John Mauldin's Outside the Box : Europe

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.

Should the Fed be Responsibly Irresponsible?

John Mauldin — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:44:00 GMT

This week I offer two short essays for your reading pleasure in Outside the Box. The first is from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing in the London Telegraph. He gives some more specifics about the situation in Europe I wrote about this weekend.

He ends with the following sober quote: "My awful fear is that we will do exactly the opposite, incubating yet another crisis this autumn, to which we will respond with yet further spending. This is the road to ruin." This is a must read.

And the second piece? Last week in Outside the Box we looked at an "Austrian" (economic) view of the inflation/deflation debate from my friends at Hoisington. This week we look at the 180 degree opposite with Keynesian aficionado Paul McCulley, who argues that the Fed should be Responsibly Irresponsible and target higher inflation. This essay has brought some rather heated arguments in print and from some of the people who will be with Paul and me at the annual Maine fishing trip. And you can bet I will put them all together with a little wine to see how the argument ensues. I will report back.

And Paul ends with a great and what is a quite controversial line, "Yes, as Bernanke intoned, there are no free lunches. But no lunch doesn't work for me. Or the American people. While it is true, as Keynes intoned, that we are all dead in the long run, I see no reason to die young from orthodoxy-imposed anorexia."

And finally, this one last note on European banks: "European banks including Societe Generale SA and BNP Paribas SA hold almost $200 billion in guarantees sold by New York-based AIG allowing the lenders to reduce the capital required for loss reserves." (Bloomberg). Want to think about the US taxpayer paying to bail out Europeans banks? Think that might be a tad controversial? This could be explosive.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Fiscal ruin of the Western world beckons

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

For a glimpse of what awaits Britain, Europe, and America as budget deficits spiral to war-time levels, look at what is happening to the Irish welfare state.

Events have already forced Premier Brian Cowen to carry out the harshest assault yet seen on the public services of a modern Western state. He has passed two emergency budgets to stop the deficit soaring to 15pc of GDP. They have not been enough. The expert An Bord Snip report said last week that Dublin must cut deeper, or risk a disastrous debt compound trap.

A further 17,000 state jobs must go (equal to 1.25m in the US), though unemployment is already 12pc and heading for 16pc next year.

Education must be cut 8pc. Scores of rural schools must close, and 6,900 teachers must go....Nobody is spared. Social welfare payments must be cut 5pc, child benefit by 20pc. The Garda (police), already smarting from a 7pc pay cut, may have to buy their own uniforms. Hospital visits could cost £107 a day, etc, etc....

No doubt Ireland has been the victim of a savagely tight monetary policy – given its specific needs. But the deeper truth is that Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the US, and Japan are in varying states of fiscal ruin, and those tipping into demographic decline (unlike young Ireland) have an underlying cancer that is even more deadly. The West cannot support its gold-plated state structures from an aging workforce and depleted tax base.

As the International Monetary Fund made clear last week, Britain is lucky that markets have not yet imposed a "penalty interest" on British Gilts, given the trajectory of UK national debt – now vaulting towards 100pc of GDP – and the scandalous refusal of this Government to map out any path back to solvency.

"The UK has been getting the benefit of the doubt, both in the Government bond market and also the foreign exchange market. This benefit of the doubt is not going to last forever," said the Fund.

France and Italy have been less abject, but they began with higher borrowing needs. Italy's debt is expected to reach the danger level of 120pc next year, according to leaked Treasury documents. France's debt will near 90pc next year if President Nicolas Sarkozy goes ahead with his "Grand Emprunt", a fiscal blitz masquerading as investment.

There was a case for an emergency boost last winter to cushion the blow as global industry crashed. That moment has passed. While I agree with Nomura's Richard Koo that the US, Britain, and Europe risk a deflationary slump along the lines of Japan's Lost Decade (two decades really), I am ever more wary of his calls for Keynesian spending a l'outrance.

Such policies have crippled Japan. A string of make-work stimulus plans – famously building bridges to nowhere in Hokkaido e_SEmD has ensured that the day of reckoning will be worse, when it comes. The IMF says Japan's gross public debt will reach 240pc of GDP by 2014 e_SEmD beyond the point of recovery for a nation with a contracting workforce. Sooner or later, Japan's bond market will blow up.

Error One was to permit a bubble in the 1980s. Error Two was to wait a decade before opting for monetary "shock and awe" through quantitative easing.

The US Federal Reserve has moved faster but already seems to think the job is done. "Quantitative tightening" has begun. Its balance sheet has contracted by almost $200bn (£122bn) from the peak. The M2 money supply has stagnated since January. The Fed is talking of "exit strategies".

Is this a replay of mid-2008 when the Fed lost its nerve, bristling over criticism that it had cut rates too low (then 2pc)? Remember what happened. Fed hawks in Dallas, St Louis, and Atlanta talked of rate rises. That had consequences. Markets tightened in anticipation, and arguably triggered the collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG, Fannie and Freddie that autumn.

The Fed's doctrine – New Keynesian Synthesis – has let it down time and again in this long saga, and there is scant evidence that Fed officials recognise the fact. As for the European Central Bank, it has let private loan growth contract this summer.
The imperative for the debt-bloated West is to cut spending systematically for year after year, off-setting the deflationary effect with monetary stimulus. This is the only mix that can save us.

My awful fear is that we will do exactly the opposite, incubating yet another crisis this autumn, to which we will respond with yet further spending. This is the road to ruin.

What If?

By Paul McCulley, Managing Director, PIMCO

The whole world, it seems, is wrapped around the axle about exit strategies from putatively unsustainable policies: (1) the Fed's bloated balance sheet, with some $800 billion of excess reserves sloshing 'round the banking system, in the context of an effective zero Fed funds rate; and (2) the Treasury's huge budget deficit, unprecedented in peace time and set to stay huge, implying a Treasury debt/GDP ratio approaching 100% within a decade's time.

For some, usually with Monetarist roots, this combination of policies is a classic brew for a major bout of inflation (eventually, it is always stressed). For others, usually with Austrian tendencies, this policy brew is a deflationary force, as it will provoke foreign investors to flee both the dollar and Treasuries, driving up real interest rates, pole axing any revival in risk asset prices, themselves backed by the fruits of bubble-driven mal-investment. And, I'm quite sure, there are some with a foot in both camps.

So it's not easy to actually define conventional, or consensus, wisdom. In fact, many of my Keynesian brethren seem to be struggling with what to do, arguing against any further near-term fiscal stimulus, or at least unless enacted simultaneously with long-term fiscal restraint. Indeed, I recently publicly uttered something along these lines, though I hedged myself by saying long-term fiscal responsibility rather than restraint (responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, while restraint is more categorical).

In any event, there does not seem to be any serious consensus as to how the policy mix should be adjusted, if at all, despite clear and present evidence of massive unemployment and underemployment, which is putting downward pressure on nominal personal income (the product of fewer jobs, fewer hours and decelerating wages, almost to the zero line). This is not the stuff of a self-sustaining revival in aggregate demand. Thus, my tentative conclusion is that maybe the consensus professional economist view is that America should simply accept that it's going to have its version of Japan's lost decade, the Calvinist aftermath of the preceding sin of booming growth on the back of ever-increasing leverage and mal-investment.

But if that sobering view is indeed the new consensus, shame on my profession! There is another way. And, irony of ironies, it is not a new way, but rather an old way, one defined by no less than Paul Krugman in 1998 and Ben Bernanke in 2003, when lecturing Japan about what to do. I have enormous respect for the intellectual horsepower of both men, and what they preached back then deserves a re-preaching, even if I'm the humble preacher that must take the pulpit.

Krugman in May 1998

In a delightfully wonkish paper,¹ using the enormous horsepower of the IS-LM (investment savings-liquidity preference money supply equilibrium) framework, he made a powerful case for what Japan should do to bootstrap itself out of the deflationary swamp. I'll spare you the wonkish part and cut to his commonsensical conclusion.

In the midst of deflation in the context of a liquidity trap, with the central bank's policy rate pinned at zero, it is not enough for the central bank to print money, accommodating massive fiscal policy stimulus, he argued. Not that this is not a necessary policy action. It is. But it is not sufficient, Krugman pounded the table, because if the public believes that the central bank will, in the future, un-print the money – in today's jargon, implement an exit strategy from money printing – then the printed money will simply be hoarded, rather than spent, because deflationary expectations will remain entrenched.

To get the public to spend the money, Krugman argued, the central bank should make clear that the printed money will remain printed, shifting deflationary expectations to inflationary expectations. In his famous conclusion, actually advice to the Bank of Japan, Krugman declared (his italics, not mine):

"The way to make monetary policy effective is for the central bank to credibly promise to be irresponsible – to make a persuasive case that it will permit inflation to occur, thereby producing the negative real interest rates the economy needs."

In a follow-up (similarly wonkish) paper² in 1999, Professor Krugman refined his argument, stressing that the core of his thesis could be implemented through a credible inflation target that was appreciably higher than the prevailing negative inflation rate in Japan. Thus, he was not so much arguing that the Bank of Japan should act irresponsibly, but rather act irresponsibly relative to orthodox, conventional thinking, which itself was irresponsible, in that it emphasized the need for an eventual exit strategy from liquidity trap-motivated money printing.

To get out of the trap, he emphasized, the central bank needed to radically change expectations to the notion that there was no exit strategy, at least until inflation was appreciably higher – not just inflation expectations, but inflation itself. Only then would the commitment to higher inflation be credible, with the central bank not just talking the reflationary talk, but walking the reflationary walk, turning deflationary swamp water into reflationary wine.

Naturally, the Bank of Japan didn't listen to Krugman at the time; orthodoxy is as orthodoxy does. In March 2001, however, the Bank of Japan did serve up a small beer from the Krugman still, adopting Quantitative Easing (QE), re-enforcing its zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) with an explicit target for massive creation of excess reserves, committing to retaining that policy until the year-over-year core CPI moved above zero on a "stable" basis. A very small beer indeed.

But to its credit, the Bank of Japan tiptoed the reflationary walk, sticking with QE for five years, exiting in March 2006, after the year-over-year core CPI had turned positive in November 2005. A small beer is better than no beer.

Bernanke in May 2003

Professor Bernanke became Fed Governor Bernanke the prior year, making his most famous speech in November 2002, "Making Sure 'It' Doesn't Happen Here,"³ detailing the Fed's anti-deflationary toolbox. That's the speech that the markets are using as a roadmap for Chairman Bernanke's present anti-deflation policy path (it's actually been quite a good roadmap!). But a speech in May 2003, "Some Thoughts on Monetary Policy in Japan,"⁴ is equally important, I think, because it provides a roadmap for what the Fed might do if present anti-deflation policies prove to be inadequate to the task.

The speech is not quite as wonkish as Krugman's May 1998 missive, but is still robustly analytical. Perhaps that's why my profession and the media do not give it the attention it deserves. But Mr. Bernanke's speech does have strong Occam's Razor conclusions, and they are eerily the same as Krugman's, perhaps even stronger.

No, Mr. Bernanke did not advocate to the Bank of Japan that it credibly commit to acting irresponsibly, Krugman's clever turn of phrase. In fact, as noted above, Krugman didn't really, either; he simply wanted the Bank of Japan to act responsibly, which would be deemed irresponsible in the context of orthodox thinking. Both men know how to think outside the proverbial box!

At the time, Mr. Bernanke was a table-thumping advocate for the Fed to adopt an explicit inflation target. But in Japan, he upped that analytical ante by advocating that the Bank of Japan adopt a price level target, not an inflation target.

And there is a huge difference. An inflation target "forgives" past deflation (or below inflation target) sins. In contrast, a price level target does not forgive those sins, but rather demands that the central bank atone for them by explicitly pursuing sufficient inflation to restore the price level to a plateau that would have been achieved if those sins had not been committed. More specifically, he advocated that the Bank of Japan should (his italics, not mine):

"... announce its intention to restore the price level (as measured by some standard index of prices, such as the consumer price index excluding fresh food) to the value it would have reached if, instead of the deflation of the past five years, a moderate inflation of, say, 1 percent per year had occurred. (I choose 1 percent to allow for the measurement bias issue noted above, and because a slightly positive average rate of inflation reduces the risk of future episodes of sustained deflation.) Note that the proposed price-level target is a moving target, equal in the year 2003 to a value approximately 5 percent above the actual price level in 1998 and rising 1 percent per year thereafter. Because deflation implies falling prices while the target price-level rises, the failure to end deflation in a given year has the effect of increasing what I have called the price-level gap. The price-level gap is the difference between the actual price level and the price level that would have obtained if deflation had been avoided and the price stability objective achieved in the first place.

A successful effort to eliminate the price-level gap would proceed, roughly, in two stages. During the first stage, the inflation rate would exceed the long-term desired inflation rate, as the price-level gap was eliminated and the effects of previous deflation undone. Call this the reflationary phase of policy. Second, once the price-level target was reached, or nearly so, the objective for policy would become a conventional inflation target or a price-level target that increases over time at the average desired rate of inflation."

This is very powerful stuff! Mr. Bernanke knew he was breaking some new ground, at least from the mouth of a sitting policymaker. In actuality, he was drawing on some powerful academic work of Eggertsson and Woodford,⁵ which laid out the case that a price level target would likely have a more powerful effect on inflation expectations than simply an inflation target above the prevailing level of inflation (or in Japan's case, deflation). How so? A price level target pegged at the starting point of a period of deflation – or below target inflation – implies that the central bank is explicitly committed to reflation, meaning that in the short-to-intermediate term, the central bank will explicitly aim for an inflation rate that is higher than its long-term "desired" rate.

Mr. Bernanke recognized that such a policy could unmoor long-term inflation expectations, creating a deleterious rise in long-term interest rates. But in his view, this was a risk worth taking, in part because he felt that a central banker with strong communications skills could draw a distinction between (1) a one-time reflation to correct a deflated price level back up to a level that would have been achieved in the absence of deflationary sins and (2) the central bank's long-term inflation objective. But he acknowledged it would be tricky.

But his case didn't rest simply on skilled central bank communications. While he felt that generating a positive shock to short-to-intermediate inflation expectations would have the effect of reducing real interest rates (remember, the real rate is the nominal rate minus inflation expectations), he did not think that effect was assured and even if it was, he did not believe it would be sufficient to stimulate private sector aggregate demand robust enough to reduce Japan's output gap. Thus, he advocated explicit cooperation between the fiscal authority and the monetary authority, with the latter subordinating itself to the former. And you thought Krugman was radical!

While the passage on this topic⁶ in Bernanke's speech is a bit long, it is so powerful that I think it deserves a full hearing. Here it is:

"My thesis here is that cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities in Japan could help solve the problems that each policymaker faces on its own. Consider for example a tax cut for households and businesses that is explicitly coupled with incremental BOJ purchases of government debt – so that the tax cut is in effect financed by money creation. Moreover, assume that the Bank of Japan has made a commitment, by announcing a price-level target, to reflate the economy, so that much or all of the increase in the money stock is viewed as permanent.

Under this plan, the BOJ's balance sheet is protected by the bond conversion program,⁷ and the government's concerns about its outstanding stock of debt are mitigated because increases in its debt are purchased by the BOJ rather than sold to the private sector. Moreover, consumers and businesses should be willing to spend rather than save the bulk of their tax cut: They have extra cash on hand, but – because the BOJ purchased government debt in the amount of the tax cut – no current or future debt service burden has been created to imply increased future taxes.

Essentially, monetary and fiscal policies together have increased the nominal wealth of the household sector, which will increase nominal spending and hence prices. The health of the banking sector is irrelevant to this means of transmitting the expansionary effect of monetary policy, addressing the concern of BOJ officials about 'broken' channels of monetary transmission. This approach also responds to the reservation of BOJ officials that the Bank "lacks the tools" to reach a price-level or inflation target.

Isn't it irresponsible to recommend a tax cut, given the poor state of Japanese public finances? To the contrary, from a fiscal perspective, the policy would almost certainly be stabilizing, in the sense of reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio. The BOJ's purchases would leave the nominal quantity of debt in the hands of the public unchanged, while nominal GDP would rise owing to increased nominal spending. Indeed, nothing would help reduce Japan's fiscal woes more than healthy growth in nominal GDP and hence in tax revenues.

Potential roles for monetary-fiscal cooperation are not limited to BOJ support of tax cuts. BOJ purchases of government debt could also support spending programs, to facilitate industrial restructuring, for example. The BOJ's purchases would mitigate the effect of the new spending on the burden of debt and future interest payments perceived by households, which should reduce the offset from decreased consumption. More generally, by replacing interest-bearing debt with money, BOJ purchases of government debt lower current deficits and interest burdens and thus the public's expectations of future tax obligations.

Of course, one can never get something for nothing; from a public finance perspective, increased monetization of government debt simply amounts to replacing other forms of taxes with an inflation tax. But, in the context of deflation-ridden Japan, generating a little bit of positive inflation (and the associated increase in nominal spending) would help achieve the goals of promoting economic recovery and putting idle resources back to work, which in turn would boost tax revenue and improve the government's fiscal position."

Powerful, powerful stuff!

And Now to the USA at Present

The United States is not presently suffering deflation in goods and services prices, although the core CPI has dipped slightly below the Fed's putative 2% "target." So the extreme measures that Krugman and Bernanke advocated for Japan do not translate fully to the United States. But they do translate a lot more than the consensus is even willing to discuss in politically correct circles.

America is in a liquidity trap, driven by private sector deleveraging borne of asset price deflation, meaning that private sector demand for credit is axiomatically flat to negative, despite a Fed funds rate pinned against zero. The only source of credit demand growth in the United States is the Treasury itself.

And until the deleveraging process runs its course, consensus agrees that there is nothing wrong with such bloated Treasury demand for credit: In a recessionary foxhole, Keynesian religion dominates all other economic religions. But not all believers are equally devout, as noted at the outset, with many against any further ramping up of Keynesian stimulus, at least without a contemporaneous move to ensure long-term fiscal responsibility, so as to prevent a deleterious increase in long-term Treasury interest rates.

So what should Washington do, if and when – and I stress "if and when"; I'm not making a forecast here! – private sector aggregate (nominal) demand growth looks like it's going to languish in Japan style for the indefinite future? The answer: Take one cup of Krugman's advice for Japan and two cups of Bernanke's advice for Japan – responsibly act irresponsibly relative to orthodoxy.

Yes, as Bernanke intoned, there are no free lunches. But no lunch doesn't work for me. Or the American people. While it is true, as Keynes intoned, that we are all dead in the long run, I see no reason to die young from orthodoxy-imposed anorexia.

"Japan's Trap," http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/japtrap.html
"Thinking About the Liquidity Trap," http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/trioshrt.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021121/default.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2003/20030531/default.htm
Gauti Eggertsson, and Michael Woodford (2003). "The Zero Bound on Interest Rates and Optimal Monetary Policy," http://www.columbia.edu/~mw2230/BPEA.pdf
In this case, Bernanke was drawing on his own work, a no-punches-pulled academic essay from December 1999, "Japanese Monetary Policy: A Case of Self-Induced Paralysis." For the wonks amongst you that haven't read it, I strongly urge that you do so!
Elsewhere in the speech, Bernanke lays out a framework, via an interest rate swap arrangement, for the fiscal authority to assume any losses for the central bank from interest rate risks on its bond purchases, so as to bury that political red herring. As an economic matter, such losses are of no importance when looking at the consolidated balance sheet of the monetary authority and the fiscal authority: If government bond prices go down, the central bank loses money from a mark-to-market accounting perspective, but the fiscal authority makes exactly the same amount from a mark-to-market accounting perspective.

A Tale of Two Depressions

John Mauldin — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:49:15 GMT

This week's Outside the box looks at some very interesting research done by two economic historians, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin O'Rourke of Trinity College, Dublin They give us comparisons between the Great Depression and today's downturn. They continue to update their data from time to time, the link to their work is at http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421. I have not previously heard of www.voxeu.org, but it is a collection of the work of well regarded international economists that seems quite interesting for those who enjoy readings in the dismal science.

This week's OTB will print long, but it is primarily charts. Please note that I have re-arranged some of the new charts to cut down on space because of some duplications. Word count is not all that much and it reads well. I will be referring to their work in future letters as well. Have a great week!

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

A Tale of Two Depressions

New findings:

World industrial production continues to track closely the 1930s fall, with no clear signs of ‘green shoots'.
World stock markets have rebounded a bit since March, and world trade has stabilized, but these are still following paths far below the ones they followed in the Great Depression.
There are new charts for individual nations' industrial output. The big-4 EU nations divide north-south; today's German and British industrial output are closely tracking their rate of fall in the 1930s, while Italy and France are doing much worse.
The North Americans (US & Canada) continue to see their industrial output fall approximately in line with what happened in the 1929 crisis, with no clear signs of a turn around.
Japan's industrial output in February was 25 percentage points lower than at the equivalent stage in the Great Depression. There was however a sharp rebound in March.

The parallels between the Great Depression of the 1930s and our current Great Recession have been widely remarked upon. Paul Krugman has compared the fall in US industrial production from its mid-1929 and late-2007 peaks, showing that it has been milder this time. On this basis he refers to the current situation, with characteristic black humour, as only "half a Great Depression." The "Four Bad Bears" graph comparing the Dow in 1929-30 and S&P 500 in 2008-9 has similarly had wide circulation (Short 2009). It shows the US stock market since late 2007 falling just about as fast as in 1929-30.

Comparing the Great Depression to now for the world, not just the US

This and most other commentary contrasting the two episodes compares America then and now. This, however, is a misleading picture. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon. Even if it originated, in some sense, in the US, it was transmitted internationally by trade flows, capital flows and commodity prices. That said, different countries were affected differently. The US is not representative of their experiences.

Our Great Recession is every bit as global, earlier hopes for decoupling in Asia and Europe notwithstanding. Increasingly there is awareness that events have taken an even uglier turn outside the US, with even larger falls in manufacturing production, exports and equity prices.

In fact, when we look globally, as in Figure 1, the decline in industrial production in the last nine months has been at least as severe as in the nine months following the 1929 peak. (All graphs in this column track behaviour after the peaks in world industrial production, which occurred in June 1929 and April 2008.) Here, then, is a first illustration of how the global picture provides a very different and, indeed, more disturbing perspective than the US case considered by Krugman, which as noted earlier shows a smaller decline in manufacturing production now than then.

Updated Figure 1. World Industrial Output, Now vs Then (updated)

Source: Eichengreen and O'Rourke (2009) and IMF.

Similarly, while the fall in US stock market has tracked 1929, global stock markets are falling even faster now than in the Great Depression (Figure 2). Again this is contrary to the impression left by those who, basing their comparison on the US market alone, suggest that the current crash is no more serious than that of 1929-30.

Updated Figure 2. World Stock Markets, Now vs Then (updated)

Another area where we are "surpassing" our forbearers is in destroying trade. World trade is falling much faster now than in 1929-30 (Figure 3). This is highly alarming given the prominence attached in the historical literature to trade destruction as a factor compounding the Great Depression.

Updated Figure 3. The Volume of World Trade, Now vs Then (updated)

Sources: League of Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, http://www.cpb.nl/eng/research/sector2/data/trademonitor.html

It's a Depression alright

To sum up, globally we are tracking or doing even worse than the Great Depression, whether the metric is industrial production, exports or equity valuations. Focusing on the US causes one to minimise this alarming fact. The "Great Recession" label may turn out to be too optimistic. This is a Depression-sized event.

That said, we are only one year into the current crisis, whereas after 1929 the world economy continued to shrink for three successive years. What matters now is that policy makers arrest the decline. We therefore turn to the policy response.

Policy responses: Then and now

Figure 4 shows a GDP-weighted average of central bank discount rates for 7 countries. As can be seen, in both crises there was a lag of five or six months before discount rates responded to the passing of the peak, although in the present crisis rates have been cut more rapidly and from a lower level. There is more at work here than simply the difference between George Harrison and Ben Bernanke. The central bank response has differed globally.

Updated Figure 4. Central Bank Discount Rates, Now vs Then (7 country average)

Source: Bernanke and Mihov (2000); Bank of England, ECB, Bank of Japan, St. Louis Fed, National Bank of Poland, Sveriges Riksbank.

Figure 5 shows money supply for a GDP-weighted average of 19 countries accounting for more than half of world GDP in 2004. Clearly, monetary expansion was more rapid in the run-up to the 2008 crisis than during 1925-29, which is a reminder that the stage-setting events were not the same in the two cases. Moreover, the global money supply continued to grow rapidly in 2008, unlike in 1929 when it levelled off and then underwent a catastrophic decline.

Figure 5. Money Supplies, 19 Countries, Now vs Then

Source: Bordo et al. (2001), IMF International Financial Statistics, OECD Monthly Economic Indicators.

Figure 6 is the analogous picture for fiscal policy, in this case for 24 countries. The interwar measure is the fiscal surplus as a percentage of GDP. The current data include the IMF's World Economic Outlook Update forecasts for 2009 and 2010. As can be seen, fiscal deficits expanded after 1929 but only modestly. Clearly, willingness to run deficits today is considerably greater.

Figure 6. Government Budget Surpluses, Now vs Then

Source: Bordo et al. (2001), IMF World Economic Outlook, January 2009.

[They added some country data in their revision that I put here, hence the two figure 5's, but they are labeled as such on the website and I did not change their labellling – JFM]

New Figure 5. Industrial output, four big Europeans, then and now

New Figure 6. Industrial output, four Non-Europeans, then and now.

The facts for Chile, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Sweden are displayed below;

New Figure 7: Industrial output, four small Europeans, then and now.

Conclusion

To summarise: the world is currently undergoing an economic shock every bit as big as the Great Depression shock of 1929-30. Looking just at the US leads one to overlook how alarming the current situation is even in comparison with 1929-30.

The good news, of course, is that the policy response is very different. The question now is whether that policy response will work. For the answer, stay tuned for our next column.

Fear for a Lost Decade

John Mauldin — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:02:56 GMT

Before we get into this week's Outside the Box, let me give you a few pieces of data that came across my desk this morning, which will help set the stage for the OTB offering.

Fitch (the ratings agency), in a downgrade of yet another 543 mortgage-backed securities of 2005-07 vintage, gives us the following side notes: "The home price declines to date have resulted in negative equity for approximately 50% of the remaining performing borrowers in the 2005-2007 vintages. In addition to continued home price deterioration, unemployment has risen significantly since the third quarter of last year, particularly in California where the unemployment rate has jumped from 7.8% to 11%... The projected losses also reflect an assumption that from the first quarter of 2009, home prices will fall an additional 12.5% nationally and 36% in California, with home prices not exhibiting stability until the second half of 2010. To date, national home prices have declined by 27%. Fitch Rating's revised peak-to-trough expectation is for prices to decline by 36% from the peak price achieved in mid-2006. The additional 9% decline represents a 12.5% decline from today's levels."

So, what does an aging population do that has seen its retirement nest egg in the form of housing and stocks go literally nowhere for 12 years? You go back to work! David Rosenberg, now with Gluskin Sheff, offers us this insight:

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

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

With that as backdrop, what are we to make of the prospects for recovery over the next decade? Not much, if we listen to Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton. He suggests that the developed world could be entering a lost decade, just like Japan after their crash. Let me quickly point out that I routinely disagree with Krugman on a large number of issues. And I usually know why I disagree and believe his policy suggestions are wrong.

That being said, one purpose of Outside the Box is to look at ideas and thinkers that we may not always agree with. Krugman certainly qualifies on that front for me. However, it must be admitted that he is a very smart man. Further, his thinking is important, because it somewhat reflects the thinking of that part of the establishment that is in charge of the Fed and the Treasury. And while we are not getting gloomy long-term forecasts from either the Fed or the Treasury, I find it remarkable that Krugman is less sanguine than his peers. And there is much (certainly not all!) within this interview that I find myself in surprising agreement with. This one made me think as I read and reread it.

If he is correct, the rosy recovery assumptions built into the already bloated budget projections are going to be far too optimistic, not just for the US, but throughout Europe as well. Krugman is interviewed very capably by Will Hutton, a veteran writer and economist for the UK Guardian (a bastion of liberal politics). The direct link is http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/14/economics-globalrecession.

Green shoots? Really? I invite you to read and think about what this interview means for the road to recovery. I will take this up more in next Friday's missive. (Note, I did not write a letter last week. There was a new Mauldin grandchild on Friday, and I decided that some things just take precedence.) Have a great week.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Fear for a Lost Decade

As analysts and media hailed the tentative emergence of green shoots last week, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman caused international shock with a prediction that the world economy would stagnate just as badly, and for just as long, as Japan's did in the 1990s. In an exclusive interview, he talks to Will Hutton about his anxiety for the future.

Will Hutton: You are warning that what happened to Japan could happen to the whole world. Japan's GDP at the end of this year will be no higher than it was in 1992 -- 17 lost years. You are saying that this is an ongoing risk, certainly for the North Atlantic economy – – maybe the world economy.

Paul Krugman: Yes. It's not that the risk of the Japan syndrome has receded very much. The risk of a full, all-out Great Depression – – utter collapse of everything – – has receded a lot in the past few months. But this first year of crisis has been far worse than anything that happened in Japan during the last decade, so in some sense we already have much worse than anything the Japanese went through. The risk for long stagnation is really high.

WH: So what is the heart of your pessimism? The bust banking system? A critic would say: "Hold on, Paul Krugman. Japan is a special case. It had an overblown export sector that had become too large for an American market it had saturated. The yen was very, very overvalued. And this interacted with a credit crunch and bust banking system. Its policy response was consistently behind the curve. That's not the story of the United States or the United Kingdom."

PK: The thing about Japan, as with all of these cases, is how much people claim to know what happened, without having any evidence. What we do know is that recessions normally end everywhere because the monetary authority cuts interest rates a lot, and that gets things moving. And what we know in Japan was that eventually they cut their interest rates to zero and that wasn't enough. And, so far, although we made the cuts faster than they did and cut them all the way to zero, it isn't enough. We've hit that lower bound the same as they did. Now, everything after that is more or less speculation.

For example, were the problems with the Japanese banks the core problem? There are some stories about credit rationing, but they are not overwhelming. Certainly, when we look at the Japanese recovery, there was not a great surge of business investment. There was primarily a surge of exports. But was fixing the banks central to export growth?

In their case, the problems had a lot to do with demography. That made them a natural capital exporter, from older savers, and also made it harder for them to have enough demand. They also had one hell of a bubble in the 1980s and the wreckage left behind by that bubble – – in their case a highly leveraged corporate sector – – was and is a drag on the economy.

The size of the shock to our systems is going to be much bigger than what happened to Japan in the 1990s. They never had a freefall in their economy – – a period when GDP declined by 3%, 4%. It is by no means clear that the underlying differences in the structure of the situation are significant. What we do know is that the zero bound is real. We know that there are situations in which ordinary monetary policy loses all traction. And we know that we're in one now.

WH: So your point is that the crisis in Japan was about excess debt, excess leverage and lack of demand – – reinforced by the fallout from the asset bubble collapsing. They didn't have credit contraction on anything like our scale, but even so, zero interest rates were just unable to turn the economy around.

PK: That's right, that's right.

WH: But an optimist would say that there are signs all around of the traction that you say doesn't exist is working. The stockmarkets in London and Wall Street – – along with most world markets – – are up a solid 20% to 25%. You've got all these improving business confidence indicators. You've got the first signs of the housing market bottoming in both the UK and the United States. This is what the optimists would tell you.

PK: But all of that points to levelling off, rather than an actual recovery. Britain's looking the best among the major European economies because it's got a PMI [purchasing managers' index, a key measure of economic sentiment] that's just above 50. In other words, Britain actually may have stopped contracting – – that's the most positive thing one can say.

Who knows if the stockmarket makes sense or not? It was pricing in the possibility of an apocalypse a few months ago. That possibility seems to have receded, so it makes sense for the markets to come up, but that's not saying that the economy is going to be great. If you do the comparison not with where they were three months ago, but where they were two years ago, then the markets still seem awfully depressed.

I hope I'm wrong but the question you always have to ask is: where do we think that this recovery's going to come from? It's not an easy story to tell.

WH: In your lectures, you drew attention to the importance of stressed balance sheets holding back consumers and business alike in their likely spending ambitions – – and thus dragging back economic activity. Is this going to be a balance-sheet-constrained recovery?

PK: It's probably true that households have been impoverished a lot by the fall of the housing and stock prices. And that it's likely that households, with all of this debt, are going to have trouble spending. And yes, the North Atlantic economy was supported quite a lot by gigantic housing booms. Here in the UK you have had the house price surge without very much construction. Economists have a well-developed theory about how balance-sheet problems can cause financial and economic crises, but we thought of it in terms of third world countries with foreign-currency debt. We didn't realise that there were lots of other ways in which that can happen.

WH: So, one way to think about it is that self-reinforcing financial crises rooted in overstretched, overborrowed companies and governments in less developed countries – – like those in Argentina and Indonesia, which were amazingly destructive in the 1990s and 2000s, but localised – – are now playing out in the developed world?

PK: There are really two stories. One is the Japan-type story where you run out of room to cut interest rates. And the other is the Indonesia- and Argentina-type story where everything falls apart because of balance-sheet problems.

WH: So in a nutshell your story is ...

PK: The "Nipponisation" of the world economy with a bunch of "Argentinafications" playing a role in the acute crisis. But even after those are over, we have the Nipponisation of the world economy. And that's really something.

WH: What was the heart of the Japanese problem? What was at the heart of their 17 years of going nowhere?

PK: Well, my guess is that it was that the balance-sheet problems took a very long time to resolve. And it is difficult to get enough demand in an economy where you have really very adverse demography ...

WH: So, which countries look closest to being Nipponised – – combining balance-sheet problems and ageing populations?

PK: Well, the US doesn't have the same combination. But in Europe, Germany and Italy look comparable. France is better and Europe as a whole is considerably better.

WH: Germany matches Japan to an uncanny degree. You talk about the Nipponisation of the world economy: I'm not so sure. But I would talk about the Nipponisation of Europe via a German economy at its centre in the grip of the same problem – – and that starts to be a global problem.

PK: Germany has huge inadequacy of domestic demand. Their economic recovery in the first seven years of this decade rested on the emergence of gigantic current account surplus.

How is it possible that Germany, which did not have a house price bubble, is having a steeper GDP fall than anyone else in the major economies?

The answer is that they depended upon exporting to the bubble regions of Europe, so they actually got side-swiped by the loss of those exports worse than the bubble regions themselves got hit.

It's Germany on a global scale that is the concern. We worry about the drag on world demand from the global savings coming out of east Asia and the Middle East, but within Europe there's a European savings glut which is coming out of Germany. And it's much bigger relative to the size of the economy.

WH: And on top there is an unique and unaddressed huge potential banking crisis. The Germans pride themselves on their three-legged banking system, but it is incredibly interlinked. The IMF warns that Germany could have to take at least $500bn of writedowns, which its banks have not begun to recognise. German banks hold a trillion dollars – – maybe more – – of maturing collateralised debt obligations that can only be refinanced by crystallising the losses. We've had RBS and you've had Citigroup. Germany's GDP will fall 6% this year – – before the banking crisis has hit it.

PK: Yeah, that's the financial view. Its important to keep track of the financial state of the banks. But one always has to keep track of the real side of the economy, too. It is a hypothesis that the problem is essentially financial. But it is by no means a hypothesis that we know is true.

WH: So even after what we've gone through, you say it's just a hypothesis that the cause of the crisis is financial?

PK: That the cause is primarily financial. Certainly, Lehman and all of that alerted us all. And it did trigger an immediate drop in demand. But the housing bust was going to happen regardless.

The fall in business investment is at least to a large degree a response to excess capacity, which is the result of falling consumer demand and the housing bust. So we don't know.

WH: I think we know more than that. The links between bank capital, loan losses, credit availability and economic activity and asset prices have never been clearer. That was why there was a threat of Depression.

PK: Clearly, re-establishing stability in the financial markets is a necessary condition for recovery. But we're not sure it's sufficient.

WH: That's very scary.

PK: Well, that is part of the reason why I am so depressed.

WH: In one of your lecture charts you seemed to be suggesting that we're 12 months into what you think could be a 36-month period of downturn, albeit at a slower rate.

PK: Easily.

WH: It's quite shocking that you think it will be that severe.

PK: If we measure the 2001 US recession by when the labour market finally started to turn around, it was a 30-month recession. It was really 30 months in before you started to see the unemployment rate come down.

WH: In Britain, there is now a new consensus forming that the government's economic forecasts, which were roundly mocked at the time of the April budget for being wildly optimistic, could be right – – that is, growth will start to resume in 2010, albeit at a very low rate.

PK: Well, the UK has achieved a lot of monetary traction in the way that no one else has through the depreciation of the pound. In effect, you've carried out a successful beggar-my-neighbour devaluation.

WH: So, the United Kingdom might actually get through this in reasonably good shape?

PK: Yeah. That's why I've been watching with an outsider's slight puzzlement, your bizarre political circus.

WH: Darling and Brown deserve more credit than they're given?

PK: If the government can hold off having an election until next year, Labour might well be able to run as "we're the people who brought Britain out of the slump".

WH: So your advice to the Labour Party is: hold steady.

PK: Probably.

WH: Probably?

PK: I don't know enough about the other aspects of politics, but I would guess that the option value is quite high that the economy might actually have turned a corner. That's unique. That's a uniquely British thing. None of the other G7 countries has anything like that.

WH: And that's a combination of our big beggar-our-neighbour devaluation, aggressive monetary policy, successfully recapitalising our banks and our fiscal policy.

PK: There hasn't been very much discretionary fiscal expansion when all's said and done.

WH: Well, there was a £20bn temporary cut in VAT.

PK: Yeah.

WH: Which is non-trivial.

PK: Non-trivial. But not much [other spending], as I understand.

WH: Well, there was bringing forward £3-4bn of capital spending. Perhaps together in a full year the stimulus was 1.5% GDP. Maybe 2% at the outside.

PK: Monetary policy has been more aggressive – – though maybe less than the Fed – – and the depreciation of the pound is a nice thing from a UK point of view.

WH: So you remain committed to the key role of fiscal policy?

PK: Yeah. Fiscal policies are best; certainly something to do to mitigate recession. People say that the Japanese fiscal policy on all that infrastructure was wasted. But it did help sustain the economy and avoid a collapse. Fiscal policy can certainly do that: it gives the credit sector time to rebuild its balance sheets. There's every reason to be expansive around the fiscal side now because even if you're not sure that it provides a long-term solution, avoiding catastrophe is a big thing to do.

WH: If you believe that, is Obama doing enough on fiscal policy?

PK: Well we have a stimulus which is a little over 5% of one year's GDP but some of it is not real – something that was going to happen anyway and not very stimulative. So it's really about 4% of GDP of genuine stimulus, but spread over two and a half years. So, it's actually quite a lot less than what I was arguing for.

WH: So, will it be sufficient?

PK: Well, sufficient to actually restore full employment would probably have to be 5% or more. More than we have would certainly be a good thing. It actually might happen. You know, the buzz I'm getting is that a second-round stimulus might well come on the agenda.

WH: Really? When you say "the buzz you're getting", have you been asked?

PK: Well, it's what you hear from people who talk to people who talk to people.

WH: Who would argue for that? Would it be Larry Summers [director of the US National Economic Council]?

PK: I think Larry. I'm not sure Tim Geithner [US treasury secretary] would be opposed to it. Nor would Chrissie [Christine Romer, director of the Council of Economic Advisers] I'm sure they would be making similar judgements. It is actually a little spooky.

WH: They're all people you know pretty well, who look at the world the same way, use the same tools and framework ...

PK: Yeah. They may be sitting where they are, having some differences. Larry's always more conventional than I am. Sometimes rightly. Sometimes wrongly. But they do operate in the same framework.

WH: How seriously do you take the argument that the growth of public debt on this scale will crowd out the spontaneous amount of growth of corporate and private debt? Is this already happening with the rise in long-term interest rates in the US?

PK: The thing about long-term interest rates is that they are a weighted average of future expected short-term interest rates. Movements in long-term rates are mostly about what people think the short rates are going to be. Look, real rates are barely up at all. What seems to have moved up is the expected rate of inflation, which is still below the Fed target. So it's more like what the markets are doing is reducing their discounting of deflationary catastrophe. WH: how do you see the politics working out in the States and in the UK now? Your praise of Gordon Brown after the banks in October were recapitalised was front-page news. Are you still as well disposed?

PK: I still think his economic policies have been pretty good. They really kind of lost their nerve on fiscal policy, but I do understand it's harder to do it here. I think the UK economy looks the best in Europe at the moment. I have no position on all of the crazy stuff. But I think the policies are intelligent. The fact of the matter is that Britain did manage to stabilise the banking situation. I'm not ecstatic, but I'm not sure I know what I could have done better.

WH: So where are you on the debate about various shape recoveries? V-shaped? L-shaped ? A W-shaped recovery?

PK: There is a possibility that we get some perk-up as the stimulus dollars start to flow and an almost mechanical bounceback in industrial production as inventories are built up. But then we slide down again. The idea that we sort of bounce along the bottom is all too easy to imagine.

WH: Is it just a story about the right dose of fiscal policy? What structural change would you advocate in the economy, to support recovery?

PK: Financial regulation. Rein in that monster. The huge increase in general private-sector leverage is at the core of how we got so vulnerable. We went for 50 years after the Great Depression without any major financial crises, and that, I think, was because we had a financial sector that didn't let people get as deeply into debt as they have now.

WH: So rein in the financial monster and give a fiscal stimulus. So you would leave the American way of doing capitalism untouched?

PK: I'm not that cosmic in this stuff. But it is true that Gordon Gekko [the anti-hero of Oliver Stone's film Wall Street, motto: Greed is Good] went hand in hand with the wave of financialisation. Corporations got more brutal and fiercer.

WH: But it is all connected. Without the leverage, there would have been no Gordon Gekkos. And leverage meant that predator companies had the firepower to launch contested hostile takeovers. The only way to fend off attack, or to make the sums work after an attack, was for companies to be more brutal and fierce – often breaking the promises to staff and suppliers that kept commitment and trust.

PK: All of that is true. I have a more mundane view about what we do. I just want a stronger welfare state and a little bit more social democracy. And some restoration of the labour movement as a counterweight.

I'm not sure – maybe I'm just not thinking about it deeply enough. I guess I've got the same attitude Keynes had, which was he was looking for almost technical fixes. You're looking for ways to fix the parts that have gone wrong rather than replace the whole thing.

You know the human cost of this crisis is vastly worse in America than it is on this side of the Atlantic. So this is a good time to push for a better US social safety net too.

WH: And lastly – you've been critical about Obama. Your view now?

PK: I'm increasingly happy with him. I was unhappy; I think they could have gotten a bigger stimulus coming out the gate. But they've become more forceful. I would have been more aggressive on the banks; we'll see if we need to re-fight that battle later on.

Healthcare is looking really good. I'm getting increasingly optimistic on healthcare reform. Climate change looks like it's going to happen. So my odds that this will in fact be the kind of New Deal I was hoping for are rising. I had my scepticism, but he is smart. He's impressive. And it is such a relief to have somebody whom you can respect in the White House.

The Geography of Recession

John Mauldin — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:16:46 GMT

Dear Friends:

One of the first things you learn about analyzing a company is how to dissect a balance sheet. What assets and liabilities can be deployed by a company to create equity over time? I've enclosed a fascinating variant on this process. Take a look at how STRATFOR has analyzed the "geographic balance sheets" of the US, Russia, China, and Europe to understand why different countries' economies have suffered to varying degrees from the current economic crisis.

As investors, it's precisely this type of outside-the-box thinking that can provide us profitable opportunities, and it's precisely this type of outside-the-box thinking that makes STRATFOR such an important part of my investment decision making. The key to investment profits is thinking differently and thinking earlier than the next guy. STRATFOR's work exemplifies both these traits.

I've arranged for a special deal on a STRATFOR Membership for my readers, which you can click here to take advantage of. Many of you are invested in alternative strategies, but I want to make sure that you also employ alternative thinking strategies. So take a look at these different "country balance sheets" as you formulate your plans.

Your Mapping It Out Analyst,

John Mauldin

The Geography of Recession

By Peter Zeihan

The United States and the Free Market

The most important aspect of the United States is not simply its sheer size, but the size of its usable land. Russia and China may both be similar-sized in absolute terms, but the vast majority of Russian and Chinese land is useless for agriculture, habitation or development. In contrast, courtesy of the Midwest, the United States boasts the world's largest contiguous mass of arable land — and that mass does not include the hardly inconsequential chunks of usable territory on both the West and East coasts.

Second is the American maritime transport system. The Mississippi River, linked as it is to the Red, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee rivers, comprises the largest interconnected network of navigable rivers in the world. In the San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound/New York Bay, the United States has three of the world's largest and best natural harbors. The series of barrier islands a few miles off the shores of Texas and the East Coast form a water-based highway — an Intercoastal Waterway — that shields American coastal shipping from all but the worst that the elements can throw at ships and ports.

The real beauty is that the two overlap with near perfect symmetry. The Intercoastal Waterway and most of the bays link up with agricultural regions and their own local river systems (such as the series of rivers that descend from the Appalachians to the East Coast), while the Greater Mississippi river network is the circulatory system of the Midwest. Even without the addition of canals, it is possible for ships to reach nearly any part of the Midwest from nearly any part of the Gulf or East coasts. The result is not just a massive ability to grow a massive amount of crops — and not just the ability to easily and cheaply move the crops to local, regional and global markets — but also the ability to use that same transport network for any other economic purpose without having to worry about food supplies.

The implications of such a confluence are deep and sustained. Where most countries need to scrape together capital to build roads and rail to establish the very foundation of an economy, transport capability, geography granted the United States a near-perfect system at no cost. That frees up U.S. capital for other pursuits and almost condemns the United States to be capital-rich. Any additional infrastructure the United States constructs is icing on the cake. (The cake itself is free — and, incidentally, the United States had so much free capital that it was able to go on to build one of the best road-and-rail networks anyway, resulting in even greater economic advantages over competitors.)

Third, geography has also ensured that the United States has very little local competition. To the north, Canada is both much colder and much more mountainous than the United States. Canada's only navigable maritime network — the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway —is shared with the United States, and most of its usable land is hard by the American border. Often this makes it more economically advantageous for Canadian provinces to integrate with their neighbor to the south than with their co-nationals to the east and west.

Similarly, Mexico has only small chunks of land, separated by deserts and mountains, that are useful for much more than subsistence agriculture; most of Mexican territory is either too dry, too tropical or too mountainous. And Mexico completely lacks any meaningful river system for maritime transport. Add in a largely desert border, and Mexico as a country is not a meaningful threat to American security (which hardly means that there are not serious and ongoing concerns in the American-Mexican relationship).

With geography empowering the United States and hindering Canada and Mexico, the United States does not need to maintain a large standing military force to counter either. The Canadian border is almost completely unguarded, and the Mexican border is no more than a fence in most locations — a far cry from the sort of military standoffs that have marked more adversarial borders in human history. Not only are Canada and Mexico not major threats, but the U.S. transport network allows the United States the luxury of being able to quickly move a smaller force to deal with occasional problems rather than requiring it to station large static forces on its borders.

Like the transport network, this also helps the U.S. focus its resources on other things.

Taken together, the integrated transport network, large tracts of usable land and lack of a need for a standing military have one critical implication: The U.S. government tends to take a hands-off approach to economic management, because geography has not cursed the United States with any endemic problems. This may mean that the United States — and especially its government — comes across as disorganized, but it shifts massive amounts of labor and capital to the private sector, which for the most part allows resources to flow to wherever they will achieve the most efficient and productive results.

Laissez-faire capitalism has its flaws. Inequality and social stress are just two of many less-than-desirable side effects. The side effects most relevant to the current situation are, of course, the speculative bubbles that cause recessions when they pop. But in terms of long-term economic efficiency and growth, a free capital system is unrivaled. For the United States, the end result has proved clear: The United States has exited each decade since post-Civil War Reconstruction more powerful than it was when it entered it. While there are many forces in the modern world that threaten various aspects of U.S. economic standing, there is not one that actually threatens the U.S. base geographic advantages.

Is the United States in recession? Of course. Will it be forever? Of course not. So long as U.S. geographic advantages remain intact, it takes no small amount of paranoia and pessimism to envision anything but long-term economic expansion for such a chunk of territory. In fact, there are a number of factors hinting that the United States may even be on the cusp of recovery.

Russia and the State

If in economic terms the United States has everything going for it geographically, then Russia is just the opposite. The Russian steppe lies deep in the interior of the Eurasian landmass, and as such is subject to climatic conditions much more hostile to human habitation and agriculture than is the American Midwest. Even in those blessed good years when crops are abundant in Russia, it has no river network to allow for easy transport of products.

Russia has no good warm-water ports to facilitate international trade (and has spent much of its history seeking access to one). Russia does have long rivers, but they are not interconnected as the Mississippi is with its tributaries, instead flowing north to the Arctic Ocean, which can support no more than a token population. The one exception is the Volga, which is critical to Western Russian commerce but flows to the Caspian, a storm-wracked and landlocked sea whose delta freezes in the winter (along with the entire Volga itself). Developing such unforgiving lands requires a massive outlay of funds simply to build the road and rail networks necessary to achieve the most basic of economic development. The cost is so extreme that Russia's first ever intercontinental road was not completed until the 21st century, and it is little more than a two-lane path for much of its length. Between the lack of ports and the relatively low population densities, little of Russia's transport system beyond the St. Petersburg/Moscow corridor approaches anything that hints of economic rationality.

Russia also has no meaningful external borders. It sits on the eastern end of the North European Plain, which stretches all the way to Normandy, France, and Russia's connections to the Asian steppe flow deep into China. Because Russia lacks a decent internal transport network that can rapidly move armies from place to place, geography forces Russia to defend itself following two strategies. First, it requires massive standing armies on all of its borders. Second, it dictates that Russia continually push its boundaries outward to buffer its core against external threats.

Both strategies compromise Russian economic development even further. The large standing armies are a continual drain on state coffers and the country's labor pool; their cost was a critical economic factor in the Soviet fall. The expansionist strategy not only absorbs large populations that do not wish to be part of the Russian state and so must constantly be policed — the core rationale for Russia's robust security services — but also inflates Russia's infrastructure development costs by increasing the amount of relatively useless territory Moscow is responsible for.

Russia's labor and capital resources are woefully inadequate to overcome the state's needs and vulnerabilities, which are legion. These endemic problems force Russia toward central planning; the full harnessing of all economic resources available is required if Russia is to achieve even a modicum of security and stability. One of the many results of this is severe economic inefficiency and a general dearth of an internal consumer market. Because capital and other resources can be flung forcefully at problems, however, active management can achieve specific national goals more readily than a hands-off, American-style model. This often gives the impression of significant progress in areas the Kremlin chooses to highlight.

But such achievements are largely limited to wherever the state happens to be directing its attention. In all other sectors, the lack of attention results in atrophy or criminalization. This is particularly true in modern Russia, where the ruling elite comprises just a handful of people, starkly limiting the amount of planning and oversight possible. And unless management is perfect in perception and execution, any mistakes are quickly magnified into national catastrophes. It is therefore no surprise to STRATFOR that the Russian economy has now fallen the furthest of any major economy during the current recession.

China and Separatism

China also faces significant hurdles, albeit none as daunting as Russia's challenges. China's core is the farmland of the Yellow River basin in the north of the country, a river that is not readily navigable and is remarkably flood prone. Simply avoiding periodic starvation requires a high level of state planning and coordination. (Wrestling a large river is not the easiest thing one can do.) Additionally, the southern half of the country has a subtropical climate, riddling it with diseases that the southerners are resistant to but the northerners are not. This compromises the north's political control of the south.

Central control is also threatened by China's maritime geography. China boasts two other rivers, but they do not link to each other or the Yellow naturally. And China's best ports are at the mouths of these two rivers: Shanghai at the mouth of the Yangtze and Hong Kong/Macau/Guangzhou at the mouth of the Pearl. The Yellow boasts no significant ocean port. The end result is that other regional centers can and do develop economic means independent of Beijing.

With geography complicating northern rule and supporting southern economic independence, Beijing's age-old problem has been trying to keep China in one piece. Beijing has to underwrite massive (and expensive) development programs to stitch the country together with a common infrastructure, the most visible of which is the Grand Canal that links the Yellow and Yangtze rivers. The cost of such linkages instantly guarantees that while China may have a shot at being unified, it will always be capital-poor.

Beijing also has to provide its autonomy-minded regions with an economic incentive to remain part of Greater China, and "simple" infrastructure will not cut it. Modern China has turned to a state-centered finance model for this. Under the model, all of the scarce capital that is available is funneled to the state, which divvies it out via a handful of large state banks. These state banks then grant loans to various firms and local governments at below the cost of raising the capital. This provides a powerful economic stimulus that achieves maximum employment and growth — think of what you could do with a near-endless supply of loans at below 0 percent interest — but comes at the cost of encouraging projects that are loss-making, as no one is ever called to account for failures. (They can just get a new loan.) The resultant growth is rapid, but it is also unsustainable. It is no wonder, then, that the central government has chosen to keep its $2 trillion of currency reserves in dollar-based assets; the rate of return is greater, the value holds over a long period, and Beijing doesn't have to worry about the United States seceding.

Because the domestic market is considerably limited by the poor-capital nature of the country, most producers choose to tap export markets to generate income. In times of plenty this works fairly well, but when Chinese goods are not needed, the entire Chinese system can seize up. Lack of exports reduces capital availability, which constrains loan availability. This in turn not only damages the ability of firms to employ China's legions of citizens, but it also removes the primary reason the disparate Chinese regions pay homage to Beijing. China's geography hardwires in a series of economic challenges that weaken the coherence of the state and make China dependent upon uninterrupted access to foreign markets to maintain state unity. As a result, China has not been a unified entity for the vast majority of its history, but instead a cauldron of competing regions that cleave along many different fault lines: coastal versus interior, Han versus minority, north versus south.

China's survival technique for the current recession is simple. Because exports, which account for roughly half of China's economic activity, have sunk by half, Beijing is throwing the equivalent of the financial kitchen sink at the problem. China has force-fed more loans through the banks in the first four months of 2009 than it did in the entirety of 2008. The long-term result could well bury China beneath a mountain of bad loans — a similar strategy resulted in Japan's 1991 crash, from which Tokyo has yet to recover. But for now it is holding the country together. The bottom line remains, however: China's recovery is completely dependent upon external demand for its production, and the most it can do on its own is tread water.

Discordant Europe

Europe faces an imbroglio somewhat similar to China's.

Europe has a number of rivers that are easily navigable, providing a wealth of trade and development opportunities. But none of them interlinks with the others, retarding political unification. Europe has even more good harbors than the United States, but they are not evenly spread throughout the Continent, making some states capital-rich and others capital-poor. Europe boasts one huge piece of arable land on the North European Plain, but it is long and thin, and so occupied by no fewer than seven distinct ethnic groups.

These groups have constantly struggled — as have the various groups up and down Europe's seemingly endless list of river valleys — but none has been able to emerge dominant, due to the webwork of mountains and peninsulas that make it nigh impossible to fully root out any particular group. And Europe's wealth of islands close to the Continent, with Great Britain being only the most obvious, guarantee constant intervention to ensure that mainland Europe never unifies under a single power.

Every part of Europe has a radically different geography than the other parts, and thus the economic models the Europeans have adopted have little in common. The United Kingdom, with few immediate security threats and decent rivers and ports, has an almost American-style laissez-faire system. France, with three unconnected rivers lying wholly in its own territory, is a somewhat self-contained world, making economic nationalism its credo. Not only do the rivers in Germany not connect, but Berlin has to share them with other states. The Jutland Peninsula interrupts the coastline of Germany, which finds its sea access limited by the Danes, the Swedes and the British. Germany must plan in great detail to maximize its resource use to build an infrastructure that can compensate for its geographic deficiencies and link together its good — but disparate — geographic blessings. The result is a state that somewhat favors free enterprise, but within the limits framed by national needs.

And the list of differences goes on: Spain has long coasts and is arid; Austria is landlocked and quite wet; most of Greece is almost too mountainous to build on; it doesn't get flatter than the Netherlands; tiny Estonia faces frozen seas in the winter; mammoth Italy has never even seen an icebreaker. Even if there were a supranational authority in Europe that could tax or regulate the banking sector or plan transnational responses, the propriety of any singular policy would be questionable at best.

Such stark regional differences give rise to such variant policies that many European states have a severe (and understandable) trust deficit when it comes to any hint of anything supranational. We are not simply taking about the European Union here, but rather a general distrust of anything cross-border in nature. One of the many outcomes of this is a preference for using local banks rather than stock exchanges for raising capital. After all, local banks tend to use local capital and are subject to local regulations, while stock exchanges tend to be internationalized in all respects. Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece and Austria get more than 90 percent of their financing from banks, the United Kingdom 84 percent and Germany 76 percent — while for the United States it is only 40 percent.

And this has proved unfortunate in the extreme for today's Europe. The current recession has its roots in a financial crisis that has most dramatically impacted banks, and European banks have proved far from immune. Until Europe's banks recover, Europe will remain mired in recession. And since there cannot be a Pan-European solution, Europe's recession could well prove to be the worst of all this time around.

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

John Mauldin — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:30:00 GMT

Dear Friends:

A long-time religious land bridge between the Islamic and Western worlds, Turkey now finds itself an economic gatekeeper, a US-backed contender for the EU and the only key that could unlock Europe from dependence on Russian resources. The value of your dollar is intrinsically linked to last week’s summits—the most important multinational summits in history.

I’d like to share with you an article by my friend George Friedman at STRATFOR. It delves into the Summits (G20, NATO, bilaterals) and explores the connections between finance and geopolitics. In this case, it boils down to two string-holding puppeteers: Germany and Russia. Germany, the largest exporter in the world, is happy to up its production while the US spreads its dollar paper-thin by contributing to an IMF fund that will bail out countries who will in turn spend their money in Germany’s already tremendous export sector. Russia, the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, too stands to benefit from US contributions to the IMF pot, as their slice of the pie gets bigger with the pan—as long as Turkey keeps her pipes closed.

The decisions made and policies enacted at the Summits trickle down to you and me. To make sense of it all, I encourage you to read STRATFOR. George has arranged a special offer for my readers: click here to take advantage of a 2-for-1 deal; you get a 2-year Membership for the 1-year price of $349. STRATFOR is the best global intelligence service in the world, and their unbiased coverage of the G20, NATO, and other extracurricular summits is unmatched by anyone else.

Yours,
John Mauldin

Obama's Strategy and the Summits

By George Friedman
April 6, 2009

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has almost ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Let's begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany's. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers' meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany's unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can't afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama's first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that "consensus."

Turkey and Obama's Deeper Game

But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States, Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

The Russian Dimension

Let's diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week's meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren't essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn't been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia's position is precarious and Azerbaijan's route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany's dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany's energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia's junior partner.

This is why Obama's most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey's emergence as a major player in NATO's political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey's accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won't yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

Europe On the Ropes

John Mauldin — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:17:24 GMT

This week we look at the European bank markets through the eyes of my London partner Niels Jensen, head of Absolute Return Partners. I continue to believe that this is a brewing crisis which could have far more significant implications for the global economy than the Asian Crisis of 1998. In this week's Outside the Box, Niels has compiled a sobering set of data that suggests that only massive government involvement in Europe on a scale that is unprecedented will keep the wheels from coming off in Europe and the global economy.

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

Europe On the Ropes

The Absolute Return Letter March 2009

"Many of today's policy proposals start from the view that "greed" and "incompetence" and "poor risk assessment" are the ultimate source of what went wrong. In fact, they were not the true cause at all. Moreover, even if they had been, it is fatuous to think that we will now create a post-crash generation of bankers and traders who are not greedy, much less a new generation of quants who will be able to assess and manage risks much better than "the idiots" who have brought us to the current abyss. Greed cannot be exorcised. Nor can the inherent inability of any quants to determine the "true" probability distributions of all-important events whose true probabilities of occurrence can never be assessed in the first place."

Woody Brock, SED Profile, December 2008

Policy mistakes 'en masse'

The last few weeks have had a profound effect on my view of politicians (as if it wasn't already dented). All this talk about capping salaries for senior bank executives is quite frankly ridiculous. It is Neanderthal politics performed by populist leaders. That Gordon Brown has fallen for it is hardly surprising but I am disappointed to see that Barack Obama couldn't resist the temptation. The mob wants blood and our leaders are delivering in spades. The stark reality is that we are all guilty of the mess we are now in. For a while we were allowed to live out our dreams and who was there to stop us? Policy mistakes – very grave mistakes – permitted the situation to spin out of control. From the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank under the stewardship of Alan Greenspan being far too generous on interest rates to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer -who now happens to be our Prime Minister - advocating 'Regulation Light'.

Policing must improve

If you really want to prevent a banking crisis of this magnitude from ever happening again, the focus should be on the way banks operate and not on how much they pay their staff. And, within that context, any discussion must start and end with how much leverage should be permitted. The French have actually caught onto that, but their narrow-mindedness has driven them to focus on hedge funds' use of leverage which is only a tiny part of the problem. It is the gung ho strategy of banks which brought us down and which must be better policed. And guess what; if banks were better policed - and leverage restricted - then profits, even at the best of times, would be much smaller and there would be no need to regulate bankers' compensation packages.

It is pathetic to watch our prime minister attacking the bonus arrangements of our banks when the UK Treasury, on his watch, spent £27 million pounds on bonuses last year as reward for delivering a public spending deficit of 4.5% of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle. Even my old mother understands that governments must deliver budget surpluses in good times, allowing them more flexibility to stimulate when the economy hits the wall. What Gordon Brown has done to UK public finances in recent years is nothing short of criminal.

So, with that in mind, let's take a closer look at the European banking industry. The following is not pretty reading. I have rarely, if ever, felt this apprehensive about the outlook. So, if the crisis has made you depressed already, don't read any further. What is about to come, will make your heart sink.

More leverage in Europe

Let's begin our journey by pointing out a regulatory 'anomaly' which has allowed European banks to take on much more leverage than their American colleagues and which now makes them far more vulnerable. In Europe, unlike in the US, it is only risk-weighted assets which matter to the regulators, not the total leverage ratio. European banks can therefore apply a lot more leverage than their US counterparties, provided they load their balance sheets with higher rated assets, and that is precisely what they have been doing.

That is fine as long as you buy what it says on the tin. But AAA is not always AAA as we have learned over the past 18 months. Asset securitisations such as CLOs proved very popular amongst European banks, partly because they offered very attractive returns and partly because Standard & Poors and Moodys were kind enough to rate many of them AAA despite the questionable quality of the underlying assets.

Now, as long as the economy chugs along, everything is dandy and the AAA-rated assets turn out to be precisely that. But we are not in dandy territory. Many asset securitisation programmes are in horse manure to their necks, so don't be at all surprised if European banks have to swallow further losses once the full effect of the recession is felt across Europe. The two largest sources of asset securitisation programmes are corporate loans and credit cards. Senior secured loans are still marked at or close to par on many balance sheets despite the fact they trade around 70 in the markets. The credit card cycle is only beginning to turn now with significant losses expected later this year and in 2010-11.

Not much of a cushion left

Citibank has calculated that it would only take a cumulative increase in bad debts of 3.8% in 2009-10 to take the core equity tier 1 ratio of the European banking industry down to the bare minimum of 4.5%¹. By comparison, bad debts rose by a cumulative 7% in Japan in 1997-98. One can only conclude that European banks are very poorly equipped to withstand a severe recession. Seeing the writing on the wall, they are left with no option but to shrink their balance sheets. Despite talking the talk, banks will use every trick at their disposal to reduce the loan book. No prize for guessing what that will do to economic activity.

The wheels are coming off

But that is not the whole story. It is not even the most worrying part of the story. For the true horror to emerge, we need to turn to Eastern Europe for a minute or two. Nowhere has the credit boom been more pronounced than in Eastern Europe. And nowhere is the pain felt more now that credit has all but dried up. One measure of the credit fuelled bonanza is the deterioration of the current account across the region. Credit Suisse has calculated that in four short years, from 2004 to 2008, Eastern Europe's current account went from +6% to -6% of GDP². That is a frightening development and is likely to cause all sorts of problems over the next few years.

Meanwhile Western European banks, eager to milk the opportunities in the East after the iron curtain came down, have acquired many of the region's banks (see chart 1). Now, with many Eastern European countries in free fall, ownership could prove disastrous for an already weakened banking industry in the West.

The problem is widespread

To make matters worse, the problems in the East are beginning to look systemic. Credit Suisse has produced an interesting scorecard where they rank a number of countries around the world on factors usually taken into consideration when assessing the credit quality of sovereign debt (see chart 2). At the top of the tree (i.e. the worst credit score) you find Iceland – hardly surprising considering their current predicament. More importantly though, of the next 14 countries on the list, 8 are Eastern European – not what you want to hear if you are an already undercapitalised European bank with huge exposure to Eastern Europe.

Swedish banks are already reeling from their exposure to the Baltic countries. Austrian banks are in even worse shape, having been the most acquisitive of any European banks. Some Italian banks could be dragged under by their Eastern European exposure and even the conservative banking sector in Switzerland doesn't look like it can escape the mayhem.

Worst of all, the problems in the East are just about to unfold at a point in time where the European banking industry is bleeding heavily from massive losses already incurred in other areas. With no access to private funding, banks find it virtually impossible to re-build their capital base with anything but tax payers' money.

US banks are better off

US banks are in less of a pickle. Unlike the subprime debacle which hit both the US and the European banks hard, US banks have little exposure to Eastern Europe. To prove my point, according to the IMF, European banks have 75% as much exposure to US toxic debt as American banks, but 90% of all cross border loans to Eastern Europe originate from Western European banks. And, to add insult to injury, European banks have been much slower than US banks in terms of recognising their losses. Write-offs now total about $750 billion in the US and only about $325 billion in Europe.

The great mortgage show

The problems in Eastern Europe begin and end with their large external debts. In recent years, ordinary people all over the region have converted their traditional mortgages to EUR- or CHF-denominated mortgages. Some have even switched to JPY mortgages. Who can possibly resist 3% mortgages? Didn't anyone inform them of the risk? As currencies across the region have fallen out of bed in recent months, these mortgages have suddenly become 30-50% more expensive. No wonder the local economy is suddenly tanking.

Credit Suisse has calculated that net foreign liabilities (as a % of GDP) have risen from 47% to 65% in recent months as a direct result of the loss of local currency values (see chart 3 – and don't ask me why Credit Suisse has included South Africa in Eastern Europe!).

Chart 4: Eastern European vs. Asian Crisis

Source: Wall Street Journal

Back in 1997-98 Asia went through a similar currency crisis. However, as you can see from chart 4, Asian current account deficits were much smaller than Eastern European deficits are now. So were debt levels. Despite that, the Asian crisis did enormous damage to the local economy. Eventually Asia came good, primarily because the devalued currencies allowed the Asian countries to export more. Eastern Europe does not share this luxury. With over 90% of the world's GDP in recession, who are they going to export to anytime soon?

Austria is in greatest trouble

According to the latest estimates from BIS, Eastern European countries currently borrow $1,656 billion from abroad, three times more than in 2005 and mostly denominated in foreign currencies (ouch!). 90% of that can be traced to Western European banks. About $350 billion must be repaid or rolled over this year. Not an easy task in these markets. Austrian banks alone have lent about $300 billion to the region, equivalent to 68% of its GDP according to the Financial Times. A default rate of 10% on its Eastern European loans is considered enough to wipe out the entire Austrian banking system. EBRD has gone on record stating that defaults in Eastern Europe could end up as high as 20%³.

An extra $250bn to the IMF

Hungary, Latvia and Ukraine have already received emergency loans from the IMF and both Serbia and Romania are reportedly considering asking for help. Meanwhile the IMF's coffers are draining quickly and it has asked leading industrial nations for new funding. At their summit a week ago, EU leaders coughed up an extra $250 billion but nobody said where the money is going to come from. Even if they find the money, it is likely to prove hopelessly inadequate. Our leaders must grow up. Measuring everything in billions is so yesterday. Trillions are the new billions, like it or not.

Conspiracy or...?

On the 11th February the Daily Telegraph's Brussels correspondent Bruno Waterfield wrote an article under the header: "European banks may need £16.3 trillion bail out, EC document warns." In the article, the reporter revealed that he has seen a secret document produced by the EU Commission which briefed the union's finance ministers on the true extent of the banking crisis. Less than 24 hours later, the article's header was changed to "European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis" and two paragraphs had mysteriously disappeared. Here they are:

"European Commission officials have estimated that "impaired assets" may amount to 44pc of EU bank balance sheets. The Commission estimates that so-called financial instruments in the 'trading book' total £12.3 trillion (13.7 trillion euros), equivalent to about 33pc of EU bank balance sheets.

In addition, so-called 'available for sale instruments' worth £4trillion (4.5 trillion euros), or 11pc of balance sheets, are also added by the Commission to arrive at the headline figure of £16.3 trillion."

Do yourself a favour - read those two paragraphs again. Newspaper editors do not change content light-heartedly. Did the Telegraph editor receive a call from Downing Street? Or Brussels? Did he have second thoughts about the avalanche that he could possibly instigate? I don't know and I probably never will. But one thing is certain. If the EU Commission's estimate of £16.3 trillion of impaired assets is correct, then the crisis is far worse than any of us could ever imagine. Not only would we have to get used to the prospects of a systemic meltdown of our banking system, but entire nations may go down as well.

Public debt to rise and rise

Even if actual losses prove to be much, much smaller (and I sincerely hope so), the banking sector cannot, in the current environment at least, raise sufficient capital to stay afloat, so more, possibly a lot more, tax payers' money will have to be put forward. This can only mean one thing. Public debt will rise and rise. The official estimate for the UK for next year is already approaching 10% of GDP, an estimate which will almost certainly rise further. We probably have to get used to running 10-15% deficits for a few years, a fact which seriously undermines the notion of government bonds being next to risk-free.

BCA Research has calculated the effect on public debt in a number of countries, as a result of further bank losses being underwritten by tax payers. Obviously, those countries with the largest banking industries (as a % of GDP) will be hit the hardest (see charts 5a and 5b).

For that very reason, and as pointed out in last month's Absolute Return Letter, there is a real risk that investors will demand much higher risk premiums on government debt. Only a few days ago, Ireland issued 3-year bonds at almost 250 basis points over corresponding Bunds. As more and more debt is transferred to sovereign balance sheets, we will likely see the spreads between good and bad paper rise further but we will also witness increasingly desperate measures being applied by the men in power. If they could prohibit short-selling of banks on the stock exchange (which didn't work), why wouldn't they consider prohibiting short-selling of government bonds? Not that it would necessarily work any better, but desperate people do desperate things.

Can Germany rescue us?

Most investors remain convinced that Germany will come to the rescue - in my opinion not as simple a solution as widely perceived given the enormity of the crisis. One possible solution which has been mentioned frequently in recent weeks is for all the eurozone nations to get together and start issuing joint bonds. This would undoubtedly help the weaker nations, but the idea was shot down by the German Finance Minister only a few days ago when he said that closer economic harmony across the eurozone would be needed before Germany would be prepared to entertain such an idea.

The most obvious trick left in the book, therefore, is to inflate us out of this mess. With the enormous amounts of public debt being created at the moment, years of deflation a la Japan would be catastrophic. You will never get a central banker to admit to it, but a healthy dose of inflation is probably our best prospect of surviving this crisis.

Given this outlook, do you really want to be long euros?

Niels C. Jensen
© 2002-2009 Absolute Return Partners LLP. All rights reserved.

Footnotes:

1 Citibank, Credit Outlook 2009

2 Ex Russia. Source: Credit Suisse Global Equity Strategy

3 "Failure to save East Europe will lead to wordwide meltdown", Daily Telegraph

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

John Mauldin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:12:49 GMT

Dear Friends:

There are plenty of sources out there that are happy to tell you what's happening in the world, and much of it matters. But oftentimes, what's much more important is the dog that didn't bark. Remember Enron's undisclosed subsidiaries? Or the off-balance sheet holdings of just about every financial services firm?

Sherlock Holmes uses the dog that didn't bark to solve the mystery -- the dog had to know the intruder. My friend George Friedman's company, Stratfor, uses the dog that didn't bark to highlight issues that are equally critical to the global economy -- that aren't being discussed. Traditional sources let me mitigate known risks. Stratfor tells me about the risks and opportunities I might not even be aware of.

I'm including an example below: Stratfor's "EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About." As this analysis demonstrates, normal reporting on what was discussed might be helpful, but it's the "missing topics" -- those that the media misses -- that you really need to think about.

George has arranged for a special offer on a Stratfor Membership just for my readers. Click here to join now, and you'll get Stratfor's 2009 Annual Forecast as part of your Membership. Plus George has a new book (and it's fascinating!) coming out in January which he'll send you as well. I highly encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity.

Your dogged by bear-markets analyst,

John Mauldin

EU Summit: What is Not Being Talked About

Summary

The European Union summit is being held Dec. 11-12. Climate change, the Lisbon Treaty and the EU response to the global economic crisis are high on the agenda for the meeting. Absent from the agenda are ideas on dealing with a resurgent Russia, the energy crisis that could start after Russia implements higher natural gas prices for most EU member states Jan. 1, and the institutional flaws underlying the economic crisis sweeping through the bloc.

Analysis

EU leaders are meeting for the last time in 2008 on Dec. 11-12. The three main issues on the agenda for the 27 heads of government meeting in Brussels are the EU stimulus package passed in response to the global economic crisis; the Lisbon Treaty, which has languished in limbo since its rejection in an Irish referendum in June; and Europe's climate package. Prior to the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed "cautious optimism" that agreement could be reached on the climate package, initially a German proposal that has come under criticism from various quarters.

While a handful on its own, the agenda is more notable for the issues not being discussed -- namely, how to deal with a resurgent Russia; the potential energy crisis stemming from Russian natural gas price increases for most EU member states starting Jan. 1; and the institutional deficiencies underlying the economic crisis sweeping the continent.

Related Special Topic Pages

The issue of the climate change and energy package is notable, and any progress -- particularly in midst of the economic crisis -- would be impressive considering the uphill battle. Referred to as 20-20-20, the initiative aims to reduce the European Union's carbon emissions by 20 percent, increase its use of renewable fuels to 20 percent of total energy demand and reduce total EU energy demand by 20 percent, all by the year 2020. However, with the economic crisis in full swing, the emphasis on climate change is dubious. The Lisbon Treaty is also on the agenda, and the EU member states are expected to approve assurances to Ireland on neutrality, taxation, commissioner assignments among member states and controversial rules like abortion -- all key sticking points during the Irish referendum.

The leaders do plan to address the bloc's 200 billion euro (US$263 billion) stimulus package, but the plan is more of a face-lift than a real solution to the underlying institutional problems within the European Union. As it stands now, the stimulus plan is a patchwork of national stimulus packages that accounts for only 0.6 percent of the total EU gross domestic product (GDP), whereas the European Commission hopes member states will commit 1.5 percent to the plan. Some within the commission are calling for Germany, the most powerful European economy and one of the few with a balanced budget, to pick up the slack amounting to 0.9 percent of the bloc's GDP (which would be around $170 billion). That is most definitely not on Berlin's agenda.

The EU member states are discussing this plan mainly because the broader, institutional issues are impossible to agree on. Such questions include how to protect the exposed EU member states outside the eurozone (for example, the Baltics, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria) against currency devaluation, or whether to create some sort of unified tax regime that would give the European Union an actual fund from which to draw large amounts of cash during a financial crisis. There are also issues of a continent-wide banking regulatory regime, and of expanding the European Central Bank's powers. These questions seem prescient in light of the lack of a coherent, unified EU response to the economic crisis.

The main obstacles to answering these questions are the historical lack of willingness to devolve powers to the bloc from the nation-state level, and Germany's resistance to any "economic government" plan that would rely on German economic might for financial backing. Germany therefore is comfortable with the current plan as long as it does not ask Berlin for any financing beyond its current commitment.

Next is the issue of Europe's relationship with Russia. EU member states are divided on how to talk to Russia about security. France and Germany lead the relatively appeasing line, while Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom lead the group stressing a firm stance. The issue is clear for Poland and the Czech Republic: As they are likely targets of further Russian maneuvers, they believe the Russian resurgence must be countered. But France is much more interested in leaving all its diplomatic avenues open, while Germany does not want to antagonize its main source of energy imports and is historically open to independent accommodations with Russia.

Which brings us to the elephant that will be in the room with the 27 European heads of state at the summit: Russia's planned Jan. 1 natural gas price increases. EU member states depend on Russian imports for a quarter of their total natural gas needs. Russian natural gas behemoth Gazprom announced in July that it would raise the natural gas prices it charges EU member states from $420 per thousand cubic meters (tcm) to $720 per tcm. But many European countries have already notified Gazprom that they will not be able to pay the new price. The current financial crisis obviously makes such a drastic increase problematic, particularly for Central European economies that both depend on Russian natural gas for most of their energy supply and already are running huge trade deficits because of energy imports.

Gazprom announced Nov. 12 that it might consider scrapping its planned price increases, but any such move most likely will be used as a tool for political manipulation. The Kremlin has been known to use energy as a political tool in the past, and without a coherent, unified effort, the Europeans will be easy to pick off one by one.

Eyeing Opportunities in the Global Financial Crisis

John Mauldin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:37:25 GMT

As various companies go hat in hand to Washington for a bailout, a recurring topic is what guaranty do the taxpayers get that they're not just throwing more money down a hole. Good question. Who wants warrants or preferred shares if the company is doomed anyway? What you're seeing take place are negotiated backstops between the US Government and pools of capital. A couple of examples:

The Big 3 may get a bailout. Financially the US taxpayer will get a stake - in what will surely be radically reshaped companies. Citibank just got a large infusion from Saudi Arabia's Prince al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saud - just days before a US government orchestrated rescue helped rocket the share price. Maybe these are just coincidental moves. Maybe not.

What we're witnessing isn't finance or investment as usual. We're watching a shift to a managed economic structure, where government officials determine who will live and who will die. It's a shift from investments to agreements, where having access to large pools of ready cash is the ultimately persuasive argument. And lacking access means doing whatever you're told.

I've long been encouraging you to read George Friedman's work at Stratfor, but it becomes more important every day. Stratfor is producing a series on Countries in Crisis, and I've enclosed the latest piece which is the exception to the rule, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. This series is a fascinating look at how those with the gold get to make the rules. Unless you've got your own sovereign wealth fund, you'll probably want to read it...

As you're structuring your own portfolios, understanding the geopolitical drivers behind where the markets are going is now more important than ever. Because these insights are so important, I've arranged a special deal for you on a Stratfor Membership which also includes a free copy of George's new book, The Next 100 Years. Click here to take advantage of this offer today. These are the drivers for the coming year, and I encourage you to factor them in today.

Yours,
John Mauldin

GCC States: Eyeing Opportunities in the Global Financial Crisis

Editor's Note: This article is part of a series on the geopolitics of the global financial crisis. Here we examine how the global financial crisis will affect the Persian Gulf states.

One of the most influential aspects of the global financial crisis, which has taken many forms around the world, is the shrinking and increasingly risk-averse global capital pool. As investors around the world began to experience heavy losses in the wake of, and partially triggered by, the U.S. subprime crisis, capital around the world began to dry up. At the same time, those who retained access to capital became increasingly risk-averse and have, in effect, begun to hoard capital.

For the time being, this means that risky borrowers or capital-intensive projects around the world are desperately in need of loans that are nowhere to be found. The impact in the short term is that major projects -- such as Brazil's development of its massive offshore oil fields -- will have to be postponed. In the long term, this lack of willing investment will mean a slowdown in growth in the areas of the world that are dependent on foreign capital for the development of infrastructure and industry, such as Latin America, emerging Europe and the Balkans.

A secondary impact of the shortage of capital is the devastating effect it can have on banking sectors. As the capital pool shrinks, liquidity becomes a serious problem for banks as they struggle to meet reserve requirements and avoid contagion. Banks all around the world have been hit by a shortage of credit but nowhere harder than in Europe, where the banking sector is so heavily intertwined with its industrial sectors that the entire underpinning of the economy relies on a highly liquid and supportive (critics would say "too supportive") banking industry. The U.S. market, by comparison, relies primarily on securities markets for external financing needs, and the kind of reciprocal, slightly incestuous relationships between banks and industries that characterize Europe do not exist in the United States. Furthermore, the common monetary policies of the eurozone have left many European states with over-stimulated economic sectors -- such as Spain's real estate sector -- that have been pushed forward by extremely low consumer lending rates (relative to what these countries experienced prior to joining the eurozone) backed by the stability and strength of the euro.

Yet another challenge facing world economies is the global slowdown of growth, which means a decline in demand for goods and a resulting decline in manufacturing. This will mean a slowdown in the Asian countries -- particularly China -- that are home to much of the world's manufacturing. The secondary impact will be on commodity-producing states, which provide the basic materials used in the construction of manufactured goods. These states (including most of Latin America) are facing an export crisis as the markets dry up.

Financial Crisis and the GCC

Fortunately for the Persian Gulf states that constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman -- these financial challenges are mitigated, or entirely eliminated, by enormous oil wealth and economies that have been carefully managed.

The GCC states are largely insulated from the global credit crunch because they are the proud owners of some of the world's largest oil deposits. Saudi Arabia alone boasts the largest oil reserves in the world, at well over 250 billion barrels, and all of the GCC states -- with the exception of Bahrain -- are ranked in the top 20 of world oil producers, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE leading the pack. Saudi Arabia alone made $194 billion from oil exports in 2007, and $212 billion (in real dollars) between January and October 2008. The GCC states are so capital-rich that their usual financial management strategy involves attempting to soak up as much liquidity as possible in order to contain inflation.

Indeed, with massive current account surpluses, the six GCC states are creditor nations -- meaning they supply capital to the rest of the world. As net providers of capital, these countries remain much less vulnerable to a shrinking global capital pool than net capital importers, as they can simply let up on the outflows for a bit to recapitalize their systems.

Given that this wealth is controlled for the most part by the GCC monarchies, much of this cash flow goes first into government coffers. This granted every single one of the GCC states a budget surplus, reaching as high as Kuwait's 42 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in 2007 (this was before the oil price spike of 2008, so while the fall in oil revenue will affect budgets in 2009, the impact will not be as drastic as it would be using 2008 as a baseline). This gives Kuwait a great deal of flexibility in dealing with financial issues as they arise. Qatar, Oman and Bahrain all have surpluses, but they were less than 7 percent of GDP in 2007, so although they do maintain flexibility, they are much more limited than Kuwait.

Despite their budget surpluses and status as net capital exporters, the GCC states do maintain external debt -- used to finance corporate projects and government functions. However, public-sector external debt amounts to less than 30 percent of GDP for most GCC states. The outlying state is Bahrain, which has a public-sector external debt of around 36 percent of GDP. While this is not an insignificant level of debt, it is far outweighed by their sources of wealth. Measures of total external debt paint a different picture, however, and both Bahrain and Qatar have net external debt (which includes both public and private foreign capital borrowing) at between 50 and 60 percent of GDP. Although the UAE does not appear to be in trouble, the Dubai emirate has incurred a massive amount of debt in the process of overheating its real estate sector. The net impact of this high level of borrowing is to put the emirate at a disadvantage when it comes to seeking short-term capital to adjust to the international financial crisis.

Much of this debt has been caused by massive infrastructure and development projects such as Qatar's liquefied natural gas facilities, Dubai's fanciful real estate explosion and Bahrain's attempts to convert itself into a financial mecca. Indeed, the GCC states have used the past several decades of oil wealth to engineer massive development projects and have become, in the process, quite reliant on foreign direct investment (FDI) and the technology and expertise that accompany it. Though Qatar and Kuwait are net exporters of FDI, the other four states are importers of FDI, from Bahrain's modest 0.51 percent of GDP to Oman's more substantial 4.67 percent of GDP.

Offsetting this debt (and just about every other problem they might encounter) are the pools of capital that the GCC states maintain. One of the most important mechanisms for this capital accumulation -- because of its political and financial implications -- is the sovereign wealth fund (SWF). These SWFs are massive investment funds that make strategic investment choices for the GCC states. GCC SWFs maintain holdings that range from Saudi Arabia's relatively modest $5.3 billion to Abu Dhabi's massive $875 billion nest egg (and Abu Dhabi has even more money socked away in other SWFs). These SWFs are invested primarily in the equity markets of developed nations, and some have taken sizable stakes in Western businesses. In addition to the SWFs, the GCC states also maintain large caches of reserves. In Saudi Arabia, the state-owned bank SAMA (in addition to the kingdom's SWF) has $365.2 billion of foreign holdings, and the elite of the al-Saud family has reportedly stashed away somewhere around $1 trillion, though exact figures are difficult to track.

These pools of capital allow the GCC states to exercise great flexibility, especially during credit crunches. Gulf oil is controlled by the monarchies that rule each state, and these strong governments not only can draw on their large reserves but also can run their yearly budgets with substantial built-in surpluses. This gives the governments a great deal of room to intervene in the local markets to compensate for the effects of the financial crisis.

Trouble Spots

There are a couple of notable exceptions to this relatively rosy picture. Saudi Arabia has postponed bids on two major refinery projects until sometime in late 2009. The projects include a $6 billion, 400,000-barrel-per-day (bpd) refinery in the Red Sea port city of Yanbu to be built by Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil company Saudi Arabian Oil Co. (Aramco) and ConocoPhillips and a $12 billion joint venture with French energy company Total for another 400,000-bpd facility in Jubail. But these projects are hardly an issue of economic survival. Instead they are a part of Saudi Arabia's effort to move up the energy supply chain -- from crude production to refined products - - and while these facilities would be nice to have, their delay will not cause any sleepless nights for Saudi Arabia.

A more serious issue for GCC states is that many of them have young banking sectors that have trembled at tightening global liquidity and disappearing capital. Bahrain, an island nation, has capitalized greatly on its location at the heart of the oil-rich Persian Gulf region and has used its proximity to massive capital flows to build a powerful banking sector. This proliferation of banks has been shaken by the financial crisis, but true crisis is not on the horizon because the GCC states have avoided incurring massive amounts of debt.

The impact of the financial crisis on the oil markets is unquestionably a concern for GCC states, and oil prices have fallen to nearly $50 a barrel after reaching highs of over $140 per barrel earlier in 2008. But their cash reserves have given the GCC states a great deal of staying power in the medium term. Saudi Arabia alone raked in more than $1 billion per day when oil prices spiked. With the global slowdown, there will certainly be a decline in the rate of cash flowing in to the GCC states, so they will have to spend what they have wisely. In some respects, this slowdown in cash inflow is a blessing. Until the financial crisis broke, the biggest financial worry for these states was high inflation, and the slowdown in growth will reduce inflationary pressure.

Among the GCC states there are a few with their own unique challenges. In the UAE, for example, there has been a rapid increase in corporate borrowing over the past two years. Most of that borrowing has been to fund massive development projects in the emirate of Dubai. These fantastical projects have included the construction of islands in the shape of palm trees and the continents of the world. Dubai has been planning to build the world's largest suspension bridge across the entire city of Dubai (connecting one suburb to another) that was to be completed in 2012. The real estate sector in Dubai, which sports the world's only seven-star hotel, has reached unprecedented heights of growth.

Its 10-year growth spurt has come to an end, however, as the heavily overheated real estate sector readjusts to something closer to reality and as bank stability is in question, although the UAE has set up a task force to address the problem. According to the head of the task force, Mohammed al-Abbar, state-owned and affiliated companies owe approximately $80 billion in debts, while the government's assets stand at $90 billion, and state-associated companies hold about $260 billion in assets. In addition to across-the-board needs for refinancing, Dubai companies have suffered huge losses in the Dubai Financial Market, which has taken the biggest hit of the GCC-state stock markets so far this year, with losses of up to 66 percent.

Qatari firms have also borrowed some $40 billion over the past two years to finance hydrocarbon projects such as the construction of natural gas liquefaction plants -- though these will certainly pay for themselves as demand for liquefied natural gas rises amid very tight market conditions. A massive outflow of equity investments sent the Doha Securities Market for a spin as it lost 22 percent in the first half of September. Though this serves to tighten Qatar's credit options, it will not have catastrophic consequences.

The massive credit expansion in Qatar and the UAE has put the banking sectors of both countries in a delicate position. Liquidity crises will, as a rule, hit first in the place where commercial banking and lending has exploded the quickest. The relatively young Qatari banking sector has been affected by this phenomenon, and the government intervened in the banking sector by offering a $5.3 billion investment package on Oct. 12. Similarly, the Abu Dhabi Central Bank has intervened with $32.7 billion to ensure the liquidity of UAE banks.

According to reports from Bahrain, the country's Islamic lending facilities appear to be faring better than interest-based lending facilities. The Central Bank of Bahrain is controlling the sector's involvement in the volatile real estate market, as a precaution, and has been adjusting interest rates to maintain liquidity, which appears to be holding. Similar moves have been made in Oman, although the kingdom appears to have weathered the storm with high levels of capitalization.

As these market fluctuations demonstrate, depending on how bad things get, the GCC states may be forced to cut back on programs -- such as Dubai's development projects and Saudi Arabia's refineries. But in the end, the massive reserves they have built up, as well as their relative financial discipline, have made the decline in commodity prices a concern but hardly a crisis. And ongoing hydrocarbon production capacity improvements in Saudi Arabia and other GCC states mean that as soon as the price of oil rises again, these states will once again be positioned to rake in stratospheric levels of oil revenue. In fact, the financial crisis for the GCC states can be viewed as an opportunity for the GCC states to exploit this moment of relative economic power, both internally and on the international stage.

Geopolitical Implications

The strongest player in the region, by far, is Saudi Arabia, and Riyadh uses its massive oil wealth to exert political pressure throughout the region and the world. The kingdom's primary objective in the region is the containment of Iran and Shiite influence as Iran tries to assert dominance over Iraq. The financial crisis has been a huge boon in this endeavor. As a major oil exporter that has failed to achieve the kinds of financial solvency that the GCC states have secured, Iran is staring down the barrel of a gun as oil prices sink. Without a buffer of cash, Iran is very poorly positioned to handle a fall in oil prices.

Though the fall in oil prices threatens Saudi Arabia as well, the Saudi budget is set for an oil price of $45 per barrel, and oil prices have not dropped to levels that would threaten Saudi stability. Saudi Arabia maintains the ability to manipulate oil prices for its own foreign policy objectives and could use them against Iran. (Saudi Arabia is poised to assume an even more powerful position when prices rise again if an ambitious $129 billion project to raise its oil production capacity to 12.5 million bpd comes through as planned in 2009.)

If Saudi Arabia chooses to pursue macro-level adjustments to oil prices in order to target Iran, it will certainly do so cautiously. Though the kingdom has a solid cushion of petrodollars, it still relies on oil for 75 percent of government income. That income is necessary to meet a variety of domestic needs and to counter Iranian moves in the region by bribing political parties and militant groups in places like Iraq and Lebanon.

After Saudi Arabia, Kuwait is perhaps the GCC state best positioned to weather the financial storm. With a SWF of $264 billion, the country is very capital-rich and the government has a huge budget surplus. There has been turmoil in Kuwait's equity markets and banking sector, which has prompted the kingdom to repatriate some $3.66 billion worth of SWF investments, but the government's resources are substantial enough to handily offset these problems. Kuwait stands to gain from the decline of Iranian influence in the region, in terms of limiting both the influence of its own Shiite minorities and Iran's entrenchment in neighboring Iraq. Kuwait's foreign policy goals are thus in line with Saudi Arabia's, and Kuwait will follow the Saudi lead.

Abu Dhabi, the largest emirate of the UAE, is the wealthiest and most tightly run ship in the country. The UAE's problems lie in Dubai and its excessive real estate boom of the past decade. Dubai's financial indiscretions have put it in a position where it will need to be underwritten (to a certain extent) by Abu Dhabi. This presents a strategic opportunity for Abu Dhabi to rein in the political power and excesses of the al-Maktoum family, which rules Dubai and holds the UAE prime ministerial post. Dubai has so far remained staunchly uninterested in Abu Dhabi's offers of aid, declaring that there are no negotiations between the emirates.

Though Qatar has found itself mildly vulnerable to the international financial crisis because of its large debt burden, it is still in a reasonably safe financial position. Qatar's regional and global goals are quite ambitious, as it seeks to increase its holdings overseas and serve as a diplomatic hub for the Middle East. Qatar has already made moves toward acquiring major stakes in companies overseas -- including Citibank -- and these kinds of activities will likely continue. For Qatar, the danger may be in overextending itself in a time of depressed markets and relatively little competition.

For Bahrain and Oman, the smallest of the GCC states, their ability to take advantage of the financial crisis is relatively limited. Bahrain is constrained by domestic political factors as it seeks to balance the needs of active opposition elements with its economic outlook. This will limit Bahrain's ability to use the economic crisis as a stepping-stone toward a larger geopolitical role in the region. Oman, for its part, maintains a very low profile in the region and is very unlikely to make any moves at this time.

For all of the GCC states, the global slowdown offers investment opportunities the world over. On the political stage, the Western states are crying out for capital injections as their economies slow down. In fact, on a tour of the region, Deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt called on the Persian Gulf Arab states to continue investing in the United States to help restore financial stability. This represents an excellent opportunity for GCC states to charge to the rescue -- with hefty expectations for future cooperation, of course.

The United Kingdom has also asked the GCC states to help the International Monetary Fund (IMF) assist countries in desperate need of a bailout. Herein lies an opportunity for the GCC states to engage in long-term financial positioning. By giving money to the IMF, the GCC states could enhance their say in the affairs of the lending institution and, by extension, in the geopolitical arena.

For the moment, however, the GCC states have not responded enthusiastically to these pleas (although Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal did announce that he would boost his stake in Citibank just days before a U.S.-announced government bailout of the company). Countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (which have other options and a variety of needs to balance) see only limited direct political benefit from bailing out the West instead of investing that money at home. This is an outlook that could change once the new U.S. administration is up and running and able to make political deals and security guarantees.

As these openings demonstrate, the GCC states are among few in the world that can view the current crisis and see potential opportunities. While there will certainly be bumps in the road as these relatively young economies settle and shift in the face of a turbulent world economy, responsible management of vast oil wealth has put the GCC states in a position to weather the financial crisis, and weather it well.

Obama's Challenge

John Mauldin — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:47:00 GMT

With the election of a new US President, everyone is focused on the "First 100 Days." How Obama transitions into the presidency impacts not just the U.S. but the entire global system. What happens to U.S. relations with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan? What's going to happen at Treasury and to all the programs addressing the financial crisis? What's going to emerge from the next G20 summit?

You need to read the analysis below, written by my good friend George Friedman at Stratfor. He details the immediate issues facing the president-elect, including one of the stickiest: Europe's desire for a global banking regulatory regimen. How will Obama respond to European pressure? George has built his company Stratfor and its reputation on forecasting the future, and I'm amazed at how often he's right -- on broad themes and specific events.

As we move into the next 100 days, George is way ahead of us with a book called The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21^st Century. I've read an advance copy, and it's absolutely fascinating. In it, he maps out what geopolitical changes the world will see in the next hundred years: the rise of Mexico (and war with the U.S.!), Poland and Turkey returning to great-power status, and a second Cold War, among others. I can tell you, his arguments are as absolutely compelling as the conclusions are provocative.

George has arranged a special pre-publication offer for my readers. Click here to take advantage of a Stratfor Membership that also includes a free copy of George's new book. For insight into the next 100 days and the next 100 years, I'm relying on George Friedman and his team at Stratfor. I know you'll find as much value in George's forecasts as I do.

John Mauldin

Obama's Challenge

November 5, 2008 | 1202 GMT
By George Friedman

Obama's Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama's followers could conceal how he -- like Bush -- is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama's first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush -- who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn't. Building a political base requires modifying one's agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker -- an institution in American politics -- will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn't filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.

Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran's primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies -- particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can't afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama's pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.

The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama's victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don't have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama's Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan -- something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate -- and reach a political accord -- with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama's own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.

The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama's election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention -- and U.S. power -- to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can't afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their "near abroad."

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles' heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama's allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama's foreign policy -- and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election -- was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them -- namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn't subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran -- something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq -- gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama's foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies' interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can't know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can't finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That's what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It's frequently the best part of a presidency.

When the Chickens Come Home to Roost

John Mauldin — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:07:44 GMT

Can the credit crisis get any worse? In this week's Outside the Box my London partner Niels Jensen shows that it indeed can. Banks, and mainly European banks, have large exposure to emerging market debt of all types through both sovereign, corporate and individual loans. Just as banks have had to write down large losses from the subprime crisis and other related problems, next will come a wave of potential losses from yet another source. Niels then goes on to give us a look the size and problems with hedge fund deleveraging. Altogether, this is a very interesting letter and one that is written from a non-US point of view that I think you will find instructive.

Niels Jensen is Managing Partner of Absolute Return Partners based in London, which is a boutique alternative investment firm (www.arpllp.com). You can write Niels at info@arpllp.com if you like with your comments and questions.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

When the Chickens Come Home to Roost

The helicopters are here

You may remember my prediction last month that Bernanke's helicopters were on their way. I cannot resist the temptation to show you this chart, courtesy of John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics (see chart 1). The US monetary base has literally exploded in recent weeks and is up a staggering 38% year-on-year - the highest increase since 1939 according to my good friend Simon Hunt at Simon Hunt Strategic Services. Not entirely surprising, you might say. After all, you would expect the Federal Reserve Bank to react swiftly in response to the drama unfolding in front of our eyes.

I just wish we had central bankers here in Europe who would be prepared to move as quickly and as decisively as their colleagues on the other side of the pond. Our 'eurocrats' continue to worry unnecessarily about inflation and, by not acting aggressively enough, it is more than likely that the recession which is engulfing us as we speak will end up doing considerably more damage here in Europe than in the US.

Bank lending is responding

Meanwhile, in the US, bank lending is already responding to Fed's tactics. Total commercial and consumer bank lending has grown by an annualised rate of almost 50% in the last month and a half. Quite impressive in an economy which is supposedly in recession.

So far so good. The problem is, however, that the near meltdown has unleashed an asteroid storm of problems. Take Iceland. As most investors know by now, Iceland is in very serious trouble. According to at least one estimate, European banks stand to lose about $75 billion on Iceland - not exactly pocket change. And that is on a population the size of Coventry! Earlier this week, the Central Bank of Iceland raised the policy rate from 12% to 18%. Inflation is now running at about 16% and will undoubtedly peak at much higher levels. According to Danske Bank, expect it to hit 75% before things get better. That is ugly.

The canary in the coalmine

I have an increasingly uneasy feeling that Iceland is the canary in the coalmine. Hungary is struggling. So are Pakistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania and Argentina. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the President of Argentina, took everyone by surprise last week when she announced that the country's private pension funds (about $26 billion) would be transferred into the state pension system. The official line is that she is aiming to protect the country's pension funds from the global turmoil. Who is she kidding?

Now, the Federal Reserve Bank has decided to provide emergency loans to Mexico, Brazil, Singapore and South Korea. Not that long ago, it was Singapore (amongst others) which provided emergency funding to the ailing US banking sector. If countries such as South Korea and Singapore require help from the outside, the state of affairs in other and less developed nations could be much worse than generally perceived.

Looking at the evidence produced in a new Goldman Sachs research paper¹, it is primarily Eastern Europe one has to worry about. Credit growth in Eastern Europe and Latin America has been much stronger than in emerging Asia (chart 2).

However, if you then look at the state of the current account (chart 3), it is evident that Eastern Europe is facing a much bigger challenge than the other two regions. Their current account deficit has grown dramatically since the turn of the Millennium and now stands at close to 10% of GDP.

This puts Eastern Europe in a very vulnerable situation. When Asia was in a similar situation back in the late 1990s, it ended in tears with currencies blowing up and consumer spending collapsing. Ultimately, though, it resulted in much improved current accounts as the weak currencies led to an export boom, but there was considerable pain before they got to that point.

Stephen Jen and Spyros Andreopoulos at Morgan Stanley have further explored the subject². They suggest that an already weak banking sector in the OECD could be further stifled by non-performing loans to emerging market countries.

European banks at risk

Worldwide cross-border lending now stands at $37 trillion with about $4.7 trillion going towards Eastern Europe, Latin America and emerging Asia. Cross-border lending by European and UK banks to emerging market countries accounts for 21% and 24% of respective GDPs compared to 4% for US banks and 5% for Japanese banks (see chart 4). Europe has about $3.5 trillion of debt outstanding to emerging market countries whereas the US has only about $500 billion on the line.

The country most exposed to emerging markets is Austria with total emerging market loans accounting for no less than 85% of the country's GDP - most of it to Eastern Europe. Austrian banks have been aggressively pursuing opportunities in Eastern Europe for years. They have in fact been so aggressive that their total lending to the region (approximately $300 billion) exceeds the amount lent by Germany to Eastern Europe. Even more worryingly, Austrian banks are the largest holders of debt on Hungary and Ukraine - two of the most fragile economies on the old Soviet bloc. As an aside, when the global banking system collapsed in May 1931 in the midst of the Great Depression, it was a run on the Austrian banks which acted as a catalyst.

Italy is possibly in an even more dire condition. According to a recent article in The Daily Telegraph³, Italy's public debt is now the third largest in the world, behind the US and Japan. And, at 107% of GDP, it is almost twice the limit set by the Maastricht Treaty (so much for treaties!). Italy is also a big lender to Eastern Europe. Unicredit alone has about $130 billion of debt outstanding to Eastern European countries. Italy's predicament is well recognised by fixed income investors. 10-year Italian government bonds now yield 1.08% more than their German sister bonds. The market is telling us that something rather unpleasant could happen to Italy. It is even possible that Italy could be forced to pull out of the euro, unless they can turn the ship around fairly quickly.

Meanwhile, UK banks are primarily exposed to emerging Asia and Latin America. Only Poland stands out in Eastern Europe as a major recipient of loans from UK banks and Poland is perhaps not up to its neck in problems the way Hungary and Ukraine are right now, but the situation is deteriorating there as well. Sweden is mostly exposed to the Baltic countries. The three Baltic countries owe a total of $123 billion, $83 billion of which originate from Sweden. Knowing that Latvian banks in particular have been rather innovative with the structure of their mortgage products (such as Yen based loans), would you sleep well if you were the credit officer of one of the major Swedish banks?

Spain is the Latin juggernaut

Spain is another worry. Contrary to popular belief, the US is not the largest lender to Latin America - Spain is. Just under $1 trillion of cross-border debt is outstanding across Latin America. Only 17% of that comes from US banks. Spanish banks, on the other hand, have more than 30% of the debt on their books. Let's hope for Spain's sake that Ms. Kirchner is telling the truth when she claims that the nationalisation of the private pension funds was done to protect them from the evils of this world. Somehow I doubt it.

The sharp rise in the value of the US dollar and the Yen is not helping emerging market economies either. We do not know exactly what proportion of the $4.7 trillion of loans to emerging market countries are denominated in US dollars and Yen respectively, but we suspect that it is a significant share. As long as the world is deleveraging, you should expect both currencies to continue to appreciate in value, as most carry trades have been based on either US dollars or Yen. Meanwhile, some countries are putting up a brave fight (e.g. Hungary and Romania). However, as we learned in 1992, a wounded currency is like a bleeding torso in shark infested waters. You can rest assured that speculators will finish off the job. No central bank can win that battle.

One might argue that a devaluation of the Hungarian currency or a collapse of the Pakistani economy won't really affect your portfolio, but that misses the point. It is the risk to an already wounded banking industry you have to worry about. And, as I have pointed out above, European banks are much more exposed to emerging market countries than their US competitors.

Annus Horribilis

Enough said about emerging market risk for now. My other big worry at the moment is what is happening to (some) hedge funds. Clearly, 2008 has been to hedge fund investors what 1992 was to Queen Elizabeth II - Annus Horribilis (see chart 5).

Merrill Lynch did a study recently, showing that the 30 biggest US equity holdings amongst US hedge funds were amongst the poorest performers in the S&P500⁴. In other words, it is likely that much of the recent sell-off in equity markets around the world can be traced back to hedge fund liquidations.

There is no question that hedge funds are downsizing at present. The problem is to obtain precise data on the phenomenon. If we estimate that the global hedge fund industry controls about $2 trillion of capital, and we assume that 15-20% is going to be pulled out between now and year-end (which is not far from the truth according to our sources), $3-400 billion must be returned to investors between now and 31^st December.

Deleveraging continues

That is not the whole story though. The average hedge fund uses leverage, to the tune of about 1.4 times (see chart 6). This is down significantly from a year ago, but it still means that hedge funds need to liquidate investments of at least $500-550 billion in order to meet current redemption requests. And the real number is probably higher because some of the worst performing strategies this year are the ones using the most leverage. The real number is therefore more likely $6-800 billion, and that is a big enough sum of money to put downward pressure on the markets.

Add to this the fact that some hedge funds (mostly the bigger ones) have been selling credit default swaps (CDSs). A CDS is an insurance against corporate default. The buyer of a CDS supposedly makes money if the underlying credit blows up. I say 'supposedly' because the payment is a function of the seller's ability to pay up. That was why Morgan Stanley had to be saved at all cost. MS has been, and continues to be, one of the largest players in the CDS market.

There is no way we can establish precisely how many CDSs hedge funds have on their books, but please consider the following: The CDS market is a $50 trillion market (give or take). Before they blew up, AIG were one of the biggest sellers of CDSs with approximately $500 billion on their books. They ran into problems (partly) because they were heavily exposed to the financial services industry which is already in recession.

Recession in the early stages

The rest of the economy, however, is not yet in recession - or rather, we do not have the statistics to prove it. Corporate defaults are still low, both here and in the US. But corporate defaults will go up as they always do in recessions. If AIG, one of the largest and most sophisticated financial institutions could get themselves into trouble with barely a 1% share of the global CDS market, what will happen to the sellers of the remaining 99%?

Who 'owns' this risk? Is it hedged or not? Is it even possible to hedge the risk, knowing that your counterparty might not be able to pay up? What we do know is that only the larger hedge funds have participated in the practise of selling CDSs. Right now it feels very good not to be invested in those types of hedge funds (as you may be aware, our focus is on alternative investment strategies away from mainstream hedge funds). I also suspect that the extreme volatility in recent weeks is somehow related to this phenomenon. Investor redemptions are not the whole story.

Conclusion

I pointed out several months ago that the world's stock markets would present several 'false dawns' before we could finally declare victory against the bear market. Last week's more upbeat tone was one such 'false dawn', in my opinion. There are three reasons for that:

Firstly, investors have not yet fully capitulated, and that is a necessary condition for markets to turn around. It is best illustrated by a survey conducted by BCA Research at the end of their two-day investment conference held in New York on 20-21^st October. Only five or six of the more than 250 people in the room expected the stock market to be lower a year from now⁵. Not consistent with capitulation! Having said that, it is perfectly normal to experience powerful rallies in the midst of a major bear market. The sharpest rallies in history have actually been bear market rallies.

Secondly, de-leveraging has a long way to run yet, not so much in the hedge fund community where I suspect that much of the damage will be behind us once we pass the next major redemption hurdle on 31^st December, but in society more broadly. Governments, banks, (some but not all) companies and, most importantly, the majority of households are more leveraged than good is. I have borrowed Chart 7 below from BCA Research, and it shows total US bank loans as a percentage of US GDP. Unfortunately, the picture would be much the same for many of the European countries. We are now facing a major de-leveraging cycle and it will suppress economic growth and put a lid on the stock market for years to come.

Thirdly, whereas I fully agree that the worst of the financial crisis might now be behind us, bear in mind that we have not yet seen the full effect of the economic crisis. We are only in the first or second innings of this recession, and the emerging market story has the potential to wreak further havoc. So do credit default swaps - or something else. Recessions are by nature quite unpredictable. There is one thing I am sure about, though. Just as for New Year's Eve, the more extravagant the party, the bigger the hangover. Prepare for this one to linger for a while yet.

Niels C. Jensen

¹Global Economic Weekly, 29^th October, 2008

² "Europe more exposed to EM bank debt than the US or Japan", Morgan Stanley, 27^th October, 2008

³ "Traders warn of Italian iceberg", The Daily Telegraph, 31^st October, 2008

⁴ Source: "Hedge Funds in Trouble", The Economist

⁵ BCA Research Global Investment Strategy, 24^th October, 2008

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

John Mauldin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:57:08 GMT

Really hear what I'm about to tell you. The center of gravity of the world economic system has moved from New York to Washington. Let me illustrate what I mean so you understand just how profound this is. Banks used to compete against banks. US carmakers competed against each other and the Japanese. And the New York financial markets told you how they're doing against each other.

Understand what's happening now. The US Treasury has become the only "customer" that matters. The Treasury is now the customer—and investor -- with the $750+ billion checkbook. The Treasury is now the "investment banker" of last resort, arranging and financing mergers. Banks are competing against insurance companies for their slice of the bailout pie. Chrysler and GM (and the Michigan Congressional delegation) are looking to Washington, not Goldman or Merrill, to facilitate a merger. This is a seismic shift.

As investors, we have to start looking at the world in a completely different way, and getting our information from different sources. A company's 10-K is almost irrelevant if all it includes is financial statements and market outlooks. What matters now are the "exogenous" factors: government guarantees of the commercial paper market, currency interventions, direct capital infusions, etc. And how does a company describe in its Management Outlook that "Yes, our company is too big to fail."

In this environment, it's more important than ever to read unbiased geopolitical intelligence and analysis of government moves, and that's what my friend George Friedman at Stratfor offers. I'm enclosing below his team's Fourth Quarter Forecast. George's team analyzes US government policy as well as the moves that are being taken by central banks and governments around the world as the private sector gets taken public all across the globe. You will not be able to understand market moves if you don't understand who the real movers are now.

I'm sending you Stratfor's Fourth Quarter Forecast, and I strongly encourage you to join Stratfor and get access to all their daily intelligence. George has arranged a special offer on a Stratfor Membership for my readers: click here to take advantage of this opportunity. In this new era, I use Stratfor daily to give me a wide-lens, global view of politics and economics. I know you'll gain as much from reading Stratfor as I do.

John Mauldin

Fourth Quarter Forecast 2008

October 23, 2008 | 1502 GMT

Three issues will dominate the final quarter of 2008: the global financial crisis, U.S. self-absorption and the Russian resurgence.

The financial crisis has its roots in an American liquidity meltdown. But as the days flow by, it will become obvious that the crisis is evolving as it spreads to the rest of the world, and its impact will be harsher and require more time for recovery elsewhere. For in the United States, actions have already been taken to rectify the liquidity imbalances, and although plenty can still go wrong and a recession is probably inevitable, the system is beginning to mend. In Europe, however, the liquidity shortage has unearthed a deep banking debacle.

Remediation is only now being started, and the problem is only now being identified, much less evaluated. The American recession will probably be over by year's end, but Europe's will likely stretch through most of 2009. And in East Asia, where the problem is neither liquidity nor banking but loss of export demand, recovery cannot even begin until the West begins demanding Asian goods en masse. The United States might have set the crisis running, but it will be Europe and Asia that really give it its legs.

Print Version:
To download a PDF of this piece Click here.

In the midst of a presidential election, a lame-duck administration, a recession and ongoing efforts to stabilize Iraq, Washington is essentially in lockdown. It has neither the capacity for nor the interest in dealing with anything that is not on a very short list of topics. Mitigating the recession is now at the top of that list, with Iraq second in line. In Iraq, U.S. policy has mutated somewhat. Until now, Washington was forced to deal with Iran, as Iran maintained the ability to scuttle any progress in Iraq. But now Iran, for various reasons, has largely moved away from its policy of stoking militia fires in Iraq. It would be a stretch to say that all concern about Iran's ability to set Iraq on fire has evaporated, but Washington certainly feels it can shape Iraq into more or less whatever it wishes so long as it does not flagrantly cross any red lines. This does not mean for a second that things are easy; creating a functional state out of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations is a lengthy and possibly fruitless task. However, Iran's apparent inability to create chaos in Iraq has drawn some of the desperation out of U.S. policy.

Finally, and to a certain degree integrated into the financial crisis and American preoccupation, comes the issue of Russia's rise. In the third quarter Russia proved that it remains capable -- militarily and politically -- of invading a neighbor, the former Soviet state of Georgia. While not immune to global financial chaos, Russia is far better prepared than most states to weather the storm; even after massive investment outflows, Russia still holds more than $700 billion in reserve funds and a fat budget surplus. Moscow has a limited window in which to act before the United States withdraws from Iraq and turns its attention northward, so Russia will be using the time to sow as many problems for the United States as possible. Russian plans are already in the works for Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, in that order. And to keep the pressure on and the momentum going, Russia is expected to make a new thrust -- more political and economic than military -- in Ukraine. Under the cover of the financial crisis (which is hitting Europe much harder than the United States) and American preoccupation, the chances of Russia successfully expanding its influence definitely qualify as betting odds.

Note to readers: Our fourth-quarter forecast is intended to be a supplement to our annual forecast and third-quarter forecast. Within each section of this quarterly we have extracted the critical trends identified in our previous forecasts and indicated where we have been right or wrong and what is coming in the next three months. We have also examined new trends that have evolved from regional developments, independent of the earlier forecasts.

Global Economy

Ultimately, Stratfor delayed the release of our fourth-quarter forecast due to the winds of change ripping through the U.S. financial industry. With so much uncertainty, it was impossible to peer minutes, much less months, into the future. But now, though the dust is far from settled, the outlines are in place for an American-led financial rescue package that puts the crisis into a context that allows for forecasting.

This section will not serve as an overview on how the crisis came about (we have written a history and tactical forecast on the financial crisis elsewhere), but it will outline the broad picture Stratfor sees in the weeks going forward.

Regional trend: The United States is in a liquidity crisis, but the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. Overwhelming state intervention will ensure that the United States recovers quickly from an impending, and probably inevitable, recession.

In the United States, the crisis is ultimately one of liquidity. Underneath all the froth, the American banking system remains stable. Yes, there are some questionable assets that have initiated panic, but on the whole American banks are solid. Before the political process in Washington took over the system and in essence made it impossible for banks to close, only 13 banks had gone under. During the recession of the early 1980s, several hundred went bust per year.

Liquidity crises are relatively -- and we emphasize the word "relatively" -- easy to fix. They "only" require injections of capital into the system, which the U.S. government has done on a mammoth scale, in order to restart lending and thus normal economic activity. At the time of this writing, banks have already increased their lending rates from the crisis lows, and we see the panic beginning to lift within weeks. For the United States, there will almost certainly be a short recession, but the way out has already been sketched.

Regional trend: With Europe dealing with a deeply entrenched banking crisis and Asia facing a plunge in exports, the financial contagion will be more deeply felt outside the United States than within.

When the U.S. liquidity crisis slammed into Europe it had identical impacts -- at first. But within a few days, it became apparent that Europe has other problems. Unlike the United States, Europe has a banking system with many portions that are not very healthy. Austrian, Swedish and Italian banks are overexposed to Central Europe, which is now in a credit hangover. German banks' corporatist links have left them with questionable assets far greater in value than anything American subprime practices generated. Irish and Spanish banks face much deeper subprime problems relative to their economic size than American banks. And the list goes on and on. So while the United States has a liquidity crisis that can be addressed "relatively" easily, Europe faces a banking debacle that has been uncovered by the liquidity crisis -- and dealing with that banking debacle is likely to take more than a year.

These crises have not really affected Asia directly, for Asian states are built upon massive and artificial flows of liquidity. States routinely funnel more liquidity into their systems than even the U.S. Federal Reserve is doing with its record-breaking operations to combat the American liquidity crisis. So even with the United States and Europe struggling, there are very few liquidity problems in China or Japan.

The Asian problem will be neither liquidity nor banking, but exports. The United States faces a short recession and the Europeans likely a long one. For Asian economies, the problem will be a plunge in Western demand for Asian exports that will hit these economies at their most sensitive point: employment. China and Japan keep their systems flush with liquidity in order to ensure maximum employment regardless of profitability. As Western growth slows, demand for Asian goods will drop, and the Asians will have to either shut factories down or subsidize them to keep operations active. Luckily -- and we are not sure that "luckily" is the correct word -- this will take some time. We do not expect East Asia to really slide into crisis mode until late in the fourth quarter, but the crisis will strike the region to its very core.

Regional trend: Inflation is on the rise on a global scale.

High inflation was the primary economic issue for countries across the globe for the first nine months of 2008. Overextension, combined with a deepening economic crunch, will finally turn this trend on its head in the final quarter. Across the developed world, demand is dropping, and that cannot help but put a cap on commodity prices.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis' contagion will contribute to a significant decline in the price of oil and defuse much of the "geopolitical heat" in the markets.

Let us close this section with a few words on oil. Stratfor has been saying for some time that the high oil prices of the last three years are not rooted in fundamentals or even in reality in general, so we stopped forecasting any specific prices. In our last quarterly forecast, we said the price of oil would drop (and it did), but we were focused more on causes rooted in geopolitical risk rather than the effects of the financial crisis. At present, much of the speculative froth and fervor that had built up prices has been dying down. In its place is a growing realization that the United States and Europe are in recession, while East Asia is about to slip into recession. With the world's three largest economies using less energy, prices are certain to slide. This realization is dawning only now, when prices have already dropped from their highs by 50 percent. The hype is mostly gone; all that remain are universally bearish fundamentals. The price drop to date is just the beginning -- and several countries, including Venezuela and Russia, stand to lose a lot from a precipitous drop in oil prices.

Former Soviet Union

Regional trend: Russia is re-emerging and will take advantage of the imbalance in U.S. power that has resulted from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Russia's third quarter was dominated by the war with Georgia, which was Moscow's coming-out party to prove that it could dominate and/or crush its neighbor unless the United States rushed to the smaller country's aid. The Kremlin had been making technical preparations for such a war for years, but timing was an issue. Moscow was forced to act in the third quarter because of the possibility that the United States might be freed from its entanglements with Iran and in Iraq. Since the war in August, the ripple effects of Russia's bold move have been felt throughout the world, but they are most defined in Russia's periphery. As each country re-examines its relations with Russia, Moscow is taking stock of the levers it has carefully placed in its periphery and around the world and considering who it can pressure, or even break.

Regional trend: Following the Russo-Georgian war, each former Soviet state -- and much of the rest of the world -- is redefining its relationship with or perception of Russia. Moscow will next turn its focus to Ukraine, which will become the center of the Kremlin's universe in the fourth quarter.

The center of Russia's focus for the fourth quarter is Ukraine, which Moscow sees as the cornerstone of its ability to reach into Europe and protect itself from Western encroachment. Since the 2004 Orange Revolution, Ukraine has been unstable and chaotic in its attempts to push away from its former master, Russia, and toward the West. Moscow has encouraged Ukraine's instability as a means of preventing the former Soviet state from aligning fully with the West, but now is the time to pull Kiev firmly back into the Russian fold.

Russia will use countless levers to influence Ukraine's inner dynamics, including: the Russian security services' high degree of infiltration in Ukraine; the country's complete dependence on Russian energy; Ukraine's financial and economic turmoil; Russia's control over most of the Ukrainian oligarchs; the interconnection between the two countries' organized crime systems; Russian military forces on Ukraine's soil; and the mere fact that approximately half the Ukrainian population considers itself beholden to Russia.

But the largest opportunity for Moscow will come in the December snap elections, scheduled after the Ukrainian government collapsed (again) in October. Elections in Ukraine are never certain to take place, but the dynamic surrounding possible elections in the country will remain whether or not the polls actually take place. The pro-Western Orange Coalition has already broken up over Kiev's relationship with Russia, and those coalition partners who are leaning back toward Moscow, along with the pro-Russia parties, are in a healthy lead in public opinion polls. Ukraine has never been predictable, but it also has never seen an election or governmental shift while Russia's full focus is on ensuring that Ukraine stays as far away from the West as possible.

A few other former Soviet states are on Moscow's agenda, though they are not as high-priority as Ukraine. Georgia's government is still seeing the fallout from the war, and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili's future is unclear. Russia has allowed Saakashvili to remain in office because he is a spent force, but the Kremlin has a line of political forces in place to remove him should he gain strength. Russia and Belarus spent much of the third quarter arguing over energy prices, bank credits, missile defense and Minsk's delay in recognizing the independence of Georgian breakaway regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The fourth quarter will be a test for Belarus as it decides whether to bend to Moscow's will or risk reaching out to the West and being crushed by Russia in the process.

Russia is also active in the Baltic states. An upcoming election is likely to leave Lithuania with a government more amenable to Moscow, but it remains to be seen how this new government will fit in with Lithuania's historical allies -- Poland, Estonia and Latvia, which are all vehemently anti-Russian -- and how Moscow can use the new government to divide that allied bloc. Azerbaijan is weighing its future relations with Moscow, since Russia has proven it can cut off the country's energy flow, which in turn cuts off its cash source. Baku will work to balance its desire to maintain good relations with Moscow and its desire to keep Western cash flowing in.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis is ripping through Russia, but it is not crippling the country. Rather, the Kremlin is using the situation to assert more control over regulations, banks, businesses and the oligarchs inside Russia while looking for opportunities abroad.

Market economies do not work in general in a country like Russia. Since the Russo-Georgian war, the Russian stock markets have been on a wild roller-coaster ride, and Russian companies have seen massive foreign investment flight. This has left those companies and their oligarchs looking for funding in their own pockets or from the state. But unlike most countries, Russia is not in danger of collapsing financially, because it sits on massive amounts of foreign currency reserves, built up over the past decade from soaring energy prices.

Instead, the Kremlin is using the unstable financial situation to reassert the primacy of the Russian state by weeding out small- and medium-sized institutions that were never really under government control. The Kremlin is also using the situation to force the oligarchs to pour their own cash -- which they had stored abroad, far from the Kremlin's grasp -- into the system in order to keep the markets stable and the oligarchs' companies afloat.

This proves just how much control Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has over this class of billionaires, and it bodes an end to the oligarchic tradition that ruled Russia during most of the 1990s and well into the following decade. The oligarchs are no longer independent power brokers, but simply another tool -- and a very wealthy one -- for Putin and the Kremlin. The fourth quarter will start revealing who can keep up with the Kremlin's demands and who will fall. A massive realignment inside Russia's business sector is under way, though the Kremlin is orchestrating all of it in order to strengthen and prove its power within the country -- and over those who thought they could keep their cash outside the motherland.

Russia can now also meddle in, prop up, buy or influence financial systems around the world. It is reaching out with its vast amounts of cash to "help" other countries hit hard by the financial meltdown -- though in typical Kremlin style, Moscow is extending aid to states it considers politically valuable. In the past, the Kremlin used oligarchs' cash to do this covertly, but since that cash is needed at home, the government is openly targeting other countries' institutions. Russia is getting involved in the financial situations in Iceland, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Georgia, to name a few. But the Kremlin must balance this desire to take advantage of financial tremors around the world with its need to keep the domestic situation stable and plan for the future of Russia's resurgence, amid concerns that its cash flow could soon dry up as energy prices tumble.

Regional trend: As Russia reasserts itself against the West, it has many levers with which to counter the United States in regions such as the Middle East and Latin America. However, Russia's ability to divide the United States' allies in Europe will give it the most success.

Since the war with Georgia, Russia has shown that it is interested in countering the United States' status as global hegemon by strengthening its relationships throughout the world. Moscow has also proved to Washington that it has levers in place to erode the United States' position in the Middle East (which is Washington's primary focus) and in Latin America (which is in the United States' backyard). But Russia will not push its ability to meddle with Middle Eastern countries like Iran too far; Moscow does not want a strong Tehran in the long run, and Washington could seriously lash back at the Russians. Moscow also knows that its actions in Latin America are mainly symbolic in that the efforts needed for real military, energy, grassroots or political moves would be enormous and would not benefit Russia much. However, this does not mean Moscow's friendship is not incredibly important to those in Latin America looking for their own leverage against Washington.

It is in Europe where Russia's moves against the West will be felt the most. In short, the Europeans are splitting apart and much of it has to do with Russia -- a situation Moscow is trying to magnify. Russia is already using Europe's economic instability to pit the countries against each other. But Moscow is also undermining NATO, a fact that will be highlighted when the alliance meets in December to discuss Russia and the possibility of extending membership action plans to Georgia and Ukraine. Germany has already staunchly come out against this Washington-initiated plan and is also discussing the possibility of a private security agreement with Russia, a major shift toward Berlin's usual role when Europe is split. But Russia also has its customary levers, like energy, to use in Europe; energy deals with Germany, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Ukraine will still be up in the air in the next quarter.

Middle East

Regional trend: The United States has successfully forced the countries that made al Qaeda possible into the American alliance structure. It will now use that structure to clamp down on those still resisting American power. In doing so, it might inadvertently trigger tensions with Israel.

Regional trend: The Russo-Georgian war interrupted a window of opportunity for the Iranians and the United States to make headway in their negotiations over Iraq. With a U.S. political transition approaching, these negotiations will remain in limbo through the next quarter.

In writing our third-quarter forecast, Stratfor had many reasons to be optimistic about several major trends in the Middle East. We calculated that as the U.S. election season wound down, the United States and Iran would be approaching the endgame in their negotiations over Iraq. After all, Iran's supreme interest in consolidating Shiite control over Iraq, the United States' strategic interest in freeing up its forces from Iraq, and the winding down of violence in Iraq over the past year -- made possible in part by Iran's cooperation in taming its Shiite militant proxies -- laid the foundation for the United States and Iran to reach a rapprochement sooner rather than later.

For our fourth-quarter forecast, however, we are far less optimistic about the United States and Iran coming to any sort of final understanding, at least in the short term. Following the Russo-Georgian war that took place in the third quarter, the United States more urgently wants to end the war in Iraq in order to free up U.S. forces for more pressing concerns in Eurasia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater. The Iranians, on the other hand, have all the more reason to stall in talks with Washington. Iran knows that in the face of a resurgent Russia, the United States will worry about Moscow using the Middle East as another theater for challenging the West, namely by providing advanced weapons systems to a country like Iran. With the added leverage of Russian backing, the Iranians could push for a better deal with the Americans.

But while Iran stalls, the United States is losing interest. It appears that Washington does not feel nearly as pressured as it previously did to deal with the Iranians over Iraq, and the political and military reality in Iraq has shifted substantially over the past two years. In October 2006, a month prior to U.S. congressional elections, Iran significantly escalated Shiite militia attacks in Iraq in an attempt to force a U.S. withdrawal, and it could have used its Shiite militant proxies to trigger a civil war. Now, however, these militias either have been fully integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus (as in the case of the Badr Brigade) or have disintegrated to the point where they are no longer an effective force (as in the case of the Mehdi Army). Much of Iran's current ability to wield influence in Iraq comes through its political and economic links as well as from small groups of well-trained special operations units, such as Hezbollah in Iraq.

While the United States still has a strategic interest in reaching some level of understanding with the Iranians over Iraq, it no longer faces an immediate threat of Iran triggering civil war in the country. This gives Washington a lot more leverage in dealing with Iran, as well as more time and space to concentrate on other, more pressing issues.

In the coming quarter, Iran will not be the United States' main focus in Iraq; Washington will be too preoccupied with its own political transition, and the Iranians will need some time to work out their next steps in Iraq with a new U.S. administration. Instead, the United States will be heavily involved in the internal Iraqi political scene, working to undermine Iranian influence in Baghdad by exploiting deep rifts within the Shiite political community and reasserting Sunni political strength in provincial elections, which are to be held before Jan. 31, 2009. The surrounding Arab states, for the most part, will be in lockstep with the United States in pursuing this strategy.

Iran will use its remaining militant proxies to try and influence the results of the upcoming elections, mainly through bribes and assassination attempts against select candidates. Infighting among Shiite parties, particularly in the south, is expected to flare as Iran tries to accuse the United States of destabilizing Iraq -- a move meant to bolster Iraqi opposition to the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which would provide the legal basis for U.S. troop presence beyond December, when a U.N. mandate runs out. With Iraqi politicians holding out for political and security guarantees from the incoming U.S. administration, it will be difficult for the United States to get the SOFA signed by the December deadline. But Washington is still on course to maintain a military presence in Iraq that is large enough to counterbalance Iran for at least the medium term.

While Iran will be looking to boost its leverage in relation to the West this quarter, it is unlikely to find a dependable ally in Moscow. The Russians have signaled in several different ways that they could step up arms deals and covert operations in the Middle East to undermine Western interests. But with the Israelis and the Turks playing defense and Moscow exhibiting more of a cautious attitude in its actions against the United States in this region, we expect Russian activity in the Middle East this quarter to be more talk than action.

Regional trend: Syria has found a role in the tightening Arab-U.S. alliance, and it will take concrete steps toward a peace deal with Israel that will both reassert Syrian influence in Lebanon and defang Hezbollah.

In our previous quarterly forecast, we anticipated rapid progress in Syria-Israel peace negotiations. The talks were moving at a healthy pace in the first part of the quarter, but paused after the Russo-Georgian war as Syria saw the opportunity to boost its negotiating leverage by reaching out to the Russians. Syria will continue to flirt with Moscow, but Israel and Turkey (which is mediating the peace talks) have been holding their own negotiations with the Russians and have so far kept the Russians at bay. Syria is still in many ways committed to these peace talks, but any major progress is unlikely until Israel puts its political house in order this quarter. Israeli political horse-trading is in full swing, and early elections could still be called, but Stratfor's bet is that Kadima leader Tzipi Livni will form a coalition and stave off early elections to prevent a political comeback by the far-right Likud party, allowing for progress later in the quarter on the Israel-Syria talks.

While Israel sorts out these issues, the Syrian regime will move ahead in its plans to reassert its hegemony over Lebanon. Any peace deal with Israel would inevitably include a guarantee of Syrian domination over Lebanon in exchange for the dismantling of Hezbollah's military arm to secure the Israeli northern frontier. Though the peace talks with Israel are currently in flux, the Syrians are wasting no time laying the groundwork for a possible military intervention in Lebanon by instigating attacks through militant proxies. Syria will take its time in implementing this strategy. Attacks on both sides of the Lebanese-Syrian border are likely to escalate, but the Syrians are unlikely to make any overt moves in Lebanon this quarter. Syria will also be on guard for Iranian attempts to destabilize the Syrian regime as Iran's main militant proxy, Hezbollah, gets backed into a corner.

Regional trend: Turkey is emerging as a major regional power and in 2008 will begin to exert influence throughout its periphery -- most notably in northern Iraq.

Our annual forecast on Turkey's regional expansion is on track and was reinforced this past quarter by Russia's actions in Georgia. Turkey is a traditional stakeholder in the Caucasus and does not like the idea of the Russians throwing punches in this region, especially when doing so threatens Turkey's economic standing as the main energy hub for Europe. The Turks, therefore, are in a diplomatic frenzy to reassert their influence in the Caucasus, even going so far as to kick-start the normalization process with longtime foe Armenia. Using adroit diplomacy, Turkey will work aggressively this quarter to block Russian destabilizing actions in the Middle East and hold its ground against Moscow in the Caucasus. Turkey is not looking for a fight with Moscow, but it wants to show that it will not be toothless in the face of further Russian aggression. (Indeed, Turkey is the state with the most tools to counteract Russian expansionism.)

Energy diplomacy will be a big theme this quarter, as the Turks will use their relations with Azerbaijan, Iran and even Armenia to promote themselves as the alternative to Russia in the Caucasus. Both Armenia and Iran will be tempted by the idea of establishing potentially lucrative energy links with Turkey to access the European market, though any such deals would face substantial political obstacles.

In northern Iraq, Turkey will become more aggressive in pursuing Kurdish rebels and implementing an informal buffer zone along the Turkish-Iraqi border. Turkish actions in northern Iraq will serve more than Ankara's internal security interests; Turkey also has deep political interests in keeping Iraqi Kurdistan and the Kirkuk issue in check as negotiations in Baghdad intensify this quarter.

Europe

Regional trend: After exactly 60 years of trying to reshape itself under the aegis of the European Union, Europe in 2008 will return to an earlier geopolitical arrangement: the Concert of Powers.

The decade-long Stratfor forecast that the European Union will slowly evolve from a Pan-Continental government to a glorified free trade zone is on track. Europe has indeed returned to an arrangement more reminiscent of the Concert of Powers, with France and Germany squabbling over leadership, newcomer Poland rising in status as the next leader and the traditional power of the United Kingdom missing in action. This has played out on all levels, both within the European Union and in foreign relations. Russia has seized the opportunity to magnify the cracks in the European Union, while the United States is now locked into alliances with actors that are constantly disagreeing, weakening Washington's ability to rally forces around any particular agenda -- particularly in dealing with the Russians.

Regional trend: As the traditional geopolitical arrangement similar to the Concert of Powers returns, Europe is being wrecked domestically, economically, institutionally and internationally. This trend in the fourth quarter is caused partly by the return of the old relationships, but also by the global financial crisis and a resurgent Russia.

Regional Trend: The financial crisis will continue to shatter Europe economically, as each state fends for itself in the absence of a Pan-EU decision.

Nearly every European country entered the fourth quarter in a recession, and this situation will not change through at least the end of the year. The European Central Bank (ECB) has done a decent job thus far, but it cannot regulate banks in Europe, so each state will have to come up with its own rules -- further undermining the ECB and the European Union. An EU-wide plan is simply impossible, because there is no institution able to enforce such a decision and each state is primarily concerned with itself.

Bailouts have become routine in Europe, but the fourth quarter will be about European governments attempting to prevent banks from actually failing, which could break the entire system. The less economically and financially advanced countries, which happen to be mainly on the eastern side of the Continent, are most at risk. Central and Eastern Europe are highly dependent on foreign banks and capital -- capital that will be called home, mainly to Western Europe, to help stabilize its native banking systems. The countries most vulnerable to economic crashes are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. France and Italy are also vulnerable but are better able to handle the crisis due to the sheer size of their economies.

In the fourth quarter, many countries will be reassessing the benefits and drawbacks to being part of the European Union, and nations that are considering joining the eurozone will weigh their priorities as well. European countries will also be reassessing their budgets, with many cuts in programs and funding on the table. This could lead to even more political and social volatility in all European countries. These potential cuts and thin wallets are coming in the most financially stressful season for Europe, as energy costs are high due to cold weather and Europe's largest energy supplier, Russia, is preparing to raise energy prices at the end of the year. European leaders are facing many very difficult and dangerous decisions that will shape not only the fourth quarter, but the years to come.

Regional trend: Europe is divided -- politically, economically and regarding security -- on how to respond to a resurging Russia.

The topic of Russia, and particularly how to respond to Moscow after the Russo-Georgian war, is dividing Europe even further. Politically, many Western European countries have been looking for ways to neutralize the Russian threat. Some nations, like the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic states (though Lithuania could soon reverse its opinion on Russia), are preparing to confront Moscow, while others are strengthening their ties with Russia in order to avoid becoming casualties of Moscow's next moves.

Economically, Europe is divided because the squeeze it is feeling from the global financial crisis is being compounded by Russian moves in the financial sector. Moscow has moved its cash around in a bid to influence financial institutions in certain strategic countries. Russia is also in negotiations with much of Central and Eastern Europe over energy supplies and prices for the next year, and Moscow has told most countries to prepare for excruciatingly steep price hikes. This puts Moscow in a position of great strength from which to negotiate with the countries that need lower energy prices during the current financial crisis.

The Europeans are also divided over how their security alliances should respond to a resurging Russia. The West (especially Washington) failed to respond meaningfully to the Russo-Georgian war -- a fact that Moscow hopes to use to prove the inherent weakness of the West's security club, NATO. Berlin and Paris have already publicly recognized the weakness and believe that this is not the time to stand up to Russia, as NATO is entrenched in Afghanistan and the United States has the additional burden of Iraq. These two European heavyweights are leading the resistance against Washington over extending NATO membership plans to the former Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine. Countries like Poland and the Baltics are still behind the U.S. plans, but going into the December summit, NATO members -- especially those in Europe -- are anything but in agreement.

Latin America

Regional trend: Aiming to sow instability in the U.S. backyard, Russia will focus much of its attention on Latin America, where a number of Cold War-era tactics are likely to come into play.

The Russian invasion of Georgia in the third quarter was a wake-up call to the West that Russia was resurging. Shortly after the war, Russia arrived on the scene in Latin America. Having promised at least $1 billion in arms aid to Venezuela and reopened dialogue with Cuba over a return to Cold War-era alliances, Russia clearly intends to direct Washington's attention toward the U.S. southern flank. No longer constrained by a need to promote an international communist ideology to gain a foothold in the region, Russia will focus more on generating instability in Latin America -- a pastime that could lead to a resurgence of Soviet-era militias.

Several Latin American states, including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador, show promise as Russian allies. States that are vulnerable to Russian maneuvering include, at the very least, Colombia, Peru and Mexico. With economic troubles on the rise across the region, this list could expand, and with a lame-duck administration and no clear Latin America policy to begin with, the U.S. government will be slow to respond this quarter.

Cuba is critical to the question of Russian resurgence not just for its historical relations with Russia, but also for its strategic location at the mouth of the Caribbean. Cuba is trying to both encourage the United States to lift the trade embargo as well as urge Russia to actually put its money where its mouth is in promised investments. Which way Cuba swings will depend on whether the incoming U.S. administration gives any indication that the embargo could be lifted. Otherwise, the Russians will have a greater political opening in Cuba to exploit. For the fourth quarter, however, Cuba will mostly spend its time feeling out Washington's and Moscow's intentions without making any big moves.

Regional trend: The U.S. financial crisis will contribute to a long-term economic downturn in Latin America.

The impact of the global financial crisis on Latin America boils down to two basic factors: the shrinking credit market and falling commodity prices. Latin America is largely dependent on foreign capital for the infrastructural and industrial development that allows the region to produce the primary materials it relies on for income. The relative boom of the past decade rode high on the back of increased industrial production the world over, which created higher demand for Latin American minerals, and on rising food prices, which injected cash into agriculture-dominated economies such as Argentina's.

But as the global economy slows in the wake of the financial crisis, there will be lowered demand for primary materials. This will have a combined effect. For importer states, lower commodity prices, especially on food, are welcome news. But for major commodity producers, such as Venezuela (oil) and Argentina (agriculture), this spells disaster for local economies and government budgets. Though the region is less exposed to the U.S. financial crisis than either Europe or Asia, Latin America is facing an overall economic slowdown. Though widespread financial collapse is unlikely to occur in the fourth quarter, the strains will become apparent.

Regional trend: Brazil is rising as the continental hegemon of South America.

With more oil and natural gas discoveries announced in the past quarter, Brazil is still on track to become a regional superpower in the coming decade, but it will face some challenges in this upcoming quarter. Though blessed with substantial monetary reserves, Brazil faces a slowdown along with the rest of Latin America as the global economy shrinks and access to international credit withers.

Regional trend: Crises are brewing in Latin America's left-wing bloc.

This trend continued unabated in the third quarter, although the only state in which tensions came to a head was Bolivia. The evolution of Bolivian lowland pro-autonomy groups toward a more activist role will be defined next quarter. Though they could be willing to make peace with Bolivian President Evo Morales' government, the odds are not good. In the fourth quarter, Morales will try to push through the enactment of a constitutional referendum that would cement his socialist policies. The opposition will use this opportunity to stage further unrest.

In Argentina, the economy is suffering under President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's administration. A lifting of price controls on the edges of the economy could continue, but comprehensive reform is unlikely. Over the next quarter, the agricultural sector will ratchet up pressure on the government to reduce price caps so that it can operate profitably. But falling commodity prices, while helping to contain rising inflation, cut into government income, making it all the more difficult for Buenos Aires to adequately address its economic ailments. The credit crunch has already led Argentina to call off its initial offer to pay back debt to the Paris Club. Other signs of fiscal strain will become evident over the next quarter, bringing Argentina closer to a day when it will once again no longer be able to service its debt or prevent an economic crisis.

Meanwhile, in Venezuela, municipal and state-level elections are slated for Nov. 23. While domestic opposition against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is strengthening, the president has already taken action -- by barring more than 200 opposition politicians -- to ensure he makes it through these elections in one piece. Once the elections are over, economic issues will come to the fore. We will likely see a grasping at straws for energy, but this will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, as credit shrinks and oil prices continue to fall. Although the economy will probably hold for the next quarter, the cracks will be evident. The Russians will remain active in Venezuela, particularly in military cooperation, and signs that Chavez is a conduit for Russian arms transfers to the rest of the region could also come to light.

Regional trend: Mexico is facing a moment of truth in the government's war against the drug cartels.

Mexico's security situation is deteriorating. The third quarter showed an emerging trend of public opinion turning against the violence -- although not necessarily against Mexican President Felipe Calderon. As violence rises, and particularly if civilian casualties become more prevalent, public outcry will increase over the next quarter. For now, the public's discontent is working in the government's favor. But there is a slight possibility that Mexico's citizens will decide the war has failed and start pressuring Calderon. This could erode Mexico's ability to use all its forces against the cartels for fear of backlash. In the past quarter, we did not see any indications that Mexico City felt pressured enough to strike a truce with the cartels to save the country's territorial core, nor any evidence of the cartels striking a truce with each other to place the government on the defensive. But these scenarios are not impossible as the security situation continues spiraling out of control.

Mexico is also particularly vulnerable to Russian covert activity. If the Russians become more active in Mexico, organized criminal activity is likely to increase, though this will be difficult to distinguish from ongoing cartel activity. We will be watching for any signs of an uptick in organizational capacity or tempo of operations in groups like the Popular Revolutionary Army, as the potential exists for Russia to tap into such left-wing organizations to create security problems on the southern U.S. border.

South Asia

Regional trend: The Pakistani army/state will hold together even as confusion and distractions in Islamabad greatly reduce the government's ability (and willingness) to rein in jihadists. Pakistan will be forced to decide whether it is more afraid of NATO forces or of its own militants. It will opt to target the militants, however halfheartedly, rather than make a stand against NATO's incursions into territory that is nominally under Islamabad's writ.

As the jihadist insurgency spread deeper into the Pakistani interior, U.S.-Pakistani relations came to a head in the third quarter, with Pakistani forces taking direct shots at U.S. forces along the Pakistani-Afghan border. But as we expected, the Pakistanis could not go too far in pushing back U.S. forces. Toward the end of the quarter, it became clear that the Pakistani political and military leadership was at least making some attempt to comply with U.S. demands and purge Pakistan's intelligence apparatus, the Inter-Services Intelligence, of jihadist sympathizers while committing more firmly to military operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the tribal areas.

But there is still a lot more work to be done in this theater. With U.S. Gen. David Petraeus now at the helm of Central Command, the evolving U.S. strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan will likely entail devoting more U.S. forces to Afghanistan and engaging in complex political negotiations with certain Taliban factions, similar to the U.S. policy pursued in Iraq.

For the next quarter, however, little is expected to change on the ground militarily. The United States simply will not have sufficient forces to make a meaningful difference in the Pakistan/Afghanistan theater in the short term. While U.S. forces can escalate cross-border operations into Pakistan, the levels of intrusion will not grow if the United States lacks the forces to back them up. The region also will be entering the winter months, when the fighting on both sides is expected to drop significantly, giving the Taliban and al Qaeda more time to recuperate. Though the United States has announced its intention to continue conducting offensive operations through the winter, the operations will still be limited in scale.

During the winter lull, the bigger focus will be on working toward a negotiated settlement with select factions of the Taliban. Talks involving the Taliban, the Karzai government, the Tajik-dominated opposition, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, NATO and the United States will intensify in coming months. This process will be about identifying elements within the Taliban movement that would be willing to do business at a time when the Taliban feels it has the upper hand and thus is not under significant pressure to negotiate. Nonetheless, the mere idea of negotiations taking place will cause existing rifts within the jihadist insurgency to widen. The United States will rely heavily on Saudi Arabia to use its political and financial clout with the Taliban to ensure progress on the negotiating front.

The Pakistanis, on the other hand, will be too consumed with domestic ailments to contribute in any significant way to U.S. efforts in fighting the insurgency. Pakistan's civilian government is caught between fighting anti-Islamabad jihadist forces and working with pro-Islamabad Afghan Taliban. Continued unilateral cross-border U.S. strikes against al Qaeda and its Pashtun allies in Pakistan will further constrain Islamabad's options as domestic dissent continues to rise. Compounding matters is the fact that Pakistan is sliding toward bankruptcy and is now dependent on bailouts and bartering tactics to make it through this quarter without collapsing financially. Pressure from the insurgency and the deteriorating economic situation will further threaten Pakistan's internal stability and raise the potential for a rift to emerge between the civilian government and the army. Overall, Pakistan will institutionally remain in disarray, and fragmentation of the state will worsen in the coming quarter.

Regional trend: India's roller-coaster policies on everything from tax regimes to special economic zones to basic infrastructure are proving that the idea of "Shining India" is a myth and will lead to waning foreign investment.

The global financial crisis that spread in the third quarter only reinforced our forecast that India's attractiveness to foreign investors would significantly wane this year. Though India's banking sector is fairly insulated and not as vulnerable to the financial crisis as those of other Asian countries, it is more than likely to experience a drop in capital inflows and foreign direct investment in the medium to longer term as foreign companies, particularly those based in the United States, are forced to cut back on their overseas operations.

Though India is unlikely to feel a devastating economic impact in the short term, its problems stemming from the financial crisis will be mainly political. Rising inflationary pressures will only add to the opposition's strength in stifling the ruling Congress party at a time when India is also dealing with heightened religious tension and increasingly frequent, albeit low intensity, attacks by more localized Islamist militant cells. On the foreign policy front, India also will be largely politically hamstrung. Securing the civilian nuclear deal with the United States was a huge feat for India's Congress in addressing the country's energy security, and it puts India on a path toward greater strategic cooperation with the global superpower. At the same time, New Delhi cannot politically afford to take any big or overt steps in line with U.S. foreign policy for some time, though it will be closely watching for signs of a complete security and economic meltdown in Pakistan in search of both threats and opportunities.

India also will be keeping its eye on Bangladesh, where national elections are supposed to be held Dec. 18. With the Bangladeshi military tightening its grip over the government, the country's two main rival political leaders have threatened to boycott the polls, raising the potential for the elections to be delayed. Without the participation of these two leaders, there is a high probability of Bangladesh returning to its usual state of political violence and chaos ahead of the polls.

India also has security concerns to its south in Sri Lanka, where the military has made significant advances in its war of attrition against Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam rebels in the north. While the military's successes are often exaggerated, it stands a decent chance of overtaking Tiger strongholds in the strategic Jaffna Peninsula to the north. The Tigers will be cornered at that point, but they will not be a vanquished force. The Sri Lankan military has made comparable advances into Tiger-held territory in the past, only to see the Tigers make a significant comeback after several years. As they continue to get beaten in the north, the Tigers will make a stronger attempt to carry out attacks inside Colombo in an attempt to prove to their constituency that they are still viable.

East Asia

Regional trend: The Chinese government postponed any key reforms in 2008 until after the Olympics in August, but as Beijing now begins tackling these issues, it is confronted by a global financial crisis that will convolute all its reform plans.

Thus far, the Olympics have dominated 2008 in China, with Beijing consumed with quashing any disruptions or embarrassments that would cast a shadow over the country during its time in the global spotlight. While Beijing was distracted, issues like economic and social disparity, corruption and rising domestic frustrations festered. Beijing was convinced that as soon as the Olympics were over, it could finally address these issues with full force. But the reforms China makes will not necessarily be the ones it originally planned, as the global economic slowdown will interfere.

Many key debates are raging behind the scenes of China's central government over issues like rural development, informal and state banking, the central bank's short- and long-term lending rates, the yuan's exchange, price controls, the growth of small- to medium-sized businesses, international trade and the export sector, and energy supply and policy. These debates have put a dangerous amount of stress on the Communist Party of China and the country's top leadership.

The largest debate has been over to what degree to redistribute wealth, particularly between the wealthy coastlands and the much poorer internal regions of the country. The divide between China's mostly poor rural masses and its wealthier urban elite has generated considerable tension, causing worry among the nation's leaders about social stability and sustainable economic growth. Attempts at massive renovations and development projects in the interior, meant to boost agriculture's role in the Chinese economy, were supposed to trigger a series of policy actions that would play out through the end of the year.

But the global financial crisis will force Beijing to focus on ensuring internal stability, employment, business operations and the ability to hold onto its own cash, and this means Beijing must turn its attention back to the coast, the country's moneymaker. China is in a conundrum: It needs to redistribute wealth to guarantee internal stability, but it cannot do that if the wealth is not coming in. The financial meltdown's effects in the West are impacting China's export sector and putting at risk China's businesses (which are already seeing thin profit margins) and laborers (who are on the brink of financial ruin and unemployment). China will have to basically run in place; the economy might look like it is growing, but the trickle-down effect will be barely sustainable.

China will respond by promoting growth through cheap credit and big public spending, as it is afraid of unemployment getting out of control. It will be more important for China to use its reserves to contain the internal situation than to contribute funds to other countries, including the United States. China needs all the excess liquidity in its system to go toward appeasing the social groups most likely to be affected negatively by the economic slowdown.

Regional trend: The global financial crisis will also hit East Asia's other two economic powerhouses, Japan and South Korea, along with the smaller Southeast Asian states -- though the major effects will not be seen until the end of the year.

Japan and South Korea are both powerful economies, and both are in dire economic trouble. Japan has massive reserves, but its debt is enormous, its exports are faltering, and now the yen is rising rapidly as the carry trade unwinds, further damaging the export sector. Japan will print money frantically to slow the yen's rise, but will only see moderate success because the crisis is already far too deep. Japan is facing a major recession -- if not the disastrous economic dislocation that awaits it if it proves incapable of reforming its system.

South Korea is also in dire straits. Its economy is hurting because of the won's rapid loss of value as investors withdraw from risky assets. The weakened won will hurt South Korean businesses that are struggling to manage costs while exports fall. Market uncertainty, inflation, poor consumer sentiment and a declining currency will cause South Korean businesses to suffer unless the country is willing to repeatedly dip into its foreign currency reserves to combat the slowdown.

Most of the Asian states have plenty of liquidity due to the nature of their financial systems. The Southeast Asian countries are nervous about their fates but are not thoroughly linked to the outside world, so their economic troubles will have little impact on the rest of the globe. But these nations have not become the hotbed of economic growth they were expected to be; some never recovered from 1997 crisis, while others, like Vietnam, will not see money influxes now. Southeast Asian countries are also highly interlinked through their supply lines and trade, so when one or two economies struggle or slow, the others are hit as well. The credit crunch is causing cash and investment to flow away from them, and their export sectors are flagging. Two states that will be hit hard by this are Singapore and Malaysia, both of which have re-exports making up a large chunk of their exports. This means that even if their strong exports continue, these countries' dependence on others to use them as a subprocessing hub could sting them when other exporters' activities slow. Southeast Asian nations are expected to feel the crush of loss of credit -- just not to the extent of Japan or China. But the ripples of this crisis will likely cause economic slowdowns that could exacerbate social tensions in the region, making for a lot of noise in the fourth quarter.

Africa

Regional trend: In contrast to previous years, there will be little direct involvement from the major outside (or even inside) players in Africa. The one exception will be if Russia has any capacity to meddle in Africa this next quarter. However, Africa is not high on Moscow's list of priorities.

The second- and third-quarter forecasts for Africa predicted that the continent would not see any meaningful direct involvement from the traditional players, whether from the continent or beyond. This situation will continue through the end of the year (though for different reasons than before), with only one possible exception. Most of the big foreign players in Africa -- the United States, France, China, India and Japan -- are completely entangled in the global financial crisis and do not really have the wherewithal to handle any new engagements in Africa.

Moreover, the portfolio investment that Africa recently attracted as a "frontier market" will be constrained as global investors seek to stabilize their investment returns. Startup and junior mining interests will find it difficult to secure financing for mining projects, and while major mining companies will be able to find sufficient financing, slowing demand for commodities will mean that African economies will slow -- or, more to the point, there will be less money for the governments to keep. Interest in Africa's energy and mining sectors will remain high, but cost factors will make investors more selective.

The one possible exception to this trend could be Russia. During the Soviet days, Russia supported liberation movements and governments in Africa (as in Latin America), which it used as proxies against U.S. interests. Thus, Russia already has access to a deep set of networks constructed in Africa during the Cold War. Russia began moving in on Africa during the third quarter, when it began negotiations with the Somalian government on providing military and technical assistance and decided to send a naval vessel to strengthen maritime security off Somalia's piracy-plagued coast. African countries that cooperated with the Soviets during the Cold War did so less out of ideology and more to acquire weaponry, funding and training to fight their own battles. These conflicts and tensions are ongoing in several countries besides Somalia (such Guinea, Mali and Angola) and could help Russia renew both overt and covert relationships in Africa.

Within Africa, the major players are too busy with internal politics to get involved in issues between countries on the continent. Nigeria is still trying to manage the Niger Delta, South Africa is busy laying the groundwork for elections, and in Angola the government is concerned with consolidating its grip on power at home and either co-opting or silencing its opponents.

In Nigeria, the 2007 pact that gave the Ijaw tribe in the Niger Delta the vice presidency and led to a decrease in attacks against the region's energy infrastructure will be tested -- but not overturned -- in the fourth quarter. Northern-backed President Umaru Yaradua will move to consolidate his position in Abuja by naming a new Cabinet and purging his government of ministers appointed by his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo. Yaradua's moves will catch the attention of the Ijaw in the south, however, and should they believe they have lost their gains in Abuja -- for instance, if Vice President Goodluck Jonathan loses his influence -- all bets for energy security in the Niger Delta are off.

The wild card is Yaradua's frail health. If it forces him to step down, a struggle over succession will ensue, and the Ijaw will use their key weapon -- militant proxies that launch attacks in the Niger Delta energy sector -- to secure their interests in Abuja. A battle threatening all energy production throughout the Niger Delta would also raise the stakes higher than they were in 2007, demanding a military solution rather than a combination of diplomacy and economic incentives. The carnage that would result from Abuja trying to impose a military solution in the Niger Delta would be extensive.

In South Africa, the transfer of power from former President Thabo Mbeki to African National Congress President Jacob Zuma will accelerate, though elections likely will not be held early. (National elections are due by mid-2009, when Zuma most likely will push to re-establish South Africa's regional influence.) Until then, it is just regular politicking and electioneering in the country, and this will not significantly alter South Africa's policies or its relative quietude on the continent.

Angola faces more immediate concerns, including lingering tensions with the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) political party and rebels in its oil-rich Cabinda province. Angola will try to stamp out these rebels in the fourth quarter, following the ruling party's authoritative victory in recent parliamentary elections. The country must also be prepared to face a hostile regime in the neighboring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The United States could move to counter a possible Russian resurgence in south-central Africa by supporting the Rwandan-backed insurgency in the DRC, which in turn could move to topple the pro-Angolan government of President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa. Installing a pro-U.S. government in the DRC could then allow the insurgents to use DRC territory to destabilize the pro-Russian Angolan government. Should the Russian arms dealers come calling, they could enflame such a conflict, embroiling Angola, the DRC and Rwanda.

The International Economic Crisis and Stratfor's Methodology

John Mauldin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:08:48 GMT

Dear Friends:

Exhale for a moment, forget your losses for the time being, and try to appreciate the fact that you're living through the single most important development in global finance since Bretton Woods. This is a "tell the grandkids about it" moment, when governments all around the world have essentially decided in unison that it's time to rewrite the rules, the very framework, in which financial transactions take place. Stock trading, interbank lending, commercial paper, the very concept of private sector ownership are all up in the air right now.

The only thing I can tell you with certainty is that if you try to evaluate your investments using the same metrics you've always relied on - P/E ratios, market share, interest rates, etc. - you're going to be as successful as a football-turned-baseball coach evaluating a pitcher by the number of touchdowns he throws. The rules are changing, gentle reader, changing at least for awhile from market-driven inputs to government-driven inputs. If you try to apply what you know from the "old game" without understanding that you're playing a "new game," the rules might not make sense.

I'm sending you today a piece from my friend George Friedman on how his company Stratfor looks at economics. More precisely, this piece explains how they look at Political Economy. And from here on out, it's political economy that's going to be driving markets. If the old rule was "Never fight the Fed." It's now, "Never fight the Fed. And the Treasury. And the ECB. And the Bank of England. And the Bank of Japan...." You get my point.

George has very kindly arranged for a special offer on a Stratfor Membership for my readers. I strongly encourage you to click here to take advantage of this offer. Now more than ever, you need the kinds of insights that you can't get from traditional finance sources. You need a wider lens, and there's no one better than George and his team at Stratfor at this kind of analysis. I know you'll find them as valuable as I do.

Your Taking-It-All-In Analyst,
John Mauldin

The International Economic Crisis and Stratfor's Methodology

By George Friedman

Stratfor's focus is on geopolitics. That means that it focuses on the behavior of human societies organized into complex, geographically defined systems. In our time, that means that we study nation-states. In order to understand the behavior of nation-states, it is necessary to focus on three major dimensions: economics, war and politics. The nation has to be studied in terms of producing wealth, defending (and stealing) wealth, and the internal and external relations by which humans shape their lives.

Economics, war and politics are not separate spheres. They are a single entity together constituting the reality of the nation-state. There are those who argue that economic life should be left alone, not interfered with by political or military power. We won't engage in that argument. What we know, empirically, is that political and military power constantly impinge on economic life, and vice versa. It is impossible to imagine war without taking into account politics and economics. It is impossible to think of domestic or foreign policy without considering economic and military issues. By the same token, it is also impossible to think about economics without thinking about military and political matters. If it can be made otherwise, then someone will do so and then we will change our opinion. Until then, we cannot think of the free market as a meaningful independent reality. It is always shaped by other factors. Perhaps it should be otherwise. It isn't.

An integrated approach to social reality requires that these distinctions, so important in the organization of a university or a newspaper, be overcome. They were created in order to organize human activities into manageable pieces. Our argument is that in so doing, reality is only apparently made more manageable, and in fact is falsified. The standard approach to these issues creates distinctions that don't exist and complexities that conceal rather than reveal the nature of the problem at hand. A general who tries to wage war without consideration of political ends and economic means is going to fail. An economist who tries to understand and predict the behavior of the economy without a comprehensive understanding of the political and military realities which shape the economy will not do particularly well.

Geopolitics is in one sense also an abstraction, but it has the virtue of not creating artificial distinctions. The price that the geopolitician pays for a comprehensive view of reality is a forced simplification: there is just too much happening to state it comprehensively. Geopolitics is the search for the center of gravity of reality, those overwhelming forces that drive the system in the direction it is going to take. These forces are never solely political, military or economic in nature. Usually, they are in plain sight and are overlooked because, being simple, they appear insufficient. Indeed, they may be insufficient, but others can add the details. Our goal is to lay bare the essentials and identify the general direction in which things are moving.

Take, for example, our recent analysis of the Russo-Georgian war. It derived from this central reality: Russia by the 19th century had achieved the borders essentially held by the Soviet Union. In 1992 it had collapsed to a position in which it had not been since perhaps the 17th century. That condition was untenable. Either Russia would implode or it would reassert itself fairly quickly. By early 2000s, it was our view that it would choose to assert itself. When the United States tried to make an ally of Ukraine, which Russia sees as crucial for its economic, military and political well-being, we became certain that Russia would push back. As the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, a window of opportunity opened up and the Russians began the process of reassertion.

There are, obviously, endless things left out of this analysis. People of every discipline could rip it apart as being insufficiently sophisticated. In one sense they would be right. By avoiding the complexity of sophistication, we could see the fundamental shape of things -- which was that the Russian collapse, if halted, would have to reverse itself for economic, military and political reasons. There were obviously many details we could not predict and some we didn't know. But we captured the essential geopolitical condition of Russia in order to understand what it had to do. We left it to others to do the important work of mapping the complexity. Our task was to capture the simplicity.

In our analysis of the current financial crisis in the United States -- and the world as a whole -- we have sought the center of gravity of the problem. We approached that simply by asking one question: is what is going on simply another inflection point in the business cycles that have occurred since World War II, or does it represent a systemic failure such as that which happened during the Great Depression? This struck us as the urgent issue.

We noted that in the Great Depression, the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by nearly 50 percent over three years. It was an unprecedented calamity. Bearing this in mind, we compared the current situation to other events since World War II to see if there was a framework for measuring it. We found that framework in the Savings and Loan crisis of 1989, when an entire sector of the U.S. financial system collapsed and the federal government intervened -- essentially guaranteeing or purchasing commercial real estate, whose price decline had triggered the crisis. We noted that the total amount allocated by the federal government in that crisis was about 6.5 percent of the GDP (and the amount actually spent, before recouping of costs via sales, was less than 3 percent). We noted also that in the current crisis another sector of the financial system -- the investment banks -- were devastated, and that the federal government intervened, this time at about 5 percent of GDP. Meanwhile, the equity markets had not declined as much as they did in 2000-2001, and as of the second quarter of this year the economy was still growing by more than 2 percent. From this we concluded that the U.S. economy was moving into a recession but that the recession would not break the framework of the postwar economy, although clearly the degree of government intervention will reshape the financial markets.

From the point of view of many Russian experts in 2001, our analysis of the future of Russia was seen as simplistic and naïve. From the standpoint of professional economists and traders in the markets, the same is being said of our current analysis. But just as our critics among Russian experts failed to see the main thrust of Russian history, many economists fail to see the main thrust of what is now happening. The United States is a $14 trillion economy with a potential problem amounting to $1-2 trillion (and probably far less than that). If the government intervenes, it will create inequities and imbalances in the system. But between the size of the economy and the government printing press, the problem will be managed -- particularly because there are underlying assets -- houses -- that can be monetized in the long run. The gridlock in the financial system will undoubtedly create a recession, but there hasn't been one for seven years and it's high time.

One can like or dislike the outcome, and we certainly agree that this will cause long-term dislocations and imbalances. But we also know that America as a nation-state has the resources to manage its way through this crisis if the government intervenes. And that intervention is as hard-wired into the American political-economic-military system as the law of supply and demand.

We do not speak the language of economics. There are numerous economists who can do that. And we certainly don't speak the language of the financial markets. We speak our own language, designed to reveal the elegant essence of the problem rather than its enormous complexity. Certainly, if our analysis is wrong because we failed to identify a crucial problem, then we haven't identified the center of gravity properly. And we will be wrong, which is far worse. But as in February 2000, when we published a piece called "Recession Time?" which forecast the market collapse that happened a few weeks later and the recession that followed it, we will be criticized for not understanding some essential point -- in 2000 it was that we had no understanding of the impact of increased productivity on the business cycle. They were right. We didn't understand it and we were right not to. The complexities of productivity did not trump the obvious, which was that the NASDAQ had reached unsupportable levels and there had been no recession in nine years and that was way too long.

So, too, we are criticized for our failure to understand the spread between T-Bills and LIBOR or myriad other things. But we do understand this: The political reality is that the size of the American economy, deployed by the state, trumps the financial problems created by the fall of the housing markets. It will be ugly and painful for some and there will be a recession, but things are always ugly and painful when there is a recession.

This series is about the economic problem, therefore, but is not written about the economy and certainly not by economists. Their work is valuable but it differs from ours. Rather this is about geopolitics and therefore about the different regions and nation-states of the world. It is a geopolitical analysis subsuming economics, politics and military affairs in a single system. And it is designed to extract the obvious rather than drill into the complexity.

We hope this series has some value to our readers in clarifying the current moment. That is its intention: to highlight the main tendency, not to detail the complexity. Understanding the trees has value, but seeing the forest clearly has value as well.

The International Currency Crisis

John Mauldin — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:35:24 GMT

Many of us in the US are focused on our own woes. But this is a global credit crisis. In today's Outside the Box, we take a look at the currency markets, which are in an historic upheaval and also look at what is going on in Europe. I suspect that Europe is in for a period of much distress, as the world begins to deleverage That is why one government after another will back the deposits of banks within their countries, for otherwise capital will flee to countries like Ireland and Germany which ARE guaranteeing the deposits for all banks in their borders. Many European banks are leveraged 50 to 1 (not a misprint). I suspect that more government will do like Belgium and the Netherlands and inject capital directly into their local banks deemed too big to fail.

I am going to give you three brief pieces which all look at a different part of the crisis, but looking at the crisis from a more international perspective. The first is from Dennis Gartman's letter (www.thegartmanletter.com) with his views on the overnight currency markets. (Note: the yen has risen even more since he wrote!)

The second piece is a short note from my friends at GaveKal (www.gavekal.com) in which they ask can the euro survive and if so, what will it look like? Very provocative, but in line with my thoughts that the euro will one day be once again at par against the dollar.

The last piece is a column by Wolfgang Munchau writing in today's Financial Times. Munchau argues that the fact that EU member nations managed to survive their first series of bank failures does not mean it can afford to take the risk of defaulting to continued improvisation. Munchau comes out squarely in favor of a coordinated, funded rescue program. Again, thought provoking, and as I noted in this week's letter, something that the US could face within a few weeks as well.

Fascinating markets and times we live in. Let's hope for a rally tomorrow.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

First, from Dennis Gartman:

The dollar and the Japanese yen reign absolutely supreme as the world continues the rush to exit from the EUR in whatever form it now holds them. Stock markets around the world are imploding it seems, and as they do, "risk" in any form is being unwound, forcing the Yen/EUR cross to move several "Big Figures" in the shortest span of time we have seen in our years of trading. Only in the "Russian/Emerging Markets Panic" in August of several years ago have we seen movements such as these. We stand in awe and we stand in fear.

Thus to begin, we say here this morning, mincing no words whatsoever, we are more frightened now for the future of the global capital markets than we have been at any time in our thirty+ years of watching, commenting upon and taking part in them. We are fearful... and we mean this fully... that we have passed the tipping point; that things are now spinning out of control; that forces have been unleashed that cannot be stopped without some truly massive, truly strong-handed, governmental action including the closure of markets and limits upon bank withdrawals, et al. These are troubling times, and our fear is palpable and growing. Worse, these concerns are giving rise to the likelihood that the Left shall be in ascension, and that manifestly left-of-centre, interventionist government lies ahead here in the US and in Europe. Higher, rather than lower taxes will be the end result. Greater... indeed very much greater... intervention in the capital markets lies ahead. Trade and act accordingly.

To put things into proper perspective, it is reasonable to see the Yen/EUR cross move within a 1 Yen range, high to low in any twenty four hour period of time. Beyond that, the situation becomes uncommon. 1.5 Yen movements, although not rare, are unusual, and 2 yen movements in the cross as "Black Swans" indeed. Now, it seems the world is filled with black swans, looking about for the few white ones that remain, for the Yen/EUR cross, having closed near 144.50:1 on Friday afternoon... which was already rather weak for the cross was trading 156 only a bit more than a week ago...is this morning trading 140.50!

We have long said that this cross relationship is the barometer of the relative health of the global capital markets, for over the course of the past several years as risk was embraced Mr. and Mrs. Watanabe would sell their Yen holdings and "swap" them for investments abroad that might return them more money. At the same time, foreign non-Japanese investors were very willing to borrow in Yen terms, take that low cost capital outside of Japan and invest elsewhere. This was the "Carry Trade" and it was one of the driving forced in the global capital market. Hedge funds around the world employed the "carry," borrowing cheap Yen and investing into anything, anywhere around the world where the returns were larger. Once confidence began to ebb, however, and once the losses on the carry trade itself began to wane, the pressure upon those exposed grew.

Now, not only are those who borrowed Yen and bought EURs, or Aussie dollars, or Russian Rubles, or gold, or equities anywhere around the world, or debt securities of almost any kind, finding that they are losing money on the "cross" itself, they are losing more and vast sums on the investments they made. It is horror story writ large and getting larger.

Is there any fundamental investment reason to be bullish of the Japanese Yen? No there is not. The demographics of Japan are horrid as her population ages and begins to actually decline. We have written often of this demographic time-bomb that is exploding consistently over time in Japan. The country's population is imploding and it continues to do so despite government policies aimed at changing that trend. However, once demographics as consequential as what is happening to Japan become entrenched, time... and very, very long periods of time,... decades certainly; centuries perhaps... are needed to reverse the course.

Thus, the only thing driving Yen higher is the panic liquidation of the "carry trade." This unwinding has been going on for several months, having begun in earnest in July when the cross touched 170:1 ever-so-briefly. It took years to build the trade up as Yen was borrowed and the EUR bought since the turn of the Millennium. It may take months yet to unwind these years of accumulation. The process is not pretty. The damage wrought is enormous. The panic lies still ahead.

Moving on, the unwinding of the long EUR/short Yen cross is being made all the more dramatic as investors find reason to shun the EUR and investments in Europe generally as confusion regarding the EUR's future has leaped dramatically to centre stage. As we pointed out last week, Dr. Milton Friedman once said regarding the EUR... in which he tended to have very little confidence...that he doubted it would last through its first real recession. His fears are being put to test today. The world is testing the very mettle of the European confederation experiment, and investors the world wide are watching to see just how well the officials in Brussels and Frankfurt can resolve their large and growing differences.

When the economic weather is mild, the "boat" that is a unified Europe runs pleasantly upon the water. The passengers may be a bit unruly, and they may argue amongst themselves, but their arguments rarely will tip the boat for at least the waters are calm. However, when the waters around the boat are riled, the least bit of unruly activity amongst the passengers is amplified and made serious. When the waters are riled, what would have passed for mere annoyance during periods of quiet become life-threatening instead. We are at that point.

The unravelling began last week when Ireland, fearful of a run on its capital markets, touched off by the frightening weakness of her stock market last Monday, moved to guarantee all deposits within the Irish banking system. The other nations of Europe, then fearful that capital would logically rush to Ireland to seek protection, said that Ireland's decision was at best unwise, perhaps un-European and unconstitutional, and simply downright wrong. They protested. Frankfurt and Paris led the way. Mr. Trichet said that Ireland's unilateral decision was wrong and that all decisions of this matter should be a pan-European decision, not a parochial one. Confusion, as we have always, said, breeds contempt, and with that confusion the EUR came under assault.

Matters have gotten worse... and indeed much, much worse over the weekend, for Germany, having taken Ireland to task only last week, moved to follow Ireland's lead as Chancellor Merkel moved to guarantee all deposits in Germany. She really had no choice. Acting to stem these swift changes in the European banking landscape, the EU's Competition Commissioner, Ms. Neelie Kroes, said that blanket guarantees on bank deposits by individual countries within the European Union shall be considered "discriminatory." Mr. Kroes made her comments on Dutch television over the weekend.

Ms.Kroes said that Ireland is moving to change its deposit insurance plan so that it will conform with European rules, although we have not seen in what ways Dublin is moving... or even if Dublin IS moving at all. Were we Dublin, we'd not change, for our first responsibility is to the depositors in Ireland's banks and to the Irish capital markets, not to depositors on the Continent. Ms. Kroes said that on television that

We are now in close contact. My people were in Dublin on Friday and Saturday and returned with reports that changes will be made.... A guarantee without limits is not allowed ... [but we expect] that it will be brought into a form for which we can together state that it is in line with the treaty.

Germany disagrees with Ms. Kroes and Brussels, apparently, for a spokesperson for Germany's Finance Ministry, Mr. Torsten Albig said over the weekend that "The state guarantees private deposits in Germany" while a second spokesman said the guarantee was and can be unlimited. Now that Ireland has moved in this fashion, and now that Germany has followed, Greece has said that it shall also. Others will follow, overwhelming Brussel's ability to protest Ireland's and Germany's decisions, and thus forcing Ireland to take other actions to continue to draw capital to her. Ireland's Finance Minister, Mr. Brian Lenihan, openly defended his government's plan to guarantee the deposits and debts of six Irish-owned banks for the next two years and pointed to the panic felt by investors over Irish financial stocks this week. We can find no fault whatsoever with Mr. Lenihan's position. Were we he, we'd do precisely the same thing... perhaps even a bit faster.

And from my friends at Gavekal:

Was it just ten days ago that Peer Steinbruck railed at the US for the banking crisis and mentioned that, because of the pneumonia in the US, Europe may well have to endure a cold? Ten days later, a cold seems like wishful thinking. Instead, it looks as if the US pneumonia is inflicting a serious case of tuberculosis across Europe!

In the past ten days, not only have we seen European governments forced to offer blanket guarantees for depositors in banks (e.g., Ireland, Greece...) but we have also witnessed a number of banks coming hat in hands to their respective governments (Hypo Real Estate, Glitnir, Fortis, Dexia, Bradford & Bingley...). Which of course begs the question of what the respective European governments can do? Some (Finland, Holland...) with overall low government debt and small budget deficits, can afford bank bail-outs. For others, whose economies may already be in a recession (e.g., Italy, Spain, Ireland...), financing large-scale bailouts may be more of a challenge. Which brings us back to a long-standing GaveKal theme, namely how the (no) Growth and Stagnation pact (see The European Divergence Trade) hampers EU governments from taking necessary action in the face of a banking crisis. Worse yet, in Europe, investors simply have no idea who the lender of last resort is, or if there is one. And, as we are finding out, this question is no longer a rhetorical question. After all, if the numbers bandied about by Der Spiegel of a necessary €100bn to recapitalize Hypo Real Estate (and that is just one bank!) are even close to the mark, where will the money come from? As we see it, there are two possible options:

The first option is that the ECB prints money aggressively to finance a European-wide bank bailout. This could prove rather inflationary for the Old Continent as wages there tend to be very sticky. It would also entail an absolute collapse in the Euro.

The second option would be for the ECB to tell the various European governments that the banking mess is their own problem, and that they have to deal with it. This would most likely entail a continued divergence in the yields at which European governments borrow (currently standing at post-Euro introduction record highs).
And this brings us back to a long- standing GaveKal theme: for the Euro to survive, either a) it will have to be a structurally weak currency or b) some of the weakest links (i.e.: Portugal? Italy? Greece? Spain?...) may end up being forced out. The path of least resistance is, of course, for the Euro to a structurally weak currency.

Which seems to be where we are heading. Indeed, despite the baffling decision by the ECB to maintain rates unchanged last Thursday, the Euro has been in a serious freefall against the US$, CHF, Yen, etc... Of course, this weakness could also be a sign that the ECB, with its stubborn unwillingness to adjust monetary policy in the face of rapidly changing events, has seriously undermined investor confidence in the Euro area. After all, 48 hours after the ECB board met, the rescue plans for both Hypo RE and Fortis were struggling. Surely, the ECB had to know that two major banks were in dire straits? Or was the ECB board drinking the same Kool-Aid as Peer Steinbruck?

However one cuts it, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Europe is not only experiencing its own credit crunch, but will experience a nasty recession. This recession will put most European government budgets into serious deficits; foreign investors may thus start to question the logic of owning the debt of governments whose balance sheets and income statements keep on deteriorating, and whose currency is free-falling? Milton Friedman once said that the Euro would likely not survive its first major "bump in the road". We will soon find out. The great "European Divergence Trade" is no longer about theory; it is happening before our very eyes.

And from Wolfgang Munchau in today's Financial Times:

This has been a week of self-congratulation in Europe. We have saved a handful of banks. We have, in effect, started to cut interest rates. We even had a summit of European leaders that produced warm words of solidarity. It looks as though the Europeans have reached substantive agreement that no systemically important bank should ever be allowed to fail....The rescue of Fortis and Dexia last week, two large, but not too large, cross-border European banks, should be seen as a sign that our emergency procedures are working. Look, they say, we met quickly and decided what needed to be decided. It was fast and unbureaucratic. We do not need a European rescue fund, let alone any new institutional set-up to deal with this, they say. We can do it ourselves.

I agree that the few ad hoc rescues have worked. But do not fool yourself. They worked because they were the first wave of rescues and because they involved banks such as Fortis - of just the right size, based in just the right small- to medium-sized country where political leaders are sufficiently rational not to hold each other to ransom as midnight approaches on Sunday.

But what if this had been a bank with a name of a large European country, or an acronym that refers to a large European city, banks that are simultaneously too big to fail and too big to save? I shudder to think what would happen when Silvio Berlusconi, Angela Merkel, Lech Kaczynski and the next Austrian leader have to meet to discuss the future of a large cross-border European bank.

What worked for banking rescues numbers one to five may not work for rescues number six to 50 - the estimated number of systemically important banks in Europe. And that number does not include some banks we have already rescued, which politicians judged to be important for their domestic banking system, like Germany's IKB Bank, but with no European relevance whatsoever. We have been squandering money.

Nor does it include the likes of Hypo Real Estate, which is not even a bank at all....

The Europeans are of course right in their overall ambition not to allow systemically important banks to fail. They are also right in their scepticism about their ability to distinguish between illiquidity and insolvency during an emergency. But I fear we are still well short of a strategy. We might be lucky, and scrape through what could well become the most dangerous month of the crisis so far. If, for example, the credit default swap market were to blow up in the next couple of weeks - a non-trivial probability - we have no plan.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, was therefore right when he appeared to back a €300bn rescue fund. Regular readers of this column will probably recall my somewhat constrained enthusiasm for his economic policies. But this had the makings of a good plan. He ended up distancing himself from it, when it became clear that Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, would not support it. But he was right and she was wrong. Of course, a European plan should not have been a copy of the bail-out that was finally adopted by Congress on Friday. The US plan failed to address the problem of an undercapitalised banking sector. That issue is even more important in Europe where many banks have an extremely weak capital base, with leverage ratios of 50 or more.

Europe does therefore not need any bail-out plan, but a plan that specifically addresses the capitalisation problem. Concretely, three things are needed: the first and most important is money. A sum of €300bn will not cover the EU in a worst-case scenario, but it is a sensible number to start with; secondly, you need a semi-permanent crisis committee empowered to take decisions; and finally you need a strategy to apply symmetrically and based on clear rules about when to recapitalise, and when not.

If you pursue a strategy of taking purely national decisions, you run the risk that at least one government will hit its own financial ceiling before this crisis is over, or that decisions have negative spillovers on the banking systems of other countries. Moreover, you end up with a beggar-thy-neighbour regulatory race, as we saw last week when Ireland and Greece unilaterally issued blanket guarantees for large parts of their banking sector. Last night, Germany was preparing a full deposit guarantee for its own banking system. Last but not least is the risk of violent political setback against a process that lacks transparency.

For Europe, this is more than just a banking crisis. Unlike in the US, it could develop into a monetary regime crisis. A systemic banking crisis is one of those few conceivable shocks with the potential to destroy Europe's monetary union. The enthusiasm for creating a single currency was unfortunately never matched by an equal enthusiasm to provide the correspondingly effective institutions to handle financial crises. Most of the time, it does not matter. But it matters now. For that reason alone, the case for a European rescue plan is overwhelming.