Search results matching tag 'Gary D. Halbert'

Why This Real Estate Bust is Different

GaryHalbert — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:54:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

The Commercial Real Estate Bust 2.0
Why This Real Estate Bust Is Different
Who Will Refinance $3.5 Trillion in CRE?
REITs & ETFs to the Rescue?
Conclusions: Look Before You Leap

Introduction

In my September 29 E-Letter, I wrote extensively about the looming crisis in the commercial real estate sector. Things have not improved since my late September letter, and in fact have gotten even worse, despite the pick-up in the economy in the 3Q. Commercial real estate prices have continued to fall, and foreclosures continue to rise.

This week, we will revisit the commercial real estate ("CRE") bust. When I wrote about it in September, we had questions from readers as to how the CRE crisis came to be and why this current slump seems to be worse than other real estate slumps in the past. I have friends and business associates that ask the same thing.

I recently ran across a very good article in BusinessWeek that explains why this commercial real estate bust is unlike any in the past. It is written in an easy-to-understand style with lots of examples. So, for those of you with questions about the CRE bust and the implications for the financial markets, I have reprinted excerpts from the article below. I think you'll find it informative.

The core problem with the commercial real estate market is the $3.5 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt. Of that amount, an estimated $1.3-$1.5 trillion of outstanding loans will have to be refinanced in the next 3-4 years alone. In the past, banks were generally willing to extend these loans, for years in many cases, until the economy and the CRE markets recovered. But they may not be so obliging this time around.

Complicating matters in the current slump is the fact that millions of investors have become CRE lenders over the last decade in the form of Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities ("CMBS"). Most of these investors just want out; they have no desire to extend these loans. This is another reason the current CRE slump is like no other.

So, it is a real possibility that we will have yet another credit crisis on our hands over the next few years, which supports my view that this could well be a double-dip recession, with the second downturn sparked by widespread defaults and foreclosures in commercial real estate. It's a lot to cover in one letter, so let's get going.

The Commercial Real Estate Bust 2.0

Cyclical swings in the commercial real estate market are hardly new. In the good times, developers overbuild, leaving themselves open to losses whenever the economy slows down. In the past, it was usually banks that ended up with foreclosed properties. In today's mess, in addition to the banks, there are millions of investors who bought collateralized debt securities on commercial real estate who are left holding the bag. And it's a very big bag.

The entire US commercial real estate market is valued at apprx. $6.4 trillion. Of that, apprx. $3.5 trillion of properties have outstanding mortgages. Nationwide, commercial real estate prices have already plunged 39% on average from the peak in late 2007, according to the MIT Real Estate Center. Estimates vary but it is widely believed that nearly half of all commercial real estate mortgage loans in the US - $1.3 to $1.5 trillion - will come due in the next 3-4 years alone.

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 values 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. Deutsche Bank recently estimated that 65% or more of these loans will fail to qualify for refinancing when they come due.

The Fed's latest "Beige Book" analysis on the economy on October 21 underscores the fact that the commercial real estate market is still worsening:

Commercial real estate was reported to be one of the weakest sectors… Commercial real estate continued to weaken across the 12 Districts… Each District indicated that demand for private commercial real estate was weak, with New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, and San Francisco all characterizing activity as declining further since the last report. An inability to obtain credit was often cited as a problem for businesses that wanted to purchase or build space. High vacancy rates were noted as a key concern especially for landlords who were not offering concessions.

Each year, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Urban Land Institute issue a detailed report entitled "Emerging Trends in Real Estate." This annual report, in its 31st year, is based on interviews with about 1,000 developers, investors, real estate service firms, banks and others.

The latest report for 2010 predicts that commercial real estate prices will continue to decline well into 2010, falling 40%-50% from the peak in 2007. According to the report, this will be the worst commercial real estate decline since the Great Depression, eclipsing the 1990s savings-and-loan crisis. It goes on to say:

"Not surprisingly, the overwhelming sentiment of interviewees remains decidedly negative, colored by impending doom and distress over prospects for an extended period of anemic demand and costly deleveraging. Hardest-hit will be retail and office properties, reflecting a weak job market and cautious consumers."

With the above as a general backdrop to the current commercial real estate dilemma, let's now turn to excerpts from the November 16 BusinessWeek article that I mentioned in the Introduction. Hopefully, this will answer questions about how we got in this mess. Following that, I will further explain how this CRE slump is like no other.

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:

Why This Real Estate Bust Is Different

Unrealistic assumptions, layers of investors, sky-high prices, and possible fraud will make it hard to clean up the mess in commercial real estate

By Mara Der Hovanesian and Dean Foust

When Goldman Sachs sold complex bonds backed by the Arizona Grand Resort and other commercial properties in 2006, it suggested the returns would be strong. The 164-acre luxury Arizona Grand, set against the Sonoran Desert in Phoenix, boasted an award-winning golf course, deluxe spa, and several swank restaurants. The on-site water park was named one of the best in the country by the Travel Channel. With the resort's new owners planning to refurbish hotel rooms and common areas, Goldman told investors that the renovations would help boost cash flow.

As was so often the case during the real estate boom, the lofty projections didn't pan out. When the economy softened and business travel slumped, Arizona Grand's bookings slipped to 67%, from 80%. The resort defaulted on the $190 million underlying loan in 2009—a hit that alone could largely wipe out investors who bought the riskier pieces of the Goldman mortgage-backed securities deal.

"It's one of the largest losses we have forecasted for an individual loan," says Steve Kuritz, a senior vice-president at Realpoint, an independent credit-rating agency. The property, once valued at $246 million, is now worth just $93 million. A spokesman for Goldman says the pricing on the bonds was in line with market levels at the time and not above what investors could get on similar securities. Grossman Co. Properties, which owns Arizona Grand, didn't return calls for comment.

It would be easy to write off this blowup as just another casualty in the regular boom-and-bust cycle of the $6.4 trillion commercial real estate market. But the Goldman deal, with its unrealistic assumptions, multiple layers of investors, and stratospheric prices, helps illustrate why this downturn is more complicated than previous ones—and will turn out to be far costlier. Already, prices have plunged 41% from the peak in 2007, according to Moody's/REAL Commercial Property Price Index—worse than the 30.5% fall in the housing market from its 2006 apex. "We've never seen this extreme a correction as far back as the data go, which is the late 1960s," says Neal Elkin, president of Real Estate Analytics, the research firm that created the index. Adds billionaire investor Wilbur Ross: "Commercial real estate has gone from being highly liquid at sky-high prices to being extremely illiquid at distressed prices."

To appreciate why this bust is like no other, first consider the typical commercial real estate downturns that used to crop up every 5 or 10 years. The pattern was predictable: When prices for apartment complexes, office buildings, shopping malls, and other properties began to rise, developers sped up their projects to cash in on the bull market. Eventually, some of those developers, unable to fill all the new space, began to default on their loans, and lenders were stuck with the buildings they'd financed. The slump lasted no longer than the time it took for the property glut to be worked down.

TURNING A BLIND EYE

But overbuilding isn't the culprit in this bust. An oversupply of money is what pushed commercial real estate over the edge. [Emphasis added]

It turns out the same excesses that drove the housing market's crazy rise and fall were present in commercial real estate, too—but they have largely gone unnoticed until now. Bankers, in their haste to make more and bigger loans, blindly accepted borrowers' wildest growth assumptions and readily overlooked other shortcomings on loan applications. They did so in part because they could easily sell their dubious loans to investors in the form of commercial mortgage-backed securities [CMBS]. As the market overheated, it became a breeding ground for fraud: A flurry of new court cases reveals the disturbing extent to which commercial mortgage borrowers may have doctored loan documents. [Emphasis added]

While the housing crisis seems to be easing, the commercial storm is still gathering strength. Between now and 2012, more than $1.4 trillion worth of commercial real estate loans will come due, according to real estate investment firm ING Clarion Partners. Analysts at Deutsche Bank estimate that borrowers will have trouble rolling over as many as three-quarters of the loans they took out in 2007, the most toxic vintage. [Emphasis added.]

For the banks and investors whose money fuels the economy, this presents major problems. Their losses will likely cast a shadow over lending—and, by extension, the overall economy—for years. The market won't fully recover until 2020, says Kenneth P. Riggs Jr., CEO of Real Estate Research, and in cases where "values were over the top...maybe never."

In the short term, toxic securities are creating a new problem weighing on the market: a tangle of interconnected investors fighting over the remains of the properties they own. In the past the damage was limited to a handful of lenders who invested directly in any given project. Now there can be dozens of groups of investors, each with its own agenda. The April bankruptcy of shopping mall owner General Growth, one of the largest real-estate-related bankruptcies ever, affected hundreds of parties—an unprecedented slicing and dicing of assets. These investors won't soon forget the bust and aren't likely to dive back into the market as aggressively as they once did. [Emphasis added]

And yet the securities are only a secondary problem. The main driver of the commercial real estate bust is the underlying loans. How frothy did the market get? In one notable example, New York investment fund Sterling American Property and real estate company Hines paid $281 million in 2007 for the 42-floor office building at 333 Bush St. in San Francisco. That worked out to $518 a square foot, far higher than today's price, according to Real Capital Analytics, a research firm. Less than two years later, the building's primary tenant, law firm Heller Ehrman, filed for bankruptcy and stopped making rent payments. According to Real Capital Analytics, the building's owners did not make a recent loan payment, and the lender is expected to begin foreclosure proceedings…

What's striking is how quickly some big commercial deals have gone south. In April 2007, Charney FPG, a New York real estate partnership, paid about $180 million to buy a 22-story office building in Manhattan's Times Square district. It borrowed $202 million to pay for the purchase, renovations, and incidentals—111% financing. Because the rental income didn't cover the debt payments, Comfort's lenders, Wachovia and RBS Greenwich Capital, required the firm to set aside $10 million in reserves to keep the project afloat until it got more paying tenants. Those occupants never materialized, and by July the owners had exhausted 95% of their reserves. The building is now in jeopardy of being seized by the bankers, says Real Capital Analytics' head of research, Dan Fasulo. "Everyone knows Judgment Day is coming." Says a Charney spokesman: "The owners are in the midst of restructuring the debt." Wachovia and RBS declined to comment.

Commercial lending mirrored mortgage lending in another way: Loans were made based on an unshakable belief that the market would never go down. An analysis by research firm REIS of mortgage securities created between 2005 and 2008 found that income projections for properties exceeded their historical performances by an average of 15%. "It was all based on assumption of cash flow," says Howard S. Landsberg of New York-based consultant Weiser Realty Advisors. "If you couldn't afford to pay the bank back now, in three years you could count on another $20 a square foot" in rent. When the numbers didn't add up, some lenders got imaginative. Says a banker at a large Wall Street firm: "If the cash flow wasn't there, you had to ignore it or find ways to create it."

Some lenders may have drummed up business for themselves, enticing borrowers with more money than they needed. Consider Credit Suisse's $375 million loan to the Yellowstone Club in Big Sky, Mont., one of the starkest examples of poor underwriting in recent memory. Opened in 1999 by Timothy L. Blixseth, a welfare kid turned timber magnate, the private ski and golf club catered to the ultra-wealthy crowd. Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Tour de France champion Greg LeMond built multimillion-dollar vacation homes there.

In 2005 a Credit Suisse banker approached Blixseth about a loan, which the banker compared to "a home equity loan," according to bankruptcy court documents. Blixseth initially turned down the offer. But after several calls and a personal visit to Blixseth's home near Palm Springs, Calif., the banker persuaded Blixseth to borrow $375 million in the name of the club. According to court papers, the two decided the transaction fee by coin flip; Blixseth won, agreeing to pay 2%.

"WILD, OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING"

But not all of the funds were earmarked for the club. The deal allowed Blixseth to use up to $209 million of the proceeds "for his own personal benefit," according to the bankruptcy court papers. In a civil lawsuit filed by Yellowstone investors and homeowners, the plaintiffs say Blixseth used some of that money to fund a lavish lifestyle, including the purchases of a 20-seat Gulfstream corporate jet, two Rolls-Royce Phantoms, and three Land Rovers.

While Blixseth was busy spending the money, Yellowstone was struggling under the weight of its debt. Vendors often went unpaid for three months or longer, according to bankruptcy court testimony. In November 2008, Yellowstone filed for bankruptcy protection. "The only plausible explanation for Credit Suisse's action is that it was simply driven by the fees it was extracting from the loans it was selling and letting the chips fall where they may," said Ralph B. Kirscher, a federal bankruptcy judge in Helena, in a May court decision.

RED FLAGS GALORE

The banks were hardly the only freewheeling players during the credit boom. The fast-and-easy lending environment was fertile territory for alleged fraudsters. In 2007 Prudential Financial lent $13.9 million to Namir A. Faidi, a Houston developer who planned to use the money to pay off construction loans on Piazza Blanca, a Mediterranean-themed shopping complex in Galveston, Tex. Faidi dipped into the project's reserve fund to make the first loan payment but failed to make any more. After that, Prudential concluded that some of the leases he'd submitted weren't legitimate. According to a civil suit filed in federal court by Prudential, Faidi's loan papers included a signed lease from time-share giant Bluegreen, a purported tenant that would occupy 26% of the space. But when Prudential contacted Bluegreen after the default, it learned it had backed out of talks and never signed a rental agreement…

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.

Who Will Refinance $3.5 Trillion in CRE?

As noted earlier, it is widely agreed that there is apprx. $3.5 trillion in outstanding commercial real estate debt. It is also widely agreed that some $1.3 to $1.5 trillion of that debt will have to be refinanced over the next 3-4 years. The question is, who will step up to the plate? The chart below illustrates who the main players are.

Looking at the left panel above, we see that banks and S&Ls hold 51% of outstanding CRE debt. Investors in Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS) own apprx. 21%. Together, these represent 72% of outstanding CRE debt. The slice noted as "Other 15%" is mainly made up of REITs. Much of the financing since 2002 has been in the CMBS (individual investors for the most part).

Virtually all of the players have seen the values of their CRE investments plunge since the peak in 2007. As noted earlier, CRE values are down 39%-41% on average depending on which estimate you believe, and they are still falling for the most part.

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.

While the economy seemed to turn around in the 3Q, most forecasters agree that the unemployment rate will remain near 10% for all of 2010. Given that, it is likely that CRE vacancy rates will remain high. For all these reasons, Deutsche Bank predicts that over 65% of the loans coming due in the next few years will fail to qualify for refinancing.

So, we are back to the question of how does this $1.3 to $1.5 trillion in CRE get refinanced over the next several years? The answer is, much of it won't. Defaults will continue to rise. This will put banks increasingly in the sublease business, assuming that willing tenants can be found. Unfortunately, sublease rental rates typically are only 60%-80% of the original rates.

Commercial real estate loans are not just concentrated among the nation's largest banks; these loans are widely made by regional banks and even smaller banks. These banks 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. The FDIC reports that 120 small and regional banks have failed so far this year (as of Nov. 6), compared to only 24 failures in all of 2008.

Obviously, banks will not be refinancing much of the $1.3-$1.5 trillion that comes due over the next 3-4 years. Banks are still trying to reduce their exposure and deleverage. Likewise, the CMBS market has practically dried up. So who is left to refinance these maturing CRE loans?

As we might expect, there are those in the CRE industry that are calling for a government bailout – what else is new? You may recall that about this time last year, the Fed created what is called the "Troubled Asset Loan Facility" (TALF) which is scheduled to end soon. Now there are calls from the CRE industry to extend that facility.

Others are calling for changes such as:

Stop forcing banks to reclassify loans that have had minor modifications to assist borrowers (and continue the so-called "pretend and extend" practice);
Reject any new taxes on real estate such as capital-gains-tax hikes; changes to IRS Section 1031, which allows tax deferral; and
Amend the IRS Tax Reform Act of 1986 to allow modification of loans within Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICSs). Some 25% of US commercial real estate is financed with these securities.

It remains to be seen if the Obama administration will entertain any of these requests. If I were a real estate developer, I wouldn't count on it.

REITs & ETFs to the Rescue?

REIT is the acronym for Real Estate Investment Trust. REITs are similar to mutual funds except that their shares trade as stocks on the major exchanges. ETF is the acronym for Exchange Traded Funds, which also trade as stocks throughout the day. REITs generally only invest in real estate.

Like real estate, REITS were hammered by the recession, on average losing 70% from the peak in 2007 to the bottom in March. Since then, average REIT prices have rebounded strongly, up apprx. 80%, but are still far below the highs in 2008. Dozens of new IPOs in the form of REITs have been launched since March, reportedly raising over $20 billion in new assets, by fund managers who seek to acquire bargain basement commercial real estate properties. I'm told there have also been dozens of new ETFs that have been formed this year for the very same purpose.

Most estimates suggest that there will be around $500 billion in commercial real estate loans that will need to be refinanced in 2010 alone. So while REITs and ETFs will help, they are not the magic bullet.

Conclusions – Look Before You Leap

There is currently $3.5 trillion in outstanding commercial real estate debt, with much of it related to properties purchased at exorbitant prices during the real estate boom that ended in 2007. Many private equity players and hedge funds used heavy leverage, borrowing up to 80% of the purchase price, to acquire the properties that are now struggling to generate the cash-flow needed to service the debt and meet debt calls.

An estimated $1.3- $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate debt will need to be refinanced over the next 3-4 years, with apprx. $500 billion of that coming due in 2010. The question is, who will be there to refinance these CRE loans? Banks are trying to reduce their exposure to CRE. REITs and ETFs will take on some of these properties, but certainly not all or even most. Is there another massive government bailout on the horizon? Don't rule it out.

It is not unusual for the real estate market to worsen even after the economy comes out of recession. In the 1991 recession, it took the industry 14 months to rebound after the recession's end; in the 2001 downturn, it took 29 months for the sector to fully recover. Even if the current recession ended in the summer as many seem to believe, it could easily take a couple of years for commercial real estate to bounce back, and that assumes we are not looking at a double-dip recession which I believe is entirely possible.

Put differently, the commercial real estate dilemma is likely to get worse before it gets better. As discussed above, vacancy rates continue to rise; loan default rates continue to rise; foreclosures continue to rise; and all of this will continue to worsen as long as unemployment remains above 10%.

As discussed above, a lot of money is being raised publicly and privately with the goal of cashing in on the commercial real estate debacle. Promoters are touting "once in a lifetime" profit potential as they look to scoop up distressed properties for pennies on the dollar.

Yet the amount of money being raised is only a fraction of the size of the $1.3+ trillion in commercial real estate debt that needs refinancing over the next 3-4 years. So the CRE market could be far from a bottom. As the old saying goes, look before you leap.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Facing the next real estate collapse
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/facing_the_next_real_estate_collapse_5NbxrlBoP3xbtOHa9TGmTO/0

REITs and Commercial Real Estate's Victims
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1932749,00.html

Dismantling America - Thomas Sowell (excellent read)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/16/pushing_health_reform_when_job_losses_are_rising__99152.html

Wrong time to be pushing massive health reform
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/16/pushing_health_reform_when_job_losses_are_rising__99152.html

Are We Sure the Recession is Really Over?

GaryHalbert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:46:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

3Q GDP Report - Was It Really Better Than Expected?
What Else Was Missing in the 3Q GDP Report?
Worker Productivity Surges to Six-Year High
Latest Unemployment Numbers Not Encouraging
Roubini - Too Many People Are "Short" the Dollar

Introduction

When the government announced on October 29 that 3Q Gross Domestic Product surged 3.5% (annual rate), there was a collective sigh of relief around the world that the US economy had finally emerged from the most serious recession since the Great Depression. After all, the 3.5% number outpaced the pre-report consensus of around 3%.

On closer inspection, however, the latest GDP report was not nearly as rosy as the headline number of 3.5% seems to suggest. For example, if you consider all of the government's incentives for consumers to spend (think "cash-for-clunkers" which ended in August, the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit, and huge stimulus spending), GDP growth in the 3Q would have been significantly lower.

These and other caveats from the latest GDP report suggest that while we have turned the corner on the recession - barring any big negative surprises - economic growth over at least the next several quarters is likely to be disappointing. For example, most estimates I see for 4Q GDP growth are in the 1-2% range.

Last Thursday, the Labor Department reported that US worker productivity soared to a six-year high in the 3Q, well above expectations. Rising productivity is a good thing, right? Not necessarily, especially when it means that companies are laying off their best and brightest, such as scientists and engineers, that are focused on new product development (R&D).

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate surged from 9.8% to 10.2% in October, well above the pre-report consensus of 9.9%. 10.2% is the highest unemployment rate since 1983. 15.7 million Americans are officially out of work, and that does not include those who are working part-time by necessity and those who have given up looking for work.

This week, we will examine the latest 3Q GDP report in detail and what that means for the future of the economy. We'll also take a look at some subsequent economic reports which seem to suggest that 4Q growth will be tepid. Next, we'll delve into the latest worker productivity report and what that may mean for the economy and the markets. Also, we will dissect the latest unemployment figures.

Finally, I will bring you the latest dire warning from noted forecaster Nouriel Roubini. You may recall that he predicted the housing/credit crisis back in 2005. Now he warns that too many people around the world are "short" the US dollar, and this could spark a second credit crisis.

3Q GDP Report - Was It Really Better Than Expected?

As noted above, the Commerce Department reported on October 29 that US GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.5% in the 3Q. Pre-report estimates varied widely with a consensus of 3%, so the actual report was better than expected. Stocks rallied sharply and closed 200 points higher following the report's release. In the Commerce Department's report, it stated: "The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment." The 3Q boost in the economy followed four consecutive losing quarters, including the 2Q that saw a drop of 0.7%. The 3Q GDP report, the so-called "advance" report, will be revised two more times before it goes "final", and the next revision will be released on November 24.

While stocks rallied strongly just after the report, it did not take long for analysts to see that the number was artificially pumped up. For example, if you take out surging auto sales ("cash-for-clunkers" which ended in August), GDP rose only apprx. 1.5% in the 3Q. Take away the government's $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers, which is scheduled to end on December 1, and economic growth was even weaker.

Consider also the fact that GDP was boosted by the federal "stimulus package" spending, which unlike cash-for-clunkers and home tax credits, is not going away anytime soon. But the point is, the GDP number would have been much lower without these artificial incentives. Actually, the White House admitted as much just after the report. Christina Romer, chairwoman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, acknowledged that without all these government incentives, "real GDP would have risen little, if at all, this past quarter."

Looked at differently, the 3.5% GDP report noted that the overall economy rose to a seasonally adjusted $13.014 trillion (annual) in the 3Q, up from $12.901 trillion in the 2Q. In other words, the economy added apprx. $112 billion dollars in output quarter-over-quarter. Yet we have spent an estimated $173 billion worth of the $787 billion stimulus plan so far. This shows how heavily dependent the economy is on government spending.

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.

What Else Was Missing in the 3Q GDP Report?

There are a number of factors and trends that the government's GDP reports do not consider. For example, the official GDP statistics are not designed to pick up cutbacks in "intangible investments" such as business spending on research and development, product design, worker training, etc. There's plenty of evidence which indicates that companies are slashing this kind of spending, which is essential for innovation, in an effort to cut costs.

Without investment in intangibles, the U.S. can't compete in a knowledge-based global economy over the long-run. Yet we don't see that plunge reflected in the GDP numbers which are still too focused on more traditional sectors, such as motor vehicles, construction, housing, etc.

There are more signs that companies are robbing the future to cut costs and improve profits. For example, over the past year, US employment of scientists and engineers has fallen by 6.3% according to BusinessWeek. For the most part, these are the people who create the next generation of products and make the US more competitive over the long-term. Again, this trend is not considered in the GDP reports.

Another clear-cut sign that GDP growth is being overestimated is the sharp drop in venture capital investment, which goes directly to new businesses. Venture capital firms invested about $12 billion in the first three quarters of 2009, barely half the $22 billion invested during the first three quarters of 2008. Some of this shortfall would have been spent on computers and other physical equipment, which would have been picked up in GDP. But most of the drop in VC money would have gone to pay for scientists, engineers, and new product development - all valuable intangible investments that don't show up in the GDP reports.

Similarly, many companies have slashed their reported R&D spending, which also doesn't show up in GDP. Just to cite a couple of examples, Alcoa announced recently that it cut its 3Q R&D spending by 36% from the year before. Johnson & Johnson has reduced its R&D by 13% over the past year. Such cuts are going on across industry sectors, with few exceptions. Again, these significant cutbacks are not reflected in the GDP data.

Another big problem not reflected in the GDP statistics is that many companies are retreating from development of new products, especially in stressed industries. In many sectors of the economy, companies have not only cut back on new products, but in many cases are reducing the number of models or options they currently offer.

Likewise, US companies are significantly cutting their spending on worker training. The drop started in 2008, when employers reduced their per-worker "learning expenditures" by 3.8% on average, according to the American Society for Training & Development. No data are available for 2009, but "from anecdotal evidence, obviously there's a lot of cutback," says Pat Galagan, executive editor of publications.

Ideally, a big burst of training would occur during a severe recession such as this so that people can acquire the skills needed for the jobs of the future. The problem is how to pay for that training, since unemployed people rarely spend money on long-term training when they're worried about short-term survival.

Worker Productivity Surges to Six-Year High

Last Thursday, the Labor Department announced that worker productivity surged to the highest level in six years in the 3Q. Productivity nationally rose 9.5% on average, well above the pre-report consensus of 6.5%. Non-farm productivity and costs provide measures of the productivity of workers and the costs associated with producing a unit of output.

The report also noted that overall output rose 4.0% in the 3Q, while hours worked fell 5.0%. Non-farm businesses continued to get lean and mean, finding ways to squeeze more output out of fewer workers (more on this below). Unit labor costs also fell 5.2%, which will help keep inflation contained.

Productivity growth has risen at an 8.2% average annualized pace during the last two quarters, the fastest two-quarter surge off a recession trough since 1961. Unit labor costs, typically the flip side of the productivity numbers, collapsed at nearly a 6% annualized rate during the last two quarters - the largest two-quarter decline off a recession trough on record. Since corporate profits are directly related to productivity growth and inversely related to unit cost growth, this data is good news for earnings.

Normally, it is considered a good thing for productivity to go up but the question is, why so much? With the unemployment rate continuing to go up every month, we know that companies continue to terminate and/or lay off workers. In doing so, they are demanding more productivity from those employees that remain on the job.

Actually, it is not unusual for productivity to rise in the early stages of a recovery as businesses continue to aggressively cut costs even as output begins to rebound. Companies are reluctant to hire near the end of recessions and even in the early stages of a recovery, as they are not sure the economy has really turned the corner, especially with the unemployment rate rising month after month.

On a related note, the Labor Department also published monthly data on the "average work week." The average work week shrank to a new all-time low of 33 hours in June, and it remained the same in October, as reported in last Friday's unemployment data (more on that report below). While the manufacturing sectors are averaging well above 33 work hours per week, the much larger service/retail sectors are averaging less than 33 work hours per week.

Many economists believe, however, that the recent productivity gains and the shrinking of the average work week are not sustainable. At some point, hours worked and payrolls will have to rise in order to meet stepped-up production schedules. As this occurs, income growth should recover, allowing households to spend more even if they are setting aside a larger fraction of their income in savings. Of course, the question is, when?

Latest Unemployment Numbers Not Encouraging

On Friday, the Labor Department reported that the US unemployment rate rose from 9.8% to 10.2% in October, the highest level since April 1983. The report noted that in October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million, a record high. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points. Keep in mind that the official unemployment rate does not include those who are working part-time out of necessity, and does not include those who have given up on looking for a job.

The number of long-term unemployed, jobless for 27 weeks or more, and assumed to have given up on looking for work, was 5.6 million in October according to the latest report. The Labor Department estimates that 35.6% of unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more. Yet these people are not counted in the official unemployment rate.

The number of persons working part-time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as "involuntary part-time workers") was 9.3 million. These individuals were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. Here too, these people are not counted in the official unemployment rate.

If we include discouraged workers and those forced to work part-time, the unemployment rate surged to 17.5%, the highest on record.

The latest unemployment rate was considerably worse than expected. The pre-report consensus was for a rise from 9.8% in September to 9.9% in October. While many in the media have led us to believe in recent weeks that job losses were falling, the latest report clearly muzzles such optimism.

Most economists believe that the unemployment rate will continue to rise for at least a few more months. A Bloomberg survey of leading economists concludes that the unemployment rate will remain high for at least another year. The average forecast among the dozens of economists surveyed indicates that unemployment will average 9.7% for all of 2010.

If true, this is very bad news for the Obama administration and for Democrats who will be seeking re-election in 2010.

Is the World Too Bearish on the US Dollar?

There is now near-universal agreement that the US dollar will continue to fall for the foreseeable future. While not admitting to it, the Obama administration favors a weaker dollar as it is good for exports, just as the Bush administration did. The Fed is encouraging a weaker dollar by keeping short-term interest rates near zero for "an extended period."

As the dollar has fallen sharply since March, investors around the world have taken to "shorting" the dollar in various ways. Yet the US dollar is a commodity, after all, and commodities of all stripes have a way of not doing what the crowd expects. There is no way to know when the dollar will reverse higher, but when it does, it could well be explosive at least for a time.

Nouriel Roubini is a well-known professor of economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University and is chairman of RGE Monitor, an economic consulting firm. Roubini is best known for his public warnings in 2005 that we were in a housing bubble that was about to burst, and that it would lead to a financial crisis. At the time, he was called "Doctor Doom."

Last week, Roubini issued a serious warning that too many people around the world are "short" the US dollar, especially via so-called "carry trades" where investors borrow cheap dollars and then invest in other "risk assets" (stocks, etc.) that earn higher returns. Roubini believes that, at some point, the short dollar carry trade is going to blow up.

I have taken the liberty of reprinting his latest warning in the Financial Times (of London).

QUOTE:

Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust

By Nouriel Roubini
November 1 2009

Since March there has been a massive rally in all sorts of risky assets - equities, oil, energy and commodity prices - a narrowing of high-yield and high-grade credit spreads, and an even bigger rally in emerging market asset classes (their stocks, bonds and currencies). At the same time, the dollar has weakened sharply, while government bond yields have gently increased but stayed low and stable.

The dollar and the sterling have weakened against a host of other currencies since the summer, promoting speculation that they could become the next carry trade currencies and supplant the yen as the ‘funding currency' of choice.

This recovery in risky assets is in part driven by better economic fundamentals. We avoided a near depression and financial sector meltdown with a massive monetary, fiscal stimulus and bank bail-outs. Whether the recovery is V-shaped, as consensus believes, or U-shaped and anemic as I have argued, asset prices should be moving gradually higher.

But while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronised rally. While asset prices were falling sharply in 2008, when the dollar was rallying, they have recovered sharply since March while the dollar is tanking. Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals.

So what is behind this massive rally? Certainly it has been helped by a wave of liquidity from near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But a more important factor fuelling this asset bubble is the weakness of the US dollar, driven by the mother of all carry trades. The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates - as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualised - as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions.

Let us sum up: traders are borrowing at negative 20 per cent rates to invest on a highly leveraged basis on a mass of risky global assets that are rising in price due to excess liquidity and a massive carry trade. Every investor who plays this risky game looks like a genius - even if they are just riding a huge bubble financed by a large negative cost of borrowing - as the total returns have been in the 50-70 per cent range since March.

People's sense of the value at risk (VAR) of their aggregate portfolios ought, instead, to have been increasing due to a rising correlation of the risks between different asset classes, all of which are driven by this common monetary policy and the carry trade. In effect, it has become one big common trade - you short the dollar to buy any global risky assets.

Yet, at the same time, the perceived riskiness of individual asset classes is declining as volatility is diminished due to the Fed's policy of buying everything in sight - witness its proposed $1,800bn (£1,000bn, €1,200bn) purchase of Treasuries, mortgage-backed securities (bonds guaranteed by a government-sponsored enterprise such as Fannie Mae) and agency debt. By effectively reducing the volatility of individual asset classes, making them behave the same way, there is now little diversification across markets - the VAR again looks low.

So the combined effect of the Fed policy of a zero Fed funds rate, quantitative easing and massive purchase of long-term debt instruments is seemingly making the world safe - for now - for the mother of all carry trades and mother of all highly leveraged global asset bubbles.

While this policy feeds the global asset bubble it is also feeding a new US asset bubble. Easy money, quantitative easing, credit easing and massive inflows of capital into the US via an accumulation of forex reserves by foreign central banks makes US fiscal deficits easier to fund and feeds the US equity and credit bubble. Finally, a weak dollar is good for US equities as it may lead to higher growth and makes the foreign currency profits of US corporations abroad greater in dollar terms.

The reckless US policy that is feeding these carry trades is forcing other countries to follow its easy monetary policy. Near-zero policy rates and quantitative easing were already in place in the UK, eurozone, Japan, Sweden and other advanced economies, but the dollar weakness is making this global monetary easing worse. Central banks in Asia and Latin America are worried about dollar weakness and are aggressively intervening to stop excessive currency appreciation. This is keeping short-term rates lower than is desirable. Central banks may also be forced to lower interest rates through domestic open market operations. Some central banks, concerned about the hot money driving up their currencies, as in Brazil, are imposing controls on capital inflows. Either way, the carry trade bubble will get worse: if there is no forex intervention and foreign currencies appreciate, the negative borrowing cost of the carry trade becomes more negative. If intervention or open market operations control currency appreciation, the ensuing domestic monetary easing feeds an asset bubble in these economies. So the perfectly correlated bubble across all global asset classes gets bigger by the day.

But one day this bubble will burst, leading to the biggest coordinated asset bust ever: if factors lead the dollar to reverse and suddenly appreciate - as was seen in previous reversals, such as the yen-funded carry trade - the leveraged carry trade will have to be suddenly closed as investors cover their dollar shorts. A stampede will occur as closing long leveraged risky asset positions across all asset classes funded by dollar shorts triggers a coordinated collapse of all those risky assets - equities, commodities, emerging market asset classes and credit instruments.

Why will these carry trades unravel? First, the dollar cannot fall to zero and at some point it will stabilise; when that happens the cost of borrowing in dollars will suddenly become zero, rather than highly negative, and the riskiness of a reversal of dollar movements would induce many to cover their shorts. Second, the Fed cannot suppress volatility forever - its $1,800bn purchase plan will be over by next spring. Third, if US growth surprises on the upside in the third and fourth quarters, markets may start to expect a Fed tightening to come sooner, not later. Fourth, there could be a flight from risk prompted by fear of a double dip recession or geopolitical risks, such as a military confrontation between the US/Israel and Iran. As in 2008, when such a rise in risk aversion was associated with a sharp appreciation of the dollar, as investors sought the safety of US Treasuries, this renewed risk aversion would trigger a dollar rally at a time when huge short dollar positions will have to be closed.

This unraveling may not occur for a while, as easy money and excessive global liquidity can push asset prices higher for a while. But the longer and bigger the carry trades and the larger the asset bubble, the bigger will be the ensuing asset bubble crash. The Fed and other policymakers seem unaware of the monster bubble they are creating. The longer they remain blind, the harder the markets will fall.
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

I titled this E-Letter "Are We Sure the Recession is Really Over" because I think this concern is still heavy on the minds of most Americans. Certainly, the latest 3Q GDP report is a welcome sign that we have turned a corner, at least for now. But as I have also pointed out above, the reported gain of 3.5% in the 3Q leaves many questions we should be concerned about.

There are still many weak spots in our economy. Most notable, the unemployment rate weakened even more than almost anyone expected in October, reaching the highest level in a quarter century, and is very likely headed even higher for a few more months at least. It will almost certainly remain high throughout 2010.

The worst of the housing and credit crisis appears to be behind us, but bank lending remains substantially below pre-crisis levels, even as short-term interest rates are at historical lows. The Fed continues to buy up toxic assets at unprecedented levels. At some point, this will have to stop and reverse itself, just as interest rates will have to be increased at some point.

The point is, while we may have emerged from the recession, there are many risks that could throw us right back into a further economic contraction in the next year or two. Nouriel Roubini's analysis just above regarding the US dollar is just one of several scenarios that could result in a "double-dip" recession in the next year or two.

As I discussed at length in my September 29 E-Letter, we are in the early stages of a commercial real estate bust that could very well be the next shoe to drop in the credit crisis. I will have a lot more to say about that next week, unless something more pressing comes about. In any event, we will be hearing a lot more about the commercial real estate problems in the weeks and months ahead.

While we all welcomed the latest GDP report, conflicted as it was, there are few indications that economic growth will continue at that rate going forward. As mentioned earlier, most estimates I am seeing on 4Q GDP growth are in the 1-2% range. Forecasts for 2010 are only marginally better.

Finally, the stock market overshoot since early March has surprised even the most optimistic forecasters. All of my most trusted sources believe that the equity markets are overbought and very susceptible to a downside correction, or worse anytime now. If Roubini's concerns about the dollar are realized, it could be much worse than a garden variety correction.

Everything I have discussed this week argues for having actively managed strategies in your investment portfolio, strategies that have the ability to move out of the markets, or hedge long positions, in case any one of the negative scenarios arises. If you agree, give us a call at 800-348-3601, or e-mail us at info@halbertwealth.com.

** If you are wondering just how bad the House healthcare reform bill that passed last Saturday is, be sure to read the link in SPECIAL ARTICLES below. It's awful!

Finally, our thoughts and prayers go out to all of the families of the innocent soldiers who were killed and injured in the tragedy at FortHood that occurred on November 5.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

Dalbar Update: Investors Still Lagging The Market

GaryHalbert — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:04:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Third Quarter GDP Surprises on the Upside
Why Investor Returns Can Trail the Market
The 2009 Dalbar QAIB Study Update
Investor Panic Leads to Poor Decisions
A Chink in Passive Investing’s Armor?
Same Study – Different Conclusions

Introduction

Since late 1994, studies have shown that many investors do not realize the same returns as the mutual funds in which they were investing. The first such study I saw back in the 1990s was one that Martin Zweig commissioned Morningstar to produce. This study analyzed cash flows in and out of stock mutual funds to see how the average investor did. I remember being surprised when I learned that over the period from 1989 through 1994, the average growth mutual fund returned 12.5% but the average investor in those funds actually lost 2.2%.

Soon, the Zweig/Morningstar study was joined by others, the most notable of which was the Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) Study conducted by Dalbar, Inc. in 1994. Dalbar confirmed that many investors were not participating in long-term mutual fund returns because of frequent switching among funds.

Until these studies were published, no one worried too much about what kind of returns investors were actually realizing. Everyone just assumed that whatever the large mutual fund firms reported as returns were what investors got. These studies, however, showed that many investors were chasing hot returns in order to get better returns. In other words, they’d jump from one hot fund to the other in hopes of increasing their return. But just the opposite occurred.

To say that these studies had a huge impact on my firm is an understatement, since they were the catalyst for the introduction of our AdvisorLink® Program back in 1995. Fortunately, Dalbar has continued to update its original study each year, and the general trend has remained the same – investors overall are not getting the kind of returns they should because of frequent switching among funds.

This week, I’m going to update you on the latest update of the Dalbar QAIB Study. It’s possible that you might see yourself in these statistics. After that, I’m going to discuss the original conclusion reached in the QAIB Study, and why we chose a different track when developing our AdvisorLink® Program.

First, however, I’m going to briefly discuss the 3Q GDP report that came out last week after my weekly E-Letter had been published. To say the least, the number surprised most analysts by coming in on the high side of economists’ forecasts. I think you’ll find both subjects to be very interesting reading, so let’s get started.

Third Quarter GDP Surprises on the Upside

Last Thursday, the Commerce Department reported that 3Q GDP rose 3.5% (annual rate). This was above pre-report estimates which averaged around 3%. The government noted that the rebound in the 3Q was led by increased consumer spending (think "cash for clunkers"), higher exports and a continued increase in federal spending.

Most analysts concluded that the better than expected 3Q GDP report confirms that the US economy came out of the recession in the July-September quarter. However, the Consumer Confidence Index unexpectedly fell sharply in October, partly due to the continued rise in unemployment, which raises questions about economic growth in the 4Q.

Finally, keep in mind that the 3Q GDP report will be revised two more times in the coming weeks, and it will not surprise me if it is revised downward, what with the unemployment rate on track to top 10% by the end of the year. And for most of us, this economy does not feel like it's growing at the rate of 3.5%.

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.

Why Do Investors’ Returns Trail the Market?

Before going into the most recent update of the Dalbar QAIB study, it is probably worthwhile to provide some background on exactly how investor returns and fund returns can differ. I would bet that many readers just assume that investors always earn returns in line with those of the equity and bond mutual funds they hold, but this is definitely not always the case.

In a nutshell, fund returns represent what someone buying and holding a particular mutual fund would have earned over a specific time period. Returns for the “average investor,” on the other hand, factor in behavioral measures that can (and do) affect the actual returns earned by investors in these funds. Dalbar explains it this way:

“…the [QAIB] study utilizes the net of aggregate mutual fund sales, redemptions and exchanges each month as a measure of investor behavior. These behaviors are then used to simulate the ‘average investor.’ Based on this behavior, the analysis calculates ‘average investor return’ …”

In other words, switching among investments has an effect on the eventual return received, both on a long-term and short-term basis. Dalbar and others have found that investors who tend to hop from one hot mutual fund to another not only fail to enhance their performance over industry benchmarks, but have been shown to actually end up earning a far smaller return because of their periodic switching among funds.

Why do investors hop from fund to fund so much? The reasons vary, but my experience has been that some investors panic when losses occur and get out of the market. Others frequently change their investments to chase the hottest returns. Unfortunately, this hot performance mindset is aided by financial publications that routinely list the top five or 10 or 20 best funds for the previous year. Investors often look at their own return during the year compared with the “hot” funds, and decide to switch and get in on some of that high-powered performance.

Unfortunately, the mass migration of investors to funds with the best previous performance often guarantees that those funds will not repeat as a top performer the next year. The end result is that funds with hot performance one year often lag behind other funds in subsequent years. Thus, those investors who flocked into these funds after their best performance often find that they would have been better off had they stayed in their old funds.

So, do investors learn their lesson and look for funds with consistent long-term performance? The answer for many of them is “no,” and they continue hopping to the next hot fund and hoping for a repeat performance that seldom happens. This is what we like to call becoming a “Dalbar statistic.”

The 2009 QAIB Study Update

The 2009 update of the original QAIB Study measures performance over the 20-year period extending from January 1, 1989 through December 31, 2008. Considering that this period includes both the 2000 – 2002 and 2007 – 2008 bear markets, one might conclude that investors who frequently switch among mutual funds on their own might have had better results than those of the actual mutual funds, but you’d be wrong.

Here’s what the most recent update to the Dalbar QAIB Study found:

Over the 20 years ending December 31, 2008, equity mutual fund investors had average annual returns of only +1.87% while the S&P 500 Index averaged +8. 35% over the same time period.
Fixed income fund investors had average annual returns of +0.77% over the same 20-year period, while the benchmark Barclays Aggregate Bond Index averaged +7.43%.
Note that both the equity and fixed income fund investors’ average returns were less than inflation, which clocked in at 2.89% over this 20-year period of time.
Confirming the “lost decade” concept, Dalbar’s study showed that the S&P 500 Index had negative returns over 10, 5, 3 and 1-year time windows. Fixed income investors, however, fared better with the Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index averaging positive returns ranging from +4.65% to +5.63% over this period of time. However, neither the average equity fund investor nor average bond fund investor beat the benchmark returns over any of the 1 to 10-year time windows.

Thus, the QAIB Study again shows that investors’ own behavior is detrimental to their long-term investment goals. Following are graphic representations of the study’s findings. The first graph shows the performance of the various benchmarks used in the QAIB Study during various time windows:

The next graph shows the performance of the average equity, fixed income and asset allocation mutual fund investor over the same time windows:

To sum it all up, many mutual fund investors have been their own worst enemies over the last 20 years. The only bright spot, if you can call it that, was a statistic showing that the average asset allocation fund investor fared better than both the S&P 500 Index benchmark and average equity fund investors in 2008, losing “only” 30%. In fact, the average asset allocation investor lost less than the average equity fund investor in most time periods. Obviously, this is a function of having both equity and fixed income mutual funds in the typical asset allocation portfolio.

However, something even more interesting is that asset allocation did not enhance performance over the long haul. Note that the average asset allocation investor had an average annual gain of only 1.67% over 20 years, versus 1.87% for the average equity mutual fund investor.

News Flash – Investors Panic in Down Markets!

Another, rather obvious finding in this year’s QAIB Study update was the fact that “When the going gets tough, investors panic.” In all previous updates of the QAIB Study, Dalbar has pointed out that investors’ emotional behavior can significantly affect their returns. However, their advice has been to simply suppress this emotional behavior and stay in the market.

This advice tends to ring hollow in bear markets like we had in 2000 – 2002 and 2007 – 2009. It’s like being on the Titanic and Dalbar saying “please remain calm and proceed in an orderly fashion to the lifeboats.” Some may heed the call, but the average passenger, like the average investor, is likely going to panic.

Thus, Dalbar has finally realized that investors engage in irrational behavior despite scholarly advice to the contrary. To illustrate this behavior, Dalbar has developed a “Guess Right Ratio” that measures how often the average equity fund investor makes an accurate investment decision based on the market environment. In other words, this ratio measures how often the average investor buys low and sells high. Over the 20-year period covered in the study, Dalbar found that “Market declines caused panic and panic led to bad decisions. And bad decisions combined with declining markets resulted in exacerbated losses.”

What I find disappointing in all of this is why it took Dalbar so long to figure out that investors won’t necessarily heed a call to ignore losses and stay invested during bear markets and major corrections. When I read the first QAIB Study back in 1995, my initial reaction was that investors need professional management because they were not likely to have the discipline to remain invested in losing markets, no matter how many times their broker tells them to “stay the course.” After only 15 years, Dalbar finally sees the light.

A Chink in Passive Investing’s Armor?

Perhaps the most surprising revelation in the 2009 QAIB update compared to all previous years is that traditional passive buy-and-hold strategies are not seen as a solution to the problem. Not only did Dalbar decide against endorsing traditional asset allocation as a solution, they actually came to the realization that such strategies don’t work. Here’s how Dalbar put it in this year’s update:

“This year’s report … also demonstrates that simply adopting a one-size-fits-all asset allocation strategy will not suffice in the new investment paradigm.” [Dalbar QAIB, Page 2] “Portfolio performance during the market meltdown of 2008 is clear evidence that the current methods are ineffective, even independent of investor behavior. Current asset allocation and diversifi-cation strategies are based on uncorrelated asset classes that in 2008 became highly correlated, thus rendering all such strategies moot.” [Dalbar QAIB, Page 11, Emphasis added]

For a while, I thought that Dalbar may have been reading my E-Letters. After all, I have been making similar observations about buy-and-hold strategies for a very long time. However, I soon learned that they are not running plays from my playbook when I began reading their new recommendations to help investors keep from being their own worst enemies.

While space does not permit me to go into detail about each of Dalbar’s recommended solutions to inferior investment returns, I’ll discuss each of them briefly below:

1. Dalbar’s first suggestion to help investors get better returns was to consider using Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) to ease back into the market. I have written about DCA in the past in the E-Letter, and it is essentially a method of investing where you gradually invest your portfolio in increments over time. This means that you buy into the market at different price levels and are somewhat less susceptible to a major market downturn. In fact, investing during these market downturns can result in buying at bargain prices, which should be good for your portfolio in the long run.

Of course, this only works if you have moved your money to the sidelines or are making periodic contributions to a retirement plan. I think that DCA can be a good idea if you are in a 401(k) or other type of plan where you have only mutual fund options and cannot access actively managed investment strategies. Obviously, this technique is not available for anyone who is already fully invested in the market. For those investors, Dalbar had other alternatives as discussed below.

2. The second strategy that Dalbar suggested was to consider a portfolio management technique known as Purpose-Based Asset Management, or PBAM. This strategy has the benefit of being available to both investors on the sidelines and those already fully invested. That’s the good news. The bad news is that this approach is little more than buy-and-hold “lite.”

According to Dalbar, traditional asset allocation strategies often assume only one level of risk tolerance for the entire portfolio. The main premise behind PBAM is that investors actually have multiple risk tolerances depending upon the particular investment goal. Investors may be more comfortable with higher risk on investments held for longer periods, such as for retirement, than they are for investments held for shorter-term goals.

Thus, investors are encouraged to allocate assets into separate strategic “compartments” based on the ultimate goal for that part of the portfolio, and then design an asset allocation strategy based on the appropriate risk level for each compartment. The hope is that money allocated more conservatively will lose less in down markets than the more aggressive compartments, resulting in less panic on the part of the investor.

In reality, this simply means that instead of having one big asset allocation portfolio, they will have multiple small buy-and-hold portfolios that will be subject to the same limitations as any other passive asset allocation strategy. My personal opinion is that PBAM is simply a marketing gimmick that will result in little difference in overall performance or emotional decision making.

3. A final recommendation from the Dalbar report is to explore the use of leverage within portfolio holdings, both at the portfolio and individual holding level. In essence, Dalbar is acknowledging that leverage, especially in the credit markets, played a big part in the subprime meltdown and resulting credit crisis.

Since this leverage can occur in the private sector, government and international markets, Dalbar suggests that investment experts begin requiring issuers of securities to compute and disclose their true leverage. Once disclosed, Dalbar suggests that leverage should be incorporated into computer models that screen investments as well as asset allocation models.

Same Study, Very Different Conclusions

While the conclusion reached by this most recent update of the QAIB Study pretends to offer a new approach to investing, it’s really just a tweak of traditional buy-and-hold. This really isn’t all that different than the findings in prior years when Dalbar recommended investors follow buy-and-hold strategies and suppress the emotional desire to exit mutual fund investments when (not if) they begin to lose money.

I noted above that the Dalbar and Zweig studies were the catalyst for the development of my firm’s AdvisorLink® Program. Yet, AdvisorLink® is anything but a buy-and-hold investment program, so how did we get from Dalbar’s recommendation to an innovative collection of active management strategies?

It happened this way: I reported the findings of these studies in my monthly client newsletter (remember when publications were actually printed on paper?), but pretty much dismissed its applicability to my audience since most were experienced investors in my managed futures funds. Anyone sophisticated enough to invest in futures funds must be able to handle their own mutual fund investments, right?

Wrong! Imagine my surprise when a very large percentage of my futures funds’ investors responded to my newsletter saying that the Dalbar QAIB Study described their own behavior. They resoundingly supported our research into a way to keep from becoming a “Dalbar statistic.”

We then had to develop a strategy to try to get investors to avoid emotional decisions in down markets. While Dalbar suggested just saying “no” to switching among funds, we knew that investor psychology would dictate moving away from equities when the pain became too great. As a result, we took a different track in addressing investor psychology.

First, we reasoned that investors who are doing everything on their own were becoming confused with all of the conflicting information in the marketplace. We called this “information overload,” and this was just the early days of the Internet. Thus, our first principle was that investors should seek out the help of professional money managers rather than trying to do everything themselves. This helps take some of the emotion out of the equation, since a third party is responsible for investment decisions. This first principle was the genesis of our AdvisorLink® name, since we were linking investors to qualified Investment Advisors.

The next principle we adopted was that all of the strategies in our AdvisorLink® Program had to be actively managed. We saw no benefit in strategies that would stay fully invested in the face of a bear market or major correction. It just makes sense to move to cash or hedge long positions when the markets are going against you. This, too, helped to reduce the emotional impulse to sell during bad markets. We even included more aggressive programs that were able to “short” the market with the potential to actually make money during down markets.

A final principle in the establishment of our AdvisorLink® Program was that it needed to be mutual fund based. While we were aware of active money managers using individual stocks and bonds, many had minimum investments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and some required over a million. By concentrating on Advisors who used mutual funds, we were able to bring the advantage of professional money management to our clients at reasonable minimum investment levels.

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

The Dalbar QAIB Study has been a valuable tool in educating both investors and Advisors about the dangers of emotional trading. While QAIB is instructive in showing weaknesses of the average investor’s actions, it falls short on solutions. I predict that you’ll be hearing more about Purpose-Based Asset Management in the future as this marketing gimmick catches on with brokers who want their asset allocation programs to sound like something other than what they are. Just remember that PBAM is nothing more than buy-and-hold lite.

The purpose of my short history lesson about our AdvisorLink® Program is to give you some insight as to why it is structured the way it is and why we feel it’s important to have active management represented in your portfolio. These strategies not only address the issue of investor panic and emotional trading, but also offer additional strategic diversification over buy-and-hold.

If you would like more information about AdvisorLink® or the various strategies offered within that program, you can learn more by going to our website at www.halbertwealth.com. Or, feel free to give one of our Investment Consultants a call at 800-348-3601. I think you’ll be glad you did.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES:

How the Economic Crisis Changed Us
http://www.parade.com/news/2009/11/01-how-the-economic-crisis-changed-us.html

Election results today could signal political trends
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/us/politics/04nagourney.html?_r=2&ref=politics

Republicans to announce alternative healthcare reform
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125711811707721639.html

Economic Recovery vs. Rising Unemployment

GaryHalbert — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:28:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Overview of Recent US Economic Trends
Snapshot of the Latest Economic Data
Fed's "Beige Book" Sees Modest Improvement
Unemployment: The 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room
Conclusions - Storm Clouds on the Horizon

Eyes around the world are intently focused on this Thursday's advance estimate of 3Q GDP in the US. Everyone is anxiously awaiting the report which will signal whether or not the US economy moved into positive territory in the July-September quarter. Pre-report GDP estimates are all over the board, ranging from -1% to +3% or more. I can't recall another quarterly GDP report that was this uncertain in terms of pre-report estimates than this one.

As I have reported over the last couple of months, most economic reports of late have suggested that the US economy is coming out of the recession a little sooner than many of us expected earlier this year. In the pages that follow, we will review the latest economic reports in the hopes of giving us a little more insight as to what we may learn on Thursday with the release of the 3Q "advance" GDP estimate.

While the GDP report on Thursday is generally expected to be positive, we all know that the unemployment rate continues to rise, now at 9.8%, and likely headed even higher just ahead.

While most economists concur that the jobless rate will move even higher for at least several more months, recent data paint a grim picture for the likelihood of the unemployment rate falling significantly anytime soon.

And the truth is, the real unemployment rate in the US is now at 17%, if the government reported all of the people who are out of work and those who are having to work part-time because they can't find a full-time job. This week, I will give you all of the unemployment numbers, not just the official unemployment rate which now stands at 9.8% and rising.

Finally, most forecasters believe the economy will rebound, at least modestly in 2010, and I don't disagree. Yet few are offering forecasts beyond 2010 because no one knows what will happen if President Obama doubles the national debt in the next 5+ years. All I can say is that I don't believe this liberal experiment will end pretty, and I will have more to say about it in the weeks and months ahead.

Overview of US Economic Trends

Global attention will be intently focused on Thursday's 3Q GDP report as it is widely expected to show that the US economy emerged from the worst recession since the Great Depression. As noted above, not all pre-report GDP estimates are positive, but most are as I will discuss below.

But before we get to the latest estimates for Thursday's GDP report, let's quickly review the quarterly GDP data for 2008 and the first half of 2009. Here are the official annualized numbers:

1Q 08	2Q 08	3Q 08	4Q 08	1Q 09	2Q 09
-0.7%	+1.5%	-2.7%	-5.4%	-6.4%	-0.7%

On September 30, the Commerce Department released its third and final GDP report for the 2Q, showing the economy contracted at an annual rate of -0.7%, as compared to its prior estimate of -1.0%

As you can see, the worst of the recent economic slump occurred in the last half of 2008 and the first quarter of this year as the housing/credit crisis played out. But it should also be pointed out that the US economy was already slowing down its growth rate even before the latest recession. GDP growth was only 2.7% in 2006 and 2.1% in 2007 (annual rates).

Most economists agree that apprx. 3% annualized growth in GDP represents the average rate of growth in the US economy in the post-WWII era. Periods of growth below 3% represent "below-trend" time windows, while periods above 3% indicate "above-trend" examples. Clearly, the US economy has been growing at below-trend rates for the last several years.

With that perspective, let's look at the latest economic reports.

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.

Snapshot of the Latest Economic Data

The consensus view based on recent economic and financial data is that the US economy is coming out of the credit crisis and recession. The National Association for Business Economics (NABE) recently surveyed leading economists, and over 80% believe the recession is over and an expansion has begun, but they expect the economic recovery will be slow as worries over unemployment and high federal debt persist.

"The survey found that the vast majority of business economists believe that the recession has ended but that the economic recovery is likely to be more moderate than those typically experienced following steep declines," said NABE President-elect Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Most of the forecasters surveyed had upgraded their economic outlook for the next several quarters, but cautioned that unemployment rates and the federal deficit are expected to remain high through the next year. On balance, the economists now expect the economy, as measured by GDP, to advance at a 2.9% pace in the second half of 2009, after falling for four straight quarters for the first time in more than 50 years. On average, they expect GDP to gain 3% in 2010. I wish I were so optimistic.

The best news in recent months has been in the Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI), which has long been one of my favorite economic benchmarks. The LEI has risen for six consecutive months, with a strong increase of 1.0% in September, following +0.6% in August.

The LEI rise over the last six consecutive months, alone, would suggest - with the benefit of hindsight - that the recession was coming to an end. The six-month rise in the LEI gives credence to positive forecasts for the 3Q GDP number and perhaps the 4Q as well. Beyond that, it is anyone's guess.

For the benefit of our many newer readers, the Index of Leading Economic Indicators is, for the most part, a compendium of economic indicators: new orders, jobless claims, money supply, average workweek, building permits, and stock prices. The LEI is maintained and reported by the Conference Board (www.conference-board.org).

Consumer confidence is arguably the next major indicator of the direction of the economy, since consumer spending accounts for roughly 70% of GDP. Since rising sharply in April-May-June, the Consumer Confidence Index has gone basically sideways since then.

The other widely followed measure of consumer confidence is the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index. After reaching a new recent high of 73.5 in September, the UM Consumer Sentiment Index fell to 69.4 earlier this month as announced on October 16.

Consumer spending is generally gauged by two economic reports, both of which are generated by the Commerce Department. One is the monthly retail sales report which dipped slightly in September. However, if we revise this retail sales report to exclude auto sales (which plunged last month due to the end of the "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program in August), retail sales actually increased marginally (+0.5%) in September, following a 2.2% gain in August.

The other widely followed indicator of consumer spending is the Commerce Department's "personal consumption expenditures" (PCE) measure, which is a part of the quarterly GDP reports. Americans increased PCE by 0.6% in the 1Q, only to see it decline by 0.9% in the 2Q. We will get our first look at 3Q PCE on Thursday with the latest GDP report.

Regardless of which report we use to gauge retail sales, the results are not eye-popping. Yes, consumer spending is finally on the rise in the wake of the recession, but we are far from out of the woods.

On the manufacturing front, things continue to improve at least modestly. The ISM Index basically was flat in September at 52.6. Industrial production rose 0.7% in September. The factory operating rate rose to 70.5% in September from 69.9% in August. Construction spending rose 0.8% in August (latest data available). The ISM Services Index rose to 50.9 in September, another indication that the recession may be ending.

And finally, on the housing front, there was more encouraging news last Friday. The National Association of Realtors reported that sales of existing homes rose 9.4% in September. The inventory of existing homes on the market declined slightly last month, and the decrease in home sale prices was somewhat less than was expected.

Fed's "Beige Book" Sees Modest Improvement

The Federal Reserve publishes an economic report eight times per year (roughly every six weeks) that is based on surveys conducted by the Fed's 12 regional banks that continually collect economic data within their respective regions. This periodic economic report is called the Fed's "Beige Book," and the latest report was released last Wednesday.

Basically, the latest Beige Book indicated that the US economy is continuing to improve, albeit very modestly, in most (but not all) regions of the country. The survey indicates that the economy, while gaining momentum, has yet to overcome weaknesses in bank lending and employment. According to the report, unemployment continued to rise last month in 23 US states, giving the Fed additional reasons to hold the main interest rate at a record low to stoke a recovery.

In particular, Federal Reserve district banks identified commercial real estate as the weakest part of the economy, while most saw "stabilization or modest improvements" in areas including housing and manufacturing. All 12 district banks reported a weak or declining commercial real estate market. You may recall that I wrote about the problems in commercial real estate in great detail in my September 29 E-Letter, so my readers should not be surprised.

While the latest Beige Book tried to present a guardedly optimistic outlook for continued economic recovery, it included several prominent caveats, such as: "Reports of gains in economic activity generally outnumber declines, but virtually every reference to improvement was qualified as either small or scattered." The report also demonstrated how heavily many businesses are relying on government spending in the face of huge contractions in the private sector.

Unemployment: The 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room

It is widely estimated that over 7 million jobs have been lost since the recession began in late 2007. The unemployment rate rose to 9.8% in September, with the "official" number of job losses at 263,000 last month. That is the highest unemployment rate since June 1983.

Most forecasters expect the US unemployment rate to continue to climb until sometime in mid-2010 when the rate is expected to peak somewhere north of 10%.

As many of you know, the official Labor Department unemployment rate is quite misleading in several ways. While it is useful as an indication of the trend in the unemployment rate, it actually understates the real percentage of Americans who are out of work.

The official unemployment rate that is announced every month does not include: 1) workers who have had to settle for part-time jobs because they can't find full-time jobs; and 2) Americans who have given up looking for a job.

If laid-off workers who have settled for part-time work or have given up looking for new jobs are included, the true unemployment rate rose to 17% in September. Here is the actual data from the Labor Department:

Table A-12.

Alternative measures of labor underutilization
Seasonally adjusted rates as of September 2009:

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force	5.4%
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force	6.8%
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)	9.8%
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers	10.2%
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers	11.1%
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers	17.0%
NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see "BLS introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures," in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Economic News Release - October 2, 2009)

All told, 15.1 million Americans (17%) are now out of work, the Department said. And an estimated 7.2 million jobs have been eliminated since the recession began in December 2007.

The Labor Department said 571,000 of the unemployed dropped out of the work force last month, presumably out of frustration over the lack of jobs. That sent the so-called "participation rate," or the percentage of the population either not working or looking for work, to a 23-year low. The unemployment rate would have topped 10% if the labor force hadn't shrunk again in September.

Older, laid-off workers are dropping out and requesting Social Security at a faster-than-expected pace, according to government officials. The Social Security Administration reported earlier this month that applications for retirement benefits are 23% higher than last year, while disability claims have risen by about 20%.

Meanwhile, the number of people out of work for six months or longer jumped to a record 5.4 million in September, and they now make up almost 36% of the unemployed, also a record. Making matters worse, weekly wages fell $1.54 to $616.11 in September, according to the Labor Department. Also, the average hourly work week fell back to a record low of 33 hours in September.

Unemployment to Remain High for Years to Come,
Even if the Economic Recovery Gets Stronger

With the unemployment rate so much higher than most expected, and headed higher still, more and more analysts are trying to determine how much job creation will be required to bring us down to 5% unemployment. Many economists and analysts consider that 5% unemployment is the equivalent of "full employment," since there will always be some percentage of the working population that is unemployed at any given time.

The job creation numbers required to get us from the current 9.8% unemployment to 5% unemployment, at this point, are simply staggering. And they are likely to get even worse, since we are likely headed for at least 10% unemployment in the months ahead.

As noted above, well over seven million jobs have been eliminated since late 2007. Most economists agree that most of these jobs have been eliminated permanently. Also as noted above, there are now 15.1 million Americans (17%) who were out of work, or forced to work part-time, as of the end of September.

In addition to the 15.1 million Americans who are out of work, most economists agree that apprx. 1 million new people enter the US job market every year (high school and college grads, legal immigrants, etc.). So not only does the economy need to grow by enough to re-employ 15 million unemployed, it also must create another 1 million jobs each year to provide for new entrants to the labor force.

With 15 million out of work already, and with the labor force expanding by more than 1 million new workers annually, economists Joseph Seneca and James Hughes of Rutgers estimate that even the robust job growth of the 1990s (2.4 million new jobs a year) wouldn't reduce today's 9.8% unemployment to 5% until 2017.

We increasingly hear about the so-called "jobless recovery" that we are likely facing. With the economy still losing over 250,000 jobs per month, it is a real stretch to assume that we will get anywhere near the 1990s pace of adding an average of 200,000 jobs per month (2.4 million annually). For example, the Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs from large corporations, said earlier this month that only 13% of its members expect to increase hiring over the next six months.

As these numbers continue to sink in, we are hearing new calls for more federal aid to state governments, a further extension of unemployment insurance (now up to 79 weeks) and a tax credit for companies that create new jobs. One such proposal would give employers a $7,000 tax credit for each additional worker hired (over some base period).

The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research thinks such a credit might create two million jobs. Sounds good on paper, perhaps, but the budgetary cost to the government would likely be $40 billion annually or higher.

As you will likely recall, President Obama rammed through his massive $787 billion "stimulus package" back in February, largely on the promise that it would create jobs. What he didn't tell us was that most of the money would not be spent this year, and that much of the money would go for pork-barrel spending programs over the next few years that won't create large numbers of jobs in the first place.

Supporters of the stimulus argue that without it, unemployment would be even worse than it is now and suggest that the stimulus spending in 2010 and 2011 will boost the economic recovery significantly. That remains to be seen, of course. I tend to doubt it.

Conclusions - Storm Clouds on the Horizon

Economic and financial reports continue to support the idea that we have seen the worst of the economic recession and the credit crisis, as I have suggested in recent weeks. Most estimates suggest that the economy, as measured by GDP, will show a positive number for the first time in over a year with this Thursday's advance 3Q GDP report.

Pre-report estimates are all over the board, and some analysts believe the report could show 3Q growth of 3% or more. Of course, we must all keep in mind that year-over-year comparisons of 3Q 2009 to last year's 3Q should make this year look pretty darned good in any event.

But the bigger problem is that unemployment continues to rise and is likely to do so until at least sometime in the first half of 2010, reaching well over 10% in the official number. As I have explained in detail above, the official unemployment rate significantly understates the real unemployment rate, which is now at 17%, as admitted by the Labor Department.

Despite the continuing unemployment trend, most forecasters believe that the US economy came out of the recession in the 3Q. Likewise, most mainstream forecasters believe that 2010 will be a year with at least modestly higher growth rates. Most estimates I read suggest the US economy will grow by 1.5%-3% in GDP next year. That remains to be seen, however.

Yet the most interesting thing for me is that we are seeing very few forecasts for 2011 and beyond. Usually, forecasters are more than happy to provide multi-year economic projections, so why not now? The reason is, in my opinion, that no one has a clue what the long-term effects will be as a result of President Obama's plans to run trillion-dollar deficits for the next several years at least and double the national debt in possibly the next five years.

The US dollar continues to fall as I discussed in detail last week. While I don't believe the dollar will be replaced as the world's "reserve currency" in the near-term, the long-term prospects for the dollar are questionable at best, especially if Obama doubles the national debt over the next 5-plus years. At some point, foreigners who buy our massive debt may decide to stop buying dollars, or worst case, begin to unload dollars.

If that were to happen, the implications for the US financial markets would be enormous. That could cause a financial crisis that dwarfs the one we've just been through. Maybe we do see an economic recovery in 2010 as most economists predict. But I want to go on record in predicting a "double-dip recession" in 2011 and perhaps beyond, especially if the dollar accelerates its decline. Space does not allow me to go into my reasons for this prediction this week, but I will be writing more about it in the weeks and 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.

Stocks Up 60% - Now What?

If the current troubling economic forecast doesn't call for a defensive investment approach, I don't know what does. Stocks have exploded since the March lows, with the S&P 500 Index up almost 60%. Now, more than ever, you may want to consider active management strategies that can move to cash or hedge long positions should stocks switch direction just ahead.

We recently sponsored live webinars featuring two of our recommended Investment Advisors. The overwhelming response we received shows us that investors are beginning to realize that the market can't continue to go up forever, and that market euphoria will run into economic reality at some point.

Increasingly, sophisticated investors are increasingly turning to professional money managers that can take advantage of whatever remains of the stock market upside, but that also have the ability to move to cash, or hedge long positions, when the current bull market rally plays out.

Fortunately, we recorded both of these webinars and have placed them on our website. I urge you to check out both the Potomac Fund Management and Niemann Capital Management webinars. Both of these Advisors have actual track records going back well over a decade, so they are not recent entrants in the field of active money management. Click on the following links to learn more about how these professional money managers add value to their clients' investments.

Potomac Fund Management Webinar

Niemann Capital Management Webinar

If you would like to discuss either of these managers, or learn more about our other actively managed investment programs, feel free to call one of our Investment Consultants at 800-348-3601 or send an e-mail to info@halbertwealth.com. We look forward to hearing from you!

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html

Is the healthcare "public option" really back?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/if_public_option_is_really_back_why_such_a_heavy_lift_98890.html

The Dethroning of King Dollar (an interesting read)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/124jwyuq.asp?pg=1

Will the US Dollar Lose "Reserve Currency" Status?

GaryHalbert — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:33:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Most Americans Are Dollar Indifferent/Oblivious
How the Dollar Became the Reserve Currency
Long-term Swings in the US Dollar's Value
Global Calls for Reserve Currency Replacement
Editorial: The "Dump-the-Dollar" Conspiracy
Conclusions – No Change Likely Anytime Soon

Introduction

The US dollar became the global "reserve currency" in 1944 near the end of World War II and continues as such. There have been numerous reserve currencies over the centuries, but none more widely accepted than the US dollar since 1944. While the US dollar has fluctuated widely in value over the 65 years since its designation as the reserve currency, its credibility has come under the most intense scrutiny ever in the last few years.

The US dollar peaked in value in 2000-2001 and has been in a significant decline ever since. There was a relatively brief period in 2008 when the dollar rebounded quite sharply due to the worldwide financial crisis and economic meltdown, when there was a global rush to the safety of US Treasury securities. But since then, the dollar has resumed its long-term downtrend.

With President Obama's most unprecedented spending plans in history, with trillion-dollar budget deficits as far as the eye can see, and the potential to more than double the US national debt in the next 5-10 years, there is now widespread speculation that the dollar is headed for new all-time lows and a possible collapse.

As a result, we are seeing and hearing calls around the world to end the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency and replace it with something else. The question is, replace it with what? The US dollar is by far the largest currency in the world; many commodities around the world are priced in dollars; and most international transactions are settled in dollars.

This week, we will look at the debate regarding what to do about the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. I will start by explaining how the US dollar became the global reserve currency. Next, we will look at some of the difficulties the global community will face if the dollar is to be replaced as the reserve currency. And finally, we will explore what may happen if the US doubles the national debt over the next 5-10 years. It should make for an interesting letter.

Most Americans Are Dollar Indifferent/Oblivious

The financial media keeps us constantly aware of what's happening with the US dollar, as it should. But let's face it, most Americans pay little attention to the financial media, much less the value of the US dollar. And why should they? The dollar goes up in value and goes down in value, most often with few obvious effects on the lives of everyday Americans.

In extreme cases, a sharply falling dollar can result in significantly higher inflation and higher prices for the goods and services we consume. The late 1970s, when we had what some called 'hyperinflation,' is one such example. But Americans have come to accept that inflation rises every year, and few correlate rising consumer prices to fluctuations in the US dollar.

Likewise, a falling dollar can make US exports more competitively priced in foreign countries, and this can be a positive factor for the economy and job creation here at home. Yet a falling dollar can also make foreign imports more expensive to US consumers. But the point is, when it comes to a rising or falling dollar, most Americans are indifferent if not oblivious.

Most Americans, as far as I can tell, are likewise indifferent or oblivious as to the significance of the US dollar being the world's reserve currency. I would similarly suggest that most Americans don't even know what it means to be the world's reserve currency. Yet that may be about to change in a big way, what with increasing calls for the replacement of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Sophisticated investors need to understand the importance of these issues as the future of the US dollar can significantly affect the value of our investments, as well as the prices we pay for the goods and services we all consume. In that regard, let's start with a brief discussion of how the US dollar came to be the world's reserve currency and what that means.

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.

How the Dollar Became the Reserve Currency

In July 1944, with World War II still raging and the international economic and financial systems in near shambles, delegates from all 44 Allied nations gathered in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire for the 'United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference.' The goal was to set up a system of rules, procedures and institutions to regulate the international monetary system. After three weeks of deliberating, the delegates agreed upon and signed the Bretton Woods Agreements.

The planners at Bretton Woods established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), which today is part of the World Bank Group. These organizations became operational in 1945 after a sufficient number of countries had ratified the Bretton Woods Agreements.

One of the chief features of the Bretton Woods system was an obligation for each country to adopt monetary policies that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value (plus or minus 1%). The US dollar was established as the world's "reserve currency," which is typically defined as theforeign currency held by central banks and other major financial institutions as a means to pay off international debt obligations, and/or to influence their domestic currency exchange rates.

At the same time, the US agreed separately to link the dollar to gold at the price of $35 per ounce, with the added promise that Allied nations could convert their dollar holdings to gold if they so preferred. This was collectively known as the new "gold standard."

Ultimately, the other Allied nations agreed to "peg" their currencies to the US dollar, and agreed to buy and sell dollars to keep market exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity. Thus, the US dollar took over the role that gold had played in the previous international financial system. As the world's reserve currency, most international transactions came to be denominated in US dollars. The US dollar was the currency with the most purchasing power, partly because it was the only currency that was backed by gold. This led to the phrase that "the US dollar is as good as gold."

The gold standard for the US dollar, as the global reserve currency, continued until August 15, 1971 when President Richard Nixon unilaterally closed the so-called "gold window" and ended the option of converting US dollars into gold. Despite that, the US dollar has continued to be the global reserve currency to this day. But that may be changing… or maybe not.

Long-term Swings in US Dollar Value

The decoupling of the US dollar from gold in 1971 meant that the greenback became a "fiat" currency that was supported by nothing more than the full faith and credit of the US government, and thus subject to the whims of the market. The US Dollar Index (as measured in relation to six major foreign currencies) actually fell for several years after Nixon closed the gold window.

Then from 1980 to 1985, the US dollar skyrocketed on the upside, nearly doubling in value by 1985. But then in late 1985, the dollar began a virtual collapse which saw its value cut almost in half by late 1987. From late 1987 to 1995, the dollar moved in a broad sideways trading range.

From 1996 to 2001, the dollar staged another strong rally which moved the Index up to 120 as you can see in the chart below. From 2001 to the present, the Dollar Index fell sharply, reaching a new low in early 2008. Yet as the recession and the credit crisis unfolded in earnest in 2008, the dollar saw a fairly significant bounce, which was driven almost entirely by the global rush to safety in US Treasuries.

As you can clearly see, the credit crisis rally in the dollar ended early this year, and the long-term downtrend has resumed. The question now is whether or not the US dollar is headed for new all-time lows. With Obama's plans to run trillion-dollar annual budget deficits as far as the eye can see, and double the national debt in the next 5-10 years, it would seem almost certain that the dollar is headed for new lows.

This is precisely why we are hearing calls from around the world to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency. But again, the question is with what?

Global Calls for Reserve Currency Replacement

As the US dollar has resumed its long-term downtrend this year, a growing international chorus is suggesting that the dollar be replaced as the world's reserve currency, a move that could theoretically end the greenback's six decades of global dominance.

China was the first major power to call in March for the dollar to be replaced as the world's reserve currency. China holds more US debt than any other country - about $800 billion - and the further the dollar drops, the less the value of the US debt owed to China. Never mind that China has been roundly criticized for its handling of its own currency, the yuan, which I might add is pegged to the US dollar.

Reportedly, there were informal talks on the dollar continuing as the reserve currency at the G-20 summit in London in early April. Since then other nations such as Russia, France and Brazil have suggested that the US dollar should be "supplemented" by other major currencies as a shared reserve currency.

The US was again criticized at the latest G-20 summit in Pittsburgh at the end of September, to the point that Treasury Secretary Geithner felt obligated to say the following at the opening of the conference: "A strong dollar is very important to the United States." Given the massive spending by the Obama administration, and plans to double the national debt in 5-10 years, it is no wonder that no one believed Geithner's remarks.

Regardless of whether the dollar would be replaced or supplemented, it would be a very complicated matter. The technical and political hurdles are enormous. For one thing, central banks around the world hold far more US dollars and dollar-denominated securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency. Such reserves are frequently used to stabilize the value of the central banks' domestic currencies.

Most finance ministers around the world, including China's, know this and their comments in regard to replacing or supplementing the dollar as the world's reserve currency are just so much lip-service, which is really aimed at threatening the Obama administration over its out-of-control spending.

China says, for example, that it would prefer to hold its apprx. $2 trillion in reserves in something other than US dollars, but the fact is that Beijing has few alternatives. With more US dollars continuing to pour into China from trade and investment, Beijing has no realistic option other than storing them in US debt.

Some Argue "SDRs" are the Solution

So-called "Special Drawing Rights" (SDRs) are a synthetic currency created by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1969 in an effort to stabilize the international foreign exchange system. The IMF defines SDRs as follows: The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement its member countries' official reserves. Its value is based on a basket of four key international currencies..."

Basically, SDRs are a combination of four currencies - US dollar, the Euro, the Yen and the British Pound. The US dollar alone makes up almost half of the value of a SDR. The amounts of each currency making up SDRs are determined by the IMF Executive Board in accordance with the relative importance of the currency in international trade and finance every five years.

SDRs were originally created to replace gold and silver in large international transactions. Since the quantity of gold and silver worldwide is finite, and the economies of all participating IMF members as an aggregate are growing, a purported need arose to increase the supply of international reserves. Thus, SDRs (also called "paper gold") are credits that nations with balance of trade surpluses can 'draw' upon from nations with balance of trade deficits.

In short, SDRs are little more than an accounting transaction within a ledger of accounts, which eliminates the logistical and security problems of shipping gold back and forth across borders to settle national accounts.

When SDRs were created, the IMF also suggested that member nations could convert their US dollar holdings into SDRs to diversify away from the dollar without driving the value of the dollar down. However, since US dollars account for almost half the value of SDRs, this diversification argument never made very much sense.

Despite the IMF's initial desires, SDRs never became the currency of choice for any countries. Even today, SDRs are primarily used only to settle accounts between the IMF and its members' treasury departments/foreign exchange ministries. Frankly, this is a good thing, in my opinion.

Still, there are continued calls for the SDR to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. There are even a few voices out there that seem to believe we should adopt the SDR as a single global currency. In either case, the logic is flawed because of the limited size of the SDR market. Plus, if SDRs were instated as the global currency, every country with its own currency would lose a significant measure of national sovereignty.

Other arguments against making SDRs the world's reserve currency include the fact that the US dollar, the Euro and the Pound – which make up the large majority of SDRs – have all lost value since late 2007 when the recession began. Why replace a falling dollar by an index which so heavily includes the dollar? Also, SDRs do not contain the Chinese Yuan, Indian Rupee, Australian Dollar or Canadian Dollar, all of which are important benchmark or secondary global reserve currencies.

These are just some of the reasons that the SDR is not likely to become the global reserve currency.

EDITORIAL REPRINT

What follows is one of the more interesting analyses on the US dollar that I have read in some time about the so-called "Dump the Dollar" conspiracy. The piece is written by Dean Baker, a senior correspondent for Foreign Policy magazine (www.foreignpolicy.com), a leading non-partisan foreign policy think-tank in Washington.

QUOTE:

Debunking the "Dumping-the-Dollar" Conspiracy

For at least the last decade, a persistent, recurring conspiracy theory has held that major oil exporters will stop pricing oil in dollars, which will then lead to a collapse in the U.S. economy as the dollar becomes worthless. According to some accounts, Iraq's decision to price its oil in euros rather than dollars precipitated the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and Iran's threats to move away from the dollar is the real reason the U.S. government is raising the alarm over the country's nuclear program.

The latest item in this tradition was an article by Robert Fisk, a longtime Middle East correspondent, in the London-based Independent. The article warns of a grand conspiracy between the Arab oil states, China, Japan, Russia, and France to stop pricing oil in dollars by 2018. When this happens, Fisk says, the dollar will suffer a severe blow to its international standing and the United States might struggle to pay for its oil. The article apparently caused a shudder in the currency markets yesterday [October 6], as panicked investors unloaded dollars in reaction to the terrifying prospect of this alleged international oil conspiracy.

But they really shouldn't be concerned. Fisk's theory would make a good plot for a Hollywood movie, but it doesn't make much sense as economics. It is true that oil is priced in dollars and that most oil is traded in dollars, but these facts make relatively little difference for the status of the dollar as an international currency or the economic well-being of the United States.

With the United States' ascendancy as the pre-eminent economic power after World War II, the dollar became the world's reserve currency: Most countries held dollars in reserve in the event that they suddenly needed an asset other than their own currency to pay for imports, or to support their own currency. Much international trade, including trade not involving the United States, was carried through in dollars. In addition, most internationally traded commodities became priced in dollars on exchanges. However, the dollar was never universally used to carry through trade (even trade in oil), and the pricing of commodities in dollars is primarily just a convention.

Any market -- a stock market, a wheat market, or the oil market -- requires a unit of measure. The importance of the U.S. economy made the dollar the obvious choice for most markets. But there would be no real difference if the euro, the yen, or even bushels of wheat were selected as the unit of account for the oil market. It's simply an accounting issue.

Suppose that prices in the oil market were quoted in yen or bushels of wheat. Currently, oil is priced at about $70 a barrel. A dollar today is worth about 90 yen. A bushel of wheat sells for about $3.50. If oil were priced in yen, then the current price of a barrel of oil in yen would [be] 6,300 yen. If oil were priced in wheat, then the price of a barrel of oil would be 20 bushels. If oil were priced in either yen or wheat it would have no direct consequence for the dollar. If the dollar were still the preferred asset among oil sellers, then they would ask for the dollar equivalents of the yen or wheat price of oil. The calculation would take a billionth of a second on modern computers, and business would proceed exactly as it does today.

It does matter slightly that the trade typically takes place in dollars. This means that those wishing to buy oil must acquire dollars to buy the oil, which increases the demand for dollars in world financial markets. However, the impact of the oil trade is likely to be a very small factor affecting the value of the dollar. Even today, not all oil is sold for dollars. Oil producers are free to construct whatever terms they wish for selling their oil, and many often agree to payment in other currencies. There is absolutely nothing to prevent Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or any other oil producer -- whether a member of OPEC or not -- from signing contracts selling their oil for whatever currency is convenient for them to acquire.

Even if all oil were sold for dollars, it would be a very small factor in the international demand for dollars, as can be seen with a bit of simple arithmetic. World oil production is a bit under 90 million barrels a day. If two-thirds of this oil is sold across national borders, then it implies a daily oil trade of 60 million barrels. If all of this oil is sold in dollars, then it means that oil consumers would have to collectively hold $4.2 billion to cover their daily oil tab.

By comparison, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in currency reserves, more than 200 times the transaction demand for oil. In other words, if China reduced its holdings of dollars by just 0.5 percent, it would have more impact on the demand for dollars than if all oil exporters suddenly stopped accepting dollars for their oil.

This raises a more serious issue affecting the demand for dollars, which is the dollar's status as an international reserve currency. Currently the dollar is by far the preferred currency, but others, notably the euro, are gaining ground. A switch away from the dollar will lower its value, but this is hardly anything to fear: In actuality, it was and is an official policy goal of both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations [to have a weaker dollar].

Both administrations are on record complaining about China's 'manipulation' of its currency. China does this by buying up vast amounts of dollars to hold as foreign reserves, suppressing the value of the yuan against the dollar. This, in turn, makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and bolsters China's exports.

If China stopped buying up huge amounts of dollars, as the United States wishes, then the dollar would fall in value against the yuan, thereby making Chinese imports more expensive. The result would be that the United States would buy fewer imports from China, improving its trade balance. Not too many people would be frightened by this prospect.

To summarize, the dollars needed to finance the international oil trade are trivial compared with other sources of demand for dollars. The currency chosen for foreign reserve holdings can have an impact on demand for dollars, but this has nothing to do with the currency chosen to conduct the oil trade. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hold euros rather than dollars, it could almost instantly offload as many dollars as it desired. Plus, the White House wants the dollar to decline anyway because it would improve the United States' trade balance.

Thus, the conspiracy theory Fisk resurrected might have spooked the markets, but the reality is that there is nothing to fear. The dollar's value will likely fall over time (as it has been doing against the euro for the last nine years). But there is nothing in the cards to suggest a collapse, even if Saudi Arabia starts selling its oil for euros or yuan.
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

The US dollar is not likely to lose it reserve currency status anytime soon, unless it were to collapse for some unexpected reason. As illustrated in the chart above, the dollar has been losing value for almost a decade, yet no major countries have switched to some other currency to settle international transactions. As discussed earlier, there is no other currency that is large enough to replace the dollar as the world currency.

Longer-term, however, the prospects don't look very bright. With President Obama's plans to run trillion-dollar annual budget deficits for at least the next five years (and possibly longer) and double the national debt in 5-10 years, the dollar could find itself in real trouble as the reserve currency. The dollar could fall so low that foreign nations decide to dump their dollars in favor of euros, yen or whatever. If that day comes, I (and many others) believe we will see an even greater financial crisis and another depression.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Why the euro is not the next global currency
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e661b42-bcdb-11de-a7ec-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Deficit Dilemma: How to Dig Out
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125554787267585505.html

Excuses wearing thin for Obama
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1834209,CST-EDT-HUNT20.article

Stratfor: Odds of War with Iran Spiking

GaryHalbert — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:19:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

West Discovers Secret Nuclear Facility in Iran
Iran Much Closer to Nukes than Previously Thought
Russian Scientists Said to be Helping Iran Build Nukes

Introduction

Several very disturbing geopolitical revelations over the last two weeks regarding Iran and its possible nuclear weapons ambitions and capabilities have dramatically changed how the US and the international community are thinking in terms of the nuclear threat we face from Iran.

First, there was the announcement by President Obama, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy on September 25 at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh that joint intelligence had proven that Iran has a secret uranium enrichment facility inside a mountain near Qom, a city south of Tehran. The Iranians quickly admitted to the existence of this massive compound but claimed, as usual, that it is solely for domestic energy purposes.

Second, shortly thereafter, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon.

Third, was a revelation in the first days of October by the Times of London which reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Moscow on September 7 to charge that Russian scientists and engineers are working directly with Iran on its nuclear weapons program. This intelligence suggests that Iran may be much further along in developing nuclear weapons than the international community previously believed.

Obviously, these very latest developments are hugely important and very alarming, especially if it is proven that the Russians are actively assisting Iran in developing nuclear weapons, possibly years ahead of previous intelligence reports. (And don't be surprised that you have not heard about all of this in the mainstream media.)

Whenever it comes to such matters of grave geopolitical importance, I always turn to our good friends at Stratfor.com to get the real story. As long-time readers know, Stratfor is an internationally respected source on geopolitical intelligence. I have quoted Stratfor and its founder Dr. George Friedman many times in the past.

In the pages that follow, I will again quote liberally from Stratfor's latest analysis on the disturbing situation with Iran, the possible Russian involvement in Iran's nuclear program, etc., etc. Suffice it to say that Stratfor now believes the odds of the US going to war with Iran have recently increased exponentially. This is very scary stuff!

I will start with Stratfor's new Forecast for the 4Q, which is most insightful in light of the latest news on Iran. I will follow that with their latest analysis of the very real possibility that Russia is assisting Iran in the development of nuclear weapons, and the likelihood that Iran may be much further ahead than the world has been led to believe.

No conclusion section is needed as the Stratfor articles below are most comprehensive and self-concluding. Let's get right to them, read carefully.

* Note that the bracketed comments within the Stratfor text are mine.

** You have my permission to reprint and/or forward this E-Letter
as you may wish, with proper credit to Stratfor and my company.

STRATFOR QUOTE:

Setting the Stage

Events are taking the fourth quarter of 2009 into new territory. The rising confrontation with Iran has taken center stage as a conflict with global participants and global consequences. As the final quarter of the year dawns, representatives from the world's major countries are meeting in Geneva with their Iranian counterparts. The official goal is to see if sufficient international safeguards can be placed on the Iranian nuclear program. Failure could well lead first to sanctions against Iran, and should those fail, possibly a U.S.-Iranian military confrontation.

At its core, the brewing crisis is this: Israel is too small a territory to tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran, and too militarily weak to guarantee that it can deal with the problem on its own. However, an Israeli strike would certainly generate Iranian retaliation against shipping in the Persian Gulf, which in turn would force the United States to act against Iran directly. So the question in STRATFOR's collective mind is whether or not any concessions Iran grants on its nuclear programs will be sufficient to satisfy Israel's security concerns. The Obama administration is obviously a player, and the onus is on the Americans to act, but the decisions that truly matter will be made in Israel, not the United States.

As goes this crisis, so goes the world.

Russia is attempting to lock down the United States in the Middle East so that Moscow can extend and deepen its efforts to re-create its Soviet-era sphere of influence, particularly in the former Soviet Union. Thus Russia is funneling various forms of assistance, primarily technical cooperation on weapons, energy and nuclear industries, to Iran. It is also making apparent its intent to do an end run around any sanctions the West might impose on Iran. An Iran strong enough and independent enough to keep the United States preoccupied is just what Russia wants.

After the worst recession in a generation, the global economy is on the mend. The ending recession was primarily financial in nature, meaning that it evolved primarily into a crisis of confidence. Confidence requires time to rebuild, and as such the recovery is both shallow and extremely uneven, with some regions as likely to descend back into recession as return to real growth. It is a recovery very vulnerable to disruption. A military confrontation in the Persian Gulf would send shock waves through the system, at a minimum interrupting the flow of Iran's 2.4 million barrels of daily oil exports. That alone would be more than enough to break the recovery's back.

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.

Global Trend: The Iranian Nuclear Crisis

A new topic has rocketed to the top of STRATFOR's international concerns: the possibility of a war between the United States and Iran. There has been much discussion of this topic for years now, and STRATFOR has tended to dismiss it; there is a great chasm between remedial uranium enrichment programs and having a deliverable nuclear weapon. But events in the third quarter added credibility to the scenario. Primarily this is because of Israel. As a small state, Israel is not comfortable pinning its survival on Iran's choices. As Iran's nuclear program matures, Israel is feeling forced to eliminate the threat before it can manifest.

Israel does not have high confidence in the United States' ability to unilaterally remove the threat, but Israel does have the ability to rope the United States into an attack against Iran. Even an ineffectual Israeli strike against Iran would force Iran to respond. Since Iran lacks the ability to respond with a direct attack on Israel, it would likely need to settle for activating Hezbollah in Lebanon, various Shiite factions in Iraq and militant assets in Afghanistan, and attacking energy shipping in the Persian Gulf. This last action in particular would force an American response — perhaps even a pre-emptive one. And if the United States found itself engaging the Iranian military over maritime [Persian Gulf] issues, it would be illogical for the United States to not extend the conflict to Iran's nuclear assets.

The United States would prefer to avoid a war — in fact it would prefer a more cooperative arrangement with Iran in order to ease its exit from Iraq — but Washington understands the inevitability of conflict should Israel feel direly threatened. The opening weeks of the fourth quarter will be dominated by 11th-hour negotiations primarily between but not limited to Washington and Tehran to see if war can be avoided. Washington and its allies will seek formal, transparent oversight for the entire Iranian nuclear program, and failing that, sanctions on the Iranian sector that is most vulnerable to foreign pressure: gasoline imports.

Tehran, thinking (correctly) that the West in general — and U.S. President Barack Obama in particular — does not want a war and that its own retaliatory options are formidable deterrents, will equivocate. Russia, also thinking (correctly) that the West does not want a war and thinking little of Obama, has the option of bolstering Iran in the hopes of keeping U.S. forces tied down in the Middle East. Primarily STRATFOR expects this to take the form of circumventing Western gasoline sanctions — Russia and its allies have plenty of spare refining capacity and sufficient rail connections to backfill Iran's gasoline supply [if the US were to cut it off]. The Russians also retain the critical leverage of following through with a sale of S-300 strategic air defense systems to Iran — though such an action, if discovered in time, also runs the risk of precipitating an Israeli attack.

There is little but diplomacy preventing this conflict from happening. Between the Iraq and Afghan conflicts, the United States has the naval and air assets in the region that would be required for extensive and sustained air strikes against Iran. But both Iran and Russia feel they have the upper hand and both doubt Obama's nerve. Any of the sides could back down — Obama or Iran could flinch, Russia and the United States could strike a deal on sanctions, Israel could decide that Iran is not so far along in its nuclear program — to avert a war. But any of these options would clearly harm the national interests of one of the other players. War is not yet inevitable, but it is looking increasingly likely. [Emphasis added]

Global Trend: The Russian Resurgence

Moscow has been attempting for some time to consolidate its near abroad [Stratfor's term for expanding its sphere of influence] in preparation for the time when the United States is no longer distracted by events in the Middle East. The challenge has been simple: Either convince the Americans that they cannot achieve their ends in the Middle East without Russian assistance (and that the Russians must be amply compensated for their trouble), or ensure that the Americans remain locked down in the Middle East so that Russia can simply impose its will on the former Soviet territory without the threat of U.S. intervention.

The third quarter was when Russia got things done, using a mixture of diplomatic, military, intelligence and economic tools. Russia has managed to soften Azerbaijan, Turkey and Germany's pro-U.S. positions and, if it has not formally added them to the list of countries where Russian power is preeminent, it has at least made them neutral in the competition between Russia and the United States. Russia has persuaded nearly all factions in the Ukrainian political spectrum to favor a Russian-leaning (as opposed to Western-leaning) future and will cement that achievement in the country's January 2010 elections.

Georgia is now isolated, even from the United States. Poland might even be in play now; the American attempt to trade portions of its ballistic missile defense plans for concessions in Iran succeeded only in scaring Poland into believing that the U.S.-Polish alliance was not as strong as it had hoped, forcing Warsaw to re-evaluate its traditional hostility toward Russia and to consider closer integration into the European Union.

So Russia enters the fourth quarter feeling quite confident, if not downright smug. It sees the American [Obama] administration as overconfident, inept and simultaneously unwilling to make any geopolitical trades or commit to a military operation that could force Iran to capitulate. With such a geopolitical position, Russia has a threefold plan.

First, the Russians intend to do anything to ensure that the Americans remain locked in a conflict with Iran — that is, anything that will not cause more problems for Russia in the long run. Dangling nuclear and advanced military technology in front of Tehran without actually delivering it remains a cornerstone of this policy. But more concretely, the Russians are working to undermine any U.S.-led sanctions on Iran before they can get off the ground, and are highly likely to circumvent them directly should the sanctions materialize.

Russia and its near-proxy states of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan each possess the ability to completely replace all sea-borne gasoline shipments to Iran, and to do so in a way that not even a full naval blockade of the Persian Gulf could stop. The only place where the Russians are likely to take a stance that is not obstructionist will be in Afghanistan, as the Russians do not wish to see the chaos there spread (that the Americans are the bulwark there is simply the icing on the cake). Of course, Moscow is willing to abandon all its plans for Iran in a heartbeat should Washington pay the right price to Russia.

Second, the Russians are putting the finishing touches on wrapping up their near abroad [expanding its sphere of influence]. Ukraine will remain chaotic (as always) but Russia is working to break up and perhaps even excise any remaining pro-Western power centers there. Pressure on Georgia is once again intensifying from "merely" economic and political to military, with naval forces now actively patrolling the coast of Abkhazia, one of Georgia's Russian-backed breakaway provinces. Russian troops will also be inserted into strategic locations in the former Soviet Central Asian states to limit American access, to lock down the allegiance of those states and also to prevent the region's would-be hegemon — Uzbekistan — from trying anything…

Two Leaks and the Deepening Iran Crisis

Two major leaks occurred this weekend [the weekend of October 2-4] over the Iran matter.

In the first, The New York Times published an article reporting that staff at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear oversight group, had produced an unreleased report saying that Iran was much more advanced in its nuclear program than the IAEA had thought previously. According to the report, Iran now has all the data needed to design a nuclear weapon. [Emphasis added.] The New York Times article added that U.S. intelligence was re-examining the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007, which had stated that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

The second leak occurred in the British daily The Times, which reported that the purpose of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's highly publicized secret visit to Moscow on Sept. 7 was to provide the Russians with a list of Russian scientists and engineers working on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

The second revelation was directly tied to the first. There were many, including STRATFOR, who felt that Iran did not have the non-nuclear disciplines needed for rapid progress toward a nuclear device. Putting the two pieces together, the presence of Russian personnel in Iran would mean that the Iranians had obtained the needed expertise from the Russians. It would also mean that the Russians were not merely a factor in whether there would be effective sanctions but also in whether and when the Iranians would obtain a nuclear weapon.

We would guess that the leak to The New York Times came from U.S. government sources, because that seems to be a prime vector of leaks from the Obama administration and because the article contained information on the NIE review. Given that National Security Adviser James Jones tended to dismiss the report on Sunday television, we would guess the report leaked from elsewhere in the administration.

The Times [of London] leak could have come from multiple sources, but we have noted a tendency of the Israelis to leak through the British daily on national security issues. (The article contained substantial details on the visit [Netanyahu visit to Moscow on September 7] and appeared written from the Israeli point of view.) Neither leak can be taken at face value, of course. But it is clear that these were deliberate leaks — people rarely risk felony charges leaking such highly classified material — and even if they were not coordinated, they delivered the same message, true or not.

The Iranian Time Frame and the Russian Role

The message was twofold. First, previous assumptions on time frames on Iran are no longer valid, and worst-case assumptions must now be assumed. The Iranians are in fact moving rapidly toward a weapon; have been extremely effective at deceiving U.S. intelligence (read, they deceived the Bush administration, but the Obama administration has figured it out); and therefore, we are moving toward a decisive moment with Iran.

Second, this situation is the direct responsibility of Russian nuclear expertise. Whether this expertise came from former employees of the Russian nuclear establishment now looking for work, Russian officials assigned to Iran or unemployed scientists sent to Iran by the Russians is immaterial. The Israelis — and the Obama administration — must hold the Russians responsible for the current state of Iran's weapons program, and by extension, Moscow bears responsibility for any actions that Israel or the United States might take to solve the problem.

We would suspect that the leaks were coordinated. From the Israeli point of view, having said publicly that they are prepared to follow the American lead and allow this phase of diplomacy to play out, there clearly had to be more going on than just last week's Geneva talks. From the American point of view, while the Russians have indicated that participating in sanctions on gasoline imports by Iran is not out of the question, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev did not clearly state that Russia would cooperate, nor has anything been heard from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on the subject. The Russian leadership appears to be playing "good cop, bad cop" on the matter, and the credibility of anything they say on Iran has little weight in Washington.

It would seem to us that the United States and Israel decided to up the ante fairly dramatically in the wake of the Oct. 1 meeting with Iran in Geneva. As IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei visits Iran, massive new urgency has now been added to the issue. But we must remember that Iran knows whether it has had help from Russian scientists; that is something that can't be bluffed.

Given that this specific charge has been made — and as of Monday not challenged by Iran or Russia — indicates to us more is going on than an attempt to bluff the Iranians into concessions. Unless the two leaks together are completely bogus, and we doubt that, the United States and Israel are leaking information already well known to the Iranians. They are telling Tehran that its deception campaign has been penetrated, and by extension are telling it that it faces military action — particularly if massive sanctions are impractical because of more Russian obstruction.

If Netanyahu went to Moscow to deliver this intelligence to the Russians, the only surprise would have been the degree to which the Israelis had penetrated the program, not that the Russians were there. The Russian intelligence services are superbly competent, and keep track of stray nuclear scientists carefully. They would not be surprised by the charge, only by Israel's knowledge of it.

This, of course leaves open an enormous question. Certainly, the Russians appear to have worked with the Iranians on some security issues and have played with the idea of providing the Iranians more substantial military equipment. But deliberately aiding Iran in building a nuclear device seems beyond Russia's interests in two ways. First, while Russia wants to goad the United States, it does not itself really want a nuclear Iran. Second, in goading the United States, the Russians know not to go too far; helping Iran build a nuclear weapon would clearly cross a redline, triggering reactions.

A number of possible explanations present themselves. The leak to The Times might be wrong. But The Times is not a careless newspaper: It accepts leaks only from certified sources. The Russian scientists might be private citizens accepting Iranian employment. But while this is possible, Moscow is very careful about what Russian nuclear engineers do with their time. Or the Russians might be providing enough help to goad the United States but not enough to ever complete the job. Whatever the explanation, the leaks paint the Russians as more reckless than they have appeared, assuming the leaks are true.

And whatever their veracity, the leaks — the content of which clearly was discussed in detail among the P-5+1 [US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China] prior to and during the Geneva meetings, regardless of how long they have been known by Western intelligence — were made for two reasons. The first was to tell the Iranians that the nuclear situation is now about to get out of hand, and that attempting to manage the negotiations through endless delays will fail because the United Nations is aware of just how far Tehran has come with its weapons program.

The second was to tell Moscow that the issue is no longer whether the Russians will cooperate on sanctions, but the consequence to Russia's relations with the United States and at least the United Kingdom, France and, most important, possibly Germany. If these leaks are true, they are game changers. [Emphasis added.]

We have focused on the Iranian situation not because it is significant in itself, but because it touches on a great number of other crucial international issues. It is now entangled in the Iraqi, Afghan, Israeli, Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese issues, all of them high-stakes matters. It is entangled in Russian relations with Europe and the United States. It is entangled in U.S.-European relationships and with relationships within Europe. It touches on the U.S.-Chinese relationship. It even touches on U.S. relations with Venezuela and some other Latin American countries. It is becoming the Gordian knot of international relations.

STRATFOR first focused on the Russian connection with Iran in the wake of the Iranian elections and resulting unrest, when a crowd of Rafsanjani supporters began chanting "Death to Russia," not one of the top-10 chants in Iran. That caused us to focus on the cooperation between Russia and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on security matters.

We were aware of some degree of technical cooperation on military hardware, and of course on Russian involvement in Iran's civilian nuclear program. We were also of the view that the Iranians were unlikely to progress quickly with their nuclear program. We were not aware that Russian scientists were directly involved in Iran's military nuclear project, which is not surprising, given that such involvement would be Iran's single-most important state secret — and Russia's, too.

A Question of Timing

But there is a mystery here as well. To have any impact, the Russian involvement must have been under way for years. The United States has tried to track rogue nuclear scientists and engineers — anyone who could contribute to nuclear proliferation — since the 1990s. The Israelis must have had their own program on this, too. Both countries, as well as European intelligence services, were focused on Iran's program and the whereabouts of Russian scientists. It is hard to believe that they only just now found out. If we were to guess, we would say Russian involvement has been under way since just after the Orange Revolution in Ukraine [late 2004-early 2005], when the Russians decided that the United States was a direct threat to its national security.

Therefore, the decision suddenly to confront the Russians, and suddenly to leak U.N. reports — much more valuable than U.S. reports, which are easier for the Europeans to ignore — cannot simply be because the United States and Israel just obtained this information. The IAEA, hostile to the United States since the invasion of Iraq and very much under the influence of the Europeans, must have decided to shift its evaluation of Iran. But far more significant is the willingness of the Israelis first to confront the Russians and then leak about Russian involvement, something that obviously compromises Israeli sources and methods. And that means the Israelis no longer consider the preservation of their intelligence operation in Iran (or wherever it was carried out) as of the essence.

Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Israelis no longer need to add to their knowledge of Russian involvement; they know what they need to know. And second, the Israelis do not expect Iranian development to continue much longer; otherwise, maintaining the intelligence capability would take precedence over anything else.

It follows from this that the use of this intelligence in diplomatic confrontations with Russians and in a British newspaper serves a greater purpose than the integrity of the source system. And that means that the Israelis expect a resolution in the very near future — the only reason they would have blown their penetration of the Russian-Iranian system.

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.

Possible Outcomes

There are two possible outcomes here. The first is that having revealed the extent of the Iranian program and having revealed the Russian role in a credible British newspaper, the Israelis and the Americans (whose own leak in The New York Times underlined the growing urgency of action) are hoping that the Iranians realize that they are facing war and that the Russians realize that they are facing a massive crisis in their relations with the West. If that happens, then the Russians might pull their scientists and engineers, join in the sanctions and force the Iranians to abandon their program.

The second possibility is that the Russians will continue to play the spoiler on sanctions and will insist that they are not giving support to the Iranians. This leaves the military option, which would mean broad-based action, primarily by the United States, against Iran's nuclear facilities. Any military operation would involve keeping the Strait of Hormuz clear, meaning naval action, and we now know that there are more nuclear facilities [in Iran] than previously discussed. So while the war for the most part would be confined to the air and sea, it would be extensive nonetheless.

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow's actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We [STRATFOR] have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians. [Emphasis added]

The least that can be said about this is that the Obama administration and Israel are trying to reshape the negotiations with the Iranians and Russians. The most that can be said is that the Americans and Israelis are preparing the public for war. Polls now indicate that more than 60 percent of the U.S. public now favors military action against Iran. From a political point of view, it has become easier for U.S. President Barack Obama to act than to not act. This, too, is being transmitted to the Iranians and Russians.

It is not clear to us that the Russians or Iranians are getting the message yet. They have convinced themselves that Obama is unlikely to act because he is weak at home and already has too many issues to juggle. This is a case where a reputation for being conciliatory actually increases the chances for war. But the leaks this weekend have strikingly limited the options and timelines of the United States and Israel. They also have put the spotlight on Obama at a time when he already is struggling with health care and Afghanistan. History is rarely considerate of presidential plans, and in this case, the leaks have started to force Obama's hand.

END QUOTE

This is quite a LOT to think about, but think about it we must. It will not go away anytime soon, so I will revisit this issue in upcoming E-Letters. Sorry to add something else to our worry list.

As always, my personal thanks extend to Dr. George Friedman and Stratfor for allowing us to reprint their always insightful analyses from time to time. Be sure to visit their website at www.stratfor.com and consider subscribing.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

The Stock Market Conundrum

GaryHalbert — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:14:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

Ball of Confusion
The Gloom-and-Doom Argument
Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead!
Is the Market Defying Gravity?
What You Should be Doing

Introduction

The cover of the October 5, 2009 issue of Business Week magazine summed up the current dilemma for stock market investors perfectly. It had a staircase running diagonally across the page, with one figure climbing up the stairs, and the other going down the stairs. The "upstairs" view had the caption, "Why the Market Will Keep Going Up," while the downstairs view was labeled, "Why the Market is Going Nowhere."

The fact that both cases can be made in a single magazine article shows that there are good reasons for the market to go up, and equally good reasons for it to go sideways, or even down. The fact that the S&P 500 Index has risen over 50% since the March lows has both bulls and bears scratching their heads. And nobody knows what lies ahead.

There's little wonder why $3-$4 trillion of investor assets are reportedly still sitting on the sidelines in cash, even though the market's rally since the March 9th lows has been nothing short of spectacular. You would think that even hesitant investors would now be piling into the market. Some have, but much of this sideline money is staying put where it won't be subject to another round of losses, should the market rally suddenly reverse.

This week, I'm going to discuss both the upside and downside potential in the stock markets. In doing so, I'm going to lean upon the opinions of various market forecasters as well as my best economic resources. I warn you, however, that there is no single oracle of truth and light that has all the answers. George Bernard Shaw reportedly said if all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion, and I'm beginning to get the same feeling about today's stock market analysts.

Ball of Confusion

The term "uncharted waters" as it relates to the stock and bond markets has probably never been as apt as in today's environment. Unprecedented federal government intervention in the markets has created a playing field that is, at best, significantly different than past market environments. The Fed and Treasury have primed the pump, and we seem to be coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. But no one knows whether the economy will continue on a path of sustained growth once these trillions of dollars are no longer flowing.

As we all know, however, the stock market and the economy are two different things and they sometimes move independently. As a result, some feel that the stock market is giving the "all clear" signal for investors with its 50%+ run-up since the March lows. Others, however, point to the fact that stocks haven't risen this far this fast since 1933, and we all know what happened after that. Plus, while this rally is impressive, it's important to realize that the S&P 500 Index is still over 32% below its October 2007 peak value as of the end of September, so many buy-and-hold investors are still under water.

Some analysts point to the fact that the market hasn't experienced even a 10% downward correction since March as a reason for caution, thinking that such a correction could be in the cards in the near future. Others, however, actually think that the market's lack of a significant correction is a sign of the superior strength of this run-up in prices.

There is also a wide range of interpretations of the stock market's current pricing. Some say that the market is pricing in continued economic growth and, if such growth doesn't happen, the market will fall again, possibly even re-testing the March lows. Others, however, claim that the stock market is priced fairly at this point in time and investors need not be concerned.

A number of analysts pin responsibility for the market rally on corporate profits, especially as they continue to beat expectations. Others, however, claim that expectations were so low that they were almost impossible not to beat. Since we don't track or recommend individual stocks, I can't offer an opinion on this earnings discussion. However, I do know that if you lower your expectations enough, earnings are bound to beat them sooner or later.

The end result is that investors are now justifiably confused and there is no single authoritative source for market action going forward. For every positive argument, there's a negative opinion. For every cheerleader, there's a gloom-and-doomer and most are backed up with sophisticated statistical analyses supporting their predictions. As always, the future is unknowable, but in this case it doesn't even seem to be giving us the slightest hint of what might happen.

The Gloom-and-Doom Argument

I am always a little hard on the gloom-and-doom crowd, possibly because I have been exposed to them for so long that I know how wrong they have been over the years. Many in this negative camp missed out on the greatest bull market in history in the 1980s and ‘90s because of their deep-seated fears that the sky was always falling. At best, the old adage about even a stopped clock being right twice a day seems to be appropriate for this group.

However, it's not just the usual suspects who are sounding warnings about the current state of the stock market. Bill Gross and Mohamed A. El-Erian, both with the PIMCO family of mutual funds, are touting a "new normal" where stock market returns will be less than the long-term averages as economic growth is likely to be below-trend (3% or less in GDP) for at least the next couple of years. El-Erian expresses his skepticism of the stock market's recent rally, saying "Interest rates are at zero, there's $2 trillion plus on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and yet the economy is still losing jobs. What exactly is the stock market romancing?"

Of course, El-Erian and Bill Gross are well-known bond guys, so it is not unusual for them to be a bit biased against stocks. However, many of my best sources over the years share the view that stocks are likely to under-perform their historical averages over the next several years.

Ned Davis Research recently issued a report noting that all previous rallies of the magnitude we've seen over the past six months or so took place in the 1930s and the 1970s. Davis notes that none of those rallies were sustained over the long haul. In essence, Davis points out that anyone who missed out on the first six months of such powerful rallies, and then jumped back in the market, would have been subjected to losses as the bull market ran out of steam and started falling. This data suggests that the current rally will run out of steam later on this year, but that remains to be seen.

A recent Wall Street Journal article noted that Tim Hayes, chief strategist for Ned Davis Research, believes that there is a good chance that the stock market could have another big decline in 2010. Mr. Hayes is known for having forecast the current market rally, so his opinion does carry some weight. Likewise, Jordan Kotick with Barclays Capital in New York expects a repeat of the 1970s, where the rally fizzles and we end up with an extended range-bound market.

A separate article in the October 5 Business Week noted that high unemployment and low inflation might lead to a decline in pay, which could slow consumer spending in the next year and, in turn, the economic recovery. Mainstream economists downplay the probability of this happening, but it is a possibility, and stock prices could suffer if it comes to pass.

As for consumer spending, a recent Careerbuilder.com survey indicated that 61% of Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck, up from 49% a year ago. Even among those making over $100,000 per year, 30% say they are just scraping by, compared to 21% a year ago. With a growing number of families strapped for cash and unemployment expected to peak at over 10%, please tell me how consumer spending is going to rebound sharply.

A final cautionary word comes from those analysts who are tracking the massive spending by the federal government. As I have mentioned a number of times, this short-term spending could lead to long-term catastrophe, especially if the Treasury has to raise interest rates paid on its debt to attract foreign buyers. Higher interest rates could stifle an economic recovery already facing headwinds from curtailed consumer spending and high unemployment.

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.

Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead!

While there are many reasons to be cautious about the market's recent strong rally, the number of analysts and professional money managers who are cheerleaders for the new bull market is growing. A recent Financial Advisor Magazine article noted that such luminaries as Byron Wien (Chief Investment Strategist for Pequot Capital Management), Barton Biggs (Manager of the Traxis Partners hedge fund), Steve Leuthold (Leuthold mutual funds manager) and Michael Price (billionaire value investor and fund manager) are all now firmly in the bull market camp. Despite the 50+% spike since March, these well-known stock market mavens believe the bull market should continue.

The primary supporters of a continued market rally are those who believe that the market will revert back to its previous long-term mean return. These analysts admit that the last 10 years have been anything but normal, but they believe that long-term stock market fundamentals should regain control as the economy continues to get better.

Of course, when these "normalists" speak of a return to the mean, they are talking about a 12.9% annualized gain like the stock market produced from 1900 to 1999. But some ask how we can return to "normal" when consumer spending is expected to remain suppressed as the rate of savings continues to increase.

Liz Ann Sonders, chief market strategist for Charles Schwab, says that many investors have underestimated the "bounce-back effect," referring to the tendency of the market to rebound from artificially low points such as the March 2009 lows, which were spawned by panic about the ongoing credit crisis. She also predicts that US exports will rise sharply over the next year, which in her view will help to offset slower consumer spending. She, too, is bullish.

Likewise, Neil Hennessy, chief investment officer of Hennessey Funds, not only thinks that the current market rally will continue, but also believes that we are at the start of a 10-year bull market that will see the Dow Jones Industrial Average doubling by the time it's done. He cites low interest rates that make stocks far more attractive than government bonds, and large amounts of cash waiting on the sidelines as the main reasons for his optimism.

Trillions of Dollars Sitting in Cash

The amount of money on the sidelines in cash and money market accounts is a recurring theme when researching stock market analysts with bullish views. As noted earlier, there is reportedly anywhere from $3-$4 trillion sitting on the sidelines, much of it waiting for a signal to jump back into the market. Like Hennessy, many analysts believe that investors will tire of earning little or no return on this money, and then move back into the market, thus leading to higher stock prices.

I have to agree that so much money on the sidelines is a potentially good bullish argument. In fact, some of this money is already flowing back into mutual funds, but industry data show that most is flowing into bond mutual funds, not stock funds. Therefore, it may be a little early to pin too much hope on the herd instinct driving the market up.

Plus, much of this money belongs to Baby Boomers whose retirement funds have already endured two major bear markets in the span of a decade. Many of these individuals may feel that the bulk of the bull market has passed them by, and fear that getting back into the market may expose them to even further losses.

As for government spending and deficits, there is no doubt that much of the economy's growth since the 9-11 terrorist attacks has been fueled by government spending of one kind or another, aided along the way by the housing bubble. As the Fed continues to hold interest rates to near-zero, it is essentially making cash and money market funds unattractive to investors in hopes of driving them to other investments. The question then becomes what happens after the government stops priming the pump?

Fed chairman Bernanke has indicated that interest rates will stay low for a long time. In the past, this liquidity has gone to fuel bubbles – first the tech bubble and then the housing bubble. This time, the bulls believe it will take the form of a stock market bubble, which could send the market much higher in the weeks and months to come. That remains to be seen.

Looking at the Big Picture

As discussed above, there are compelling arguments for both the bullish and bearish cases at this time. However, there is little disagreement that the major stock market averages are "overbought" at this time. As noted earlier, there has not been even a 10% downward correction since the March lows.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked in October 2007 at just over 14,000. It then experienced the largest numerical decline in history over the next 18 months to the low on March 9, 2009. The percentage decline from peak-to-valley was apprx. 54%. From the March low, the Dow spiked up to above 9,800 briefly in late September, marking a recovery of just over 50% without so much as a 10% downward correction along the way.

This is why most market forecasters agree that the stock markets are overbought. From the highs in late September, the Dow retreated to just under 9,500 in early October, but is again rallying so far this week.

One point is clear from the chart, however. Buy-and-hold investors who rode the market all the way down have not recovered even half of their investment losses, despite the latest 50% rebound. And there is no guarantee that the market will continue higher.

Investors that bailed out of the market late last year or early this year, and have not gotten back in, are between a rock and a hard place, as the saying goes. They are understandably reluctant to jump back in the market after a 50% spike up. Yet they are earning next to nothing in cash. I've had plenty of people voice this concern to me: Well, if I get back in now, that means the market is sure to go down again. Those on the sidelines are in a really tough spot right now.

Is the Market Defying Gravity?

As I have mentioned many times, my firm recommends a number of actively managed investment programs that have the flexibility to move to cash or hedge long positions. To provide the most value for our clients, we are also constantly tracking other active money managers to see if their strategies might have a place in our AdvisorLink® Program.

This tracking of current and prospective investment programs allows us to see a lot of daily trading activity generated by a wide variety of systematic approaches, which I believe supports the idea that there are a lot of contradictory signals being given by the market. From our experience, it's not uncommon for the various systems to disagree about the market's direction. After all, they use a variety of technical and statistical data to generate their trading signals, but not all systems use the same data.

However, when we see most of the various programs we track line up on the same side of the market, it usually means there is a good chance the market will move in that direction. Yet as noted above, the current market has been giving numerous contradictory signals, and thus some of the managers we track (and even some we recommend) have been on both sides of the market recently.

This makes it even more difficult to have a strong view of the market's overall direction going forward, other than the consensus that it is currently overbought and overdue for a downward correction. Whether or not we are in such a correction as this is written is uncertain.

The last time something like this happened was back in the late 1990s when the tech bubble was being inflated. Most everyone agreed that the markets were overbought, but stocks, especially tech stocks, continued to soar. New-age market gurus claimed that we were in a "new paradigm" and that the old rules no longer applied. Eventually, the market did collapse under its own weight, but only after an extended period of impressive gains.

We may, again, be dealing with an irrational market that neglects proven technical indicators and, instead, believes that we have entered a new era of government funded gains in the stocks of companies deemed "too big to fail." However, I think there is still a lot of risk for those considering traditional buy-and-hold investment strategies.

It may be that the recent uptrend in stocks continues for a while as it does appear that we are coming out of the recession, and corporate earnings have been surprising on the upside, generally speaking. Consensus opinion has turned significantly higher and, as noted above, there are trillions of dollars looking to get back in that could limit downturns and drive prices even higher.

But with the Obama administration on track to double the national debt in the next 10 years, I don't see things ending pretty at some point, probably soon after all those sidelined trillions jump back in the market.

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 I researched material for this article, I found it interesting that the current opinions about the strength of the current market rally somewhat parallel what was going on back in the late 1990s. Back then, all of the fundamental analysis was showing that the market shouldn't be going up like it was, while the "new paradigm" crowd was saying it's different this time.

Now, we have many of the same arguments. The fundamental analysis camp is saying that the market is fairly priced and should continue to go up based on profit expectations. All the while, those promoting the "new normal" are claiming that even if the market continues higher, it will struggle and will under-perform its historical averages. It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Of course, there is a third possibility that could prove both camps wrong. There is a distinct possibility that the stock market could get caught up in a broad trading range in which it moves generally sideways for an extended period of time. Maybe we're already in it: the Dow's close at 9,487.67 on Friday, October 2nd was actually lower than the index's closing value of 9,505.96 back on August 21st.

Such a market environment does not mean that stock prices do not change, but rather that short-term upward trends could be followed by similar periods of downward price movement, and vice versa. Over the long haul, the market could grind slowly higher or lower, but any such move could be gradual, at best.

Of course, these arguments don't help investors who are trying to figure out what to do with their money. Have they missed out on most of the market's gain, or is there plenty more to go around? Unfortunately, no one knows for sure, and anyone who tells you they do is either dishonest or delusional or both.

As always, I suggest that you have most of your stock and bond portfolio professionally managed by Advisors that have a proven system, complete with the ability to move to cash or hedge long positions during major market downturns and bear markets. More sophisticated investors may also want to consider a small allocation to investment programs that can go "short" if market conditions warrant.

Two of the programs I have mentioned most often are Niemann Equity Plus and Potomac Guardian. These are managed accounts that invest in a wide variety of mutual funds in up markets, but also have the ability to move to cash or hedge positions during major corrections or bear markets. We recently presented a webinar on the Potomac Guardian Program that featured a member of its Investment Committee explaining their approach to the market. If you would like to learn more about this program, I would strongly suggest that you listen to the recorded version of this seminar at the Potomac Webinar link.

For anyone interested in the Niemann Equity Plus Program, we're having a live webinar tomorrow, October 7th, at 12:00 PM Central Time. In this webinar, Travis Silberman, one of Niemann's co-founders, will discuss the strategy Niemann employs in managing money. If you would like to sit in on this webinar, click on the following link to access the Niemann Webinar Invitation.

And don't forget about the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program that I wrote about in my September 15 E-Letter. This actively managed high-yield bond fund strategy offers a fixed income exposure for your portfolio along with the ability to move to cash in down markets. For a more aggressive fixed income program, you may want to check out the Hg Capital Long/Short Government Bond Program that trades the 30-year Treasury bond both long and short.

These are in addition to our other AdvisorLink® recommended programs like Third Day Advisors and Scotia Partners that I have also written about in the past. If you'd like to find out how these programs could bring additional diversification to your portfolio, check out our website at www.halbertwealth.com. Better yet, give one of our Investment Consultants a call at 800-348-3601 and let them explain our various investment options and how they might fit within a diversified portfolio.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

The New Economic Landscape Will be Grim Unless Policymakers Act to Foster Growth
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14548881&source=hptextfeature

Democrats Brace for the Hardest Part of Health-Care Reform
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1927787,00.html

Obama Caves on Iran
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703628304574452933624279114.html

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.

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

Healthcare Reform or Government Takeover?

GaryHalbert — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:54:00 GMT

In This Issue:

Reactions to the President's Healthcare Speech
Omissions & Falsehoods In President Obama's Healthcare Speech
A Re-Run of Clinton Nationalized Healthcare?
Conclusions - So What Should We Think Now?

Introduction

President Obama addressed a rare joint session of Congress on September 9 when he spoke at length about his desire to substantially reform America's healthcare system. Whether you are among the apprx. 56% of Americans who now oppose the healthcare reform bill in the House, or you are among the apprx. 43% who support it (latest Rasmussen poll), it is important to know the facts - a number of which the president failed to address or misrepresented in his speech.

With opposition to the House healthcare reform bill rising almost daily over the last month or so, there was great anticipation ahead of the president's speech. Many in the media commented that Mr. Obama needed to "hit it out of the park," and that the speech needed to be a "game-changer." Politicos on both sides of the aisle agreed afterward that the speech was delivered extremely well. Unfortunately, it raised more questions than answers.

Many thought the president would soften his recent healthcare rhetoric and reach out to Republicans and Independents. He didn't. He chose instead to shore up his base. Many thought he would compromise on the so-called "public option." He didn't, exactly. And while President Obama's approval ratings rose a few points just after the speech, opposition to the Democrats' healthcare reform bill has soared to new highs since then.

While I have refrained from writing at length on the healthcare reform debate, I feel the issue is just too important, and too politically charged, not to speak out. In the pages that follow, we will delve into some of the biggest problems and challenges with the House healthcare bill, H.R. 3200 - America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Given that there is so much misinformation on healthcare reform out there, on both sides, maybe this will help.

Reactions to the President's Speech

As noted above, the immediate reactions to the president's healthcare speech on September 9 were almost unanimously favorable. There is no question that Mr. Obama is a great orator. But the real question is whether the president changed enough minds to breathe new life into the struggling healthcare reform bill stuck in Congress To my surprise, George Stephanopoulos of ABC news (and a former Clinton aide) wrote a column entitled "Obama Speech No Game-Changer" soon after the speech.

Whether you liked or disliked the president's speech, it did change some minds favorably, but for only a few days. A Rasmussen poll released a few days after the speech showed that, for the first time, a slim majority - 51% - of Americans favored the Democrats' healthcare plan, while 46% opposed it. But those approval numbers began to fall significantly last week. This from Rasmussen on September 16, one week after the speech:

One week after President Obama's speech to Congress, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August. [As noted above, the latest numbers this week are 56% opposed and 43% in favor.]

Just a few days earlier, Rasmussen's poll showed that those who "strongly favor" the plan were at 28%, while those who "strongly oppose" were at 38%. Now, two weeks after President Obama's speech, the latest numbers are only 23% strongly favor the plan and 44% strongly oppose it. This is very bad news for Team Obama.

Conclusion: President Obama gave a great speech, as he is known to do, and it helped the healthcare ratings for a week or so. But the reality is that a majority of Americans do not want this government healthcare plan, and that number is likely to rise even more as people learn more about the Democrats' plan.

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.

Misrepresentations, Omissions & Falsehoods
in President Obama's Healthcare Speech

The number one problem with the Democrats' massive healthcare reform proposal is a simple matter of supply/demand. There is no way to provide healthcare insurance and coverage to 46 million people who do not currently have coverage, with the same number of doctors, nurses and hospitals/clinics, without rationing healthcare. Even if the number is half that, some 23 million people (or even just 15-20 million as some argue), the problem is still the same.

The law of supply and demand also dictates that if we substantially increase the number of Americans covered (demand) with the same number of doctors, nurses and hospitals/clinics (supply), the cost of healthcare will increase, perhaps significantly, unless there is rationing. We must look no further than Canada or Great Britain to see how this will happen.

The question at the end of the day is, why can't the president and the Democrats just admit that there will be rationing and just be straight with the American people? In all of his healthcare speeches, President Obama totally avoids this simple supply/demand fact. The president wants us to believe that we can insure and provide healthcare to at least 15-20 million more Americans and actually spend less. No wonder that millions of Americans are up in arms over this!

Some observers have called this a "convenient fantasy" on the part of President Obama and the Democrats. How are we are going to save money by spending a lot more money - $1 to $2 trillion over the next ten years? How are we are going to solve our exploding fiscal problems with a massive new federal bureaucracy that will control at least one-sixth of the national economy going forward?

President Obama claims that the new government-run healthcare system "won't add one dime to the deficit." Unfortunately, presidential administrations and Congress are notoriously bad at forecasting the costs of their pet projects, especially entitlement programs that are intended to be permanent.

President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug program is a perfect example. When it was passed in 2003, the White House and the Congressional Budget Office forecast that it would cost apprx. $400 billion over 10 years. Guess what - the CBO now projects it to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Do we really think Congress and Obama's cost forecasts are any better? I doubt it!

Obama says the government will guarantee that you can keep your current insurance, even though his healthcare plan would encourage your employer to stop offering it; and when they do, you will have no option except the government-run plan. The same is true should you get fired or decide to change jobs - the government-run option is the only option in H.R. 3200.

In addition, he says we aren't going to insure any illegal aliens; however, in H.R. 3200 passed by the House Committee on Education and Labor, there were no citizenship verification provisions to assure that illegals can't apply and get benefits. Yet President Obama promises that the new healthcare plan will only cover American citizens. (Maybe he plans to make them all citizens - amnesty - before the new system goes in place - think about it.)

At one point during his healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress, President Obama drew cackles for remarking that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out." No kidding! Here again, Obama delivered a message that was strikingly similar to the one that has failed to resonate with the American people thus far. The reason is that while Obama can paper over political and policy realities by speaking in broad strokes, it's always the specifics that have caused him problems. Healthcare is too big not to nail down the specifics!

As he has done before, Obama pledged to veto any bill that added to the federal deficit. But despite that commitment, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the House Democrats' healthcare reform plan would cost over $1 trillion over the next decade and add a minimum of $239 billion to the deficit.

Obama again touted the cost-saving potential of "preventive care." Here, too, the independent Congressional Budget Office has determined that preventive measures would actually increase health care costs, and that a so-called Medicare Commission that Mr. Obama has suggested would have a negligible impact on curbing government healthcare spending. Why are the president and the Congress ignoring these warnings from the independent CBO?

Back in May, President Obama went before the American Medical Association and declared, "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." He has made this exact claim in numerous other healthcare speeches.

In his latest speech before Congress on September 9, Obama offered a more nuanced pledge that "nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." As noted above, this is simply not true if you lose your current coverage for any reason under H.R. 3200.

Regardless of whether or not the proposed healthcare legislation specifically requires that Americans give up their private coverage, there are still many changes to the system that could cause many people to lose it anyway. For instance, one provision Obama backed in his latest speech - to tax expensive health plans - is explicitly aimed at encouraging employers to drop benefit-rich policies in hopes that it would help rein-in medical spending (ie - rationing).

At another point in his recent healthcare speech, Obama said that, "The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes." How does this jibe with the preceding sentence in the paragraph just above? Then, at another point in his latest speech Obama gave an unwavering endorsement of a requirement that individuals either purchase health insurance, or pay a tax.

Under the Senate version of healthcare reform/mandate proposed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), individuals would face a tax of at least $750 annually if they do not purchase health coverage. How is this "greater security, not higher taxes"?

And while the Baucus healthcare proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300% of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if they do not obtain health insurance, while individuals with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950. Yet Obama argues that this is not a "tax," if it's something that is good for you. Yeah, right!

This is a problem that Obama himself noted when he was campaigning against Hillary Clinton back when he said he opposed such mandates. In a February 2008 debate referring to healthcare reform, he said, "In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it, so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine." He was referring to conditions under a similar healthcare mandate in Massachusetts.

During his speech two weeks ago, Obama advocated the creation of a plan to be offered on a government-run insurance exchange that would be "administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare." He said that the reason we need such an option is that, "by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers."

Yet later in the same speech, he argued that he could pay for most of his proposal with cuts to Medicare that would not have any impact on benefits to seniors. Say what? The reason, he explained, is that we could save money by reducing "the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud…" in Medicare - the very government-run program he touts as a model for the creation of a new government-run healthcare program. Do they really think we are that stupid?

While acknowledging that the new plan would be run by the government, Obama tried to argue that it wouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers, but only funded by the premiums it collects. Sorry, but I must point out that any new government plan would require taxpayer money to fund huge start-up costs - at the least, and should it run into financial trouble, it's hard to believe that lawmakers would allow it to fail without pumping taxpayer money into it, just as they did in the cases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and those were allegedly private companies).

President Obama speaks in such broad circles and contradictions. You can keep your current plan and doctors, but not really; your taxes will not go up, but they probably will have to; we won't cover illegals, but there's no way not to; etc., etc. No wonder the number of Americans who oppose government-run healthcare is now at a record high - 56%!

A Re-Run of Clinton Nationalized Healthcare?

A recent article on Forbes.com, just after the president's latest speech before Congress, caught my attention and further explained the current healthcare debate as follows:

Before a tense and packed House, the President told Congress:

‘Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings... And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation...'

That's President Clinton, sixteen years ago almost to the day, in a speech about a complex health-care plan built on government expansion, with billions in hidden costs. Last night, a President--who was only 32 then--is now in the White House, out to prove that nothing has changed in the minds of the Democratic leadership since the Clinton debacle.

President Clinton's health-care legislation didn't fail in 1994 because people didn't want better health care. The White House plan failed because it was too bureaucratic, too complicated, and too expensive.

Last night, President Obama's response to sixteen years (and one angry August recess) worth of bi-partisan doubt was to double down and bet even more political capital on the same approach. It's as if he expected Americans to tune in, and suddenly realize their mistake.

This was supposed to be the Administration of the post-partisan rational center. Arguments were supposed to work with this White House. While many critics of President Obama's health-care plan have been too extreme, some rational criticism should have broken through. The speech was brilliant--unless you've actually read the [healthcare] legislation behind it, which contradicts many of the President's restated "commitments."

Last night, the President said that, "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." Countless observers have already shown that this is not true, as proposed new regulations mandating a whole range of benefits, setting community rating schemes, and banning individual incentives will radically change many existing plans.

Last night, the President said his reforms would fight rising costs, not add to the deficit, and reduce government waste. Countless observers have already shown that the President is wrong, among them the Congressional Budget Office, which calculates that the plan will increase costs and explode the deficit. And, as I observed in the Washington Examiner, government waste will grow under ObamaCare, since the House bill creates a sea of new Washington-based programs, offices, and bureaucracies (53, by one count) to micro-manage your health insurance, your hospital, and even your family doctor.

Last night, the President said competition from a government-run insurance plan was needed to "give Americans a choice." And the President has been shown to be wrong there, too. Federal employees have over 230 private alternatives to choose from in their existing health exchange…; a public plan would just add one new option (a government financed and price controlled one, at that). [Emphasis added, GDH.]

It's not that President Obama wants to turn the health-care policy clock backwards sixteen years. It's worse than that. It's as though the last sixteen years never even happened. It's like a health-care Groundhog Day where Americans wake up to the same tired arguments for government-run care every morning, simply because Democratic Presidents can't resist testing the same pick-up lines on an unwilling America.

And the lines are wearing thin. The President (yes, Obama this time) told Congress that "our collective failure to meet this challenge--year after year, decade after decade--has led us to a breaking point." Has it really? When President Clinton conjured similar fears about pink slips and millions losing coverage to Congress in 1993, 15.3% of Americans were uninsured. In 2007, the percentage of Americans without insurance was...15.3%. A solution to this problem is needed, but the fact that it hasn't grown worse is a sign that Congress has time to think, and little reason to panic.

Since President Clinton spoke of health inflation in 1993, health costs continued to rise faster than wages, but President Obama refuses to acknowledge years later that the U.S. health inflation rate is almost identical to rates in government-run systems [in other countries]. Rising costs must be attacked, yes, but if rationed health management can't stop health inflation in Britain or Ireland, will a rush to President Obama's version of HillaryCare do any better?

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 - So What Should We Think Now?

Some surveys indicate that a majority of Americans think we need reform of our healthcare system. This explains, in part, why President Obama and the Democrats are so hell-bent on passing a massive overhaul of our healthcare system this year. Yet plenty of other surveys show that appx. 80% of Americans are happy with the healthcare insurance and care they have now. So what gives?

What gives is that liberal presidents dating back to Theodore Roosevelt have tried to nationalize healthcare, and every attempt has failed. The simple fact is that virtually all Americans would favor healthcare that costs less - what else is new? Likewise, a majority of Americans would like to see healthcare insurance available to everyone - somehow.

But as has been consistent for over 100 years, a majority of Americans do not want to see the federal government take over healthcare - doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. - and be in a position to mandate what care we can and cannot receive.

The problem is, the current president and the Democrats in the majority in Washington feel otherwise. They see government-run healthcare as a giant power grab, as I have discussed previously. They believe that the government is a better arbiter of our healthcare needs than we are. And they see Obama's presidency as the best opportunity they have had in years to ram it down our throats, even if it means by a simple Democrat majority "reconciliation" (51%), which they just might be arrogant enough to pull off. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have all but promised to do this if necessary to pass their healthcare plan.

On most political issues, I would argue that the party in power should go ahead and try to ram it down our throats, and suffer the political backlash in the next election, in this case the 2010 mid-terms and the 2012 general elections. But when it comes to healthcare reform, if it passes, there is almost no chance to roll it back once it is in place. This is precisely why the Democrats don't want their takeover of healthcare to be implemented until 2013!

President Obama and the Democrats in Washington know this. They thought they had it during President Clinton's administration, but the American people fought back and stopped it. Now they see their odds even better with President Obama in office, although public opposition is now growing daily, 56% oppose/43% approve as this is written. So, it remains to be seen what will happen this year.

As it stands now, most of the political observers I read believe that some form of government-run healthcare will pass this year or next under President Obama. Even some moderate to conservative analysts I read have concluded that the time has come to provide some form of health insurance to all Americans. But the question is, as always, how to pay for it?

Sadly, I have not seen a single comprehensive healthcare reform proposal from the Republicans or other non-Democratic groups, and that disappoints me greatly. Streamlining the complex insurance licensing process so that insurance companies can offer policies across all state lines is not being discussed, in what would seem to be a slam-dunk starter for reforming healthcare.

Likewise, letting small businesses band together to buy insurance to cut costs is not on the table. Serious medical malpractice (tort) reform is also AWOL. Providing tax credits/subsidies for low-income Americans to purchase health insurance is not on the table either.

Plus, if we can reform Medicare and trim hundreds of billions in waste, as President Obama suggests, why not do that now and use those savings to subsidize health insurance for low income Americans?

I am also puzzled as to the rush to pass healthcare reform at any cost. We're talking about reforming an industry that makes up 16-17% of the world's largest economy. Doesn't that merit taking the time necessary to do it right? Evidently not, if you're a Democrat.

At the end of the day, I just don't get it. Have we reached the point where there is no alternative to a massive government-run healthcare system? I don't think so. But it remains to be seen if we can derail the Democrats' plans for nationalized healthcare.

Finally, I recognize that this has been a polarizing editorial on my part. I will get roundly criticized for it by my moderate/liberal readers, and those who favor government-run healthcare, which I can handle as always. But the issue of nationalized healthcare is just too important for all of us - and for the economy - for me to remain silent.

Very best regards,

Gary D. Halbert

SPECIAL ARTICLES

Has Obama misread the tea leaves? (excellent read!)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/10/the_goldilocks_principle_in_american_politics_98233.html

Does Obama lie?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/18/does_he_lie_98363.html

Obama omits crucial details on healthcare
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI2YmFlYmVkYjgwZmQ0NTk2MjUzNzZhYTgyOTVmMTY=

Federalization of college loans teaches health care lesson
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/back-door-to-a-public-option/

The Case for High-Yield Bonds

GaryHalbert — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:34:00 GMT

IN THIS ISSUE:

"Junk Bond" Basics
High-Yield Bond Whitepaper
by Steven D. Landis, CFP
Is the Party Over for 2009?
Introducing the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program
Performance Evaluation
Conclusions

Introduction

High-yield bonds, or "junk bonds" as they are widely known, have become the subject of quite a bit of attention in recent months. That's because, as of August 31st, the Barclays and Merrill Lynch high-yield bond indexes have jumped over 40% in value so far in 2009. This makes the S&P 500 Index's year-to-date return of only 14.97% as of August 31st paltry in comparison.

Returns of that magnitude have not escaped the notice of investors. Inflows into high-yield bond mutual funds have been at or near record levels since March, based on information from AMG Data Services, a mutual fund tracking firm. However, the question is whether the good times in high-yield bonds will last.

I certainly don't pretend to be an expert on high-yield bonds, but I have found that the cyclical trends in the high-yield market often do lend themselves to being traded by an active money manager. Though "junk bonds" carry with them the reputation for being risky (and they are), we have found a professional money manager who has produced an enviable track record with low historical drawdowns.

This week, I'm going to feature Sojourn Financial Strategies, LLC and its co-founder, Steven D. Landis, CFP. I'll begin by reprinting excerpts from a whitepaper on high-yield bonds that Steve has authored. This paper does an excellent job of explaining the opportunities available in high-yield bonds, and whether or not it's too late to participate in the junk bond rally that began earlier this year.

I'll then finish up by presenting Steve's Columbus High-Yield Bond (CHYB) Program. Just to whet your appetite, this actively managed strategy has produced an annualized return of over 10% since its inception in 2002, with a maximum drawdown of only -6.14%. Year-to-date, the CHYB Program is up over 24% as of the end of August. Past performance, however, is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Junk Bonds 101

Most of us realize that high-yield bonds are called "junk bonds" because they carry a much higher risk of default than government or high-grade corporate bonds. As a result, these bonds tend to carry a higher rate of interest in order to compensate investors for taking on a greater risk of default. Like all bonds, high-yield issues tend to be affected by the interest rate climate. However, what you may not know is that the value of a high-yield bond can also be affected by the health of the economy and stock market.

It just makes sense that a better economic environment sometimes reduces a junk bond's default risk, since the issuing corporation may be less likely to default in a good economy. As a result, the spread between the effective junk bond yield and a risk-free (Treasury) rate closes, and the underlying bond becomes more valuable.

Of course, the skill in managing high-yield bonds or junk bond mutual funds comes in knowing when to be in the market and when to move to cash. Since 2002, Steve has shown us that he has the methodology in place to make these decisions with a high degree of accuracy. However, before getting into the details of his program, I want to reprint excerpts from his recent whitepaper on high-yield bond investing.

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:

Investors Ready for a New Way to Invest in High Yield Bonds
By Steven D. Landis, CFP®

High yield bonds have been around for longer than most of us can remember. Anybody who was born earlier than 1960 can recall the days of Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, the highly creative and somewhat dubious creators of "junk bonds" (the more-to-the-point term for high yield bonds). Eventually, their actions, not the junk bonds, landed the boys in jail for a short time. It should be noted that never was there (then or now) anything illegal about the use of the junk bonds, but their criminal activity, in part, contributed to the bad reputation sometimes attributed to high yield bonds.

In this paper, the terms high yield bonds, junk bonds, and "junks" will be used interchangeably and will have the same meaning and reference. These terms apply to loans that are made to higher risk, corporate borrowers of money. High yield bonds had been in existence long before Boesky's and Milken's involvement in the early 1980s. During the early part of the 20th century General Motors, U.S. Steel, and other well-known corporations borrowed money that, at that time, was considered higher-risk debt. If that debt were issued today, it would be considered to be a junk bond.

Fast forward to today and we find that more than $500 billion (a half-trillion dollars) defines the magnitude of the high yield bond market. Its explosive growth is the result of two factors: 1) more companies needing capital; and 2) the availability of investors who are willing to take more risk in return for a higher yield on their investment.

Bond Ratings

Bonds are rated based on the probability of the borrower defaulting on the bond, that is eventually failing to meet the terms of the bond covenant. The highest quality bonds, those with the greatest probability of paying back the loan principle and interest, are rated AAA. As the chances of a bond default increases, the lower the rating on the bond, as illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1.
Bond Rating vs. Default Risk

Standard & Poor's Rating	Grade	Default Risk
AAA	Investment	Lowest Risk
AA	Investment	Low Risk
A	Investment	Low Risk
BBB	Investment	Medium Risk
BB, B	Junk	High Risk
CCC, CC, C	Junk	Highest Risk
D	Junk	In Default

So we can see that the two terms used to describe these bonds, high-yield and junk, come from two features of the bonds: 1) High-yield refers to the increased interest rate that accompanies the bonds; and 2) Junk refers to the low quality of the bond.

Risks of investing in high yield bonds

In 2007, investors and the public became intimately familiar with the sub-prime consumer mortgages and their risk to lenders (and ultimately the economy, in general). The results of consumers overextending themselves by borrowing more debt than they could repay, under terms that were unfavorable, eventually resulted in a near-collapse of the consumer mortgage market. Investors in those sub-prime mortgages soon found their investments suffering tremendous losses. Meanwhile, the ability to sell out of those investments became more and more difficult due to a lack of buyers. A similar scenario also played out in the high yield bond market in which holders of low-quality debt saw their investments lose a substantial percentage of its original value.

A fact of life is that consumers with low credit scores must pay high interest rates when they borrow money. This higher interest rate compensates the lender for the increased chance of the borrower defaulting on the loan. Likewise, corporate borrowers with a lower credit rating have an increased probability of defaulting on their loans and pay lenders accordingly. Those who loan money to these corporate borrowers demand to be compensated for the extra risk they take in making these loans. Should a default occur, the bondholders stand in line with all the other creditors of the company, hoping to get back some portion of their money. The lower the quality the bond, the less chance there will be assets that can be used to pay back creditors. The increased interest rate compensates the lender, at least in part, for this additional risk.

The result is that those entities that lend money to higher risk borrowers, via junk bond offerings, receive a higher interest rate than if they had been lending money to higher quality (lower risk) borrowers. To illustrate this difference, consider that over the past twenty or so years, high yield bonds have paid an interest rate of 3-9% (with an average of 6%) per year more than that of U.S. Treasury bonds. This difference is known as the "spread." In early 2008 the average default rate on junk bonds was about 1.1%. However, as the economy continued to sour the default was expected to increase to around 5.2%. Compare this with an average, long-term default rate of about 4.9% (according to John Lonski, chief economist of Moody's.)

An additional risk of junk bonds is their lack of liquidity. Liquidity refers to the ease of trading the instrument in the marketplace. The author of this paper also refers to liquidity as "how quickly one can sell an investment and convert it to cash". Junk bonds are not traded as freely as, say, government bonds. Thus, the liquidity of high yields is significantly lower than that of high quality debt, which leads to higher costs of trading and selling at one's desired price. All of these factors combined result in the higher interest rate that is attached to junks.

Why Invest in High-Yield Bonds?

Unlike normal bonds, that are greatly influenced by fluctuations in interest rates, junk bonds are less affected by interest rate movement. This is because junks generally have higher interest rates and have, generally, shorter maturities. In fact, junk bonds are affected more by overall economic changes (expansion or contraction) than changes (increase or decrease) in prevailing interest rates. This is because the quality of a junk bond is most affected by the strength of the company issuing the bond.

If the company's profitability increases (since the issuance date of the bond), the quality of their bonds increases. For an investor in a junk bond, this is an almost-perfect scenario: One in which a junk bond with a high interest rate becomes a quality bond with a high interest rate (this being the result of the formerly high risk borrower becoming a low risk borrower).

For example, ABC Corp. had a debt rating of "B" and issued a bond at 12%. Meanwhile, AAA-rated debt was paying 4%. Sometime following issuance of this debt, ABC Corp. enjoys a return to profitability and its debt rating is upgraded to "A". The result is that holders of those old ABC Corp. bonds now hold A-rated debt that is paying 12%! This, in turn, makes the underlying bond more valuable since investors are willing to accept a lower rate of interest on debt issued by a stable company.

How to Invest in High-Yields

In my opinion, investing directly in individual junk bonds should be left to the wealthy and institutional investors. In fact, the majority of investors in junk debt are institutional…mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, and others. This, however, does not suggest that investing in junks is only for the wealthy. Most all investors can get involved with junk bond investing by investing in mutual funds that specialize in them.

By investing in a mutual fund that specializes in junk bonds, an investor can take advantage of a professional fund manager. Additionally, the investor will be able to reduce risk via the diversification that mutual funds offer. (A typical mutual fund will hold as many as 200-400 bonds, all of which are owned, on a pro rata basis, by investors in the fund.)

Keep in mind, though, that investing in a mutual fund does not mean that the investor has no risk. Like the bonds held by the fund, a mutual fund can gain or lose value. Plus, in the event of a slowing economy, high yield bond mutual funds can lose significant value. So, for anybody considering an investment in high yield bond funds (or for that matter, any mutual fund) consider your tolerance for and ability to withstand potential losses.

An Improvement on Buy-and-Hold Bond Investing

As much as we really like investing in high-yield bond funds, they have one major flaw. That flaw is that there are times in which high yield bonds (and mutual funds investing in them) will get absolutely annihilated in a bear market. The years 2007 and 2008 are the most recent examples of this. In 2008, the majority of high yield bond mutual funds lost more than 20% of their value. Worse still were those funds that lost more than 50% of their value!

Risk-averse investors may find themselves asking: "Is there a way to invest in high yield bond funds without the risk of losing money in a down market?" Fortunately, the answer is, "Yes, there is." There are any number of advisers whose role is to actively manage money for their clients. (The author of this paper is among those who manage money for investors who want to invest in high yield bond funds.) The goal for most of these advisers/managers is to be invested in a security/market when it's gaining in price and to sell that security/market before its price goes down too much.

If the adviser is able to do this buying and selling successfully (and we emphasize "IF"), then that adviser's clients/investors would be able to make more profit while taking less risk. By reducing the losses during time periods in which high yield bonds are losing money (1998-2002 and 2007-2008) one can dramatically improve the potential for long-term profits.

Is the Party Over for 2009?

At this point, readers of this paper are either eager to invest in high-yield bond funds or skeptical and not interested in the increased risk. For those who are tempted to invest in the high-yield bond market, a question arises: "How much profit is left after the big run junks have had this year?"

It goes without saying that we have no idea how much more high yields can offer. But we can offer a look at three possible scenarios:

Scenario 1. The Economy Improves. If the economy continues to improve, profits of most corporations will rise. At the same time, we would expect profits of many issuers of high yield debt to improve. If this scenario does, in fact, occur then we would expect high yield bonds to continue increasing in price. (Additionally, bondholders would continue to receive interest payments from those bonds.)

Scenario 2. The Economy Sours. If the economy begins to worsen, then corporate profits will likely be depressed. At the same time, profits of issuers of high yield debt would probably suffer. In this scenario, the prices of high-yield debt would probably begin to fall. The buy-and-hold investor would suffer losses to his/her investment. Investors who use skilled, successful active managers have a great probability that their adviser/manager would sell their junk bond fund and invest their money in the safety of a money market fund. This move to safety would preserve the value of investors money.

Scenario 3. The Economy Muddles Along. If the economy becomes listless and neither grows nor contracts, there is the possibility that high-yield bond prices could stagnate. That is, prices would neither rise nor fall. It would be extremely rare for this to continue for an extended period of time, but let's assume it does. In such a situation, the investor neither gains nor loses money on his/her investment principle. However, he/she could continue to reap profits in the form of high interest income being generated by the bonds.

So, looking at the three possible scenarios, the only one that we would expect to pose a threat of significant loss is Scenario #2, specifically for the buy-and-hold investor. The investor who uses a skilled, active adviser/manager has a significantly greater chance of avoiding losses during a "down market". [There are no guarantees, of course. GDH]

In summary, we contend that high yield bond mutual funds can be an extremely attractive way to invest, though subject to substantial losses during falling markets. Furthermore, we believe that investing in high yield bond mutual funds can be an even more attractive method of investing, if managed under the guidance, direction, and oversight of an experienced and skilled adviser.

Steven D. Landis, CFP®
Sojourn Financial Strategies, LLC

References:

Glenn Yago. "Junk Bonds." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/JunkBonds.html
John Waggoner. USA Today. February 7, 2008.
"Junk Bonds: Everything You Need to Know". Investopedia®

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.

The Columbus High-Yield Bond Program (CHYB)

As Steve made clear in his whitepaper, active management of high-yield bond mutual funds can potentially allow investors to participate in both capital gains and coupon returns, while also moving to the sidelines during times of downward price pressure. This ability to move to cash in downward trending markets is very important, especially considering the aggressive nature of high-yield bond investments.

It might come as a disappointment that the CHYB Program is up "only" 25.01% so far in 2009 as of August 31, considering that the Barclay's High-Yield Credit Bond Index is up over 40% over the same period of time. However, this analysis is very short-sighted given that historical drawdowns in the Barclay's Index have exceeded -33%, while the CHYB's worst-ever drawdown has been limited to just over -6%.

The value of minimizing losses becomes even more apparent when looking at the rolling 5-year returns as of August 31. The CHYB Program has a 5-year annualized return of 8.94% while the unmanaged Barclays Index has managed an annualized return of only 5.27%. Again, the ability to move to cash in downward trending markets can make a significant difference in long-term returns, though there are no guarantees. And remember that the CHYB returns are net of all fees and expenses.

The Columbus High-Yield Bond Trading Strategy

Steve's proprietary trading model uses technical indicators to determine the high-yield bond market's potential future movements. However, Steve goes one step further by analyzing the technical indicators unique to each of the high-yield bond mutual funds he uses. Like many other active money managers, Steve will sometimes use specialized high-yield bond index funds. However, he also uses traditional high-yield bond funds when his system tells him they have the best potential for future gain.

Doing this allows him to combine his market timing expertise with the bond selection expertise of the mutual fund manager. Plus, traditional high-yield bond funds typically pay a higher "coupon" rate of return than specialized index funds.

As a general rule, the CHYB Program invests in only one mutual fund at a time, though future growth may require him to use two or more funds. Client accounts will either be 100% in a high-yield mutual fund or 100% in cash (money market); there are no graded investments or partial positions taken.

The CHYB trading model does not use leveraged funds nor does it use specialized inverse funds that provide a net "short" exposure to the high-yield bond market. However, Steve may use such inverse funds as a hedge under certain conditions. Best of all, Steve's strategy employs the use of trailing stop orders that close out trades should losses exceed a pre-determined percentage. In winning trades, these stop-loss orders ratchet up with gains, providing the potential to lock in any positive returns over and above the stop-loss trigger percentage.

If I had to describe our observations of Steve's trading model, I'd have to use the term "patience." Steve does not employ any discretion in his trading, so he will allow the system to stay in cash as long as necessary until the high-yield bond market environment improves. For example, the CHYB Program was in cash for much of 2008, which is why it ended the year with only a 2.9% loss rather than a drop of over 26% as was the case in the Barclays High-Yield Credit Bond Index.

Performance Evaluation

The goal of the CHYB Program is not necessarily to "beat the market" over the short run, but rather to participate in market gains while also managing risks. From the historical performance statistics provided below, it is evident that Steve has attained this goal in the past, though past performance cannot guarantee favorable future results:

Performance Statistics
(Net of all fees and expenses)

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS.
(Please see Important Disclosures below.)

The CHYB Program is available through the Purcell Advisory Services platform. Accounts are held at Trust Company of America (TCA), an independent trust company located in Denver, Colorado. Clients have online access to their accounts via the TCA website. Both TCA and Purcell issue quarterly statements and TCA produces year-end tax reports. TCA charges a custodial fee of 1/10th of one percent (ten basis points) of the account balance.

The minimum account size for the CHYB Program is $50,000 per account. Management fees are billed quarterly in advance based on the following annual percentages for various sized accounts:

First $500,000	2.50%
$500,000 to $1 million	2.25% (entire account)
$Over $1 million	2.00% (entire account)

It is important to remember that all performance information provided above is net of both the management fee and custodial fee charged on the accounts.

Conclusions

We have been offering the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program for over three years now, and I continue to be impressed with the way it can participate in market gains and then move to the safety of the money market fund when the risk of loss becomes too great. I also like the fact that it is a non-discretionary system, which is an important factor when the model has been in cash for an extended period of time.

Over the years, I have seen money managers disregard their trading systems when they signal to be in cash for weeks or months. Overriding a trading system can also result from clients calling to ask why they are paying a fee to sit in a money market fund. Steve stuck to his guns during the extended cash position in 2008, and we haven't heard many clients complaining about having lost only 2.9% for the year when the stock and high-yield bond markets were in free-fall.

While you may have missed much of the move in high-yield bonds so far in 2009, I think Steve makes a good case for investing in this program now. Since we recommend this program for investors with at least a three-to-five-year time horizon, we feel that the CHYB Program's combination of market participation and risk management is a fit for the less aggressive portion of your portfolio. As always, be sure to read all offering materials and Important Disclosures before making a decision to invest.

If you would like to learn more about the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program or any of our other risk-managed AdvisorLink® investment programs, 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 this and our other actively managed investment strategies.

Special Reminder about the "All They'll Need to Know" Booklets

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, we have now exhausted our supply of the end-of-life planning resource entitled "All They'll Need to Know." You can, however, still obtain a copy of the "All They'll Need to Know" booklet directly from Emerson Publications. I have negotiated a discounted price on both the printed and electronic versions of the booklet which you can access by clicking on the Emerson Publications website link below:

http://emersonpublications.com/index.php?pr=ATNTK-Halbert&nosessionkill=1

I am making this valuable resource available as a service to my readers and I do not share in any part of the purchase price of either version of the booklet. This discount is available for a limited time only, so I suggest that you take advantage of this offer as soon as possible.

Wishing you profits,

Gary D. Halbert

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Halbert Wealth Management, Inc. (HWM), Sojourn Financial Strategies, LLC (Sojourn), and Purcell Advisory Services, LLC (Purcell) are Investment Advisors registered with the SEC and/or their respective states. Information in this report is taken from sources believed reliable but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Any opinions stated are intended as general observations, not specific or personal investment advice. Please consult a competent professional and the appropriate disclosure documents before making any investment decisions. Investments mentioned involve risk, and not all investments mentioned herein are appropriate for all investors. HWM receives compensation from the Advisors in exchange for introducing client accounts. For more information on HWM or any other Advisor mentioned, please consult their respective Form ADV II, available at no charge upon request. Any offer or solicitation can only be made by way of the Form ADV Part II. Officers, employees, and affiliates of HWM may have investments managed by the Advisors discussed herein or others.

As benchmarks for comparison, the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index and the Barclays High Yield Credit Bond Index (which both include dividends) were used. Both represent unmanaged, passive buy-and-hold approaches, and are designed to represent their specific market. The volatility and investment characteristics of these indexes may differ materially (more or less) from that of this program, and these Indexes cannot be invested in directly. The performance of the S & P 500 Stock Index and the Barclays High Yield Credit Bond Index is not meant to imply that investors should consider an investment in the Columbus High-Yield trading program as comparable to an investment in the "blue chip" stocks that comprise the S & P 500 Stock Index or the high yield investments that comprise the Barclays High Yield Credit Bond Index. Historical performance data from inception through December 2005 represents a tracking account managed by Steven D. Landis and audited by MoniResearch, an independent corporation, Steve Shellans, President. Performance from January 2006 forward is from an actual account in Purcell Advisory Services Columbus High-Yield Bond Program. Since all accounts in the program are managed similarly, the results shown are representative of the majority of participants in the Columbus High-Yield Bond Program.

Purcell utilizes research signals purchased from Sojourn, an unaffiliated investment advisor. The signals are generated by the use of a proprietary model developed by Sojourn, with the objective of providing superior risk-adjusted returns using high-yield bond investments. Assets in the program are allocated 100% to the appropriate high-yield mutual funds or 100% to the money market according to the purchased research signals. Statistics for "Worst Drawdown" are calculated as of month-end. Drawdowns within a month may have been greater. PAST RESULTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS.

When reviewing past performance records, it is important to note that different accounts, even though they are traded pursuant to the same strategy, can have varying results. The reasons for this include: i) the period of time in which the accounts are active; ii) the timing of contributions and withdrawals; iii) the account size; iv) the minimum investment requirements and/or withdrawal restrictions; and v) the rate of brokerage commissions and transaction fees charged to an account. There can be no assurance that an account opened by any person will achieve performance returns similar to those provided herein for accounts traded pursuant to the Columbus High-Yield trading program.

In addition, you should be aware that (i) the Columbus High-Yield trading program is speculative and involves risk; (ii) the Columbus High-Yield trading program's performance may be volatile; (iii) an investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment in the program; (iv) Purcell will have trading authority over an investor's account and the use of a single advisor could mean lack of diversification and consequently higher risk; and (v) the Columbus High-Yield trading program's fees and expenses (if any) will reduce an investor's trading profits, or increase any trading losses.

Any investment in a mutual fund or money market fund carries the risk of loss. Mutual funds and money market funds have their own expenses which are outlined in the fund's prospectus. An account with any Advisor is not a bank account and is not guaranteed by FDIC or any other governmental agency. Returns illustrated are net of the maximum annual management fee of 2.5%, custodial fees, underlying mutual fund management fees, and other fund expenses such as 12b-1 fees. Dividends and capital gains have been reinvested. Management Fees are deducted quarterly, and are not accrued on a month-by-month basis. They do not include the effect of annual IRA fees or mutual fund sales charges, if applicable. Individual account results may vary based on each investor's unique situation. No adjustment has been made for income tax liability. Performance for individual accounts may differ materially (more or less) from the results illustrated. The results shown are for a limited time period and may not be representative of the results that would be achieved over a full market cycle or in different economic and market environments.