John Mauldin's Outside the Box

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

John Mauldin — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:55:00 GMT

Today's Outside the Box comes to us from England. My European partner Niels Jensen from time to time sends me some of the best letters he reads from the hedge fund world. He is an excellent filter for me, and this week's Outside the Box offering is no exception. Below is the November commentary from Eclectica fund manager Hugh Hendry. He challenges the current preoccupation with the falling dollar and China, and posits what would happen if that thinking is wrong? It offers some very thought-provoking ideas. You can contact them for more information at info@eclectica-am.com or visit their website: http://www.eclectica-am.com

Your wondering if we are all turning Japanese analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

by Hugh Hendry
Eclectica Fund Manager

"The power to become habituated to his surroundings is a marked characteristic of mankind."

John Maynard Keynes
The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1921

This month I will attempt to answer the entrance examination for the Chinese civil service. That is to say, I will attempt to tell you everything that I know. In doing so, I will argue that this year's rally in inflationary assets, from emerging stock markets to industrial commodities to the fall in the US dollar, could be a FAKE. Let me explain why.

But first, I am indebted to Scott Sumner, professor of economics at the University of Bentley, and his essay on the economic lessons that can be drawn from timelessness in art (see http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=2542). It is a theme that I will constantly revisit in my arguments below.

Sumner is able to take us from the Flemish forger, Van Meegeren, and his horrendous reproductions of the Dutch painter, Vermeer, to the notion that every recession seems unique and special to its protagonists. So just how did Van Meegeren fool the Nazis with paintings that today look so awful, so un-Vermeer? Jonathan Lopez, the noted art historian, argues that a FAKE succeeds owing to its power to sway the contemporary mind. Or in other words, the best forgeries tend to pay homage to the tastes and prejudices of their time. The present is so seductive.

However, forget the art world. Controlling the psyche of this generation of investor is the indelible mark of the falling dollar and the associated fear of inflation. Monetary inflation has been the distinguishing feature of the last ten years, and it is now firmly embedded in the contemporary mind. I am sure I need not remind you that gold, along with just about every other commodity, has at least quadrupled in price since 1999. You already know my explanation for why this has happened.

The spectacular rise in the Chinese trade surplus, predominantly with America, to $320bn per annum at its peak in 2007, and the mercantilist desire to prevent currency appreciation drove the Asians and the sheiks to buy Treasuries and print their own currencies. The ability of fractional reserve banking to leverage this liquidity many times over provided the monetary mo-jo to instigate ever higher commodity prices. In other words, quantitative easing, masquerading as a cheap but fixed currency regime, has succeeded where Japan's orthodox version has failed. The QE succeeded because, amongst other features, it raised the velocity of monetary circulation.

However, it was not always like this. As an example, ten years ago it was unthinkable that the dollar would prove so fragile. Recall that back then, when the euro was first launched in 1999, it promptly lost 31% of its value against the greenback. The subsequent reconstruction of modern China, though, intervened. In order to finance the emergence of a new economic superpower, an abundance of dollars was needed. Have no doubt that had we not had the dollar as a reserve currency, the rise of China would not have been as swift nor as decisive.

The Yellow Brick Road

Consider another economy needing to be rebuilt: that of the United States in 1865, the post Civil War era. The rebirth of the American economy was funded from the monetary rectitude of the gold standard, not from the generosity of a foreign and infinitely expandable paper currency. However, all of this occurred before the discovery of cyanide for heap-leaching and the opening up of the huge South African gold fields. In other words, hard money was in tight supply and the recovery was neither swift nor decisive. Indeed, 30 years later, during the presidential election campaign of 1896, Williams Jennings Bryan was still hotly contesting its merits. He railed against the persistent price deflation and argued that the economy was burdened by a "cross of gold" (see The Eclectica Fund Report, December 2005).

Perhaps I Should Stick to the Twenty-First Century?

My previous investment letter attempted to explain the subtleties of the Triffen dilemma and the dollar's pre-eminent role in regenerating modern day economies. Let me repeat once more: lots of dollars were required, and duly delivered, to build modern China. They did not have to wait on the vagaries of a gold discovery to promote and sustain their economic engine. Instead, they required the willingness of their trade partners to run trade deficits. The US delivered and, partly as a consequence, the Fed's broader trade weighted dollar index has now fallen 20% since its peak in 2002 (the narrower DXY index compiled by the Intercontinental Exchange has fallen more, but excludes the renminbi and overstates the role of the euro). In return, the world has a new $4trn trading partner: China.

Heady stuff, but not without precedent: recall the Marshall Plan, a watershed American aid program that assisted the reconstruction of the Western European economy during the 1950s and 60s. This was further augmented by America's willingness to run trade deficits, the modern day equivalent to a gold discovery, which became necessary to sustain the emergence of the new economic trading bloc. This resulted in the dollar's huge devaluation versus gold in the 1970s. However, back then, the broad trade weighted index kept rising. This time it has fallen sharply.

What an Ungrateful Lot We Are?

The dollar's role as the world's sole reserve currency has both assisted and accelerated the development of world trade. America's trading partners have come to rely upon the bounty of dollars necessary to recycle their trade surpluses and thus finance their growing prosperity. This was done even at the expense of domestic American job losses. Replace the dollar with IMF special drawing rights; I hear your retort. Sure, but have you ever bought a cup of coffee with an accounting identity? And, fundamentally that argument still suffers from the dearth of any other major economy showing any willingness to sacrifice its short term economic standing for the longer-term mutual benefit of having enriched trading partners.

Do not forget that the Chinese could replicate equivalent currency baskets to SDRs at any moment. Instead, they continue to recycle almost three quarters of their trade surplus back into dollars. This is not coercion but simple commercial pragmatism. They know full well that neither Europe nor Japan nor Britain nor Switzerland nor the rest of Asia are willing to sacrifice the implicit loss of manufacturing jobs. They understand that it is only the US that is willing to embrace the benefits of comparative advantage that arise from international trade. Have you ever asked yourself why car prices in America are so low compared with those in Europe? This is my point.

I keep hearing that a dollar devaluation would help matters. I agree; it has. Let me say it again; we have already had the devaluation. That is what the last five years were all about. Now with China rebuilt, and the trade deficit in full retreat (note the -47% contribution from net exports to China's GDP growth in the first 9 months of this year), there are less dollar bills being exported overseas to ungrateful recipients. Is it not time we drop our fascination with the present and consider the future? Is it really inconceivable that the dollar could now strengthen?

Women in Love, Investors in Love. What's the Difference?

Of course this is a minority view. Investors have reacted to last year's deflationary traumas by insisting that it is business as usual. They behave like D.H. Lawrence's coal miner Gerald from the novel Women in Love, who, just days after his father's funeral, steals into his former lover's bedroom and, "...into her he poured all his pent-up darkness and corrosive heat, and he was whole again." Or was he? The trouble is that we are so anchored to the recent past. Investors are fearful of what now seems so familiar and recognisable; at what they perceive as the reckless behaviour of our monetary authorities. "Inflation is a monetary phenomenon" is their Friedmanite dogma. Their salvation can only be found in the safe sanctuary of gold and the embrace of risky assets, but are they truly safe?

This is my home. Don't be so sure about anything, Big Horace. Not about anything in this world.

The Orphan's Home Cycle
Horton Foote

And so, just as the Church of England commissioners became convinced by the cult of equity way back in the whimsical days of 1999 and went 100% long the stock market, investors today recant a new mantra of, "anything but the dollar (A-B-D)". Inflation bets are all the rage. Some would insist that it is their fiduciary duty to protect their clients' capital; I say tell that to the Church of England pension fund, whose assets today are just £461m against liabilities of £813m. Austerity beckons for the clergymen; heaven will have to pay their stipend.

But the spell cast by a contemporary cult is hard to resist. Take another august body, the Harvard Endowment Fund. Not typically renowned as a hotbed of reactionary fervour, the fund is nevertheless radical in its construction and has come to typify the A-B-D stance.

Harvard's position could well be construed as a one-way bet. Almost half of the fund is invested in emerging market equities, commodities, real-estate, private equity and junk bonds. It is as though the rap artist 50 Cent has taken over the advisory board. The fund is going to, "get rich or die tryin'".

We, on the other hand, approach risk by considering the worst possible outcome. For a current pension scheme the greatest torment would be a repeat of last year's final quarter when 30 year Treasuries yielded just 2.5%. This would require a CAGR of 20% or more from the fund's riskier assets at precisely the time that their future returns would seem most questionable; insolvency would beckon. And yet, they blithely run the risk of ruination.

Of course, they are not alone. Another popular argument is that the emerging economies have to urgently diversify their immense dollar reserves. And so the Chinese are colonising the African continent in the pursuit of commodities and the Indian government has just agreed to buy 200 tons of the IMF's gold hoard.

Is this not a reincarnation of the 1980 trade of the brothers Hunt? It is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that China, for all intents and purposes, is already the commodity market. For despite providing less than 8% of global GDP, China accounts for more than half of the world's steel production and more than half of global seaborne iron ore freight. Indeed, this peculiarity is circular in nature. Consider that a modern aluminium plant requires 25% of the project's cost to be spent on buying aluminium in the first place. And remember that investments in fixed capital formation (think new aluminium plants et al.) have made up 95% of Chinese GDP growth this year. China Inc. is Commodities Inc.

Accordingly, China shares the same risk as the world's largest pension schemes. An over- leveraged American consumer does not return to his/her manic buying of old. As William White, former chief economist of the BIS, has argued:

Many countries that relied heavily on exports as a growth strategy are now geared up to provide goods and services to heavily indebted countries that no longer have the will or the means to buy them.

Surely, the Chinese stash of Treasuries is a prudent elimination of the fat tail risk that private sector deleveraging in the west ends up killing the golden goose of the trade surplus. But instead, in exercising good ol' Texan tradition, they have opted, like the Hunt brothers did, to double up. It is the old dice game, Mort Subite, played by the employees of the National Bank of Belgium in the busy lunch time cafes of Brussels in 1910. If the players didn't have time to complete their business, they played a final round with a sudden ending where the loser would be pronounced dead.

Much is made of the comparison between today's balance sheet recession and Japan's demise back in 1989. Despite their bubble never coming close to matching China's prominence in industrial commodities, the loss of Japanese economic growth in the 1990s was nevertheless a major factor in the waterfall crash in commodities. This plunge ultimately saw oil trade for as little as $10 per barrel in the next decade. Just consider how much more devastating the experience would have been had they gone very long the commodity market in 1989 rather than golf courses and Rockefeller Centre. At least the Harvard endowment scheme did not share their enthusiasm for golf. But, this time around, I fear a Mort Subite beckons for the losers in Asia and the pension market.

Last Orders: Inflation or Deflation?

If a poet knows more about a horse than he does about heaven,
he might better stick to the horse... the horse might carry him to heaven.

Charles Ives

I am now going to return to the torturous and binary debate concerning inflation. As you know, I am in the deflation camp for now, and we own a modest amount of government bonds and a series of asymmetric bets which would receive a boost from a return to some form of risk aversion. You could say that I am sticking to my horse.

My intellectual foes, on the other hand, are adamant that long duration government bonds are a short. I even hear that some Wall Street legends are so convinced of the argument made by the likes of Niall Ferguson that they personally own Treasury put options and are actively counselling others to do the same. The argument can be condensed into just two fears.

First, they will suggest that 4.5% is not an adequate return for lending your money to the profligate United States for 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly. Again, I fear it is my accent, but let me stress once more that I do not propose that anyone adopt a buy-and-hold policy for the next thirty years in bonds. However, a nominal rate of 4.5% might prove very profitable over the coming year should breakeven inflation expectations head south again.

Second, the bears contend, a lower Chinese trade surplus will eliminate a very large source of Treasury buyers at a time of burgeoning supply. Again, we find ourselves agreeing vigorously. However, it is our contention that US savings are heading north over the months and years to come. And an America that saves is an America that does not run a current account deficit. It is an American that can finance its own spending domestically. The US produced a small surplus back in the 1990-91 recession, so why not again?

As a consequence the Chinese surplus is set to fall further and, with fewer dollars needing to be recycled to maintain the currency peg, their demand for Treasuries will continue to shrink. Now this is potentially a huge headache owing to the massive projected American budget deficits for this year and next, and the Treasury's desire to extend the maturity of the existing stock of government bonds which is becoming perilously short dated. Some estimate new issuance of around $2.5trn for the upcoming year. Perhaps, it is better that we buy those Treasury put options after all?

American Gothic

Or is it? I have quoted Don Coxe's definition of a bull market before and I intend to do so again. "The most exciting returns are to be had from an asset class where those who know it best, love it least." On this point, America has fallen out of love with its own currency and bond market. Foreigners own over half of the outstanding Treasury stock. But, like I said, I think events could reignite some of the natives' old amour.

It is almost like declaring an enthusiasm for Say's Law. Think of it this way, a greater supply of Treasuries would be a very obvious by-product of weaker than anticipated economic growth. And in this environment risk aversion stimulates the investment desire for risk free assets. So, in a round about way, there are circumstances when supply and demand can match in the bond market. But weaker economic growth? Surely the governments' interventions this year have remedied the economy?

The surprise might concern the role that rising leverage has played in boosting GDP and in anchoring investors' expectations to an unrealistic level of nominal GDP. Over the last decade, each marginal dollar of debt has generated less and less marginal income. We knew that there would be a "zero-hour" for the economy when the creation of new debt would not contribute to GDP growth. The government's reaction to last year's demand shock has been to increase its own leverage. But, with the economy operating at its zero-hour, we believe this incremental leverage will actually have a negative impact. That is to say, the public sector will fail in its attempt to bring the economy back to its previous level of nominal GDP. In this scenario, the outcome will disappoint the market's expectations, which are rampantly bullish as evidenced by this year's dramatic re-pricing of risk assets.

This zero-hour for America has perhaps arrived sooner than many had anticipated. It was heralded by the Japanese experience. Japan is the bogeyman that confronts all academic thinkers, regardless of creed, from Krugman to Ferguson, as well as all who would choose to intervene in the workings of the economy. In a debate I had with Mr. Ferguson in London last month, he claimed that Japan was an extreme outlier and could be ignored. Really?

No sex, no drugs, no wine, no woman, no fun, no sin, no wonder it's dark
Everyone around me is a total stranger.
Everyone avoids me like a psyched loan-ranger
That's why I'm turning Japanese,
I think I'm turning Japanese,
I really think so

The Vapors, 1980

Japan has championed both Friedman and Keynes. They have built bridges to nowhere and dropped Yen notes from helicopters for twenty years and still they have nothing to show for it. Clearly the additional return from Yen debt in Japan is close to zero and it exposes the nightmare of interventionists everywhere: it may just be that there are no policy remedies for a debt deflation. So to elaborate further, our chances of financial success are greatest under conditions where investors believe government spending will succeed but in reality it fails.

However, where will the demand for all of this additional government debt come from? Let us review the Fed's Z1 numbers. The US has household wealth of some $67trn. Of that, $20trn is accounted for by real estate and is perhaps out of bounds for our purposes. But $8trn is held in the form of private pensions and insurance funds. And yet, remarkably, these institutions presently allocate just $630bn to Treasuries et al. Households have a further $22trn in time deposits and other financial assets. But again they own just $500bn of Treasuries, and commercial banks own a tiny $130bn or, 1% of their total asset base of $12trn.

Consider that in 1952, at the very end of the supernova bond bull market formed from the ashes of the Great Depression and the Liberty Bonds that financed the Second World War, US banks held 40% of their gross assets in Treasuries. That is a potential $5trn of demand from this one source alone, albeit spread out over a number of years. And again, the Japan experience lends support. Japanese financial institutions have quadrupled the percentage of their assets held in JGBs. Furthermore, their households have lifted their government bond weightings five-fold over the last ten years. Should the same pattern repeat itself stateside, American households would need to buy another $2.5trn, but again, over ten years.

And let us not forget that a trend of rising prices allied to the most basic human emotion of avarice encouraged commercial banks and other financial institutions to buy $3.2trn of questionable mortgage backed securities in 2004, $1.9trn in 2005, $2.2trn in 2006 and $2.1trn in 2007. So it is not inconceivable, at least in my mind, that financial institutions, and notable amongst them the nation's pension and endowment schemes, could be motivated by another basic human emotion, namely fear for their own survival, to snap up all these new government bonds. Perhaps in the end supply will create its own demand.

Again, it all really comes down to your take on the ratio of total debt-to-GDP. If you believe, like I do, that it peaked in 2007 then the repercussions are enormous. The leverage does not necessarily have to come down (after peaking in 1932 at 300% it troughed 20 years later at 150%). Rather, it may well be that low interest rates allow the mountain of debt to continue to be serviced. This has been the Japanese experience to date. However, everything in our economic life exists at the margin, and the consequences of just maintaining the leverage constant would be a very low delta in nominal GDP growth. Consider that the Japanese, under these very circumstances, have managed to grow nominal GDP at just 1% compound since 1990.

In Bernie We Trust?

This is why China's mad dash for commodities and its investment splurge this year is so worrying. In my marketing presentations I show a picture of Madoff superimposed on a dollar bill and ask, "...in Bernie we trust?" My point is that if the hedge fund fraudster had been given the responsibility for US GDP accounting, he would surely have overstated the figure. And in a similar way, the rise in leverage has probably misrepresented the truly recurring nature of nominal GDP. Now, if we repeat the Japanese experience then it is possible that nominal US GDP will rise from $14trn today to perhaps just $16trn in ten years time. Along similar lines, the German government does not anticipate its economy exceeding its previous GDP high until 2014. And yet it is as though the other surplus countries are behaving like Bernie's former investors who, believing in the stated NAV and its promise of more of the same (i.e., predictable and attractive compound growth rates), were happy to spend lavishly. The Chinese are building capacity to meet a world where US nominal GDP is $25trn in ten years time. I fear they could be in for a nasty shock.

What Do I Mean?

Consider the steel market. The homogeneous nature of steel, as well as other factors such as its price-to-density, allows for the export of the finished good across trade boundaries. Now with China having been on such an expansionary tear, it may not surprise you to hear that finished Chinese steel prices today trade below their production cost. Furthermore, import license applications to sell steel in the US, the world's largest export market, rose 24% last month. Now, mostly this comes from Mexican and Korean producers, but clearly there is the implicit threat that their Chinese competitors might also be tempted.

But the Economy is Growing?

Clearly it would be inappropriate to annualise the production of the US steel industry in the fourth quarter of last year when capacity utilisation plummeted to just 32%. So consider, instead, the annual run rate this year from January to August. This was a period of stabilisation in tandem with the cash-for-clunkers program, which boosted the industry's largest customer, the car sector. It is quite chilling to note that steel production in America is on a par with output back in 1938, when GDP was a mere 7% of its current size. The industry's run rate dropped to a paltry 13% during the Great Depression. However, output only troughed at its 1908 level; a twenty year retracement that is a far cry from our 70 year retracement. So the physical developments in the western steel markets should raise some concern. However, with an active steel futures market in China turning over $15bn a day (consult the Bloomberg page <RBTA CMDY CT>), speculative fears concerning the dollar have overcome the paucity of industrial demand in the west.

Of course, it is not just steel. Consider the aluminium market. We recently had a very bearish meeting with the Norwegian company Norsk Hydro. Admittedly, their strong petro-currency does not help and you have to discount the solace I seek in finding people even more miserable than myself. Even so, the aluminium situation mimics that of steel, but with an even mightier inventory overhang. Four and a half million tons reside at the London Metal Exchange, perhaps 20% of world ex-China annual capacity. It is probable that 75% of this surplus stock is accounted for by financial players exploiting a contango.

Does Life Imitate Art?

The advocates of Prechter's socio-economics would not be surprised to hear that the Romanian writer Herta Mueller has been awarded this year's Nobel Prize for literature for her work depicting "the landscape of the dispossessed". In a Los Angeles Times review of her book, The Appointment, they noted,

"...it is sometimes difficult to tell whether we are reading about people driven mad by a mad regime or people who may not have had all their marbles in the first place."

My partner, Mr. Lee, reflected on this as he sat in the chilly offices of Norsk Hydro last week watching the snow fall outside. The Norwegians continued with their tale of woe: a couple of million tonnes of inventory remains unaccounted for on the world stage and are believed to be hidden in cheaper warehouses in Russia. The rationale behind this is the same as the rationale used by LME speculators. Furthermore, the big Russian players like Rusal are under intense pressure from Putin not to cut capacity (check out 'Putin bitch slaps Deripaska' on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprlM5R3Hbg), and are rumoured to be surviving only by not paying their electricity bills.

To make matters even worse, the Chinese have stopped importing and are eager to ramp up domestic aluminium production. They havethe capacity to produce another 13mt annually, which is equivalent to 52% of global production. Lastly, there is the fact that Rio Tinto bought Alcan right at the very top of the cycle, though they dare not admit it is a terrible business.

Poor Old Norsk Hydro?

Who would want to share a stage with so many mad villains? The Norwegians noted that construction demand had just taken another leg down as buildings started pre-crisis are now finished whilst no further pipeline exists outside of China. Even Ryanair are talking about suspending their aggressive growth plans and may delay the purchase of more planes.

The Norwegians suffer the most pain at present, but if the dollar were to strengthen Alcoa could conceivably go bust. Their dollar cost is the company's only competitive advantage. Let us not forget Alcoa has the most exposure to aircraft construction and still has $10bn of gross debt lording over an almost equivalent market cap. Imagine that we have not even considered their pension liabilities. Yet the Alcoa CDS trades at 200 basis points, down from its high of 1200 earlier this year. Why?!

"May sorrow break these chains of my sufferings, for pity's sake"

Lascia ch'io pianga
Handel

Now remember I have been describing a positive macro scenario: a world in which low interest rates make the debt load manageable and that we muddle through with lower growth rates in nominal GDP. But clearly the consequences for corporate profitability are very poor. The alarming thing is that my opponents (see Ferguson et al.) believe that government bond yields are going much higher. Effectively, the world's bond vigilantes are going to punish the Fed and tighten monetary policy. It is almost as if the world's greatest speculators are agitating for their own demise. It is my contention that the leverage of the economy is only tenable if interest rates stay low and yet, whilst I believe some of them agree, they still fervently expect a rise.

Je consens, ou plutôt j'aspire à ma ruine.

Pierre Corneille
Polyeucte, 1642

Do not forget that the US does not share the distinction of the British or Australian housing markets. According to FSA data, 55% of UK mortgages are fixed rate and 45% are floating. The latter have, of course, collapsed and have proven a boon for disposable income. We must remember, however, that British fixed rates are determined by two and three year swap rates; so effectively the entire stock of UK mortgages are determined by the central bank and could be thought of as floating. In the US, however, things are very different. Total single-family mortgages outstanding are $11trn but $9trn is fixed to the prevailing 30 year Treasury yield. Banks just do not offer variable rate or teaser mortgages anymore. You might say that the American housing market hangs by the tender threads of the bond market's generosity. Lose it, and let us say that the markets demand 6% yields on 30 year durations and mortgage rates would then shoot back up to 7%. And, I would argue, the economy would come to a crashing halt. Do speculators really want this to happen?

Perhaps I am describing a pressure cooker. The private sector's debt may be sustained by maintaining low nominal interest rates.But the pressure from so much issuance at a time of great reluctance from financial institutions to purchase bonds could break the stalemate. And with it the ominous precedent of 1931, outlined in our February report, when a back up in ten year Treasury yields from 3.1% to 4.4% undoubtedly accelerated the rate of deflation in the US economy.

Video Dispatch: Israel and Intrigue at the White House

John Mauldin — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:53:00 GMT

The closed-door meeting is a prime indicator of unpredictability. It's one of the most difficult elements for even the most savvy investors to encounter and plan for - or against. Usually we know the preemptive measures we need to take in order to protect our assets, and even make a few dollars in auspicious instances. But what about the information we can't access?

Luckily, we have options. Today I'm including an excellent video from my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. They shed light on a closed-door meeting between the Obama administration and 3 top Israeli officials. When speculation is rampant, there's only one source I trust for reliable insight, and that's STRATFOR. I encourage you to watch this video. Also, sign up to get their two free weekly intelligence reports for more door-opening insights on critical issues.

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

John Mauldin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:04:59 GMT

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

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

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

Your just trying to puzzle it all out analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The Uncomfortable Dance Between V'ers and U'ers

by Paul McCulley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Desserts and Markets Being Silly Again

John Mauldin — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:17:00 GMT

My long time readers are familiar with Jeremy Grantham of GMO as I quote him a lot. He is one of the more brilliant and talented value managers (and I should mention very successful on behalf of his clients). He writes a quarterly letter which I regard as a must read. I have excerpted parts of his recent letter, where the chief investment strategist really takes the current financial system follies to task. Typical of his great writing and thinking is the quote from this week's Outside the Box selection:

"I can imagine the company representatives on the Titanic II design committee repeatedly pointing out that the Titanic I tragedy was a black swan event: utterly unpredictable and completely, emphatically, not caused by any failures of the ship's construction, of the company's policy, or of the captain's competence. "No one could have seen this coming," would have been their constant refrain. Their response would have been to spend their time pushing for more and improved lifeboats. In itself this is a good idea, and that is the trap: by working to mitigate the pain of the next catastrophe, we allow ourselves to downplay the real causes of the disaster and thereby invite another one. And so it is today with our efforts to redesign the financial system in order to reduce the number and severity of future crises."

You can get the full letter at www.gmo.com (You will have to register).

Your glad to be back home at least for a week,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Just Desserts and Markets Being Silly Again

by Jeremy Grantham

Just Desserts

I can't tell you how surprised, even embarrassed I was to get the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Yes, I had passed the dreaded chemistry A-level for 18-year-olds back in England in 1958. But did they realize it was my third attempt? And, yes, I will take this honor as encouragement to do some serious thinking on the topic. I will also invest the award to help save the planet. Perhaps that was really the Nobel Committee's sneaky motive, since there are regrettably no green awards yet. Still, all in all, it didn't seem deserved. And then it occurred to me. Isn't that the point these days: that rewards do not at all reflect our just desserts? Let's review some of the more obvious examples.

1. For Missing the Unmissable

Bernanke, the most passionate cheerleader of Greenspan's follies, is picked as his replacement, partly, it seems, for his belief that U.S. house prices would never decline and that at their peak in late 2005 they largely just reflected the unusual strength of the U.S. economy. As well as missing on his very own this 3-sigma (100-year) event in housing, he was completely clueless as to the potential disastrous interactions among lower house prices, new opaque financial instruments, heroically increased mortgages, lower lending standards, and internationally networked distribution. For these accumulated benefits to society, he was reappointed! So, yes, after the fashion of his mentor, he was lavish with help as the bubble burst. And how can we so quickly forget the very painful consequences of the previous lavishing after the 2000 bubble? Rewarding Bernanke is like reappointing the Titanic's captain for facilitating an orderly disembarkation of the sinking ship (let's pretend that happened) while ignoring the fact that he had charged recklessly through dark and dangerous waters.

2. The Other Teflon Men

Larry Summers, with a Financial Times bully pulpit, had done little bullying and blown no warning whistles of impending doom back in 2006 and 2007. And, famously, in earlier years as Treasury Secretary he had encouraged (I hope inadvertently) wild and reckless financial behavior by helping to beat back attempts to regulate some of the new and most dangerous instruments. Timothy Geithner, in turn, sat in the very engine room of the USS Disaster and helped steer her onto the rocks. And there are several others (discussed in the 4Q 2008 Letter). You know who you are. All promoted!

3. Misguided, Sometimes Idiotic Mortgage Borrowers

The more misguided or reckless the borrowers, the more determined the efforts to help them out, it appears, although it must be admitted these efforts had limited effect. In comparison, those who showed restraint and either underhoused themselves or rented received not even a hint of help. Quite the reverse: the money the more prudent potential buyers held back from housing received an artificially low rate. In effect, the prudent are subsidizing the very same banks that insisted on dancing off the cliff into Uncle Sam's arms or, rather, the arms of the taxpayers - many of whom rent.

4. Reckless Homebuilders

Having magnificently overbuilt for several years by any normal relationship to the population, we have decided to encourage even more homebuilding by giving new house buyers $8,000 each. This cash comes partly from the pockets of prudent renters once again. This gift is soon, perhaps, to be extended beyond first-time buyers (for whom everyone with a heart has a slight sympathy) to any buyers, which would be blatant vote-buying by Congress. So what else is new?

5. Over-spenders and Under-savers

To celebrate the overwhelming consensus among economists that U.S. individuals have been dangerously overconsuming for the last 15 years, we have decided to encourage consumption and penalize savers by maintaining the aforementioned artificially low rates, which beg everyone and sundry to borrow even more. The total debt to GDP ratio, which under our heroes Greenspan and Bernanke rose from 1.25x GDP to 3.25x (without even counting our Social Security and Medicare commitments), has continued to climb as growing government debt more than offsets falling consumer debt. Where, one wonders, does this end, and with how much grief?

6. Banks Too Big to Fail

Here we have adopted a particularly simple and comprehensible policy: make them bigger! Indeed, force them to be bigger. And whatever you do, don't have any serious Congressional conversation about breaking them up. (Leave that to a few journalists and commentators. Only pinkos read pink newspapers anyway!) This is not the first time that a cliché has triumphed. This one is: "You can't roll back the clock." (See this quarter's Special Topic: Lesson Not Learned: On Redesigning Our Current Financial System.)

7. Over-bonused Financial Types

Just look at Goldman's recent huge "profits," two-thirds of which went for bonuses. It is now estimated that this year's bonus pool will be plus or minus $23 billion, the largest ever. Less than a year ago, these same guys were on the edge of a run on the bank. They were saved only by "government" - the taxpayers' supposed agents - who decided to interfere with the formerly infallible workings of capitalism. Just as remarkably, it is now reported that remuneration for the entire banking industry may be approaching a new peak. "Well, we got rid of some of those pesky competitors, so now we can really make hay," you can almost hear Goldman and the others say. And as for the industry's concern about the widespread public dismay, even disgust, about excessive remuneration (and, I would add, plundering of the shareholders' rightful profits)? Fuhgeddaboudit! In the thin book of "lessons learned," this one, like most of our other examples, will not appear.

8. Overpaid Large Company CEOs

Even outside the financial system, there are many painfully obvious unjust desserts in the form of top management rewards. And most of the excessive rewards come out of the pockets of our clients and other stockholders, which is particularly galling. When I arrived in the States in 1964, the ratio of CEO pay to the average worker was variously reported to be between 20/1 and 40/1. This seemed perfectly respectable and had held for the previous 30 years. By 2006, this ratio had exploded to between 400/1 and 600/1, which can only be described as obscene. The results certainly don't suggest such high rewards: a) 10-year stock market returns are close to zero in real terms; and b) U.S. GDP growth has finally slipped below its 100-year trend of 3.5%. After deducting the effect of the rampant increase in the financial system, the growth in GDP ex-finance has fallen to 3.1% since 1982 and well below 3% since 2000, all measured to the end of 2007 to avoid the recent crisis. The corporate system, to be frank, seemed to run faster and more efficiently back in the 1960s before CEOs and financial types began to gobble up other people's lunches. I suppose I have done my share of gobbling. But, it still ain't right!

9. Holders of the Stocks of Ridiculously Overleveraged and Wounded Corporations

Yes, I admit this is part envy and part hindsight investment regret. But, really, our financial leaders so overstimulated the risk-taking environment that junky, weak, marginal companies and zombie banks produced a record outperformance (the best since 1933) of junk over the great blue chips. (Ouch!) In a world with less moral hazard, which would be a world of just, although painful desserts, scores of these should-be-dead companies would be. As it is, they live to compete against the companies that actually deserve to be survivors. Excessive bailouts are just not healthy for the long-term well-being of the economy.

10. The Well-managed U.S. Auto Industry

While firms in other industries fail and their workers look for new jobs, the auto industry is rewarded by direct subsidized loans, governmental arm-twisting of creditors forced to settle far below their legal rights, and direct subsidies for their products. All of this for their well-deserved ranking as the most short-sighted industry of the last 20 (40?) years, and one of the worst managed.

11. The World's Most Over-vehicled Country

We chew up a dangerously large amount of Middle Eastern oil (and oil desperately squeezed from Canadian tar sands), which is ruinous for our globalpolitical well-being (and ability to avoid war) and also not so good for an overheating world. So the answer must be to subsidize more car purchases, and when the subsidies run out, you can have all the fun again. Good long-term thinking!

12. Stock Options

This, of course, is the crème de la crème of unjust desserts. Recent practices have basically been a legalized way to abscond with the stockholders' equity. So if the stock price crashes, perhaps with considerable help from management, that's all right - just rewrite the options at the new low prices. There has been no serious attempt to match stock option rewards (or total financial rewards for that matter) to the building of long-term franchise value. Instead, the motto is: grab it now and run! You can fill in your own favorite anecdotes here - there are so many of them!

13. Finally, Just in Case You've Forgotten, We Have My Old Nemesis, Greenspan

Alan Greenspan receives the title of Maestro in the U.S. and is knighted by the Queen for thoroughly demolishing the integrity of the U.S. financial system. He overtly ignored the great threat of bubbles in asset classes and, in fact, encouraged them. He Ayn Rand-ishly facilitated the progressive dismantling of governmental restrictions on financial behavior, he deliberately kept real interest rates at zero for years, etc., etc., etc. You have heard it before. Now, remarkably, in his very old age he has become imbued with the spirit of Hyman Minsky: "Unless somebody can find a way to change human nature, we will have more crises." Now he finally gets it. Too late! In his merely old age, he ignored or abhorred Minsky, and consistently behaved as though markets were efficient and the players were honest and sensible at all times. But for all of the egg on his face, the Maestro continues to consult with the rich and famous, considerably to his financial advantage. In the good old days, he would have been set in the village stocks, and not the kind you buy and sell. And I would have been right there, Alan, with very ripe tomatoes.

The Last Hurrah and Markets Being Silly Again

The idea behind my forecast six months ago was that regardless of the fundamentals, there would be a sharp rally.¹ After a very large decline and a period of somewhat blind panic, it is simply the nature of the beast. Exhibit 1 shows my favorite example of a last hurrah after the first leg of the 1929 crash.

After the sharp decline in the fall of 1929, the S&P 500 rallied 46% from its low in November to the rally high of April 12, 1930. It then, of course, fell by over 80%. But on April 12 it was once again overpriced; it was down only 18% from its peak and was back to the level of June 1929. But what a difference there was in the outlook between June 1929 and April 1930! In June, the economic outlook was a candidate for the brightest in history with effectively no unemployment, 5% productivity, and over 16% year-over-year gain in industrial output. By April 1930, unemployment had doubled and industrial production had dropped from +16% to -9% in 5 months, which may be the world record in economic deterioration. Worse, in 1930 there was no extra liquidity flowing around and absolutely no moral hazard. "Liquidate the labor, liquidate the stocks, liquidate the farmers"² was their version. Yet the market rose 46%.

How could it do this in the face of a world going to hell? My theory is that the market always displayed a belief in a type of primitive market efficiency decades before the academics took it up. It is a belief that if the market once sold much higher, it must mean something. And in the case of 1930, hadn't Irving Fisher, arguably the greatest American economist of the century, said that the 1929 highs were completely justified and that it was the decline that was hysterical pessimism? Hadn't E.L. Smith also explained in his Common Stocks as Long Term Investments (1924) - a startling precursor to Jeremy Siegel's dangerous book Stocks for the Long Run (1994) - that stocks would always beat bonds by divine right? And there is always someone of the "Dow 36,000" persuasion higher prices in previous peaks must surely have meant something, and not merely have been unjustified bubbly bursts of enthusiasm and momentum.

Today there has been so much more varied encouragement for a rally than existed in 1930. The higher prices preceding this crash (that were far above both trend and fair value) had lasted for many years; from 1996 through 2001 and from 2003 through mid-2008. This time, we also saw history's greatest stimulus program, desperate bailouts, and clear promises of years of low rates. As mentioned six months ago, in the third year of the Presidential Cycle, a tiny fraction of the current level of moral hazard and easy money has done its typically great job of driving equity markets and speculation higher. In total, therefore, it should be no surprise to historians that this rally has handsomely beaten 46%, and would probably have done so whether the actual economic recovery was deemed a pleasant surprise or not. Looking at previous "last hurrahs," it should also have been expected that any rally this time would be tilted toward risk-taking and, the more stimulus and moral hazard, the bigger the tilt. I must say, though, that I never expected such an extreme tilt to risk-taking: it's practically a cliff! Never mess with the Fed, I guess. Although, looking at the record, these dramatic short-term resuscitations do seem to breed severe problems down the road. So, probably, we will continue to live in exciting times, which is not all bad in our business.

Lesson Not Learned: On Redesigning Our Current Financial System

I can imagine the company representatives on the Titanic II design committee repeatedly pointing out that the Titanic I tragedy was a black swan event: utterly unpredictable and completely, emphatically, not caused by any failures of the ship's construction, of the company's policy, or of the captain's competence. "No one could have seen this coming," would have been their constant refrain. Their response would have been to spend their time pushing for more and improved lifeboats. In itself this is a good idea, and that is the trap: by working to mitigate the pain of the next catastrophe, we allow ourselves to downplay the real causes of the disaster and thereby invite another one. And so it is today with our efforts to redesign the financial system in order to reduce the number and severity of future crises.

After a crisis, if you don't want to waste time on palliatives, you must begin with an open and frank admission of failure. The Titanic, for example, was just too big and therefore too complicated for the affordable technology of its day. Given White Star Line's unwillingness to spend, she was under-designed. The ship also suffered from agency problems: the passengers bore the risk of unnecessary speed and overconfidence in "too big to sink!" while the captain stood to be rewarded for breaking the speed record. No captain is ever rewarded for merely delivering his passengers alive. Greenspan, nearly 100 years later in his short-lived "irrational exuberance" phase, did not enjoy being metaphysically slapped by the Senate Subcommittee for threatening the then speedy progress of the economy. What is needed in this typical type of agency problem is for the agent on those rare occasions when it really matters, whether a ship's captain or a Fed boss, to stop boot licking and say, "No, this is wrong. It is just too risky. I won't go along."

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to effect genuine change given that the general public is disgusted with the financial system and none too pleased with Congress. I have no idea why the current administration, which came in on a promise of change, for heaven's sake, is so determined to protect the status quo of the financial system at the expense of already weary taxpayers who are promised only somewhat better lifeboats.

It is obvious to most that there was a more or less complete failure of our private financial system and its public overseers. The regulatory leaders in particular were all far too captured and cozy in their dealings with reckless and greedy financial enterprises. Congress also failed in its role. For example, it did not rise to the occasion to limit the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. Nor did it encourage the regulation of new financial instruments. Quite the reverse, as exemplified by the sorry tale of CFTC Chairman Brooksley Born's fight to regulate credit default swaps.

But, at least now, Congress seems to realize the problem: the current financial system is too large and complicated for the ordinary people attempting to control it. Even Barney Frank, were he on his death bed, might admit this; and most members of Congress know that they hardly understand the financial system at all. Many of the banks individually are both too big and so complicated that none of their own bosses clearly understand their own complexity and risk taking. The recent boom and the ensuing crisis are a wonderfully scientific experiment with definitive results that we are all trying to ignore. And, except for bankers, who have Congress in an iron grip, we all want and need a profound change. We all want smaller, simpler banks that are not too big to fail. And we can and should arrange it!

Step 1 should be to ban or spin off that part of the trading of the bank's own money that has become an aggressive hedge fund. Proprietary trading by banks has become by degrees over recent years an egregious conflict of interest with their clients. Most if not all banks that prop trade now gather information from their institutional clients and exploit it. In complete contrast, 30 years ago, Goldman Sachs, for example, would never, ever have traded against its clients. How quaint that scrupulousness now seems. Indeed, from, say, 1935 to 1980, any banker who suggested such behavior would have been fired as both unprincipled and a threat to the partners' money. I, for one, saw Goldman in my early days as a surprisingly ethical firm, at worst "long-term greedy." (This steady loss of the old partnership ethic is typically underplayed in descriptions of Goldman.) Today, Goldman represents a potential hedge fund trade as being attractive precisely because they themselves have already chosen to do it. These days, all - or almost all - large banks do proprietary trading that is pure hedge fund in nature. Indeed the largest bank, Citi (owned by us taxpayers), is gearing up to substantially increase its aggressive prop trading as I write. ("No, no, we're not!")

Some insiders have argued that we should not worry about prop trading because they claim it did not play an important part in the recent crisis. I think this is completely wrong for it misses the very big picture. Prop trading can easily introduce an aggressive hedge-fund type mentality into the very hearts of what ideally should be conservative, prudent - even boring - banks. This hedge fund mentality became a dominant organizing principle, particularly with respect to compensation practices. It encouraged personal aspirations over corporate goals and invited bonus-directed behavior at the clients' expense and ultimately, as we have seen, at the taxpayers' expense to rid itself of this problem. All Congress has to overcome is the lobbying power and campaign contributions of the finance industry itself, which I admit is no small feat. In a bank with a hedge fund heart, you can't reasonably expect ethical or non-greedy behavior, and you haven't seen it.

Of course, commercial and investment banks need to invest their own capital. They probably should have the right to do genuine hedging against investments that flow naturally from their banking business. As for the rest, they could easily be required either to limit the leverage used on prop desk trading or to be restricted to investing in government paper and, at the very least, play by the same rules as other hedge funds. What they certainly should insurance, as is now the case.

In the early 1930s, following the famous Pecora hearings, the conflict of interest between the management of other people's money as fiduciary and the business of dealing and underwriting in securities was considered so inimical to the public interest that Congress almost compelled separation of proprietary trading and client trading. Close, but no cigar. Instead, Glass-Steagall made the probably less useful step of separating commercial and investment banking. Unfortunately, they left intact the obvious conflict between the banks' managing their own money and simultaneously that of their clients. We now have a unique opportunity to revisit this matter.

(As we ponder the problem of prop trading, let us consider Goldman's stunning $3 billion second quarter profit. It appeared to be almost all hedge fund trading. Be aware also that this $3 billion is net of about $6 billion reserved for future bonuses. Goldman's CEO had, in fact, the interesting job of deciding how much of this $9 billion profit would be arbitrarily awarded to shareholders. [In this case, one-third. Could be worse!] This means that they extracted every penny of $9 billion from a fragile financial system. "Good for them," you may say, and they indeed are very smart. But surely they should not have been insured against failure by us taxpayers! Remember, they are now also a commercial bank yet very, very little of their $9 billion came from making loans. Three months later their bonus pool for the year is estimated to be a new record at $29 billion. And the whole banking industry is back to a new record for remuneration. How resilient! How remarkable! How basically undesirable for our economy!)

In Step 2, the Justice Department, together with Congressional and other advisors, should be invited to develop a special set of rules for the banking industry that recognizes the moral hazard of "too big to fail." If really too big to fail, banks should be divided by Justice into manageable, smaller pieces that can indeed be allowed to fail. With these two steps and possibly with an intelligent son of Glass-Steagall, the deed would be done! Regulators would have a fighting chance of being able to regulate, unlike their recent woeful past. If an angel appeared, waved his wings and, lo, it was so, almost every single Congressman would sigh with relief.

The separation of commercial banking from investment banking is not as vital as the removal of prop desk complicated enterprises both smaller and simpler, which characteristics I for one believe are probably essential if we are to avoid further disasters. So what is the problem? The argument against all major changes, without at least some of which we will soon surely be back in another crisis, is always the same. "Oh, you can't roll back the clock." But, even repeated twice before every breakfast, it is not persuasive. Why exactly can't you roll back the clock? We did it once before and, although it was very imperfect and probably missed the central point of conflict of interest, it still produced an improved system that was successful enough for 50 years. In general, countries with simpler and less aggressive banks have had much less pain in the recent crisis while we were pawning the Crown Jewels - sorry, the Federal Jewels - to bail out aggressive bankers who were out of their depth in the new complexities.

Step by step, even as the complexity grew, our regulatory leaders enabled systemic risk to grow. They continued to push the boundaries for banks by allowing more leverage, new instruments, and less control. The details are familiar. All this was done in the name of untrammeled, unfettered capitalism, and almost all of it was a bad idea.

"Oh!" say the bankers, "If we become smaller and simpler and more regulated, the world will end and all serious banking will go to London, Switzerland, Bali Hai, or wherever." Well, good for those other places. If that means they will have knee-buckling, economy cracking, taxpayer-impoverishing meltdowns every 15 years and we will be left looking like a boring back water, that sounds fine to me. Remember, just like our investment management branch of the financial system, banking creates nothing of itself. It merely facilitates the functioning of the real world.

Yes, of course every country needs a basic financial system to function effectively with letters of credit, deposits, and check writing facilities, etc. But as you move beyond that it is worth remembering that every valued job created by financial complexity is paid for by the rest of the real economy, and talent is displaced from real production, as symbolized by all of the nuclear physicists on prop trading desks. Viewed from the perspective of the long-term well-being of the whole economy, the drastic expansion of the U.S. financial system as a percentage of total GDP in the last 20 years has been a drain on the health and cost structure of the balance of the real economy. To illustrate this point, in 1965 the financial sector of the economy took up 3% of the GDP pie. The 1960s were probably the high water mark (or one of them) of America's capitalism. They clearly had adequate financial tools. Innovation could obviously have occurred continuously in all aspects of finance, without necessarily moving its share of the economy materially over 3%. Yet by 2007 the share had risen to 7.5% of GDP!

The financial world was reaching into the GDP pie and taking an unnecessary extra 4%. Every year! This extra rent is enough to lower the savings and investment potential of the rest of the economy. And it shows. As mentioned earlier, the growth rate of the GDP had been 3.5% a year for a hundred years. It had proven to be remarkably robust. Even the Great Depression bounced off it, and soon GDP growth was back on the original trend as if the Depression had never occurred. But after 1965, the growth of the non-financial slice, formerly 3.4%, slowed to 3.2%. After 1982 it dropped to 3.1% and after 2000 fell to well under 3%, all measured to the end of 2007, before the recent troubles. These are big declines. It is as if a runner has a growing and already heavy blood sucker on him that is, not surprisingly, slowing him down. In the short term, I realize that job creation in the financial industry looked like a growth driver, as did the surge in financial profits (which we now realize were ludicrously overstated). But in the long term, like a sugar high, this stimulus was temporary and unhealthy.

The financial system was growing because it could. The more complex and confusing new financial instruments became the more "help" ordinary citizens needed from the experts. The agents' interests were totally unaligned with the principle/clients' interests. This makes a mockery of "rational expectations" and the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which assumes (totally unproven, as usual) equivalent and perfect knowledge on both sides of all transactions. At the extreme, this great advantage in knowledge and information held by the financial agents has the agents receiving all the rewards, according to the recent work³ by my former partner, Paul Woolley, and his colleagues at the Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality. (With a great name like that their job is half done before they start.)

The second problem, right on the heels of the too-big-and complicated issue, is that of inadequate public oversight. Even with existing institutions, we would have avoided most of the recent pain, borne by taxpayers, if we had had better public leadership. Yes, the public bodies had flaws, but the individuals running the shop had far bigger flaws. Greenspan, with arguably the most important job in the world, simply did not believe in interfering with capitalism at all. His regulatory colleagues such as Bernanke and Geithner fell into line without any challenges. And Congress, strongly influenced by the financial industry, or merely misguided, or often both, facilitated the approach that capitalism in general and banking in particular would do just fine if left entirely alone. It was a very expensive error. Does anyone think we would have run off the cliff with even one change - Volcker at the Fed? I, for one, am confident that we would have done far less badly.

Behind this weakness in the recent cast of characters is a systemic (suddenly the trendiest word in the English language) weakness in our method of job selection. How can Greenspan, with his long-established record of failure as a professional economist, have resurfaced as the Fed boss? With no record of success in any important job, he gets one of the world's two most important jobs! Now we have to decide how much more decision-making power to give to the Fed - an institution with a 25-year proven record of failure. How can we separate the logical neatness of institutional design from our recent proven inability to pick effective, principled leaders with strong backbones?

It is a conundrum: too many regulatory agencies and you have too many opportunities for financial interests to shop around for regulatory bargains and to find and exploit the ambiguous seams between them. Too few agencies and we run the risk of my worst nightmare: waking up and finding Alan Greenspan with twice the authority!

At the least we must recognize the improbability of acquiring great leaders and that our financial system must be simple and robust enough to withstand the worst efforts from time to time of poor or even bad leadership. A simpler, more manageable financial system is much more than a luxury. Without it we shall surely fail again. And it looks as if we are bound and determined to bend once again to the will (and the money) of the financial lobby, which is encouraged by the unexpected conservatism of the current administration's "Teflon" men. They seem terrified to make any substantial changes. And the one person with the character to make tough changes - Paul Volker - is window dressing, exactly as I suggested in January. A sad, wasted opportunity!

Summary

Yes, this was a profound failure of our financial system.
The public leadership was inadequate, especially in dealing with unexpected events that often, like the housing bubble breaking, should have been expected.
Of course, we should make a more determined effort to do a more effective job of leadership selection. But excellence in leadership will often be elusive.
Equally obvious, we could make a hundred improvements to the lifeboats. Most would be modest beneficial improvements, but in the long run they would be almost completely irrelevant and, worse, they might kid us into thinking we were doing something useful!
But all of the above points fail to recognize the main problem: the system has become too big and complicated for even much-improved leaders to handle. Why should we be confident that we will find such improved leaders? For, even in an administration directed to "change," Obama and his advisors fell back on the same cast of characters who allowed, even facilitated, the development of the current crisis. Reappointing Bernanke! What a wasted opportunity to get a "son of Volker" type. (Or should that be "grandson of Volker?")
The size of the financial system continues to grow and shows every sign of being out of control. As it grows, it becomes a bigger drain on the rest of the economy and slows it down.
The only long-term hope of avoiding major recurrent crises is to make our financial system simpler, the units small enough that they can be allowed to fail, and, above all, to remove the intrinsically conflicted and dangerously risk-seeking hedge fund heart from the banking system. The rest is window dressing and wishful thinking.
The concept of rational expectations - the belief in the natural efficiency of capitalism - is wrong, and is the root cause of our problems. Hyman Minsky, on the other hand, was right; he argued that the natural outcome of ordinary people interacting is to make occasional financial crises "well nigh inevitable." Crises are desperately hard to avoid. We must give ourselves a chance by making the job of dealing with them much, much easier.
All in all we are likely to have learned little, or rather to act, through lack of character, as if we have learned nothing. In doing so we are probably condemning ourselves to another serious financial crisis in the not too- distant future.

PS: As quite often happens, since I write painfully slowly (even without extra tick-borne delays), a professional slipped in with a great column that gets to the heart of this matter. Please read John Kay in the Financial Times of July 9. It is short and persuasive. "Our banks are beyond the control of mere mortals" - now, that's what I call a title!

Footnotes:

1 Erratum: Last quarter I cast mild aspersions on Finanz und Wirtschaft by suggesting that I had not precisely said that the S&P would scoot rapidly up to 1100; I remembered it more as between 1000 to 1100. Never mess with a Swiss journalist: this one duly pointed out that his tape of April 1 confirmed his accuracy. Either way, here we are, more or less (at 1098 on October 19).

2 Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, 1931.

3 Biais, Bruno; Rochet, Jean-Charles; and Woolley, Paul. Rents, Learning and Risk in the Financial Sector and other Innovative Industries. September, 2009. Working Paper Series 2009, The Paul Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/paulWoolleyCentre/news/RentsLearningAndRisk.htm

A Crisis in the Kremlin

John Mauldin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:26:00 GMT

Earlier this week, I sent out a piece that talked about the dangers of ignoring the big picture - even for the "bottom up" investor. Every once in a while, we all have to step away from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, housing prices and other indicators to look at what's going to influence these factors in the long term.

Today I give you a video about Russia and how a plan to fix the economy might throw off the political balance of power. I regard Moscow's situation as a valuable lesson for our country - also in the throes of an economic crisis - and for investors affected by global markets. Click here to watch this great video by my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. You can also sign up to get free weekly intelligence from them, so you don't have to depend on my occasional mail-out.

John Mauldin

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

John Mauldin — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:07:56 GMT

I am in Argentina today, but still have found time to read a rather provocative speech by David Einhorn, who is President of Greenlight Capital, a "long-short value-oriented hedge fund", which he began in 1996. Einhorn has long been a critic of the current investment banking business, and today he discusses the problems with not only the proposed new government regulations (or lack thereof), but also the problems with the US debt and our currency valuations. It is a most thought-provoking and fun speech.

It is especially poignant as I sit in a country that has seen the ravages of hyper-inflation, talking with business leaders and investors who experienced the problems first hand and how they deal with it today. I will be writing about what I am learning this Friday I think. But now I have to run and give my third speech today. Have a good week!

Your very surprised to find Argentinean beef as good as that of Texas analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

Value Investing Congress - David Einhorn, Greenlight Capital

One of the nice aspects of trying to solve investment puzzles is recognizing that even though I am not always going to be right, I don't have to be. Decent portfolio management allows for some bad luck and some bad decisions. When something does go wrong, I like to think about the bad decisions and learn from them so that hopefully I don't repeat the same mistakes. This leaves me plenty of room to make fresh mistakes going forward. I'd like to start today by reviewing a bad decision I made and share with you what I've learned from that error and how I am attempting to apply the lessons to improve our funds' prospects.

At the May 2005 Ira Sohn Investment Research Conference in New York, I recommended MDC Holdings, a homebuilder, at $67 per share. Two months later MDC reached $89 a share, a nice quick return if you timed your sale perfectly. Then the stock collapsed with the rest of the sector. Some of my MDC analysis was correct: it was less risky than its peers and would hold-up better in a down cycle because it had less leverage and held less land. But this just meant that almost half a decade later, anyone who listened to me would have lost about forty percent of his investment, instead of the seventy percent that the homebuilding sector lost.

I want to revisit this because the loss was not bad luck; it was bad analysis. I down played the importance of what was then an ongoing housing bubble. On the very same day, at the very same conference, a more experienced and wiser investor, Stanley Druckenmiller, explained in gory detail the big picture problem the country faced from a growing housing bubble fueled by a growing debt bubble. At the time, I wondered whether even if he were correct, would it be possible to convert such big picture macro-thinking into successful portfolio management? I thought this was particularly tricky since getting both the timing of big macro changes as well as the market's recognition of them correct has proven at best a difficult proposition. Smart investors had been complaining about the housing bubble since at least 2001. I ignored Stan, rationalizing that even if he were right, there was no way to know when he would be right. This was an expensive error.

The lesson that I have learned is that it isn't reasonable to be agnostic about the big picture. For years I had believed that I didn't need to take a view on the market or the economy because I considered myself to be a "bottom up" investor. Having my eyes open to the big picture doesn't mean abandoning stock picking, but it does mean managing the long-short exposure ratio more actively, worrying about what may be brewing in certain industries, and when appropriate, buying some just-in-case insurance for foreseeable macro risks even if they are hard to time. In a few minutes, I will tell you what Greenlight has done along these lines.

But first, I'd like to explain what I see as the macro risks we face. To do that I need to digress into some political science. Please humor me since my mom and dad spent a lot of money so I could be a government major, the usefulness of which has not been apparent for some time.

Winston Churchill said that, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."

As I see it, there are two basic problems in how we have designed our government. The first is that officials favor policies with short-term impact over those in our long-term interest because they need to be popular while they are in office and they want to be re-elected. In recent times, opinion tracking polls, the immediate reactions of focus groups, the 24/7 news cycle, the constant campaign, and the moment-to-moment obsession with the Dow Jones Industrial Average have magnified the political pressures to favor short-term solutions. Earlier this year, the political topic du jour was to debate whether the stimulus was working, before it had even been spent.

Paul Volcker was an unusual public official because he was willing to make unpopular decisions in the early '80s and was disliked at the time. History, though, judges him kindly for the era of prosperity that followed.

Presently, Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner have become the quintessential short-term decision makers. They explicitly "do whatever it takes" to "solve one problem at a time" and deal with the unintended consequences later. It is too soon for history to evaluate their work, because there hasn't been time for the unintended consequences of the "do whatever it takes" decision-making to materialize.

The second weakness in our government is "concentrated benefit versus diffuse harm" also known as the problem of special interests. Decision makers help small groups who care about narrow issues and whose "special interests" invest substantial resources to be better heard through lobbying, public relations and campaign support. The special interests benefit while the associated costs and consequences are spread broadly through the rest of the population. With individuals bearing a comparatively small extra burden, they are less motivated or able to fight in Washington.

In the context of the recent economic crisis, a highly motivated and organized banking lobby has demonstrated enormous influence. Bankers advance ideas like, "without banks, we would have no economy." Of course, there was a public interest in protecting the guts of the system, but the ATMs could have continued working, even with forced debt-to-equity conversions that would not have required any public funds. Instead, our leaders responded by handing over hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to protect the speculative investments of bank shareholders and creditors. This has been particularly remarkable, considering that most agree that these same banks had an enormous role in creating this mess which has thrown millions out of their homes and jobs.

Like teenagers with their parents away, financial institutions threw a wild party that eventually tore-up the neighborhood. With their charge arrested and put in jail to detoxify, the supervisors were faced with a decision: Do we let the party goers learn a tough lesson or do we bail them out? Different parents with different philosophies might come to different decisions on this point. As you know our regulators went the bail-out route.

But then the question becomes, once you bail them out, what do you do to discipline the misbehavior? Our authorities have taken the response that kids will be kids. "What? You drank beer and then vodka. Are you kidding? Didn't I teach you, beer before liquor, never sicker, liquor before beer, in the clear! Now, get back out there and have a good time." And for the last few months we have seen the beginning of another party, which plays nicely toward government preferences for short-term favorable news-flow while satisfying the banking special interest. It has not done much to repair the damage to the neighborhood.

And the neighbors are angry, because at some level, Americans understand that the Washington-Wall Street relationship has rewarded the least deserving people and institutions at the expense of the prudent. They don't know the particulars or how to argue against the "without banks, we have no economy" demagogues. So, they fight healthcare reform, where they have enough personal experience to equip them to argue with Congressmen at town hall meetings. As I see it, the revolt over healthcare isn't really about healthcare, but represents a broader upset at Washington. The lack of trust over the inability to deal seriously with the party goers feeds the lack of trust over healthcare.

On the anniversary of Lehman's failure, President Obama gave a terrific speech. He said, "Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for the consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break the fall." Later he advocated an end of "too big to fail." Then he added, "For a market to function, those who invest and lend in that market must believe that their money is actually at risk." These are good points that he should run by his policy team, because Secretary Geithner's reform proposal does exactly the opposite.

The financial reform on the table is analogous to our response to airline terrorism by frisking grandma and taking away everyone's shampoo, in that it gives the appearance of officially "doing something" and adds to our bureaucracy without really making anything safer.

With the ensuing government bailout, we have now institutionalized the idea of too-big-to-fail and insulated investors from risk.

The proper way to deal with too-big-to-fail, or too inter-connected to fail, is to make sure that no institution is too big or inter-connected to fail. The test ought to be that no institution should ever be of individual importance such that if we were faced with its demise the government would be forced to intervene. The real solution is to break up anything that fails that test.

The lesson of Lehman should not be that the government should have prevented its failure. The lesson of Lehman should be that Lehman should not have existed at a scale that allowed it to jeopardize the financial system. And the same logic applies to AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Bear Stearns, Citigroup and a couple dozen others.

Twenty-five years ago the government dismantled AT&T. Its break-up set forth decades of unbelievable progress in that industry. We can do that again here in the financial sector and we would achieve very positive social benefit with no cost that anyone can seem to explain.

The proposed reform takes us in the polar opposite direction. The cop-out response from Washington is that it isn't "practical." Our leaders are so influenced by the banking special interests that they would rather declare it "impractical" than roll up their sleeves and figure out how to get the job done.

The bailouts have installed a great deal of moral hazard, which in the absence of radical change will be reinforced and thereby grant every big institution a permanent "implicit" government backstop. This creates an enormous ongoing subsidy for the too-bigto-fails, as well as making it much harder for the non-too-big-to-fails to compete. In effect, we all continue to subsidize the big banks even though we keep hearing the worst of the crisis is behind us.

In addition, the now larger too-big-to-fails are beginning to take advantage of developing oligopolies. Even as the government spends trillions to subsidize mortgage rates, the resulting discount is not being passed to homeowners but is being kept by mortgage originators who are earning record profits per mortgage originated. Recently, Goldman upgraded Wells Fargo partly based on its ability to earn long-term oligopolistic mortgage origination spreads.

The proposed reform does not deal with the serious risks that the recent crisis exposed. Credit Default Swaps, which create large, correlated and asymmetric risks, scared the authorities into spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer money to prevent the speculators who made bad bets from having to pay.

CDS are also highly anti-social. Bondholders who also hold CDS make a bigger return when the issuing firms fail. As a result, holders of so-called "basis packages" – a bond and a CDS – have an incentive to use their position as bondholders to force bankruptcy triggering payment on their CDS, rather than negotiate traditional out of court restructurings or covenant amendments with troubled creditors. Press accounts have noted that this dynamic has contributed to the recent bankruptcies of Abitibi-Bowater, General Growth Properties, Six Flags and even General Motors. They are a pending problem in CIT's efforts to avoid bankruptcy.

The reform proposal to create a CDS clearing house does nothing more than maintain private profits and socialized risks by moving the counter-party risk from the private sector to a newly created too-big-to-fail entity. I think that trying to make safer CDS is like trying to make safer asbestos. How many real businesses have to fail before policy makers decide to simply ban them?

Similarly, the money markets were exposed as creating systemic risk during the crisis. Apparently, investors in these pools of lending assets that carry no reserve for loss expect to be shielded from losing money while earning a higher return than bank deposits or T-bills. Mr. Bernanke decided they needed to be bailed out to save the system. It is hard to imagine why this structure shouldn't be fixed, either by adding them to the FDIC insurance program and subjecting them to bank regulation, or at least forcing them to stop using $1 net-asset values, which gives their customers the impression that they can't fall in value.

The most constructive aspect of the Geithner reform plan is to separate banking from commerce. This would have the effect of forcing industrial companies to divest big finance subsidiaries, which would have to be regulated as banks. During the bubble, companies like GMAC, AIG Financial Products and GE Capital, with cheap funding supported by inaccurate credit ratings, took enormous unregulated risks. When the crisis hit, GMAC and AIG needed huge federal bailouts. The Federal Reserve set up the Commercial Paper Funding Facility to backstop GE Capital among others, and GE became the largest borrower under the FDIC's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, even though prior to the crisis it wasn't even in the FDIC.

In response to the Geithner proposal, GE immediately let it be known that it had "talked to a number of people in Congress" and it should not have to separate its finance subsidiary because it disingenuously asserted that it hadn't contributed to the crisis. We will see whether the GE special interest is able to stave-off this constructive reform proposal.

Rather than deal with these simple problems with simple, obvious solutions, the official reform plans are complicated, convoluted and designed to only have the veneer of reform while mostly serving the special interests. The complications serve to reduce transparency, preventing the public at large from really seeing the overwhelming influence of the banks in shaping the new regulation.

In dealing with the continued weak economy, our leaders are so determined not to repeat the perceived mistakes of the 1930s that they are risking policies with possibly far worse consequences designed by the same people at the Fed who ran policy with the short-term view that asset bubbles don't matter because the fallout can be managed after they pop. That view created a disaster that required unprecedented intervention for which our leaders congratulated themselves for doing whatever it took to solve. With a sense of mission accomplished, the G-20 proclaimed "it worked."

We are now being told that the most important thing is to not remove the fiscal and monetary support too soon. Christine Romer, a top advisor to the President, argues that we made a great mistake by withdrawing stimulus in 1937.

Just to review, in 1934 GDP grew 17.0%, in 1935 it grew another 11.1%, and in 1936 it grew another 14.3%. Over the period unemployment fell by 30%. That is three years of progress. Apparently, even this would not have been enough to achieve what Larry Summers has called "exit velocity."

Imagine, in our modern market, where we now get economic data on practically a daily basis, living through three years of favorable economic reports and deciding that it would be "premature" to withdraw the stimulus.

An alternative lesson from the double dip the economy took in 1938 is that the GDP created by massive fiscal stimulus is artificial. So whenever it is eventually removed, there will be significant economic fall out. Our choice may be either to maintain large annual deficits until our creditors refuse to finance them or tolerate another leg down in our economy by accepting some measure of fiscal discipline.

This brings me to our present fiscal situation and the current investment puzzle.

Over the next decade the welfare states will come to face severe demographic problems. Baby Boomers have driven the U.S. economy since they were born. It is no coincidence that we experienced an economic boom between 1980 and 2000, as the Boomers reached their peak productive years. The Boomers are now reaching retirement. The Social Security and Medicare commitments to them are astronomical.

When the government calculates its debt and deficit it does so on a cash basis. This means that deficit accounting does not take into account the cost of future promises until the money goes out the door. According to shadowstats.com, if the federal government counted the cost of its future promises, the 2008 deficit was over $5 trillion and total obligations are over $60 trillion. And that was before the crisis.

Over the last couple of years we have adopted a policy of private profits and socialized risks. We are transferring many private obligations onto the national ledger. Although our leaders ought to make some serious choices, they appear too trapped in short-termism and special interests to make them. Taking no action is an action.

In the nearer-term the deficit on a cash basis is about $1.6 trillion or 11% of GDP. President Obama forecasts $1.4 trillion next year, and with an optimistic economic outlook, $9 trillion over the next decade. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research recently published a study that indicated that "by all relevant debt indicators, the U.S. fiscal scenario will soon approximate the economic scenario for countries on the verge of a sovereign debt default."

As we sit here today, the Federal Reserve is propping up the bond market, buying long-dated assets with printed money. It cannot turn around and sell what it has just bought.

There is a basic rule of liquidity. It isn't the same for everyone. If you own 10,000 shares of Greenlight Re, you have a liquid investment. However, if I own 5 million shares it is not liquid to me, because of both the size of the position and the signal my selling would send to the market. For this reason, the Fed cannot sell its Treasuries or Agencies without destroying the market. This means that it will be challenged to shrink the monetary base if inflation actually turns up.

Further, the Federal Open Market Committee members may not recognize inflation when they see it, as looking at inflation solely through the prices of goods and services, while ignoring asset inflation, can lead to a repeat of the last policy error of holding rates too low for too long.

At the same time, the Treasury has dramatically shortened the duration of the government debt. As a result, higher rates become a fiscal issue, not just a monetary one. The Fed could reach the point where it perceives doing whatever it takes requires it to become the buyer of Treasuries of first and last resort.

Japan appears even more vulnerable, because it is even more indebted and its poor demographics are a decade ahead of ours. Japan may already be past the point of no return. When a country cannot reduce its ratio of debt to GDP over any time horizon, it means it can only refinance, but can never repay its debts. Japan has about 190% debt-to-GDP financed at an average cost of less than 2%. Even with the benefit of cheap financing the Japanese deficit is expected to be 10% of GDP this year. At some point, as American homeowners with teaser interest rates have learned, when the market refuses to refinance at cheap rates, problems quickly emerge. Imagine the fiscal impact of the market resetting Japanese borrowing costs to 5%.

Over the last few years, Japanese savers have been willing to finance their government deficit. However, with Japan's population aging, it's likely that the domestic savers will begin using those savings to fund their retirements. The newly elected DPJ party that favors domestic consumption might speed up this development. Should the market re-price Japanese credit risk, it is hard to see how Japan could avoid a government default or hyperinflationary currency death spiral.

The failure of Lehman meant that barring extraordinary measures, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would have failed as the credit market realized that if the government were willing to permit failures, then the cost of financing such institutions needed to be re-priced so as to invalidate their business models.

I believe there is a real possibility that the collapse of any of the major currencies could have a similar domino effect on re-assessing the credit risk of the other fiat currencies run by countries with structural deficits and large, unfunded commitments to aging populations.

I believe that the conventional view that government bonds should be "risk free" and tied to nominal GDP is at risk of changing. Periodically, high quality corporate bonds have traded at lower yields than sovereign debt. That could happen again.

And, of course, these structural risks are exacerbated by the continued presence of credit rating agencies that inspire false confidence with potentially catastrophic results by over-rating the sovereign debt of the largest countries. There is no reason to believe that the rating agencies will do a better job on sovereign risk than they have done on corporate or structured finance risks.

My firm recently met with a Moody's sovereign risk team covering twenty countries in Asia and the Middle East. They have only four professionals covering the entire region. Moody's does not have a long-term quantitative model that incorporates changes in the population, incomes, expected tax rates, and so forth. They use a short-term outlook – only 12-18 months – to analyze data to assess countries' abilities to finance themselves. Moody's makes five-year medium-term qualitative assessments for each country, but does not appear to do any long-term quantitative or critical work.

Their main role, again, appears to be to tell everyone that things are fine, until a real crisis emerges at which point they will pile-on credit downgrades at the least opportune moment, making a difficult situation even more difficult for the authorities to manage.

I can just envision a future Congressional Hearing so elected officials can blame the rating agencies for blowing it, as the rating agencies respond by blaming Congress.

Now, the question for us as investors is how to manage some of these possible risks. Four years ago I spoke at this conference and said that I favored my Grandma Cookie's investment style of investing in stocks like Nike, IBM, McDonalds and Walgreens over my Grandpa Ben's style of buying gold bullion and gold stocks. He feared the economic ruin of our country through a paper money and deficit driven hyper inflation. I explained how Grandma Cookie had been right for the last thirty years and would probably be right for the next thirty as well. I subscribed to Warren Buffett's old criticism that gold just sits there with no yield and viewed gold's long-term value as difficult to assess.

However, the recent crisis has changed my view. The question can be flipped: how does one know what the dollar is worth given that dollars can be created out of thin air or dropped from helicopters? Just because something hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. Yes, we should continue to buy stocks in great companies, but there is room for Grandpa Ben's view as well.

I have seen many people debate whether gold is a bet on inflation or deflation. As I see it, it is neither. Gold does well when monetary and fiscal policies are poor and does poorly when they appear sensible. Gold did very well during the Great Depression when FDR debased the currency. It did well again in the money printing 1970s, but collapsed in response to Paul Volcker's austerity. It ultimately made a bottom around 2001 when the excitement about our future budget surpluses peaked.

Prospectively, gold should do fine unless our leaders implement much greater fiscal and monetary restraint than appears likely. Of course, gold should do very well if there is a sovereign debt default or currency crisis.

A few weeks ago, the Office of Inspector General called out the Treasury Department for misrepresenting the position of the banks last fall. The Treasury's response was an unapologetic expression that amounted to saying that at that point "doing whatever it takes" meant pulling a Colonel Jessup: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" At least we know what we are dealing with.

When I watch Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Geithner and Mr. Summers on TV, read speeches written by the Fed Governors, observe the "stimulus" black hole, and think about our short-termism and lack of fiscal discipline and political will, my instinct is to want to short the dollar. But then I look at the other major currencies. The Euro, the Yen, and the British Pound might be worse. So, I conclude that picking one these currencies is like choosing my favorite dental procedure. And I decide holding gold is better than holding cash, especially now, where both earn no yield.

Along these same lines, we have bought long-dated options on much higher U.S. and Japanese interest rates. The options in Japan are particularly cheap because the historical volatility is so low. I prefer options to simply shorting government bonds, because there remains a possibility of a further government bond rally in response to the economy rolling over again. With options, I can clearly limit how much I am willing to lose, while creating a lot of leverage to a possible rate spiral.

For years, the discussion has been that our deficit spending will pass the costs onto "our grandchildren." I believe that this is no longer the case and that the consequences will be seen during the lifetime of the leaders who have pursued short-term popularity over our solvency. The recent economic crisis and our response has brought forward the eventual reconciliation into a window that is near enough that it makes sense for investors to buy some insurance to protect themselves from a possible systemic event. To slightly modify Alexis de Tocqueville: Events can move from the impossible to the inevitable without ever stopping at the probable.

As investors, we can't change the course of events, but we can attempt to protect capital in the face of foreseeable risks.

Of course, just like MDC, there remains the possibility that I am completely wrong. And, personally, I hope I am. I wonder what Stan Druckenmiller thinks.

Zen Lessons in Market Analysis

John Mauldin — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:46:00 GMT

"Everything, including the market, is ultimately empty of a separate self. One market can only be understood and analyzed in the context of other markets and conditions. Supply and demand, in particular, should not be considered in isolation."

Long time Outside the Box readers are quite familiar with Dr. John Hussman, as he is a frequent choice for this column. But this week I think he has written one of his bests essays ever. He cleverly weaves in quotes from a Zen master who is his friend and gives us a very fresh look at market analysis. This is a thought piece and you should set aside some time to absorb the lessons. You will be well rewarded.

Dr. John Hussman is president of Hussman Investment Trust. You can find out more about the mutual funds he is involved with at http://www.hussmanfunds.com/.

And I recorded three sessions for Yahoo Tech Ticker in New York this morning. You can go to Yahoo and see them. All the best,

Your on the road again analyst,
John Mauldin for Outside the Box

Zen Lessons in Market Analysis

By John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

"The best way of preparing for the future is to take good care of the present, because we know that if the present is made up of the past, then the future will be made up of the present. All we need to be responsible for is the present moment. Only the present is within our reach. To care for the present is to care for the future."

This week's comment is dedicated to my dear friend Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist monk who was born on October 11, 1926, having been born previously in January of that same year, and twice again about 25 years earlier, not to mention countless other times through his ancestors, teachers, and other non-Thich Nhat Hanh elements. Thay (the Vietnamese word for "teacher") would simplify this by saying that today is his eighty-third "continuation day," because to say it is his birthday is not very accurate.

If the quote at the top of this page looks somewhat familiar to our long-term shareholders, it may be because the practice of tending to the present moment – responding to prevailing conditions rather than relying on forecasts – is central to our investment discipline.

Focusing on the present moment doesn't imply ignoring the past or failing to consider the future. It's clear, for example, that we put a great deal of attention on estimating future cash flows and discounting them appropriately in order to evaluate whether various investments are priced to deliver satisfactory long-term returns. We certainly devote our attention to macroeconomic pressures and latent risks that threaten to become full-blown crises later. Still, we rarely make near term forecasts. Nor do we answer surveys like "where do you think the S&P 500 will be at year-end?" – a question that falls entirely outside of our way of thinking – like asking Columbus what sort of trees he thinks are planted along the edge of the Earth. The reason we avoid forecasts, very simply, is that they are not required, and that they can be a hindrance.

Expectations

One of the major debates among investors is between buy-and-hold investing and market timing. Think of the market as a big hat that has both red and green marbles in it, red corresponding to declines, and green corresponding to advances. The buy-and-hold investor essentially believes that it is impossible to predict which color marble will be drawn next, but that on average the marbles will be green. So the buy-and-hold approach simply holds on, regardless of prevailing conditions. The market return expected by a buy-and-hold investor is the "unconditional expected return" – something that has historically been about 10% annually. Let's call this E[R]

In contrast, a forecaster does believe that the next draw can be predicted given some information "X". As that information varies, forecasters will decide to buy or sell. But forecasters typically do something extra. Generally speaking, forecasters are not content with dealing with the present moment, and instead are prone to making bold forecasts about the next month, quarter, year, or even an entire stream of future returns (bull markets and bear markets).

The problem with this, in our view, is that it implicitly assumes that the information set "X" will remain constant. Worse, the size of the forecasts is generally far too large to be rational. A good forecast is most often a humble one.

Robert Hall of Stanford University (also the chair of the NBER Business Cycle Dating Committee that officially dates the beginning and end of recessions) calls this the Iron Law of Econometrics – the variance of a proper forecasting approach will always be smaller than the variance of the actual data. The reason is that if actual returns are equal to expected returns plus a random error,

R = E[R] + e

then a proper forecast is one where the errors are independent of (not correlated with) the expected returns. That means that the variance of actual returns – call it V(R) – must be equal to the variance of your expected returns V(ER) plus the variance of the error terms V(e). As long as there is any forecast error at all, an efficient forecast will always be one where your expected returns are less variable than what actually takes place. Forecasters hate this, because they like to make big, flamboyant predictions about a whole string of events, rather than focusing on the present moment.

Consider that hat full of marbles again. Suppose you are told that 80% of the marbles are green, and that 10 marbles will be drawn (with replacement). If someone asks your forecast, it's very likely that you'll be comfortable predicting that 8 of the marbles will probably be green.

Now suppose the first marble is drawn, and suddenly, someone switches the hat, right in front of you. What happens to your confidence in your forecast? Well, it should collapse, because suddenly you're facing a new X. If the information set X can change, then it is not reasonable to make forecasts that assume that it will be constant over the forecast horizon.

So if we don't want to assume that market returns are simply constant at 10% regardless of valuations or other conditions, and we also don't want to make inefficient forecasts, what is the alternative?

For us, it is to focus on the present moment. We focus on "conditional expected returns" - the return we can expect, given the particular information set X that we have in hand. This is generally written E[R | X]. But unlike forecasters, we recognize that the predictable component of market behavior for any given period is so small, relative to random noise, that making specific forecasts is futile. We take our information set one X at a time, and we rely on discipline and the law of large numbers to mute the impact of that random noise over the long-term.

Specifically, we can go back over history and use observable conditions such as valuations, market action, overbought/oversold status, macroeconomic factors, and so on to separate history into various "bins." Each bin represents a combination of observable conditions occurring together (what I've called "X"). Then we can ask, for every observation in the bin, what was the market return over a short subsequent period like a week or a month. Each bin then can be associated with a particular expected return and risk profile. Our basic practice is to align our investment position with the set of conditions that we observe at each moment, and to shift our position as the evidence shifts.

Rather than treating the next week, month, quarter or year as a horizon that demands a specific "forecast," we simply treat each realization as part of a "repeated game," and rely on the law of large numbers – that is, the idea that if we follow our discipline period after period after period, over time our inevitable errors will average out, and our long-term results will be largely what we expect. The best way to take good care of the future is to take good care of the present moment.

But isn't E[R | X] a forecast?

One might object that by aligning our investment position with the average return/risk profile associated with a given set of conditions, we must, by definition, be forecasting. This is true in the sense that we do have some expectation that market returns under a given set of conditions will be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, given the risks involved. But we differ from "forecasters" in recognizing that the expected return E[R | X] for any short period of time is overwhelmed several times over by the conditional error term "u". It is only over many, many repetitions that the error terms dampen out.

This is a property that statisticians call "consistency." Specifically, if a process is consistent, then as you increase the number of observations some random outcome, the average value of your observations will tend toward the true "population" average.

[Geek's Note: If R = E[R | X] + u, then over N repetitions, the standard deviation of the average error is the standard deviation of the actual error terms, divided by the square root of N. So if your conditional error terms tend to have a mean of zero, plus or minus 2.5% on a weekly basis, you would expect that over 100 weeks, your average error would be zero, with a standard deviation of about 0.25%. Over a full market cycle, you will have made a lot of individual mistakes in your investment position, but as long as your errors are not systematic, the combination of discipline and the law of large numbers will work strongly in your favor. Your results will be largely as you expected despite the fact that you made lots of individual errors along the way].

This is basically the dynamic at work when you sail a boat. If you hop into a sailboat and start across Lake Michigan, it is not particularly helpful to make predictions about the direction and speed of the wind over your entire journey. Much better to align your sails as those conditions change, making numerous modest errors, but getting across the lake.

Inquiry

"Suppose the mind consciousness is observing an elephant walking. During the time of observation, the object of mind consciousness may not be the elephant in and of itself. It may only be a mental construction of the elephant based on previous images of elephants that have been imprinted in store consciousness.

"Inquiry means not using the mental creation, but allowing yourself to get in touch, and to try to see how things truly are. We practice not to be influenced by the name, because when we are caught in the name we can't see reality."

Thich Nhat Hanh

It is important that we don't place so much emphasis on "average outcomes" that we ignore the facts about particular instances. We still have to look carefully at reality to make sure that we aren't assuming away particular features that are important.

This is a risk that market participants seem to be taking here in a major way. Specifically, we have seen a great number of research reports with the basic thesis of "The recession is over. Here is how the market (or the economy, or employment, etc) has performed after a recession is over." The difficulty is that these are basically attempts to say "here is an elephant" and then immediately move to describing elephants in general, when in fact, this particular elephant is very likely to be pink, or white. Specifically, valuations here are far different than they have been at the beginning of the typical economic expansion. Moreover, economic expansions have historically always been paced by rapid expansion in debt-financed classes of expenditure such as housing, capital spending, and sustained (not just one-off cash for clunkers) demand for automobiles. In prior recoveries, debt-financed expenditures have turned up quickly and have typically led other classes of expenditure by nearly a year.

If we want to see things as they truly are, we have to look both at the elephant, and at anything that might set this particular elephant apart. With regard to the investment markets, if we suspect that the particular features of the present situation make things "different" than they have been historically, then it is best to look closely and get more data.

As an example, during the late 1990's, it was often argued that technological innovation had changed the economy so profoundly that the market valuations of the time were actually reasonable, if not incredibly attractive (remember Dow 35,000?). So we had to open ourselves to the possibility that things were different in an important way. But when we actually looked at the data, there was simply no historical example – in any productivity spurt since the Industrial Revolution – that could support the sort of growth rates that were implicitly priced into stocks.

When we look at the current market environment today, it is clear that the enthusiasm about the market here is largely based on the idea that the recent recession is over, and that the economy will form a "V" shaped recovery similar, but much stronger quantitatively, to standard post-war recoveries. This is a very difficult argument to make, because the drivers of economic growth that existed in typical economic recoveries – particularly debt origination and consumption growth – are very compromised at present. Our perspective on the ongoing credit risk in the economy is much like that of economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, who foresaw the recent financial crisis, and are far less sanguine about the prospects for sustained recovery.

As I've discussed in several weekly comments, this is a subject that I have struggled with in recent months. Even if we could assume that the recent crisis was a standard post-war downturn, and that we are now in a standard post-war recovery, valuations would still concern us because at these levels, stocks are not priced to deliver satisfactory long-term returns in any event. However, we would have a greater willingness to take a moderate speculative exposure based on market action and prospects for sustained economic improvement. On the other hand, when we include other post-crash periods into our data set, and allow for the possibility that those instances better describe present conditions, the case for accepting speculative exposure is much more limited. Of specific concern is the tendency in those periods for strong advances (as we've seen in recent months) to be followed by spectacular failures.

So we have to be very careful about how we name things. When people label stocks as being in a "bull market," the implicit suggestion is that stocks will continue to advance for a sustained period of time. When people say that the recession has ended and we're now in a "recovery," the temptation is to look at how the market has performed in previous recoveries, without noting the profound differences between those instances and the current environment.

As Thay says, "We practice not to be influenced by the name, because when we are caught in the name, we can't see reality." The picture in our head can be very influenced by the words we attach to it.

As Zig Ziglar says, "You can tell your wife that she looks like the first day of spring, or you can tell her that she looks like the last day of a long, hard winter. There is a difference."

Koans

In Zen, there is a teaching tool known as a "koan" – a question that serves as the object of meditation, and is intended to reveal something about teachings like mindfulness and interconnectedness. Western observers sometimes mistake these for riddles, non-sequiturs, or nonsensical statements, but if you look at them carefully, they are questions or stories intended to prompt the listener to see things as they really are.

A riddle is something like this:

Q: "How does a Zen monk know his pizza is enlightened?"
A: "It's one with everything."

Here is a koan:

A novice monk approaches his teacher and asks, "Is this a bull market or a bear market?"
The teacher replies, "If it is a warm day, and I say that it is winter, will you still wear your heaviest coat?"

Causes and Conditions

"This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not."

Buddha

"The seed and the fruit are not two different things. The fruit is already contained in the seed. It's waiting for different conditions in order to be able to manifest. The fruit doesn't have a separate existence; it's a formation. Using the word "formation" reminds us that there is no separate existence in it. There is only a coming together of many, many conditions. "

Thich Nhat Hanh

When we think about events, either in our daily lives, or in the market or the economy, it is important that we don't think of them as simply existing or coming out of nowhere. This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not. We cannot create or remove a condition, expect it to emerge or expect it to disappear, without understanding the seed that produces it, and the causes and conditions that allow it to spring up.

Generally speaking, the seed we water is the one that grows. That's why if we spend our energy thinking about what we don't want, what we don't like, what is wrong – we'll tend to nurture and strengthen exactly the wrong things. If we water the seeds of peace, understanding, empathy, happiness, and so on, those are the seeds that will grow.

The basic condition for anything to emerge is for the seed to exist. But that is not enough. The seeds of a bear market are often fully present in the later stages of a bull market – overvaluation, excessive speculation, acceptance of risk without sufficient compensation, extension of credit to poor credit risks, belief in the sustained growth of cyclical businesses, overconfidence, and so forth.

But in order to manifest as a flower, or a weed, or as fruit, other conditions have to be present. Buddhists distinguish two kinds – "same direction" and "opposing direction."

Conditions in the opposing direction tend to hold back the manifestation of the seed, but can also force it to become stronger before it manifests. If you plant a seed in firmer soil, the roots may be forced to dig deeper in order to establish themselves and find water, whereas a seed in easier soil may grow more quickly but have weaker foundations, so it can be uprooted easily. Conditions in the same direction are those like water and sunlight, which provide the background environment necessary for the seed to grow.

Some of our best investment insights have been driven by this focus on causes and conditions. These often take the form of "Aunt Minnies" – sets of conditions that may not mean much by themselves, but have very strong implications when they occur together (a person may have one feature or another, but if you have just the right combination, you know it's Aunt Minnie). These include, for example, the conditions I noted in A Who's Who of Awful Times to Invest, and our recession warning composite. To find Aunt Minnies, we look for a seed, identify conditions in the opposing direction (if any) that have made the seed strong, and then look for conditions in the same direction that are capable of bringing the seed to fruition.

Many of my concerns about the markets in recent years have emerged because too often, financial market participants and policy makers focus on manifestations rather than causes and conditions. This is why investors produced the dot-com bubble, the tech bubble, the mortgage bubble, the debt-financed private equity bubble and the commodity bubble without thinking of the seeds of crisis that were latently emerging, or how violently they would manifest. Our policy makers have bailed out poorly run financials by creating massive federal deficits, and think they've solved the problem in the same way as someone who runs over a weed with the lawnmower. The roots have simply grown deeper, because the seeds are still there, but we've applied a few conditions in the opposing direction. Those of you who have read these missives for a long time know that my geopolitical views are largely the same. This is, because that is. This is not, because that is not.

We can have an overvalued market and the seeds of a bear market, but if we apply opposing conditions in the form of easy money in order to prop up the market and prevent the consequences of bad behavior, the seed will simply grow stronger, and its ultimate manifestation will be more powerful. We can have a mortgage market that is setting new records for delinquencies and foreclosures every month, combined with increasing unemployment and a heavy reset schedule on Alt-A's and option-ARMs that is just now picking up. But we lower the bar on financial reporting, fail to restructure debt, and ignore the strengthening seed because we're single-mindedly enthusiastic about the thin-rooted green shoots of stabilization – born solely of a burst of fiscal profligacy – then we'll predictably be blindsided when the problems re-emerge.

Predictably blindsided. That's happened again and again in recent years. And it happens when we fail to think about the seeds we are watering. If we look only for fruit and ignore the seeds of crisis, then every bit of fruit will be followed by crisis, and nobody will understand why.

Interbeing

"As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it."

Thich Nhat Hanh

If you look closely at a sheet of paper, you can see the clouds, the rain, the soil, the sunshine, the mill, the truck, and so forth, because without these things, there would be no sheet of paper. In Buddhist terms, the paper is "empty" and has no self. That doesn't mean that the paper is not there, but rather that the paper is made entirely of non-paper elements. Empty of self means full of everything non-self.

There's a phrase alambana pratiyaya – which means that object and subject are always born together. The idea of interbeing is that nothing has a separate existence – that each thing is connected to the others. It's an inherently peaceful way of thinking, because it recognizes that we are all made of the same substance, that to take care of others is to take care of ourselves, and that we can only understand something if we understand the context that surrounds it.

So here's a koan – "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

If you think about it as a riddle, you'll keep looking for the punch line. But the koan is really about encouraging the listener to consider the true nature of things. Nothing is possible in the absence of interbeing. Subject and object must occur together or nothing manifests at all.

Here's another one – "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Our immediate impulse is to think, of course it makes a sound. But look more carefully. If a tree falls, it certainly will make the air move, but what is sound? Sound is the interpretation that our brains give to those air vibrations. If we are not there, the air vibrates, but is the experience of sound there? One might think, but wait, we could put a microphone there in the forest. But what is the microphone picking up? The air vibrations. If we play that recording on a video monitor with no speakers, you'll see visual images, but no sound. In order to get sound, you have to have speakers, and the speakers simply take the recorded signals and turn them back into air vibrations, which become what we call "sound" when there is a brain to interpret them. Subject and object have to occur together.

So here's another koan – "If a share of stock is sold in a forest, and nobody is around to buy it, does it still generate a fill?"

The immediate implication of interbeing is that we are forced to think about "general equilibrium" rather than imagining that one side of a trade can exist without the other. This immediately clarifies all sorts of misconceptions that we could fall victim to if we aren't careful.

For example, it immediately tells us that "cash on the sidelines" is not a useful concept, except as a measure of issuance. See, whatever "cash" is there on the sidelines exists because government has created paper money, or the Treasury has issued bills, or because companies have issued commercial paper. Until those securities are actually physically retired, they will and must remain "on the sidelines" because somebody will have to hold them.

If Mickey wants to sell his money market fund to buy stocks, the money market fund has to sell commercial paper to Nicky, whose cash goes to Mickey, who uses it to buy stocks from Ricky. In the end, the commercial paper Mickey used to have is now held by Nicky. The cash that Nicky used to have is now held by Ricky, and the stock that Ricky used to have is now held by Mickey. There is exactly the same amount of "cash on the sidelines" after this transaction as there was before it.

Similarly, money never moves "into" or "out of" a secondary market, or from one sector to another. If I bring $1 "into" the stock market, that same dollar goes back "out" a moment later in the hands of a seller. If it did not, there would be no trade, no fill.

We can talk about differences in eagerness or in pressure as moving stock prices. But we cannot talk about money going in or money going out. We cannot talk about supply being greater than demand or vice versa. In equilibrium, the two must be equal.

One of the most useful ways of interpreting price and volume behavior is this: if something makes a given trader want to buy, the price must move in a way that either removes that impulse or induces another trader to sell. There is no other option.

Here's another koan:

A novice monk approaches his teacher and asks "What is the price movement of one share being bought?"

The teacher holds out a cypress leaf in his palm and asks, "Did I catch the leaf as it fell from the tree, or did I raise it from the ground?"

We are used to thinking that the act of buying necessarily implies rising prices. But think about this for a second. In either case, the teacher gets the cypress leaf. What makes the difference so far as direction is concerned is where the pressure is coming from. If the cypress leaf is being offered down by gravity, it is caught on a decline. If the leaf is being lifted by the teacher, it is caught on an advance. Remember that. It is easy to get trapped in wrong thinking by people who talk about "cash on the sidelines" or talk about "investors" buying or selling in aggregate.

There was no excess of stock that was "sold" in March that has to be "bought" back now. Investors didn't "get out" of the market last year, and we shouldn't think that they have to "come into" the market now. Every share that was sold was bought. That has been true for every minute of every trading day since the beginning of the financial markets.

Prices and Volume

A good way to think about prices and trading volume is to abandon the idea that money goes in or out, and to think instead about the market as a collection of various groups. Imagine there being fundamental investors, who are interested primarily in value (buying on weakness and selling on strength), and technical investors, who are interested primarily in trends (selling on weakness and buying on strength). These people also trade on different horizons and base their trading on different extent of movement.

In this sort of equilibrium, trading volume is a measure of strong views and disagreement. As the market turns weaker, trend-following investors typically abandon stocks, while fundamental investors accumulate. The reverse is true on significant strength. So spikes in trading volume tend to occur primarily at extremes relative to the target prices of fundamental investors. Volume spikes also tend to be correlated with a series of positive or negative shocks that then abate. In contrast, dull volume is a measure of low sponsorship, strong agreement, and lack of external shocks.

Equally important is that net incipient buying from both technical and fundamental investors cannot exist, so large price movements are typically required to relieve the disequilibrium. If you've got an overvalued market which then loses technical support, the outcome can be extremely negative, because technical investors are prompted to sell, but fundamental investors have weak sponsorship at that point, so large price declines are required to induce the fundamental investors to absorb the supply.

In contrast, if you've got an undervalued market where fundamental investors raise their outlook, the demand from fundamental investors is not typically provided by technical investors (who would tend instead to buy on advances in price), so the price must increase enough to induce fundamental investors with shorter horizons to supply the stock.

All of these dynamics have been active in the market over the past two years, but the most significant outlier has clearly been the past few months, where volume behavior has demonstrated much weaker sponsorship than we would have expected for an advance of this size. Normally, the volume characteristics we've seen have been much more typical of short-squeezes and less durable advances.

Presently, my primary concern is that stocks are now overvalued, to about the same extent as they were in the late 1960's, and just prior to the 1987 crash, but certainly less overvalued than they were at the 2000 or 2007 peaks. Our 10-year total return projection for the S&P 500 is centered modestly above 6% annually, even if one assumes that the long-term path of earnings has been unchanged by the events of recent years. If we assume that the economy will require a much longer period to recover than has been typical of post-war recessions, the prospects for long-term returns are lower, but we don't need to assume this in order to be concerned about valuation here. (The green, orange, yellow and red lines imply terminal price/peak earnings multiples of 20, 14, 11 and 7 a decade from now. The dark blue line charts actual annual total returns over the subsequent decade).

Though rich valuations and a fresh overbought condition last week argue for tepid returns going forward, my expectation is that strong downward pressure would be most likely if market internals deteriorate somewhat – particularly in terms of breadth. Again, if technical investors are prompted to sell in an environment where sponsorship from fundamental investors is weak, large price changes may be required to relieve the disequilibrium.

A quick summary

Present moment, only moment. Sound investment does not require forecasts. It is enough to align the investment position with the prevailing, observable evidence.

Labels can help to classify, but they can also obscure truth. There is no quantitative substitute for mindfulness. That said, if "this time is different," one should be able to find appropriate parallels using a sufficiently broad set of historical or international data.

The seed and the fruit are not two different things – significant market moves are generally the fruit of causes and conditions that latently precede them.

Everything, including the market, is ultimately empty of a separate self. One market can only be understood and analyzed in the context of other markets and conditions. Supply and demand, in particular, should not be considered in isolation.

Finally, Thay would add something more, which is to breathe, bring yourself back to the present moment, and recognize that even the smallest, simplest thing can be the basic condition for your happiness.

"If you touch one thing with deep awareness, you touch everything."

The China Files (Special Project): Real Estate

John Mauldin — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:46:00 GMT

Today I offer you an insightful look at China's real estate market - a "burgeoning bubble" that deserves a close eye as the possibility for breaking increases. Remember the chaos in Japan after their own housing dreamscape got violently yanked back to earth? As investors, we have to recognize opportunities - and know what to avoid. With a global economic crisis - and now surging housing prices in China - investors in any global market need to keep watch on political and economic developments around the world.

Today's analysis comes courtesy my friends at STRATFOR, a global intelligence company. They provide unique and on-the-money analysis and forecasts on all things global, essential for any alternative investment strategy. They've got a free newsletter as well, for which I encourage you to sign up by clicking here - so you're not limited to my caprice.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

The China Files (Special Project): Real Estate

October 13, 2009 | 1149 GMT

Summary

The real estate market in China, particularly the residential side, is a burgeoning bubble that is growing bigger and more breakable by the day. Land and housing prices were already rising steadily when Beijing's stimulus package hit the sector in early 2009. Now prices are surging, with developers, bureaucrats and investors cashing in while urban Chinese - once encouraged to invest in home ownership by the central government - become less and less able to buy.

Editor's Note: This analysis is part of a series that explores China's industry, finance and statistics.

Analysis

Origins of the Bubble

Since 1978, China's pace of urbanization has increased dramatically, with the number of middle-size and large cities (those having nonagricultural populations of more than 200,000) growing rapidly. Beginning in 1985, economic reforms implemented in urban areas to make China's planned economy more market-oriented added even more momentum to the real estate boom, with real estate investment increasing by 71 percent by 1987. The government's macroeconomic policy of monetary belt-tightening helped cool this overheated market, which was further tempered by the government's continuing to provide housing for state employees (fu li fen fang, or "welfare housing").

However, when the state significantly cut back on its welfare housing program in 1998, the Chinese perception of personal property changed, and this would have an important impact on the real estate sector. The government began this privatization process by making a private dwelling a "commodity" and granting the purchaser the right to own a newly built house for 70 years. (Likewise, the developer who buys the property on which residential or commercial buildings are to be constructed may own that property for 70 years.) Home ownership in China could now be a sound financial investment.

Thus, the residential real estate market would boom in almost every urban area in China - and particularly in the "first-tier" and "second-tier" cities (only Beijing, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Shanghai are in the first tier, with more than 20 cities, and mostly provincial capitals or coastal ports are in the second tier). But rising land prices would eventually put housing prices out of reach for the general public. In Dongguan, a coastal second-tier city in Guangdong province, land prices averaged 4,957 yuan ($726.42) per square meter in 2007, a more than 500 percent increase from 2003, while personal disposable income increased 24 percent during the same period (from 20,526 yuan [$3,008] to 27,025 yuan [$3,960] per year).

A 2006 survey conducted by the National Development and Reform Commission showed that the average ratio between housing prices and income was approaching 12:1 in many large and middle-size cities in China (in Beijing it had reached 27:1). Twelve to one is significantly higher than the World Bank's suggested affordability ratio of 5:1 and the United Nations' 3:1. The problem was compounded by the fact that, of the more than 80 percent of Chinese who owned their own homes in urban areas (generally considered cities with populations of more than 20,000), 54.1 percent were making monthly mortgage payments that constituted 20 percent to 50 percent of their monthly incomes.

The Recovery Bubble

Following a temporary drop toward the end of 2007, land prices rose steadily, then began surging again with Beijing's stimulus package and a flood of easy credit in 2009. With much of this money flowing into the real estate sector, major beneficiaries included large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) involved in speculative real estate and housing investment, contributing to the inflating bubble. Among the 10 highest-priced land purchases in major cities in the first half of 2009, 60 percent went to SOEs.

Paradoxically, as the global financial crisis continues, China sees little choice but to loosen its monetary policy even further, fearing the opposite would curtail economic growth and result in massive unemployment, which could lead to social instability. Beijing knows that one of the country's underlying economic problems continues to be an overheated real estate market, but it also knows that the real long-term solution - limiting the flow of cash and credit - could have dire socio-economic ramifications. Meanwhile, real estate developers, government officials and investors continue to speculate on real estate, raising land and housing prices.

As housing prices continue to rise, a parallel trend is manifesting itself - rising vacancy rates in urban areas. A 2009 report by the Shanghai Yiju Real Estate Research Institute revealed that, by the end of 2008, the average vacancy rate for "commodity housing" (as opposed to welfare housing) in Beijing was 16.64 percent, and vacancies reached as high as 30 percent in some districts. Most of these vacant houses, however, are not unsold ones. They have been purchased by investors as speculative investments. While there are fewer and fewer ordinary people who can afford to buy houses, there is still excessive demand for investment housing - pressure that continues to drive up the prices.

This closed loop in the Chinese real estate market is facilitated by the country's political and bureaucratic system. In China, all land is initially owned by the state, and local governments have the sole authority to sell it. And income from property taxes and land sales are a primary source of revenue for local jurisdictions. According to estimates by the State Council's Development and Research Center, tax revenue from the land in some jurisdictions accounts for 40 percent of the local budget. Moreover, net income from land sales accounts for more than 60 percent of the local governments' extra-budgetary revenue. The soft budget and lack of accountability to the people reinforces the local governments' incentive to expand their real estate investments without much concern for cost or impact on public services.

Economic performance also is the prime prerequisite for bureaucratic advancement, which gives local officials the incentive to generate as much revenue as possible through land auctions. And this generally involves a level of collusion - and corruption - among government officials, real estate developers and investors.

One typical strategy is for a developer to buy a big chunk of urban land from the local government but leave the land undeveloped, or build on only a small portion of it, thereby keeping the housing supply limited. Despite various state policies to lower land prices in order to make homes more affordable, local government officials and real estate developers control the land auctions. When a lower sale price is dictated from above, it is easy enough for the local sponsors to officially deem the auction a failure. Even when the developer does build houses on the property, a speculative investor, working hand in hand with the developer and government officials, can bribe both parties to ensure that he can buy all the houses at a low volume price and keep them off the market, thereby maintaining a limited supply and high prices.

Another factor that enters the equation is a cultural one. The Chinese people generally prefer to buy new houses, as opposed to renting homes or buying secondary houses in which people have already lived. Indeed, in urban areas, marriage proposals often include a promise to buy a new commodity house. As a result, the secondary housing market remains very small in comparison (due also to fewer available bank loans for lived-in houses and the complicated process involved in transferring ownership).

All of these factors contribute to the burgeoning real estate bubble - and make it difficult to predict when that bubble will burst. With 70 percent of real estate investment in China coming from bank loans, a dramatic drop in land values could send shock waves throughout the economy. There are already signs of decline. In Shenzhen, one of China's first-tier cities, real estate prices have been dropping for the past two years (30 percent for housing), and many developers and speculators have suffered great losses. The threat looms in other large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai and may be emerging in many second-tier cities as well.

Given the current global economy and the economic balancing act it must maintain domestically, Beijing has few good choices. It must keep enough cash flowing to maintain economic growth and social stability in the short term while tightening credit to avoid a tsunami of bad loans and a market collapse over the long term. Certainly, Beijing does not want to face the kind of collapse in the housing market that Japan experienced in the 1990s, which triggered a financial crisis and more than a decade of economic malaise.

But in China's real estate, as in most sectors of this vast and complex land, implementing and enforcing prudent regulation has never been an easy task

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

John Mauldin — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:32:18 GMT

I look forward at the beginning of every quarter to receiving the Quarterly Outlook from Hoisington Investment Management. They have been prominent proponents of the view that deflation is the problem, stemming from a variety of factors, and write about their views in a very clear and concise manner. This quarter's letter is no exception, where they once again delve into the history books to bring up fresh and relevant lessons for today. This is a must read piece.

Hoisington Investment Management Company (www.hoisingtonmgt.com) is a registered investment advisor specializing in fixed income portfolios for large institutional clients. Located in Austin, Texas, the firm has over $4-billion under management, composed of corporate and public funds, foundations, endowments, Taft-Hartley funds, and insurance companies. And now let's jump right in to the essay.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

Ponzi Finance

The Federal Reserve reported that as of June 30, 2009 total U.S. debt was $52.8 trillion. Total U.S. debt includes government, corporate and consumer debt. Importantly, however, it does not include a few trillion in "off balance sheet" financing, contingent unfunded pension plans for corporate and state and local governments, or unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government for such items as Medicare, Social Security and other programs. Currently GDP stands at $14.2 trillion, so there is approximately $3.73 in debt for every dollar of output in the United States, a level unprecedented in our history (Chart 1). Normally, debt levels as a percent of GDP would be uninteresting and immaterial; however, the current level of debt is unique in two ways. First, the asset side of the balance sheet purchased by the debt is falling in price. Second, the money that was borrowed to purchase those assets was often fraudulently expended. Neither the borrower nor the lender really expected the debt to be serviced. Rather, each party expected the asset price to rise extinguishing the debt.

This type of financial arrangement was correctly analyzed by the famous American economist Hyman Minsky in his paper, "Financial Instability Hypothesis", in which he described three phases of debt financing. The first is "hedge finance", where the lender expects a return on both principal and interest. The second is "speculative finance" where the lender expects to get interest on the loan but perhaps not the principal. The third case, where the lender expects neither the principal nor interest to be returned, is referred to as "ponzi finance". This was typified in the last business cycle by loans issued without documentation, no down payment home loans, extremely low cap rates on commercial real estate, and the high leverage borrowing ratio of private equity funds. Even ponzi finance works as long as asset prices are rising. But once the bubble is pricked, the debtor is left with declining asset values that preclude the rollover of their obligations.

Presently, in this worst of all post-war recessions we are witnessing the collapse of asset prices that were inflated by the speculation of earlier years. The aftermath of that speculation and its impact on the economy has been thoroughly studied prior to our present business cycle by the economists of yesteryear who marveled at the mania in the collective mindset of private citizens and their elected representatives who produced such bubbles. The most famous of these economists was Irving Fisher (1867-1947), who in 1933 wrote about this problem of over-indebtedness (Irving Fisher, 1933, Econometrica, "The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions"). He stated flatly that over-indebtedness was the difference between normal business cycles (recessions), which occur frequently through "over-production, inventory misjudgment, or commodity price fluctuations" and extreme business cycle fluctuations (depressions). Based on his analysis of the great depressions of 1837, 1873, and 1929 he outlined a pattern of economic developments that will take place when the debt cycle is broken. Seemingly old news, but it is interesting to apply his sequence of events to today's economic developments as there are disturbing similarities.

A Downward Spiral

Fisher posited that debt liquidation leads to distress selling, contracting bank deposits and declining velocity of money, all of which contribute to the fall in price levels. This accurately describes today's circumstances. Distress selling is rampant, with home foreclosures reaching all-time highs. Additionally, rapidly rising foreclosures in commercial real estate are causing the closing of financial institutions and the liquidation of their portfolios. Money supply (M2), an imperfect measure of bank deposits, is essentially flat over the last six months even though the monetary base is 100% higher than it was a year ago (Chart 2). Further, the velocity of M2 has contracted at a 12.7% rate over the past two years. The Personal Consumption Expenditure Deflator (goods purchased by consumers) has fallen from a 2.7% growth rate 12 months ago to a yearly increase of only 1.3% presently, and appears to be heading for a zero reading in 2010. GDP has recorded its greatest contraction since the 1930's, and probably is not yet at its lowest level for this cycle.

Fisher then noticed that this distress selling would lead to a fall in the net worth of businesses, a decline in profits, and a reduction in employment. Fisher may have been talking about 1929 and the 1800's, but that is precisely our present situation. Despite a 19% gain in stock prices this year, the S&P 500 has declined about 30% from its peak and stands lower than it was a decade earlier. Corporate profits are down approximately 13% on a year over year basis, and in 2008 S&P 500 profits fell for the first time since 1933. The net worth of hundreds of banks and other large corporations has fallen below zero, with some surviving only because of a massive rescue effort by the federal government. Despite these efforts, consumer net worth has fallen, price levels of homes are down about 30% from their peak levels, and business net worth has been impaired by an almost 39% decline in commercial real estate from its peak levels. Industrial production is down 13.3% since its peak, the largest 20 month decline in the post war period (Chart 3). Including potential revisions, the U.S. has lost eight million jobs in this recession, and currently 17% of the labor force is either underemployed, partially employed, or out of work seeking employment.

Fisher seems to be not so historical as prescient. He states that all the above problems create disturbances in the rate of interest, particularly the fall of nominal money rates and the rise of real interest rates. The federal funds rate is now effectively zero, and yet with the steady downward movement in price indices, real interest rates are rising. This, of course, is of concern to debtors.

The uncomfortable conclusion of Fisher's analysis is that major business cycle fluctuations are, in fact, caused by over-indebtedness and the fall in asset prices. Our present situation appears to mirror the exact sequence of events that have occurred in previous depressions. This suggests that our current "great recession" may morph into a more serious and elongated downward business cycle.

The Impossible Promise

The federal government's promise to extricate the U.S. economy from this recession involves more spending (increasing public debt) and more subsidies for consumers, such as car rebates and home buying incentives (more private debt). In other words, more debt is supposed to solve the problem of over-indebtedness. The truth is that this policy merely indentures its citizens further without providing any income for repayment of debt. In previous letters we have discussed the fact that the government spending multiplier is zero (read Professor Robert Barro's book, Macroeconomics - a Modern Approach, p. 370). This means there is no long term income benefit from stimulus programs. According to the latest academic research, the most recent $800 billion stimulus plan will boost economic activity in the short run, but will surely depress economic activity over time. The government problem is complicated by the fact that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that a 1% change in taxes will change GDP by about 3% over time. More recent research (Barro & Redlick, September 2009, "NBER Working Paper 15369") suggests that a 1% cut in the marginal tax rate would raise GDP in the ensuing year by 0.6%. With the deficit rising due to a zero spending multiplier, the tendency will be to try to raise taxes to pay for this higher level of expenditures, which will further depress aggregate spending and output.

From a fiscal policy perspective the outlook for economic growth appears to be one of stagnation for several years due to the size of the federal debt, which is expected to rise 35.7% from 2008 levels to 76.5% of GDP over the next ten years according to the Office of Management and Budget (Chart 4). This exercise in government spending is, of course, an exact replica of the Japanese experience from 1989 to the present. Their debt to GDP ratios have gone from about 50% in 1988 to about 178% today, and yet their nominal GDP is no higher than it was 17 years ago, and their employment stands at twenty year ago levels. It is somewhat unsettling that as of the last employment report the United States employed 131 million people, a level that was first reached in 2000, which means the United States has had no net job gains for almost ten years. Indeed, it appears that the fiscal chain around the free market neck is sufficiently onerous to restrain growth for several years. The promise of the government to revive growth through increased indebtedness is, indeed, an impossible promise.

The Hesitant Fed

As Fisher stated, the write-down of debt and distress selling tends to destroy money deposits and lower the velocity of money. Despite the historical evidence of that fact, our current Fed authorities appear to be oblivious to the lessons of the past. Their initial reaction to the liquidity crisis has to be applauded for their heavy work in insuring the liquidity of the financial system. Similarly, the expansion of their bank balance sheet to $2.1 trillion from $1 trillion was the precise reaction needed to counter the emerging deflation of asset prices. However, their actions increased inflationary expectations, and they have encountered a plethora of critics. In responding to this criticism the most recent statistics suggests they are beginning to lose the fight against the deflationary impulses. Consider that the monetary base rose 1000% in the three months ending December 2008, but has been held essentially flat since then (Chart 5).

The Fed's purchases of assets to increase this base automatically created deposits that positively charged the money supply growth to a 15.2% six-month growth rate (Chart 2). If the economy were operating near full capacity, a healthy banking system would take these deposits and multiply them roughly nine times; that circumstance could be inflationary. Unfortunately the banking system is not healthy, as evidenced by the fact that we have closed 95 banks this year, more than the cumulative total of the past 15 years, and another 416 banks are on a list destined to become extinct. With consumers' asset prices falling so rapidly and banks increasingly afraid of failure, banks are more interested in collecting loans than in lending. So with fewer consumers now credit worthy, loan volumes are collapsing. As loans are paid off, deposits are destroyed, and the money multiplier that should stand at nine has gone to zero. This is evidenced by the fact that the six-month change in M2 has fallen to a 1% growth rate, meaning that monetary stimulus is on hold. Get set for negative GDP in 2010.

Dollar Weakness

The inflation outlook from the monetary and fiscal standpoint looks truly deflationary, yet some believe that dollar weakness will reverse this circumstance and create inflation. This is unlikely. First, our imports are about 13% of GDP, and even if the dollar were to halve in value, the price of imported goods would not only have to compete with U.S. producers, but also their price adjustment would have to offset the other 87% of factors included in the pricing indices. Second, unlike the 1930's a 50% decline in the dollar would be difficult to engineer. Fisher recommended to Roosevelt that the U.S. should exit the gold standard, which he did in April of 1933. That was a fixed exchange rate system, and within three months the dollar lost more than 30% against the gold block countries and fell to 60% of its former value within the next five months. This spurred our exports and provided some price inflation (2.9% per year, GDP deflator) for the next four years. Then, in 1937 the tax increases (the next policy mistake) reversed the positive growth rate of the economy and drove price levels and economic activity downward again. However, even with that small period of price increases the overall price level never recovered from the 25% decline that occurred from 1929 to 1933, and thus deflation reigned. Today the declining dollar is a good thing in terms of our trade balance, but the modest change will be insufficient to offset the negative forces of insufficient domestic demand.

Next year the core GDP deflator will fall to zero, with the possibility of negative levels. Likewise, long-term interest rates, which are highly sensitive to inflation, will continue to move toward lower levels. As stated in previous letters, we see no reason why longer dated Treasury interest rates will not mirror those of Japan, which provides a modern signpost for a deflationary environment. Currently the Japanese ten-year note stands at 1.3% with their thirty-year bond yielding 2.1%.

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

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

John Mauldin — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:05:00 GMT

We all know that a large wave of Baby Boomers in the US are approaching retirement. But what about the rest of the world? And what happens when those retirees need to spend out of savings? There is more than just a credit crisis and a government deficit crisis in our future. A rising level of retirrees to workers is happening even as I write. And the US is not, for once, the center of the problem. As this week's writer of your Outside the Box Niels Jensen explains, we cannot all export our way out of the problem. There is a global adjustment that must happen and when it does, it will have serious consequences for all. This week's letter is guaranteed to make you think. Set aside a few minutes to do so.

Niels Jensen is the Senior Partner of Absolute Return Partners based in London. I have worked closely with Niels for years and have found him to be one of the more savvy observers of the markets I know. You can see more of his work at www.arpllp.com and contact them at info@arpllp.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

A Country for Old Men and a Bit of Samba

The Absolute Return Letter October 2009

The Man Card

"Excuse me Sir, can I see your Man Card?" The stone-faced look of the security guard at Dallas Fort Worth Airport gave nothing away and, after two days of celebrating John Mauldin's 60th, my brain was probably operating somewhat below full capacity. "I need to see your Man Card Sir". Couldn't he just go away, I thought to myself, not really sure how to deal with the situation. Suddenly his face cracked wide open and in the broadest possible Texas drawl he said: "With those pink socks on Sir, I need to make sure you are a man". Welcome to Dallas!

The highlight of the weekend was a two hour roundtable discussion on Saturday afternoon where John had asked 15 of his friends and business associates to share with the group what their fears and hopes were for the next 15-20 years. I duly noted that the issues on the minds of our American friends are not at all dissimilar to what we worry about in Europe – our children's welfare, unemployment, immigration, racism, the impact of technology and the aging of our society to mention but a few.

This month's letter is about demographics and is the second in our series about major trends defining the future of the world we live in. Last month I wrote about the energy outlook, and I had an unusually high number of emails commenting on the letter. Many of them made the point that the world is in better shape than I seem to think, even if oil supplies are dwindling, as natural gas reserves are ample. We just need to switch source. Whilst I don't disagree that natural gas seems the way forward, one should not underestimate the task ahead of us. About 2/3 of all oil is used for transportation purposes and it is an enormous task to reduce our oil dependency. It will take many, many years and cost gigantic sums of money.

It is the banks, Stupid!

Back to this month's topic - in the financial press, there has been no shortage of attempts to apportion blame for the credit crisis. Disregarding the more obvious finger-pointing (it is the banks, stupid!), there seems to be a growing acknowledgement that large imbalances in the global economy are to blame for the current mess.

Put differently, a large number of countries - mainly Anglo-Saxon in origin but also the majority of our Eastern European friends - became credit junkies and spent beyond their means, year-in year-out. Conversely countries with large current account surpluses (e.g. China, Japan and Germany) were only too happy to deliver the drug to the intoxicated.

It is therefore too simplistic to suggest that only the deficit countries are to blame. The suppliers of credit must accept that they carry no small part of the responsibility, just like the drug dealers do when supplying junkies. In the past, I have been critical of Ms. Merkel of Germany when she stated publicly that Germany should continue to do what Germany does best, and that is to export goods of high quality. The obvious point here is that if Germany pursues such a strategy, the world will be no more balanced ten years from now than it is today, and a crisis similar to the one we have just been through could happen again.

It should therefore be obvious that not only should the deficit nations become more disciplined (i.e. save more and spend less), but the large surplus nations should actually put measures in place to ensure that their citizens save less and spend more. In practice, however, that is easier said than done. Demographic forces have a much bigger say on spending and savings patterns than generally acknowledged.

The Life Cycle Hypothesis

My story begins with Franco Modigliani. In 1985 he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his life cycle hypothesis which (somewhat simplified) states that spending and savings patterns are predictable and largely a function of demographics. When you are in your 20s and 30s, savings are low as much of your income is spent on establishing a family, buying and furnishing your home, putting the children through education, etc. Then comes a phase, from your early to mid 40s until just before you reach retirement age, where your savings grow significantly. The outgoings are smaller during this phase of your life as the kids have left home, and you focus on accumulating wealth to pay for your retirement. Eventually, when you retire, your savings rate turns negative as you begin to live on your life savings¹.

Empirical evidence has since shown that this is generally true both for the individual and for society at large. Obviously, you don't win the Nobel Prize for pointing out something that can hardly be classified as original thinking, but Modigliani's claim to fame was to demonstrate the effect this pattern has on the general economy as the population ages. Let me introduce you to a chart constructed by fellow Dane Claus Vistesen who is an economist and active blogger. He has made a solid attempt to graphically illustrate the consequences of Modigliani's work (chart 1).

The blue line represents the current account – it is in surplus when above the red line and in deficit when below. As you can see, when a country's population is relatively young, the country should (all other things being equal) run a current account deficit. As the population grows older, and the savings rate rises for the reasons described above, the deficit turns into a surplus until such time that the elderly begin to dominate the young at which point the surplus turns into a deficit yet again.

Our export dependency

Why is all this important? Well, take another look at chart 1, but focus on the purple line instead, which represents the country's export dependency. Translated into plain English, Modigliani's work implies that a country with an ageing population must grow its exports aggressively in order not to build up an unsustainably large current account deficit. Unfortunately, as you can see from the shape of the curve, it is not a linear function. The problem gets progressively worse as the population ages.

Now, with most OECD countries fast approaching the danger zone where an uncomfortably large part of the population consists of old-age pensioners, how do we get out of this pickle? We can't all export our way out of the problem. Somebody needs to buy our products. I will get back to answering this question later, but let's take a quick look at the so-called dependency ratio first. If the ratio is, say, 30, it means that there are 30 people at the age of 65 or older for every 100 people between the age of 15 and 64 (which defines the working population).

Obviously, the higher the dependency ratio, the fewer working people there are to pay for the elderly. At some point the cost of supporting the elderly will reach a level which spells economic disaster, and some of the more exposed countries may quite simply be forced to abandon their welfare standards to cope. More about this later -let's get some data points on the table. In chart 2 below, I have tried to keep things relatively simple. I have assumed, for example, that the fertility rate will remain unchanged going forward. This may or may not be a reasonable assumption. Only time can tell.

A walk in the park

The first thing that struck me when I produced this chart was how relatively benign the US outlook is. I read an awful lot of US centric macro economic research (my wife thinks too much!) and, more often than not, there is a reference to the bleak future for America given the fact that baby boomers in large numbers will be retiring over the next two decades. However, when you compare the US numbers (a dependency ratio of 19 today growing to 34 by 2050) to most other developed nations, the US demographic challenge suddenly looks like a walk in the park.

No other country is aging as quickly as Japan. Saddled with a large number of old age pensioners already (the dependency ratio is currently 35), the ratio will grow to an astonishing 76 over the next four decades. The Japanese economy has struggled to drag itself out of a slow growth environment for the past twenty years (give or take). The problems in Japan are well publicised and are often blamed on failed policy measures. I just wonder how big a role demographics have actually played in all of this and whether the Japanese mire is a sign of things to come for the rest of us?

Europe is toasted

The outlook for Europe doesn't make for pretty reading either. In fact, you can argue that we are worse off than Japan given our lower savings, and it raises some serious questions about the sustainability of our entire welfare model. The IMF has calculated that the cost of age-related spending in the average advanced G20 country will cause public debt-to-GDP to grow to over 400%, with Spain and Greece reaching over 600% unless the existing welfare model is cut back. For comparison, Japan has the highest public debt-to-GDP ratio today at about 225%.

As our business partner, John Mauldin, always reminds us, what cannot happen, will not. We may have to prohibit the use of condoms (not advisable for other reasons), import more labour from countries with higher birth rates (immensely unpopular) or simply reduce old-age benefits. The latter carries its own set of challenges as the political influence of the elderly is on the rise, and it won't exactly become any easier over the next 20 years to pass draconian legislation to reduce old-age benefits. Frankly, I have no idea how we will find a way out of this pickle. But find a way we will.

BRICs versus PIGS

As far as emerging economies are concerned, the outlook is considerably brighter (note the big difference between the BRICs and the PIGS in chart 2) but perhaps not as straightforward as you may think. Most investors seem to buy into the idea that, over the next few decades, emerging markets will offer better investment opportunities than more mature markets, as their economies are likely to grow much faster, and you don't yet pay for the faster growth through higher P/E ratios. Whilst we wrestle with depressing issues such as how to pay for the credit crisis and how not to bankrupt ourselves as we age, emerging economies should benefit from a growing labour force. In fact, as you can see from chart 3, in the next few years less developed countries, which tend to have very young populations, will actually outgrow more developed countries in terms of the size of the working population relative to the total population (which is good for economic growth).

The growing number of workers should, according to Modigliani, be followed by stronger economic growth and rising savings. If these savings can be invested into new productivity enhancing investments, emerging economies should enjoy much higher living standards in the years to come. You may raise a hand here and say "STOP – didn't you just argue that countries with young populations should run current account deficits and hence low savings rates?" It is indeed correct that 'young' countries should, according to Modigliani's hypothesis, not be able to generate savings rates at the magnitude we have seen coming out of South East Asia in recent years.

Cheating is omnipresent

But Modigliani didn't take cheating into account. Virtually every country in Asia has artificially depressed its currency in recent years in order to export itself to prosperity. This cannot, and will not, go on forever. As living standards rise in these countries, and domestic demand fuels economic growth, expect their currencies to appreciate against the old world currencies.

At the same time, one should not ignore the fact that not all emerging economies have young populations. I have included the four BRIC countries in chart 2 in order to make this point clear. As you can see, by the middle of the century, China and Russia will actually both have a higher dependency ratio than the United Kingdom, whereas Brazil and in particular India should continue to benefit from relatively young populations.

In a recent research paper², BCA Research analysed a number of emerging economies and found that, broadly speaking, they can be divided into 3 categories – those where the working population is peaking just about now, those that will peak in the next 7-10 years and finally those where the peak is still 15-20 years away (chart 4).

It is clear from BCA Research's work that some countries are in much better shape demographically than others. Most interestingly, China, which everybody (well, almost everybody) raves and rants about, does not look particularly attractive. Obviously you cannot judge the investment appeal based only on demographics, but if you add to that China's fragile banking system and a construction boom which has left most new buildings half empty and led the Chinese authorities to block local access to hedge fund manager Hugh Hendry's website, because he had the audacity to point out the insanity of many of the construction projects in China, then the Chinese investment story loses some of its glamour.

Too much of a good thing

A great growth story like China will always attract plenty of capital but, in the case of China, you can actually argue that too much capital has been attracted. As I was taught at university, economic growth loses its momentum if capital spending outgrows labour because of the diminishing return on capital. BCA has illustrated this graphically (chart 5), and it is obvious that China is attracting too much capital for its own good. You want to invest where capital is scarce, not plentiful.

You are therefore likely to earn a higher return on investment by investing elsewhere in the universe of emerging economies. One such country is Brazil which does not attract nearly the amount of capital that China does. I have been keeping an eye on Brazil for some time now as I am intrigued about their fledgling oil industry, and the more I learn about this country, the more excited I get. The story has not gotten any worse in recent days after the International Olympic Committee's decision to award the 2016 summer games to Rio de Janeiro. But that is an entirely different story which I may write more about another day.

Going back to the question I raised earlier, how do we get out of this pickle? As already stated, we cannot all become exporters as we grow older and domestic demand begins to fade. The only way out, if we want to maintain economic growth, is for the younger and more dynamic emerging economies to become net importers. This will require a sea change in policy, and attitude, in those countries. Most importantly, it will require the exchange rate cheating to stop once and for all. There is no alternative, unless you are prepared to accept negative GDP growth year-in year-out. And that is no fun.

Niels C. Jensen

Footnotes:
1 See http://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/romelecture.pdf for more information on Modigliani's work.
2 'Demographics, Investments and Growth: Where are the opportunities?', BCA Research, August 2009.

Iran Sanctions (Special Series), Part 3

John Mauldin — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Recently I had a discussion with a colleague about university athletes. I was previously unaware that NCAA colleges set up guidance programs that develop the well-roundedness of student athletes. 'Life coaches' ensure that these individuals balance their rigorous athletic commitments with personal and academic accomplishments. I'm not judging your ability to run a mile or catch a football, but well-roundedness is an element to being successful - whatever your area may be.

To be a solid investor, it's important to consider a variety of markets, and you must be well-informed in a myriad of sectors. This is where having the best information comes in, and one of the better places for intelligence is STRATFOR. They offer a straightforward recipe of news about global affairs - causes, outcomes and what to expect next based on a rational, time-tested methodology.

I'm including a STRATFOR report that discusses the possibility of gasoline import sanctions against Iran. It's an absolute must-read for anyone interested in energy, foreign relations, Russia, the Middle East, etc. I'd encourage you to sign up for their free weekly reports here, so you aren't limited to what I send you on occasion. Begin (or continue) your journey to well-roundedness... Now, get to the line and practice your free throws.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

Iran Sanctions (Special Series), Part 3: Preparing for the Worst

September 25, 2009

Summary

Iran has long been preparing itself for U.S.-led sanctions against gasoline imports and is confident in its ability to circumvent them. But even if the sanctions did get Iran's attention, they would not necessarily bring it to the negotiating table. Iran takes resistance very seriously, and while extolling the virtues of self-sacrifice it could close the Strait of Hormuz, which would wreak havoc on the global economy.

Editor's Note: This is part three of a three-part series on what sanctions against Iran could mean for Iran, U.S.-Russian relations, Israel and the global economy.

As the Iranian regime continued apace with its nuclear program, it understood that it was only a matter of time before the West would aim for its gasoline imports, a potential Achilles' heel for Iran. Although Iran may be one of the world's top-five crude-oil producers and exporters, its rogue reputation isn't exactly good for business. The Iranian energy industry has been sagging under the weight of sanctions for decades as the foreign energy majors with the technical skill Iran so badly needs wait for the geopolitical storm clouds to clear before tapping the country's vast energy reserves.

To contain domestic political dissent, the Iranian regime has heavily subsidized the population's energy needs. The drawback to such a policy is that ridiculously cheap gasoline prices (gasoline in Iran costs around 9 cents per liter) tend to fuel rapid consumption and rampant smuggling. As Iran's population continued to grow, so did its appetite for gasoline, and the regime has now reached a point where it simply cannot keep up with domestic demand without importing at least one-third of its fuel.

So, while Iran's Arab rivals, such as energy heavyweight Saudi Arabia, profited immensely from record-high crude prices in 2008, the Iranian regime was still struggling to balance its accounts. Then came the global economic collapse, which sliced the country's oil revenues in half. And given the sponsorship by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of militant and political proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated raids on the country's rainy-day oil funds for his political campaigning, and funding for the Iranian nuclear program, Tehran does not have much cash to spare.

Unreliable Allies

Iran is not oblivious to its gasoline vulnerabilities, but it also isn't left without options should Washington become more aggressive with its sanctions campaign. As discussed in detail in part two of this series, Russia — for its own strategic reasons — has developed a contingency plan, most likely involving Russia's former Soviet surrogate, Turkmenistan, to cover the gasoline gap should Iran start experiencing shortfalls. The Russians are certainly not planning to do this out of the goodness of their hearts and sincere loyalty to their allies in Tehran. On the contrary, sabotaging Washington's sanctions regime against Tehran is yet another way Moscow can turn the screws on the United States if the Obama administration refuses to take seriously the Kremlin's demand that the West respect its influence in the former Soviet sphere. Since the Obama administration backed down recently from its Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) plans in Central Europe, there could be more room for Russia and the United States to engage in serious negotiations. That said, there is no guarantee that Washington would be willing to pay the price of Russian hegemony in Eurasia in return for Russia's cooperation on Iran, and Moscow will drive a hard bargain before it even thinks about sacrificing its leverage with Iran.

Iran could certainly use Russia's help in maintaining its gasoline supply, but Tehran is also quite wary of becoming that much more dependent on Moscow's good graces for its energy security. Russia and Iran have quite a tumultuous history (the Soviets briefly occupied Iran during World War II), and the Iranian leadership is fearful of being abandoned by Russia should Moscow reach some sort of compromise with Washington.

Iran's other energy-producing ally hostile to the United States is Venezuela, which recently announced it would come to Iran's aid in the event of sanctions and supply its Persian friends with 20,000 barrels per day (bpd) of gasoline starting in October for an $800 million annual fee. Beneath the revolutionary rhetoric of oppressed regimes sticking it to their imperialist foes, this Venezuelan-Iranian energy deal is filled with holes. For starters, Venezuela — much like Iran — is facing serious refining problems due to mismanagement and a severe drop in foreign investment. Also like Iran, Venezuela's populist regime heavily subsidizes its constituents (gasoline in Venezuela is even cheaper than in Iran at 4 cents per liter), sending consumption soaring over the past four years. While Venezuela is currently refining around 420,000 bpd, it still needs to import gasoline to help meet domestic demand.

Caracas could always go through a third party to supply gasoline to Iran from a source closer to the Persian Gulf, but finding a willing supplier could prove difficult and costly when insurance premiums and political risks are taken into account. Moreover, should push come to shove, Washington has substantial leverage over the Venezuelan regime given the abundance of assets that Citgo, the refining unit of Venezuelan state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, has spread throughout the United States. The United States also is the largest recipient of Venezuela's crude exports and one of the few markets in the world with the technological capabilities to process Venezuela's heavy crude, leaving Venezuela without much of a viable alternative market.

Iran has already turned to China to help backfill its gasoline supply. Latest estimates show that starting in September, China began to directly supply up to one-third of Iran's total gasoline imports. Until now, Chinese involvement in the gasoline trade had mostly been limited to shipping companies. In the run-up to the Oct. 1 talks, China now has the extra incentive to poke the United States and profit from these gasoline shipments to Iran. After having boosted its refining capacity this year, China has surplus gasoline to sell on the international market. In August alone China exported 140,000 barrels of gasoline per day. Like Malaysia's Petronas, which began supplying Iran with gasoline in August, China sees an opportunity to profit off of Iran's gasoline trade at a time when political tensions are rising and major energy firms, such as BP, Reliance and Total, have already stopped or are cutting back their shipments to Iran. But Iran may not be able to rely on Chinese aid over the long term.

China currently is in a heated trade spat with Washington over a recent U.S. tariff on Chinese tire imports and could push back against Washington even further by flouting the threatened sanctions regime. However, this is a decision with major strings attached. Washington still has a great deal of leverage over Beijing in the form of Section 421, a U.S. law that was incorporated into China's accession agreement with the World Trade Organization in 2001 and allows the United States to legally impose tariffs on nearly any Chinese export until 2013. Now that Obama has put Section 421 to use in restricting tire imports, the Chinese have to think twice before making any moves that could compel Washington to go even further in slapping trade restrictions on China. Additionally, China is a massive energy importer itself, so shipping any sort of energy product to the Middle East, where its supply lines are unprotected, is something that works directly against most of China's energy security strategies.

The United States has not yet formalized the gasoline sanctions against Iran in the form of legislation or a U.N. Security Council resolution, and this may be providing Beijing a limited opportunity to hit back at the United States during the trade spat and demonstrate the limits of Beijing's cooperation. However, Beijing will be far more cautious than Russia when it comes to blocking sanctions against Iran and will keep a close eye on Russia's intentions in deciding its next steps. China has long been noncommittal when it comes to sanctions against Iran and will align itself with Russia in forums like the U.N. Security Council to demonstrate its opposition to punitive U.S. economic measures. Of course, if Russia folds and reaches some sort of compromise with Washington, China will comply with the sanctions and avoid being left in the spotlight as the sole sanctions-buster allied with Iran.

In short, Iran has friends that it can turn to if necessary, but the reliability of those friends is by no means guaranteed.

Fending for Itself

In the spirit of self-sufficiency, Iran has long been preparing itself for a U.S.-led offensive against Iranian gasoline imports. Over the past two years, as talk of gasoline sanctions intensified, Iran sought out willing suppliers to help stockpile its gasoline reserves. Iranian gasoline consumption currently stands at around 300,000 to 400,000 bpd, but over the past several months, Iran has been importing well in excess of that amount from mostly Swiss suppliers and now newcomers like Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, which are looking to replace the energy majors that are dropping out of the Iranian gasoline trade while political tensions are high. Iranian and U.S. intelligence sources claim that Iran currently has at least three months worth of gasoline needs (estimates average around 30 million barrels) stockpiled. The director of the National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company claims Iran's gasoline storage capacity is about 15.7 million barrels, which gives Iran about four months of in-storage capacity. Some of the surplus gasoline is sitting on tankers off Kharg Island, but the bulk of the supply is stored on land, where it is less vulnerable to airstrikes.

The Iranian government continues to make bold claims about its ability to massively ramp up its refining capacity and become self-sufficient in gasoline production within four years, but this is mostly hot air. Iran simply doesn't have the capability to meet its gasoline production goals on its own without the necessary foreign investment. And even if Iran had willing partners in places like Central Asia, it would still need to overcome its extreme reluctance to actually foot the bill for such projects.

It may strike some as odd that Iran has acquired a capability to develop nuclear technology but still struggles to build and operate refineries on its own. There are a number of reasons for this, but the simple answer is that the technology for a nuclear program dates back to the 1930s and 1940s and has not changed much since, while refining technology is continually updated and Iran has been out of the global oil-and-gas mainstream for 30 years now. A nuclear weapons program requires a couple dozen or so highly trained scientists and engineers to operate it, and these personnel can be trained in any number of institutions around the world. On the other hand, a permanent staff for a refinery producing around 300,000 bpd would require some 1,200 highly trained technicians and petroleum engineers, and most of Iran's intelligentsia — particularly the group with strong technical skills — left the country following the Iranian Revolution. Iran's stated energy goals are full of delusion as well as ambition.

Confronting the Subsidy Problem

Iran thus has little choice but to figure out a way to reduce gasoline consumption at home. The Iranians started on this initiative in June 2007 when the regime implemented a rationing system. Though the move was extremely unpopular and instigated a spate of riots in Tehran, the backlash was swiftly contained and, according to energy industry sources, Iranian gasoline imports dropped from 40 percent of total domestic consumption to about 25 to 30 percent.

The next step is for the regime to start cutting untenable subsidy rates by raising the price of gasoline. This is a plan that has long been in the works but has been put off time and time again due to the regime's deep-rooted fear of sparking major social unrest. This especially became a concern following the June presidential election debacle, which gave scores of Iranian citizens the courage to pour into the streets to voice their dissent against Ahmadinejad. Though the protests have dramatically dwindled in size, they continue sporadically and are a persistent irritant to the regime. Iranian sources claim that the coming gasoline price hike will not be that dramatic in the beginning. The government would likely continue to subsidize domestically produced gasoline while allowing the cost of imported gasoline to rise so it can pass along a portion of the costs to the consumer and further dampen demand.

Besides the potential political fallout, there is another significant issue with this gasoline price-hike plan. Since gasoline prices are heavily subsidized in Iran and are, therefore, much cheaper than the gasoline sold in neighboring countries, Iran has a major problem with gasoline smuggling to these countries. Iranian sources claim that more than 750,000 barrels are smuggled every month from Iran to Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq, and this puts a considerable drain on Iran's energy revenues. The smuggling rings are run by a variety of actors, from Iranian organized crime entities linked to the IRGC to Balochi tribesmen to Kurdish smugglers, and they are extremely difficult for the regime to dismantle. Moreover, Iranian officials tend to turn a blind eye to these smuggling practices in order to buy political patronage from non-Persian minorities (Kurds, Balochis and Azeris) in the borderlands who could otherwise cause serious trouble for the regime. With the political situation at home particularly dicey right now, the Iranian government will have to proceed cautiously with any future price hikes, which are sure to be applied unevenly across the country.

Natural Gas Relief?

Iran also has an alternative-fuel plan under way that capitalizes on the country's natural gas resources and reduces its reliance on refined crude, but the results have so far been limited. The plan involves encouraging the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) for Iranian motorists. Cars that can run on CNG, which are prevalent in South Asia and Latin America, can be more economical and environmentally friendly. In fact, the price of CNG retails at around 4 cents per cubic meter (roughly equivalent to one liter of gasoline). Moreover, the technology used to compress natural gas is far less complex than that needed to refine crude. Considering that Iran is the world's fourth-largest producer of natural gas, the switch to CNG makes sense, but there is one big drawback. Vehicles must be modified to run on CNG, and CNG stations would have to be built across the country. None of this would be quick or cheap for Iran.

Nevertheless, Iran has made notable progress since kicking off its CNG plan in 2007, when Iran Khodro Industrial Group — Iran's leading automaker — invested $50 million in low-consumption, flexible-fuel engine production lines. Former Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said in July that there are currently 880 CNG stations in Iran, with plans to build an additional 400 within the next several months. Since Iran Khodro started ramping up production of CNG-capable vehicles, Iran has become the world's fourth-largest CNG-vehicle producer following Argentina, Pakistan and Brazil, according to the International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles. As of May 2009, Iranian government officials claim the official count of CNG-capable vehicles on the road totaled 1.4 million. The total number of cars in Iran was estimated to be 11.7 million in 2008, according to the Global Market Information Database. All in all, estimated fuel replacement by CNG is currently around 7 percent of Iran's total automobile fuel consumption, up from zero five years ago. While Iran seems to be making steady progress in the CNG arena, it still has a way to go before the switch to CNG would make a significant dent in the country's gasoline imports.

Responding to Pressure

When STRATFOR speaks to Iranian sources, we get the sense that the regime is feeling fairly confident in its ability to slip the sanctions noose while continuing to work on its nuclear program, using the same rhetoric it has used for the past seven years to drag negotiations into a stalemate. This continued confidence may be due to the fact that the Iranians have yet to feel the pinch of Washington's quiet campaign against Iran's gasoline suppliers. Though the energy majors appear to be dropping out of the Iranian gasoline trade, the numbers we have seen indicate that Tehran is importing surplus amounts of gasoline in preparation for tougher days to come. However, should Iran fail to outmaneuver the P-5+1 come Oct. 1, those tougher days could arrive sooner than it thinks.

In the weeks and months ahead, Israel will likely determine whether Iran and the United States are headed for a collision course in the Persian Gulf. The Israelis were promised "crippling" sanctions against Iran by the Obama administration. If that promise goes unfulfilled, and the Iranians (as they are expected to do) refuse to freeze their enrichment activities, the Israelis are likely to turn to the military option and demand Washington's cooperation. Israel understands Russia's leverage over Iran — particularly its ability to arm the Iranians with critical defense systems and sabotage a gasoline sanctions regime — and would rather deal decisively with the Iranian nuclear issue while the program is still several steps away from a critical phase.

Israel, unlike the United States, never had much faith in the sanctions to begin with. The U.S. administration appears to be operating under the assumption that severe sanctions against Iran will create a dire economic situation in the country, galvanize the masses against the clerical elite and thus coerce the regime into making significant concessions on its nuclear program. More imaginative policymakers believe that such economic sanctions could build on the dissent that followed the election and produce a third front to challenge and topple the regime. But Tehran's actual actions are unlikely to mesh nicely with Washington's preferred perception of the regime's mindset. Iran — at least for now — has no intention of meeting the West's demands to curb its nuclear program and takes the idea of resistance very seriously.

A Doomsday Scenario

Israel is willing to see how the sanctions regime plays out, but it also knows that it has a limited menu of options. If the sanctions are blown apart with Russia's help, the Iranians will obviously feel little pressure to negotiate seriously and the Israelis will have to turn to alternative options. If the sanctions prove effective because of Russian cooperation, a U.S. willingness to risk trade spats to enforce the sanctions or a combination of the two, the Iranians will be left feeling extremely vulnerable. However, that vulnerability would not necessarily bring Iran to the negotiating table. On the contrary, the Iranians are more likely to turn increasingly insular and aggressive with their nuclear ambitions. While extolling the virtues of self-sacrifice for national solidarity, the Iranian regime would begin to seriously threaten to use its "real" nuclear option — closing the Strait of Hormuz with mines and its arsenal of anti-ship missiles.

This is an option of last resort for the Iranians, but if Tehran feels sufficiently threatened, either by sanctions or potential military strikes, it could wreak havoc on the global economy within a matter of hours.

Setting ablaze the Strait of Hormuz would undoubtedly inflict intense pain on the Iranian economy, but this may be a pain that the regime is willing to bear while it watches energy prices soar and the world's industrial powers plunge deeper into recession. At such a level of brinksmanship, the United States would have to seriously consider a military campaign to preempt an Iranian move to close the strait, providing Israel with an opportunity to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. If the United States failed to act in time and Iran succeeded in mining this critical energy chokepoint, then the U.S. military would have to clear the strait. Either way, the Persian Gulf would become a war zone and the global ramifications would be immense.

This may be a doomsday scenario, but it is one of increasing credibility given that the main players — Iran, the United States, Russia and Israel — continue to raise the stakes in pursuing their respective national imperatives. A number of questions remain: Will the United States put its trade relations on the line and aggressively enforce sanctions? Will Russia go the extra mile for Tehran and bust the sanctions regime? Can the United States and Russia reach a strategic compromise that will leave Iran out in the cold? Has Israel's patience regarding Iranian diplomatic maneuvers run out? Will Iran resort to its real nuclear option and threaten the Strait of Hormuz?

STRATFOR does not know the answers, and neither do the main stakeholders in this saga. However, come Oct. 1 these stakeholders must begin making some critical decisions that could dramatically alter the geopolitical landscape.

Into the Fourth Turning

John Mauldin — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:33:00 GMT

This week for your Outside the Box reading pleasure I am pleased to offer you the beginning of a very intriguing interview with Neil Howe he did with my friend David Galland at Casey Research. I think Neil is one of the premier forward looking thinkers of our time. His book The Fourth Turning is one of the more important books of the last two decades. 12 years ago, he and the late Richard Strauss basically outlined the psycho-social dynamics of our current time and his predictions have been uncannily accurate.

Basically, he and Strauss demonstrated that the Anglo-Saxon world has a pattern of four repeating generational types. As each generation assumes its period of dominance, the character of the various nations change in a pattern that rhymes throughout 500 years of history. We are in the beginning–middle of what he calls the Fourth Turning. This is a lengthy (17 pages) but fascinating interview but one you definitely should read. It is too long for me to put up in its entirety, but if you want to read more there is a link to the full interview at the end of the article. Just type in your email and the people from Casey will send it to you. They will also add you to their very interesting letter written by members of their research team. And of course you can easily unsubscribe if you like, but you might want to read it for a few weeks to see if you like their angle on things.

Neil Howe is a historian, economist, and demographer who writes and speaks frequently on generational change in American history and on long-term fiscal policy. He is cofounder of LifeCourse Associates, a marketing, HR, and strategic planning consultancy serving corporate, government, and nonprofit clients. He has coauthored six books with William Strauss, including Generations (1991), 13^th Gen (1993), The Fourth Turning (1997), and Millennials Rising (2000). His other coauthored books include On Borrowed Time (1988). He is also a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he helps lead the CSIS "Global Aging Initiative," and a senior advisor to the Concord Coalition. He holds graduate degrees in history and economics from Yale University. He lives in Great Falls, Virginia. His website which has more information is www.lifecourse.com.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Into the Fourth Turning

A Casey Research interview with Neil Howe, co-author of The Fourth Turning

The Fourth Turning is an amazingly prescient book Neil Howe wrote with the late William Strauss in 1997. The work, which describes generational archetypes and the cyclical patterns created by these archetypes, has been an eye-opener to anyone able to entertain the notion that history may repeat itself. At the time the book was published, the Boston Globe stated, "If Howe and Strauss are right, they will take their place among the great American prophets." Read this visionary interview published in The Casey Report, and see for yourself.

DAVID GALLAND: Could you provide us a quick introduction to generational research?

NEIL HOWE: We think that generations move history along and prevent society from suffering too long under the excesses of any particular generation. People often assume that every new generation will be a linear extension of the last one. You know, that after Generation X comes Generation Y. They might further expect Generation Y to be like Gen X on steroids – even more willing to take risk and with even more edginess in the culture. Yet the Millennial Generation that followed Gen X is not like that at all. In fact, no generation is like the generation that immediately precedes it.

Instead, every generation turns the corner and to some extent compensates for the excesses and mistakes of the midlife generation that is in charge when they come of age. This is necessary, because if generations kept on going in the same direction as their predecessors, civilization would have gone off a cliff thousands of years ago.

So this is a necessary process, a process that is particularly important in modern nontraditional societies, where generations are free to transform institutions according to their own styles and proclivities.

In our research we have found that, in modern societies, four basic types of generations tend to recur in the same order.

DAVID: The four generational archetypes. Can you provide a sketch of each for those of our readers unfamiliar with your work?

HOWE: Absolutely.

The first is what we call the Hero archetype. Hero generations are usually protectively raised as kids. They come of age at a time of emergency or Crisis and become known as young adults for helping society resolve the Crisis, hopefully successfully. Once the Crisis is resolved, they become institutionally powerful in midlife and remain focused on outer-world challenges and solutions. In their old age, they are greeted by a spiritual Awakening, a cultural upheaval fired by the young. This is the typical life story of a Hero generation.

One example of the Hero archetype is the G.I. Generation, the soldiers of World War II, who became an institutional powerhouse after the war and then in old age confronted the young hippies and protesters of the 1960s. Going back in American history, we have seen many other Hero archetypes, for example the generation of Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, and President Monroe. These were the heroes of the American Revolution, who in old age were greeted by the second Great Awakening and a new youth generation of fiery Prophets.

After the Hero archetype comes the Artist archetype. Artist generations have a very different location in history -- they are the children of the Crisis. For Hero generations, child protection rises from first cohort to last. By the time Artists come along, child protection reaches suffocating levels. Artists come of age as young adults during the post-Crisis era, when conformity seems like the best path to success, and they tend to be collectively risk averse. Artists see themselves as providing the expertise and refinement that can both improve and adorn the enormous new institutional innovations that have been forged during the Crisis. They typically experience a cultural Awakening in midlife, and their lives speed up as the culture transforms.

A great example of the Artist archetype is the so-called "Silent" Generation, the post World War II young adults who married early and moved into gleaming new suburbs in the 1950s, went through their midlife crises in the '70s and '80s, and are today the very affluent, active seniors retiring into gated lifestyle communities.

The third archetype is what we call a Prophet archetype. The most recent example of this archetype is the Baby Boom Generation. Prophet generations grow up as children during a period of post-Crisis affluence and come of age during a period of cultural upheaval. They become moralistic and values-obsessed midlife leaders and parents, and as they enter old age, they steer the country into the next great outer-world social or political Crisis. Boomers, for example, grew up during the Postwar American High, came of age during the Consciousness Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, and are now entering old age.

Finally there is what we call a Nomad archetype. Nomads are typically raised as children during Awakenings, the great cultural upheavals of our history. Whereas the Prophet archetype is indulgently raised as children, the Nomad archetype is underprotected and completely exposed as children. They learn early that they can't trust basic institutions to look out for their best interests and come of age as free agents whose watchword is individualism. They are the great realists and pragmatists in our nation's history.

The most recent example of the Nomad archetype is Generation X. This generation grew up during the social turmoil of the 1960s and '70s and are now beginning to enter midlife. They are the ones that know how to get things done on the ground. They are the stay-at-home dads and security moms trying to give their kids more of a childhood than they themselves had. Their burden is that they tend not to trust large institutions and do not have a strong connection to public life. They forge their identity and value system by "going it alone" and staying off the radar screen of government. It could be very interesting to see the rest of the life story of this generation, particularly as they take over leadership positions.

DAVID: Could you tell us the general age ranges of these archetypes now?

HOWE: One Hero generation that is alive today is the G.I. Generation, born between 1901 and 1924. They came of age with the New Deal, World War II, and the Great Depression. They are today in their mid-80s and beyond, and their influence is waning.

Today's other example of a Hero archetype is the Millennial Generation, born from 1982 to about 2003 or 2004. These are today's young people, who are just beginning to be well known to most Americans. They fill K-12 schools, colleges, graduate schools, and have recently begun entering the workplace. We associate them with dramatic improvements in youth behaviors, which are often underreported by the media. Since Millennials have come along, we've seen huge declines in violent crime, teen pregnancy, and the most damaging forms of drug abuse, as well as higher rates of community service and volunteering. This is a generation that reminds us in many respects of the young G.I.s nearly a century ago, back when they were the first boy scouts and girl scouts between 1910 and 1920.

DAVID: Then following the Hero, we have the Artist, right?

HOWE: Yes. As I mentioned earlier, one example of that archetype is the Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1942. This generation was too young to remember anything about America before the Great Crash of 1929, and too young to be of fighting age during World War II.

That 1925 birth year is filled with people like William F. Buckley and Bobby Kennedy, first-wave Silent who just missed World War II. Many of them were actually in the camps in California waiting for the invasion of Japan when they heard that the war was over. Part of their generational experience is that sense of just barely missing something big. Surveys show that this generation does not like to call themselves "senior citizens." They did not fight in World War II. They did not build the A bomb. They are more like "senior partners." Unlike G.I.s, they are flexible elders, focused on the needs of others. Many of them are highly engaged in the family activities of their children and grandchildren. In politics, they are today's elder advisors, not powerhouse leaders.

There is a new generation of the Artist archetype just now beginning to arrive. They started being born, we think, around 2004 or 2005. We did a contest on our website to choose a name for this new generation, and the winner was Homeland Generation, reflecting the fact that they are being incredibly well protected. So we are tentatively calling them the Homelanders.

This generation will have no memory of anything before the financial meltdown of 2008 and the events that are about to unfold in America. If our research is correct, this generation's childhood will be a time of urgency and rapid historical change. Unlike the Millennials, who will remember childhood during the good times of 1980s and '90s, the Homelanders will recall their childhood as a time of national crisis.

So, those are the two examples today of the Hero archetype, and two examples of the Artist archetype.

DAVID: What about the Prophet and the Nomad generations?

HOWE: There is only one Prophet archetype generation alive today: the Boomer Generation. We define them as being born between 1943 and 1960. Those born in 1943 would have been part of the free-speech movement at Berkeley in 1964, the first fiery class whose peers include Bill Bradley, Newt Gingrich, and Oliver North. The last cohorts of this generation came of age with President Carter in the Iran Hostage Crisis.

For the Nomad archetype, we again have only one example alive today, and that is Generation X. We define Gen Xers as being born between 1961 and 1981. Actually, there may be a few members of the earlier Nomad generation still around – those of the Lost Generation born from 1883 to 1900, but today they would be around 110. This was the generation that grew up during the third Great Awakening, the doughboys who went through World War I. They were the generation that put the "roar" into the "Roaring '20s" – the rum runners, barnstormers, and entrepreneurs of that period. They were big risk-takers.

DAVID: Is the Millennial Generation the next group up in terms of controlling or being a powerful force in society?

HOWE: It depends what you mean by a powerful force in society.

DAVID: Who is going to be in the driver's seat?

HOWE: Let me put it this way. The generation that is about to be in the driver's seat in terms of leadership is Generation X, the group born 1961 to 1981. In fact, we now have our first Gen-X President, Barack Obama, who was born in 1961 and who is in every way a Gen Xer, despite being born at the very early edge of his generation. His fragmented family upbringing, with his father leaving while he was young and his mother moving all over the world, is typical of the Gen X life story. A telling anecdote from his biography is that, when he arrived at Columbia University, he spent his first night in New York sleeping in an alley because no one had arranged to have an apartment open for him.

His life story has a "dazed and confused" aspect. He made his own way against a background of adult neglect and lack of structure. It's interesting that he is the first leader in America to call himself "post-Boomer." As a matter of fact, he talks regularly about how he intends to put an end to everything dysfunctional about Boomer politics: the polarization, the culture wars, the scorched-earth rhetoric, the identity politics, all of that. I understand a lot of people do not believe he can actually do this, but it's interesting that this is the rhetoric he chooses. That rhetoric is one reason why the vast majority of Millennials voted for him.

Obama is the opening wedge of Gen Xers who will assume very high leadership posts. They are not yet the senior generals in control of the military, but they are taking over the reins of government and, of course, the top spots in American businesses.

If you want to know what Neil Howe foresees for the U.S. economy, future investment opportunities, and American society in general, sign up here to read the rest of this 17-page, FREE Special Report - Click Here.

A German Pre-Election Win and Lingering U.S. Tensions

John Mauldin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:04:00 GMT

You may not think that what happens in Kabul affects the sale of GM's Opel division -- but it's recognizing the connection between seemingly unrelated global events that puts you ahead of the game in investing. This week I'm sending you a video by my friends at STRATFOR. It links cars, jobs, German elections, and the situation in Afghanistan in a way that's truly insightful and informative.

Click here to watch this enlightening video. I've probably never mentioned it, but STRATFOR's founder George Friedman also has a free weekly intelligence report. I strongly suggest you sign up to receive it -- It's just the kind of unique global insight every 'outside the box' investor needs. Click here to get a mind-blowing Friedman analysis each week in your inbox. You'll enjoy it as much as I do.

CAPTION: GM has approved the sale of its Opel division in Germany to a suitor favored by Chancellor Angela Merkel's government, saving thousands of German jobs just ahead of general elections. But the Opel sale has become a symbol of cooling relations between Washington and Berlin -- and the chilling effect has only grown worse as debate over Afghanistan heats up. In the latest STRATFOR Insights video, analyst Matt Gertken provides his analysis of the situation.

Penury, self-imposed or inflicted, the new normal?

John Mauldin — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:04:00 GMT

One of my favorite sources of information is The Liscio Report by Philippa Dunne & Doug Henwood. Among other things, each month they survey all the states about tax revenues, expenses and then give us the results in a very pithy fashion. No one pays taxes unless they have to, and thus taxes tell us a lot about the current spending and income situation. Taxes are a far more reliable indicator then surveys, which most "data" is based on. They also look at various trends in a variety of topics. No surprise, this issue they talk about the numbers on retail sales, noting certain segments are up (essential spending) but sales for non-essential items are way down. This is very interesting to me. It is, as they point out, part of the journey to the new normal. They graciously allowed me to send this letter on to you as this week's Outside the Box. Those of you who might wish to learn more about theme can go to www.theliscioreport.com or drop them a note at online@theliscioreport.com.

John Mauldin
Editor, Outside the Box

Penury, self-imposed or inflicted, the new normal?

The Liscio Report on the Economy

In August, 30% of the states in our survey met or exceeded their forecasted sales tax collections. This is a big jump from July's 12%, and the best showing since August 2008's 50%. The percentage of states reporting growth over the year was just 1.43%, down from July's 1.59%, so basically flat and zero, and the intensity index (over the year percentage change weighted by state population) rose to -7.0% from July's -8.3%.

It is good news that actual collections are in line with forecasts for a larger percentage of our contacts, and in our universe narrowing the gap between actual collections and forecasts is the first step toward real improvement, no matter how weak those forecasts are.

We do want to underscore that forecasts have been revised down hard, and continue to be for extremely weak collections, in almost all cases negative over the year, and in some for double-digit declines.

Our sales tax survey began falling from its recent high of 81 in February 2006, edged back up to the low 70s in fall of 2007, and has fallen, albeit noisily, since. Sales receipts falling below prior-year levels has in the past been a sporadic and mostly calendar-driven event.

Currently many states have seen negative collections for over a year and, if we're lucky, the survey is now stabilizing in "unheard of territory." That's what led one contact to say: "Now, before we throw a party to celebrate the best monthly performance since November (-3.6%) - let's realize it still sucks and shows how much consumer retrenchment is still in place. Adjusting for calendar effects, we now have had 14 months of negative sales tax."

Tentatively encouraging news is that although there is no demographic or regional pattern, at least the survey did not come in with prior months' resounding thud: although the majority of our contacts are not seeing any real improvement, and supplying discouraging details, some contacts are reporting an improving situation, along with some stability in housing and their own confidence surveys. But concerns about heavy headwinds and what will happen now that Cash for Clunkers has clunked out remain in the forefront.

Just The Essentials

It's been a few months since we updated our graph of retail spending on essentials vs. more discretionary items. As of July, it looks like consumers are still concentrating on the essentials.

Graphed below are the yearly (nominal) changes in spending in food and beverage stores and drugstores compared to the changes in all other spending (less autos and gas). (Gas is also mostly an essential, but its price has been so volatile that it clouds the picture somewhat; still, the graphs would look little different had we included it as an essential.) For the year ending in July, spending on essentials, by this definition, was up 0.6%; spending on everything else was off 6.2%. That gap, 6.8%, is the widest since the new retail series began in 1992.

A gap this wide looks like a real structural shift in spending behavior, as austerity becomes the new normal. Though Americans have shaken off bouts of prudence before, like that of the early 1990s, with consumer credit constricted, household balance sheets ravaged, and labor income weak, it's probably going to take some time before anything resembling extravagance returns.

The Auto Bounce

That said, the federally subsidized bounce in auto sales in August was an extraordinary departure from recent trends (see graphs). It's not the biggest monthly leap ever -- sales rose 35% in October 2001 (thanks to the post-9/11 sales incentives), and 43% in January 1971 (following a strike against GM, which depressed sales late in 1970) -- but it's still impressive. Unit sales, which have been running almost 50% below trend for most of this year, rose to 82% of trend, the highest in nearly a year and a half.

As the graphs show, that bounce looks like earlier end-of-recession turns. The question is, of course, how much of this can be sustained without Washington's help. A $4,500 subvention isn't just gravy -- it's practically a meal in itself. Given how depressed sales have been -- though there was no serious decline in auto sales during the 2001 recession, the recent slump is without precedent in more than 40 years of monthly unit sales data -- there's room for a substantial bounce. But will incomes and the credit markets be there to fund one?

Credit Retrenchment

Speaking of consumer credit, July's decline, while not the worst ever, was about two standard deviations below the mean -- and the yearly decline is now the sharpest ever. (See graphs) The decline is being driven by revolving credit, meaning mainly credit cards. Partly offsetting that contraction, though, is continued strength in revolving home equity lines of credit (HELCs), whose yearly growth is surprisingly closer to its 2004 high than the 0 line.

And, as we keep pointing out, the longer-term picture suggests that deleveraging has only begun. Measured against after-tax income, consumer debt levels are drifting lower, but have a long way to go even to get back to late 1990s levels.

That's especially true if you add HELCs to the traditional forms of consumer credit. Recent declines in the consumer debt burden are considerably milder than we saw in previous recessions (and note that the declines typically continue for at least several months after the cyclical trough).

Benefit Squeeze

With health reform in the news, we thought it might be interesting to take a look at what's been happening in the realm of employee benefits. In a phrase, it looks like employers have been enacting some reform of their own, and they may be feeling no great urgency for systemic changes.

For the year ending in the second quarter of 2009, benefit costs for private employers are were up just 1.3%, the lowest since the BLS series begins in 1983. (See graph) That's a remarkable swing from 2004's rise of 7.4%. Benefit costs are now rising more slowly than direct pay, which has hardly ever happened in the last 25 years.

As the graph shows, the swing isn't entirely the result of a squeeze in health benefits; other benefits, like pensions, are also being squeezed. Health insurance costs for employers are rising just over 4% a year. But that's way down from the over-11% tempo of 2002.

As the graph shows, though, that decline isn't the result of any serious slowdown in medical inflation. No doubt there's a lot of shifting of costs onto employees going on, either in the form of dropped coverage or higher co-pays.

As we pointed out in our July 13 issue, a substantial portion of the rise in consumption over the last couple of decades has been driven by spending on medical care. With all this apparent cost-shifting from employers to employees going on, pressures on household budgets have been increasing -- another reason to wonder where any sustained consumption revival can come from.

Tuesday's Retail Numbers

We're expecting August headline retail sales to come in at a stronger than consensus +2.5%, +0.6% excluding autos -- and a much more tepid +0.2% excluding both autos and their fuel. States tax motor vehicle sales in different ways, but the majority of those that break out sales taxes on autos saw dramatic increases in July and in August, and we expect auto sales to make a larger contribution to the headline than July's +0.5%.

In July the ICSC anticipated that a somewhat late back-to-school season moved 0.5% in sales from July into August, and their August numbers suggest this shift took place. Retailers were reportedly surprised that August was as good as it was, and the markets may well be surprised by a stronger than anticipated retail report.

Whatever the noisy series tells us about August shopping, however, we anticipate it will take an unusually long time for American consumers to have the confidence (and means) to begin spending again over the longer term.

-- Philippa Dunne & Doug Henwood

Brazil: Reactions to a Proposed Energy Law

John Mauldin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:43:00 GMT

With the current financial crisis, we have to be even more astute in locating worthy investment opportunities. I've written lately about choices we're facing as a country – but we have choices as individuals as well: choices that demand solid insight to make well-informed decisions and recognize opportunities at a time when they're not as plentiful as they used to be. It's not enough to know what's happening on Capitol Hill or Wall Street, we must expand our investigations to a global perspective.

I'm including an article by my friends STRATFOR, a global intelligence company, about a proposed law in Brazil to regulate the country's massive deep-sea oil reserves, which could make it a major oil exporter. It's just one example of the kind of event you need to be aware of if you're at all interested in global energy and investment. I recommend that you browse through the rest of STRATFOR's material, and check out their special offer for my readers. They provide just the kind of exclusive global insight you need.

Brazil: Reactions to a Proposed Energy Law

September 1, 2009 | 1938 GMT

Summary

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva submitted a proposal for a new oil law to the country's legislature. The proposal favors state-run energy company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) and shows that Brazil intends to protect its national interests when it comes to deepwater oil exploration and development.

Analysis

After a government review that began in 2007, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Aug. 31 unveiled a much-anticipated proposal for a new oil law that will govern the exploration and development of the country's massive deep-sea pre-salt oil reserves. The new regulatory framework was highly anticipated as Brazil's pre-salt reserves — oil deposits located in the sea bed under thick layers of salt — are estimated to contain anywhere from 14 to 100 billion barrels of oil and could turn Brazil into a major oil exporter in coming years.

Stock prices in Brazil's state-run energy company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras) plummeted on the release of the proposal, with the company losing 3.6 percent of its market value (about $7 billion) on Aug. 31 alone (though that was mitigated by a 1.4 percent rebound on Sept. 1). Although Brasilia might not actually pass the new energy law until next year, it is clear that Brazil sees its pre-salt oil reserves as a strategic national asset that needs to be protected by the state, even at the risk of slowing the influx of foreign capital and technology that the country is trying to attract to boost the reserves' development.

The most obvious aspect of the proposed law is its (fully expected) favoritism toward Petrobras, one of the world's up-and-coming energy companies and a majority state-owned enterprise. Petrobras would operate all of Brazil's pre-salt oil development projects. The government, through the National Petroleum Agency, would have the option of awarding a contract solely to Petrobras or asking for public bids to bring in other companies to share in projects. In public bids, companies would join in production-sharing agreements with the government rather than only acquiring concessions and paying royalties on revenues, as they did previously. This is meant to ensure that Petrobras gains knowledge and experience from outsiders who may bring better technology and expertise to the table when they sign on to a production agreement. Petrobras would be guaranteed a minimum 30 percent stake in any consortium (though this does not apply to pre-existing contracts). Contracts will be awarded to foreign companies that promise to preserve the greatest share of "profit oil" — a field's production minus the equivalent of costs — for the Brazilian government. The proposal is surprisingly candid about the role of what is, in effect, bribery in companies' bids for contracts, stating that the National Energy Policy Council will assess "subscription bonuses" (which are not required but are no doubt encouraged by the law) on an ad hoc basis.

The Brazilian government will also have the option of handing over to Petrobras certain areas that have not yet been opened to concession to other bidders. Petrobras and the government will work out the specifics of which geographical areas will be eligible and determine their value and the price that Petrobras will pay to have rights to the area transferred to it.

Since Petrobras will be doing a lot of costly and technologically demanding oil production in these deep pre-salt layers, it will need to raise a lot of capital. The government has claimed it will inject around $50 billion into Petrobras upon passage of the new energy law. Moreover, the proposed law allows for Petrobras to issue new shares to get funding, while not calling for the restructuring or reorganization of the company. This preserves shareholders' right to maintain or up their stakes and the government's right to increase its stake, while ensuring that stock increases will not be used to squeeze out foreign investors for arbitrary or political purposes.

The proposal contains a nationalist streak that grants the government great scope for intervention in the development of these strategic reserves. In particular, the law would give birth to a new state-operated company — called Petrosal — that would have a representative, with full rights to vote and veto, on the board of any energy consortium doing business in Brazil's pre-salt deposits. Because this company will not be allowed to invest in projects or take part in upstream development, it will not bring capital or technology or expertise to energy development projects. It will simply be an arbitrary government actor with the ability to put roadblocks along the way for energy producers as it sees fit.

Da Silva submitted the proposal to Congress with much fanfare, calling for it to be put on a "fast track" toward approval. But the proposal, published on the Petrobras Web site, must still go through the legislative process, and it must do so amid the politically charged atmosphere ahead of general elections in October 2010. Nevertheless, it reflects a years-long review by a commission consisting of several government ministries, and thus gives a good indication of what direction Brazil's government wants to take in making energy sector regulations that are in line with its strategic interests.