Search results matching tag 'Economic Forecast'

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

JohnMauldin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:04:59 GMT

"Why" many ask, "is the stock market going up when the bond market is telling us the recovery will be tepid? Isn't there a disconnect?" And the answer is that there is, and this week good friend and fishing buddy Paul McCulley of PIMCO fame discusses that very topic with his usual insight and wit. He poses the conundrum that those expecting a "V" shaped recovery have pushed risk assets up quite high, and that the real risk to their position is that they in fact get a "V" shaped recovery. And yet, they could go higher and into bubble territory.

For the policy wonks among you, I offer a link to a recent paper by the Cleveland Fed, which suggests that the Fed could hold rates lower for far longer than we would think normal. Which makes What Paul writes even more important to understand. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0809.cfm

I think you will find this a very interesting read. Meanwhile, I am off to Philadelphia where a team from Dallas was treated very well last night. I hope I get the same warm reception. And then to Orlando and back to Dallas. Have a great week.

Your just trying to puzzle it all out analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

by Paul McCulley

Around the world, in investment committee meetings and on trading floors (and at the Fed!), one question dominates discussion and debate:

How can it be that risk assets, notably common stocks, have been roaring ahead, presumably discounting a robust V-shaped economic recovery, while Treasury bonds are holding their own with a bull flattening bias, presumably rejecting the V-shaped hypothesis, instead discounting a U-shaped recovery as the base case, with a W-shaped outcome the dominant risk case?

One of these markets is wrong, it is commonly argued; the only question is which one. In the longer run, we here at PIMCO certainly agree, siding with the U-shaped camp. But that does not necessarily mean that one of the markets must necessarily capitulate to the other in the months immediately ahead. And the unifying explanation is simple: The Fed is committed to maintaining "exceptionally low levels of the Federal funds rate for an extended period." The Fed is also openly committed to being extraordinarily careful in reducing its elevated balance sheet, implying that a very elevated level of excess reserves/liquidity will be sloshing through the financial system for a long time.

To be sure, the Fed has been communicating repeatedly, with academic flourish, the technical details of its ability to eventually hike its policy rate, even with a bloated balance sheet and massive excess reserves:

Hiking, via its newly-granted powers of last fall, the interest rate it pays on excess reserves (IOER), which should act as a floor for the more visible Fed funds rate; and
Reducing excess reserves directly through massive reverse repurchases, including using tri-party repo arrangements, effectively augmenting the universe of counterparties beyond the capital-constrained primary dealers, to include liquidity flush end users.

But the Fed has also gone out of its way to communicate that discussions are about the "how" of its exit strategies, not a signal as to the "when," in the phraseology of the Financial Times' Krishna Guha. Thus, not only is the price of Fed liquidity set to hover near zero for an extended period, but the sheer volume of Fed-supplied liquidity is also likely to be flush for an extended period. In turn, as long as the Fed retains ownership of its longer-dated assets, sterilizing their liquidity effect via reverse repos, the Fed will remain not just the arbitrator of the Fed funds rate, but will also be a holder of market risk previously borne by the private market.

Thus, while rich risk asset prices can certainly be viewed as a consensus expectation for a strong recovery, such lofty valuations can also be viewed as a consensus expectation about the Fed's commitment to erring on the side of being too late, rather than too early, in starting a Fed funds tightening cycle. Indeed, one could actually be agnostic, even antagonistic, about a big-V recovery and still be favorably disposed to risk assets, in the short run. Historically, what pounds risk asset prices is either a recession or unexpected Fed tightening; or worse, both. Right now, it is hard to get wrapped around the axle about recession, since we've just had one, which might not even be over.

To be sure, the economy could have back-to-back recessions, as was the case in 1980 and 1981–1982. But that episode was associated with massive Fed tightening in 1979–1980, followed by massive easing in the middle months of 1980, followed by massive Fed tightening yet again, as Paul Volcker waged a two-step war against inflation. Presently, the Fed is openly declaring that it will maintain near-zero short rates for an "extended period," in the context of inflation below its implicit target.

Thus, as long as economic recovery appears underway, even if stoked primarily by (1) policy stimulus and (2) a turn in the inventory cycle, there is no urgent reason for investors to run from risk assets. Put differently, investors can be agnostic about (3) the strength of private demand growth until the one-off forces supporting growth exhaust themselves, as long as they don't have fear of Fed tightening.

In turn, a bull flattening bias of the Treasury curve, with longer-dated rates falling toward the near-zero Fed policy rate, can be viewed as a consensus view that the level of the output/unemployment gap plumbed during the recession is so great that disinflationary forces in goods and services prices, and perhaps even more important, wages, will be in train, even if growth surprises on the upside. Accordingly, Treasury players, like their equity brethren, need not fear the Fed, as there is no economic rationale for an early turn to a tightening process.

Thus, both rich risk markets and the lofty Treasury market can be viewed as rational in their own spheres, even if they are seemingly irrational when compared to each other. The tie that binds them, that allows them to co-exist, need not be a common view regarding the prospective strength of the recovery, but rather a common view as to the Fed's friendly intent and reaction function.

But, you retort, this can't go on forever – at some point, risk assets will have to capitulate to reality if the big-V does not unfold, no? Yes, but it is not quite as simple as that. Without the big-V, Treasuries will tend to bull flatten, soothed by rational expectations of an extended period of the Fed funds rate pinched against zero. In turn, such a path for Treasuries would provide valuation support for risk assets. How so?

All risk asset prices are analytically the Net Present Value of expected growth in cash flows, discounted by the appropriate-duration risk-free rate plus a risk premium. Thus, expectations of a friendly-for-longer Fed policy would be supportive of risk assets, as they (1) tend to pull down long-duration risk-free rates, while also (2) pulling down the market-required risk premium (which moves inversely with investors' animal-spirited risk appetite, which moves inversely with fears of Fed tightening).

To be sure, this fundamental valuation framework – known as the Gordon Model – also implies that in real terms, the positive P/E effect of low long-term risk-free rates is moderated to the extent that the non-big-V scenario also implies lower growth in real profits. There are no free lunches. But since real long-term Treasury rates trade in real time, while "new-normalized" real growth rates are uncertain, subject to animal-spirited conjecture, friendly real long-term interest rates will tend to dominate the formulation of P/Es.

Thus, ironically, the biggest intermediate-term risk for risk assets is not that the big-V doesn't unfold, but that it does, inciting the Fed to bring the extended period of a near-zero policy rate to a close. But again, you retort, doesn't that imply that in the absence of the big-V, risk asset prices could levitate into bubble valuation space? Yes, it does mean that. And that is a very, very uncomfortable proposition for those grounded in fundamental analysis, as I am.

The Efficient Market Hypothesis in Retreat
But such discomfort is likely to be an enduring fact of life on the journey to the New Normal. Recall, a core tenet of "fundamental analysis" is the efficient market hypothesis, which presupposes that rational investors will, given time, always pull nominal – and real – values back toward their "fundamentally justified" levels. Yes, there will be noise in real time, the hypothesis allows, but it also holds that neither irrational gloom nor irrational exuberance will go to extremes: momentum players will, in the end, always be trumped by value players, before momentum players have done any great harm. Market failures, capitalism's equivalent of estrangement in families, are simply assumed away. They are not supposed to happen; therefore, they won't.

But they do. Such was the case with the Forward Minsky Journey¹ that unfolded alongside the Great Moderation for twenty-five years after the recession that ended in 1982. Ever-increasing private sector leverage was applied on the presumption that the Great Moderation was a perpetual motion machine, rather than an epoch that would eventually implode on its own debt-deflationary pathologies, as Minsky envisaged. Nominal asset prices, notably property, became bubbly-unmoored from "fundamental" value, yet both borrowers and lenders were willing to "validate" those unmoored levels with legally binding nominal debt obligations – hedge debt units followed by speculative debt units followed by Ponzi debt units.

It all blew up, of course, with not just trillions of net worth destroyed, but also the wisdom of religious belief in the efficient market hypothesis. Thus, as we look forward, a huge amount of humility is warranted in projecting asset returns on the basis of tight bands around what "fundamentals" suggest constitute fair value. Yes, there is no substitute for fundamental analysis; it remains at the core of investment management. But asset values can stray far, very far, away from their putative "fair" levels, much, much further than was the case during the middle-aged years of the Great Moderation. The efficient market hypothesis may not be dead, but it is most assuredly in retreat.

Behavioral Economics and Finance in Ascendency
In contrast, the insights of behavioral economics and finance are very much in ascendency. This personally brings me great satisfaction, as both of my macroeconomic heroes, John Maynard Keynes and Hyman Minsky, were quintessentially behavioral economists, starting with the proposition that developing a theory as to how the world does work is much more productive than developing a theory as to how the world should work. That's not to suggest that there is not room for both types of theorizing. Indeed, one without the other is silliness, and both Keynes and Minsky did both.

And the envelope between those two modes of theorizing is the fact that the future is inherently uncertain. That might not sound like a profound assertion, and it isn't. We all intuitively know that. But the efficient market hypothesis conveniently assumes away that reality, in what is technically called the "ergodic axiom" – that past and current relationships between variables are reliable predictors of future relationships between variables. This assumption holds in astronomy, which is why astronomers can forecast with incredible accuracy when the next lunar eclipse will unfold.

This assumption also holds in calculating the risk of any given hand in a defined card game – there are 52 cards in the deck and it is quite possible to calculate with great precision the odds of winning the game, such as Blackjack or Poker. That doesn't mean that you can know with precision whether you will win, simply that you can forecast the odds of any given player winning, given the cards in their hands and other players' hands, in the context of what cards are left in the deck. Indeed, I find it amusing when television shows broadcasting such games flash up the odds of any player winning after each card is dealt. There is risk, but not uncertainty – we know there are 52 cards in the game and we know what constitutes a winning hand. The ergodic axiom holds.

In investment markets, however, the ergodic axiom doesn't hold, even though it is implicitly assumed in the efficient market hypothesis (but ironically, not in the legal disclaimers of all investment presentations, which state that past results are not necessarily indicative of future results!). In investment markets, genuine uncertainty exists: We can't assume that we know how many cards will be in the future deck or what will constitute a winning hand. That's not risk, but rather uncertainty.

And how do we deal with it? As Keynes explained in Chapter 12 of the General Theory, we deal with it by falling back on convention, or rules of thumb. In his words:

"Certain classes of investment are governed by the average expectation of those who deal on the Stock Exchange as revealed in the price of shares, rather than by the genuine expectations of the professional entrepreneur. How then are these highly significant daily, even hourly, revaluations of existing investments carried out in practice?

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

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

We are assuming, in effect, that the existing market valuation, however arrived at, is uniquely correct in relation to our existing knowledge of the facts which will influence the yield of the investment, and that it will only change in proportion to changes in this knowledge; though, philosophically speaking, it cannot be uniquely correct, since our existing knowledge does not provide a sufficient basis for a calculated mathematically expectation. In point of fact, all sorts of considerations enter into market valuations which are in no way relevant to the prospective yield.

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

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

Those few paragraphs, my friends, are the foundation of modern behavioral economics and finance. Human beings, including investment managers, face both risk and uncertainty, and deal with uncertainty by resorting to conventions, notably that yesterday is the best predictor of today, and that today is the best predictor of tomorrow. George Soros calls it reflexivity.

But when that comforting convention is overwhelmed by a new reality, all hell breaks loose. Uncertainty can no longer be simply assumed away. And when that happens, human beings tend to disengage, eschewing investment in favor of building up cash reserves. And if this proclivity becomes both widespread and profound, we find ourselves in Keynes' Liquidity Trap – there is plenty of money around, but risk-averse investors, infected with uncertainty, refuse to "put it to work" – on either Wall Street or Main Street. Such was the case a year ago, following the fateful decision to let Lehman Brothers fall into a watery grave.

The way out of that lacuna was for (1) the fiscal authority to step into the breech and borrow money from the newly risk-averse, putting it to work to recapitalize the banking system and on Main Street in support of aggregate demand; and for (2) the monetary authority to drive the interest rate on money to zero and promise to hold it there for an extended period, making holding cash very painful while reducing uncertainty, re-exciting investors' risk appetite.

Bottom Line
Fiscal and monetary authorities around the world have done exactly that over the last year, and since April, in the words of the G-20, it has "worked." Well, at least on Wall Street, where risk appetite is in full bloom. Whether or not that renewed risk appetite finds its way to Main Street is the key question beyond the immediate horizon.

We here at PIMCO think it will, but only in a muted way, not a big-V way. We also recognize, however, that markets can stray quite far from "fundamentally justified" values, if there is a strong belief in a friendly convention, one with staying power. And right now, that convention is a strong belief in a very friendly Fed for an extended period. Thus, the strongest case for risk assets holding their ground is, ironically, that the big-V doesn't unfold, because if it were to unfold, it would break the comforting conventional presumption of an extended friendly Fed.

Simply put, big-V'ers should be wary of what they wish for. U'ers, meanwhile, must be mindful of just how bubbly risk asset valuations can get, as long as non-big-V data unfold, keeping the Fed friendly. But that's no reason, in our view, to chase risk assets from currently lofty valuations. To the contrary, the time has come to begin paring exposure to risk assets, and if their prices continue to rise, paring at an accelerated pace.

¹"The Shadow Banking System and Hyman Minsky's Economic Journey", Global Central Bank Focus, May 2009

The Economy & the Commercial Real Estate Bust

GaryHalbert — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:43:00 GMT

In This Issue:

The Economy Continues to Improve Slowly
Plunge in Commercial Real Estate Values
More Trouble Ahead for the Banks
Glut of Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities
Personal: Thinking Wrong, But Getting It Right

Introduction

There is broad agreement that we have seen the worst of the recession, and that GDP will show a positive gain for the 3Q when we get the first government estimate in late October. Most pre-report GDP estimates I have seen are in the +2 to +3% range for the 3Q. The actual number remains to be seen, of course.

There is also a growing agreement that we have seen the worst of the housing bust, as sales of new and existing homes rose briskly for the four months ended in July; however sales of existing homes unexpectedly fell slightly in August as reported last week.

Yet while the economy appears to be on the mend, at least for a while, and the housing market seems to be recovering, there is another serious threat to the economy and the credit markets just ahead - the continuing commercial real estate bust which is still getting worse.

This week, we will take a brief look at the latest economic reports, most of which are encouraging, and then I will summarize the very troubling situation in US commercial real estate. This problem has led numerous analysts to predict that the commercial real estate may well be the next shoe to drop in the credit crunch.

The Economy Continues to Improve Slowly

As noted above, most forecasters believe the US economy has expanded at healthy rate in the 3Q which officially ends tomorrow. If so, that will be a welcome relief following GDP declines of -6.4% in the 1Q and -1.0% (annual rates) in the 2Q.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) rose 0.6% in August, marketing the sixth consecutive monthly increase. This is perhaps our best indication that growth in the 3Q and the 4Q will be positive and could surprise on the upside, which is not surprising following the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Most analysts that I follow closely believe, however, that the economic recovery in 2010 will be rather anemic with GDP growth at or below 3% on average. Such estimates could prove too rosy, depending on what happens in the huge commercial real estate sector (details to follow).

Consumer confidence improved significantly in August after falling slightly in June and July. The Consumer Confidence Index rose to its highest level (54.1) since the recession began. The improvement continued into September with the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index climbing to a new recent high of 70.2.

Higher confidence resulted in a nice rise in retail sales in August, up 2.7%. Unfortunately, durable goods orders, which were expected to have risen in August, fell 2.7% last month, following the big increase of 4.8% in July.

On the manufacturing front, the ISM Index rose to 54.1 in August, up from a revised 47.4 in July. Industrial production rose 0.8% in August, following a 1.3% gain in July. Factory orders were up 1.3% in July (latest data available). The factory operating rate rose to 69.6% in August.

As noted above, existing home sales dipped slightly in August following four consecutive monthly increases. New home sales in August were up fractionally (0.7%), well below expectations, following the 9.6% jump in July, the highest in almost a year.

Of course, any analysis of the overall economy would be remiss not to point out that, while things are improving on most fronts, the unemployment rate continues to rise - up to 9.7% in August from 9.4% in July - and will almost certainly continue higher for several more months at least.

Overall, it appears clear that the recession will end this year, and it is quite possible that we will see positive growth in GDP in the 3Q and 4Q. Most of the estimates I read for the 2Q are in the +2-3% range; most of the guesses I read for the 4Q are in the +3-4% range, which remains to be seen, especially in light of the potentially dangerous situation in the commercial real estate markets.

Plunge in Commercial Real Estate Values

US commercial real estate, valued at some $3.5 trillion, has experienced a 39% decline in prices on average from the peak in late 2007, according to the MITCenter for Real Estate.

This current drop is considerably worse than the 27% commercial real estate decline associated with the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s. You will recall that the S&L crisis precipitated the government-run Resolution Trust Corporation and the resulting seizures and auctions of hundreds S&Ls around the country.

The same conditions that caused the residential housing bubble, including the Fed's easy credit, lax lending standards and booming mortgage-backed securities underwriting on Wall Street, also drove commercial real estate overvaluation.

Recently, MIT reported that commercial real estate prices plunged 18% in the second quarter, which was the largest quarterly drop in the 25 years since MIT first published its Commercial Real Estate Price Index. MIT also reports that most commercial properties bought or refinanced in the last five years are now upside down on their loans, with current property prices having fallen below the finance or purchase price. Real Capital Analytics reports that owners have lost their entire down payments on about $1.3 trillion worth of property.

According to several sources, nearly half of all the commercial real estate mortgage loans in the US are coming due within the next five years. Deutsche Bank, for example, believes that 65% or more of these loans will fail to qualify for refinancing. Existing high vacancy rates will continue or worsen as long as the unemployment rate continues to rise.

We are hearing more and more talk about the plunge in commercial real estate values these days because commercial real estate value trends tend to lag the overall economy. There are many reasons for this - too many in fact that it is impossible to cover them in this short space.

Susan Smith, who is the director of PricewaterhouseCoopers' real estate advisory practice notes: "The biggest problem is that commercial real estate lags what happens in the economy. Companies are looking for ways to cut costs, many are continuing to reduce workers and are continuing to reduce their space needs." As a result, commercial rental rates have taken a nosedive in most markets.

Ms. Smith and her team at PricewaterhouseCoopers conduct surveys each year of the commercial real estate market, and their latest survey concludes that the rise in vacancy rates and the plunge in rental rate are far from over and may well extend into 2011. Office rents in New York and San Francisco may drop 20% in 2010 alone, the survey found.

The National Association of Realtors projects that retail vacancy rates will increase from 11.7% in the 2Q of 2009 to at least 12.9% in the same period of 2010, the highest vacancy rates since 1991. Likewise, NAR projects that office building vacancy rates will rise from 15.5% to at least 18.8% by this time next year.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

More Trouble Ahead for the Banks

All of the above suggests the following: many of the banks that made commercial real estate have only realized a fraction of their losses. And as those losses continue to mount, we're likely to see more and more bank failures. Commercial real estate loans are not just concentrated among the nations largest banks; these loans are widely made by regional banks and even smaller banks.

Of the largest banks, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo has the largest share of the apprx. $3.5 trillion commercial debt securities, reportedly with 16.5% of its $821 billion loan portfolio invested. JPMorgan Chase is reportedly a distant second with 5.4% of its portfolio invested in commercial loans, followed by Citigroup with 3.4%.

However, smaller banks - 92 of which have already folded this year as of mid-September, according to the FDIC, compared to 25 last year - are even more at risk because they will likely have a harder time accessing the crucial capital to offset rising defaults on commercial real estate loans, according to the TARP-inspired Congressional Oversight Panel's August Oversight Report. The Oversight Panel noted:

"Unlike large banks that can sustain a certain number of defaults, even of large commercial loans, smaller banks may have far more difficulty in absorbing more than a few large loan losses. The FDIC's statement that ‘banks have been able to raise capital without having to sell bad assets through the LLP' may not reflect the reality for these banks."

Indeed, the number of smaller banks expected to be seized by the FDIC is forecast to accelerate later this year and next year. The FDIC's "problem list," of banks that run a higher risk of failure, grew to 416 in the 2Q, up from 305 in the 1Q. That's the highest number since the 2Q of 1994, following the S&L crisis, when there were 434 banks on the list.

As noted above, the S&L crisis resulted in a 27% decline in commercial real estate around the country. This time around the losses are even greater (39% so far) because the apprx. $3.5 trillion is over three times what it was during the early 1990s - meaning the potential for losses is steeper than ever before.

Glut of Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

Federal Reserve and Treasury officials are scrambling to prevent the commercial real estate sector from delivering another knockout punch to the US economy just as it struggles to get up off the mat. Yet their efforts could be undermined by a surge in foreclosures of commercial property carrying mortgages that were packaged and sold by Wall Street as bonds. These loans are known as Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS).

As discussed above, many US banks have high exposure to commercial real estate debt that they initiated through their own internal loans. In addition, many banks also bought CMBS and now have additional default risks that I will discuss in more detail as we go along.

Similar mortgage-backed securities (Sub-prime, Alt A, etc.) created out of home loans played a huge role in undoing that sector and triggering the global economic recession and credit crisis. Most sources estimate that there is around $700-$900 billion of CMBS outstanding at this time. These complicated products are being tested for the first time by the massive downturn real estate values discussed above, and so far the outcome so far hasn't been pretty.

A typical CMBS is stuffed with mortgages on a diverse group of properties, often fewer than 100, with loans ranging from a couple of million dollars to more than $100 million. A CMBS servicer, which is usually a large financial institution like Wells Fargo or JPMorgan Chase, collects monthly payments from the borrowers and passes the money on to the institutional investors that buy the securities.

The CMBS sector is suffering from two major problems, which, according to credit rater Realpoint LLC, sent its delinquency rate to 3.14% in July, more than six times the level a year earlier. One is major problem is that many of these mortgages were simply poorly underwritten. In the era of looser credit in recent years, Wall Street's CMBS machine lent owners money on the assumption that occupancy and rents of their office buildings, hotels, stores or other commercial property would keep rising. In fact, the opposite has happened. The result is that a growing number of properties aren't generating enough cash to make principal and interest payments.

The other major problem is the growing inability of property owners to refinance loans bundled into CMBS when these loans mature. By the end of 2012, some $153 billion in loans that make up CMBS are coming due, and close to $100 billion of that will face difficulty getting refinanced, according to Deutsche Bank. Unfortunately, other sources estimate that twice that many CMBS loans will come due between now and 2012; and double the amount that will be difficult or impossible to refinance.

Even though the cash flows of many of these properties are enough to pay interest and principal on the debt, their values have fallen so far that borrowers won't be able to extend existing mortgages or replace them with new debt. That means losses not only to the property owners but also to those who bought CMBS - including hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds and other financial institutions - thus exacerbating the economic downturn.

Many banks that hold traditional commercial real estate loans have chosen to extend the maturities and/or renegotiate the terms (this is one reason we haven't heard too much about it until recently). Banks have had a strong incentive to refinance because relaxed accounting standards have enabled them to avoid marking the value of the loans down.

Until now, banks have been able to keep a lid on commercial-real-estate losses by extending debt when it has matured as long as the underlying properties are generating enough cash to pay debt service. Unfortunately, CMBS are held by scores of investors, and the servicers of CMBS loans have limited flexibility to extend or restructure troubled loans like banks do.

Mounting foreclosures in the CMBS sector will likely depress values even further as property is dumped on the market. And this, in turn, will likely put pressure on banks to write down the myriad of commercial loans on their books, thereby exacerbating the problem.

The $64 Question: Why Are Bank Stocks Soaring?

At this point, the logical question to ask is, how is it that we have this enormous commercial debt problem, yet bank stocks have been on a tear for the last couple of months? Frankly, I think most bank shares are wildly overbought at this point, but then I'm not a stock picker.

Some of the largest US-based multinational banks saw their share prices plunge to the level of "penny stocks" over the last year. CitiGroup at one point fell to below $1 per share (97¢) on March 5. Yet shares of these mega-banks have rebounded significantly in recent months, albeit from the lowest levels ever recorded for many of the largest banks. In other words, they were due for a significant rebound.

Another reason the large money center banks have seen their shares soar is the widespread belief that President Obama will not allow any of the major financial institutions fail on his watch. The turmoil that erupted after the Lehman failure will not be allowed to happen again, so investors have more confidence in the large bank stocks. The recent spike in bank stocks has also helped the regional bank stocks which, in most cases have seen their share prices rise as well.

None of this, however, makes the commercial real estate debt problem go away, and it will get worse before it gets better. There is virtually no market for CMBS. Potentially hundreds of billions in commercial mortgage loans will not be able to be refinanced over the next couple of years. I fully expect this to weigh heavily on the banks - small and large - in the weeks and months ahead.

If I had very large profits in banks stocks over the last 2-3 months, I would be taking money off the table. But again, I'm not a stock picker.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Thinking Wrong, But Getting It Right

If you have been reading this E-Letter all year, you know that my calls on the economy and the stock market have been off the mark for the most part. Earlier this year, I expected the economy would remain in negative GDP territory all year and not recover until sometime next year. I expected consumer confidence to stay in the dumps pretty much all year.

Despite my forecast, the economy did begin to rebound during the summer, and it now looks reasonable to expect positive growth in the 3Q and 4Q, assuming there are no more big negative surprises. Just how negative the commercial real estate debt problem will be remains to be seen.

In a similar vein, I did not see the recent surge in the stock markets coming. Of course, I don't know anyone else who predicted stocks would spike 50% higher back in March either. Back in early March when the Dow had literally collapsed to 6500, I did feel that the panic was probably over. Yet I never would have imagined that the Dow and other major market indexes would soar over 50% in relatively short order. But they have.

I openly admit to those misgivings to make the following point. I don't manage any of my own money that is in the stock market or in bonds. I haven't made a personal trade in years. I figured out a long time ago that I am too emotional to do it myself.

If I had been managing my own money in stocks or mutual funds, I would probably have bailed out sometime late last year or early this year, as millions of investors did. Given my views of the economy and the stock markets earlier this year, I can all but assure you I would not have jumped back in when the markets turned up in late March and April.

I would still be on the sidelines like millions of other investors, and I would have missed out on the huge gains that followed. By the way, estimates are that there is still $3-$4 trillion in money that bailed out that is still sitting on the sidelines in money market funds, T-bills, etc.

But since almost all of the money I have in the stock markets is managed by professionals, I have been able to participate in this recovery.

If you have read these letters for long, you know that my firm is in the business of finding successful professional money managers to recommend to our clients. As a long-time critic of Wall Street's "buy-and-hold" mantra, I have always preferred "active" or "tactical" money management strategies that have the ability to move to cash (money market) or "hedge" long positions during down periods.

The reality is that my equity managers lost far less than the market during the bear market that began in late 2007, and they have been able to participate in the bull market that began earlier this year. (As always, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.)

My goal has always been to avoid the 40-50% losses that often occur during bear markets. Remember, if you lose 50%, you must make 100% just to get back to breakeven.

If avoiding big losses is a big concern to you, then maybe it's time to checkout some of the active managers I recommend. Hopefully, you read my E-Letter two weeks ago on the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program.

Please feel free to give one of our Investment Consultants a call at 800-348-3601 or click on the following link to complete one of our online request forms. If more convenient, drop us an e-mail at info@halbertwealth.com or visit our website at www.halbertwealth.com to learn more about our actively managed investment strategies.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Healthcare: Doubling Down on a Flawed Model (read this)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426872264215790.html

On the Economy & Obama's Trillions

GaryHalbert — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 20:33:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Economy - More Signs of Recovery
Is the Recession & Credit Crisis Over?
Obama Adds $2 Trillion to Debt Forecast
Economic Assumptions Still Too Optimistic
What in the World Are They Thinking?
Do They Want Control Even If It Ruins The Economy?

Introduction

In my June 16 E-Letter, I reprinted the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) projections of annual federal budget deficits over the period from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2019, which estimated that the national debt will more than double over that 11-year period - not including over $1 trillion for nationalized health care (if it passes) and several trillion more that will be required to rescue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade.

The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB), which is partisan, runs budget deficit projections similar to those of the CBO. The OMB's deficit projections over the same period, 2009-2019, showed the national debt increasing over $2 trillion less than the CBO's forecast of $11.11 trillion. However, on Friday, August 21, the White House quietly announced that the OMB had revised upward its deficit projections to fall in line with the CBO's. So, it's official.

The only good news on the deficit front is that both the CBO and the OMB recently revised downward the fiscal 2009 budget deficit, which closes out at the end of September, from the earlier reported $1.8+ trillion to around "only" $1.6 trillion. Time to break out the bubbly, right? Wrong! We will look at the latest deficit projections as we go along, but the problem is still the same; Obama seems intent on spending this country into financial ruin.

But first, there is more good news on the economic front. More and more forecasters now believe that GDP has moved into positive territory in the 3Q, and perhaps it has. Unfortunately, we don't get our first 3Q GDP estimate until the end of October. The latest GDP estimate for the 2Q was unchanged at -1.0%, which was better than expected. I will cover the latest encouraging (and not so encouraging) economic news just below.

The Economy - More Signs of Recovery

We have seen considerably more positive signs than negative over the last month. Let's begin with the ISM manufacturing index which rose sharply to 52.9 in August, up from 43.4 in July. It is the highest reading since June 2007. A reading above 50 in the ISM index indicates that the economy is recovering. The ISM "new orders" index jumped 9.6% in August to 64.9, which confirms that inventory rebuilding is intensifying, albeit from very depressed levels.

Durable goods orders jumped 4.9% in July (latest data available) following -1.3% in June. Industrial production increased 0.5% in the same period. The factory operating rate also increased modestly in July. Construction spending, however, was still down slightly in July.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose for the fourth consecutive month in July (latest data available) with a rise of 0.6% following a gain of 0.8% in June. Four consecutive up months in the LEI is quite encouraging, indicating that the worst of the recession is likely behind us, and the economy may move into positive territory before year-end.

The Consumer Confidence Index bounced back in August to 54.1 versus 47.4 in July. After rising sharply in the spring, the Index drifted lower in June and July so the latest recovery was welcomed. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index also closed out higher at the end of August.

Unfortunately, the rise in consumer confidence that began in the spring has not translated into significantly higher consumer spending. Retail sales in July fell 0.1%. Personal consumption expenditures, another measure of consumer spending, were up only 0.2% in July. Most Americans are still very concerned about the economy, and many are choosing to save rather than spend. The Commerce Department reports that the personal savings rate rose to 5% of disposable income in the 2Q, the highest rate in over a decade.

On the housing front, there was some good news in the last month. Pending home sales rose 3.2% in July following a gain of 3.6% in June. Actual sales of existing homes rose 7.2% in July to an annual rate of 5.24 million units. Sales of new homes rose 9.6% in July, the largest monthly gain since February 2005. Much of the increase in home sales in recent months is attributed to the up to $8,000 in tax incentives for first-time home buyers; yet no one knows what will happen when this stimulus program ends later this year.

The Labor Department announced last Friday that the US unemployment rate jumped to 9.7% in August, up from 9.4% in July, and above pre-report expectations. In August, the official number of unemployed persons increased by 216,000. The Labor Dept. also reported that there are now 14.9 million unemployed Americans, and this number is likely headed even higher in the months ahead.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Is the Recession & Credit Crisis Over?

In the 30 years that I have been writing about the markets and the economy, a "recession" has consistently been defined as two or more consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP (or GNP back in the old days). Likewise, two consecutive positive quarters meant that the recession was over. Be that as it may, if the initial GDP report for the 3Q is even mildly positive (which we won't get until the end of October), you're going to hear virtually everyone declare that the recession is over - whether or not that proves to be the case.

While I remain a bit skeptical, most of my trusted sources believe at this point that 3Q GDP will be at least mildly positive, and that the 4Q will be as well, in large part due to inventory rebuilding. But most of these same sources are not predicting a strong recovery in the economy. Some believe that there is still a real chance that we will slip back into recession in late 2010 or 2011, especially if consumers continue to save rather than spend.

As for the credit crisis, I think it is fair to say that it is no longer a crisis. But as anyone who is trying to get credit for a business knows, the banks are still not lending remotely as they were before the subprime blowup occurred. New lines of credit are few and far between. Many banks still have too many bad loans on their books, so they're not looking for new ones.

According to the FDIC, 84 US banks have failed so far in 2009, a record pace. So while it may be safe to say that the credit "crisis" is over, we are still far from being out of the woods. There are now 416 banks on the FDIC's "problem list" (up from 305 in March), so there will continue to be multiple bank failures every month for some time to come.

Then there's the 800-pound gorilla in the room - the Fed. At some point, the Fed will have to unload the $2+ trillion in questionable securities and toxic assets on its balance sheet. The Fed can't continue to print money ("quantitative easing") indefinitely; likewise, it will have to shrink the money supply at some point; and finally, short and medium-term interest rates will have to be allowed to rise somewhere down the road, especially if the economy rebounds.

Obviously, no one short of Ben Bernanke knows when this will happen. My best sources believe that because of the deflationary forces created by deleveraging, the Fed has at least a year to maintain its current stimulative policies without risking higher inflation. Similarly, they believe the Fed can wait a year or so before having to begin unloading assets and trim its balance sheet.

Virtually, everyone I read in the financial/investment world agrees that the Fed faces a daunting challenge when the time comes to unload these assets. This problem, above all, will continue to hold the threat of a double-dip recession over the economy and the markets. We all need to keep this in mind even if the economy goes positive for a few quarters.

Obama Adds $2 Trillion to Debt Forecast

2009	$1.845	trillion	2015	$785	billion
2010	$1.379	trillion	2016	$895	billion
2011	$970	billion	2017	$945	billion
2012	$658	billion	2018	$1.023	trillion
2013	$672	billion	2019	$1.189	trillion
2014	$749	billion

TOTAL $11.11 Trillion

As noted in the Introduction, both the CBO and the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) recently reduced the budget deficit forecast for fiscal 2009 from the $1.845 trillion noted in the table above to apprx. $1.6 trillion. So, the $11.11 trillion shown above would now be reduced to apprx. $10.87 trillion (if the latest projections prove to be correct).

Note that this astronomical amount does not include over $1 trillion for nationalized health care (if it passes) and several trillion more that will be required to rescue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over next decade as the Baby Boomers retire. Nor does it include the existing national debt of $11.7 trillion. The $10.87 trillion is merely the sum of annual budget deficits over the 11 years from 2009 to 2019.

Given that September is the end of fiscal 2009, the talk is now focused on record budget deficits for the 10 years from 2010 to 2019. Never mind that the 2009 deficit will be apprx. $1.6 trillion, almost four times larger than our previous worst deficit in history, which was $438 billion in fiscal 2008 under President Bush.

If you take out the $1.845 trillion 2009 deficit from the table above, the CBO deficit estimate for 2010-2019 is $9.02 trillion. This is $9 trillion that we will add to the national debt over the next 10 years, based on Obama's budget projections. Yet for months now, the Obama administration has taken flack because its own OMB has maintained that the 2010-2019 deficits would only total apprx. $7 trillion. But that has recently changed.

Now if you're the President of the United States, and you have some news that is not flattering to release to the public (especially in a recession), you might decide to quietly release that news at the end of the day on a Friday, and hope that it doesn't get much play on the weekend news shows. That is exactly what happened on Friday, August 21.

At the end of the day on Friday, August 21, a senior White House official announced that the Office of Management & Budget had revised its deficit forecasts for 2010-2019 from $7 trillion to apprx. $9 trillion. At long last, that puts Obama's forecast in line with the CBO's forecast.

Obama Administration officials acknowledged that they relied on overly optimistic assumptions about the economy when they forecast in March that President Barack Obama's budget plans would generate deficits of $7.1 trillion over the next 10 years. After factoring in the severity of the recession and the prospect of a more sluggish recovery, the White House concluded that the budget outlook is significantly worse and revised the 10-year tally of deficits to $9.05 trillion.

Some in the media welcomed the presumably more accurate deficit forecast; some even went so far as to note that such huge spending will be just fine, such as liberal commentator Paul Krugman of the New York Times. Others, however, were quite critical and seriously questioned how the Obama Administration could have been off by $2 trillion in its forecast.

The conservative Weekly Standard published a scathing article on August 31. Here are some excerpts:

"What's $2 Trillion Among Friends?

$2,000,000,000,000. That's the amount by which the Obama administration raised its ten-year estimate of the nation's budget deficit from the one it made only a few months ago. Now, $2 trillion is a lot of money. But even more significant is the fact that this revision represents almost a 30 percent increase -- no tiny percentage of the earlier $7 trillion figure. It seems that expenses are higher -- up 24 percent this year, the largest increase since the height of the Korean War -- than originally estimated, and revenues are lower. The resulting deficit, says Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, is ‘higher than desirable'. He might have added that the administration's critics had it right when they claimed that the earlier estimate represented a turn around the dance floor with that old seductress, Rosy Scenario.

There's worse: the new estimate assumes that Medicare and Medicaid spending will be cut by $622 billion, even though Congress has made it known that it is reluctant to make any such cut. Then there is the $600 billion in revenue included for the sale of [carbon] emission permits, despite the fact that the House has given away so many permits in order to buy support for the cap-and-trade emission-reduction that the program will produce at most $450 billion. Those two items alone come to almost another trillion dollars in red ink. Throw in another trillion-plus for Obamacare, and it is no surprise that senior economist Bill Gale, at the liberal Brookings Institute, says that the deficit will hit over $10 trillion over the next decade, a figure he finds ‘deeply alarming'.

This year, the deficit will come to 11.2 percent of GDP, and by 2019 the [national] debt will be equal to 76 percent of the [projected] value of the nation's output of goods and services, almost double the 41 percent when Obama took control of the nation's finances. No problem, say White House economists. Unsustainable, says Warren Buffett, among others."

Economic Assumptions Still Too Optimistic

Warren Buffet is absolutely correct. Whether it's $7 trillion or $9 trillion, it's way too much and unsustainable. Over the next five years alone, 2010-2014, the debt swells by $4.5 trillion. In fact, these projections could actually be too low based on the economic forecasts used in the projections. I should point out that this is not just an Obama phenomenon. White House budgets, whoever was president, have been laced with optimism, and no president has forecast a recession in these 10-year projections.

(By the way, all presidential administrations produce these 10-year forecasts on spending, revenues and the budget deficits/surpluses, even though they won't be in office 10 years from now.)

Consider the latest OMB projections for growth in GDP in the next several years in real terms, exclusive of inflation. The White House projects that GDP will grow by 3.8% in 2011 and climb above 4% a year for the next three years, followed by two years above 3%. This is far higher than historical norms; the economy has not seen such a period of growth since the 1960s.

And we can almost be assured of at least one more recession, if not two, over the next 10 years, what with the government running massive deficits every single year. Remember, the Fed will have to unload some $2 trillion in troubled assets at some point in the next few years. And, most forecasters agree that at some point, foreigners are going to curtail US dollar purchases, which will likely drive interest rates higher, at the least, or a currency crisis at the worst.

Excessive Obama optimism is not limited to economic growth. Despite the enormous monetary stimulus pumped out by the Federal Reserve in 2008-2009, bank credit that is widely regarded as potentially inflationary, the Obama administration assumes that inflation will actually decline from 2.1% in 2008 to 1.5% in 2009 and then to 1.3% in 2010 and 2011, and not rise above 1.8% through 2019. While it is true that inflation is declining now, thanks largely to the big drop in energy prices over the last year, we are almost certain to see higher inflation down the road.

What in the World Are They Thinking?

Most Americans that keep up with the economy and rising government spending, even remotely, are very alarmed about the exploding debt that President Obama has proposed for the next decade. Many of us wonder, what in the world could they be thinking? Do they want to purposely wreck the US economy? Frankly, I'm beginning to think so, as I will discuss later on.

Here is a snapshot of how many liberals on the left think about the perpetual rise in government spending and exploding deficits over the next decade. What follows is an August 23 editorial in the New York Times by liberal commentator Paul Krugman. He boldly attempts to explain why Obama's massive spending and deficits won't be a problem. He is wrong, of course, and I have inserted many bracketed words to help his column be more readable. I will elaborate afterward:

"How big is $9 trillion?

There's been some hysteria [no kidding] about the [Obama] administration's new estimate that the cumulative deficit will be $9 trillion over the next decade. Don't get me wrong: this is bad. But it's being treated as an inconceivable sum, far beyond anything that could possibly be handled. And it isn't. [really?]

What you have to bear in mind is that the economy — and hence the federal tax base — is enormous, too. Right now GDP is around $14 trillion [annually]. If economic growth averages 2.5% a year, which has been the norm, and inflation is 2% a year, which is the target (and which the bond market seems to believe), GDP will be around $22 trillion a decade from now. So we're talking about adding debt that's equal to around 40% of GDP [this figure is bogus - see comments below].

Right now, even if we do run these [trillion dollar annual] deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II. It will also be substantially less than, say, debt in several European countries in the mid to late 1990s. (There are some technical issues in comparing these various numbers — gross debt versus net (mainly about Social Security) and overall government debt versus federal, but they don't change the basic picture.)

Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we're not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we're looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the US included, have had in the past, and dealt with."

Wow! So record trillion dollar deficits don't matter, Mr. Krugman? There are so many ways to debunk this article, I almost don't know where to start. Let's first look at Krugman's most egregious misrepresentation. In the second paragraph, he states that the $9 trillion in new debt will be only 40% of GDP by 2019. What he fails to note is that we already have $11.7 trillion in national debt today. If we add another $9 trillion, the debt will be $20.7 trillion - or 94% of GDP - by 2019!! Nice try, Mr. Krugman.

Second, it's a lame attempt to compare the economy today with the period just after World War II. We had the most robust economic growth in history just after WWII when we were rebuilding Europe, veterans were buying homes, durable goods, cars, etc. as never before and our manufactured goods faced very little foreign competition. May I remind you, Mr. Krugman, that we are not in that position today!

Third, why should we all just assume that the US economy will average 2.5% annual growth over the next 10 years, despite doubling the national debt, just because it is some historical average? As discussed earlier, we will almost certainly see another recession in the next decade, as foreign buyers of our massive debt may require higher interest rates or dump the US dollar.

Do you honestly believe the US economy will grow by 2.5% annually for the next 10 years when consumer spending is stagnant and Americans are increasing savings at the highest rate in over a decade? We've just been through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and we are very likely looking at several years of below-trend economic growth. On top of that, if we spend the $9 trillion, taxes will have to go up on almost all Americans at some point, which is also bad for the economy.

Like your liberal cronies, you make these assumptions and leave out certain facts to justify your belief that bigger government and higher taxes are the answer to all of our problems. Mr. Krugman, take a look at Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - and more recently President Bush's prescription drug program. Give me one example of how these government-run programs have been anything but a fiscal disaster. You can't.

Finally, Mr. Krugman (in case you happen to read this), let me say that I enjoy reading your columns and watching you on the TV talk shows. You give me insight and understanding as to the thinking of those on the far left.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Do They Want Control Even If It Ruins The Economy?

As noted earlier, I have thought about this question for many years. Why do the liberals want the government to control most everything in the economy and our lives? While members of Congress have the best healthcare in the world, they will have dozens of family members and friends and countless colleagues that will be subject to the House healthcare bill, if it is passed. So why are they so hell-bent on passing it?

The answer can only come down to two questions. Question #1: Do they really believe that their proposed national heathcare program is the very best we can offer the American people? And if so, why doesn't Congress adopt it for themselves? Or Question #2: Is this really just a massive power grab that puts the government in control of our healthcare and our lives?

President Obama would like us to believe that nothing will change if healthcare reform is passed - that if you like your current insurance plan, you can keep it. But that is patently false and abundantly clear if you read the onerous House healthcare bill, or even just the highlights that are readily available on the Internet. If they ram this down our throats, I firmly believe that the quality of our healthcare will suffer and the costs will far exceed any estimates being put forth by President Obama and the Democrats.

At the end of the day, I have to conclude that nationalizing healthcare (one-sixth of the US economy) is nothing more than a giant power grab by the liberals. In addition, if our government racks up $10+ trillion in cumulative deficits over the next 10 years, as Obama proposes, we are on our way to financial ruin.

Bill Clinton never scared me; he was too much of a political animal to swerve too far from the center. Unfortunately, the same could be said of George W. Bush, who routinely strayed from his supposedly conservative principles. Not so with President Obama. Sadly, many of those who voted for him did not do their homework or they would have known that he is a left-wing ideologue, as I warned in these pages last year.

Sorry to end on such a negative note, but it is what it is.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Federal deficits to bankrupt America
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/04/looking-behind-the-curtain/

ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393110640864526.html

Massachusetts & the ObamaCare Mistake
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/05/obamacare_increases_costs_wait_times_98176.html

Obama Cannot Escape Hard Choices in September
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/07/obama_cannot_escape_hard_choices_in_september_98192.html

When Does the Spending Charade End?
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=336955542241664

Association of Investor Awareness - Week of 08/27/2009

AIAAdvocate — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:06:00 GMT

In This Issue:

The Outlook Is Better For An Improving Economy
Profit Growth Can Be Misleading
Big Companies Still Have An Advantage
Emerging Countries Are Making A Strong Recovery
Two Long Term Dividend Payers Look Good
Fasten Your Seat Belts, Oil Prices Are Roaring Back
The Bottom Line This Week

It's been a bear market for bears recently as their many doom-and-gloom pronouncements have gone wanting. The old bull just won't quit, despite all the logical arguments that predict his demise. It's a good lesson that paying attention to what is actually happening in the stock market is more profitable than following theories. Mother Market always has the last word.

The numbers tell the story. Since our last letter on July 29, the Dow and the Nasdaq have gone up 5.2% and 2.9% respectively. In only one of the four weeks did the market slide into negative territory, and then by less than 1%. By contrast, the best week registered a 7.3% gain. That's the sort of tailwind we like to have.

The Outlook Is Better For An Improving Economy

Of course, the rally could come to grief overnight. Stocks are rising on the expectation that the economy is finally coming out of recession, and companies will again make oodles of money. The unofficial office pool index suggests that most people on Wall Street think growth rates will be higher than Grandpa Bernanke at the Fed is predicting.

One accomplished tea leaf reader we talked to said his off-the-record prediction is that growth may exceed 4% next year. That would be quite a jump from two points behind the zero line, which is where the economy is today.

Profit Growth Can Be Misleading

Even if the economy doesn't win the long jump next year, most well-run companies should continue to see their profits increase. That's because nearly all of them have been on lean-and-mean programs that have cut costs to the bone. So even though revenues have been abysmal, profits have been on an upswing.

Of course, lean-and-mean can only go so far. At some point, all the useful cuts will have been made and profits must come from actually selling more goods. That change will mark the real beginning of a recovery.

Big Companies Still Have An Advantage

The big blue chips have a king-sized advantage when it comes to selling more products, even if the optimists are wrong and the U.S. economy just dribbles along. The global economy, where most mega companies do most of their business, is still doing well – and it should do even better next year. If so, the multinationals will once again prove that big is the size to be in the 21^st century world.

The stronger global economy will also help many U.S. firms that don't have facilities overseas. Many exporters are beginning to see their order books fill up as foreign firms ramp up their operations to meet their expected needs. As a significant side benefit, rising exports will help the U.S. trade balance, which has been suffering mightily for several years.

Emerging Countries Are Making A Strong Recovery

Speaking of the global economy, nobody is doing better than the emerging market countries. You may remember them from a few years ago when they were also on a roll. However, the high achievers plunged when their main customer, the U.S., slipped into the red.

Now many developing countries are growing quickly again. This time around, the countries are tapping into their own regional markets rather than putting all their efforts into winning U.S. orders. Fortunately for the local suppliers, the approximately 2.5 billion people in developing countries want just as many plastic salad shooters and cars as their American counterparts.

Doing best of all are the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). The first two are in the catbird's seat for growth because they are major suppliers of energy and raw materials to industrial countries of all sizes.

From an investor's standpoint, emerging markets still look good for long-term portfolios because they are many years away from reaching their peaks.

To that end, we once again recommend the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (EEM) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EEM. When we first presented the fund on June 26 it was $32.32. The price is now $36.47, a 12.8% gain. We think more is on the way, but we can expect some bumps along the road. Emerging markets will always be volatile, which is why we think the best way to invest is with a diversified fund.

Two Long Term Dividend Payers Look Good

Closer to home, we continue to recommend stocks that pay rising dividends. Although fears about inflation are continuing to make the rounds, deflationary forces are still at work in our economy. As long as that situation continues –which we think will be longer than most people think— the buying power of dividends will increase.

If you purchased a selection of the blue chip companies we have been recommending in recent months, you probably don't need to make additions to your dividend portfolio. But if you want to gild the lily, we think you should add Sysco Corp. (SSY) to the group. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SYY

Sysco is the leading supplier of food to colleges, hospitals, corporate cafeterias, hotels, and restaurants in the U.S. The company has been winning many orders because it can operate more efficiently than its customers can do on their own. At the same time, Sysco can usually provide a better and more diverse menu.

We think Sysco has excellent prospects for several years of growth. The company has been strengthening its business capabilities by purchasing other food suppliers in its field. As a result, Sysco will be coming out of the recession much better equipped to generate new business than any of its rivals.

Sysco also shines in the dividend department. The company currently boasts a 3.8% yield which should increase by 10% annually for the next few years. The stock price is also likely to do well.

Another stock with an attractive yield is Abbott Laboratories (ABT) a 121 year old company that produces and sells healthcare products throughout the world. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ABT

Abbott, of course, is best known for its many successful pharmaceuticals. But the company also offers a variety of diagnostic products that are in widespread use. In addition, Abbott produces infant formula and adult nutritional drinks – and it supplies stents, vessel closure devices, and related products for coronary applications.

One of the reasons we think that Abbott is attractive is the stock is down due to all the worries about a national health care program. If such a plan is passed, there is a possibility that drug prices will be forced down. However, we think the large increase in the number of people who will receive care will more than make up for the shortfall.

Abbott's yield currently stands at 3.5%. As with Sysco, Abbott Labs will probably continue to increase its annual payout, as it has been doing for 37 straight years. Nearer term, the stock should make an attractive catch-up move once the outlook for national health care clarifies.

Fasten Your Seat Belts, Oil Prices Are Roaring Back

Although it has not yet caused gasoline prices to shoot up, the price of oil has more than doubled since its low point earlier this year. In fact, at about $75 a barrel, oil is about half way back to its all-time high of $149 that it set during the late, great economic boom.

The main reason oil prices have been rising strongly is China and other developing countries have been buying all they can find. The countries are stockpiling as much as possible because they think that supplies will become tight again as the global economy improves. We think they are right.

China is not just buying oil, it is also buying producers. The country has become Brazil's biggest customer, and is rumored to be in negotiations to purchase the largest oil company in Venezuela.

In Africa, where there are few local oil companies with which to do business, China's approach is to extract the oil itself by setting up its own operations. Local governments and warlords are happy to give China a free hand to do whatever it wants in exchange for their piece of the action.

The price of oil is like the proverbial tide that lifts all boats. When it goes up so do the profits for companies that sell it. Since ExxonMobil (XOM) has a delightfully large amount of the stuff, we think it is the company to buy. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM

The Bottom Line This Week

Like the Energizer bunny, the stock rally just keeps going. The downside with both the bunny and the rally is, when the end comes it will be sudden. Therefore, we think this would be a good time to take some profits off the table, and to put stop loss orders on everything else.

Two new companies that look very good to us are Sysco Corporation and Abbott Laboratories. Because they are in defensive sectors, the stocks should not be as sensitive to a market correction as their more aggressive cousins. We also like the dividends the two companies pay, and the prospects for more.

With oil prices on a tear again, this appears to be a good time to buy more ExxonMobil, a stock we recommended on several occasions.

Until Next Time

The AIA "Advocate For Absolute Returns", a publication of The Association for Investor Awareness, Inc., tracks market trends, industry news, the SEC, global trade and finance and Washington developments for you because they affect your investments. But who doesn't? Many sources report these issues as abstract facts. We feel that's not enough. The AIA Advocate's job is to warn you of what's important and how these developments translate to ground-level forces and threats that directly affect your wealth as well as your current investment opportunities. Not just information, but information you can use. Until next Thursday...

Is The Recession Over? Don't Bet On It

GaryHalbert — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:12:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Economic Signs of Improvement
Fed Vows to Keep Rates Low
Market Comments from John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
Conclusions

Introduction

We have seen some encouraging economic news in recent weeks, and President Obama and his cronies in the mainstream media have declared that the worst recession in post-war history is all but over. The advance estimate of 2Q GDP was down considerably less than expected (-1.0%); the unemployment rate actually fell slightly in July to 9.4%; and the ISM manufacturing index posted a nice improvement last month.

While these reports were better than expected, and continue to suggest that the worst of the recession is behind us (as I have suggested often in recent weeks), this economy is far from out of the woods yet. Growth prospects continue to look muted, although a growing number of forecasters are suggesting that GDP will register a positive number in the 3Q due largely to the rebuilding of inventories, as I discussed in my August 4 E-Letter.

This week, we will look at the latest economic reports, as well as the Federal Reserve's latest decision on interest rates and purchases of Treasury securities. Also, the Fed says it will end its record large purchases of government agency debt in October. If indeed this happens, it will be the first step in ending the Fed's massive stimulus spending.

Next, so that we don't all get caught up in the latest hype that the recession is over, I will reprint excerpts from a recent Weekly Market Comment written by John P. Hussman, Ph.D. Dr. Hussman is best known as the president of Hussman Investment Trust, and he manages the Hussman Strategic Growth and Hussman Strategic Total Return Funds, which are actively managed and can go to cash in bear markets.

Dr. Hussman's latest analysis is consistent with the view many of us have that the recession, while improving in some areas, is not over yet, and that the ensuing economic recovery over the next year or longer will be disappointing -- even if there is a bump up in the 3Q. All of this should make for interesting reading, so let's get started.

Economic Signs of Improvement

Over the last several weeks, we've seen some encouraging economic reports. In some cases, "encouraging" simply means that the reports weren't as negative as expected. That was certainly the case with the advance 2Q GDP estimate at the end of June, which showed a decline of only 1% (annual rate) versus pre-report estimates which were considerably worse. Some analysts expect that number to be revised downward somewhat when the second estimate is released later this month.

On the manufacturing front, the ISM Index rose more than expected in July to 48.9, up from 44.8 a month earlier. Industrial production rose 0.5% in July, and construction spending and the factory operating rate both rose modestly last month as well. These are all signs that the recession may be leveling out.

On Thursday of this week, we get the latest Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) for July, and the pre-report consensus is for a rise of 0.6%, following +0.7% in June. If the LEI is up for July, that will mean the fourth consecutive monthly increase. That would be very encouraging and a sign that we will likely be out of this recession by the end of the year.

The US unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped from 9.5% in June to 9.4% in July, as employers slashed 247,000 jobs, the slowest rate of decline in nearly a year. This news temporarily sent stocks to their highest level of the year since the pre-report consensus was for a rise to 9.6%

However, the July decline in the jobless rate came about not because more people had jobs, but because almost 800,000 "discouraged workers" - people who have essentially given up on looking for a job - were not counted as unemployed, thereby allowing the official unemployment rate to fall modestly in the latest jobs report. The number of long-term unemployed people - those who have been out of a job but looking for more than 26 weeks - rose by another 584,000. Thus, it appears we are still headed for 10% employment before this cycle reverses.

Despite the still troubled employment situation, investors welcomed the reports above, and more and more forecasters have apparently decided that the recession is over. I continue to believe that we are still at least a few months from concluding that the recession has ended. The Consumer Confidence Index fell for the second month in a row in July, and retails sales were down slightly last month. Therefore, it is premature to declare that the recession is over.

Fed Vows to Keep Rates Low

To no one's surprise, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced last Wednesday that it will continue its policy of keeping interest rates at their historically low levels. The FOMC also maintained its position that interest rates could remain historically low for an "extended period of time." In other words, the floodgates of liquidity are still wide open.

About the only new revelation was that the Fed announced that it will stop buying long-term Treasuries in October of this year. This could be the ultimate case of good news/bad news, in that it's good that the Fed may no longer be printing money to buy Treasuries, but bad in that these securities will soon have to compete in the open market, and this could lead to higher interest rates. Remember that this is why the Fed committed to start buying Treasuries in the first place.

However, the Fed's printing press will not be idle as it said it will continue to purchase up to $1.25 trillion in agency mortgage-backed securities and other agency debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed's hope here is to keep a lid on mortgage rates in an effort to stimulate the housing market.

From an economic standpoint, the latest FOMC statement notes that US economic activity is "leveling out," meaning that the rate of descent has slowed. However, this simply means that the recession may not get deeper. The Fed's prospects for recovery, however, were modest, at best. The Fed expects economic activity to remain weak "for a time" (whatever that means) and a return to sustainable economic growth is likely to be gradual.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Market Comments from John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

Dr. John Hussmanis best known as the president of Hussman Investment Trust (a mutual fund family), and he manages the Hussman Strategic Growth and Hussman Strategic Total Return Funds. Dr. Hussman is also the chairman, president and controlling shareholder of Hussman Econometrics Advisors, Inc. which has published his Weekly Market Comment letters for years, and they always have some interesting points about the economy, the markets, etc.

As a mutual fund manager, Dr. Hussman is somewhat unique in that he not only actively seeks the best opportunities in the stock market, but will also move to neutral positions in his funds during market downturns. In other words, the investment strategies he employs are similar to those used by the active money managers my firm recommends.

The following excerpts are from Dr. Hussman's August 10, 2009 Weekly Market Comment. [Note that we have removed discussions about specific funds where possible.] Pay particular attention to Dr. Hussman's outlook for the economy.

QUOTE:

The U.S. economy lost a quarter of a million jobs in July. Meanwhile, over 400,000 workers abandoned the labor force (and are therefore no longer counted among the unemployed), which prompted a slight decline in the unemployment rate despite the job losses. In the context of an economy still strained by high levels of consumer debt and still record delinquency and foreclosure rates, labor market conditions are still troublesome. Still, the pace of job losses and new unemployment claims has clearly softened from the pace we observed early in the year.

If we knew that this was a standard economic downturn, we might conclude that the recent improvements are durable. However, nothing convinces us that this is a standard economic downturn. As for market action, the major indices have generally been strong, as has breadth (as measured by advances versus declines), but the "investor sponsorship" evident from trading volume has been uncharacteristically dismal compared with initial advances of past bull markets. So here too, we have very strong concerns that the recent advance may not be as durable as investors appear to believe.

All of that said, we aren't inclined to fight even what we view as errant analysis, and the Strategic Growth Fund has about 1% of assets allocated to near-the-money index call options -- about enough to gradually close down about 40% of our hedge in the event that the market advances markedly higher from here, but without putting us at risk of much loss in the event of failure. With investors now anticipating and pricing in a sustained economic recovery, as well as a spectacular earnings rebound, a lot of things will have to go right from here in order to sustain higher prices than we currently observe.

Frankly, our call option allocation here is something of a paean to a notion -- a sustained economic recovery and new bull market -- that I have no belief in whatsoever. But at this point, the broad strength in the major indices, even lacking volume sponsorship or favorable valuation, requires that we allow for the possibility of additional investor speculation. Even if we do observe such an outcome, it's difficult to envision that the S&P 500 will clear the 1000 level for all time, without revisiting it again in the months (not to mention years) ahead. To the extent that we don't clear 1000 permanently, establishing investment exposure here with anything but call options amounts to a game of trying to "ride" the market higher and to get out before it returns to or below current levels. With the market strenuously overbought already, that game strikes me as exquisitely difficult to get right. Hence the use of a modest allocation to call options only, without closing our downside hedges.

Call me skeptical. But if you look carefully at the economic data that shows improvement, and correct for the impact of government outlays, it is difficult to find anything but continued deterioration in private demand and investment. What we do see is a government that has run what is now a trillion dollar deficit year-to-date, representing some 7% of GDP. That sort of tab will undoubtedly buy some amount of Cool-Aid, but it has been something of a disappointment to watch how eagerly investors have guzzled it down. It is not at all clear that short-term, deficit-financed improvement necessarily implies sustained growth in the context of a deleveraging cycle. This is like somebody borrowing money from their Uncle and then celebrating that their income has gone up.

Moreover, it might be enticing to look at a chart of the S&P 500 and envision a quick return to 2007 highs and beyond, but it is important to recognize that those highs were based on profit margins about 50% above historical norms, combined with an elevated P/E multiple of about 19 against those earnings. Even if the economy is poised for a sustained recovery here, the belief that those joint outliers will be quickly re-established goes against historical precedent.

In any event, we've got some call option coverage to gradually allow participation if this run continues.

Post-Crash Dynamics

When markets crashes are coupled with changes in the fundamentals that supported the preceding bubble -- as we observed in the post-1929 market, the gold market of the 1980's, and the post-1990 Japanese market, and currently observe in the deflation of the recent debt bubble -- they typically do not recover quickly. Indeed, the hallmark of these post-crash markets is the very extended sideways adjustment that they experience, generally for many years.

The chart below updates the position of the S&P 500 (red line) in the context of other post-crash bubbles. The horizontal axis is measured in months. Note that very strong and extended interim advances have been part and parcel of similar experiences.

The intent here is not to argue that the U.S. stock market must by necessity follow the same extended adjustment that followed prior burst bubbles. Rather, the intent is to underscore that it is dangerous to infer that structural difficulties have vanished simply because a market enjoys a strong post-crash advance.

My friend James Montier at SocGen draws a similar pattern from a larger historical collection of post-crash bubbles - including the above instances, as well as others such as the South Sea Bubble and the Railroad Bubble of the 1840's. The underlying theme is that the adjustment period following the bursting of a bubble tends to be very extended.

I understand the eagerness of investors to put the entire credit crisis behind them and look ahead to a recovery of the prior highs, but these hopes are based on the assumption that a positive boost to GDP, once achieved, will propagate into a full-fledged recovery. Again, however, no economic improvement is evident in the behavior of consumer demand and capital spending, once you adjust for the impact of government spending (particularly transfer payments).

Yes, we have observed a massive reallocation of global resources from savers (who have bought newly issued Treasury debt) toward mismanaged financial institutions that made bad loans. Yes, there are certainly favorable short-run economic numbers that can be achieved by running a year-to-date federal deficit equal to seven percent of the U.S. economy. The problem is that this money does not come from nowhere. We have effectively sold an identical ownership claim on our future production to those individuals and foreign governments who bought the Treasuries. Government "stimulus" is not free money. The continued attempt to bail out bad loans with good resources (largely foreign savings) will end up costing our nation some of our most productive assets, which will be acquired by foreign countries and investors for years to come.

From my perspective, investors have gotten entirely too far ahead of themselves with the assumption of a sustained recovery. Nevertheless, we again have about 1% of assets in index call options to allow for further market strength if it emerges. I expect that if they move "in the money," we will leave their strike prices unchanged unless market internals deteriorate measurably. Leaving our call option strikes fixed would open us up to losing on any subsequent downturn whatever we make on a further advance, but again, our opening exposure is fairly limited. We'll let the market put us into a more constructive position if investors are inclined to continue their exuberance here. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Market Climate

As of last week, the Market Climate for stocks was characterized by unfavorable valuation and mixed market action, but enough evidence of speculation (reasonable or not) to own about 1% of assets in index call options. We are otherwise hedged.

During earnings season, there are often days where most of the performance of the Fund is driven by significant movement in a small handful of Fund holdings. These movements can be positive or negative, and may cause the Fund to move differently than one would expect that the Fund "should" move based on our investment position, and on what the market did on a particular day. As I've frequently noted, short-term movements, particularly day-to-day, are not effective indicators of the Fund's investment position, or predictors of Fund performance. Performance is always best measured from the peak of one market cycle to the peak of the next, or over an extended period of years representing neither a peak-to-trough nor trough-to-peak movement in the market.

Based on our standard methodology, which considers normalized earnings (not the far more depressed level of current earnings) the S&P 500 is now priced to deliver 10-year total returns in the area of 6.9% annually. This is a figure that has historically been associated with bull market peaks, including 1969 and 1987. In most instances, such valuations turned out badly in reasonably short order. It is, however, true that prospective returns were even worse prior to the 1929 crash, and during the bulk of the period since 1996, so there have been some historical periods where speculators have driven valuations to higher levels, and during these times, it has not been particularly effective to stand in front of speculators saying ‘no, stop, don't.' [Emphasis added, GDH.]

Ultimately, all of those periods where valuations were driven to higher levels were followed by poor long-term returns, with stocks generally trading at lower levels at some point one or more years later. So we can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that even if the present advance continues, investors will most likely observe current levels again either within the current market cycle or (worse) several years out. Overvalued markets simply do not "run away" for good. Still, it can be painful or at least unenjoyable to remain defensive during a speculative advance.

In bonds, the Market Climate last week was characterized by relatively neutral yield levels and moderately unfavorable yield pressures. As usual, we will tend to increase our bond durations on spikes in yield (weakness in bond prices), and these are becoming more interesting -- though not strongly attractive. Our most recent extension of durations was in the 3.9%-4% area for 10-year Treasuries, and a push materially above that level would represent enough of a yield pickup to move a modest amount of short-maturity Treasury allocations into mid-maturities. As I've noted in recent weeks, we don't anticipate much in the way of extended directional movement in the bond market, so most of our portfolio activity will probably tend to be modest reallocations in response to yield fluctuations. At the point where we observe either fresh inflation pressure or general declines in Treasury yields (i.e. general downward pressure on real interest rates), I expect that we'll observe fresh pressure on the U.S. dollar and upward pressure on precious metals shares. For now, those markets are likely to be somewhat range-bound as well.

We've got an extended economic adjustment ahead. Most probably far longer than most investors presently expect. As always, we'll take our opportunities as the evidence emerges, with the objective of outperforming our respective benchmarks over the complete market cycle, and an additional emphasis on defending capital over the course of that cycle. [Emphasis added, GDH.]

END QUOTE

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

While we have seen some encouraging economic reports over the last few weeks, it is premature to declare that the recession has ended. As discussed above, the unemployment rate is very likely to rise even higher before this cycle is over. Remember that consumer spending is still the main driver of this economy, and retail sales fell slightly in July well below the pre-report consensus. The Consumer Confidence Index fell a second month in a row in July.

On the positive side, the Fed remains committed to keeping interest rates very low for an extended period, and liquidity is plentiful for now. If this Thursday's Leading Economic Indicators report is positive, that will market the fourth consecutive monthly increase, which will be a very good sign that the recession will end by the end of the year.

I agree with Dr. Hussman that stocks are overbought at this point, as many investors who bailed out in February and March are now jumping back in. The stock market has felt like a mini-bubble since the March lows and especially in July. Thus, I would not be surprised to see the downward correction that began last week to continue in the weeks ahead.

Finally, I recently told you about our online webinar featuring the Potomac Guardian Program on August 6th. We had hundreds of investors register for the webinar and it was well-received. If you were unable to attend this webinar but would still like to learn more about the Potomac Guardian Program and its investment strategy, you can now find a recorded version on our Internet website at www.halbertwealth.com.

Wishing you profits in a difficult market,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Stocks: Five Key Signals for Investors
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/aug2009/pi20090817_099111_page_2.htm

Why Obama's Ratings Are Sinking
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574354383543314054.html

Public Spending's Day Of Reckoning
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/12/public-spending-finances-economy-debt-opinions-contributors-desmond-lachman.html

Recession May End But Growth Prospects Low

GaryHalbert — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:25:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Finally, Some Good News For The US Economy
More Insights From The Latest GDP Report
Media & Obama Declare The Recession Is Ending
Consumer Spending Is Still The Key
100+ Hedge Fund Managers Offer Their Predictions

Introduction

The Commerce Department announced last Friday that the US economy contracted less than expected in the 2Q. According to the "advance" estimate, Gross Domestic Product declined at an annual rate of only 1% in the April-June quarter. This is considered to be good news since the rate of decline was below the pre-report consensus. Never mind that the better than expected number was almost entirely due to greatly increased federal spending in the 2Q. Also, never mind that the government announced that 1Q GDP was worse than previously reported.

The latest GDP report has caused many economists and analysts to declare that the recession is ending. Yet the report noted that most sectors of the economy and consumer spending are still contracting. While I would say that it is still too early to declare that the recession is ending, the latest data strongly suggests that we've seen the worst of this recession/credit crisis. We will look at the latest economic numbers and draw some conclusions as we go along.

While it is possible that the recession will end in the 3Q and GDP could go into mildly positive territory, the unemployment outlook is likely to get worse for at least the rest of this year and possibly through the first half of 2010. Even President Obama conceded recently that the unemployment rate will almost certainly rise above 10% by the end of this year. Thus, we're looking at another "jobless recovery" if we indeed pull out of this recession later this year.

Next, as we all peer into the likely economic outlook for the balance of this year and next year, and try to formulate our investment strategies accordingly, I will summarize the latest survey of the nation's largest hedge fund managers. What are they thinking about the economy and the investment markets; where are they positioning their assets now; and what do they think are the greatest risks down the road? I think you'll find their predictions very interesting.

Finally, Some Good News For The US Economy

Last Friday, the Commerce Department announced that the US economy contracted less than expected in the 2Q. According to the "advance" estimate, Gross Domestic Product declined at an annual rate of only 1% in the April-June quarter. The GDP report came as a surprise to many, since the pre-report consensus suggested a decline of at least 1.5%, and many (including your editor) expected a decline of 2-3% for the 2Q. Of course, this is the first of three estimates on 2Q GDP, so it could well be revised lower over the next two months. Even so, this is good news for the economy.

According to the latest report, GDP fell less than expected in the 2Q primarily due to the large increases in government spending. The Commerce Department report cited that the decrease in real GDP in the 2Q primarily reflected negative contributions from business investment, personal consumption expenditures, inventory contraction and exports. According to the report, these negative influences to GDP in the 2Q were mostly offset by positive contributions from the increase in federal government spending and to a lesser extent by state and local government spending, and a decrease in imports.

The fact that the economy declined by less than expected in the 2Q primarily due to increased federal spending and falling imports is certainly not the desired scenario. But after four consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, investors were happy to see a drop of only 1% in the 2Q. Consumer spending, which makes up apprx. 70% of GDP, continued to fall in the 2Q, but again not as much as had been feared. Personal consumption expenditures fell 1.2% in the 2Q, which means that consumer spending is still on the decline, but somewhat less than pre-report estimates.

The latest GDP report was indeed better than expected, even if most of the improvement was due to increased federal spending. Unless you've been hiding under a rock over the past few days, you have no doubt heard the mainstream press cheering that the recession is ending and that happy days lie ahead. While we probably have seen the worst of the recession, we need to look at the latest numbers to get a better insight as to the bigger economic picture.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

More Insights From The Latest GDP Report

As noted above, last Friday's 2Q GDP report was better than expected, even though it showed that the economy contracted at a -1% annual rate in April-June. All the news in the report, however, was not so encouraging. The Commerce Department revised down its GDP report for the 1Q of this year from -5.5% to -6.4%. This means that the January-March quarter was considerably worse than earlier reported.

I should also note that the Commerce Department upwardly revised GDP for the 4Q of last year from –6.3% to –5.4%, which largely offsets the downward revision for the 1Q of this year as noted in the previous paragraph. Most notably, however, the Commerce Department also substantially revised the GDP number for the 3Q of 2008 downward to a negative 2.7% annual rate. This was a huge revision that was not expected. Thus, we have seen four consecutive negative quarters in GDP in the last year alone: 3Q 2008 – down 2.7%; 4Q 2008 – down 5.4%; 1Q 2009 – down 6.4%; and 2Q 2009 – down 1.0%.

This makes the current recession the worst since WWII, eclipsing even the previously worst recession in 1981-82.

In addition to the headline GDP numbers noted above, last Friday's report also revealed that consumer spending declined in the 2Q. Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) fell by 1.2% in the 2Q following the very modest increase of 0.6% in the 1Q. This was well below the pre-report consensus that was looking for an increase of 2.4% in consumer spending in the 2Q. So much for the widely heralded rebound in consumer spending, but we should not be surprised given that consumer confidence turned lower once again in June.

Other indicators in the latest GDP report also suggest that the recession is not over yet. Durable goods orders decreased 7.1% in the 2Q, while non-durable goods orders decreased 2.5 percent, in contrast to an increase of 1.9% in the 1Q. Non-residential fixed investment decreased 8.9% in the 2Q, while non-residential structures decreased 8.9%. Equipment and software purchases decreased 9.0%. Exports of goods and services decreased 7.0%, while imports of goods and services decreased 15.1% in the 2Q. And the list of negatives goes on.

How is it then that GDP fell only 1% in the 2Q? Answer: increased federal spending. According to the GDP report, federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 10.9% in the 2Q, compared to an increase of 4.3% in the 1Q. While we can all be happy that GDP fell less than expected in the 2Q, there is little comfort in knowing that the main reason for the better number was increased government spending.

Media & Obama Declare The Recession Is Ending

Many in the mainstream media wasted no time last Friday in predicting that the recession is ending, if it hasn't ended already. Since the 2Q GDP number was only down 1%, many now predict that 3Q GDP will almost certainly be a positive number. Predictably, President Obama took to the microphone on Friday afternoon to announce that we are now seeing the light at the end of the economic tunnel, and he attributed the better than expected GDP report to his $787 billion stimulus plan, even though only around 10% of the money has been spent.

[Editor's Note: FYI, more and more analysts are coming around to the idea I suggested in my July 21 E-Letter, that the government should scrap the apprx. 90% of the $787 billion that has not yet been spent. As an example, see the Investor's Business Daily editorial in SPECIAL ARTICLES below. Of course, this will never happen because Obama and the leaders in Congress can't wait to spend that money on their pork barrel projects.]

The latest argument for the recession ending now goes as follows. Since the Commerce Department revised 3Q 2008 GDP down sharply to -2.7%, this means that the worst of the recession started sooner than we thought. For some reason that I cannot discern, this is supposed to mean that the recovery from the recession will end sooner than we think – as in now.

Adherents to this suggestion point to the fact that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators has risen for the last three months in a row. Likewise, home sales and housing starts have risen modestly over the last three months in many parts of the country. No doubt, these are signs that the worst of the recession may be behind us, but they are no guarantee that the recession has ended. Nevertheless, there are now widespread forecasts that GDP will go positive for the 3Q.

There is, actually, a credible reason that GDP could manage a positive uptick in the 3Q. Given the severity of the recession and the credit crisis, businesses across America have slashed inventories dramatically. According to the latest GDP report, US businesses have cut back inventories by almost $300 billion in the four months ended in June. Most analysts had expected that inventory rebuilding would have begun in the 2Q, but in fact inventories continued to contract in the 2Q.

At some point, businesses will have to rebuild inventories, and some of my best sources believe that a modest rebuilding has begun in the 3Q. Companies that have weathered the worst of the recession and remain afloat will likely have to rebuild their inventories at some point just to stay in business. Plus, federal spending will remain high going forward, so it would not be a surprise to see a positive number in 3Q GDP. But we will not see the first advance report on 3Q GDP until late October. Unfortunately, a modestly higher GDP number for the 3Q will not necessarily mean that the recession is over.

Consumer Spending Is Still The Key

Personal consumption expenditures fell sharply in 2008 as a result of the housing slump, the credit crisis and the bear market in stocks. While there was a modest bump (+0.6%) in consumer spending in the 1Q of 2009, as noted above the latest GDP report showed that personal consumption expenditures declined 1.2% in the 2Q, well below expectations.

As I have noted in recent letters, not only are consumers holding back on unnecessary expenditures, they are also boosting their savings. It is now estimated that the national saving rate has climbed to 7% and may be headed even higher. Consumers remain fearful about the rising unemployment rate and the continued record rise in home foreclosures.

Unemployment typically continues to rise even after GDP starts to increase, so pain for workers is far from over. As noted above, even President Obama concedes that the US unemployment rate is headed to 10%, and it may well go even higher next year. The Labor Department noted that already 144 of America's 372 largest metropolitan areas reported unemployment rates of at least 10% in June. Rising unemployment will mean less shopping and a slower recovery.

While we have seen some mildly encouraging reports on home sales over the past few months, the home foreclosure rate continues to set new record highs. Just two years ago, the prediction was that only about two million Americans would lose their homes to foreclosure, a prediction based on the number of subprime mortgage loans with pending interest rate resets.

As we know now, however, more than five million homes have been foreclosed on since 2007, and there were more than 336,000 foreclosure filings in June alone according to RealtyTrac. Thus, it is now predicted by some that ten million homes will be foreclosed on before this cycle is over. If that is remotely correct, we are only about half way through the cycle.

With the unemployment rate and the foreclosure rate continuing higher, I don't think we will see consumers boosting spending significantly anytime soon. The latest consumer confidence numbers show that Americans are still jittery, with the Confidence Index falling from 49.3 in June to 46.6 in July.

Bottom line: The recession may well end later this year, but the recovery is likely to be disappointing. Those who are suddenly predicting 2-3% GDP growth in the 3Q and 4-5% in the 4Q are way too optimistic in my opinion.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

100+ Hedge Fund Managers Offer Their Predictions

The accounting firm RSM McGladrey recently published the results of their inaugural Hedge Fund Industry Survey. The survey, representing the thoughts and opinions of 102 hedge fund managers, offers some interesting findings about the state of the industry and their predictions for the economy, the investment markets and real estate.

You may be wondering why you should care what hedge fund managers think. After all, the mainstream press continually demonizes them with terms like "secretive," "risky," "unregistered" and a whole host of other dubious adjectives. In the latest stock market crash, hedge funds were singled out for their shorting of bank stocks (a strategy that can actually make money on a falling stock), which some said helped to accelerate the stock market's fall in the last quarter of 2008.

And let's not forget notorious hedge fund managers such as George Soros, who is known for being the man who "almost broke the Bank of England" in 1992, or Long Term Capital Management, a hedge fund managed by Nobel Prize-winning economists that almost caused a global financial crisis in 1998. These and other widely publicized implosions, coupled with the complexity and restricted availability of such investments, have generally cast hedge fund managers in a bad light, at least in the mainstream media.

Yet the 102 hedge fund managers surveyed by McGladrey represent some of the brightest and most successful minds in the investment world. Some of these managers are very adept at reading the economic tea leaves, especially as they relate to the markets. This not only helps them to make money for their clients, but to make money themselves since they typically base their fees on a share of client profits. No profits, no pay. Thus, you can bet that the future prospects for the global economy continue to be where hedge fund managers are concentrating their research, and why we want to peek over their shoulders through this survey.

A good portion of the survey deals with the new regulatory oversight of hedge funds that Obama has proposed and the managers' reactions to it, since heretofore hedge funds have been largely unregulated. It was surprising to see that 42% of the respondents felt that the SEC needs additional regulatory authority to do its job effectively, while 50% said the agency should simply be better funded to enforce existing rules, not make a lot of new ones.

While we might think all hedge fund managers would resist additional regulation of the funds they manage, another surprising result was that 37% of respondents believe there should be more regulation of hedge funds versus only 18% who said less regulation is needed. 43% of respondents believe that the current regulatory environment is the right amount.

However, hedge funds are now in the crosshairs and Congress will no-doubt put them on a shorter leash. Knowing this, 75% of those surveyed worried about the regulatory pendulum swinging too far and becoming so restrictive that it stifles the markets. Note that this includes some of those managers who believe that additional regulatory oversight is needed.

All in all, these results actually seem to indicate that a much larger segment of hedge fund managers are open to greater regulation than we might have thought. However, I think the real meat of the survey is in their outlook for the future of the economy and markets. 60% of respondents think that the current economic environment presents more investment opportunities than challenges. Knowing that some hedge funds "short" stocks in declining markets, a bear market expectation could be viewed as an investment opportunity for some funds. Thus, we need to look deeper into the survey's findings.

To begin with, 57% of hedge fund managers surveyed believe that the economy is now headed in the right direction (recession ending fairly soon), even though 83% of hedge fund managers believe that the unemployment rate will continue to rise, and 65% believe that consumer spending will decrease in the next 12 months. Over 80% of hedge fund managers believe that government spending, the Fed's balance sheet and tax rates (income and capital gains) will all continue to increase over the coming year. This explains why 42% believe the economy is still headed in the wrong direction.

Elsewhere, 59% believe that the stock markets have bottomed and are on the right track. However, respondents also acknowledge that there are still dangers lurking in the bushes that could derail the recovery. For example, 82% of respondents see both interest rates and inflation rising over the next year. While less than 20% expect either to increase "a lot," they acknowledge that the Fed faces a very difficult challenge on both fronts.

Since prospects for the stock markets generally depend upon the health of the economy, the survey asked hedge fund managers when they thought the US economy would return to positive growth. 33% of respondents felt that the economy would have positive growth by the end of 2009. 58%, however, believe that the US economy won't return to positive growth until sometime in 2010.

Of course, what we really want to know is what hedge fund managers expect the stock markets to do. After all, that's where most of us feel they have the greatest area of expertise. To get a better perspective of their predictions, it's important to note where the market stood when the survey report was written in mid-June 2009. Keep the following figures in mind as I discuss the stock market outlook of these hedge fund managers:

Dow Jones Industrial Average:	8,612.13
Russell 2000 Average:	511.83
S&P 500 Average:	923.72

To make a long story short, most hedge fund managers surveyed expect little or only moderate growth to occur in the major market indexes over the next year. For the Dow, the opinions are pretty evenly split among four general ranges of future values. 22% of hedge fund managers believe that the Dow will be under 8,000 a year from now. Another 22% believe it will be between 8,001 to 8,500 and yet another 22% believe it will be between 8,501 and 9,000. The next largest group of 21% believes that the Dow will end up between 9,001 and 9,500 in 12 months.

Clear as mud, right? About all we can glean from these predictions is that 87% of hedge fund managers think that the Dow will be between 8,000 and 9,500 in a year or so. Being so evenly split, I believe that these predictions fall in line with my best sources who think that the market will be in a trading range over the next year and possibly much longer than that.

Predictions of the future value of the S&P 500 were somewhat less concentrated, but still followed the same general pattern. 64% of respondents expected the S&P 500 Index to be between 851 and 1,100 a year from now, again pointing to a trading range market.

The Russell 2000, generally representing the small-cap stock universe, had the widest range of expectations with respondents fairly evenly spread among expectations ranging from under 400 to over 850. This result seems to say that anything can happen in small-cap stocks over the next year. What else is new?

As this is written, I find it interesting that the major market indexes are near the upper estimates reflected in the survey. With the Dow currently near 9,300 and the S&P 500 Index breaking above 1,000 yesterday, the markets have benefited from a significant rally since the McGladrey survey was taken. Perhaps this means that these hedge fund managers were too pessimistic in their views. However, if you believe that we're in for a trading range market, these levels could mean that we may experience some downward pressure on stock prices in the near future.

While we typically think of hedge funds as being only involved with financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, derivatives, etc., hedge fund managers also weighed in on the future of real estate values. 70% of respondents expect residential real estate values to continue to fall over the coming year, while a whopping 83% believe commercial real estate values will continue to fall. If they are correct, this will continue to have a chilling effect on the credit markets.

We all know that everyone from political candidates to the media leveled criticisms at the hedge fund industry for its part in the subprime meltdown and resulting credit crunch. The survey turned the tables and allowed hedge fund managers to rate the government on the job it's done during the recent economic malaise. So, how do the managers of these funds feel about the government's performance so far?

Interestingly, the Fed and its Chairman, Ben Bernanke, both fared well in the eyes of hedge fund managers as did the FDIC. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner got mixed reviews, but sentiments were overall positive. At the bottom of the barrel we find the SEC, which has been under a lot of criticism for its delayed response to the economic crisis.

One final question I'll highlight from the survey dealt with who hedge fund managers thought would ultimately clean up the "toxic assets" at the core of the financial crisis. 41% of respondents felt that the public sector (i.e. – the government and taxpayers) would end up holding the bag. I think that many of us are in this same camp.

However, 56% of managers felt that the private sector would provide the solution to cleaning up these hard-to-value securities. If that's the case, then hedge funds are likely to be at the epicenter of these private efforts to rid the financial system of these toxic assets.

Earlier on, I asked why we should care about the opinions of hedge fund managers. Perhaps the possibility that hedge funds may relieve taxpayers from some of the burden of having to clean up these toxic assets is the best reason of all to care about the opinions of those who manage these specialized investments.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

While investors welcomed last Friday's GDP report showing growth contracting only 1% in the 2Q (with two more revisions to come), we must keep in mind that this marked improvement from the 1Q was largely due to the large increase in federal spending. Consumer spending continued to fall in the 2Q and is unlikely to rise substantially anytime soon, as consumer confidence fell in June. Unemployment is likely headed over 10% well into 2010.

There is now a broad consensus that GDP in the 3Q will actually be at least mildly positive. That may indeed occur as businesses are forced to rebuild inventories at some point, and federal spending will certainly remain high in the 3Q and beyond. However, one quarter of positive GDP does not necessarily mean that the recession is over. Even if the recession is ending, economic growth is going to be weak due to decreased consumer spending.

Finally, there is the question of the stock markets. The meteoric rise of stocks since the lows in early March has obviously been a prediction that the credit crisis would ease somewhat and that the worst of the recession was behind us. Yet having risen apprx. 50% in just five months, even though the economy is likely to remain sluggish, this suggests that stocks may be testing their upper limits.

While it looks doubtful that stocks will retest their March lows, given how much money is still on the sidelines, I would be hesitant to recommend that investors jump back in the market now – unless you do so with a professional money manager(s) that has the ability to move to cash or hedge long positions.

Wishing you profits in a difficult market,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Pull Back Unspent Part Of The Stimulus
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333152018981557

The Stimulus Lesson (why it isn't working)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/791ucyiq.asp

Has the Market Gotten Ahead of the Recovery?
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/short-term-investing/has-the-market-gotten-ahead-of-the-recovery/

Debt and Deflation

JohnMauldin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:37:49 GMT

There is a reason I call this column Outside the Box. I try to get material that forces us to think outside our normal comfort zones and challenges our common assumptions. I have made the comment more than once that is it unusual for two major bubbles to burst and for the conversation to be all about rising inflation and not a serious problem with deflation.

As Niels Jensen pointed out last week, the most important question that an investor can ask is whether we are in for deflation or inflation. And this week we read a well reasoned piece on deflation. This is one of the more important essays I have sent out. You need to set aside some time to absorb this one.

Van Hoisington and Dr. Lacy Hunt give us a few thoughts on why they think it is deflation that will ultimately be the problem and not inflation we are dealing with today. This week's letter requires you to think, but it will be worth the effort.

And let me quote a few sentences in the middle of this letter about taxes which you need to think about.

"Thus Barro and Perotti are saying that each $1 increase in government spending reduces private spending by about $1, with no net benefit to GDP. All that is left is a higher level of government debt creating slower economic growth."

"The most extensive research on tax multipliers is found in a paper written at the University of California Berkeley entitled The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a new Measure of Fiscal Shocks, by Christina D. and David H. Romer (March 2007). (Christina Romer now chairs the president's Council of Economic Advisors). This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3."

Now, if you put all of the various inputs together, Hoisington and Hunt show that theory suggests we will soon be dealing with deflation. It's counter-intuitive to what we hear today, which is why the Bank for International Settlements used the stagflation word in a recent report. The transition that is coming will not be comfortable....

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Quarterly Review and Outlook
Second Quarter 2009

DEBT ACTS AS A BRAKE ON THE MONETARY ENGINE

One of the more common beliefs about the operation of the U.S. economy is that a massive increase in the Fed's balance sheet will automatically lead to a quick and substantial rise in inflation. An inflationary surge of this type must work either through the banking system or through non-bank institutions that act like banks which are often called "shadow banks". The process toward inflation in both cases is a necessary increasing cycle of borrowing and lending. As of today, that private market mechanism has been acting as a brake on the normal functioning of the monetary engine.

For example, total commercial bank loans have declined over the past 1, 3, 6, and 9 month intervals. Also, recent readings on bank credit plus commercial paper have registered record rates of decline (Chart 1). The FDIC has closed a record 52 banks thus far this year, and numerous other banks are on life support. The "shadow banks" are in even worse shape. Over 300 mortgage entities have failed, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in federal receivership. Foreclosures and delinquencies on mortgages are continuing to rise, indicating that the banks and their non-bank competitors face additional pressures to re- trench, not expand. Thus far in this unusual business cycle, excessive debt and falling asset prices have conspired to render the best efforts of the Fed impotent. The 100% plus expansion in the Fed's balance sheet (monetary base) has done nothing to rekindle borrowing and lending or revive even the smallest spark of inflation. What is clear is that as long as private market factors in the monetary/credit 1creation process are shrinking, as they are now, the risk for the economy is deflation, not inflation.

THE COMPLEX MONETARY CHAIN

The link between Fed actions and the economy is far more indirect and complex than the simple conclusion that Federal asset growth equals inflation. The price level and, in fact, real GDP are determined by the intersection of the aggregate demand (AD) and aggregate supply (AS) curves. Or, in economic parlance, for an increase in the Fed's balance sheet to boost the price level, the following conditions must be met:

The money multiplier must be flat or rising;
The velocity of money must be flat or rising; and
The AS or supply curve must be upward sloping.

The economy and price changes are moving downward because none of these conditions are currently being met; nor, in our judgment, are they likely to be met in the foreseeable future.

Aggregate demand (AD) is planned expenditures for GDP. As defined by the equation of exchange, GDP equals M2 multiplied by the velocity of money (V). M2 equals the monetary base (MB) multiplied by the money multiplier (m). Professors Brunner and Meltzer proved that m is determined by the currency, time, and Treasury deposit ratios, as well as the excess reserve ratio. The money multiplier moves inversely with the currency, Treasury deposit ratios, and excess reserve ratios and positively with the time deposit ratio. For example, if those ratios rise on balance, then m will decline. By algebraic substitution AD(GDP) = MB*V*m. In our present case, the massive increase in the Fed's balance sheet has created a sharp surge in excess reserves, and thus m has fallen.

Obviously the preceding paragraph is as clear as mud. It is included to provide mathematical proof of the complex connection between monetary actions and real world results. The practical and straightforward fact is that GDP has declined in the face of a surge in M2 growth. The labor market equivalent of GDP (aggregate hours worked) has declined at a record rate over the last 18 months, the entire span of the recession (Chart 2). That is, the monetary surge was totally offset by other factors; thus, the recession deepened and inflation was nonexistent.

The conventional wisdom is that the massive increase in excess reserves might eventually be used to make loans and reverse the economic contraction now underway, or that the velocity of money might increase. First, there is a very good explanation for the surge in excess reserves. The Fed now pays interest on its deposits, so banks have been incentivized to shift transaction deposits from riskier alternatives to the safety and liquidity offered by the Fed. Historically transaction deposits at the banks have fluctuated around 3% to 7% of a bank's balance sheet. In the second quarter, excess reserves averaged $800 billion which is 4.4% of the $18 trillion of bank debt (including off balance sheet). If this is the amount needed for transaction purposes, then this "high powered" money is not available for making loans and investments.

Second, velocity (V), or the turnover of money in the economy, is far more likely to fall than to rise. This is because V tends to fall when financial innovation reverses downward. As this process continues excess leverage will eventually diminish and together they will lead V lower. This process has already begun in the household sector.

In addition, the Fed needs an upward sloping supply curve to get the economic ball rolling. Today we estimate that the AS curve is flat. The reason it is in this perfectly elastic shape, rather than upward sloping, is that we have substantial excess labor and other productive resources. For example, in June the work week was at a record low while the U6 unemployment rate was at an all time high of 16.5%. No wonder wages are deflating. Further, industry capacity utilization was at a four decade low at 68.3%, while manufacturing capacity was at a six decade low for the longer running series at 65.0%. Indeed, when excess resources are extreme, the AS curve is likely to be not only horizontal, but shifting outward, meaning that prices will be lower at any level of aggregate demand or GDP. Thus, even if Fed actions could shift the aggregate demand curve outward, which it cannot do under present circumstances, inflation would still be a long way down the road. Thus, theory and current evidence clearly point to deflation as the overwhelming economic risk.

A FISCAL POLICY DRAG

Over the next four years, the ratio of U.S. government debt will rise to somewhere between 71% and 80% of GDP, up from 41% at the end of 2008. The 71% figure, which is from the CBO, is probably understated. The CBO figures do not include the debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (now owned by the U.S. government), and their economic forecasts are probably too optimistic. None of these projections have incorporated the proposed health care bill which would raise the debt ratio considerably. This substantial increase in government spending far exceeds projected rising revenue sources such as the large marginal tax increase that has been suggested by the reversal in 2010 of the 2001 and 2003 tax reductions.

While the federal deficit is expanding, state and local government spending is being reduced and taxes have increased. It is highly unusual that state and local expenditures have actually decreased in current dollars in the past two quarters and, in real terms, spending is lower than a year ago. This is because state and local governments generally do not have the flexibility to incur deficits, yet they face potential deficits of about $121 billion for fiscal 2010. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that thus far this year 23 states have imposed tax increases, with another 13 considering them. This is in addition to the ten states that imposed higher taxes or other revenue boosters in late 2007 or 2008. Therefore, the apparent thrust of federal policy is stimulus, while state and local policy is contractionary.

Interestingly, the term "federal stimulus spending" is an oxymoron. Many assume that the act of sending checks from the federal government sector to the private sector helps the economy through so-called spending multipliers. Multipliers take into consideration the second, third, fourth, etc. round effects from an initial change. Thus, multipliers capture the unintended consequences of policy actions. Although the initial spending objectives may be well intended, the ultimate outcome becomes convoluted. Over the past several years, multipliers have been intensively examined by leading economic scholars. Robert Barro of Harvard University calculates in Macroeconomics a Modern Approach (Thomson/Southwestern, 2008, p. 307) that the government expenditure multiplier from 1955 to 2006 was negative .01, not statistically different from 0. The highly respected Italian econometrician Roberto Perotti of Universita' Bocconi and the Centre for Capital Economic Policy Research has also done extensive work on this subject while visiting the fiscal policy division of the ECB. In October 2004, in his Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries, Perotti calculates that the U.S. expenditure multiplier is also close to 0. Thus Barro and Perotti are saying that each $1 increase in government spending reduces private spending by about $1, with no net benefit to GDP. All that is left is a higher level of government debt creating slower economic growth. There may be intermittent periods when government spending will lift the economy, but offsetting episodes will follow. The best available empirical research suggests that the current federal policy of expanding spending will retard, not improve, the performance of business conditions. In addition to spending multipliers, however, there are also tax multipliers.

The most extensive research on tax multipliers is found in a paper written at the University of California Berkeley entitled The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a new Measure of Fiscal Shocks, by Christina D. and David H. Romer (March 2007). (Christina Romer now chairs the president's Council of Economic Advisors). This study found that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that each dollar rise in taxes will reduce private spending by $3.

Presently, the federal government is increasing spending that in the end may actually retard economic activity, and is also proposing tax increases that will further restrain private sector growth. This policy mix is the same approach that failed in the U.S. from 1929 to 1941 and also failed in Japan over the past two decades, a subject we addressed in our April letter. In other words, fiscal policy is executing a program that is 180 degrees opposite from what it should be to stimulate the economy. How is it possible to get an inflationary cocktail out of deflationary ingredients?

BUSINESS CYCLE IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITIES

The preferred way to answer the business cycle question of expansion versus contraction is to examine the four variables most integral to the economy's performance: employment, production, personal income, and sales. For these variables to be consistent over time, the income and sales must be adjusted for inflation and personal income must exclude government transfer payments.

Recessions end when the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the official arbiter of such matters, says they end. But sometimes economic conditions suggest that the NBER miscalculated. Economic recovery occurs when these four indicators turn higher at about the same time. If the NBER's cycle turning dates are aligned with these four indicators they have validity. Regardless of the NBER's opinion, if the four indicators are not rising, a normal recovery will not occur. This seemingly esoteric point has important implications for the stock market.

In all the recessions from 1967 to 1999, the NBER aligns its recession ending dates very well with the unified recovery in income, production, employment and sales (Charts 3 & 4). However, for the 2000-2001 recession the NBER call date for the recovery did not line up with these four coincident indicators. Although the recession officially ended in November 2001, employment and income had not turned higher. In fact, they did not trough until March and August 2003 recording lags of 16 and 21 months, respectively. Thus, the economy was only in a partial recovery, a situation that had huge stock market implications.

The S&P 500 Stock Price Index troughed prior to the end of all the NBER defined recessions from 1967 through 1999, in concert with the four key economic variables (Chart 3 & 4). However, in 2001 the S&P bottomed 15 months after the end of the NBER defined recession yet one and six months before the cyclical troughs in income and employment, respectively. In other words, stock prices anticipated the complete, not partial, recovery of these pillars of economic growth. Although all four of these indicators are still falling, the critical event for the financial markets will be when all four finally turn higher. If a complete recovery of these four variables is still far in the future, then the current gains in the stock market cannot be sustained, just as rallies were not sustained in 2001.

DEBT DEFLATION AND BONDS

Total U.S. debt as a percent of GDP surged to 375% in the first quarter, a new post 1870 record, and well above the 360% average for 2008. Therefore, the economy became more leveraged even as the recession progressed. An over- leveraged economy is one prone to deflation and stagnant growth. This is evident in the path the Japanese took after their stock and real estate bubbles began to implode in 1989. At that time Japanese debt as a percent of GDP was 269% (Chart 5). This percentage actually continued to move higher until 1998 when it peaked at 345%, below the current level in the U.S. While the Japanese increased leverage for nine years after the bubble highs, neither highly inflated stock and real estate prices nor economic performance could be sustained as debt repayment became more burdensome.

Contrary to many evaluations of Japan's problems, traditional monetary policy was actually working. This is evidenced by the enlarged Japanese debt ratio in the early years after 1989 which was not merely due to increased government debt. Private debt as a percent of GDP also rose from 219% in 1989 to its peak of 274% in 1996. However, private debt as a percent of GDP turned down in 1997 as government debt absorbed a rising proportion of Japan's credit resources. The greater private debt load, from 1989 to 1996, as well as the massive increase in the government debt from 1989 to the present, coincided with two lost decades, not with prosperity. This template of increasing debt, combined with decreasing asset values, is a warning to investors of the efficacy of our current fiscal and monetary postures.

The combination of an extremely overleveraged economy, ineffectual monetary policy and misdirected fiscal policy initiatives suggests that the U.S. economy faces a long difficult struggle. While depleted inventories and the buildup of pent-up demand may produce intermittent spurts of growth, these brief episodes are not likely to be sustained. In several years, real GDP may be no higher than its current levels. However, since the population will continue to grow, per capita GDP will decline; thus, the standard of living will diminish as unemployment rises. These conditions will produce a deflationary environment similar to the Japanese condition.

Investments in long term Treasury securities are motivated by inflationary expectations. If fixed income investors believe inflation is headed lower, they will invest in long-dated securities, while they will invest in Treasury bills, or inflation protected securities if they believe inflation is headed higher. In the normal recessions since 1950, the low in inflation was, on average, 29 months after a complete economic recovery was underway, and bond yields moved in a similar fashion. If this recession were normal, then the low in inflation would be in late 2011, at which time investors would begin to consider shortening the maturity of their Treasury portfolios. However, because of our highly-indebted circumstances and the movement of private sector resources to the public sector, the trough in inflation will be moved out, meaning that the low in Treasury bond yields is a distant event. The path there will be bumpy, as it was in the U.S. from 1929 to 1941 and in Japan from 1989 to 2008. Presently the 10-year yield in Japan stands at 1.3%. Ultimately, our yield level may be similar to that of the Japanese.

Van R. Hoisington
Lacy H. Hunt, Ph.D.

Association of Investor Awareness - Week of 06/25/2009

AIAAdvocate — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:32:00 GMT

In This Issue:

Mixed Economic Signals Worry Investors
Another Kind Of Bailout Is Also A Concern
A New Economic Reality Is Emerging
For Efficient Companies, Slow Growth Can Be Profitable
Your Best Strategy Now
Three Analysts And A Fool Have Recommended This Stock
The Bottom Line This Week

In our last issue we remarked that "the rally may be getting short of breath." Shortly thereafter, the huffing and puffing began in earnest. On Monday of this week, definite wheezing sounds were heard as the bull dropped to its knees just short of pushing the market into positive territory for the year. Perhaps the old boy was out of shape after letting the bear take over for six months.

In any event, since May 28 the Dow dropped 0.8% while the Nasdaq managed to squeak ahead a miniscule 0.8%. More importantly, both measures slipped 3.0% and 1.7% last week – and they are even lower now.

Mixed Economic Signals Worry Investors

It is not possible at this early juncture to know if the bear has returned. However, we can say that many of the economic "green shoots" that have attracted so much attention of late are beginning to look a bit wilted.

Sales of existing homes are typical of the economic signals that are making investors nervous. Sales increased 2.4% in May, which suggests that the housing market is finally turning around. At the same time, however, home prices dropped again and are now 16.8% lower than they were a year ago. Economists can't decide if the increasing sales offset the negative consequences of declining prices. Until the matter is settled, many investors are taking a time out.

There are also mixed signals about inflation and interest rates. On the one hand, rising oil and commodity prices are clearly inflationary. Ditto for the money supply that is shooting up due to all the king-sized bailouts from Uncle Sugar.

But at the same time, wages are dropping, layoffs are increasing, household wealth is plummeting, and several states are on the edge of bankruptcy – all of which point to continued deflation. Since the tug of war between inflationary and deflationary forces could go either way, many investors are sitting on their money.

Lastly, investors were counting on a solid global turnaround in the coming months. Those hopes were put in question when the World Bank reported that growth would contract 2.9% this year instead of expanding 1.7% as previously predicted. Oops! Even if the numbers are not spot on, the reversal in the outlook is disconcerting.

Another Kind Of Bailout Is Also A Concern

It's not just investors who are nervous about the economy. The grand poobahs at America's largest companies are also moving their chairs closer to the door. In fact, many company officers are leaving the party altogether.

According to TrimTabs, a respected group of investment analysts, in June insiders at S&P 500 companies unloaded $2.6 billion worth of shares, vs a paltry $120 million purchases – and the month isn't even over yet. That lopsided ratio indicates that many executives believe the business outlook is not very good. Although company insiders are not always right, their track records are much better than from Wall Street number crunchers who aren't on the front lines.

A New Economic Reality Is Emerging

Of course, the disappointing green shoots news is no surprise to our readers. We have been arguing for months that "a recovery will probably be more modest" than most analysts and investors expect. Instead, the economy is probably just settling into a lower pace of activity where it may remain for years.

The biggest impediment to a strong rebound is this recession isn't just another contraction in the business cycle. Instead, the economy is adjusting to major structural changes in banking, credit, trade, manufacturing, consumer credit, and many other conditions – all of which are scaling down.

For example, many homeowners and realtors think that rising home sales indicate that the housing market will soon be moving up again. That may be true in many markets. However, rebounds to anywhere near pre-collapse levels are almost certainly out of the question for several years.

Likewise, manufacturers will probably need to rehire some workers to replace inventories that have been drawn down over the past year or so. But another all-out production boom is very unlikely. The outlooks are similar for the other engines of growth.

The biggest change is occurring on the social front. The madcap spending binge of a few years ago is being replaced by the desire to be frugal and put money away for the future. Even people with good incomes are changing their spending habits. The old phrase "He who dies with the most toys wins," is being replaced with "A penny saved is a penny earned." Since consumer spending is two thirds of the economy, the new thrift indicates that growth will be very modest for some time to come.

For Efficient Companies, Slow Growth Can Be Profitable

Some readers may wonder how any companies can possibly prosper given the big economic problems that dominate the news.

The answer is that the front pages don't tell the whole story of what is happening in America. The economy has a lot more going for it than banking, housing, and auto making. Although earnings are down in nearly every industry, most companies are still in the black.

That's especially true for multinational firms that do a substantial amount of business in countries with stronger growth rates than in the U.S.

Your Best Strategy Now

Thanks to the rally, we have seen excellent gains in our blue chip stocks. Although the upturn may have a second wind and continue for another few weeks, we think the possible rewards are not worth the risk. Accordingly, this would appear to be a good time to take some profits off the table.

Stocks that you intend to keep for the long haul you should protect with stop loss orders. If you are a conservative investor, using a tight stop of 10% might be in order, although choosing 15% would give prices more wiggle room.

More aggressive investors should consider using a 20% or a 25% stop to protect against a large loss in case the market is blindsided by an unforeseen event.

All investors who use stop loss orders should make them trailing stops that will follow any additional price rises every step of the way. The most effective trailing stops are based upon a percent of the price, but you can also choose fixed prices if they suit your needs better.

We also think you should make use of a correction to buy high quality stocks that fall significantly in price. All the high quality stocks that we have been recommending of late should be on your list including: ConAgra Foods (CAG) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CAG, ExxonMobil (XOM), http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM, Hormel Foods (HRL) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HRL, Colgate Palmolive (CL) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CL, and Procter & Gamble (PG) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=PG. We think the blue chip group is as close to being a sure long term bet as Wall Street ever offers.

A bit more aggressive, but with prospects to match, are Alcoa (AA) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AA, Deere (DE) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DE, General Electric (GE) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GE, and Caterpillar (CAT http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CAT. All the companies are tied to the global economy, they are very efficient, and they can prosper even in a slow growth environment.

A new investment that we believe has excellent prospects is the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (EEM) http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EEM. Emerging nations are growing much more strongly than in the U.S., and they should continue to do so. The BRIC countries in particular (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), are developing their large internal markets and are becoming less dependent upon exports to Europe and the U.S. The BRIC countries are also signing currency exchange agreements with each other to reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar – but that's a story and an opportunity we must leave for next time.

THREE ANALYSTS AND A FOOL HAVE RECOMMENDED THIS STOCK

Last month we reported on a significantly undervalued China stock we had been following for quite some time. Those of you who took a position in Universal Travel Group (NYSE Amex: UTA) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=UTA have been rewarded with a very nice upward move of 44%, with Wednesday's close at $10.10.

Since moving to the American Stock Exchange, UTA has been showing up on more radar screens than a 757. The Company was profiled by "The Motley Fool CAPS" on June 23, 2009. One comment that caught our attention was..."Universal Travel has outpaced the other 11 stocks in the CAPS Travel Services sector by orders of magnitude. Shares of the growing travel company are up nearly 50% over the past month (and up more than 223% year to date),compared to the 6% increase across the sector since late May."

You may recall that Universal Travel specializes in online and customer representative services. The Company offers packaged tours, air ticketing, hotel reservation and agency services. They racked up some great numbers from 2005 through 2008: 202% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) ... they have no long-term debt ... $16.2 million in cash ... $30.2 million in working capital... and earnings of $14.5 million for the full year ending 12/31/08.

By our calculations, they have earned $1.20 ttm, and at a closing price of $10.10 on 6/23/09, they are still trading at less than a 8.5 P/E multiple. Comparable industry multiples range from 25 to 43 times earnings...even with its recent share price increase, Universal Travel has a lot of upward potential.

Three independent analysts have issued recommendations on UTA in the past eight months...the latest indicating a price target in the $16 to $18 range. We think that could be conservative, given the average P/E multiple of 34 might suggest a price approaching $40 per share. Given the Company's YOY growth of top and bottom lines, that's certainly possible in the next 12 to 18 months.

Go to http://cnutg.ir.stockpr.com/ for more details.

The Bottom Line This Week

The green shoots that most investors have been expecting are here, but they are developing more slowly than expected. We think the reason is the U.S. economy is adjusting to a lower level of growth instead of making a traditional post recession rebound.

Fortunately, well-established companies are adept at squeezing profits from slack markets. At the top of that list are our top-rated blue chip companies. All of them may be purchased if a correction makes their prices attractive again.

Investors who will accept extra risk in return for the prospect of higher profits should look to emerging markets where growth rates remain high. Among them, the BRIC countries appear to offer the greatest long-term potential, with China leading the pack.

In the interest of full disclosure, John M. Casson, Executive Director of AIA is president of Casson Media Group, Inc. (CMG), an affiliated company. CMG has received cash compensation and allocated $2500 for the transmission of this publication as part of a comprehensive corporate communications services agreement for Universal Travel Group. Although the Research and Editorial Staff of AIA conducts independent research and analysis, you should be aware of this potential conflict of interest.

Is America On The Road To Financial Ruin?

GaryHalbert — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:53:11 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Obama's Government Takeover Continues
Editorial: "Too Big to Fail, Or Succeed"
Americans More Concerned About Deficits
Economy May Have Seen the Worst of It
Conclusions

Introduction

The more I think about it, I believe that last week's E-Letter which revealed President Obama's plans to double the national debt over the next decade was one of the most important e-letters/newsletters I have ever written. If by chance you did not read last week's E-Letter, you need to click on the link above and do so now, since Obama's planned explosion in US debt will be a continuing theme in these weekly E-Letters for some time to come.

I sincerely believe that if our current $11.4 trillion national debt doubles over the next 10 years (and possibly even sooner), it will bankrupt America and send us into an even worse financial and economic crisis. President Obama's plans to run trillion dollar annual budget deficits for at least the next few years are almost certain to wreck the US dollar, which in turn will be very bad news for the stock and bond markets, not to mention the long-term inflation implications.

I have warned for over 25 years that politics are intimately intertwined with the course of the economy, the markets and thus our investments. This argument has never been clearer than today, and more and more Americans are coming to realize this. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll late last week found that 58% of respondents now believe that Obama's trillion dollar deficits are a greater concern than the recession in the economy. Maybe I'm making some progress!

President Obama has made public statements in recent weeks that he would prefer a smaller government had he not "inherited" this recession and financial crisis from George W. Bush. He has also said that he does not want to run (own) companies like AIG, GM and Chrysler. Yet his administration continues to promulgate new regulations that will make it even more likely that the government will eventually own much larger stakes in the private sector.

Obviously, Obama's plan to have the government take over national health care is a prime example of his intentions to greatly expand an already bloated, inefficient government and run unprecedented trillion dollar budget deficits. I have not chosen to weigh-in on the healthcare debate so far, partly because polls show that a majority of Americans want major healthcare reforms. All I will say at this point is, be careful what you wish for.

Last week President Obama announced sweeping regulatory changes that will dramatically affect the financial and investment markets for years to come. These so-called "reforms" could result in the government and/or the Fed owning some of our big banks and financial institutions that are deemed to be "too-big-to-fail." While the recent financial crisis suggests that some reforms are needed, having the government own or control many of our largest financial institutions is not the answer.

I will discuss these sweeping new financial regulations as we go along. I will also discuss the latest economic indicators which remain mixed, along with my thoughts on the investment markets. It's a lot to cover, so let's get started.

Obama's Government Takeover Continues

Last Wednesday, President Obama announced the most sweeping financial industry reforms since the Securities and Exchange Commission was created in 1934. Obama unveiled new proposals that would refashion the federal rules governing almost every corner of finance, and will push the government and the Federal Reserve much more deeply into banks and the private markets. The administration's 85-page "white paper" on financial reform sounded the opening salvo in a likely overreaching regulatory process that could expand for several years.

Most importantly, government supervision of all financial firms that are deemed to be big enough to threaten overall economic stability ("systemic risk") will be consolidated under, and be regulated by, the Federal Reserve. We're not just talking about banks here – the new regulations will allow the Fed to oversee any private or public companies that are deemed to pose systemic risks (ie- "too-big-to-fail").

These entities will be required to hold more capital and liquidity than other firms, and will face other regulatory requirements as deemed appropriate by the Fed and/or the Treasury Department. Firms that cannot meet the Fed's requirements can be taken over, partly or wholly, by the government – as was the case with insurance giant AIG, or simply shut down – as was the case with Lehman Brothers. This is scary!

Obama's regulatory net is also being cast over the credit markets whose growth contributed to the financial crisis. Those who package loans together for sale in securitizations (including mortgages) will have to disclose more and will be required to keep 5% of any deal to encourage sounder underwriting. Likewise, the new plan calls for payment of their fees to be spread over time and reduced if the loans go bad. Frankly, these specific regulations may actually make sense, while others are simply unnecessary government intrusions in the private sector.

The president's new reforms also include the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). In theory, this new government agency will safeguard against mortgage, credit card and other abuses that may have contributed to the current crisis. In reality, this new agency may ultimately be the arbiter of who can – and cannot – get a home mortgage, what interest rates lenders and credit card companies can charge, etc., etc. Concern is already mounting that the new agency will take an overly restrictive view of permissible financial products, limiting access to credit and curbing good as well as bad innovation.

What follows are excerpts from an Investors Business Daily editorial published last Friday that fairly, I think, points out the assessment of those who will oppose Obama's sweeping regulatory reforms:

"Many on Wall Street have been stunned by a plan that subjects America's free-market capitalism to the controlling whims of bureaucrats, newly appointed czars and congressional committees headed by anti-business liberals such as Rep. Barney Frank.

‘We intend to take our case to Congress to explain why we believe adding new layers to a broken regulatory system is not the answer,' David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Center for Capital Markets, told the Los Angeles Times. Indeed, there are lots of objectionable things in the plan.

…We hope Wall Street — banks, investment houses, hedge funds, private investors — continues to speak up. The Democrats' plan slips the government's fingers around the economy's neck, choking off the risk-taking that is the very essence of America's capitalist success. Bold risk-takers will be replaced with risk-averse bureaucrats, and the dynamic growth engine that feeds our ever-expanding standard of living will be shut down.

This in turn will create a permanent bailout culture — one that will deem certain companies ‘too big to fail' and subsidize their failure with taxpayer money, while burdening small, entrepreneurial companies with unnecessary and costly regulatory oversight."

The IBD editors hit on only a few of the potential problems with President Obama's sweeping new regulatory reforms included in his 85-page report released last week. Analysts are still sorting out the details and considering the long-term implications. Certainly, some of the reforms will be welcomed by many Americans, especially those who believe that the government should control the private markets. But with any such government intervention, freedoms are sacrificed and free markets are restricted. A June 18 Wall Street Journal editorial makes the best argument I have seen regarding Obama's sweeping regulatory reform proposals.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

QUOTE: TOO BIG TO FAIL, OR SUCCEED
Everyone will want to become big enough to enjoy 'systemic risk' protection.
by Peter Wallison (senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute)

In a speech at the White House yesterday, President Barack Obama outlined what he envisions for future regulation of the financial system. He called his plan "a new foundation for sustained economic growth . . . a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression." Indeed it is.

His plan, if adopted, will fundamentally change the nature of our financial system and economy. The underlying concerns and assumptions are clear, and they are made clearer by considering other ways that his administration has dealt with the consequences of competition -- particularly the faux bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler and the impending change in antitrust policy. Although the president said in his speech that he supports free markets, these initiatives confirm that the administration fears the "creative destruction" that free markets produce, preferring stability over innovation, competition and change.

According to the administration white paper circulated prior to the president's speech, the Federal Reserve would be authorized to create a special regulatory regime -- including requirements for capital, leverage and liquidity -- for any firm "whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed." In addition, if a large financial firm is failing, the Treasury is to be given the power -- in lieu of bankruptcy -- to appoint a conservator or receiver to "stabilize" it.

Designating particular financial firms for this kind of special regulatory treatment clearly signals to the markets that these institutions are too big to fail. It will reduce the perceived risk of lending to them, enabling them to raise funds at lower cost than their smaller competitors.

In other words, the administration's plan would create what are essentially government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in every sector of the financial economy -- insurers, securities firms, finance companies, bank holding companies, and hedge funds -- where these specially regulated firms are to be designated. The result will be devastating for competition. Larger firms will squeeze out smaller ones and aggressive small companies will have less opportunity to overcome the government-backed winners.

Moreover, the administration's proposal to provide a special bailout mechanism for large firms confirms the likelihood that these firms will never be closed down or liquidated. Citing the market turmoil that followed Lehman's collapse, the administration will argue that failures like this are "disorderly." But failure comes from risk-taking -- the very source of our economy's strength -- and it is ultimately risk-taking and its consequences that the administration's plan is intended to prevent.

The turmoil following Lehman's failure occurred because market participants expected, after the rescue of Bear Stearns, that any larger firm would also be rescued. When Lehman wasn't, all market participants were required to recalibrate the risks of dealing with all others, causing a freeze-up in lending and hoarding of cash. Lehman's failure itself did not cause any substantial losses, and within two weeks of its bankruptcy filing, Lehman's trustee sold its brokerage, investment banking, and investment management businesses to four different buyers.

Contrast this with AIG, the administration's paradigm, which was saved by the government because it was allegedly too big to fail. That firm is gradually wasting away under government control, with the taxpayers footing the bill.

The administration's fear of competitive outcomes is not reflected solely in financial-sector policies. Consider General Motors and Chrysler. They were defeated in the marketplace. Simply put, they failed to build automobiles [that] enough Americans wanted to buy.

Their disappearance would not have threatened the stability of the financial system, although it would undoubtedly have been disruptive for suppliers, dealers and employees. Yet the administration wouldn't allow them to fail, either. Despite all the talk about credit priorities, the fundamental point is that the administration used taxpayer money to overturn the market's verdict. If we want a preview of what the administration will do with the resolution authority it wants for large financial companies, we need look no further.

The same pattern with regard to competitive markets can be seen in the Justice Department's new antitrust policy. Christine Varney, the new assistant attorney general in charge of antitrust policy, has said that U.S. policy should be more like Europe's. Until now, U.S. antitrust policy has tried to protect competition. Europe attempts to protect competitors. Protecting competitors means blunting the skills of superior players, allowing inferior managers and business models to remain in business and thus preventing better managements and business models from emerging. Again, stability wins out over change and progress.

The president has said on several occasions, including in yesterday's speech, that "I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market." But his administration's prescriptions tell a different story. In AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac we can see the future that the administration envisions for our economy -- a sclerotic and unchanging structure of big companies working with, protected by, and relying on big government.
END QUOTE

I could not agree more with Mr. Wallison's analysis above. Yet most Americans have no idea what President Obama's sweeping regulatory changes really mean, much less how they may negatively affect competition and the free markets. Most Americans only hear the media sound-bites which leave the impression that the Obama administration reforms will "fix" the financial markets once and for all.

Were some changes in regulation of the financial markets in order? Certainly. Subprime loans, "no-doc" loans and "liar" loans allowed millions of Americans to purchase homes they could never afford. Likewise, credit rating agencies allowed investment bankers to create AAA-rated bonds secured by these questionable mortgages, which greatly broadened the impact of the subprime debacle.

These and other abuses ultimately led to the housing crisis, the credit crisis and the most severe recession since the Depression. So, changes to the financial regulatory system were needed.

As I noted above, some of Obama's new regulations on mortgage lenders make a lot of sense and will help to curb abuses. But many others are nothing less than purposeful government intrusion in the private markets in ways that will stifle competition. In many ways, these new rules look more like nationalization than regulation.

Americans More Concerned About Deficits

While President Obama continues to enjoy high (but falling) approval ratings overall, the public is growing much more concerned about Obama's record-large budget deficits and government intrusion in our lives, as noted in this week's SPECIAL ARTICLES below. In particular, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll published last Thursday had some surprising findings.

For example, a solid majority – 58% – were more concerned about the budget deficit than they are about the economy. Specifically, they said that the president and Congress "should focus on keeping the budget down, even if it takes longer for the economy to recover."

When asked about the expanding role of government (e.g. ownership stake in GM, executive compensation, health care, etc.) a whopping 69% said they were very concerned (49% answered "a great deal" and 20% answered "quite a bit").

On the issue of Obama's health care plans, the WSJ poll results suggest that the president still has a lot of convincing to do. 33% think it's a good idea, 32% think it's a bad idea, and 35% have no opinion. Put differently, 67% either think government run health care is a bad idea, or they're not sure.

The New York Times also released its latest poll last Thursday. It also revealed that the public is growing more wary of the expanding role of government. When asked if the government is doing too much or too little, the result was: 56% too much versus 34% too little.

These surprising poll results suggest that more and more Americans are realizing just how dangerous it will be for America to double the national debt in a decade or less, as I discussed in detail last week.

Economy May Have Seen the Worst of It

Barring a major negative surprise, I think we have likely seen the worst of this recession. The Commerce Department will release its final estimate of 1Q GDP on Thursday, and most forecasters expect it to be in the -5.5% to -5.7% range (annual rate), which is at least mildly less negative than the -6.3% plunge in the 4Q of last year. Together, these two quarters should prove to be the worst of the most severe US recession since the Great Depression.

There is a broad consensus that the US economy has continued to contract during the 2Q, with most suggesting a decline of 2-3% in GDP over the last three months. From there, though, forecasts vary widely as to what will happen in the economy during the second half of the year. While I continue to believe that GDP will remain in negative territory all year, a growing number of analysts believe that GDP could actually go positive in the 4Q.

We have had more good economic news in the last couple of weeks. Most importantly, the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) rose a better than expected 1.2% in May, following a 1.1% gain in April. These were the first back-to-back monthly increases in almost three years.

The Commerce Department reported on June 11 that retail sales rose 0.5% in May, the first increase in three months. However, the report indicated that much of the rise in sales was due to the significant increase in gasoline prices.

On the manufacturing front, the latest reports were mixed. The ISM Index rose modestly to 42.8 in May versus 42.3 in April. Remember that any reading in the ISM below 50 indicates an economy that is still contracting. Industrial production fell another 1.1% in May, while the factory operating rate slipped to 68.3% in May, down from 69% in April.

On the housing front, there was a bit of encouraging news. Housing starts rose sharply in May, thanks in large part to the federal home tax credit that expires in November. Building permits were also up modestly in May. However, the inventory of unsold homes remains at a record level with over 11 months' supply on the market. Home prices nationally plunged 19.1% in the 1Q and are down 32% from the peak in 2006. So the housing slump is far from over.

The US unemployment rate continues to spike higher, rising to 9.4% in May, up from 8.9% in April. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists found a consensus opinion that the unemployment rate will hit at least 9.9% by the end of this year. The continued rise in the unemployment rate is almost certain to keep consumers on the defensive.

While we are seeing signs that the worst of this recession is behind us, that does not mean the economy will move into positive territory by the end of this year. Consumer spending is still lagging and is likely to stay below trend for some time to come. The personal savings rate jumped to 5.7% in April (latest data available), the highest level in more than 14 years, and this trend is likely to continue.

The combination of declining housing and stock-market values with the heavy debt loads Americans took on during the housing boom has inflicted significant damage on household finances. The Federal Reserve's latest "flow of funds report" earlier this month showed that household net worth fell $1.1 trillion in the 1Q from the 4Q of last year to $50.4 trillion, putting it $13.9 trillion below its 2007 peak. Collectively, homeowners held 41.4% of the equity in their homes, the lowest level since records have been kept and down from 53.9% two years earlier.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions

As noted above, we have seen some encouraging signs in the economy. If you watch any of the financial channels, you will find that there is a great deal of optimism that the recession will be over before the end of this year. Sorry, but I just don't buy it. I continue to believe that the economy will still be in negative territory at the end of the year, as measured by GDP. I hope I am wrong.

As for President Obama's sweeping financial regulatory reforms he announced last week, we would hope to be implementing new regulations that should prevent anything similar to the sub-prime meltdown and the credit crisis from ever happening again. However, I believe that most of Obama's proposed regulatory changes are over-reaching and onerous. But Congress is likely to pass most or all of them, despite the long-term market implications.

On a positive note, I am very encouraged that more Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about the mammoth level of spending and deficits planned by the Obama administration over the next decade. Doubling the national debt in the next decade (or less) will have extremely negative consequences for the economy and stocks and bonds.

I feel that more of the public is coming to realize just how much exploding federal deficits will affect the future of their children and grandchildren. Perhaps we have come to realize just how large a sum one trillion dollars is, how long it could take to pay it back and who will be required to make those payments. More people want the government to do what every family must do - make tough decisions on which expenditures are most important and which can be deferred.

Finally, I believe that the public is picking up on the fact that capitalism's very structure is changing. Specifically, the government has switched from a role of economic supporter and regulator to owner and controller. This is a fundamental shift in the very nature of capitalism and could have ramifications far into the future. To me, this is the most disturbing of all of the recent events that have come to pass.

Let's hope that our representatives in Washington get the message that the recent polls are sending – that Obama's incredible spending and bigger government plans will wreck our economy over time. If not, it could be a very bleak future that we leave to our heirs. Sorry to end on a negative note, but it is what it is.

Wishing you a great summer,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Independent voters worried about Obama's spending
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124570175501838333.html

More polls show growing concern over Obama's deficits
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html

Public confidence in Obama stimulus plan is falling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202000.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Signs of the End of the Recession - Maybe

GaryHalbert — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:29:18 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Latest Economic Reports -- Mostly Negative
Latest Wall Street Journal Survey of Economists
Fed's Latest "Beige Book" Outlook is Bleak
Conclusions -- What To Believe?

Introduction

We have clients calling us every day to ask if we believe the economy and the stock markets have seen the bottom. We don't know for sure, of course, but it may be reasonable to assume that the 4Q of last year and the 1Q of this year will mark the worst two quarters of this severe recession. We won't see the government's first estimate of 1Q GDP until next Wednesday, April 29, and it is expected to be about as bad as the 4Q decline of 6.3% (annual rate).

Economic reports over the last few weeks have been mixed to negative. I will highlight those reports as we go along. To get a better idea where we stand in the recession, we will also review the latest Federal Reserve "Beige Book" released on April 15, which analyzes the national economy in greater detail. Overall, it was quite negative and reinforced my view that we will be in negative economic growth territory for all of this year.

The stock markets bottomed in early March, and we have seen an impressive rally since then. The Dow Jones rebounded almost 25% from the lows in early March. There is historical evidence that the stock markets are often an early indicator of a change in the economic indicators, and tend to lead the economy by an average of six months. More and more analysts are calling the March lows the bottom, but this assumes there will be no more major negative surprises.

The stock market recovery and signs that the credit markets are unfreezing just a bit prompted some rather optimistic predictions (overall) in a recent Wall Street Journal survey of 53 economists and market analysts. On average, the 53 forecasters predicted an end to the recession by September of this year. I am not so optimistic, and the combined WSJ survey results are not nearly as positive as the September end-of-recession conclusion suggests. More on this later.

As I wrote in my April 7 E-Letter, many of the largest insurance companies are in financial trouble, so I believe it is still too early to assume that there will not be more major negative surprises. Although, as I noted in last week's letter, it appears that the Treasury Department will allow most major insurers access to TARP bailout monies, assuming the companies are willing to submit themselves to government controls.

As we go along, I will direct you to a weekly economic publication I follow that is produced by the Wachovia Economics Group (Wachovia bank was purchased by Wells Fargo bank in December of 2008). While the analysts at Wachovia are considerably more optimistic than I am about the recession ending later this year, they do a decent job of forecasting and analyzing the various economic reports that are released each week, and it's free of charge. I'll tell you how to access it later on in this letter. Let's get started.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

The Latest Economic Reports -- Mostly Negative

At the end of March, the Commerce Department released its final estimate of 4Q GDP, showing that the economy fell at an annual rate of 6.3%, the worst quarterly drop in 25 years. Personal consumption spending plunged 4.3% year-over-year in the 4Q. As noted above, the first estimate of 1Q GDP will not be released until next Wednesday, April 29. Pre-report estimates vary from down 4-5% to down 7-8%. My guess is that 1Q GDP will be down slightly more than the -6.3% in the 4Q of last year.

We have recently seen a few encouraging signs that the worst of the recession and the credit crisis may be behind us, such as improving profit numbers from several of the big banks that took TARP money. At the same time, there are persistent rumors that several of the major banks have failed their so-called "stress tests" being conducted by the Treasury Department. For a host of reasons, I believe that the recession will drag on for the rest of the year.

Most importantly, every week we continue to hear of mounting job losses. The unemployment rate jumped to 8.5% in March, up from 8.1% a month earlier. The Labor Department announced last Thursday that the number of Americans receiving unemployment benefits topped six million for the first time in US history. Initial unemployment claims have been above 600,000 for the last four weeks running. Most of my trusted sources believe that the unemployment rate will hit at least 10% by the end of the year, another suggestion that the recession will drag on for at least another 2-3 quarters.

Consumer confidence remains in the tank. The latest report for March had the Consumer Confidence Index at 26.0, down from 60 just last September. Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center noted:

"Consumer Confidence was relatively unchanged in March, after reaching an all-time low in February (Index began in 1967). The Present Situation Index suggests that the overall state of the economy remains weak and that more job losses are on the horizon. Apprehension about the outlook for the economy, the labor market and earnings continues to weigh heavily on consumers' attitudes. Looking ahead, consumers remain extremely pessimistic about the short-term future and do not foresee a turnaround in economic conditions over the coming six months."

With consumer confidence so depressed, it should not have surprised anyone that retail sales for March were worse than expected, falling 1.1%. It was the biggest decline in three months and a much weaker showing than the 0.3% decline that analysts expected. A big drop in auto sales led the overall slump in demand. Sales also plunged at clothing stores, appliance outlets and furniture stores, just to mention a few.

Along with the slowdown in consumer spending, we are seeing credit card delinquencies continue to soar. It was recently reported that banks and credit card companies wrote off a record $21 billion in unpaid credit card debt in 2008. Such credit card write-offs are estimated to balloon to a whopping $41 billion this year. This will mean more bad news for the major banks.

The Conference Board reported yesterday that the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) fell 0.3% in March, following a decline of 0.4% in February. The chart below illustrates the severity of the economic downturn and does not suggest that the recession has bottomed out yet.

The ISM manufacturing index was essentially unchanged in March at 36.3, up fractionally from February's 35.8. Any reading in the ISM index below 50 indicates that the economy is contracting. The March decline was the 14th consecutive month that the index was below 50. A spokesperson for the ISM noted, however, that the March reading of 36.3 marked the third consecutive month that the index was in the mid-30s, suggesting that the decline may be stabilizing. We will see.

Industrial production contracted by 1.5% in March after a similar decline in February. Analysts estimate that industrial production fell at an annualized rate of 20% in the 1Q. If correct, that would mean the 1Q would be the largest drop since the 1Q of 1975. With the exception of utilities, all major industrial sectors registered declines. Capacity utilization (the factory operating rate) fell to 69.3% in March, which is the lowest on record, down from near 80% a year ago.

On the housing front, March brought more bad news following the brief respite the month before. Housing starts plunged 10.8% in March to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 510,000 units. That was the second lowest home construction pace in records that go back 50 years. The decline was worse than economists had expected, and February activity also was revised lower. Applications for building permits fell 9% in March to a record low of 513,000 units. Some would argue that the declines noted above are a good thing since there are still far too many unsold homes on the market.

Unfortunately, the home foreclosure rate jumped by 24% in the first three months of this year and is poised to rise further as major lenders restart foreclosures after a temporary break, according to data released last Thursday. Nationwide, nearly 804,000 homes received at least one foreclosure-related notice from January through March, up from about 650,000 in the same time period a year earlier, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a foreclosure listing firm.

The big unknown for the coming months, however, is President Obama's supposed plan to help up to nine million borrowers avoid foreclosure through refinanced mortgages or modified loans. The Obama administration expects its plans to make a big dent in the foreclosure crisis. But it hasn't happened yet, and it remains to be seen whether the lending industry will fully embrace it, despite $75 billion in potential incentive payments.

Predictions of a Recovery in the Economy

As noted in the Introduction, the analysts at Wachovia Economics Group are considerably more optimistic than I am about the second half of this year. As you can see in the chart below, the Wachovia Group expects 1Q GDP to come in around -6%, and they could be correct. In any event, the 1Q GDP number will almost certainly be one of the worst in decades.

The Wachovia Group believes that economic growth will recover in the 2Q and 3Q with GDP registering only a negative 1-2%. And they currently forecast that GDP will improve into mildly positive territory in the 4Q. I believe Wachovia's prediction of an end to the recession by the 4Q is too optimistic, as do several of my most trusted sources for economic forecasts.

If you would like to read Wachovia's latest weekly economic analysis released on Friday, click on the following link:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/WeeklyEconomicFinancialCommentaryApril172009.pdf

If you would like to subscribe to Wachovia's weekly economic commentaries, click on the following link -- the service is free of charge:
http://www.wachovia.com/economicsemail

Latest Wall Street Journal Survey of Economists

As noted in the Introduction, the latest Wall Street Journal (WSJ) survey of 53 economists and market analysts yielded some (emphasize some) surprisingly positive suggestions, despite the continued drumbeat of negative economic news. The WSJ survey was taken in early April. On average, the 53 economists and analysts surveyed predicted that the recession would end by September of this year.

While the average forecast among the 53 economists suggests that the recession will end late in the 3Q, there were a number of the economists surveyed that were not so optimistic. I agree. Here are some highlights from the latest WSJ economic survey. Pay special attention to the unemployment forecasts. Those, to me, tell us more than anything about when the recession will end.

"Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey expect the recession to end in September, though most say it won't be until the second half of 2010 that the economy recovers enough to bring down unemployment.

Gross domestic product was predicted to contract in the first and second quarters of this year by 5.0% and 1.8%, respectively, on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate. A return to growth -- a modest 0.4% -- isn't expected until the third quarter.

Indeed, economists' prospects for the labor market remain bleak. Just 12% of the economists expect the unemployment rate to fall some time this year. More than a third of respondents expect the jobless rate to peak in the first half of 2010, while about half don't see unemployment declining until the second half of 2010. By December of this year, the economists on average expect the unemployment rate to reach 9.5%, up from the 8.5% reported for March...

Meanwhile, asked to name the biggest risk to their forecasts, economists singled out problems in the credit markets. ‘Once the virtuous cycle starts, the chief headwind will be credit availability,' said Kurt Karl of Swiss Re. The possibilities of a failure of a major financial institution and persistent reluctance of consumers to spend, both related to the credit markets, were tied for second place in the list of concerns."

Many market analysts around the world follow the WSJ economist surveys, and they are always insightful. But this one published earlier this month raises more questions than answers. How likely is it that the recession will end in September when the consensus among the economists is that the unemployment rate will continue to ratchet up until at least mid-2010? I don't get it.

My conclusion is that the recession may well hit bottom by September of this year, but we won't be back to positive economic growth until sometime in 2010. And that assumes we are not looking at major insurance company bankruptcies (and/or major bailouts) if we see a bad hurricane season this summer or fall (as discussed in my April 7 E-Letter).

ENDORSED ADVERTISEMENT

Fed's Latest "Beige Book" Outlook is Bleak

The Federal Reserve issues a very insightful economic publication entitled the "Beige Book" eight times per year, essentially every month and a half. Each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks gathers information on current economic and financial conditions in their district, and this information goes into the Beige Book report every 45 days or so. The latest Beige Book economic summary released this month is perhaps the most negative I have ever read. Here is the summary and highlighted remarks:

"Reports from the Federal Reserve Banks indicate that overall economic activity contracted further or remained weak. However, five of the twelve Districts noted a moderation in the pace of decline, and several saw signs that activity in some sectors was stabilizing at a low level.

Manufacturing activity weakened across a broad range of industries in most Districts, with only a few exceptions. Nonfinancial service activity continued to contract across Districts. Retail spending remained sluggish, although some Districts noted a slight improvement in sales compared with the previous reporting period. Residential real estate markets continued to be weak.

Home prices and construction were still falling in most areas, but better-than-expected buyer traffic led to a scattered pickup in sales in a number of Districts. Nonresidential real estate conditions continued to deteriorate. Difficulty obtaining commercial real estate financing was constraining construction and investment activity. Spending on business travel declined as corporations cut back. Reports on tourism were mixed. Bankers reported tight credit conditions, rising delinquencies, and some deterioration of loan quality.

Agricultural conditions were generally favorable across Districts, although drought conditions persisted in the Dallas and San Francisco Districts. The Districts reporting on energy said reduced demand, high inventories, and lower prices led to steep cutbacks in oil and natural gas drilling and production activity. The Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Dallas Districts noted declines in employment in the oil and gas extraction industry.

Downward pressure on prices was reported across Districts. Wage and salary pressures eased as labor markets weakened in all Districts, and many contacts continued to report job cuts and wage and hiring freezes. Employment continued to decline across a range of industries, with only scattered reports of hiring."

This summary of the latest Beige Book report sounds rather benign. But keep in mind that the Fed hates to come across sounding too negative. The report continues as follows:

"Manufacturing activity continued to decline in most Districts and across a wide range of industries… Orders and shipments of capital goods, autos, paper, and construction-related equipment and products such as metals, wood products, lumber and electrical machinery remained mostly sluggish and below year-ago levels…

Districts that report on nonfinancial business services said demand continued to fall across most industries. Providers of health-care services noted further declines in activity, and contacts in several Districts noted demand for professional services, such as architecture, business consulting and legal services, remained weak. Auto dealers continued to struggle, and overall vehicle sales were sluggish in all reporting Districts as weak demand and tight credit continued to limit sales…

Travel and tourism activity contracted further in several reporting Districts, as households and businesses continued to scale back on discretionary and travel spending. Tourist spending in the New York, Minneapolis, and San Francisco Districts saw double-digit declines compared with the prior year. Airlines in the Dallas District and hotel contacts in the Kansas City District reported weakening demand for business travel, while the Atlanta District noted convention cancellations. Restaurants continued to see sluggish activity in the Kansas City and San Francisco Districts, which prompted further layoffs and closures in the latter region.

Housing markets remained depressed overall, but there were some signs that conditions may be stabilizing… New home construction activity fell further, however, as inventories remained elevated. Home prices continued to decline in most Districts, although a few reports noted that prices were unchanged or that the pace of decline had eased… Nonresidential real estate conditions continued to deteriorate over the past six weeks. Demand for office, industrial and retail space continued to fall, and there were reports of increases in sublease space.

[Commercial] property values moved lower as reality ‘set in…' Commercial real estate investment activity weakened further. Contacts said a decline in credit availability and markdowns on commercial property were keeping buyers and sellers on the sidelines.

… Demand for commercial and industrial loans was weak, and there were several reports that business borrowers were postponing capital expenditures. Commercial real estate lending continued to decline. Credit availability generally remained very tight across regions. A number of Districts reported deteriorating loan quality and rising delinquencies for all types of loan categories. In particular, several reports noted more stringent requirements for commercial real estate loans due to worries of worsening loan quality in the sector.

Labor market conditions were weak and reports of layoffs, reductions in work hours, temporary factory shutdowns, branch closures and hiring freezes remained widespread across Districts. Staffing firms in the New York, Cleveland, Richmond, Chicago, and Dallas Districts reported that demand for workers remained sluggish.

… Continuing layoffs, furloughs and hiring freezes kept wage pressures minimal. Contacts from a broad range of industries reported pay freezes, with some noting salary reductions. The Minneapolis District reported that unionized faculty at Minnesota's technical and community colleges had tentatively accepted a two-year pay freeze. Contacts in the Boston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Chicago, and San Francisco Districts reported cuts in certain non-wage employment benefits, including cuts in bonuses, elimination or suspension of employer contributions to employee retirement programs, and increases in copayments on employer sponsored healthcare plans.

… Consumer spending remained generally weak. Travel and tourism activity contracted further in several reporting Districts, as households and businesses continued to scale back on discretionary and travel spending… Retailers kept inventories lean, in line with the slow pace of sales, and most expect demand to stay at current low levels over the next few months… Auto dealers continued to struggle, and overall vehicle sales were sluggish in all reporting Districts as weak demand and tight credit continued to limit sales."

I could go on and on with quotes from the April Federal Reserve Beige Book, but you get the picture. This is the most negative Beige Book assessment of the economy that I can ever remember reading over many years.

Notice how many references the Fed makes to the weakness in the commercial real estate markets. Some analysts believe that commercial real estate markets may be the next shoe to drop in the recession (along with insurance companies, as I warned two weeks ago). This does not suggest an economy that is about to rebound from a recession anytime soon.

Have the Stock Markets Bottomed?

The major market indexes rebounded 20-25% since the recent lows in early March, and investors around the world are wondering if we've finally seen the bottom. The latest recovery has indeed been impressive, but we need to keep it in perspective. As you can see in the S&P 500 monthly chart below, the market was extremely oversold by the end of February.

Given that the S&P 500 had plunged almost 45% from the peak in late 2007, the market was overdue for a significant rebound. Over the last couple of weeks, there have been plenty of analysts and financial writers who have proclaimed that we've seen the bottom. But many of these same analysts are always bullish. Others, of course, maintain that this is just a bear market rally.

No one knows which camp will ultimately be proven correct. Here are a few observations as to how things may play out. First, if Wachovia and the majority of economists surveyed by the WSJ are correct that the recession will end and the economy will improve significantly in the second half of this year, then I would bet that the bottom is in.

It is also very helpful that several of the major banks have been reporting good news for the 1Q, and the credit markets are starting to unfreeze a bit. Several of the big banks that had TARP money shoved down their throats are now begging to give it back, which is also good, and is encouraging to the equity markets and investors in general. But keep in mind that we have yet to see the results of the stress tests, and some fear this news will not be good. We'll see.

Also, keep in mind my ongoing concerns about the insurance industry where the 1Q financial reports are expected to be very ugly. Also, as discussed above, the commercial real estate markets are turning down as we speak. So, I will not be surprised if we see at least a retest of the March lows in the major indexes. Whether we've seen the bottom or not may depend on how much concern develops for the insurance industry and commercial real estate just ahead.

Several of the professional money managers I recommend have moved back on the long side of the market, but most are not fully invested (i.e., they still have some money on the sidelines). And if their systems indicate that this rally is fizzling, they won't hesitate to move back to cash and/or hedge their long positions.

Gary D. Halbert, ProFutures, Inc. and Halbert Wealth Management, Inc.
are not affiliated with nor do they endorse, sponsor or recommend the following product or service.

Conclusions -- What To Believe?

At the end of the day, the question is whether or not this recession will end before this year is over, or will it drag on into 2010? This, of course, depends on one's definition of recession. If we are to believe that the recession is over when negative economic growth bottoms out, but has not yet improved to positive territory, then I would tend to agree that the recession will end later this year.

But if we agree that the recession has ended only when the economy returns to positive growth, then I believe the recession will not end until sometime in 2010. I hope I am wrong. The economists at Wachovia Group believe the recession will end in the second half of this year, as does a consensus of Wall Street Journal economists based on an April survey.

I sincerely hope they are correct, but I fear they are not, especially if it is confirmed over the coming weeks that the big insurance companies are in financial trouble. It's a lot to think about, especially as it pertains to your investment accounts, your retirement portfolios and meeting your financial goals.

Time will tell which camp is correct. In the meantime, I continue to recommend that you use this market rally to move to more defensive (alternative) portfolio strategies that have the potential to protect you from major market downturns.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

A Backdoor Nationalization of the Banks (read this)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027165661037073.html

Big-Spending Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Tea Party Economics
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/20/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-ear-marks.html

Search results matching tag 'Economic Forecast'

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

The Economy & the Commercial Real Estate Bust

On the Economy & Obama's Trillions

Association of Investor Awareness - Week of 08/27/2009

The Outlook Is Better For An Improving Economy

Profit Growth Can Be Misleading

Big Companies Still Have An Advantage

Emerging Countries Are Making A Strong Recovery

Two Long Term Dividend Payers Look Good

Fasten Your Seat Belts, Oil Prices Are Roaring Back

The Bottom Line This Week

Until Next Time

Is The Recession Over? Don't Bet On It

Recession May End But Growth Prospects Low

Debt and Deflation

Quarterly Review and Outlook Second Quarter 2009

DEBT ACTS AS A BRAKE ON THE MONETARY ENGINE

THE COMPLEX MONETARY CHAIN

A FISCAL POLICY DRAG

BUSINESS CYCLE IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITIES

DEBT DEFLATION AND BONDS

Association of Investor Awareness - Week of 06/25/2009

Mixed Economic Signals Worry Investors

Another Kind Of Bailout Is Also A Concern

A New Economic Reality Is Emerging

For Efficient Companies, Slow Growth Can Be Profitable

Your Best Strategy Now

THREE ANALYSTS AND A FOOL HAVE RECOMMENDED THIS STOCK

The Bottom Line This Week

Is America On The Road To Financial Ruin?

Signs of the End of the Recession - Maybe

Quarterly Review and Outlook
Second Quarter 2009