant recession into a depression quicker than you can imagine. Bad ideas have bad consequences.

All in all, we face some very difficult decisions, not just in the US but all over the developed world. Ironically, the less developed nations will have fewer problems and on a relative basis will likely grow much faster than the developed world. But, multi-trillion-dollar deficits and massive new programs are not the right answer.

Obama is right: the debt load is unsustainable. Let's hope he will do more than talk, and show some budget restraint.

Woody Brock has given me permission to pass on to you his recent notes on this very topic of what we have to do to get out of this crisis. It will soon be an Outside the Box. Read it. It is a very sobering and thought-provoking piece.

Some Thoughts on the Health Care Problem

Now, some positive news. This week I visited the Cleveland Clinic and went through their Executive Health Program (more on that below). I got to visit for several hours with my doctor, Michael Roizen, of YOU: The Owner's Manual fame (not to mention all his subsequent books). They have now sold over 20 million copies, and I highly recommend them.

I have long been a student of medical trends, and long-time readers know that I think the next really big boom will be in the biotech world. I asked Mike what three things he thought would have the biggest impact in the next five years in medicine. What he said gave me hope, because he thinks there may be some advances in medicine that could help solve some of the basic health issues we all face, and at the same time give us some relief from the high and rising costs of medical care. I was aware of most of the research, but did not know that we were as close as it appears we actually are.

Briefly, he feels there are three developments in late-stage trials that could have major impacts. The first is the development of sirtuin, which so far seems to be delaying the effects of diabetes but also seems to work for a host of diseases that are inflammatory in nature (including many heart-related issues). It essentially delays the symptoms for 30-40 years. While the current trials are for very specific diseases, he thinks sirtuin will have a wide applicability and that it could be huge, as inflammation is the cause of a number of diseases. This could prolong useful life and forestall a number of debilitating conditions.

Second, there is a late-stage-three trial due out soon that promises to increase muscle mass. I have been reading about such developments, but was not aware that something might be available within a few years. This promises to help people stay active a lot longer than currently possible, which will be a good thing if we are going to live longer.

And finally, there is a study and trial which shows that DHA may delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease, which eats up a significant portion of US medical budgets.

I recently spent time with a research doctor at the University of California Irvine who believes that muscular dystrophy and other brain/nerve-related diseases may be conquered within five years.

We may just get lucky. Instead of high and rising medical expenses that we cannot pay for without bankrupting the country, we may be able to reduce our medical bill by staying healthier and living longer.

Everybody should be like my personal hero, Richard Russell. I hope to be writing as well as he does when I am 85. With some luck, I might just make it.

Let me quickly recommend to my readers that they get serious annual physicals. At the Cleveland Clinic this week I saw seven doctors in one and a half days, and went through some serious poking and prodding. The program was tailored to my needs, as it is different for every person. You see professionals who are geared to your physical challenges. They make all the arrangements, and a staff person walks you into see the doctors, who are on very tight schedules.

The advantage of the Cleveland Clinic is that they are very oriented toward helping you not get sick in the first place. I am turning 60 this year, and Iwant to be active for a very long time. You have to be proactive.

As an aside, I had a colonoscopy. I was really dreading it, but it is one of those things you need to do. As it turns out, it was nowhere near as bad as I thought, and they basically gave me a drug which allowed me to relax and only experience a little discomfort. ("You are going to feel really relaxed in about 30 seconds.")

You can learn more at www.clevelandclinic.org/executivehealth. Whether it is there or somewhere else, get a serious physical. I want you to be reading me in 25 years as much as I want to be writing.

It is time to hit the send button. I will close by wishing you a very healthy week.

Your really an optimist at heart analyst,

John Mauldin

Green Shoots or Dandelion Weeds?

John Mauldin — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:43:00 GMT

A Few Thoughts on Recessions
Are the Green Shoots Really Dandelion Weeds?
Is That a Leaky Bucket?
Frugality Is Back in Vogue
Where Will the Jobs Come From?
Cleveland, New York, and Mother's Day

Go to Google. Type in "green shoots." In about a 10^th of a second you will find 28,900,000 references. Scrolling through a few pages, you find a lot of references to the beginning of the end of the recession. Today we look at some data to see if we can indeed see the end. Most readers will be surprised to know that the number of people employed in the US went up (!) in April. Yet so did the unemployment rate. Is that green shoot just another dandelion weed in our economic garden?

We'll jump into that and more, but first let me quickly mention the new subscription service that we began offering this year, called "Conversations with John Mauldin." One of my "secrets" is that I have a very powerful rolodex (or, for the younger crowd, my contacts list). In this new project, each month I call up one or two of my special contacts in the investment and economic world and hold a conversation with them about the important topics of the day -- where the US and global economies are going, how we should be investing, what opportunities and pitfalls are out there, etc. Some will be names you recognize, and others will be names you will want to know. You get to listen in, download to your computer, or read a transcript -- whichever you prefer.

The reviews from subscribers have been more than excellent. Over the top, actually. You can read some of them at the website below.

I just recorded a Conversation with Donald Coxe and Gary Shilling. Both men are among my favorite analysts, and have been remarkably right with their calls for a long time. However, their views on how commodity prices will develop over the next few years differ considerably. Mischievously, I thought it would be fun to get them together. Neither are shy or retiring men, and both can articulate their views very well, thank you. The conversation turned into a lively debate, one in which I did not get to say as much as I do in a normal Conversation. I think subscribers will find it one of the best we have done. I certainly came away with a lot to think about.

The Conversation will be posted next week. Subscribers will get an email notifying you when it is up. Also, George Friedman of Stratfor and I are going to start doing a regular quarterly Conversation that will be a separate product, but if you subscribe today you will get it as part of the regular service for a year.

Right now, we are offering a subscription for $109, $90 off the regular $199 price. To learn more You can click here and subscribe, if you haven't already. Insert code JM75 for this special offer. You can enter that code on the final screen of the subscription process.

Note: When George and I record that first piece sometime in the next few weeks, the price will rise to $129 a year, so you should act now. As we add more features like the one with George, current subscribers will simply get the new service, but the price for a new subscription will rise. Also, new subscribers will get access to the previous Conversations, for now.

Thanks, and now let's jump into the letter.

Are the Green Shoots Really Dandelion Weeds?

When the employment numbers come out, my usual routine is to go the Bureau of Labor Statistics website and peruse the actual tables (www.bls.gov). I was rather surprised to see that the actual number of people employed in the US rose by 120,000. That has certainly not been the trend for a rather long time.

So, are things back on track? Is the recession just about over? Is that a green shoot? I don't think so.

First, there are actually two surveys done by the BLS. One is the household survey, where they call up a fixed number of homes each month and ask about the employment situation in the household and then take that data and extrapolate it for the economy as a whole. So, while the number of employed rose, the number of unemployed rose a lot faster, by 563,000 to 13.7 million. In addition, there are 2.1 million who are "marginally attached" to the workforce. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

According to the survey, headline unemployment rose 0.4% to 8.9%, the highest level since 1983. But if you count those who are working part-time but want full-time work, as well as the "marginally attached," the unemployment rate (called the U-6 rate) is an ugly 15.8%.

For whatever reason, the markets were happy that the headline number of the other BLS survey, the establishment survey of lost jobs, was "only" 539,000, down from a negatively revised 699,000 in March. At least, the thinking was, the numbers were not getting worse, though it is hard for me to be encouraged by half a million lost jobs. That may not be the worst of it, however, since 66,000 jobs were temporary workers hired for the 2010 census, and the BLS estimated that the birth-death ratio added 226,000 jobs as a result of new business creation. Really? This will mean that there will likely be a major revision downward at some future point. The number will likely be well over 600,000 in the final analysis.

Further, it is likely that we will see at least another 1.0-1.5 million lost jobs over the rest of the year, taking unemployment very close to 10%. As an aside, the Treasury used an unemployment rate of 9.5% in their stress test of the banks, which suggests the test was not all that stressful. And, showing further weakness, there were 66,000 fewer temporary jobs. If there was really a nascent recovery, you would see a rise in temporary workers.

Average wages rose by a mere 3.2% on an annual basis, and by just 0.1% for the month, and the average work week was at an all-time record low of 33.2 hours. In nearly any inflation scenario, rising wages play an important part. This suggests that inflation is not in our near future.

Is That a Leaky Bucket?

Let's play a thought game. Picture the economy as a leaky bucket, maybe not as bad as the one below, but leaking nevertheless.

We have put holes in the bucket of our economy, and the "water," or GDP, is leaking out. We are going to settle at some new lower level of GDP and consumer spending. At some point, we can fix the holes and begin the process of increasing the level of the water. Typically, this happens relatively quickly.

However, a recent study showed that recessions that come as a result of or in conjunction with a financial crisis take a lot longer to recover from. The study looked at 122 recessions, of which 15 were associated with financial crises.

The research, published as Chapter 3 in the April 2009 World Economic Outlook (WEO) of the International Monetary Fund, finds that recessions that are either associated with financial crises or that are highly synchronized worldwide have historically been longer and deeper, and featured weak recoveries (see chart). The combination of these two features -- a rare phenomenon in the postwar period -- resulted in even costlier recessions, which lasted almost two years.

"In addition to the current global recessionary cycle, there were three other episodes of highly synchronized recessions: 1975, 1980, and 1992. These recessions were on average longer and deeper. Distinct from other episodes, the recoveries from these recessions feature much weaker export growth, especially if the United States is also in recession.

"A perfect storm? Recessions that are associated with both financial crises and global downturns have been unusually severe and long lasting. Since 1960, there have been only six recessions out of the 122 in the sample that fit this description: Finland (1990), France (1992), Germany (1980), Greece (1992), Italy (1992), and Sweden (1990). On average, these recessions lasted some two years, were unusually severe, and featured weaker-than-average recoveries." (IMF)

In addition, I would suggest that the current recession is unlike any in the study, in that the habits of the American consumer are changing right before our eyes. Instead of spending and borrowing with little or no savings, people are now reducing their borrowing and increasing their savings. Savings are now 4% of income and are likely to rise to 7-8% or more in the next few years, as consumers see the need to repair their balance sheets and retirement funds.

Frugality Is Back in Vogue

While Wal-Mart and other low-cost retailer sales are up, Saks and other high-end retailers are down by as much as 30%. There is a new frugality in vogue. That new hole in the bucket? It is the damaged psyche of the American consumer. Consumer spending is going to fall, and when it does find that new level it is going to grow more slowly than in the past.

And that, gentle reader, is why the recovery is going to be a long slow Muddle Through. This recession will end, as all recessions eventually do. We will see a positive number, maybe as early as the 4^th quarter. Employment should turn back up, albeit slowly, after that.

Typically, in a recession jobs are lost because sales slow and production is not needed. When sales recover, so do jobs.

But we are permanently destroying jobs in this recession, all up and down the food chain and in numerous industries. There will be fewer cars made, for a long time. Less demand for financial service jobs. Housing construction will be a long time recovering, well into 2011 or 2012.

And commercial real estate? General Growth, the largest operator of malls, with 166, filed for bankruptcy protection and in a very controversial move took all 166 malls into bankruptcy as well. General Growth was the largest issuer of Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS), which is how the great majority of commercial mortgages are created. The lenders thought they had direct access to the cash flow of the malls. Some of those malls are quite profitable. Cue the lawyers.

If this rather aggressive move is allowed to stand up in court, it could do serious damage to the whole commercial real estate industry, which is already in upheaval, and throw new construction projects into serious difficulty. And less construction means fewer jobs.

Where Will the Jobs Come From?

As the water in our bucket seeks a new economic level, there are simply going to be fewer jobs to make "stuff," as we consume less. We can't rely on many of the old jobs and industries to come back in short order, as has been the case in the past. In order for new jobs to be created, we are going to have to create new businesses and expand current ones.

The vast majority of new job creation in the US is by small businesses and entrepreneurs. Yet today small business faces a tough environment. Banks have tighter lending policies. Venture capital is tough to find. Competition in a shrinking economy is brutal.

And the Obama administration wants to raise taxes on small businesses by raising taxes on the "rich." 75% of those rich he targets are small businesses who need capital in order to grow, but are having trouble getting it from banks.

Sure, entrepreneurs will do what they have to do, and higher marginal tax rates will typically not keep them from working as hard as possible to make their businesses successful. If the tax rates of the large majority of businessmen and women go back to the pre-Bush level, it will not make us close our businesses, but it will cut down on the capital we have available to expand. It will slow down economic growth and hinder job creation. There is just no getting around that fact.

There is a reason that high-tax states have higher unemployment rates and lower job growth. Taxes have consequences for economic growth.

The sad reality is that it is going to take a long time to get back to acceptable employment levels in the US. It now takes an average of over 21 weeks to find a new job, a new record. Stories from friends in the financial services business are particularly difficult, as there are many very highly qualified people for every job that comes available. And it is not going to get better any time soon.

How could we add 120,000 new jobs while unemployment is going up? Because the number of people looking for jobs is growing far faster, as more and more young people come into the market place and couples now find they both must look for a job. And that is a trend that is going to continue.

So many bullish analysts talk about the second derivative of growth, by which they mean that we are slowing our descent into recession. But it is not the second derivative that is important. What is important is that the first derivative, actual growth, return. Until that time, unemployment will continue to rise, which is going to put pressure on incomes and consumer spending, and thus corporate profits.

Profits in the first quarter, with nearly 90% of companies reporting, are down over 50% from last year and are 18% less than estimates. Yes, inventories are down, but so is final demand from consumers and businesses. There is a reason that GM and Chrysler are shutting down for two months this summer. That will percolate throughout the economy.

As the realization that the economy is not due for a robust recovery sinks in, I think the chances for another serious bear market test of the stock market lows will become increasingly high. As David Rosenberg said in his final memo from Merrill Lynch (and good luck to him in his new position, where I hope we all still get to read his very solid analysis!), if a few weeks ago someone had said you could sell all your stocks 40% higher, most of you would have hit that bid.

Now that price has in fact been bid. Do you want to gamble on a renewed bull run in the face of a continually shrinking economy? I suggest you give it some serious thought, or at least put in some very real stop-loss protection.

Cleveland, New York, and Mother's Day

I thought I was staying home in May. Well, plans change. I am going to the Cleveland Clinic on Monday for a full physical with Dr. Mike Roizen (YOU: The Owner's Manual, etc.) which I have postponed for too long. This is an excellent program. I will give you a report next week.

Then on June 3^rd I will be in New York for a very special conference hosted by my friends at The Big Picture. The conference is called "Capitalism after Crisis -- A look at Banking, Hedge Funds, and Media during the Recession ... and Beyond." It is an all-day affair on June 3, 2009 at the New York Athletic Club. There is a great line-up of speakers -- like Dylan Ratigan, Nassim Taleb, Doug Kass, Barry Ritholtz, Chris Whalen, and Josh Rosner -- and your humble analyst will do the closing keynote address. The conference is $895, but my readers get a special deal of $695 if they use this link: https://secure.pnmi.com/bigpicture/?source=mauldin

Much of the family will gather for Mother's Day. My mother will be 92 in August. She is bionic, with two new knees and two new hips. Mother was in the WACs in World War II and went to Germany, where she met my father. She did not have an easy life, as Dad was an alcoholic for most of his life, but she stayed with him. She has always had a positive attitude. We almost lost her this last year, when she went into the hospital for minor surgery and ended up getting a very deadly stomach virus. She was actually giving my brother her last requests one night, as they thought she might not make it through the night -- but she did. I come from hardy stock.

And speaking of mothers, Tiffani is coming along and is now two months pregnant. I get the blow-by-blow narrative each day in the office. It does bring back memories. Enjoy your weekend; I certainly intend to enjoy mine. The Mavericks are in the playoffs, although so far Denver is eating our lunch. And Star Trek is out. I am a huge Trekkie. It will be a fun next few days.

Your can't wait to see Star Trek analyst,

John Mauldin

Sell in May and Go Away

John Mauldin — Sat, 02 May 2009 04:18:00 GMT

Sell in May and Go Away?
The End of the Recession?
Is the US Consumer Back?
A Dangerous End Game
A Few Thoughts on Swine Flu

The old adage that one should "sell in May and walk away" has been around for years. I mentioned that bromide about this time last year, urging readers to head for the sidelines if they had not already done so. I was also suggesting a strategic retreat in August of 2006 (after which the markets went up 20% before plummeting). In this week's letter we look at the actual data and offer up a fresh viewpoint. Then we turn our eyes to the recent GDP numbers, which were awful, though many took comfort in the apparent rise in consumer spending. Are Americans back to their old ways? It will make for an interesting letter.

Sell in May and Go Away?

My friend and South African business partner Prieur du Plessis recently updated a chart on monthly stock market returns since 1950. It clearly shows that the November through April periods have on average been superior to the May through October half of the year. (To read his very interesting blog you can go to http://www.investmentpostcards.com/)

And the difference is quite significant. As Prieur notes, the "good" six-month period shows an average return of 7.9%, while the "bad" six-month period only shows a return of 2.5%. Of course, selling creates taxable events, which can hurt your returns.

Plus, you never know when the markets are going to go down and when they will be up. There can be a lot of variance from year to year. For instance, in 2007 the markets were up during the summer by 4.52% and down during the "good" period by -9.62%, which is opposite the average pattern. Of course, the markets did go down by 30% after May 1 last year and down another 5% since then. That is what bears markets can do.

Which caused me to wonder. The last 59 years have seen two significant secular bull markets (roughly 1950-1966 and 1982-1999) and two secular bear markets (1966-1982 and 2000-??? -- the one we are in now). I wondered if the pattern changed during the bear cycles, so I shot a late-night note off to Prieur and came in the next morning and had my answer.

It made a significant difference. May through October in secular bear cycles has been ugly. Look at this graph:

And just for fun, let's look at the monthly numbers since the present secular bear market began in 2000. So far, this has been a lot worse than the 1966-82 cycle, although we have not yet had the recovery phase from the current doldrums, which will likely make the overall numbers look better in 4-5 years.

As noted above, these graphs simply give us past trends and not an absolute forecast. But they do provide food for thought. There are times when you should be cautious and times when you should throw caution to the wind. I think this is the former. While some pundits are talking about green shoots and the second derivative of growth, this economy may be worse than their rosy forecasts of the end of the recession, as we will see in a few paragraphs.

The End of the Recession?

Let's revisit 2000 and 2006. The yield curve was inverted in the late summer and early fall of both years. By that I mean that short-term yields were higher than long-term yields. When that happens for longer than 90 days, a recession has always followed within 12 months. (I wrote numerous e-letters on the topic. You can go to the website and search for "Mishkin," one of the authors of a Fed paper on the yield curve.) I wrote in this letter on both occasions that it was time to get out of the market, as the stock market drops an average of 43% during a recession.

There is a YouTube of me on CNBC in August of 2006 on Larry Kudlow's show. I was forecasting a recession in 2007 based on the inverted yield curve. And if there was going to be a recession, I reasoned, then a bear market would follow. Larry and John Rutledge basically noted that "this time it's different," because the reasons for the inverted yield curve were different. And the market did rise another 20%+ for over 12 months.

There was a recession, but it did not come until 15 months later, in late 2007. The yield curve was right in forecasting a recession, but the timing was different this cycle. If you had gotten out in August of 2006, you were not terribly happy 12 months later; but today you are still way ahead, plus the gains on your bonds and alternatives.

On October 5 of 2007 I wrote about what I saw coming as a "Slow Motion Recession." I was more convinced than ever we were either in a recession or soon would be. As it turned out, we were. But at the time there was a lot of criticism from a lot of analysts. Christopher Amberger did a particularly scathing piece (which was at least witty) on YouTube on October 10, suggesting that the concept of a recession was nonsensical and there were still plenty of opportunities in the market. (Oh, and buy his newsletter to find out what they are). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjAK0s9I8vA The market topped two days later.

The point is that it is more important to get the general direction right than to be right on the specifics. In August of 2006 I was seeing a modest recession in the future. As time went on, I became increasingly bearish. But whether it was to be a mild recession or a major one, the advice would have been the same. You do not want to get caught long the market before a recession.

Today, there are those who say the stock market will start rising six months before the economy does. And maybe it will. I don't know. The predisposition of this market is down. Valuations are not at a level that has spawned major bull markets in the past. At the beginning of real bull markets, volume is strong and rising. Now it is weak (modest at best) and shows no real sign of becoming strong, especially going into summer.

Further, this rally has all the earmarks of a major short squeeze. Regulators have recently (and correctly) been enforcing short selling rules that require stock to be delivered and settled on short trades. This may be a one-time event. When the short squeeze is over, the buying will stop and the market will drop. Remember, it takes buying and lot of it to move a market up but only a lack of buying to create a bear market.

Corporate earnings are likely to go even lower, as consumer spending is likely to get weaker in the coming months. Capacity utilization is at its lowest point since they began tracking it. The National Federation of Business says a recent survey shows none of the responders plans to raise prices, which is not a sign of business strength.

Banks are not yet lending, and the past quarter's positive performance was mostly accounting gimmicks. Citigroup, for instance, said they made $1.6 billion. They did this by booking a one-time gain of $2.7 billion, because the value of Citigroup bonds have fallen (!), giving them the theoretical possibility of buying back their debt at a discount. And with consumer and credit card loans showing more weakness, Citi decided to REDUCE its loan loss reserves, allowing it to show another $1.3 billion in profit. And then there was the profit of $400 million from the new mark-to-market rules, which allowed them to produce a profit on "impaired assets." Without all these games, there would have been a loss of $2.8 billion.

Maybe this time it's different. But when I survey the economic landscape, I see lots of opportunity for disappointments and missed targets. And bear market rallies are killed by disappointments and missed expectations.

To be long this market going into summer you need to be brave or have very serious stops on your portfolio. I think the possibility of missed expectations at the end of the second quarter is high. It could be ugly.

Is the US Consumer Back?

The headlines told us that even as the economy fell an annualized 6% in the first quarter, consumer spending rose by 2%. Given that consumer savings climbed to 4.2%, unemployment rose, and income was down, how did consumer spending rise? To get the real picture, you have to dig into the numbers. (Thanks to 82-year-old, long-time reader Paul Miller for doing the slicing and dicing of the data at his excellent blog http://musingsbymiller.wordpress.com/.)

First, the headline numbers are inflation-adjusted. Consumer spending in actual dollars rose $28 billion. But since prices went down (deflation), the "real" or after-inflation/deflation number shows up in the headlines as $44 billion.

But where prices went down makes the real difference. Gasoline and other energy costs were down $50 billion, allowing consumers to spend on other items. Over the last two quarters energy costs are down almost $200 billion from the second and third quarters, making a huge difference. But now the "tax cut" from energy is largely gone, as prices have stabilized.

Paul notes, "But ... now ... the gasoline tax cut has dissipated, and coming to the rescue are the Obama administration's tax cuts. In fact, the cuts began to be felt in the first quarter. Personal income declined modestly in the first quarter, by $60 billion, or a 2% annual rate. But personal taxes were down by $193.5 billion, some part of which was the result of the tax cuts, so that disposable income rose at a 5% annual rate. Putting taxes and lower gasoline prices together gave consumers $143.5 billion more to spend or save than they would otherwise have had, which accounted for the rather amazing performance of consumption in the face of immense job losses."

And going further into the GDP numbers, there is an interesting statistic. Imports fell more than exports, mainly due to oil. The net trade deficit was only about $26 billion last month. Falling prices in imports, and especially oil, actually added about 3% annualized to the GDP number. Without that boost, the number would have been far more ugly.

That being said, we are very likely to see better numbers in the future, and maybe even a positive one in the 4^th quarter. But a large part of that will be statistical. For instance, housing construction is now down to 2.5% (or thereabouts) of GDP. Drops in housing construction have contributed almost a negative 1% a quarter for the last year. Even if housing construction goes down another 10-20%, it is becoming a very small piece of the puzzle and is not likely to be a big drag on future GDP.

Inventories, though, have been a large drag on the economy for the last two quarters. While we could see inventories drop somewhat this quarter, as the ISM manufacturing number is still significantly negative, they will probably not drop a lot more in the third and fourth quarters.

There are more stimuli and tax cuts on the way, and they will start to have an effect, as individuals will have more disposable income, whether to pay down debt, save, or spend.

But that positive will be balanced by rising unemployment, likely to hit 10% or more by the end of the year. If you count those who are part-time workers wanting full-time work or who are discouraged workers, unemployment is over 15% today.

A Dangerous End Game

The Fed and the Obama administration are playing a dangerous game. The Fed is going to print trillions of dollars to forestall deflation and try to re-ignite the economy. But for a variety of reasons we will go into next week, a real, sustainable recovery may be a few years away. What happens when the market start balking at high and unsustainable national deficits? What happens when inflation (finally) does return? Can the Fed remain independent and take back the money it is printing in the face of what will likely be a tepid recovery? And if they don't, what happens to the dollar?

Next year, we will be entering what will certainly be the most dangerous era in my lifetime for the US economy. It is not clear what will happen. There are a lot of paths that can be taken, though some are more likely than others. For those who are convinced that high inflation and a falling dollar are absolutely, unequivocally in the future I have just one word: Japan.

Yes, there are differences, but there are a lot of similarities. While I think the most likely outcome is a long Muddle Through recovery, the likelihood of a lost decade of deflation a la Japan is a very real potential outcome. And the possibility of stagflation and a seriously impaired dollar is also quite real.

Investors, businessmen, and entrepreneurs need to be as nimble as possible. A free market will figure out what paths to take, and I am still optimistic about the long term. But we have some very dangerous times in front of us, and we need to be realistic.

And before I close, let me make a few comments about the Chrysler and GM issues. I tell my kids all the time that actions have consequences. If I hold senior secured debt of a company and the government tells me I have to take less than unsecured junior debtors, I am not going to be happy. I may have been dumb to make the loans in the first place, but I did it under a very specific contract and the rule of law.

If the Obama administration arbitrarily changes those rules to favor a political class (unions), then that is going to have a chilling effect on future lending to all corporations. As an aside, they are spending $12 billion to save 54,000 Chrysler jobs (at $22,000 per job). With 600,000 jobs a month being lost, why are these 54,000 jobs more special than those of the rest of the unemployed, who get a fraction of that amount in unemployment benefits?

Actions have consequences. The lenders who are forcing the Chrysler deal into bankruptcy court are not all "predatory hedge funds." They are mutual funds, pension funds, and other financial firms with small stakeholders as their investors.

Cerberus, the hedge fund that originally bought Chrysler, deserves to lose their money. They made a bad investment. But those who lent money deserve to be treated in accordance with the contracts they signed.

Demonizing investors and businessmen is hardly helpful. They are precisely the people we need to help get this economy moving. Governments don't create true job growth, businesspeople do, and mostly small businesses. I am not certain why small business owners, the job creation engine of the country, should see their taxes raised in order to protect bond holders of automobile companies or banks, or for union jobs to be preserved in companies that are clearly not competitive. But that is just my final thought late at night, before I hit the send button.

OK, one more thought. If Chrysler couldn't figure out how to make efficient cars from their partnership with Daimler-Benz, are they now going to become viable through a partnership with Fiat, which has been on the verge of bankruptcy for the last decade? Really? GM paid $2 billion in penalties to Fiat in 2005 so as to not be forced to buy them. And Fiat gets 20% for no cash?

Finally, a very quick three-paragraph commercial. In the current market environment, there are managers who have not done well and then there are money managers who have done very well. My partners would be happy to show you some of the managers they have on their platforms that we think are appropriate for the current environment. If you are an accredited investor (basically a net worth over $1.5 million) and would like to look at hedge-fund and other alternative-fund managers (such as commodity traders) I suggest you go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and sign up; and someone from Altegris Investments in La Jolla will call you if you are a US citizen. Or you'll get a call from Absolute Return Partners in London if you are in Europe. If you are in South Africa, then someone from Plexus Asset Management will ring. And for my long-suffering readers who are patiently waiting for another accredited investor letter, there is one in the works. If you sign up today, you will get it. (In this regard, I am president and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.)

If you are not an accredited investor, I work with CMG in Philadelphia. We have created a platform of money managers who specialize in the alternative management space. By this I mean they do not need a bull or bear market in order to have the potential for profits. (Past performance is not indicative of future results.) You can go to http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp and quickly read about the recent past performance of a manager we recently added to the platform, and then sign up to get more information.

If you are an investment advisor, all of my partners will work with you in providing your clients exposure to alternative-style investments and managers. Obviously, if your clients are high-net-worth individuals, then you will want to work with Altegris or ARP; and if your clients need lower minimums, then you should work with CMG. And if you have any feedback or comments, feel free to write me.

A Few Thoughts on Swine Flu

Intellectually, I know that flu is something that we live with every year. According to the Centers for Disease Control, seasonal flu infects between 15 and 60 million Americans each year (5% to 20%), hospitalizes about 200,000, and kills about 36,000. That comes out to over 800 hospitalizations and over 250 deaths each day during flu season.

Worldwide deaths from "regular" flu are between 250,000 to 500,000 a year. In the last SARS virus "epidemic" in 2003, there were around 8,000 deaths worldwide but none in the US.

Swine flu has been diagnosed 160 times in ten countries, plus several hundred more in Mexico. The toll is almost sure to rise a great deal, but will it reach the level of normal, everyday flu? I hope not, and I rather doubt it, at least based on the recent SARS scare.

But that is all an intellectual, distanced, nuanced concept. The real world is a little different. This morning I went to wake up my son to get ready to take him to school. For a real change, he was already up. He had been throwing up, he had a sore throat, and his head was warm. We finally found the thermometer and took his temperature. It was 100, and 20 minutes later had risen a degree.

We got into the car and went to the local "Doc-in-the Box." (For non-US readers, that is a local private-care clinic that will take walk-up patients without an appointment.) After a few tests, which they can now do in a few minutes, they determined it was not flu or strep throat. It was just some bug he had come down with that needed a course of antibiotics. We got the medicine and went home.

On the way back I asked him if he was worried about whether he had swine flu. The day before, his school had cancelled a field trip, and a local large school district (Fort Worth) had simply closed for a week after one diagnosed case.

"Yeah, Dad, I was worried a little. Glad it's not the flu." And Dad was, too. Statistics, whether financial or medical, become meaningless when it's personal.

Have a great week, and stay healthy!

Your planning to enjoy his May through October analyst,

John Mauldin

Back to the Future Recession

John Mauldin — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:24:58 GMT

MV=PQ
Financial Innovation: The Round Trip
2010-11: Back to the Future Recession
The Fed at the Crossroads
How Did We Get It So Wrong?
The Trend Is Not Your Friend When It Ends
Orlando, Naples, Cleveland, and Grandkids

This week we look at the second half of my speech from a few weeks ago at my annual Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla. If you have not read the first part, you can review it here. The first few paragraphs are a repeat from last week, to give us some context. Please note that this is somewhat edited from the original, and I have added a few ideas. You can also go there to sign up to get this letter sent to you free each week.

MV=PQ

Okay, when you become a central banker, you are taken into a back room and they do a DNA change on you. You are henceforth and forever genetically incapable of allowing deflation on your watch. It becomes the first and foremost thought on your mind: deflation, we can't have it.

MV=PQ. This is an important equation, right up there with E=MC². M (money or the supply of money) times V (velocity -- which is how fast the money goes through the system -- if you have seven kids it goes faster than if you have one) is equal to P (the price of money in terms of inflation or deflation) times Q (roughly standing for the Quantity of production, or GDP)

So what happens is, if we increase the supply of money and velocity stays the same, and if GDP does not grow, that means we'll have inflation, because this equation always balances. But if you reduce velocity (which is happening today) and if you don't increase the supply of money, you are going to see deflation. We are watching, for reasons we'll get into in a minute, the velocity of money slow. People are getting nervous, they are not borrowing as much, either because they can't or the animal spirits that Keynes talked about are not quite there.

To fight this deflation (which we saw in this week's Producer and Consumer Price Indexes) the Fed is going to print money. A few thoughts on that. The Fed has announced they intend to print $300 billion (quantitative easing, they call it). That is different than buying mortgages and securitized credit card debt -- that money (credit) already exists.

When they just print the money and buy Treasuries, as with the $300 billion announced, they can sop that up pretty easily if they find themselves facing inflation down the road. But that problem is a long way off.

Sports fans, $300 billion is just a down payment on the "quantitative easing" they will eventually need to do. They can't announce what they are really going to do or the market would throw up. But we are going to get quarterly or semi-annual announcements, saying, we are going to do another $300 billion here, another $500 billion there. Pretty soon it will be a really large total number.

When we first started out with TALF and everything, it was a couple hundred billion, and now we just throw the word trillions around and it just drips off of our tongues and we don't even think about it. A trillion is a lot. It's a big number. And the total guarantees and backups and all this stuff we are into -- I saw an estimate of $10-12 trillion. That's a lot of money.

Understand, the Fed is going to keep pumping money until we get inflation. You can count on it. I don't know what that number is; I'm guessing maybe as much as $2 trillion. I've seen various studies. Ray Dalio of Bridgewater thinks it's about $1.5 trillion. It's some very big number way beyond $300 billion, and they are going to keep at it until we get inflation.

Side point: what happens if the $300 billion they put in the system comes back to the Fed's books because banks don't put it into the Libor market because they are worried about credit risks? It does absolutely nothing for the money supply. Okay? It's like, goes here, goes back there -- it doesn't help us. The Fed has somehow got to get it into the financial system. They've got to figure out how to create some movement.

Will it create an asset bubble in stocks again? I don't know, it could. Dennis [Gartman] talked about being nervous yesterday. I would be nervous about stock markets both on the long side, as I think we are in a bear market rally, but also there is real risk in being short. Bill Fleckenstein will be here tonight. He is a very famous short trader. He closed a short fund a couple of months ago. He says he doesn't have as many good opportunities, and basically he's scared of being short with so much stimulus coming in. So it's going to work, at least in terms of reflation, but the question is, when? A year? Two years?

Financial Innovation: The Round Trip

Financial innovation is one of the drivers of the velocity of money. We started in approximately 1991 creating the first securitizations and CDOs. It was done at Merrill Lynch, if I remember right. But they started getting copied, and then we went into warp speed, creating all kinds of new CDOs and SIVs that invested in loans, securitized mortgage debt -- most of which was rated AAA -- banks loans, credit card debt, etc. Without thinking about it, we created a shadow banking system that funded a huge chunk of our total credit markets. It was outside the bailiwick of the normal regulatory authorities.

Then in 2007 we began to destroy the shadow banking system. If it was working so well, why did we do that? Because they mismatched their liabilities and assets. They were borrowing short-term and lending long-term, and doing it highly leveraged. They were buying up long-term assets at 4-5-6%, some (or most) of them rated AAA. Then they were selling commercial paper at 1% or 2% -- so you get a 2-3% profit spread.

A 2-3% spread doesn't really make you anything, you're not really excited about that; so since we're dealing with AAA investments that everyone believes to be absolutely safe, let's leverage it up 6-7-8 times. Now you're talking a 20% return. Now you're talking about making money, real money. And I should note that we were also talking real commissions and monster bonuses.

I think one other side note needs to be made here. In hindsight, we can now look back and wonder what the investment banks were thinking. They "must" have known they were pushing bad paper into the system.

But their behavior tells us they didn't know. If they really believed they were, there would not have been so much of the toxic debt left on their books. Bear Stearns launched very large funds to buy this debt at obscene leverages and sold it to their best customers. At least some people in management thought there was real value in these securities, which just goes to show how lax or ignored the risk managers were in all parts of the financial industry.

Then it all began to implode, because people started paying attention to some of the assets on the balance sheets of the various SIVs and CDOs and suspected they might not be worth what they had originally thought. You have subprime mortgages in your Special Investment Vehicle? Hey, I'm not going to buy your commercial paper. Suddenly, the commercial paper market simply imploded. This was the start of the banking crisis.

So we started taking the innovation of securitizations off the table. The innovation that had driven the velocity to new highs was now slowly being pulled off. So, velocity slows down, and it's continuing to slow down with each passing month.

Let's survey the economic landscape. We have an unstable economy. Housing doesn't bottom until 2011 or 2012, unless, as I wrote the other day, we give immigrants a green card to come here. We need the immigrants anyway. We need smart immigrants. By the way, I've never had as much response to my letter, both positive and negative. It ran about 60/40 for. Many of the "against" were people outside of the US, saying why are you trying to take our best, we need them. I suppose there is a certain logic to that, but if we could pull a million homes off the market, it would solve a big part of the US credit crisis right now, not to mention, we would have people putting money into our system and it wouldn't cost taxpayers anything.

But back to the current scene. Consumer spending is slowing, and it's going to slow for years as savings increase. At one time we were savings 7-8-10% of our incomes, back in the early '80s. We grew from 63% of the economy being consumer spending, to 71% in 2006. We are going back to the mid --to low 60s in terms of the percentage of consumer spending in GDP. We are not doing it all at once, it's going to take years; but, gentle reader, it's the blue screen of death! We are hitting the reset button.

Economists have a term for this process. It's called rationalization. We have too many stores to sell "stuff," all sorts of stuff. Too many malls. We have too many factories to build too many cars, too many plants to build too many widgets for an economy where 65% of GDP is consumer spending. When we built all that capacity it was for an economy in which consumer spending was 71%; and because we were enthusiastic and believed we would grow at 3% forever, we probably built it for 73% or 74%.

We are watching capacity utilization fall off the table. It is down to 67%, fully 15% below normal. What happens when you see that? You start closing factories. It's just what you have to do. We are going to have fewer restaurants, fewer clothing stores. The survivors will get bigger market shares; that's just what happens. Schumpeter called it creative destruction.

And this being a different type of recession -- because we are hitting the full credit-cycle reset, it's going to take longer. I think the recession -- the actual, honest, mark-to-market numbers --will be negative through 2009. Then we'll start to improve. This current first quarter is going to be ugly again, then it will be a little better in the third quarter. The second quarter -- I don't know how bad it's going to be, but it's not looking good.

But in 2010 we could start seeing slow growth again, maybe Muddle Through. There might be a sluggish recovery in 2010, but we have to put an asterisk on that possibility because the Democrats are going to push through the largest tax increase in history.

First of all, the tax increase is the Republicans' fault. They didn't make the tax cuts permanent when they had the chance, so consequently they go away in 2010. US taxes are going to go way up, whether there is no compromise, so that we go back to the pre-Bush years, or there is some compromise because the Obama Administration realizes that putting in that type of a tax increase will throw us back into recession. Remember Roosevelt? What did he try to do? He raised taxes in the middle of a recession (1937), when unemployment was 14%, driving it back up to 20%. Unemployment will be 10% or 11% by this time next year, and maybe by the fourth quarter.

If you count those who are working part-time but want full-time employment, the unemployment number is closer to 15%. Yesterday, my taxi driver was a mechanical engineer who lost his job, but had kids and had to do whatever he could to put food on the table. He said there are a lot of people like him here in California.

The deficit is going to explode way past $2 trillion unless somebody can show some sense. Let's look at the carbon credit problem. Obama wants to impose this new carbon credits program, which sounds benign. We call it a credit and not a tax. Here's the issue. It gives us two bad possibilities, one of which is going to happen. Number one, he is assuming there is something like $800 billion coming in over the next decade from these carbon credits, and he's put that as income in his proposed budget, like it's going to get passed into the system. He is assuming that revenue. If he doesn't get it, deficits are much higher in the near term.

But if he gets it, it's even worse, as US industry becomes uncompetitive with Third World industries that don't have the same carbon credits and energy costs. Do you think China or India will pass the same legislation? They are building more coal-fired plants every month than we build in a year.

We are going to be seeing factory after factory shut down and moved off-shore, because they simply won't be able to compete. Either way, we go back to that economics technical term I used earlier: we're screwed. The carbon credits program is just a massively bad idea. There are things that we should do to cut down energy usage, but this is not the way to go about it. We can talk about other ways to do it if you want to.

2010-11: Back to the Future Recession

I think the country could re-enter a recession in 2010 and 2011; we would go right back into it when those tax hikes start to hit. What do tax increases do? They take money out of consumers' pockets -- and the consumers that actually spend. Plus, 75% of those who will see their taxes rise are small businesses that employ people, so we deflate ourselves.

Liberal economists are going to argue, "Wait a minute, John. We are taking it from these [rich] guys, but we are giving it to lower-income families, so it will get spent." But it's going through the government -- we don't get the same bang for our buck. We don't get new employment. We're simply transferring and creating a new welfare state; plus, we have a number of recent studies which show that the propensity now is not to spend the new money but to use it to pay down debt. This is not a pro-growth policy, and growth is what we need. Not wealth transfers and a new welfare state.

At some point inflation starts to show up again, because when you start running two-trillion-dollar deficits and you start trying to borrow it, at the same time the Fed is printing money, at some point in this process the bond markets (and the currency markets) are going to rebel. An unsustainable trend will keep going until it stops. I don't know when that day is, but the current policies mandate that we will hit the proverbial wall. One day it will be just like August 2007. Someone is going to ring a bell and the Treasury bond market is going to look the deficits and wonder how they will fund them, and they are going to let out a huge gasp and then throw up. Because you can't run two- to three-trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

As Woody Brock so capably points out, the key to watch is the debt-to-GDP ratio. You can grow debt fast; but at some point you start to have to grow the economy faster than you are growing debt, or you become an economic basket case, where the dollar is devalued and interest rates go up fast. At that point, the Fed will have lost control. The key item to watch now is the budget debates. Are we going to build in $2 trillion deficits, or we will show some fiscal restraint?

The Fed at the Crossroads

And, are we going to try and do this when unemployment is at 10% or more? The Fed at some point is going to come to a crossroads. They can allow inflation, like the '70s. (And some of us are old enough to have lived through the '70s, though I really didn't notice much -- I actually made money on inflation during the '70s. I was in the printing business before I went into the investment publishing business. I would buy traincar loads of paper on credit and put it on warehouse floors; and because I was the only guy who could get paper and I had it at a good price, I got a lot of business. So I made money off of that inflation cycle.

We figure out how to Muddle Through, even during periods like the '70s. So the Fed can bring that back -- which they all swear they won't do -- or they can withdraw liquidity. What happens if they withdraw liquidity? It slows the economy down, because we are pulling money out of the system. Just as higher interest rates begin to take a toll on the economy, they will have to start pulling money out of the system to avoid higher inflation. By the way, if rates are rising that means the interest payments on the federal debt are rising, because we have a lot of short-term federal debt. Frankly, as a government, we should be buying all the 30-year bonds we can possibly buy. But we are not, because that would increase the pressure on the current debt. We have the long-term forecasting ability of a mongoose.

We are in the middle of a Great Experiment, the one truly great experiment of this time; so the economists are fascinated. We have Keynes versus von Mises versus Irving Fisher versus Friedman, and they all have theories about what you should do after depressions and what works. Someone commenting on Keynes said, "In a world organized in accordance with Keynesian specifications there would be a constant race between the printing press and the business agents of the trade unions. With the problem of unemployment largely solved, the printing press could maintain a constant lead."

Printing money. That's what the current Fed is doing. Just as aside, here is a great quote I came across. It really doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it's fun. John Ehrlichman told us about a conversation between Richard Nixon and Arthur Burns, who was Nixon's nomination to be Chairman. Nixon said, "I know there is the myth of the autonomous Fed [short laugh]. When you go up for confirmation some Senator may ask you about your friendship with the President. Appearances are going to be important, so you can call Ehrlichman to get messages to me, and he'll call you." I'm sure that's not done today.

Seriously, the independence of the Fed is critical, Nixon notwithstanding. Given the recent revelations about Bernanke and Paulson supposedly telling Ken Lewis at Bank of America not to tell the public about how bad the Merrill situation was -- do you think there might possibly be some pressure on Bernanke? His term is up early next year. It is quite possible we get a Fed chairman who would be more accommodative of a left-wing agenda than Bernanke, who I believe really will pull back from allowing inflation to get too high.

This would force budgetary discipline on Congress, which the left will not like. I can see some real issues in the upcoming nominating process if Bernanke is not left at the helm. Do we really want Larry Summers?

Let's get back to our discussion of the Great Experiment. Von Mises said there is nothing you can do about a deleveraging cycle, you basically just let it all go to hell and then pick up the pieces. The hair-shirt economists, I call the Austrians: just let it drop, take your medicine, take your 15-20% unemployment, and just deal with it, because you'll be able to come back faster from the lower base. By the way, to von Mises, the velocity of money was a meaningless concept. Gold was where you should have had your money to begin with.

Then there is Friedman, who produced his great work that says inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. He had his studies to prove it. But when he did his studies, in the 30 years that he analyzed, the velocity of money was remarkably stable. So of course, inflation had a 1-to-1 correlation with money supply.

Fisher says, "The velocity of money is important." For Fisher, debt deflation controlled all other economic variables. It was the driving economic force. You're going to have to rationalize all your debts. There's nothing you can do about it; but what you do is, do as much as you can to provide a soft landing for the people who lose their jobs. Do whatever you can to get them along and to keep the system working, but you are still going to have to go through a credit reorganization. We are going to find out in 5-6 years who was right. That is the experiment we are living through. My bet's on Fisher, just for the record.

How Did We Get It So Wrong?

So how did we get it so wrong? How did we get here? Let's go back to first principles: Ideas have consequences. And bad ideas tend to have bad consequences. We've taught two generations of financial managers theories that were patently absurd. Rob Arnott is going to be here later with us for the panel discussion. Rob recalls standing in front of 200 academics, professors in schools that teach economics. He asked them, "How many of you believe in the efficient market hypothesis?" Something like two or three raised their hands. "How many of you teach it?" All of them raised their hands.

We have been teaching generations of MBA students economic garbage. Gaussian curves and things you could model. The classic line is from Ibbitson, is a brilliant professor and a brilliant mind, who said economics is a science. No it's not. It's barely an art form. It's voodoo. That's what we practice. We look at the entrails of the Wall Street Journal and try to predict the future. Sometimes it's about as bloody as sheep entrails. CAPM... poor Harry Markowitz's Modern Portfolio Theory got so twisted beyond recognition. I remember being with Harry Markowitz. I gave a speech at a big hedge fund conference about five years ago, talking about why Modern Portfolio Theory was not going to work. The next year it was the 50^th anniversary of Modern Portfolio Theory, and they brought Harry out to speak. He of course talked about why it was. I remember meeting him in the hall of this big hotel. And I asked him a couple of questions; I forget what they were because he so staggered me with, "Oh, you missed the whole concept of correlation and assets. Correlations change."

And he started drawing quadratic equations in the air. But because I was standing in front of him, he was drawing them backwards so I could see them. I mean, this guy is absolutely brilliant. But he's right, you should have a diversified portfolio of noncorrelated assets; but as John was showing yesterday, correlations in a crisis all go to one.

What money managers did was to create models that said, "If you do this, diversify your portfolio like this, and here are all your noncorrelated asset classes -- see what happens? You get long-term positive results."

And they would project that into the future. But they didn't project crises, when correlations go to one. Modern financial theory only works in models if you assume a few things that are patently not true in the real world. So we trained a generation of managers and investors that they should buy 60% stocks and 40% bonds. Yet for the last 40 years, bonds have outperformed stocks. Where was that in the model?

Well, we can go back to the 19^th century and see it. But we created a trend from 1944 to 2000 that said we were going up, and we trained a generation to believe they could model, and they did it. They modeled garbage, and now we've wiped out a generation of retirement income. I could go on and on, but it's nonsense.

We let the rating agencies become way too important. They were supposed to be the adults supervising the sandbox, and they weren't. They started out perfectly acceptably, but then they decided they wanted to rate multiple-obligor securities like real estate mortgage bonds using the same ratings they used for corporate bonds. They sold their business souls and didn't even realize it.

Remember, we trained a generation of people to think they could model this stuff. So they modeled what potential defaults would be, based on past performance, and not even past performance that looked like the assets in the investments they were rating. But it was scientific and looked like the models they learned in school.

Every time you get a letter from me, there is a page and a half down there at the bottom, full of disclosures. At least twice in those disclosures I say past performance is not indicative of future results. It's like, "coffee is too hot, don't spill it." We don't pay attention to it, but it's the most important thing, because past performance has nothing to do with future history.

The future is going to look different, yet we think we can model it. The models are bullshit. (That's a technical economics term that requires advanced degrees to use.) They just are. Now you can take some comfort from them, and you have to try and figure stuff out, and you look for correlations. That's what I do, and we all do that. I confess I use models every day.

But you have to recognize that the model has a huge asterisk beside it. You just can't bet the farm on it. And God, have I learned that the hard way. I've got bruises on my back from making assumptions. That's why I don't go around half-naked, because it would just look ugly.

We let the rating agencies use a corporate bond-rating system -- AAA, AAB -- for multi-obligor bonds that had nothing to do with reality, and they rated them up on the way up and now they are rating them down on the way down, and they are screwing us both ways. Because if you lose 1% on a triple-A bond, it immediately goes to junk. That means the banks have to write it off their capital and sell it for 50 cents on the dollar.

When did this problem start? July of 2007, when we introduced mark-to-market accounting. When did AIG have a problem? When they had to start writing their AAA's down. Now we should never have let it get to that place to begin with, but now we have to deal with reality. You can't just sit there and say, "Tsk, tsk, we need to let these guys go bankrupt."

No, you can't, not unless you want 25% unemployment again. We have "X" amount of pain to go through to get back to whatever the "new normal" will be. Think of this as a big tube of pain, OK? We can do it in one year or in seven or eight years. I vote for seven or eight. I don't want 20-25% unemployment. I would rather have 10% unemployment for seven years. Now, that's just me, because I know when my neighbor is unemployed, when my kid is unemployed, that it hurts.

The Trend Is Not Your Friend When It Ends

So, the establishment is now saying, "Let's keep the system going." Now, are we going to have problems when the Fed starts trying to pull the extra cash they are printing out of the economy? Yes. Is that going to create a different form of future history than we have experienced in the past? Yes. Therefore, trying to model the future based upon that past, will not work.

We believed the trend. The trend is not your friend when it ends. OK? It just isn't. Now, I'm the guiltiest person in the world. I live on what one of my friends calls "psychic income." That is the income you get when you take a current business model, the current business you are in, and you say, if I could grow these assets to "Y" I would make "Z". That "Z" charges me up. I haven't earned it yet and the train probably won't go there, but it gets me up in the morning. That's my psychic income. We all do that. But we rarely realize that it's just psychic income; it's not real income until the cash is there.

Given all that I have said, I still contend I am not a pessimist, at least not in the long term. Stocks go from high valuations to low valuations to high valuations. They've done it in US markets and world markets, and we are halfway through the trip in a secular bear market. We haven't gotten to low valuations yet, I don't care what they say. The P to E at the end of July was something like 289 on the S&P. You can go to the S&P website and you can see that. Now you smooth it with five-year curves and performance, and it goes to 20. 20 is not cheap. But it's going to get cheap -- at least that's what history tells us.

Now maybe history is wrong, because past performance is not indicative of future results; and I could be wrong, but sometimes you just have to set an anchor and say this is what I'm believing. I think we are going to lower valuations, and when that happens we will have compressed price to earnings ratios just like we did in 1982. The world will be coming to an end and we'll be moaning and groaning. We haven't gotten as bad as we were in '82 -- whoever pointed that out is correct.

But what will happen? The stock market will be a coiled spring and we'll have a bull market and we'll get to have fun in the stock market again. Until then, be careful.

Orlando, Naples, Cleveland, and Grandkids

I am writing today's letter at the St. Regis Hotel in Laguna Beach, California. I am going to hit the send button a little early so I can get out and walk around, as it looks to be too beautiful a place to be in my room writing. This weekend I join Rob Arnott and his friends (Mohammed El-Erian, Harry Markowitz, Jack Treynor, and Peter Bernstein, among others) at his annual conference. It is one of the few conferences I attend where I just go just to absorb as much as I can, and don't speak. This one looks to be special.

On Monday I fly out to Orlando to speak at the Chartered Financial Analyst's national conference on the "state of the union" of the alternative investment industry. I think my talk will garner mixed reviews, and is certain to be controversial in a few circles. I hope I get invited back some time.

Then I am back home for most of the next two months. I will make a quick trip to Naples to be with my friends at Jyske Global Asset Management for their conference the 29-31 of May (www.jgam.com). And I am going to schedule a quick trip to Cleveland to get a full physical at the Cleveland Clinic with my good friend and best-selling author Dr. Mike Roizen. I have put it off too long. I will tell you more about the really interesting program they have, where you can get a three-day, thorough physical in one long day. I think it is a real value.

And then there was a call from Tiffani last Saturday. She was in Kentucky visiting friends. One of my standing rules is that when I get back from Europe I am not to be disturbed before 10 at the earliest the next morning. But I got a call from her, and I groggily took it, worried that something was wrong.

"Dad, I'm pregnant. It's going to be a Christmas baby. What do you think?" Didn't she just tell me January 23 or so that they were going to try? That didn't take long. Not long at all.

Henry and Angel are due in June. Chad and his SO Dominique are due in October. I will go from no grandkids to three in the space of a few months. And Amanda is getting married in August. Lots of things happening in the Mauldin clan. And it's all good.

I need to wrap it up. Tiffani will be here in a few hours, and then the meetings start. Have yourself a great week; and if you are at the CFA conference, be sure and look me up.

Your almost ready to be a grandfather analyst,

John Mauldin

Is That Recovery We See?

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

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

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

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

Is That Recovery We See?

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

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

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

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

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

Those Wild and Crazy Analysts

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

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

The Shadow Inventory of Homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial Real Estate Starts a Long, Slow Slide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P/E Ratios Go Negative!

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

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

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

The Effect of Earnings Surprises

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate Earnings and Recovery in Recessions

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

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

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

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

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

The Implosion in Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copenhagen, London, Newport Beach, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your starting to think about the end game more analyst,

John Mauldin

Further Thoughts on the Continuing Crisis

John Mauldin — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 05:56:53 GMT

Thoughts on the Continuing Crisis
The Right Direction, At Least
The Jobs Will Come
Can We Have a Little Inflation, Please?
Those Wild and Crazy Analysts
La Jolla, Conversations, and Richard Russell

When confronted about an apparent change of his opinions, John Maynard Keynes is reported to have said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The earnings season for the 4^th quarter is almost 80% complete, and the facts are dismal. It is worse than the current data shows, and could get uglier. Unemployment is increasing, and consumers are both saving more and spending less as incomes are not keeping pace with what little inflation there is. All in all, a very different set of facts than a few quarters ago. This week we examine some of the new facts, and start out by analyzing how Thoughts from the Frontline has done over the past two years with some of the more important predictions. It should make for an interesting letter.

At the end of the letter, I have a few notes on my upcoming Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla, April 2-4 (which looks like it will sell out), information on the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner, a mention of my new Conversations service (which is getting very good reviews), and the need for one or two part-time editors.

The Right Direction, At Least

Over the last year, I have become increasingly more bearish on the economy than I was in January of 2007. In my 2007 annual forecast issue, I said that we would be in a recession by the end of the year (we were), and that it would be a long but not too deep recession, with a multi-year below-trend Muddle Through period to follow. I was thinking GDP would maybe be down 2-3%. As I have repeatedly written in this letter and said in speeches, the US stock market drops by an average of 43% in recessions. I saw no reason to be in the stock market, as there was just too much risk of a serious bear market. Further, since international markets now have close to a full correlation with the US markets, foreign stock indexes would be in trouble as well. I also said interest rates would be coming down and deflation would be a problem before we got through this recession.

(As an aside, there are a lot of very well-known perma-bearish analysts who called the recession, but were very bearish on the US dollar and positioned their clients in emerging-market stocks or other markets. Their clients have been mauled. Just because you get the economy call right doesn't necessarily mean you can call the right investment shots. Before you invest with a manager because he seems to have been right about something, look to see what his actual investment strategy has done. And that includes me or my partners.)

I also predicted the bursting of the housing bubble and the subprime credit crisis in late 2006 and 2007. While I was completely wrong about the severity of the current recession, at least I got the direction right. My advice would have been the same, which was avoid long-only stock portfolios and mutual funds, be long bonds, and access active, absolute-return managers and funds.

But the facts have changed. The reality is that we are in a much worse recession than I thought it would be two years ago. And as I wrote last month, we will probably be in recession for the full calendar year 2009, with the same lengthy multi-year Muddle Through Economy I originally envisioned, albeit from a lower base. So, what does that look like? Let's look at a likely set of facts, in no particular order.

1. Consumers are going to save more and spend less. It is likely that US consumers are going to push the savings rate back up to 6% (or more). Total US net worth decreased by $7.1 trillion through the third quarter of 2008, from housing and stock market losses. The trend suggests that could easily be up another $6-7 trillion by the end of this quarter. Greg Weldon speculates that is could easily be $15 trillion by the end of the cycle. That is a massive amount of wealth destruction. And while the absolute numbers are not as large in the rest of the world, the relative magnitudes are. This is a truly global recession. Economists say that anything below 2.5% in world growth is a global recession. We are down to 0.5% and falling.

2. The stimulus package is simply a pork-laden, misguided piece of legislation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report (I think yesterday) that says "CBO estimates that this Senate legislation would raise output and lower unemployment for several yearsÉ In the longer run, the legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product (GDP)." There is way too much spending on items that have very little current effect on the economy.

I am in principle in favor of a deep and large stimulus package. We need one, but what is on tap is not what will stimulate real job growth. All it does is create more debt that will have to be paid later by our kids. What else could we do? For instance, US companies have so much money squirreled away that Allen Sinai of Decision Economics concluded that, if the US lowered tax rates temporarily on repatriated earnings, companies would repatriate US$545 billion. There is a precedent for this: we saw US companies bring home $360 billion in 2004 as a result of the temporary 5% tax rate contained in the American Jobs Creation Act. (Sent to me by Louis Gave of GaveKal, whose work will be highlighted in next Monday's Outside the Box)

Why not set a 10% tax rate to simply bring the money home, and a 5% rate if they use it for capital spending or to create jobs? Now that is stimulus that would actually result in more taxable income! And that money did help to create a boom in 2004. On an aside, this just goes to show how out of balance the US corporate tax system is.

What little real stimulus is in the bill will not hit all that much in the first half of this year. The fourth quarter of 2009 is likely to look better than the first quarter, but it is also likely to have a negative sign in front of it. I hope I am forced by the facts to change that prediction.

3. I am somewhat more hopeful about the Federal Reserve and Treasury programs, although all they really do is buy time for financial corporations to heal themselves. That is not all a bad thing, though. Volker did it in the early 1980s by allowing banks to carry debt from Latin American countries that was in default at full loan value. Otherwise every major bank in America would have been bankrupt.

And I agree that a lot of the process will be wasteful and unproductive. But such is the nature of crisis planning. Hopefully, they will not put into service the notion of a large "bad bank," but rather go ahead and put the zombie banks to sleep and help the healthy ones survive. But if US taxpayer money is involved, then shareholders should be wiped out first. If the rest of us have to lose on our stock investments, then bank investors should not be in a special protected class.

The downgrades by Moody's today of 2,446 different classes of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities will be a real blow.

"Moody's warned in a report last week that loss assumptions would be increased for RMBS and that downgrades could be expected. Moody's is projecting that alt-A deals originated in the second half of 2007 will experience 25.5% losses of original balance, compared to 23.9% of 1H07 deals, 22.1% for H206 deals and 17.1% for 1H06 deals. The rating agency in May expected average losses for 2006 and 2007 vintage deals to reach 11.2% and 14.7%, respectively." (The Big Picture)

These losses are just going to keep coming. Commercial mortgage paper will soon be written down as well. Banks will likely need at least $1.5 trillion in private investment and government funding.

4. As I have noted for almost two years, it will take until at least 2011 for the housing market in the US (and bubbles elsewhere, as in England and Spain, etc.) to stabilize. It will take several years for the creation of a new credit system to rationally replace the old "shadow banking system." This is why the recovery will take so long.

For an economy to grow over time, you need some combination of increasing population, productivity increases, and credit creation. We have destroyed a large part of our credit creation model (which was deeply flawed, even though for awhile it seemingly worked well) here in the developed world, and simply have to build a new one. That is why I believe we are going to see the creation of a massive new Private Credit Market that will compete with banks. You can see this developing here and there, but it is going to take time. The Fed is stepping in now and buying mortgages, credit card debt, student loans, etc., which is useful in the interim, but they need to make sure they do it at rates that will attract private capital and capital formation. We do not want to turn the Fed or Treasury into a national mortgage bank subject to political whim. That would be worse than what we have now. As an example, the government is now nearly the only source for student loans, as they set prices which just did not allow private companies to compete. We must not do that with mortgages.

5. The US government will run multi-trillion-dollar deficits for at least two years. As noted above, I think the current stimulus package will not be deemed sufficient by the third quarter, and the compelling need politicians will feel to do more will be almost uncontrollable.

Interestingly, the increase in federal spending is going to be accompanied by a substantial decrease in state and local spending, as almost all nonfederal entities must balance their budgets, and tax receipts are way down. If consumers are spending 5% less, it stands to reason sales taxes are down by 5%. Property taxes will be down, as will the state portion of income taxes. Increasing taxes will bring about local voter rebellion, so spending cuts will be the order of the day. As an example, state employees in California have every other Friday off, which cuts their pay by 10%. Expect more such cuts everywhere and on everything.

And while I am on the subject, state, county, and municipal pension plans are woefully underfunded. As in by trillions of dollars -- much as I wrote in Bull's Eye Investing in 2003. The signs were so there, and in a few years governments are going to have to figure out how to deal with major shortfalls in funding, as many municipal pension plans will be technically bankrupt.

Accompanying the increase in federal spending will be a real decrease in federal tax receipts, which will make the deficits worse.

6. The main driver in the economic world is deflation, as I have been writing for a long time. Yes, we had a brief whiff of inflation last year, but that was primarily commodity-driven, and that force is now spent. Commodities are likely to rise in price again, but not in the near future.

This is going to give the Fed the room to print money to monetize the federal deficit, and indications are that Bernanke will do it with a vengeance. He will do everything in his power to keep the US economy from catching "Japanese Disease," that is, descending into a deflationary spiral. I fully expect them to "move out the yield curve" and set longer rates at some lower number as well.

All of the above leads me to the following conclusions.

We are going to some new lower level of GDP and consumer spending, maybe as much as 5% lower, which is a serious recession. And the "recovery" is going to be slow. We don't get back to 3% GDP growth in 2010. Let me once again print a graph I have used several times, but it is just so important. You need to think about this one. This shows what the US economy would have been without mortgage equity withdrawals from 2001 to 2006.

Notice that the US economy would have grown less than 1% a year for five years, and barely that by 2006. And that is with consumers saving less than 1-2%! Now, let's imagine a world with savings going to 6% (or more), because shell-shocked US consumers now realize they may actually have to save to be able to retire. And what is it going to feel like when housing drops another 10-15%? Or more?!?!? And what if we have a repeat of a major summer bear market – which I make the case for in a few pages?

The Jobs Will Come

We could see well-below-trend growth for several years. I spoke this week to a small group of entrepreneurs that my daughter is involved with. (It is a business development/mentoring program called Vistage. I know several people who have seen their businesses really take off because of what they learned. If you are running your own business, I highly recommend it. I can see the differences it is making in my business because of Tiffani and other people I know who are involved. Their web site is www.vistage.com)

What I told them is that for those businesses which are dependent on the US consumer, their world is going to be smaller for a long time. We are in a period where the economy is going through what economists call rationalization. We are going to have to reduce the number of retail stores, coffee shops, automobile plants, fast food restaurants, car dealerships, etc., until we get to a level that makes rational sense for the size of the economy. We just built too much stuff, launched too many stores, and created too much capacity for almost everything.

The idea for the business person today is to still be standing when we get through this, as we will. That is what free market economies do. The day will come when we get back to 3-4% GDP growth. But it will be a rational growth based in real fundamentals, one that will last a long time. So hope is not a business strategy. You need to be planning for a lengthy recession and a slow recovery.

And if your business is one that helps producers cut costs? Or improve production? Then this is your time to shine. It is not clear what the stimulus plan will be, but look at it to see if there is something you can do to get in the flow of that money. There are opportunities out there.

We were in a similar period of malaise in the late 1970s. Everyone wondered where the new jobs would come from. The correct answer was, "I don't know, but they will." As it turned out, we saw the creation of whole new industries, which the government had little to do with. It is still the right answer. The new industries that we will see next decade? Biotech? Energy? A new wireless telecom build-out? Something out of left field? The correct stance is to be cautiously optimistic.

I am seeing some amazing private equity deals and new ventures. It is really a great time if you have capital, as you can pick among some very nice opportunities.

Can We Have a Little Inflation, Please?

Getting back to the Fed and deflation, there will come a point (I hope) when the Fed will actually bring about some inflation. That means they will have to tap on the brakes to keep from letting that get out of hand. That of course will slow any recovery, which is another reason I think the recovery from the current recession will be a lengthy one. It is asking too much for them to get it "just right." There is no formula here. They really do have to make it up as they go.

And while I don't think it is the likely case, it is quite possible that we could see a repeat of '70s-style stagflation. We could also slip into Japanese-style deflation, as the Fed may be pushing on a string. There is just no way of truly knowing. You have to stay nimble and go with the facts as they come down the road.

As investors, your goal is also to be standing when we get through this. There is another bull market in our future, as hard as that may be to imagine now. But it is several years off. Now is still a time for absolute returns and active management. You want to arrive at the dawn of the next bull with as much of your assets as possible. How will we know when we are there? Because valuations will be low. Which is a perfect time to segue into an analysis of current market valuations, as we close the letter.

Those Wild and Crazy Analysts

I have been writing about analyst earnings forecasts for some time. Earnings forecasts just keep dropping. I talked with the very interesting and gentlemanly Howard Silverblat from Standard & Poors, who is in charge of assembling the data for the S&P earnings. When I went to the web site, I noticed that "core" earnings were not on the spreadsheet. Core earnings take into account pension fund commitments and other items that sometimes do not make it into reported or operating earnings. During the last bear market, core earnings were a lot lower than reported earnings, as companies adjusted their pension commitments to make things look better than they were. I was wondering if we would see the same thing happening now.

I asked Howard about that, and he said they were having some issues in calculating them but expected the core earnings numbers to be back up in a month or so. And he quoted sources that suggested S&P companies were underfunded by $250 billion in their defined-benefit pension plans. Late last year, the Bush administration waived the requirement that companies fund their pensions to at least 92% of needed capital. It is now down to 80%. That leaves companies some room to play with on their balance sheets.

I commented on how bad earnings were last quarter. The web site shows earnings were a negative $3.14 a share, the first time they have ever been negative for a quarter. Ever! That was with 65% of companies reporting. He commented that it was worse than that. They don't have it up yet, but with 78% of companies reporting, losses are now a staggering -$8.56 a share. And it could get worse. The write-offs this quarter are just huge.

As he wrote, companies are not only throwing in the kitchen sink, but the refrigerator, washer, and anything else they can find as they seek to write off everything they can, to get it over with and start the new year fresh. They need to do a kitchen remodel, but there is no financing available.

So, how does that affect total earnings for 2008? The table above shows analyst projections from March of 2007 through today. Notice how they kept falling over time. They are now down 70% from what was expected two years ago. Earnings for 2008 are a paltry $29.57 and dropping. The S&P 500 closed at 868.60. That makes the P/E (price to earnings) ratio 29.4. (I use a decimal to show I have a sense of humor.)

So, what are they projecting for 2009? Let's take a look. Notice that they too have been falling over time.

If the S&P 500 were to close where it is today, and using the estimates for the first two quarters of 2009, the P/E ratio would be 36.4 on July 1.

But what if earnings merely fall to where they were in the last recession, or about 55-60% of where the projections are today? That would drop the 12-month trailing earnings for the four quarters ending June 30 to $15.90 and result in a nose-bleed P/E of 54.7 by the middle of the year.

If earnings don't come in dramatically better for the first quarter as opposed to last quarter, we could be setting up for a nasty summer bear market. Even in the bear market of 2001-2, the P/E did not get above 47. Which, by the way, at a 47 multiple would correspond to a range for the S&P of either 1111 if the earnings come in as projected or 731 if they come in at the lower range.

I see nothing on the horizon which suggests the economy is going to get manifestly stronger in the next two quarters. The real risk is that earnings come in weak for both quarters and investors simply despair this summer, throwing in the towel and bringing about a vicious bear market. I would seriously consider hedging any long positions you have before earnings season this next April. If they come in stronger, then we will see.

La Jolla, Conversations, and Richard Russell

As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter, 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. WE WILL SELL OUT, so do not procrastinate if you intend to register.

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, as a lot of very famous people are coming for the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner (see below). This is as strong a lineup as we have ever had, and on par with any conference I know of anywhere. And as a special bonus, we have invited Fredrik Haren from Sweden. I heard him speak at a conference in Stockholm last year and was blown away. You can click on the link below to learn more about the speakers.

Due to securities regulations, attendance is limited to qualified high-net-worth investors and/or institutional investors, because we will be showcasing a select number of commodity fund managers and other alternative strategies. 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. Click this link to find out more and register: https://hedge-fund-conference.com/register.aspx. And if you cut and paste this link, make sure you copy the "https:" so you go to the secure site.

And the first of the "Conversations with John Mauldin" is up! We recorded it last week, with Ed Easterling and Dr. Lacy Hunt. I thought it went very well for an inaugural talk. The complete audio and transcript are in the Membership Library already. For those who have subscribed, you should have received an email and be able to log in and listen or read the transcript. We are getting very favorable reviews. Multiple readers have let us know that the first Conversation was worth their entire year membership. I am quite pleased with the first transcript and the response to it. My next Conversation is in two weeks, with Nouriel Roubini; and then after the release of banking data in early March, I will do a Conversation with good buddy Chris Whalen and a few real banking experts, on where the US banking system really is. I will offer it as a bonus to those that have already subscribed, as it will be more me asking questions than a real Conversation. I expect it to be very informative.

The regular price for a yearly subscription is $199, but you can subscribe now for $109, and still get access to the timely Conversation with Ed and Lacy. Don't wait, as I am sure my staff will only keep raising the price. To find out more, just click on the link and put in code JM77, which will give you the discounted price. https://www.johnmauldin.com/newsletters2.html

Now, about the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner on Saturday, April 4. It will be at the Hyatt in San Diego. We are going to be sending out invitations early next week to everyone who has responded so far, which is well over 500 people. If you have already responded, you will get a chance to register first, before we open it up again. Next week we will have a page where you can sign up; but when you get the invitation, I suggest you act quickly, as it really could sell out. This is going to be a very special night. If you are one of Richard's many thousands of fans you will not want to miss this. As I said, there are going to be a lot of well-known names there. We are still planning the program, but it will be special. (Note: to those who are attending my conference, noted above, this is a separate event, with separate tickets, in a different Hyatt.)

If you would like to attend, just contact us and we will get you an invitation. The cost will be $195.

And finally, Tiffani and I need an editor or two to help us in the process of editing our taped interviews with millionaires. Drop us a note.

It is time to hit the send button. Have a great week!

Your really optimistic for the long run analyst,

John Mauldin

Some Things That Just Should Not Be

John Mauldin — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:01:52 GMT

Things That Should Not Be
I'll Pay You to Hold My Cash
Pushing on a String
Free Money with that Credit Default Swap?
Oil Does a Strange Contango Dance
The Tragedy of Bernie Madoff
Goodbye to the Ballpark

There are things in today's markets that are simply astounding. They should not exist, yet they do. Why should US bills trade at negative interest? How can oil be trading at all-time highs in terms of spreads over the next year? Bank debt and bonds are trading at discounts not to be believed. Want some free money? I show you a trade that gives you (almost) just that. Fed funds at zero? Are we starting to push on a string? We'll cover all this and more in this week's letter.

But first a quick commercial. Not all money managers and funds have had losses this year, even though it may seem like it. My partners around the world can introduce you to some alternative funds, commodity funds, and managers which you might find of interest as you rebalance your portfolio at the end of this year. You owe it to yourself to check them out.

If you are an accredited investor (net worth over roughly $1.5 million), you should check out my partners in the US, Altegris Investments (based in La Jolla) and my London partners (covering Europe), Absolute Return Partners. If you are in South Africa my partner there is Plexus Asset Management. You can go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and fill out the form, and someone from their firms will be in touch. All three shops specialize in alternative investments like hedge funds and commodity funds, on a very selective basis. We will soon be announcing new partners in other parts of the world. And if you are an advisor or broker, you should call them (or fill out the form) and find out how you can plug your clients into their network of managers.

If your net worth is less than $1.5 million, I work with Steve Blumenthal and his team at CMG. I suggest you go to his website, register, and then let them show you what the blend of active managers on his platform would have done over the past few months and years. These are primarily managers who will trade a managed account (using various proprietary styles) in your name, and are quite liquid. Again, if you are an advisor or broker and would like to see the managers on the CMG platform and how you can access them for your clients, sign up and let Steve and his team know you are in the business. The link is http://www.cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp. And now back to the letter.

I'll Pay You to Hold My Cash

In the last few weeks we have seen 30- and 90-day US Treasury bills trade every now and then at a rate of negative interest. That means someone is willing to pay for the privilege of having their cash in US Treasuries. This simply should not be. Why would anyone want to do this? Is this a sign the system is broken? Are we that scared?

Not really. There are some explanations for this seemingly bizarre behavior. First, banks are driving down the interest rates toward zero. Because their audits come at the end of the year, they want to be able to show a very liquid and pristine balance sheet. And what better way to do that than short-term US Treasuries? But that gets us near zero, not below. (And as noted below, the effective Fed funds rate is at zero, not the posted 1%.)

As David Kotok of Cumberland Advisors noted in a post: "We cannot find a single investor or institution or organization that would volitionally buy this T-bill at zero interest, let alone a negative yield. We have polled firms and agents and portfolio managers. We've asked people who range from sophisticated, high-net-worth individuals to multi-billion-dollar institutions. None would do it. We have asked professionals and skilled and trained consultants. All answer 'not me.' Foreign currency traders would not do this trade; they have other ways to hedge or structure without buying a negative yield.

Another possibility is market manipulation or a pricing error. Not this time. All evidence points to the negative yield as seeming to be a market-driven price. This is a real puzzle on the surface."

I have spent more than a little time over the years looking at alternative fund prospectuses and back-room operations, and have been involved in a consulting role for a few funds. Let me tell you how I think interest can get below zero in a perfectly rational market.

Let's say you are trading futures or other leveraged products. You don't need to put up all the money in order to buy a futures contract on oil or the S&P 500. You simply have to have a typically small amount of margin money at the clearing broker, depending on the nature of the contract. Many funds are required by their organizational documents to hold their cash in short-term Treasuries for liquidity purposes. They have no choice but to buy Treasuries. Some of these funds are quite large, and when they come to the market they come, as we say, "in size."

If you are a trader on the other side of the trade and can make a little extra for scalping such a fund, then you do it. It doesn't happen often, but it can and does happen when the demand for liquidity is as high as it is today.

I also called my long-time friend Art Bell, whose eponymous firm Arthur Bell and Associates audits a rather large number of commodity and hedge funds. He is one of the best in the business. He confirmed that he knew of at least one fund that had bought Treasuries at a negative interest rate, not because they were forced to but because they wanted instantaneous liquidity in case they got margin calls on some of their trades. They did not want to be forced to sell something at a larger loss than they would normally take, just because they did not have the cash. The very small negative interest was the price they willingly paid not to be put in the position of taking larger losses on a trade in a forced sale. Sounds like smart risk management to me.

I bet if we checked around we would find more than a few funds and managers who for one reason or another are willing (or forced to) buy Treasuries at negative interest rates. Such is the way in today's surreal investment world. Art says that if this current environment persists, funds will find an alternative, such as third-party collateral deposits, rather than leaving deposits at a brokerage firm.

Pushing on a String

Speaking of zero interest rates, the posted Fed funds rate may be at 1%, but the actual market is trading at very close to zero. That means that banks can get money that is effectively free. The Fed meets next week in what was supposed to be a one-day meeting but which has now been scheduled for two. Guess they think there is a little more to talk about.

The Fed will cut rates next week. But with the effective real market rate now at zero, what difference does a cut make? I hope they do the right thing and go ahead and cut at least 75 basis points, if not more. That would stop the speculation and let them move on to quantitative easing and other allied policies, which we will explore in some future letter. Whether they should pursue some of the more radical policies is open for debate, but it is more important today for us to figure out what they are going to do and adjust our portfolios correctly than to debate policy.

As an aside, if it looks like Bernanke and Paulson are making all their policy moves "on the fly," it is because that is exactly what they are doing. As would any person in their respective offices. There is no playbook with a set of standard policies and procedures that can be used in case of a credit crisis. They have to make up the plays as the game progresses, much as we did in pick-up football games as kids. "John, go long and make a left cut at the trashcan. And try not to drop it this time."

There are very few real rules and laws, and Bernanke and Paulson have shown a willingness to ignore them if they seem to get in the way. This is a very pragmatic group that is trying to keep the economy from imploding. They only have a few theories and some loose analogies to what happened in Japan and maybe the US in the 1930s as guidelines. But those times had such major significant differences that it is hard to make a direct inference as to what did and did not work. As Yogi Berra is alleged to have said, "In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." And when theories meet the rough hand of the market, they will be changed.

We are getting to ready to run a grand experiment on many theories in the world of economics. Will Ben and Hank (soon to be Tim) get it precisely right? And what is precisely right? Does the avoidance of a second Great Depression mean success? Will anyone be grateful? We all have seen pictures of Paulson looking so very tired and worn. I actually feel sorry for him. Who would want that job? I know this will not sit well with many readers, but I think he has done about as well as could be expected given the circumstances. Look at the previous Treasury secretaries under Bush. No disrespect to Mr. O'Neill or Mr. Snow, but would you really want someone with so little exposure to the capital markets in the current position? Compared to so many Treasury secretaries over the past 30 years, we are lucky to have Paulson at this time.

In any event, Paulson is pouring water on the fire as fast as he can. I doubt that Tim Geithner will do any different. If Geithner has a play book for avoiding deflation and depressions, he has not shared it with anyone. They will still be making the plays up as they go along next year. I just hope they call the right plays.

Free Money with that Credit Default Swap?

Today there are bonds you can buy and get the interest coupon, and then purchase a credit default swap (insurance) on the loan that is less than the interest you will get on the loan. Assuming you have a creditworthy seller of the credit default swap, it is risk-free money. You can make almost 1% on the spread! Lever that up a few times and it becomes interesting. (Except that you can no longer get money to really leverage it enough.) This should not be. Then why is it?

Because "... assets everywhere are being dumped in favor of cash, and corporate bonds are no exception. Second, corporate bonds are no longer that attractive as collateral for funding because counterparts are demanding more onerous terms in exchange for lending out cash in return." (The Financial Times)

The corporate bond market is assuming an Armageddon Scenario. Barclays Capital writes that one would have to assume that US GDP will contract by 15% to make sense of the current bond spreads.

My friend and partner Nick Rees at Absolute Return Partners in London dropped me this note (emphasis mine):

"Leveraged loans had a particularly rough month with the average senior secured loan losing over 20 points in value and now trading in the mid 60s. The sell-off was largely driven by forced liquidations as hedge funds face substantial redemptions in the run-in to New Year. This is how crazy the loan market is: The worst ever default rate for senior secured loans is about 8%. If you assume a 35% annual default rate and a 50% recovery rate, your IRR to maturity is now in excess of 22%, using no leverage whatsoever. Either this is the investment opportunity of the century, or equity markets have seriously underestimated the economic downturn, and things are likely to get a whole lot worse for equity investors."

Formerly stable credit funds that are mark-to-market are posting horrific numbers. Many of them have closed redemptions until the market comes back. Selling a fully secured loan at 60 cents on the dollar makes no sense; and many investors are happy the funds have closed, as forced selling by other investors would lock in their losses when the loans will surely recover much of the current markdowns over time. But forced selling by some funds mean that all funds have to mark down the loans to today's value. Mark-to-market in this context is appropriate but it is still hard on your psychology while you wait, and especially as loans seem to keep dropping in value.

Oil Does a Strange Contango Dance

The oil market is said to be in contango. The definition of contango is: "A condition in which distant delivery prices for futures exceed spot prices, often due to the costs of storing and insuring the underlying commodity. It is the opposite of backwardation."

This morning West Texas Intermediate January oil futures prices were (courtesy of Dennis Gartman) $45.80. This rises to $52.28 by just April. A few day's ago, Dennis reports, the spread between the first and fifth futures months had risen to $8.06, the highest ever. When oil was at $147, the spread was an average of $3.25, or about 2.5%. You can buy January 09 crude futures at a stunning 34.5% lower than January 2010.

That means if you could find a place to store that oil, you could lock in a guaranteed 34% profit, less the cost of storage. Sounds like easy money. This is just something that shouldn't be. But what this tells us is that storage for oil is very tight. Oil producers are leasing very large ships to store excess oil, as they cannot find places to store it on land. Storing oil on ships is expensive, so that cost of storage gets figured into the price of oil a year out.

The OPEC nations are not cutting back by any significant amount. Oil is backing up in the system. It is quite possible that oil could go a lot lower in the next few months as the world reels from a global recession, and that means the demand for energy will be down. Oil below $30? Without production cuts that is certainly in the realm of possibility.

As an example, let's look at how shipping is holding up. The graphs below picture a rapidly deteriorating shipping business. Korean exports fell by 18% and Taiwan's by 23% year-over-year ending in October. China's shipping is rumored to be down by 3% on a valuation basis and by 7-8% on a volume basis. Prices in China are actually starting to fall, and Chinese authorities may soon have to deal with deflation.

China is in a situation eerily reminiscent of the US in the very early 1930s. A large trade surplus, far too much production capacity, and falling exports with a whiff of deflation. Hopefully they have studied what we did wrong and will not copy it. But we should pay attention.

This is not a world economic environment that is friendly to oil producers. Could oil fall below $30? It could if producing countries do not start to cut back on production. But many of the larger producers need as much money as they can to keep the lid on civil unrest.

Deutsche Bank and a private consulting firm called PFC, based in Washington, have determined that Venezuela needs the price of oil to average $97 a barrel to balance its accounts, while in 2000 that South American country only required the price to be $34. Look at this chart, courtesy of Dennis Gartman. It shows the price of oil that various countries need to balance their budgets.

Russia will need $70 oil. These countries are going to need to produce and sell what they can, which is in conflict with the need to control production and move prices higher.

So far, the OPEC nations are not cutting back any significant amount of production compared with the destruction in demand. Oil is backing up in the system. Energy economist Philip Verleger suggests that OPEC should execute an "astounding 7.7 million barrels per day" just to restore market balance today. Global demand is down by over 5 million barrels a day to 81.6 million barrels a day. Non-OPEC countries produce almost 50 million barrels of oil. OPEC produces roughly 31 million, plus there are some other OPEC sources of about 5 million barrels equivalent in natural gas liquids. Thus, Verleger says OPEC oil production needs to drop by almost 25%, to somewhere under 24 million barrels a day. Think Iran or Venezuela will cut that much, given their need for cash to fund their regimes? Will Russia join OPEC and cut production? It will be interesting to watch Iran and Venezuela in the coming year scramble to maintain power.

It is quite possible that oil could go a lot lower in the next few months. Demand could fall further. If we are truly producing an extra 5 million barrels a day, the excess supply could be at all-time highs within a few months. Longer term, I still think oil is going higher; but it could be wild ride, and the longer term is now a lot further off. I would not want to be long oil for the next few quarters, until there is some serious growth in demand and some cuts in production.

The Tragedy of Bernie Madoff

And speaking of things that should not be, yesterday I was talking with a few fellow money mangers on a conference call when the news came that Bernie Madoff had been arrested and his fund was missing at least $17 billion, and maybe losses were as much as $50 billion. This is so very, very tragic, as it is not just large investors with well-diversified portfolios who lost here. Many smaller investors around the world had significant sums of money with Madoff. Far too many were not as diversified as they should have been. Some of the stories already surfacing are of horrific personal losses to investors and retirees who have no way to come back from such losses.

The fact that Madoff will spend the rest of his life in jail in no way compensates for the loss of so many people whose lives have been seriously impacted. It is just so terribly sad.

Madoff is a topic that comes up very often in alternative investment circles. I have been talking about his fund with friends at various conferences for almost a decade. "How does he do it?" we wondered. His fund posted steady 1-1.5% monthly returns since 1996, with only a few losing months in all that time. Supposedly he was doing something called split strike conversions. Some speculated that he was actually front-running trades in his market-making business. (Interestingly, regulators who looked at his market-making business never investigated the fund to see if he was doing just that, although I believe there were suggestions and other hints to them.) But arbitrage traders in the same arena could never figure out how he did it, and many were openly sceptical. Everyone, even the smartest trading shops, had losing months and quarters. But not Madoff. The fund was a complete black box and no one knew exactly what he did. Oddly, I have never met or known of anyone who has ever met a trader who came out of Madoff's shop. I run into resumes of ex-traders at various other funds all the time. No one knew what he did, even employees in his (what seems to be legitimate) market-making business, which was walled off from his investment funds. This was a man who was once chairman of the Nasdaq Stock Market. He was trusted and looked up to.

There were signs if you looked for them. The lack of transparency, for starters. The fact that he did his own trades with his own firm and made commissions on them. There was no prime broker where the real assets could be seen. How do you run a $17 billion fund without a room full of traders? I have been on the trading floors of smaller funds, and there are scores of people. A fund that size should have a football field-sized trading floor. Even if it was computerized, there had to be programmers. And lots of them. And where were the geniuses who designed these programs? Jim Simons at Renaissance has hundreds of support staff for his operation. He is one of the best, and he has losing periods. The "auditors" of the Madoff fund was a firm that was located in one 13x18-foot room. For a $17 billion dollar fund? Really? Real audits take lots of manpower.

That being said, a lot of smart people invested in the fund. They trusted Bernie. And anyone who looked at those returns had to be a little tempted. After all, weren't regulators looking at it? (The answer is no.)

Now we know how he made those returns. It was a Ponzi. Except this may have been larger than Enron and ultimately more damaging to more people than any scandal in the past. I remember writing a few years ago, in response to an article in Forbes about some minor hedge fund frauds, that all the losses of all the hedge fund frauds combined did not equal an Enron or WorldCom or just the plain old loss in a few larger companies in the Nasdaq in 2000-2002. I can't say that now.

Note to my fellow alternative industry participants: There is going to be a rush by Congress to regulate hedge funds. The SEC tried to regulate hedge funds a few years ago but had to back away when the Supreme Court said they did not have the authority. When the stories come out over the next few weeks (and I have heard some that really cause me heartache), there will be hearings in Congress. Rules will be passed. Quickly. And they should be.

Instead of fighting regulation as many did last time, we should recognize that this is a war that cannot be won and bow to the inevitable and at least get a few benefits from regulation, like the ability to publicly post past performance (although given the carnage of late, that is not as attractive as when I suggested it a few years ago!). I am regulated by FINRA, the NFA, and the state of Texas. We have had an average of one audit a year by some regulator for the past five years. My firm is small and it does cost a lot, but it certainly does not keep us from operating and growing our business. And I must (grudgingly) admit it does keep us on our toes. So let's sue for whatever terms we can in what should be recognized as a total surrender. And then move on.

When I was a young man I wanted to grow up to be a science fiction writer. The real world has turned out much stranger than I could dream at that time. There are just so many things which should not be.

Goodbye to the Ballpark

For most of the last 15 years, my office has been in right center field of the Ballpark in Arlington, home of the Texas Rangers, the local professional baseball team. The entire center field in the Ballpark was made into an office complex, which has worked out very well for all. I can walk out on my balcony and watch the games and have as many as 25 friends into my office to watch with me. It has been the ultimate little boy's office, and I have enjoyed it. There have been many good times here.

But tonight we are packing up, and tomorrow we'll move the office to Dallas, where I will work in my home along with my small staff. More and more of what we do is now done elsewhere, so we don't need as much room. Not only do we save a very significant amount of money, Tiffani and I also save over an hour a day in commuting. As we began to think about it, that is about 225 hours a year, or almost five weeks of time. And the one thing we both need is more time. At the end of the day, it was the time savings. The office has been worth the money, I think. (I still have a few months on my lease and control the next five years, so if you are interested I would be glad to show it to you.)

There is a part of me that is a bit nostalgic, as I have spent so many Friday evenings here writing this letter to you, even when games were going on. I shall return, as I have friends in the office complex here. But that being said, I am really looking forward to the walk down the hall being my daily commute.

I am hitting the send button a little early, as they are literally going to take my computer in a few minutes. Monday I enjoy the new office for an hour before flying to Phoenix for a day, but back home Tuesday night. Then Friday I am off to New Orleans for a long working weekend with Tiffani, where we will do some real work on our next book, Eavesdropping on Millionaires. The deadline is rapidly approaching and we need to focus!

Have a great week! And remember to think about all the good times! And believe there will be lots more.

Your turning the page of life one more time analyst,

John Mauldin