John Mauldin's Outside the Box : GDP

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

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

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

Your wondering if we are all turning Japanese analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

by Hugh Hendry
Eclectica Fund Manager

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

John Maynard Keynes
The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1921

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Yellow Brick Road

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

Perhaps I Should Stick to the Twenty-First Century?

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

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

What an Ungrateful Lot We Are?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Orphan's Home Cycle
Horton Foote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Orders: Inflation or Deflation?

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

Charles Ives

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

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

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

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

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

American Gothic

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

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

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

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

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

The Vapors, 1980

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

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

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

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

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

In Bernie We Trust?

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

What Do I Mean?

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

But the Economy is Growing?

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

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

Does Life Imitate Art?

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

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

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

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

Poor Old Norsk Hydro?

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

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

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

Lascia ch'io pianga
Handel

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

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

Pierre Corneille
Polyeucte, 1642

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

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

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

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

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

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

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

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

Value Investing Congress - David Einhorn, Greenlight Capital

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

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

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

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

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

Ponzi Finance

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

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

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

A Downward Spiral

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

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

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

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

The Impossible Promise

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

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

The Hesitant Fed

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

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

Dollar Weakness

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

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

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

Growth in Potential GDP

John Mauldin — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:33:00 GMT

This week I offer you two short pieces for your Outside the Box Reading Pleasure. The first is from my friends at GaveKal and is part of their daily letter. They address the real difference between those who think we will have a consumer led recovery (Keynesian) and those who think we will have a corporate profit led recovery (classical economics or Schumpeterian). This is actually a very important debate and distinction. I find that GaveKal pushes me to think almost more than any other group, as they constantly challenge my assumptions. (www.gavekal.com)

The second piece comes from Dr. John Hussman of Hussman Funds (www.hussmanfunds.com). He offers us some very insightful analysis on the potential for growth going forward, which goes along with what I have been writing: We are in for a longer period of below trend growth, which does not bode well for corporate profits in the long run. I think you will get a lot out of these two items.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Daily Observations from GaveKal

We are hearing concerns, from some clients and friends, that the brutal corporate cost-cutting seen in the wake of the subprime crisis will delay the recovery, because this trend is killing the US consumer. In other words, how can one spend if he has lost his job or fears as much, or has seen his work hours drastically reduced, taken a pay cut, or expects his company pension system is about to implode? For us, this all boils down to a crucial question: do we need consumption to pick up in order to achieve a rebound in growth? The answer to this question very much depends on whether one accepts a Keynesian view of the economic process, or a Schumpeterian (or classical) view. We hope our readers forgive us, but we are now going to have to get a tad theoretical....

* In a Keynesian view, consumption is the motor of growth. If companies slash their payrolls, consumption contracts and we enter into a vicious cycle in which the subsequent decline in demand leads to a second wave of cuts, which then leads to a further decline in consumption, and so on and so forth. The Keynesian cycle may have been useful from 1945 to 1990, but in the past 20 years, globalization and just-in-time technologies have changed the nature of corporate management, which is why we believe a classical, capital-spending led view of the economic cycle will reassert itself.

* In a classical view, as exemplified by "Say's law" and reinforced by Schumpeter, corporate profitability is the cause, not the consequence, of economic growth. Thus, Schumpeter would see the current cycle as the destruction phase in the creative-destruction processes that propel the economic cycle. Capital and labor are currently moving from the sectors in decline (e.g., McMansions) to the sectors in expansion (e.g., tech, alternative-energy infrastructure, etc.). Once momentum in the growth sectors overwhelm the decaying ones, then macro growth resumes. Under this framework, consumption kicks in at the end of the cycle (for more on this, see the very first paper published by GaveKal, Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of a Deflationary Book).

Within our firm, Charles is the major proponent of the Schumpeterian view, and this thinking was apparent in his and Steve's recent ad hoc, A V-Shaped Recovery in Profits. Due to the quick reflexes that new technologies allow, corporates are managing their cash flow better than ever. Rarely ever, for instance, have companies (ex-financials) remained in such strong positions during a recession, which is yet another reason why we believe that capital spending, rather than consumption, will spark the recovery.

Indeed, the scale at which corporates have been able to cut costs and return to profitability, has laid the groundwork for a deflationary boom of epic proportions (which would be a major surprise for those who fear an easy-money inflationary nightmare). Of course, there is a major threat to this deflationary-boom scenario-and that is the increased government intervention we are seeing in most corners of the world. If government intervention manages to kill off return on investment capital, as it did in the 1930s, then the current opportunity will go up in smoke. Regular readers know we tend to err on the side of optimism; at this point we still hold out hope that a major lurch to a big-government era can be resisted-as exemplified, for example, by the unexpectedly strong fight we are seeing against the health-care bill, or the ability of so many US financials to pay back their debt to the US Treasury, thus lowering the extent of government influence on their business decisions. Thus, in our view, a period of deflationary boom is the likeliest scenario, and investors should focus on sectors and countries that will see the largest resurgence in capital spending.

Growth in "Potential GDP" Shows Limited Potential

By John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

Historically, two factors have made important contributions to stock market returns in the years following U.S. recessions. One of these that we review frequently is valuation. Very simply, depressed valuations have historically been predictably followed by above-average total returns over the following 7-10 year period (though not necessarily over very short periods of time), while elevated valuations have been predictably followed by below-average total returns.

Thus, when we look at the dividend yield of the S&P 500 at the end of U.S. recessions since 1940, we find that the average yield has been about 4.25% (the yield at the market's low was invariably even higher). Presently, the dividend yield on the S&P 500 is about half that, at 2.14%, placing the S&P 500 price/dividend ratio at about double the level that is normally seen at the end of U.S. recessions (even presuming the recession is in fact ending, of which I remain doubtful). At the March low, the yield on the S&P 500 didn't even crack 3.65%. Similarly, the price-to-revenue ratio on the S&P 500 at the end of recessions has been about 40% lower than it is today, and has been lower still at the actual bear market trough. The same is true of valuations in relation to normalized earnings, even though the market looked reasonably cheap in March based on the ratio of the S&P 500 to 2007 peak earnings (which were driven by profit margins about 50% above the historical norm).

Stocks are currently overvalued, which – if the recession is indeed over – makes the present situation an outlier. Unfortunately, since valuations and subsequent returns go hand in hand, the likelihood is that the probable returns over the coming years will also be a disappointingly low outlier. In short, we should not assume, even if the recession is ending, that above average multi-year returns will follow.

That conclusion is also supported by another driver of market returns in the years following U.S. recessions: prospective GDP growth. Every quarter, the U.S. Department of Commerce releases an estimate of what is known as "potential GDP," as well as estimates of future potential GDP for the decade ahead. These estimates are based on the U.S. capital stock, projected labor force growth, population trends, productivity, and other variables. As the Commerce Department notes, potential GDP isn't a ceiling on output, but is instead a measure of maximum sustainable output.

The comparison between actual and potential GDP is frequently referred to as the "output gap." Generally, U.S. recessions have created a significant output gap, as the recent one has done. Combined with demographic factors like strong expected labor force growth, this output gap has resulted in above-average real GDP growth in the years following the recession.

The chart below shows the 10-year growth rates in actual and potential GDP since 1949 (the first year that data are available).

The blue line presents actual growth in real U.S. GDP in the decade following each point in time. This line ends a decade ago for obvious reasons. The red line presents the 10-year projected growth of "potential" real GDP. This line is much smoother, because the measure of potential GDP is not concerned with fluctuations in economic growth, only the amount of output that the economy is capable of producing at relatively full utilization of resources.

One of the things to notice immediately is that because of demographics and other factors, projected 10-year growth in potential GDP has never been lower. This is not based on credit conditions or other prevailing concerns related to the recent economic downturn. Rather, it is a structural feature of the U.S. economy here, and has important implications for the sort of economic growth we should expect in the decade ahead.

The green line is something of a hybrid of the two data series. Here, I've calculated the 10-year GDP growth that would result if the current level of GDP at any given time was to grow to the level of potential GDP projected for the following decade. This line takes the "output gap" into effect, since a depressed current level of GDP requires greater subsequent growth to achieve future potential GDP. Notice here that even given the decline we saw in GDP last year, the likely growth in GDP over the coming decade is well under 3% annually - a level that we have typically seen in periods of tight capacity (that were predictably followed by sub-par subsequent economic growth), not at the beginning stages of a recovery.

The situation is clearly better than it was at the 2007 economic peak, where probable 10-year economic growth dropped to the lowest level in the recorded data, but again, the likely growth rate is still below 3% annually over the next decade even given the economic slack we observe.

Aside from a gradual recovery of the "output gap" created by the current downturn, there is no structural reason to expect economic growth to be a major driver of investment returns in the years ahead. With valuations now elevated above historical norms, there is no reason to expect strong total returns on an investment basis either.

The primary element that is favorable at present is speculation – excitement over the prospect that the recession is over. Investors are presently anticipating the good things that have historically accompanied the end of recessions (strong investment returns and sustained economic growth), without having in hand the factors that have made those things possible (excellent valuations and a large output gap coupled with strong structural growth in potential GDP).

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

John Mauldin — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:50:00 GMT

This week I am really delighted to be able to give you a condensed version of Gary Shilling's latest INSIGHT newsletter for your Outside the Box. Each month I really look forward to getting Gary's latest thoughts on the economy and investing. Last year in his forecast issue he suggested 13 investment ideas, all of which were profitable by the end of the year. It is not unusual for Gary to give us over 75 charts and tables in his monthly letters along with his commentary, which makes his thinking unusually clear and accessible. Gary was among the first to point out the problems with the subprime market and predict the housing and credit crises. His web site is down being re-designed, but you can write for more information at insight@agaryshilling.com. If you want to subscribe (for $275), you can call 888-346-7444. Tell them that you read about it in Outside the Box and you will get not only his recent 2009 forecast issue with the year's investment themes, but an extra issue with his 2010 forecast (of course, that one will not come out until the end of the year. Gary is good but not that good!) I trust you are enjoying your week. And enjoy this week's Outside the Box....

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

(excerpted from the August 2009 edition of A. Gary Shilling'sINSIGHT)

Beyond the current recession, the worst since the 1930s, lies years of slow growth, as we've discussed in pastInsights. The next economic recovery, which will probably start around mid-2010, will likely be so subdued that it may not feel like the recession has ended. And economic growth in the bulk of the next decade will probably be slow -- so slow that it will force the federal government to take continuing actions to prevent high and chronically rising unemployment.

Six Causes of Slow Long-Term Growth

As explored in detail in pastInsights, six forces will promote slow long-term growth in the U.S. and, indeed, on a global basis -- U.S. consumer retrenchment, financial sector deleveraging, weak commodity prices, increased government regulation and involvement in the economy, protectionism and deflation.

Consumer Retrenchment. First and foremost is the dramatic switch by American consumers from a 25-year borrowing and spending binge to a saving spree that should extend a decade or more. As we pointed out last month, in the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. consumers regarded their soaring stock portfolios as continually filling piggybanks that would fund their kids' education, early retirements and a few round-the-world cruises in between. So they slashed their saving rate and pushed up their borrowing to fund spending growth that consistently exceeded the rise in after-tax income. When stocks nosedived with the collapse in the dot com bubble in 2000-2002, leaping house prices seamlessly took over to finance oversized consumer spending growth.

But now stock and house prices -- the vast majority of most Americans' net worth -- are not only depressed but also unlikely to revive to their former glory days for many, many years. Furthermore, our earlier research found no other major consumer assets that could be borrowed against. So consumers are being forced to embark on the saving spree we have been predicting for some years.

For the next decade, we're forecasting an average one percentage point rise in the saving rate annually, raising it to 10% in 10 years. That still would not return the saving rate to the early 1980s level of 12% even though the demographics for saving have gone from the worst to the best in the interim. And even a decade of vigorous saving will probably not return household net worth even close to its former peaks or eliminate completely the three decades of ever-increasing household financial leverage.

Financial Deleveraging. Financial deleveraging will also reduce long-term economic growth. As we've discussed in many past Insights, the recession really started in early 2007 in the financial arena with the collapse of subprime residential mortgages. Then it spread to Wall Street in mid-2007 with the complete mistrust among financial institutions and their assets, too many of which were linked to troubled mortgages. A huge gap opened up back then between the 3-month LIBOR and Treasury bill yields, and that panicked Washington into opening the money floodgates. The Fed started its interest rate-cutting campaign that ultimately drove its federal funds rate target to the zero-to-0.25% range (Chart 1 ).

But the central bank soon found the banks were too scared to lend and creditworthy borrowers didn't want to borrow when Bear Stearns and Lehman collapsed and other large banks and Wall Street houses were on the brink. So the Fed embarked on quantitative easing that exploded its balance sheet. And Congress and the Administration joined in with the $700 billion TARP, the $787 billion fiscal bailout and many other programs, as witnessed by the exploding federal deficit.

The Bank for International Settlements recently said only limited progress has been made in clearing up the global financial system, and any economic recovery will be short-lived and followed by a long period of stagnation unless bank balance sheets are corrected.

Except for hotels, commercial real estate woes aren't so much the result of overbuilding, as is the case with residential. Rather, the problems are due to aggressive refinancing and pricing in earlier years as well as current slumping demand. As retailers close stores or fold completely, mall space becomes vacant. Warehouses are empty as consumer retrenchment curtails goods imported from Asia and elsewhere. Excess space and weak business and leisure travel is axing hotel room rates and occupancy. Layoffs result in sublease office space competing with landlords for tenants.

Furthermore, a great deal of real estate debt must be refinanced soon amidst falling occupancy, rents and sales prices as well as tight credit markets. Estimates are that $155 billion in securitizations are coming due by 2012 and two-thirds won't qualify for refinancing as prices drop 35% to 45% from their 2007 peaks. Meanwhile, $525 billion of commercial mortgages held by banks and thrifts will come due by 2012. About 50% won't qualify for refinancing since they exceed 90% of the underlying property value. Lenders prefer loans of no more than 65%.

Deleveraging of the financial sector will obviously have negative ramifications for the real economy it finances. We've already seen plenty of effects. Many small businesses that depend on outside financing are starving as banks tighten lending standards. In a sense, many derivatives were financial cobwebs spun among bank and other speculators, but they did finance much of the housing boom.

Commodity Crisis. The earlier collapse of the commodity bubble (Chart 2) will also subdue global economic growth in future years. Sure, commodity consumers benefit from lower prices by the same amount that producers lose. But the share of total spending on commodity imports by consumers, especially in developed lands, is tiny while they account for the bulk of exports for producers, many of them developing countries such as Middle East oil producers.

Furthermore, security losses last year devastated sovereign wealth funds, many of them in oil-rich countries as well as Asian exporters. A year ago, they were estimated to hold $3 trillion in assets on their way to $10 trillion. Now the estimate is $1.8 trillion and optimistically forecast to rise to only $5 to $6 trillion by 2012. Lower oil prices have a lot to do with the downward revisions. Singapore's huge Temasek Holdings fell more than $28 billion, or 22%, at the end of March from a year earlier.

More Government Regulation. So, U.S. consumer retrenchment, global financial deleveraging and weak commodity prices will keep worldwide economic growth subdued for many years. So, too, will vastly increased regulation here and abroad, the normal reaction to financial and economic crises, as noted in our earlier reports. When a lot of people lose a lot of money, there is a cosmic need for scapegoats and increased regulation. Sure, many embarrassed financial wizards have sworn off their wayward ways and will be cautious for years, probably the balance of their careers. But that won't stop witch hunts.

The Administration has proposed a substantial overhaul of financial regulation. It doesn't plan to combine regulators to eliminate overlaps and gaps, as originally discussed. Still, it would empower the Fed to monitor financial risks to avoid systemwide instability; create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with control of mortgages, credit cards, savings accounts and annuities; push public companies to give shareholders say on pay; bring hedge funds under federal regulation; require firms to hold some of mortgage securitizations they create and sell; force derivatives to be traded on exchanges; beef up oversight of insurance; force industrial loan companies to obtain bank holding company charters; urge the SEC to stem runs on money market funds and to strengthen regulation of credit rating firms; create a mechanism for government to takeover large, failing financial institutions; and amends the Fed's lending powers to require the Treasury Secretary's approval.

The first Obama federal budget also points clearly to more government regulation and involvement in the economy, in health, education and the environment. Beyond the financial sector, the bailout of U.S. auto producers led to considerable government control of that industry, almost day-to-day management by Washington.

Rising Protectionism. Without question, protectionism will slow or even eliminate global economic growth as international trade slumps. As noted in earlier Insights, recessions spawn economic nationalism and protectionism, and the deeper the slump, the stronger are those tendencies. It's ever so easy to blame foreigners for domestic woes and take actions to protect the home turf while repelling the offshore invaders. The beneficial effects of free trade are considerable but diffuse while the loss of one's job to imports is very specific. And politicians find protectionism to be a convenient vote-getter since foreigners don't vote in domestic elections.

As noted earlier, initially this recession was in the financial arena -- the collapse in the residential mortgage market led by the Subprime Slime that started in early 2007, and the follow-on Wall Street woes that commenced in the middle of that year when two big Bear Stearns hedge funds imploded. So it's not surprising that protectionism began in the financial arena and took the form of competing to safeguard a country's financial institutions. But at least that competition was positive for financial systems and economies, even if expensive for taxpayers.

Now, however, protection has spread to its more classical import-export arena with the advent late last year of massive U.S. consumer retrenchment and globalization of the downturn. Both forces are severely depressing the goods and services sectors as U.S. consumer spending falls the most since the 1930s and unemployment here and abroad leaps.

Since the early 1980s, world trade has functioned in a smooth but unsustainable fashion. The rest of the world produced and America consumed. In many foreign lands, households were weak consumers and big savers, so production exceeded domestic consumption. Their production surpluses were exported, directly or indirectly, to the U.S. where consumers were saving less and less and spending more and more. With their growing trade surpluses, foreign nations had growing piles of dollars that they recycled into Treasurys and other American investments, helping to hold down interest rates and making it cheaper for spendthrift American consumers to borrow easily and cheaply to fund their leaping debts.

Now, with American consumers embarking on a saving spree, the U.S. will no longer be the buyer of first and last resort for the globe's excess goods and services. Furthermore, with slower global growth for years ahead, virtually every country will be promoting exports to spur domestic activity. When every country wants to export and none want to import, the pressure for protectionism leaps.

Deflation. Chronic deflation is the sixth reason we forecast slow economic growth in the next decade or so. Chronic deflation spawns self-fulfilling deflationary expectations. Today, who would have the guts to tell a friend he paid the full sticker price for a vehicle? Years of rebates have trained car buyers to expect continuing and even bigger rebates. So they wait to buy. That leads to excess inventories that require even larger price concessions. Buyer suspicions are confirmed so they wait longer, promoting more inventory buildup, more price cuts, etc. in a self-feeding cycle. A key effect, of course, is to retard spending and slow economic growth.

Long-time Insight readers know that we have been forecasting chronic deflation to start with the next major global recession. Well, that recession is here. We earlier forecast chronic good deflation of excess supply because of today's convergence of many significant productivity-soaked technologies such as semiconductors, computers, the Internet, telecom and biotech that should hype output and depress prices. As a result of rapid productivity growth, fewer and fewer man-hours are needed to produce goods and services. Big output growth also results from the globalization of production and the other deflationary forces we discussed in and since we wrote our two Deflation books a decade ago. With U.S. consumer retrenchment and a shrinking pool of global imports, export-dependent lands will be competing even more fiercely for the remaining markets.

In contrast to good deflation, bad deflation reigned in the 1930s as the Great Depression pushed demand well below supply. Japan also suffered bad deflation over the last two decades after the collapse of her 1980s housing and stock market bubbles. But in Japan, the lack of demand wasn't caused by a dearth of employment and income as in the U.S. in the 1930s, but because the government delayed cleaning up her financial institutions while consumers refused to spend their incomes.

We've consistently predicted the good deflation of excess supply, but we've also said clearly that the bad deflation of deficient demand could occur -- due to severe and widespread financial crises or due to global protectionism. Both are obvious threats, as explained earlier.

Few agree with our forecast of chronic deflation. They've never seen anything but inflation in their business careers or lifetimes, so they think that's the way God made the world. Few can remember much about the 1930s, the last time deflation reigned. Excessive monetary and fiscal stimuli are also key reasons why most observers forecast chronic and severe inflation in future years. They may concede that deflation is more likely in the balance of the recession (Chart 3) for the reasons we've cited in pastInsights. Past weakness in commodity prices is still working its way through the production and distribution system. Surplus inventories (Chart 4) -- the result of producers, wholesalers and retailers being caught unaware when consumers suddenly retrenched last fall -- are still being worked off and depressing prices in the process.

Wage cuts and mandatory furloughs for the first time since the 1930s, as well as layoffs are obviously deflationary as they depress purchasing power. In addition, the excess of supply overdemand has clear implications for deflation.

Nevertheless, the vast majority still maintain that inflation is inevitable in the long run. All the money being pumped out by the Fed and the Treasury deficits is sure to stimulate too much demand in relation to supply, they believe. But before money can promote excess demand, it's got to get into circulation, and scared lenders and creditworthy borrowers are unlikely to convert massive bank reserves into money until rapid economic growth resumes. And that, we believe, is unlikely for many years. Furthermore, if economic growth and loans mushroom, contrary to our forecast, major central bankers, with their congenital fear of inflation, will no doubt withdraw much of that liquidity.

Slow And Weak Recovery

We continue to forecast that the recession will extend into early 2010. Only by then is enough fiscal stimulus likely to be pumped out to stabilize consumer retrenchment. By then, most of the global financial woes should be at least stabilized. And by then, enough excess house inventories may be absorbed to end the downward pressure on prices.

Excess house inventories were built up in the 1996-2005 boom and still number about 1.5 million new and existing houses above normal working levels despite the collapse in housing starts and recent stabilization in sales. Excess inventories are the mortal enemy of prices in any goods-producing industry, especially housing. We continue to believe it will take at least until the end of next year before excess house inventories are reduced to levels that no longer depress prices. Meanwhile, prices -- already down 32% from their second quarter 2006 peak -- are likely to fall to reach a total 37% decline we've forecast for the last two years.

The decline in house prices is evaporating home equity. In the early 1980s, those with mortgages had almost 50% equity in their houses on average, after subtracting all mortgage borrowing from the market price of their homes (Chart 5). Due to increasing mortgage leverage and, more recently, collapsing house prices, that equity was only 20% in the first quarter and continuing to fall.

If house prices drop about 37% from their peak to their final bottom, that equity will be down to about the 15% range. At that point, over 25 million homeowners, or half those with mortgages, will be under water, compared to about 25% today.

After the recession ends as the economy stops falling, a weak recovery is likely to follow, one so tepid and with such high unemployment that you may not know it has arrived. The two normal forces that generate economic recoveries are missing this time. As usual, the Fed eased monetary policy once it saw that the economy was headed for recession.

But unlike the past, Fed action is not reviving housing (Chart 5), given the overhang of excess house inventories. And the normal pop in production when the liquidation of overall inventories ends (Chart 6 ) will be muted and overshadowed by the unusually large slashing of consumer spending. It's hard for businesses to cut inventories fast enough to keep up with dropping consumer demand.

2.0% GDP Growth

A chronic 1 percentage point annual rise in the consumer saving rate for the next decade or so will knock around 1 percentage point off real GDP growth after its effects work their way through the economy. That's a big contrast with 0.5 annual percentage point declines in the saving rate over the previous quarter century that added around 0.5 percentage points to growth. That total swing of 1.5 percentage points will reduce real GDP growth from 3.6% per year in the 1982-2000 salad days (Chart 7 ) to 2.1%.

So with the five other inhibitors to growth in coming years -- financial deleveraging, weak commodity prices that will retard spending by producing countries, more government regulation and involvement in the economy, rising protectionism and deflation -- our forecast of 2.0% real GDP growth is probably even optimistic.

With 2% to 3% deflation, nominal GDP might not gain at all. And with slower growth in the years ahead, economic expansions are likely to be shorter and less robust while recessions will probably be deeper and more frequent.

Consumer Spending Growth

We're also forecasting real consumer spending growth of 1.4% per year in the next decade. That, too, may be optimistic as consumers retrench and slash real debt which far outran real housing wealth even before it collapsed, outran real annual growth in real stock wealth before it nosedived, and bested real disposable income growth. Much of the explosion in debt was residential mortgage-related borrowing in the mid-1990s - mid-2000s housing bubble, fueled by low borrowing costs, weak lending standards, exotic mortgages and securitization, which distributed toxic mortgage loans to unsuspecting investors.

The deleveraging of consumers that we expect to continue for years is a reversal of the same longrun phenomenon of past decades that was measured in different ways -- the decline in the saving rate, the rise in debt and debt service rates and the rise in consumption's share of GDP, reflecting what consumers did with the money they didn't save and did borrow.

Consumption vs. GDP

With real consumer spending forecast to grow 1.4% annually over the next decade and real GDP 2.0%, real consumption's share of GDP falls from 71.0% last year to 66.5% in 2018 (Chart 7). That would bring it back to the level of the early 1980s when the consumer spending binge began (Chart 8 ). It may seem inconsistent that we're forecasting a rise in the household saving rate of 10 percentage points but a decline in real consumption's share of real GDP of only 4.5 percentage points from 71% to 66.5%. But note that the reverse occurred in the last 25 years -- the saving rate fell from 12% to zero, or 12 percentage points while consumption's share of real GDP rose from 67.5% to 71%.

These differences are in part because household saving is being measured as a percentage of disposable (after-tax) income, which is less than GDP, so the effects of the change in the saving rate on GDP are muted. In the earlier 1980s, real disposable income was about 78% of GDP. Furthermore, the rise in consumption's share of real GDP in the 1982-2000 boom years (Chart 8) was actually held back by the drop in the real DPI/real GDP ratio. That in turn was largely the result of employee compensation's share of national income falling while corporate profits' share leaped during those years.

In the years ahead, however, it's unlikely that DPI will decline as a share of GDP. As we discussed in earlier years when profits' share was at its zenith, a big decline in corporate earnings' piece if the pie was probably in the cards. In a democracy, we noted, neither capital nor labor can continually increase its share indefinitely while the other one's share chronically shrinks. We also suggested that the recession and financial mess we were forecasting, the worst since the Great Depression, would depress profits. We also opined that Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Congress would be adverse to shareholders while smiling on their labor constituents.

Where's The Growth?

If consumer spending grows slower than GDP in the next decade, other GDP components must grow faster. Which ones? As shown in our forecast table (Chart 7), it's unlikely to be residential construction, which we see growing 1.0% per year in real terms compared with 5.2% in the 1982-2000 years. Housing should remain weak even after the huge excess inventory is worked off. Earlier, homeowners were convinced that house prices never declined -- and they hadn't on a nationwide basis since the 1930s.

But the recent collapse in house prices and the prospect that they will move with overall prices in the future -- which means chronic declines with chronic deflation -- are shattering the scales that blinded homeowners. So they're beginning to separate places to live from investments. That means they'll want smaller quarters, and the new houses that are built will be smaller and less expensive.

Capital Spending

Real spending on nonresidential structures grew only 0.6% per year in the 1982-2000 era as overexpansion in the earlier years curtailed spending later on. With slow economic growth in the years ahead, demand for warehouse, factory, office and hotel space is likely to be subdued. Ongoing consumer retrenchment will keep retail vacancies high and new building low. On balance, we project about the same growth rate for real nonresidential construction, 0.5% per year, in the next decade.

Equipment and software real spending advanced briskly in the 1982-2000 years, 8.2% annually as new technologies such as computers, semiconductors, the Internet, biotech and telecom absorbed tremendous amounts of spending. Furthermore, inflation and interest rates were declining (Chart 9 ) to the benefit of the corporate sector, and operating rates were generally high while profits growth was robust. Those new technologies will continue to attract heavy spending in the next decade, but their initial huge bursts of spending are probably over. Furthermore, although the interest costs to finance capital investment will probably remain low, especially with deflation, profits will probably remain under pressure in an era of slow revenue growth and deflation. And most important, capacity utilization rates are likely to remain low.

A statistical model that we've run many times over the years and just updated shows that year-over-year changes in corporate profits, interest costs and capacity utilization in the post-World War II era are all statistically significant in explaining year-over-year growth in both the equipment and software component of GDP and equipment and software plus nonresidential construction. But in either case, capacity utilization is much more important with coefficients almost three times as large as those for interest costs and even bigger relative to those for profits in both models (Charts 10 and 11).

We forecast annual real growth in equipment and software investment of 3.0% per year in the next decade, faster than the 2.0% we foresee for real GDP but much less than the 8.2% in the 1982-2000 golden years.

Imports and Exports

With weak consumer spending growth and overall muted economic advance, real imports are likely to rise only 2.8% annually in the next decade, much less than the 9.0% growth in 1982-2000 when U.S. consumer spending was booming and free trade ruled the world. This forecast is even lower than suggested by our 1.4% annual growth in real consumption. Historically, a 1% rise in consumer spending results in a 2.8% rise in imports, but rising protectionism is likely to dampen that relationship.

This weakness in U.S. imports will leave profound effects on the many foreign economies that have depended for growth on American consumers buying the excess goods and services for which they have no other ready markets. The net effect of subdued growth in U.S. imports will be sluggish economic growth abroad, perhaps even slower in other developed lands than in the U.S. That should limit the growth in U.S. exports to 3.0% per year compared with 7.4% in the 1982-2000 years (Chart 7). Still, government policies in Asia and elsewhere that promote consumer spending are likely to result in U.S. exports growing slightly faster than American imports, the reverse of earlier years. Severe protectionism, however, may stymie even these low growth forecasts for foreign trade.

State and Local Government Spending

Real state and local government spending, as recorded in the GDP accounts, rose slower than real GDP in the 1982-2000 years, 3.2% vs. 3.6%, and no doubt would in the years ahead -- except for federal government stimuli that's spent by municipalities, as discussed later. State governments are in terrible financial shape and likely to continue so in the years ahead. In the first four months of this year, state income taxes plunged 26%. In the economic climate we foresee, corporate, sales and individual income taxes will all remain depressed.

At the local level, collapsed real estate prices will hold down property tax collections in the years ahead while reductions in aid and revenue-sharing from state governments will persist. In a recent survey, 18 states reported cuts in local aid. California Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed that low-level crimes like auto theft and drug possession be considered only misdemeanors so those convicted would do time in county jails. That would reduce state prison expenses and save the state $1.1 billion in the next three years, but raise local government costs. Furthermore, California's latest budget stopgap will take, temporarily, $4 billion from local government funds.

We're forecasting 5.0% annual growth in state and local government spending in the next decade, but the majority of it will probably come from Washington, which will be forced to spend heavily to prevent high and chronically rising unemployment.

Rescued By Slow Productivity

Some suggest that slower economic growth will bring slower growth in production. That would reduce the upward pressure on unemployment since more people would be needed for work than with faster productivity growth. But there's no evidence that productivity growth necessarily slows with a chronically weak economy. In the depressed 1930s, productivity grew 2.39% annually, among the highest decades since 1900. In that decade, much of the new technologies of the 1920s -- electrification of homes and factories and mass-produced automobiles -- was being implemented, despite the Great Depression and its slow growth aftermath.

Similarly, the new tech burst of the last decade or so in computers, the Internet, biotech, telecom and semiconductors will no doubt promote rapid productivity growth in coming years.

Finally, the mindset of American business will probably promote robust productivity growth in future years. Throughout this decade, the emphasis has been on producing more with fewer people. Note (Chart 12) that even at the top of the expansion in 2007, job openings were fewer than in 2000 at the peak of the previous expansion, despite the growth in the economy in the meanwhile. And since 2007, job openings have collapsed.

Unemployment will also remain high since many of the people who have lost jobs were in construction and finance, two areas that will probably do little net hiring for many years. Normally, a 2 percentage point drop in real GDP causes a 1 percentage point rise in the unemployment rate. But June's 9.5% rate is 1.5 percentage points higher than this rule of thumb would predict, given the drop so far in real GDP.

Big Federal Spending

If we're right, then, on our forecast of slow economic growth in the next decade, unemployment will be high and chronically rising -- absent huge federal intervention. And that intervention is assured since no government -- left, right or center -- can withstand high and rising joblessness for long. And don't forget current as well as future increased federal immersion in the economy builds constituencies that fight fiercely to preserve their government goodies.

Some of this federal intervention will probably take the form of more federal employees and direct purchases of goods and services, which show up in the GDP breakdown (Chart 7). But most of it won't be recorded as the federal spending GDP component since it will be transferred to individuals as federal unemployment benefits, extra Social Security checks, etc. and to state and local governments to fund leaf-raking and other make-work projects.

Notice that in 2018, we project real federal spending to account for only 7.2% of real GDP, up from 5.9% in 2008. Of course, nobody but economists look at these measures of federal spending, but instead concentrate on the ratio of total federal budget spending to GDP. This ratio mixed apples and oranges since budget spending includes transfers that GDP does not, but it does measure federal involvement in the economy.

In 2008, federal spending equaled 21% of GDP, outdistancing the 17.7% from revenues. This gap is likely to widen even after the current extraordinary spending to combat the recession and financial mess is over. Anti-unemployment spending will jump to higher levels while federal revenues languish. How will the resulting large deficit be financed?

Savers To The Rescue

In the past, federal deficits were financed by foreigners as they recycled back to the U.S. the dollars gained from their trade surpluses, as noted earlier. The growing U.S. current account deficit measures the increasing gap between domestic saving and investment, or, in effect, and the need for foreigners to not only finance government deficits but also make up for declining U.S. consumer saving.

But now, the current account and trade deficits are shrinking as American consumers retrench and slash imports. Further declines will accrue in future years if exports grow faster than imports (Chart 7), so foreigners will have smaller American current account deficits to finance. At the same time, much more of federal deficits will probably be financed by rising U.S. consumer saving.

Household saving is basically what's left from wages, salaries, rent, interest, dividends and transfers like pension benefits after subtracting spending on durables like autos and appliances, non-durables such as food and clothing and services like recreation and medical services. That amount, divided by the after-tax income in the period in question, is saving rate. Saving can be used to either reduce debt or increase assets.

Debt Reduction

Although the stock bulls may salivate over the prospect that increased saving will mean more equity purchases, we believe that most of the money will go to debt repayment -- the flip side of a saving spree. The 6.9% saving rate in May, mentioned earlier, was a result of consumers saving their tax cuts and extra Social Security payments, and is unsustainable. Still, since after-tax income was about $11 trillion at annual rates in May, this saving rate produced annual rate saving of $769 billion. That money was basically used for debt reduction and since money is fungible, it ended up financing a major part of the mushrooming federal deficit. As consumer saving grows in future years, it will increasingly finance the federal deficit, indirectly.

Repaying debt will be attractive to many Americans in future years as they shun many investments after their huge losses in stocks throughout this decade and their shocking setbacks in real estate. A number will want to be less leveraged as slower economic growth makes employment less stable and unemployment more likely. Chastened lenders, pressed by regulators, will be pushing individuals to lower their leverage by repaying debt.

So will the deflation we foresee. Incomes may grow on average in real or inflation-adjusted terms, but shrink in current dollars. Still, debts are denominated in current dollars and therefore will grow in relation to current dollar incomes and the ability to service them. This will be the reverse of inflation, which reduced the value of debts in real terms and makes it easier to service them as incomes rise with inflation.

Future Insights

In futureInsights, we'll update our 2006 study that showed that over 50% of Americans depend in a meaningful way on government spending. The number will probably be much higher in the coming decade of likely slow growth and greater government involvement in the economy. We also plan to discuss our investment themes for an era of slow growth and deflation.

Meanwhile, don't expect the burst of federal government spending and immersion in the economy to disappear with economic recovery. It's likely to persist, not only because it spawns self-perpetuating constituencies, but also because the slow economic growth in the years ahead and threats of high and chronically rising unemployment will force continuing high levels of government involvement.

U.S. GDP Review -- Consumer, Where Art Thou?

John Mauldin — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:20:28 GMT

This week I am in the office for just one day, but I can rely on my friend Dave Rosenberg to give us solid insight on the latest GDP numbers for this week's Outside the Box. Dave slices and dices to show us what really happened. David was the former Chief Economist at the former Merrill Lynch (ah, Mother Merrill, we barely knew ye.) and is now Chief Economist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc., which is one of Canada's pre-eminent wealth management firms. Founded in 1984, they manage $4.4 billion. David notes that the data gives us a mixed picture.

I am in Maine later this week. It is likely I will be on CNBC, as they will be shooting live from our fishing camp. Also, they plan to do a one hour special with a number of interviews. I will let you know when it airs. A quick note from me: The third quarter is likely to be positive, especially given the success of the "Cash for Clunkers" program which it looks like our Congress is going to pass another round of spending which taxpayers (our kids) will get to pay off, or more likely pay $50 million per years for decades in interest. Sigh. Essentially, we are moving up car sales today which would have been made later, except that if you can get someone else to make your down payment, why not make that purchase today? A very reasonable response on the part of the consumer.

A teaser from Dave's work below: "Consumer spending came in at -1.2% annualized, twice the decline expected by the consensus. This occurred in the face of gargantuan fiscal stimulus and leaves wondering how this critical 70% chunk of the economy is going to perform as the cash-flow boost from Uncle Sam's generosity recedes in the second half of the year. Imagine, government transfers to the household sector exploded at a 33% annual rate, while tax payments imploded at a 33% annual rate and the best we can do is a -1.2% annualized decline in consumer spending in real terms and flat in nominal terms? What do we do for an encore? In the absence of the fiscal largesse, it is quite conceivable that consumer spending would have shrunk at a 10% annual rate last quarter!"

Encore, indeed.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Lunch with Dave

by David A. Rosenberg

U.S. GDP Review -- Consumer, Where Art Thou?

While the headline real GDP number came in a tad better than expected, at -1.0% QoQ annualized rate, the back data were revised lower and show the recession to be deeper. First quarter of this year, for example, was revised to -6.4% from -5.5% previously. And, it may not be lost on anyone that the four consecutive quarters of economic contraction was unprecedented in the post-WWII era; ditto for the -3.9% year-on-year trend. In other words, while nobody is willing to go out on the limb and call this a depression (the same academics that brought you "The Great Moderation" during that last great albeit leveraged economic expansion are now labeling what we have endured over the past year-and-a-half as "The Great Recession"). This does go down as the worst economic performance both in terms of duration and intensity since "The Great Depression". While we are past the most pronounced part of the downturn, it may still be premature to call for the end of the recession merely because of the prospect of a positive third-quarter GDP result. After all, we saw GDP advance at a 1.5% annual rate in last year's second quarter, and if memory serves us correctly, the NBER did not subsequently declare the end of the recession. And even if the recession is ending, as we saw in 2002, that does not guarantee a durable rally in risk assets. Sustainability is the key, and it remains the wild card.

The details in today's report left something to be desired. Consumer spending came in at -1.2% annualized, twice the decline expected by the consensus. This occurred in the face of gargantuan fiscal stimulus and leaves wondering how this critical 70% chunk of the economy is going to perform as the cash-flow boost from Uncle Sam's generosity recedes in the second half of the year. Imagine, government transfers to the household sector exploded at a 33% annual rate, while tax payments imploded at a 33% annual rate and the best we can do is a -1.2% annualized decline in consumer spending in real terms and flat in nominal terms? What do we do for an encore? In the absence of the fiscal largesse, it is quite conceivable that consumer spending would have shrunk at a 10% annual rate last quarter! Nonresidential construction action sagged at an 8.9% annual rate and this was on top of a 44.0% detonation in the first quarter. Ditto for equipment & software 'capex' spending, also down at a 9.0% annual rate and this too followed a 36.0% collapse in the first quarter. Residential construction slumped sharply yet again, this time at a 29.0% annual rate. These are the guts of private sector spending and collectively, they contracted at a 3.3% annual rate -- the sixth decline in a row. So while there are many calls out there for the recession's end, it remains a forecast as opposed to a present-day reality.

As expected, inventories were sliced sharply -- by $141 billion at an annual rate, which alone subtracted 0.8 percentage point from headline GDP growth. But with consumer outlays slipping 1.2% and no signs of a 3Q recovery in sight, based on early back-to-school results looking rather tepid thus far and spending intentions in the confidence surveys rolling over, we wonder aloud just how much re-stocking we are going to see this quarter and even if we do, whether it will be a one-quarter wonder and set the stage for a fourth-quarter relapse. (Hopefully it has not been lost on anybody that the Chicago PMI inventory index in July hit its lowest level since June 1949. So maybe there is less to this inventory story than meets the eye.) Something tells us that an equity market trading north of a 760x multiple on reported earnings is not prepared for such a prospect.

While it is tempting to strip out the inventory withdrawal and look at the fact that outside of that, real GDP contracted at a mere 0.2% annual rate, misses the point. While inventories will undoubtedly add to current quarter growth, we doubt that we'll see another quarter of 13.3% growth in defense spending either. This added to GDP growth in 2Q by almost the same amount that inventories subtracted. Not only that, but the sharp improvement in the foreign trade sector, which added 1.4 percentage points to GDP growth in 2Q, is unlikely to be repeated either. The overwhelming consensus is that real GDP will be positive in3Q; but the key for how 4Q will shape up will rest in how real final domestic demand performs, which sagged at a 1.5% annual rate in 2Q, and -3.3% for private sector demand.

We remain in the deflation camp for the sole reason that the data compel us to. Wages and salaries contracted at a 5.0% annual rate in the second quarter and have deflated 4.3% on a year-over-year basis. This is the flip side of having the majority of companies beating their earnings estimates by aggressive cost-cutting -- a wage contraction of historical proportions that bites into aggregate demand and requires recurring doses of fiscal stimulus and other gimmicks (like "Cash for Clunkers") to establish a floor under the economy.

And, it is not just labour income that is still in deflation mode. Practically all forms of income are deflating from a year ago -- interest income is down 4.5%, dividend income is down 23.0% and proprietary income is down 8.0%. The only income that is really going up is the income from Uncle Sam, which is up more than 10.0% and we have reached a point where a record of nearly one-fifth of personal income is being accounted for by paychecks out of Washington. But it should be known that Uncle Sam himself does not create income -- he borrows cash from current bondholders and future taxpayers. Not the stuff that seems deserving of a 760x multiple.

Inflation was non-existent in the second quarter, with the GDP deflator flat and taking the YoY trend down to 1.5% from 1.9% in the first quarter. (We have seen out of the diffusion indices, such as the Chicago PMI, that pricing trends are in reverse.) This lack of pricing power along with sustained negative volume growth, dragged nominal GDP down at a 0.8% annual rate and -2.4% on a year-over-year basis, which is something we haven't seen since the fourth quarter of 1949. And, what should matter most for stocks and bonds is nominal GDP -- price multiplied by volume. Indeed, Charts 1 and 2 illustrate the case -- the rate of change in the S&P 500 (Chart 1) and the rate of change in bond yields (Chart 2) ultimately track the trend-line in nominal GDP growth.

Canadian Monthly GDP Weaker Than Expected

We also received Canadian GDP data today for May, which came in weaker than expected at -0.5% MoM (the consensus was expecting -0.3%) and we saw April revised to now show -0.2% instead of -0.1%. Therefore, despite all the bravado over the end of the Canadian recession, what we are seeing first hand is that any recovery is coming off a much deeper hole. It looks as though real GDP in Canada contracted at an annual rate of at least 3.0% in the second quarter -- triple the decline in the U.S.A.

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.

Debt and Deflation

John Mauldin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:37:49 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Quarterly Review and Outlook
Second Quarter 2009

DEBT ACTS AS A BRAKE ON THE MONETARY ENGINE

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

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

THE COMPLEX MONETARY CHAIN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A FISCAL POLICY DRAG

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

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

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

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

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

BUSINESS CYCLE IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITIES

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

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

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

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

DEBT DEFLATION AND BONDS

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

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

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

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

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

Make Sure You Get This One Right

John Mauldin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:14:15 GMT

There are those who sweat over every decision, worrying about how it will affect their lives and investments. Then there is the school of thought that we should focus on the big decisions. I am of the latter school.

85% of investment returns are a result of asset class allocations and only 15% come from actually picking investment within the asset class. Getting the big picture right is critical. In this week's Outside the Box we look at a very well written essay about the biggest of all question in front of us today. Do we face deflation or inflation?

This OTB is by my good friends and business partners in London, Niels Jensen and his team at Absolute Return Partners. 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

Make Sure You Get This One Right

By Niels C. Jensen

"You can't beat deflation in a credit-based system."

Robert Prechter

As investors we are faced with the consequences of our decisions every single day; however, as my old mentor at Goldman Sachs frequently reminded me, in your life time, you won't have to get more than a handful of key decisions correct - everything else is just noise. One of those defining moments came about in August 1979 when inflation was out of control and global stock markets were being punished. Paul Volcker was handed the keys to the executive office at the Fed. The rest is history.

Now, fast forward to July 2009 and we (and that includes you, dear reader!) are faced with another one of those 'make or break' decisions which will effectively determine returns over the next many years. The question is a very simple one:

Are we facing a deflationary spiral or will the monetary and fiscal stimulus ultimately create (hyper) inflation?

Unfortunately, the answer is less straightforward. There is no question that, in a cash based economy, printing money (or 'quantitative easing' as it is named these days) is inflationary. But what actually happens when credit is destroyed at a faster rate than our central banks can print money?

A Story within the Story

Following the collapse of the biggest credit bubble in history, there has been no shortage of finger pointing and the hedge fund industry, which has always had an uncanny ability to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, has yet again been at the centre of attention. And politicians, keen to divert attention away from themselves as the true culprits of the crisis through years of regulatory neglect, have been quick at picking up the baton. Admittedly, the hedge fund industry is guilty of many stupid things over the years, but blaming it for the credit crisis is beyond pathetic and the suggestion that increased regulation of the hedge fund industry is going to prevent future crises is outrageously naïve.

If you prohibit private investors from investing in hedge funds which on average use 1.5-2 times leverage but permit the same investors to invest in banks which use 25 times leverage and which are for all intents and purposes bankrupt, then you either don't understand the world of finance or you don't want to understand. Shame on those who fall for cheap tactics.

Let's begin by setting the macro-economic frame for the discussion. I have been quite bearish for a while, suspecting that the growing optimism which has characterised the last few months would eventually fade again as reality began to sink in that this is no ordinary recession and that 'less bad' doesn't necessarily translate into a quick recovery. I still believe there is a good chance of enjoying one, maybe two, positive quarters later this year or early next; however, a crisis of this magnitude doesn't suddenly fade into obscurity, just because the economy no longer shrinks at an annual rate of 6-8%.

Going forward, not only will economic growth disappoint, but the economic cycles will become more volatile again (see chart 1) with several boom/bust cycles packed into the next couple of decades. This is a natural consequence of the Anglo-Saxon consumer-driven growth model having been bankrupted. Growing consumer spending over the past 30 years led to rapidly expanding service and financial sectors both of which will now contract for years to come as overcapacity forces players to downsize.

This will again lead to higher corporate earnings volatility which will almost certainly drive P/E ratios lower, making conditions even trickier for equity investors. At the bottom of every major bear market in the last 200 years, P/E ratios have been below 10. As you can see from chart 2 overleaf, few countries are there yet. The next decade is therefore not likely to be a 'buy and hold' market for equity investors. The combination of low economic growth and pressure on valuations will create severe headwinds. The most likely way to make money in equities will be through more active trading.

So now, two years into this crisis, where do we stand and where do we go from here? History offers limited guidance, as we have never experienced the bursting of a bubble of this magnitude before. The closest thing is the collapse of the Japanese credit bubble around 1990. As the Japanese have since learned, recovering from a deflated credit bubble is a long and very painful affair.

Governments and central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are pursuing a strategy of buying time, hoping that a recovery in economic conditions will allow our banking industry to re-build its capital base. The Japanese pursued a similar strategy back in the early 1990s. It failed miserably and set the country back many years in its recovery effort. Ironically, the Japanese approach was almost universally condemned as hopelessly inadequate. It is funny how you always know better how to fix other people's problems than your own. A little bit like raising children, I suppose.

Another lesson learned from Japan is that once you get caught up in a deflationary spiral, it is exceedingly hard to escape from its grip. The Japanese authorities have used every trick in the book to reflate the economy over the past two decades. The results have been poor to say the least: Interest rates near zero (failed), quantitative easing (failed), public spending (failed), numerous attempts to drive down the value of the yen (failed); the list is long and makes for painful reading.

We are effectively caught in a liquidity trap. The Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have all flooded their banking system with enormous amounts of liquidity in recent months but what has happened? Instead of providing liquidity to private and corporate borrowers as the central banks would like to see, banks have taken the opportunity to repair their balance sheets. For quantitative easing to be inflationary it requires that the liquidity provided to the market by the central bank is put to work, i.e. lenders must lend and borrowers must borrow. If one or the other is not playing along, then inflation will not happen.

This is illustrated in chart 3 which measures the growth in the US monetary base less the growth in M2. As you can see, the broader measure of money supply (M2) cannot keep up with the growth in the liquidity provided by the Fed. In Europe the situation is broadly similar.

There is another way of assessing the inflationary risk. If one compares the total amount of credit destruction so far (about $14 trillion in the US alone) to the amount spent by the Treasury and the Fed on monetization and fiscal stimulus ($2 trillion), it is obvious that there is still a sizeable gap between the capital lost and the new capital provided.

If we instead move our attention to the real economy, a similar picture emerges. One of the best leading indicators of inflation is the so-called output gap, which measures how much actual GDP is running below potential GDP (assuming full capacity utilisation). It is highly unlikely for inflation to accelerate during a period where the output gap is as high as it currently is (see chart 4). Theoretically, if you believe in a V-shaped recession, the output gap can be reduced significantly over a relatively short period of time, but that is not our central forecast for the next few years.

I can already hear some of you asking the perfectly valid question: How can you possibly suggest that deflation will prevail when commodity prices are likely to rise further as a result of seemingly endless demand from emerging economies? Won't rising energy prices ensure a healthy dose of inflation, effectively protecting us from the evils of the deflationary spiral (see chart 5)?

Good question - counterintuitive answer:

Contrary to common belief, rising commodity prices can in fact be deflationary so long as demand for such commodities is relatively inelastic, which is usually the case for basic necessities such as heating oil, petrol, food, etc. The logic is the following: As commodity prices rise, money earmarked for other items goes towards meeting the higher commodity price and consumers are essentially forced to re-allocate their spending budget. This causes falling demand for discretionary items and can in extreme cases lead to deflation. We only have to go back to 2008 for the latest example of a commodity price induced deflationary cycle.

A price increase on a price inelastic commodity is effectively a tax hike. The only difference is that, in the case of the 2008 spike in energy prices, the money didn't go towards plugging holes in the public finances but was instead spent on English football clubs (well, not all of it, but I am sure you get the point) which have become the latest 'must have' amongst the super-rich in the Middle East.

For all those reasons, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the ultimate outcome of this crisis will turn out to be deflation – not inflation. Inflation may eventually become a problem, but that is something to worry about several years from now. The Japanese have pursued an aggressive monetary and fiscal policy for almost 20 years now, and they are still nowhere.

So why are interest rates creeping up at the long end? Part of it is due to the sheer supply of government debt scheduled for the next few years which spooks many investors (including us). And the fact that the rising supply is accompanied by deteriorating credit quality is a factor as well. But countries such as Australia and Canada, which only suffer modest fiscal deficits, have experienced rising rates as well, so it cannot be the only explanation.

Maybe the answer is to be found in the safe haven argument. When much of the world was staring into the abyss back in Q4 last year, government bonds were considered one of the few safe assets around and that drove down yields. Now, with the appetite for risk on the increase again, money is flowing out of government bonds and into riskier assets.

Perhaps there are more inflationists out there than I thought. Several high profile investors have been quite vocal recently about the inevitability of inflation. Such statements made in public by some of the industry's leading lights remind me of one of the oldest tricks in the book which I was introduced to many moons ago when I was still young and wet behind the ears. 'Get long and get loud' it is called; it is widely practised and only marginally immoral. Nevertheless, when famous investors make such statements, it affects markets.

The point I really want to make is that the inflation v. deflation story is the single biggest investment story right now and being on the right side of that trade will effectively secure your investment returns for years to come. If I am wrong and inflation spikes, you want to load your portfolio with index linked government bonds (also known as TIPS for our American readers), gold and other commodities, commodity related stocks as well as property.

If deflation prevails, all you have to do is to look towards Japan and see what has done well over the past 20 years. Not much! You cannot even assume that bonds will do well. Recessions are bullish for long dated government bonds but a collapse of the entire credit system is not. The reason is simple - with the bursting of the credit bubble comes drastic monetary and fiscal action. Central banks print money and governments spend money as if there is no tomorrow, and all bets are off. Equities will do relatively poorly as will property prices. But equities will not go down in a straight line. The market will offer plenty of trading opportunities which must be taken advantage of, if you want to secure a decent return.

All in all, deflation is ugly and not conducive to attractive investment returns. It is also not what governments want and need right now. With a mountain of debt hitting the streets of Europe and America over the next few years, as the cost of fixing the credit and banking crisis is financed, one can make a strong case for rising inflation actually being the favoured outcome if you look at it from the government's point of view. The problem, as the Japanese can attest to, is that deflation is excruciatingly difficult to get rid of, once it has become entrenched. I am in no doubt which of the two evils I would prefer, but we may not have the luxury of choosing our own destiny.

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.

History lesson for economists in thrall to Keynes

John Mauldin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:36:45 GMT

There is a debate in academic circles on the lessons of the current economic crisis. While most ivory tower debates are of little concern to our daily affairs, this debate should concern you, as it will inform those who hold central bank and political power. Remember, there is no playbook of rules for what to do in deflationary, deleveraging recessions. They are making it up as they go along.

Today we have a short essay by Niall Ferguson published last week in the Financial Times. It speaks for itself, and you should take a few minutes to read it.

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

History lesson for economists in thrall to Keynes

By Niall Ferguson

On Wednesday last week, yields on 10-year US Treasuries -- generally seen as the benchmark for long-term interest rates -- rose above 3.73 per cent. Once upon a time that would have been considered rather low. But the financial crisis has changed all that: at the end of last year, the yield on the 10-year fell to 2.06 per cent. In other words, long-term rates have risen by 167 basis points in the space of five months. In relative terms, that represents an 81 per cent jump.

Most commentators were unnerved by this development, coinciding as it did with warnings about the fiscal health of the US. For me, however, it was good news. For it settled a rather public argument between me and the Princeton economist Paul Krugman.

It is a brave or foolhardy man who picks a fight with Mr Krugman, the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics. Yet a cat may look at a king, and sometimes a historian can challenge an economist.

A month ago Mr Krugman and I sat on a panel convened in New York to discuss the financial crisis. I made the point that "the running of massive fiscal deficits in excess of 12 per cent of gross domestic product this year, and the issuance therefore of vast quantities of freshly-minted bonds" was likely to push long-term interest rates up, at a time when the Federal Reserve aims at keeping them down. I predicted a "painful tug-of-war between our monetary policy and our fiscal policy, as the markets realise just what a vast quantity of bonds are going to have to be absorbed by the financial system this year".

De haut en bas came the patronising response: I belonged to a "Dark Age" of economics. It was "really sad" that my knowledge of the dismal science had not even got up to 1937 (the year after Keynes's General Theory was published), much less its zenith in 2005 (the year Mr Krugman's macro-economics textbook appeared). Did I not grasp that the key to the crisis was "a vast excess of desired savings over willing investment"? "We have a global savings glut," explained Mr Krugman, "which is why there is, in fact, no upward pressure on interest rates."

Now, I do not need lessons about the General Theory. But I think perhaps Mr Krugman would benefit from a refresher course about that work's historical context. Having reissued his book The Return of Depression Economics, he clearly has an interest in representing the current crisis as a repeat of the 1930s. But it is not. US real GDP is forecast by the International Monetary Fund to fall by 2.8 per cent this year and to stagnate next year. This is a far cry from the early 1930s, when real output collapsed by 30 per cent. So far this is a big recession, comparable in scale with 1973-1975. Nor has globalisation collapsed the way it did in the 1930s.

Credit for averting a second Great Depression should principally go to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, whose knowledge of the early 1930s banking crisis is second to none, and whose double dose of near-zero short-term rates and quantitative easing -- a doubling of the Fed's balance sheet since September -- has averted a pandemic of bank failures. No doubt, too, the $787bn stimulus package is also boosting US GDP this quarter.

But the stimulus package only accounts for a part of the massive deficit the US federal government is projected to run this year. Borrowing is forecast to be $1,840bn -- equivalent to around half of all federal outlays and 13 per cent of GDP. A deficit this size has not been seen in the US since the second world war. A further $10,000bn will need to be borrowed in the decade ahead, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Even if the White House's over-optimistic growth forecasts are correct, that will still take the gross federal debt above 100 per cent of GDP by 2017. And this ignores the vast off-balance-sheet liabilities of the Medicare and Social Security systems.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the bond market is quailing. For only on Planet Econ-101 (the standard macroeconomics course drummed into every US undergraduate) could such a tidal wave of debt issuance exert "no upward pressure on interest rates".

Of course, Mr Krugman knew what I meant. "The only thing that might drive up interest rates," he acknowledged during our debate, "is that people may grow dubious about the financial solvency of governments." Might? May? The fact is that people -- not least the Chinese government -- are already distinctly dubious. They understand that US fiscal policy implies big purchases of government bonds by the Fed this year, since neither foreign nor private domestic purchases will suffice to fund the deficit. This policy is known as printing money and it is what many governments tried in the 1970s, with inflationary consequences you do not need to be a historian to recall.

No doubt there are powerful deflationary headwinds blowing in the other direction today. There is surplus capacity in world manufacturing. But the price of key commodities has surged since February. Monetary expansion in the US, where M2 is growing at an annual rate of 9 per cent, well above its post-1960 average, seems likely to lead to inflation if not this year, then next. In the words of the Chinese central bank's latest quarterly report: "A policy mistake ... may bring inflation risks to the whole world."

The policy mistake has already been made -- to adopt the fiscal policy of a world war to fight a recession. In the absence of credible commitments to end the chronic US structural deficit, there will be further upward pressure on interest rates, despite the glut of global savings. It was Keynes who noted that "even the most practical man of affairs is usually in the thrall of the ideas of some long-dead economist". Today the long-dead economist is Keynes, and it is professors of economics, not practical men, who are in thrall to his ideas.

The writer is Laurence A. Tisch professor of history at Harvard University and author of The Ascent of Money (Penguin)

The End Game Draws Nigh - The Future Evolution of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

John Mauldin — Mon, 18 May 2009 21:38:20 GMT

Nearly everyone I talk with has the sense that we are at some critical point in our economic and national paths, not just in the US but in the world. One path will lead us back to relative growth and another set of choices leads us down a path which will put a very real drag on economic growth and recovery. For most of us, there is very little we can do (besides vote and lobby) about the actual choices. What we can do is adjust our personal portfolios to be synchronized with the direction of the economy. The question is "What will that direction be?"

Today we are going to look at what I think is a very clear roadmap given to us by Dr. Woody Brock, the head of Strategic Economic Decisions and one of the smartest analysts I have come in contact with over the years. This week's Outside the Box is his recent essay, "The End Games Draws Nigh." For those who have the contacts in government, I urge you to put this piece into the correct hands so that Woody's very distinct message gets out. I think this is one of the most important Outside the Box letters I have sent out.

Woody normally does not allow his work to go beyond the circles of his clients, but I suggested to him that this piece was quite macro in cope and important for both individuals and policy makers everywhere to understand. In my own simple terms, trees cannot grow in some unlimited manner to the sky. Families cannot grow debt without limit beyond the growth of their incomes. And countries have the same constraints. While growth of debt in the short term is viable, growth of debt faster than the growth of GDP is not viable over the long run. This is not debatable. It is a simple fact. Therefore, as Woody says, it is important that you get the growth side of the equation right as you increase the debt side. Without the proper balance, you are heading for disaster.

From his intro:

"We weave these three concepts together so as to make possible an extension and generalization of "macroeconomic policy" as normally understood. Central to this extension is the need for policies that drive down the nation's Debt-to-GDP Ratio over time. Accordingly, we identify 15 policies that jointly reduce the growth of federal debt and increase the growth of GDP over time. Doing so not only points to a new set of policies for exiting today's quagmire, but also permits an appraisal of the Obama administration's current policy proposals. Regrettably these proposals do not fare well with respect to growth. Furthermore, the extension of macroeconomics we propose applies not only to the US economy, but to most all others as well. It should thus be of interest to readers everywhere."

This is longer than the usual Outside the Box, and will require you to put on your thinking cap. But you need to digest this, and especially the conclusions. But it is very important that you understand the principles and concepts Woody discusses. We are at a very critical juncture, and the paths we choose will have profound impacts on our lives and fortunes. I cannot overemphasize the point. If we choose a path of growing debt faster than we can grow GDP, the negative implications for many traditional asset classes are enormous.

Let me again thank Woody for allowing me to send this on to you. And for those who post this letter on various sites, just be sure to include a link to Woody's website, www.sedinc.com. For those interested in his subscription service you can contact Woody at woody@sedinc.com or visit his website.

Thanks,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

The End Game Draws Nigh – The Future Evolution of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

By Horace "Woody" Brock, Ph.D.

Preface: In this new report, we link together three quite different concepts that have been discussed in these publications during recent years. First, the problems posed for classical fiscal and monetary policy when extremely large deficits must be financed; second, the critical importance of the rate of economic growth as primus inter pares of all economic variables; and third, the all-important concept of "incentive-structure-compatibility" introduced by Leonid Hurwicz in the 1960s, and recognized in the award to him in 2007 of the Nobel Memorial Prize.

We weave these three concepts together so as to make possible an extension and generalization of "macroeconomic policy" as normally understood. Central to this extension is the need for policies that drive down the nation's Debt-to-GDP Ratio over time. Accordingly, we identify 15 policies that jointly reduce the growth of federal debt and increase the growth of GDP over time.

Doing so not only points to a new set of policies for exiting today's quagmire, but also permits an appraisal of the Obama administration's current policy proposals. Regrettably these proposals do not fare well. Furthermore, the extension of macroeconomics we propose applies not only to the US economy, but to most all others as well. It should thus be of interest to readers everywhere.

A. Introduction and Overview

In our 2008 research programme, we focused on three issues. First, what exactly caused the worst credit crunch the nation has arguably experienced since the depression of the 1930s? Second, how did the downturn in the US morph into a collapse in Planet Earth's GDP rate from nearly 5% in June 2008 to -0.5% in winter 2009? Third, can traditional macroeconomic policy suffice to turn around the economy? More specifically, will a killer application of classical fiscal and monetary policy truly restore the economy to a stable growth trajectory? Or is there an internal contradiction within macroeconomic policy that could prevent it from succeeding this time around?

To explain the "perfect storm" in the credit market, we drew extensively on the new Stanford theory of endogenous risk to demonstrate that there are three jointly necessary and sufficient conditions to predict and explain the perfect storm we have experienced: (i) A mistaken market forecast of some exogenous event that impacts security prices (in this case, a vastly higher than expected default rate on mortgages); (ii) A high level of Pricing Model Uncertainty bedeviling bank assets (the true cause of the "toxicity" of those complex securities that have clogged the

arteries of the banking sector); and (iii) An unprecedentedly high degree of leverage in the financial sector (money center banks had off-and-on balance sheet leverage of about 40:1 in contrast to the socially optimal leverage of 10:1). The reader can tack "greed" and "incompetence" onto this triad, although doing so diverts attention from the real causes of today's crisis.

To explain the collapse of economic growth worldwide in an astonishingly short period, we utilized a game theory model that explained how the cessation of inter-bank lending amongst the principal money center banks of the world precipitated the first known case of global credit market emphysema: The availability of credit dried up almost everywhere in the course of six months, from Auckland to Iceland. We stressed that this credit contraction had little to do with "globalization" as properly understood, and had no counter-part in history.

To explain the potential failure of fiscal and monetary policy in restoring growth, we demonstrated how the financing of exceptionally large government deficits usually causes a sharp rise in longer-term real interest rates—a rise that bites back and offsets the GDP impact of the fiscal stimulus being applied. The logic leading to this conclusion is reviewed just below in the context of Figure 2.

B. The Good News — A World of Greatly Reduced Uncertainty

A year ago, even six months ago, the great debate centered on whether the credit market crisis would precipitate either a US or global recession. A majority predicted a manageable recession in the US, but nowhere else with the possible exception of the UK. Uncertainty was great, and kept increasing until recently—but no longer. The good news today is that this uncertainty has disappeared. For we now know with probability 1 that everything sucks everywhere. Welcome to a risk free world!

To wit, the G-7 economies are all in recession, and more astonishingly the economy of the planet earth is growing at about -1% or even less. Earnings are crumbling, global trade has decreased by nearly 10%, rising global unemployment foretokens social unrest in many quarters, industrial production has dropped more than ever before, and excess capacity is rising in almost all manufacturing sectors globally. Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley believes that the "world output gap" could reach a mind boggling 8%–10% by year end. All in all, we have witnessed problems that originated within the US give rise to global scenarios that were virtually unthinkable as recently as the summer of 2008, and do so with blinding speed.

Within the US, there are two parallel problems. First, the nation faces a hitherto unprecedented growth of Federal debt, over both the short and long run. Second, there is the severity of the recession itself. Figure 1 offers a simple way of understanding what killed growth in the US economy. The variables shown remind us of the old adage that "History rhymes, but does not repeat."

History Rhymes: More specifically, the contents of the figure will disturb those seeking to identify today's US recession with earlier ones in 2001 or 1991 or 1981 or 1973 or even 1931. No such identification is possible since the three developments highlighted in the chart and their improbable synergies are different from anything we have seen before. This sui generic nature of today's crisis explains why traditional theories of recessions and "debt super-cycles" possess little explanatory and predictive power.

For example, according to standard business cycle theory, "pent-up demand" on the part of consumers is a principal driver of recovery—but it will not be this time around. The shift towards less consumption and more savings due to the implosion of household balance sheets and to demographics is most probably permanent. If so, this bodes poorly for hopes of a pent-updemand-driven recovery.

History Repeats: While the context of today's crisis differs from those in the past, history repeats itself in that the common denominator of this and all other debt crises has been excess leverage—our mantra in these pages for three years. Our greatest fear was that the all-important role of leverage would be sidestepped in the rush to assign blame and reform the financial system. In this regard, it is dismaying that, whereas we have now vented our anger at bankers and capped bonuses, we have not capped leverage. To be sure, there are calls for "improved bank capitalization" and related reforms, but the crucial role of excess leverage in bringing down the global financial system has not been properly recognized. Instead, excess "greed" has been the principal focus.

Then again, from a game theoretic viewpoint, it may not be surprising that the role of leverage has been underplayed. For leverage is precisely what is required for financiers to reap those huge incomes needed to fund both political parties in Washington, not to mention those "blockbuster" exhibitions we all love so much at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Stay tuned for Loophole Analysis 101.

C. The Bad News — Two New Uncertainties

Two new uncertainties are now rising to the fore. First, will traditional fiscal and monetary policy suffice to restore economic growth—and in the process restore the viability of the financial sector? Without the latter, there is little hope of revived growth. Our concerns about the inadequacy of traditional macroeconomic policy were discussed at length in our February 2009 PROFILE, and are summarized in Figure 2 taken from that analysis. The flattening out of the stimulus curve in the figure reflects that, when fiscal stimulus exceeds a certain level (e.g., 7% on the horizontal axis), the financing of deficits is likely to cause a sharp increase in real longer-term interest rates. Importantly, this holds true regardless of whether the huge deficits are monetized for reasons we carefully articulated. Higher real yields in turn neutralize the original fiscal stimulus, thus causing the curve to flatten out.¹

We concluded that the risks of policy failure in today's context are disturbing. Moreover, even if traditional policies do prove successful in the shorter run, there is a genuine risk that the huge amount of debt that accrues and must be serviced in the future could transform the US into a "banana republic" in the much longer run. This risk is heightened by the need to fund soaring Social Security and Medicare "entitlements," as record numbers of baby-boomers retire during the next two decades. Moreover, as time goes on, it is precisely these longer-term risks that will matter most to the market, and will increasingly be discounted. Investors of every stripe will be impacted.

The second new uncertainty focuses on whether new and different fiscal and monetary policies can help salvage matters, and guarantee a happier ending.

If the effectiveness of traditional macroeconomic remedies is in doubt, can its arsenal of policies be expanded so as to restore strong longer-term equilibrium growth? The answer is yes, and it is the purpose of this new essay to sketch such an extension of classical macroeconomics.

D. The Critical Dynamics of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

There is nothing new about a nation running into trouble and running up large amounts of debt in bailing itself out. There is also nothing new about attempting to monetize (via "quantitative easing") the resulting accumulation of debt. The good news for the US is that its total federal debt of some $10T at the outset of the crisis in 2008 was a manageable 70% of current GDP of $14T.² Suppose debt rises $3T by the end of 2011 as the Congressional Budget Office now predicts, and then rises $7T more by 2020. The result will have been a doubling of federal debt between 2008 and 2020, rising from $10T to $20T.³ While this increase is shocking, some forecasts are much worse.

Suppose, moreover, that GDP rises conservatively to $17 trillion in 2020 from today's $14T as a result of a modest 2% GDP growth recovery between 2011 and 2020. Then the federal Debt-to-GDP ratio would rise from today's 0.7 to 1.18. Interestingly, this does not represent the disaster many observers assume. To begin with, there are nations where a disturbingly high Debt-to-GDP ratio proceeded to fall way back down over time. Thus, the US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 1.25 at the end of World War II, yet it fell to 0.25 by 1980. Britain's Debt ratio upon defeating Napoleon in 1815 was over 2.7, and it fell back to 0.2 by the end of the 19^th century.

In other cases, the Debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed persistently high, neither increasing nor decreasing dramatically over time. Thus Japan has had a very high ratio of 1.5 to 1.8 for the past decade. Italy and Belgium, too, have sustained high ratios in the range of 1 to 1.25. Finally, there are the countries where the Debt ratio continues to rise after some initial shock with either hyperinflation or outright default being the end result. Such has been the fate of myriad banana republics including some large players such as Brazil, Argentina and Russia. What exactly determines which nations dig their way out, or else go under? This will be our primary focus in the pages ahead.

Rebounders versus "Banana Republics": To begin with, note that what matters is not a onetime rise in the Debt-to-GDP ratio due to a particular shock (e.g., today's US housing and credit crises), but rather the dynamic trajectory of the ratio in the years subsequent to the initial rise. It is the direction of this trajectory that is all-important. If the Debt ratio continues to rise, then it tends to accelerate due to the ever-rising cost of servicing this ever-rising "primary" deficit. Not only does the increasing debt-load itself cause ever-higher servicing costs, but the rising real rates that typically result from ever-greater debt make the spiral ever worse. The result can be economic and social collapse.

If, on the other hand, the Debt-to-GDP ratio stagnates, it tends to be associated with very low real growth, political paralysis, and a degree of social disenchantment. If the ratio falls, it is usually because of a combination of two developments: higher real growth and vigorous fiscal discipline. Rising living standards, dreams of a better future, and a sustained belief in democracy are associated with this happiest of trajectories.

Three Sets of Scenarios: Figures 3.A – 3.C illustrate the stunning range of outcomes that can result from sustained differences in the growth rates of debt versus of GDP. We have adapted the analysis here to the case of the US. We assume an initial federal debt burden of $12T for 2011, and an initial GDP value of $14T. We then grow these forward at the stipulated growth rates.

At the one extreme of very low economic growth and very high debt growth, the Debt ratio rises to an arresting 18—a half-way house to Zimbabwe. At the opposite extreme, the ratio falls to a paltry 0.4, half of today's level. These two extreme outcomes are circled in the table.

The data in the tables represent real growth rates of both debt and GDP.

E. The Case for Driving Down the Debt-to-GDP Ratio – "It's the Growth Rate, Stupid!"

We can deduce from the foregoing analysis that sustainable long run economic recovery from a debt overload requires two sets of policies: One set must be dedicated to curtailing the growth of government spending and hence, the growth of the deficit. The other set must be dedicated to maximizing real economic growth. In this way, both the numerator and the denominator of the killer Debt-to-GDP ratio will be managed so as to maximize future social welfare.

Policies aimed at augmenting real growth are arguably the more important here. This is because more rapid growth not only reduces the Debt ratio, but also causes swelling tax revenues which can help to reduce the deficit each year. That is, stronger growth drives both the numerator and the denominator in the right directions.

This reality underscores why "It's the real growth rate" must become the mantra of recoveries not only in the US, but almost everywhere else as well. Note that this "strong growth" mantra is a far cry from the Obama administration's counsel to the world at the recent G-7 conference: "Stimulate everywhere by running higher deficits!"

The True Payoffs from Strong Growth: Looking at matters from a game theoretical "Who wins?" standpoint, strong economic growth is the rising tide that lifts all ships. Within a given nation, it alone offers win-win strategies whereby most all interest groups can come out ahead. Externally across nations, strong growth generates expanding trade. Happily, the game of trade between nations is that all-important positive-sum game that encourages peace and discourages war. It creates "the ties that bind." For example, the recent globalization of the supply chain is a principal reason why the business community has been so strangely silent in demanding protectionist policies during the present crisis. When a significant portion of your own manufacturing inputs come from "abroad," do you really want trade barriers?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, productivity-driven strong growth alone increases living standards that boost the hopes and dreams of people everywhere for a better tomorrow for their children. When citizens have realistic hopes of a better tomorrow, social unrest is minimized. Conversely, when prospects for the long run are grim, voters are easily swayed by demagogues to vote for the Hitler of their day.

Three Important Books: Are these points obvious? They should be, but they frankly are not. Moreover, they are never sufficiently emphasized, and virtually no orientation towards rapid future growth is evident in the policies and "reforms" proposed by the Obama administration, as we see in Section G below. The arguments set forth in three books support the view we are taking as regards the critical role of growth.

First, a widespread lack of understanding and appreciation of growth led Professor Ben Friedman of Harvard University to write his superb book, The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth (A. Knopf, 2005). This is the best work we know of that makes the case for growth and (more implicitly) for globalization at an appropriate economic and moral level of analysis.

Second, and at a more practical level, Alan Beattie's brand new book False Economy: A Surprising Economic History of the World (Riverhead Press, 2009) provides myriad case studies of how nations chose between success or survival or ruin by the specific policies they adopt. His case studies make very clear indeed how policies that depress the Debt-to-GDP ratio of Figure 3 correlate strongly with success, whereas policies that inflate the ratio correlate with ruin.

Third, at an even deeper and more theoretical level, there is the late Mancur Olson's magisterial The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities (Yale University Press, 1982). Olson explains from first principles how special interest groups become entrenched and, in defending their turf, usually cause nations to go bust. [Our "entitlements lobby" anybody?]

Olson's logic is game theoretical: He shows that special interest groups become the principal players in a generalized Prisoner's Dilemma game whereby individually group-rational strategies lead to the collectively irrational outcomes of declining growth, diminishing dreams, increasing social unrest, and ultimately ruin.

This book should be required reading by anyone serving in government. It is one of the best books the present author has ever read in the field of political economy.

F. Four Debt-Minimizing Strategies

Before turning to those all-important strategies for maximizing the growth in the denominator of the Debt-to-GDP ratio, consider several different strategies for minimizing the growth of the numerator.

First, counter-cyclical policies should consist of temporary increases in spending—spending that automatically expires with no Congressional vote when good times return. The Obama administration policies largely amount to permanent spending increases, and have been widely criticized as such.

Second, a new set of government accounts must be introduced that clearly distinguish government investment expenditures from non-investment expenditures. The former should not be included as part of "the deficit." Only an appropriately amortized portion should be included. Moreover, for reasons stressed below, infrastructure investments should take priority when discretionary government spending decisions are made. The current administration has not proposed the required accounting changes. This is, of course, consistent with its failure to propose serious investment spending in the first place (see below).

Third, true leadership—not to be confused with fine rhetoric—is needed to alert citizens to the true disaster we face if the growth of long-term federal debt is not curtailed. This is particularly true given the demographic realities that now lie around the corner. Nobody has made this point better than Stephen Roach in a recent commentary in Morgan Stanley's "Debating the Future of Capitalism" series, March 26, 2009:

I believe that Congress and the White House should collectively declare a formal "fiscal emergency" and empower a bi-partisan task force to develop new guidelines for federal budgetary control.

Washington did this once before in an effort to contain the runaway budget deficits of the Reagan era—deficits that now look like child's play when compared with what lies ahead. The automatic spending caps and sequestration mechanisms prescribed by the GrammRudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Acts of 1985 succeeded in taking some of the optionality out of the fiscal debate.

This problem is too big—and the long-term stakes are too high—for fiscal sustainability to be entrusted to the oft-politicized whims of the year-by-year discretionary budgeting process.

Slam Dunk! Given the reality that today's deficit crisis far exceeds that of the Reagan era, it is all the more irresponsible that the President has not already proposed the "fiscal emergency task force" that Roach correctly calls for. Paul Volcker: Where are you when we need you the most? The reforms that such a task force would propose are all pretty obvious, including "sunset provisions" for all manner of government mandates, entitlement reforms, an end of ear-marking, etc.

Fourth, as noted in Section E above, policies must be adopted that maximize economic growth since faster growth is the best way to generate those higher revenues needed to reduce a given deficit. We identify specific growth policies just below.

Lingering Doubts: Even longstanding Democratic Party liberals are now expressing shock at the staggering growth of long-term government debt the US now confronts. Nonetheless, the President's cheerful rhetoric suggests little concern with the growth of the numerator. To be sure, his administration's OMB budget projections blithely assume that very high growth rates will magically return after the next three years, and nothing solves fiscal problems as well as rapid growth. Yet everyone acknowledges that these projections are smoke-and-mirrors, constituting a leadership default of the first magnitude.

Yet could all of this be deliberate? Could the administration's choice to tax and spend ad infinitum have been politically strategic in nature? After all, haven't both President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel openly admitted that "the new budget is a means to altering the very architecture of American life, with government playing a much larger role than before"? The likelihood that their new architecture would drive the growth of numerator of the Debt-to-GDP ratio ever-higher and the growth of the denominator lower was never mentioned.

Do financial commentators even understand this risk? While the press has expressed appropriate "concern" about the sea of red ink to come, there is little sense of the true End Game at stake: Which of our Figure 3 scenarios will occur, and what will it imply?

The answer may well determine whether we face a future of peace and prosperity, or of war and privation. As a personal aside, this author has never been more concerned than he is now about the economic state of the nation.

G. Growth-Maximizing Strategies

We now identify a plethora of growth-maximizing policies. Before doing so, however, we must recall the true origins of economic growth itself. Only by understanding these origins can we identify meaningful pro-growth policies.

G. 1. The Two Principal Sources of Real Economic Growth

At the most basic level, trend growth is the sum of workforce growth plus productivity growth. Intuitively, this rate of growth equals the rate of growth of the number of workers producing the pie, plus the rate of increase of pie production per person hour. In the latter case, we distinguish between productivity increases that result solely from "working smarter" versus increases that result from increased investment per worker, or "factor stuffing" in economics jargon. The former is called pure labor productivity growth (e.g., take a weekend off and invent the differential calculus), whereas the latter is referred to as total factor productivity growth.

The very rapid growth of emerging economies is usually due to a very high rate of increase in total factor productivity growth as workers gain access to roads, computers, medicines, and other productivity-improving (but not free!) endowments for the first time. Developed economies cannot replicate this strategy, so their growth rate is much lower than the "catch-up" rates in newer economies.

Thus, policies that augment growth must operate through two channels: Increasing productivity growth (via enhanced skills and investment), and/or increasing workforce growth.

Incentive-Structure-Compatibility: In proposing pro-growth policies of both kinds, we shall keep in mind the requirement that such policies be "incentive-structure-compatible" with growth, a concept first articulated by the economist and philosopher Leonid Hurwicz in the late 1950s. Everyone acknowledges the importance of incentives in a given situation, e.g., the appropriate carrots and sticks needed to raise children, to motivate workers, etc.

What Hurwicz first articulated was the way in which the totality of incentives throughout society—its "incentive structure"—could be conducive to achieving a particular societal goal, such as maximal growth. The great importance of Hurwicz's concept is that it provides the correct analytical bridge between the micro and macro domains of social life. This was a stunning achievement, and earned him the 2007 Nobel Memorial Prize.⁴

Most "policies" and "goals" promulgated by politicians turn out not to be incentivestructure-compatible with growth, or with any other defensible objective. That is to say, most policy proposals are hot air.

Figure 3 summarizes the structure of our argument up to this point.

G.2. Productivity-Enhancing Growth Strategies

During the past three decades, a great deal of research has been done to understand the true sources of productivity growth. In particular, Paul Romer of Stanford University developed his theory of "endogenous growth" in which the rate of productivity growth is determined within the economic system, as opposed to being modeled as an external "residual" as it previously had been. In what follows, we draw on this and related research in an informal manner.

1. Infrastructure-Orientated Fiscal Stimulus: Economists increasingly believe that consumption will fall by 7% from its 72% share of US GDP in 2007 to around 65% over the next three years. Moreover, they believe it will remain at a significantly lower level. Pessimists conclude that "without a recovery of household spending to previous levels, the economy will suffer for a long time." Yet this is not the case.

Should investment spending (both in the corporate sector and in government infrastructure spending) rise by an offsetting 7% of GDP, the growth rate of GDP will not only match, but in fact exceed its old rate of growth. This is due to the role of classical macroeconomic "accelerator/multiplier" theory: A dollar invested will generate much greater future output than a dollar of transfer payments or consumption-stimulating tax cuts.

As regards today's humongous fiscal deficits, this reality implies that, the more the deficit is dedicated to infrastructure investment each year, then (i) the greater productivity will be (recall that investment raises productivity), and (ii) the greater both job growth and output will be over time via the Keynesian multiplier theory. Since virtually everyone recognizes that US infrastructure spending has been woefully inadequate for decades, and that consumption has been excessive, the current recession has, in fact, presented the government with a golden opportunity to "rebalance" the composition of GDP in a highly desirable manner.

Yet there are two additional reasons why the increased deficit should be infrastructure-investment-orientated. First, government expenditure on productivity-raising investment is not, in fact, "an expenditure" that raises the deficit and frightens bond market vigilantes. For as explained above, government investment spending of this ilk should be amortized over time. Thus, the larger the investment share of a given stimulus package, the smaller the resulting deficit. Second, to the extent that today's deficit explosion burdens the young with much more debt to be serviced, then it is our moral obligation to dedicate the extra spending to investments that raise the productivity growth and thus the size the future GDP. Doing so clearly reduces the real burden on future tax payers of servicing the debt being accumulated today.

Given this rare opportunity—and moral obligation—to tilt the economy towards long overdue investment spending, how can the Obama stimulus package have fallen so short of the mark? It is frankly embarrassing to witness Chinese policy advisors like Professor Yu Qiao of Tsinghua University scolding the US about something as basic as this:

Most of Mr. Obama's stimulus spending is devoted to social programmes rather than growth promotion, which may exacerbate America's over-consumption problem and delay sustainable recovery.

Financial Times, Editorial page, April 1, 2009

Qiao's point parallels a principal point we are making in this essay. Why are we not reading this from Christina Romer or Larry Summers in Washington? Have the Best and the Brightest once again lost their moral integrity as they did during the Vietnam War era? Can they seriously believe that more transfer payments to Democratic Party special interest groups is what the nation needs in this hour of its distress? The author considers the composition of the proposed $3 trillion of discretionary stimulus over the next five years a moral travesty.

Case Study of Energy: As a case study in how poor the administration's policies are in this regard, consider its energy policies. Is anyone in the new administration reading about the disastrous 9% annual decrease in the output of "old" oil (yes, "peak oil" turned out to be true), in conjunction with a collapse of previously scheduled investments in exploration and development, and in refining capacity? Are they blind to the supply-crisis that is unfolding, one that calls not only for "renewable energy," but also for a major expansion of traditional oil and gas production?

By now, has it not become crystal clear that the increased production of traditional fuels should come from within the US, given the devolution of both the political leadership and the infrastructure of those thugocracies upon whom the US increasingly depends for 40% of its consumption? Is no thought being given to the rising probability of $500 oil prices—or perhaps outright rationing—when global energy demand recovers? [Recall how jointly price-inelastic demand and supply curves cause huge changes in price both upward and downward, as we demonstrated mathematically five years ago.]

Elementary arithmetic is all that is needed to ascertain that the administration's BTU gains from increased renewable energy production and conservation from increased "weather-stripping" will not yield even 10% of the BTU shortfall that the nation will confront. The reality, therefore, is that the country needs a vast expenditure of funds on novel and traditional sources of energy, as well as on our deteriorating energy infrastructure. Expenditures of this kind would create several million jobs of precisely the kind that are needed during the next decade. And they would leave the next generation with an improved infrastructure, in addition to lessening our extraordinary dependence on imports from rogue states.

But what do we get from the Obama team? A present value tax hike of up to $400 billion on "big oil" in one form or another, along with weather-stripping tax credits and expenditures on renewable energy alone. And who is the newly appointed spokesman for national energy policy? A highly credentialed academic who strikes virtually everyone as indecisive and ineffectual. Does even one reader of this essay know his name? [Steven Chu] Of course, his Nobel Prize supposedly substitutes for his lack of political skills. By extension, are we about to witness the "quant" financial theorist Myron Scholes appointed as Treasury Secretary after Tim Geithner steps down? After all, Scholes too, is a Nobel laureate, even if his notorious "pricing models" helped to bring down Long Term Capital Management and then the world economy a decade later. The Lord save us from "The best and the brightest!"

2. Stimulation of Innovation and Venture Capital: While increased infrastructure investment is one channel to higher productivity growth (and hence higher GDP growth), innovation is another. As someone who lived in Menlo Park, California for two decades between 1980 and 2000, the author was privileged to witness first hand the stunning comeback of the US from its "rust bowl" status of the 1970s.

The comeback was almost entirely due to a broad array of venture capital sponsored innovations, starting with the micro-processor. In a Memo he wrote for Mssrs. Clinton and Rubin in 1996, the author demonstrated that the US had an "Innovation Quotient" 17 times higher than that of our next competitor. [Finland. Think Nokia!] As a result, US productivity growth doubled from its depressed level of 1.4% in the 1970s to 3% by the late 1990s and early 2000s. No other nation came close to this achievement.

Yet now, when we need renewed innovation and enhanced productivity growth as much as we did in the 1970s, we read that the Obama Treasury Secretary Geithner has proposed to regulate the venture capital industry. Specifically, he has called for mandatory SEC registration of large firms, lest the sector become a "systemic risk" like hedge funds and proprietary trading desks. As Jack Biddle of the VC firm Novak Biddle Venture Partners has pointed out in a Wall Street Journal interview (April 9, 2009):

I cannot imagine any venture capital firm being of a size to pose 'systemic risk,' so they (the administration) either do not understand the nature of the business, or...What Washington needs to understand is that bank-style regulation could destroy the culture that created the micro-processor.

3. Education and Elitism: In contemplating the sources of productivity growth, we would all do well to recall Isaac Newton's celebrated confession that, in developing his theory of mechanics and the differential calculus, "I stood on the shoulders of giants." Politically incorrect as it is to admit, we need policies that identify and reward elite young people and entrepreneurs from a very early age, and do so regardless of where they come from. Indeed, we should be seeking young scientific talent worldwide and paying for immigrants to come to the US and study.

Instead, the stimulus package dedicates significant funds to lowest common denominator educational expenditures. In particular, virtually nothing is being proposed to end the monopoly of teachers' unions that discourages qualified teachers from attempting to teach. The consequences for productivity growth of the longstanding decline of our public schools is by now well known, and has been articulated by public figures ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

4. Taxation that Rewards Innovation and Success: Both the president and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel have been completely candid about their redistributionist agenda—an agenda that has even alarmed European liberals. Were they at all concerned with innovation, productivity, and growth, the administration would not publicly espouse taxation policies that punish success and reward failure. In particular, they would not have declared war on small business, since small businesses typically generate the bulk of new jobs and innovations that determine the rate of economic growth.

To be sure, disparities in the current tax code do permit Warren Buffet to incur a much lower tax rate than his receptionist, as he quipped. Such inequities must be remedied. But the fact remains that the top decile and quartile of income earners in the US pay a larger share of government tax revenues than in any other G-7 nation. If so, why does the president assume it is "fair" to hike the tax rates on top income earners, and only on this group? From an employment standpoint, the new tax rates may well send talented young Americans to live elsewhere. Starting in 2011, a New York City wage earner will pay a marginal tax rate (federal, state, and local) of over 60% on "high" incomes of $200,000. This rate is higher than comparable rates in Germany and France where taxes paid secure decent schooling and medical care, which they do not in the US. Yet even so, France has witnessed a veritable diaspora of young talent to London, the US, and Switzerland during the past two decades.

5. Incentives for Investment in the Private Sector: Productivity growth comes not only from government-sponsored infrastructure of the kind discussed above, but also from investment by private businesses of all sizes in new capital stock. It is not clear what the new tax policy will be towards investment tax credits, but such credits have not yet been identified as important. They are important, especially at a time when the search for higher productivity and hence higher economic growth must become the nation's number one priority.

6. Less Regulation, Not More: "Re-regulation" is back in vogue. But increased regulation where it's not needed chokes off innovation and growth. While the financial sector clearly needs re-regulation, it is not clear that other sectors do. Should the new administration become growth-oriented, then it must be very careful not to choke off the all-important forces of "creative destruction."

Even in the financial sector, overkill is likely. In our own view, two general forms of regulation are needed. First, incentives must be properly aligned (e.g., banks issuing securitized products must hold a certain proportion of such products in-house.) Second, leverage must be radically curtailed, a point we have stressed for three years. As for "excess pay," the limitation of leverage and proper alignment of incentives will automatically remedy most excesses of recent years. In brief, the less regulation the better.

G.3. Workforce-Enhancing Growth Strategies

1. Strong GDP Growth: The six growth-maximizing strategies above will do more to boost workforce growth than anything else. The strong correlation of workforce growth and GDP growth is well understood at both an empirical and theoretical level. Most important, perhaps, is the need to stimulate innovation so that new industries can rise and replace old industries via the unfettered forces of creative destruction. Indeed, new industries have contributed over 75% of job growth in the US during recent decades. Numerous studies have shown how policies preventing creative destruction within most of Europe depressed private sector job creation during recent decades. Most job creation occurred in the public sector. Regrettably, none of these employment realities have been discussed by the new administration.

2. Deficit Composition: Utilization of today's huge deficits for boosting investment expenditures triggers those accelerator/multiplier effects cited above that boost employment far more than transfer payments or tax cuts do. Yet the administration's stimulus package is very infrastructure-lite, as was discussed above.

3. Deregulation of the Labor Market: Labor unions have long wanted to return to the practices of card-check balloting (or majority sign-up) without secret balloting. Yet such practices are definitionally anticompetitive, and retard employment growth. The administration initially supported card-check legislation or the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, but does not have enough votes to impose it. As to the tricky issue of immigration, the Obama team is doing a good job to date supporting rights for undocumented workers who have played such an important role in the nation's economic history, and must continue to do so in the future.

4. Managing Demographic Change within the Labor Market: There will be new and important tensions within the US labor market, given the likely influx of millions of post-65 year old boomers. It is becoming clear that the retirement planning of this generation was woeful, with up to half of boomers expecting they could afford a retirement financed by the ever-rising values of stocks and houses. Such expectations have been shattered, and many boomers will have to work until age 75 to afford the lives they expect.

In many ways, this is a good development. However, it presupposes that the requisite jobs exist. Yet they will not exist unless labor markets are deregulated, not re-regulated. In particular, minimum wages and guaranteed hours of work must go by the boards. Maximum flexibility will be needed to equate supply and demand in the labor market, thereby reducing tensions between older and younger job-seekers. Such tensions have already begun to appear in today's scramble for jobs.

A welcome dividend of elderly workers joining the workforce will be the reduction of the Social Security Trust Fund deficit. If the average retirement age de facto (not de jure) rises from 64 to 70, trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities will evaporate as people draw upon their Social Security entitlements later, and contribute longer. The present value of the resulting fiscal savings is truly huge, making it all the more important that the US labor market become as flexible and efficient as possible. The administration has never touched upon this issue.

5. Tax Policy: Any student of public finance will recall that the best kind of tax is the tax that least distorts the efficiency of the economy. The Value Added Tax (VAT) is well known to be optimal in this regard. Conversely, taxes on labor (e.g., income taxes) distort workforce growth and thus, economic efficiency the most. But the administration is wedded to higher taxes on labor, and has never proposed a VAT.

This concludes our identification of over a dozen policies that can drive the Debt-to GDP ratio down. Please note that each of the pro-growth strategies is incentive-structure-compatible with growth, as desired and as promised up front.

H. Conclusion: When Being "Smart" Is Not Enough

This essay began with a demonstration of the all-important role of the evolution of a nation's Debt-to-GDP ratio. The direction of this evolution is a good proxy for the future success or failure of the nation. We argued that a one-time shock (like today's US recession) that drives the initial Debt ratio way up does not pose the problem most people assume. Long run recovery is possible, but only if policies are adopted that drive the growth rate of the numerator down, that of the denominator up, and thus that of the ratio down.

We then identified over a dozen policies that can achieve the goal of driving down the Debt-to-GDP ratio in the longer term. The End Game that is now being played is whether policies of this kind are adopted, or whether they are not. In our view, the Obama administration has adopted both a philosophical perspective and a set of policies that will drive the ratio up. If this is indeed the price of a "new American social architecture," then it is a price that is too high.

We also proposed that these "ratio management policies" should be viewed as a refinement, and indeed an extension of classical monetary and fiscal policy. They add a new dimension to the concept of "macroeconomic policy," and to its objectives.

Why do so few administration spokesmen or economic commentators seem to share our views? Is "politics" the problem? We do not think so, at least to the extent that growth-maximizing policies are win-win policies that any good politician should be able to sell. No, the problem is rather one of the mind-set of a generation that has never before needed to confront the problems lying ahead, and that is tone deaf to philosophical issues, as opposed to "policy wonk" issues.

Today's True Challenge — Governance: In this vein, we proposed at the end of our February 2009 PROFILE that the root problems of today are not macroeconomic as much as they are political philosophical: How can democracy save itself from itself? How can people be made to realize that a reform of governance is what is now most needed—more so even than a reform of Wall Street? And even in the financial sector, it is increasingly clear that regulatory lapses in Washington were more responsible than "greed" for what has happened. Messrs. Rubin, Summers, and Greenspan actively encouraged the most pernicious of the deregulatory policies that brought down the system.

By now, it is clear that we need bold new constitutional amendments that mandate (i) sterilization of excess money creation during cyclical recoveries, (ii) fiscal surpluses during recoveries to pay down past fiscal deficits, and (iii) deficits during recessions tilted towards growth-enhancing infrastructure spending, not towards goodies for special interest groups.

In this regard, economists Martin Wolf and Stephen Roach have both correctly identified financial market "credibility" as the key to future growth, inflation, and interest rates. Can today's administration end up with any credibility when it blithely ignores the very existence of the End Game we have identified, much less those policies needed to solve it correctly? Will there be any credibility if the three proposed amendments just cited are not adopted?

In his magisterial The Rise and Decline of Nations, Mancur Olson understands that these are the topics that matter—not greed management 101. Yet barely a word is being said about these issues by the Best and the Brightest now staffing the Obama White House. Why? The explanation partly lies in a crisis of intellectual competence. Scholars trained in "macroeconomics" are as poor in discussing Olson's dilemmas of collective action as oncologists are in discussing dentistry. The fact that the macroeconomists in question are "brilliant" is irrelevant. Being smart is not enough.

The abject moral failure of the new team to identify much less to propose a solution to the End Game is extremely disturbing to the present author. Despite his initial support of President Obama, he increasingly wonders whether we have the right team in place. And he is alarmed that time to rebuild credibility is running out.

Footnotes:

¹We stressed that this hike in real rates does not occur in the case of normal-sized fiscal deficits caused by normal G-7 recessions. It only occurs when the deficits are exceptionally large, as they are turning out to be this time around. Accordingly, our analysis cannot be supported by the data of G-7 recessions during the past half century for the simple reason that we have rarely before experienced deficits of the magnitude confronting the US today. Nonetheless, our analysis can be supported by the experience of many emerging market economies that became overly indebted.

² US federal debt is often stated to be $5.5T. This is because some $4.5T of debt is held by the Social Security Administration trust funds and other entities. But what matters for the purposes of our analysis is the total debt of some $10T.

³ This forecast growth of debt excludes the growth of liabilities of the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve Bank, as well as some off-balance sheet operations by the Treasury. But much of the costs of bailing out the financial system should properly be viewed as asset exchanges, and not as increases in the fiscal deficit per se. The story is highly complicated, and mistaken interpretations are commonplace.

⁴ In one of the grandest achievements in the history of social thought, Hurwicz demonstrated mathematically that the incentive structure of "true capitalism" alone is compatible with the societal goals of efficiency, privacy, freedom, equity, and stability. In our view, this result gave a more compelling and concrete interpretation of Aristotle's concept of "The Good Life" than any theory before or since has done.

The $33,000,000,000,000 Question

John Mauldin — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:48:03 GMT

It has long been my contention that we are entering an extraordinary period of time in which using historical analogies to plot market behavior is going to become increasingly problematical. In short, the analogies, the past performance if you will, all break down because the underlying economic backdrop is unlike anything we have ever seen. It makes managing money and portfolio planning particularly challenging. Traditional asset management techniques just simply may not work. Buy and hope strategies may be particularly difficult to navigate.

Part of the reason we are co challenged in our outlook is that we are experiencing a deleveraging on a scale in the world that is absolutely breath-taking in its scope. And to balance that, governments are going to have to issue massive amounts of sovereign debt to deal with their deficits. But who will buy it, and at what price? And in which currency? This week's Outside the Box gives us some very basic data points that illustrate the challenge very well. But the problem is that even though we can see the challenge, it is not clear what the final outcome will be, other than stressful volatility as the market reacts.

This week's OTB is by my good friends and business partners in London, Niels Jensen and his team at Absolute Return Partners. 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

The $33,000,000,000,000 Question

The Absolute Return Letter
May 2009

"Never in the history of the world has there been a situation so bad that the government can't make it worse."

-Unknown

Is the crisis really over?

Commercial paper spreads have come down dramatically. Libor rates are (hmm - almost) back to normal. Even high yield spreads are narrowing. It certainly appears as if the credit crisis is well and truly over or, at the very least, the light which most of us think we can see at the end of the tunnel is no longer that of an oncoming freight train.

No wonder equities are currently enjoying one of their best spells ever. And while equities continue to go up and up, most of us are left scratching our heads. Is this the real thing or will it go down in history as 'just' another bear market rally? Not so long ago, the entire financial system stared Armageddon in the face. Now, only a few months later, equity markets behave as if all the worries of yesterday have been washed away. How is that possible?

The great bank illusion

The current bull market began in earnest in the second week of March, but what really got everyone going were the surprisingly good Q1 US bank earnings which were reported during the first half of April. Most commentators interpreted the numbers as the clearest piece of evidence yet that we are now firmly on the road to recovery.

Of course US banks made good money in Q1. The environment created for them is the equivalent of the US government reducing the cost of goods to zero for its embattled car manufacturers and then going on to buy - courtesy of the US tax payer - a couple of million cars that nobody really needs. Even Detroit would make money given those conditions!

Liquidity is trapped

The problem for the rest of us is that the banks are not sharing the candy they have been handed. Much of the liquidity created by the central banks remains trapped in the financial sector (see chart 1). Quite simply, the multiplier is not doing its job, as many banks prefer to hoard cash rather than increase lending at this juncture.

This is both good and bad news at the same time. Good because it implies that we probably do not have to worry too much about the inflationary effect of the aggressive monetary easing currently taking place; bad because it means that the economy is not going to kick back to life as quickly as everyone would like – and expect.

Meanwhile investors are growing cautiously optimistic about the GDP outlook for the second half of the year with many now forecasting modest growth – at least in the United States. Only a fool would suggest that GDP would shrink by 5-10% per quarter in perpetuity, as has been the case over the past two quarters. The economic slowdown is now decelerating and, as I pointed out last month, there are good reasons why we may see a temporary lift in economic activity later this year, but it will almost certainly prove transitory.

We are still in a bear market

The dangerous conclusion to draw from the experience of the past few weeks is that all is now well and dandy and it is time to load up on stocks again. I cannot emphasize it strongly enough: The bull market of March-April 2009 is almost certainly a bear market rally but, as one of my partners pointed out the other day, NYSE saw four 20%+ rallies between 1929 and 1932 (see chart 2). Bear market rallies can be extremely powerful and hence deceiving.

The problems are not over yet. Not by a long stretch. It will take longer than 18 months to unwind the excesses of the past 25 years. Analysts at Morgan Stanley reckon that the 15 largest banks which between them have shrunk their balance sheets by about $3,600 billion so far in this crisis, will shed another $2,000 billion in 2009¹. If you do not share my pessimism, please take a quick look at chart 3 below. The US financial sector debt load (as a % of GDP) is now 117%. In the early days of the great bull market in 1982, the same number was 22%. Households are not much better off with total household debt now at 96% of GDP vs. 47% in 1982.

Further write-offs to come

The IMF reckons that both European and US banks - but in particular the European ones - are well behind the curve in terms of recognizing their credit crunch related losses. According to the IMF, there is at least another $1,500 billion to come. So when the US banks reported surprisingly good numbers for Q1 it was certainly not because the economy had suddenly and miraculously revived itself, but because some of the oldest tricks in the book were used to gloss over much bigger problems².

As the recession bites into the lives of ordinary people, banks will face losses not only on sub-prime mortgages but on all loan products. As you can see from chart 4, sub-prime is indeed a small fraction of the total loan book for the US banking sector.

Delinquencies are on the rise

And that is precisely what is beginning to happen as illustrated in chart 5. Delinquencies are now on the rise on all mortgage products; however, whereas sub-prime started to deteriorate as early as 2007, it is only recently that delinquencies related to Alt-A and adjustable rate mortgages have taken off, and prime and jumbo loans are only now starting to suffer.

These are all temporary problems, though, however bad they may appear. By far my biggest concern at the moment is the enormity of the debt problem facing most OECD countries. In the March issue of the Absolute Return Letter I referred to an important study conducted by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff back in December of last year³ which I would like to re-visit (see chart 6).

Banking crises run and run

Reinhart and Rogoff studied every banking crisis of the past generation and made some startling observations. One in particular caught my attention. It has to do with the subsequent rise in government debt which, according to Reinhart and Rogoff, has been "... a defining characteristic of the aftermath of banking crises for over a century". According to the authors, governments inevitably underestimate the ultimate cost of a banking crisis, because the indirect costs (such as falling tax revenue in subsequent years) end up much higher than predicted.

The IMF estimates that the cost of the current crisis to the United States will eventually reach 34% of GDP or close to $5 trillion. However, the Obama administration, through its various implicit and explicit guarantees, is already using a number close to $9 trillion⁴. And Reinhart and Rogoff's historical average of 86% of GDP implies an ultimate cost of over $12 trillion!

The IMF is too optimistic

I have a lot of respect for all the good work being produced by the people at the IMF; however, they are sometimes too politically correct for my taste; maybe too afraid of stepping on someone's toes. So when they go public, as they did recently, with an estimate of how much the current crisis would ultimately cost, their projection will more than likely prove hopelessly inadequate.

The true cost is important, because it has to be financed through new bond issuance, and it is my thesis that the sheer size of this tsunami will eventually overwhelm the world's bond markets. As you can see from chart 7, using the official IMF estimates, the twelve most industrialised of the world's G20 countries (in my book known as the Dirty Dozen) will have to issue about $10 trillion worth of new bonds to cover the cost of the current crisis.

The final cost will be enormous

However, if you (like me) believe that IMF underestimates the true cost of this crisis, Reinhart and Rogoff offer a more realistic approach (see chart 8). Using their least costly case study (Malaysia 1997) as our best case scenario, the true cost comes to $15 trillion. If one uses the average of 86% instead, the cost jumps to a whopping $33 trillion. I didn't even bother to produce a worst case scenario - it all got too depressing!

I need to put the $33 trillion into perspective, because it is so big that it is almost incomprehensible. According to Wikipedia (see chart 9), total private wealth across the world today is about $37 trillion less the losses incurred in 2007-09, so the real number is probably closer to $30 trillion now. Total global savings (loosely adjusted for the big losses in 2008) are probably somewhere in the region of $100 trillion. In other words, financing this crisis could absorb one-third of total global savings. No wonder Gordon Brown looks tired!

Where do we find the money?

Obviously, governments may buy a portion of these bonds themselves, but they cannot afford more than a fraction of the total unless they want to challenge Mugabe as the ultimate master of illusion. Neither should investors hold out for sovereign wealth funds to do the dirty work. As is clear from chart 9, the total amount of wealth accumulated in these funds is pocket money when compared to the projected bond issuance over the next few years.

Hence it comes down to the price at which governments can attract sufficient demand from people like you and me. One of two things may happen. Either this crisis will ignite such a bout of deflation that investors will happily own government bonds yielding 2-3% or the deflation scare goes away ultimately, the global economy recovers and bond investors demand much higher yields for taking sovereign risk. I am not yet sure which scenario will prevail, but I do know that both are quite bad for equities longer term. Take your profits!

Niels C. Jensen

¹ "Doomsday is on hold but banks will still feel further pain", The Financial Times, 30^th April, 2009.

² In particular one US accounting rule change (FASB rule 160) explains a large part of Q1 profits.

³ "The Aftermath of Financial Crisis", Carmen Reinhart & Kenneth Rogoff, December 2009.

⁴ http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/04/bail-out-for-dummies-part-1.html

The Financial Commentator on the Economy

John Mauldin — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:04:47 GMT

Late last week a letter from Jim Welsh crossed my desk. I started reading and found myself being pulled through his very thoughtful letter. I have not met Jim, but think this letter is worthy of an Outside the Box.

Jim Welsh of Welsh Money Management has been publishing his monthly investment letter, "The Financial Commentator", since 1985. His analysis focuses on Federal Reserve monetary policy, and how policy affects the economy and the financial markets.

The Financial Commentator on the Economy

Perspective – A way of regarding facts and judging their relative importance.

There are a number of data series that evaluate economic conditions using a diffusion index. A diffusion index will have a value above 50, when a plurality of respondents are positive, and below 50 when a majority are negative. If a diffusion index increases from 35 to 38, it represents a gain of 8.6%, while a rise to 46 from 45 is only a gain of 2.2%. It is natural to think of the larger percentage gain to be more noteworthy. However, the smaller gain is actually more significant, since it will only require a small further improvement, before actual economic growth is achieved. In recent weeks, many economists and market strategists have heralded the end of the recession and the arrival of spring, after spotting a few 'green shoots' of improvement. In most cases, the 'green shoot' was a modest up tick, from a multi-decade low! For instance, the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index edged up to 26.0 in March, from 25.3 in February, the lowest reading since records began in 1967.

In February, new home sales were up 4.7% to 337,000, and after that robust increase, were only down 75.7% from their July 2005 peak. In the last three years, housing starts have plunged from 1,823,000 to 358,000, or 80.4%. At the February sales rate, it will take 12.2 months to clear the inventory of new homes for sale, versus 5 months in a healthy market. In the past year, the median price of a new home has fallen from $251,000 to $200,900, a drop of 20%. After retail sales collapsed in the fourth quarter, the inventory-to-sales ratio soared from 1.25 to 1.45, or 16%. Companies were forced to cut production drastically in the first quarter, so bloated inventories could be whittled down. Although the ratio dipped to 1.43 in February, production levels will remain low, until the ratio falls further. The large decline in production will contribute to a fairly weak first quarter, and depress second quarter GDP too.

As noted last month, there is a good chance that GDP will post a positive print in the fourth quarter of this year, and maybe in the third quarter. Most of the 'gain' will be statistical nonsense, but that won't deter most economists from getting excited. In the last 2 years, the 80% plunge in housing starts has subtracted about .9% from GDP each quarter. If housing starts stabilize near February's level in coming months, the .9% hit to GDP will become 0%. If inventories are brought down by the fourth quarter and are in line with sales, the decline of 1% to 2% to GDP from production cuts in the first and second quarter could also improve to 0%. In the fourth quarter last year, personal consumption fell an extraordinary -2.99%, as consumers turned into Grinches.

But consumer spending improved in the first quarter, as government income transfers of $127 billion offset the decline in wages and salaries of $89 billion. In the second quarter, social security recipients will receive a onetime $250 payment in May. Tax refunds are up 11% from last year, and the decline in gasoline prices is also providing a boost to incomes. Consumers will use the extra disposable income to pay down debt, and increase savings and spending. All of these factors should help swing personal consumption to a positive for GDP in coming quarters.

In the second quarter of 2008, GDP grew 2.8%, which is a respectable number. Despite this growth, job losses continued each month, and a self sustaining economic expansion failed to take hold. The most important issue in the next 12 to 15 months is whether the rebound in the second half of 2009 and first half of 2010 will gain enough traction to launch a self sustaining economic recovery. There are many reasons why I remain skeptical.

In the first three months of 2009, more than 2 million jobs were lost, causing the unemployment rate to jump from 7.6% to 8.5%, the highest since November 1983. The unemployment rate increased in March in 46 states, with California, the world's eighth largest economy, hitting 11.2%, the highest since January 1941.

Underemployment, which combines the unemployed, with involuntary part time workers and discouraged workers, reached 15.6%. As noted in recent months, post World War II recessions have on average caused personal income to fall between 4% and 7%, and this one has further to go. Wages and salaries shrank at a 4% annual rate in the first quarter, and according to Deutsche Bank, payroll-tax withholding receipts collected by the Treasury Department are down 8.2% from a year ago. This suggests that personal income growth will remain weak in coming months, and shave more than $250 billion from total income and future demand. Changes in temporary jobs lead reversals in the overall labor market by 6 to 10 months. In 2007, a continuous decline in temporary jobs and hours worked led me to forecast a decline in jobs in 2008. When non-farm jobs fell in January 2008, most economists were shocked, and the stock market sold off sharply. In March, employers cut 71,700 temporary workers, so any real improvement in job growth is many months away.

Most economists are quick to note that unemployment is a lagging indicator, and they're right. But the magnitude of the job losses shouldn't be dismissed so glibly, given the impact they are having on the banking system. The American Bankers Association reported that 3.22% of consumer loans were delinquent at the end of 2008. That is the highest level since the ABA began tracking overall loan delinquency rates in the mid 1970's. And that was before 2 million jobs were lost in the first quarter.

An average of 5,945 bankruptcy petitions were filed each day in March, up 9% from February and 38% from a year ago. The soaring job losses since last September are certainly behind the increase in bankruptcies.

The surge in job losses are working their way up the income ladder, with an increasing number of middle income and upper middle income workers being affected. This is pushing many of those who previously were considered prime credit risks over the edge. Two-thirds of mortgages in the U.S. are held by the best credit risk, prime borrowers. According to the American Bankers Association, 5.06% of prime borrowers have missed at least one mortgage payment. Since prime borrowers are such a large group, this represents 1.8 million mortgages. Although the delinquency rate for sub prime mortgages is up to 21.9%, it only accounts for 1.2 million mortgages.

In the fourth quarter, a number of states mandated a freeze on foreclosures, and a number of banks, not wanting to be a modern day Mr. Potter during the holidays, voluntarily suspended foreclosures. According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings increased to 341,180 in March, up 17% from February, and up 46% from a year ago. After the foreclosure moratorium expired in California, notices of trustee sales, which precede foreclosure sales, climbed more than 80% to 33,178 in March from February. Moody's Economy.com estimates more than 2.1 million homes will be lost this year, up from 1.7 in 2008.

Existing home sales have declined 33.3% since peaking in September 2005. The median price has dropped 28.7%, after peaking in July 2006 at $230,900. In February, existing homes sales increased 4.4%, and the median home price advanced 2.4%. The ratio of monthly sales to the inventory of homes for sale was 9.5 months, versus 5 months in a healthy market. However, 45% of the sales in February were foreclosures, and that proportion will remain high in coming months. Since foreclosed sales represent forced selling, the persistently high level of foreclosures will continue to push home prices lower. As home prices fall another 5% to 10% or more, more home owners will realize that their mortgage exceeds the value of their home. An increasing number are simply choosing to walk away, since they have nothing to lose.

According to RealtyTrac, job losses result in a home foreclosure 10% to 15% of the time. If job losses narrow from the monthly average of 670,000 in the first quarter to 325,000, almost 3 million more jobs will be lost before year end. That will translate into another 300,000-450,000 foreclosures, and an unemployment rate of almost 11%. But what if that estimate of job losses is too optimistic?

New research by the Federal Reserve and Boston University of credit spreads of 900 non-financial companies from 1990-2008 predicted changes in the economy 'phenomenally' well. Based on their initial research on low to medium risk corporate bonds with more than 15 years to maturity, the researchers went back to 1973 and found the analysis still worked well. With the massive widening of corporate bond spreads last fall, the researcher's model predicts the economy will lose another 7.8 million jobs by the end of 2009, and industrial production will fall another 17%. In the spirit of optimism, let's assume this 'phenomenal' model is off by 35%, due to the extreme nature of this credit crisis. That still results in another 5.1 million lost jobs, and an 11% drop in industrial production. In that scenario, the unemployment rate climbs to near 12.5%, the underemployment rate breaches 20%, and another 500,000-750,000 foreclosures result.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now estimates the U.S., European, and Japanese financial sectors face losses of $4.1 trillion. Banks are confronting losses of $2.5 trillion, insurers $300 billion, and other financial institutions $1.3 trillion. To date, the banking sector has written down $1 trillion of expected losses. The IMF estimates that U.S. and European banks need to raise $875 billion in equity by next year to return to pre-crisis levels.

Over the last week a number of banks have reported first quarter earnings, which was a pleasant surprise. Citigroup said it made $1.6 billion. One of the ways Citigroup achieved this gain was booking a profit of $2.7 billion on the decline in Citi's own debt. Say what? Under accounting rules, Citi was allowed to book a one-time gain equivalent to the decline in its bonds because, in theory, it could buy back its debt cheaply and save $2.7 billion over time. Of course, Citi didn't actually do that. Even though more consumer loans went bad in the first quarter, Citi reduced its loan loss reserve from $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter to $2.1 billion in the first quarter, thereby picking up another $1.3 billion of 'earnings'. And the recent change in mark to market accounting enabled Citi to book an additional $413 million in 'profit' on impaired assets. Without theses one-time adjustments, Citi's $1.6 billion in first quarter profit becomes a $2.8 billion loss.

According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Treasury Department data, the 19 banks that received tax payer funds made or refinanced 23% less in new loans in February versus last October. Why lend money when all you've got to do is make a few adjustments and make even more money.

Between 2000 and 2008, the major credit card companies increased the number of credit cards issued to small businesses from 5 million to 29 million. During that period, many small business owners increasingly relied on their cards to provide short term financing for their business. Spending on small business credit cards increased from $70.4 billion in 2000, to $296.3 billion, according to the Nilson Report. Over the last 15 months, business bankruptcy filings have risen faster than consumer bankruptcies, with the average charge-off rising to $11,000 from $7,000, according to Equifax, Inc. In response, the card issuers have been aggressively scaling back, and have reduced available credit lines by almost $500 billion. Just another example of how the availability of credit to the economy is evaporating, despite all the Fed's efforts.

Industrial production fell 1.5% in March, and is down 12.8% from a year ago. Capacity utilization fell to 69.3%, the lowest since records began in 1967. As I discussed in detail in January, excess capacity is a powerful dynamic. Companies are forced to reduce or eliminate budgeted investments in new equipment, compete for every dollar of revenue, even if it means accepting thinner profit margins, and reduce costs through job cuts. The amount of excess capacity that has been created by the depth of this economic contraction is unprecedented. What most inflation bugs and investors fail to understand is how long it will take to work off the current over hang of excess capacity. If the output gap grows from the current 7% to 10% next year, Goldman Sachs estimates it could be 2015 before all the excess capacity is used up, and that's if GDP grows 4.75% per year! Ironically, one of the reasons the economy is not likely to grow that fast is that business investment will be weaker than in prior business cycles. With so much excess capacity, businesses won't need to materially increase business investment for the next 2 or 3 years.

The economy needs to create 125,000 jobs each month, just to absorb the number of new entrants into the labor market. If job growth were to average 325,000 per month in coming years, it would still take four years to replace all the jobs lost in this recession. With so much excess labor capacity, wage growth will be weak for the next few years, which will make it harder for consumers to increase savings and spending. The combination of less credit availability, weaker business investment and consumer spending will be headwinds whenever the economy emerges from this recession.

The Untied States is mired in the deepest cyclical contraction since at least World War II, and arguably the depression. Falling home prices led us into this crisis, and home prices are still falling. The financial crisis in 2008 has become the economic crisis in 2009, as more than 2 million jobs were lost in just the first quarter, with another 3 to 5 million likely before year end. With the unemployment rate headed over 10%, and maybe up to 12% next year, the default rate on every type of consumer credit – (prime mortgages, Alt-A mortgages, Option Arm mortgages, sub-prime mortgages, home equity lines, credit cards, auto loans, student loans) – is headed much higher. Commercial real estate values are plunging, and corporate default rates are set to soar. Although every bank will 'pass' the government's stress test, some banks will fail the real world stress test, and need billions more in capital. Sooner or later, the Treasury Department will likely have to go hat in hand asking for more money from Congress for some of the banks. For the first time since World War II, the global economy will contract in 2009, so there aren't many places to hide. Although it is welcome to see a few 'green shoots', in this case, those green shoots are unlikely to yield a bountiful harvest in 2010.

In addition to the daunting cyclical problems challenging the economy, there are a number of significant secular issues I've discussed before that will make it even more difficult for a self sustaining recovery to develop in 2010. Between 1982 and 2007, the amount of Total debt grew from $1.60 to $3.53 for each $1.00 of GDP. This was made possible as the cost of money fell from 15% to 20% in 1982 to the generational lows of the last few years. As interest rates fell, consumers were able to take on more debt, without their monthly payments increasing very much.

Household debt has increased from $.44 in 1982 to $.98 for each dollar of GDP in 2007. However, there is no more relief coming from lower rates, so consumers are going to have to pay for their debt from income. From the mid 1990's until 2007, most consumers had the luxury of believing that their homes and 401Ks would provide most of what they would need for their retirement. The saving rate fell from over 8% 15 years ago to near 0% in 2007. The last 18 months has convinced them they need to increase their savings. The saving rate has rebounded to near 4% in the last six months, which is one reason why the economy has been so weak. As debt levels increased over the last 25 years, GDP was boosted as consumer's bought cars, bigger homes, second homes, went on nice vacations, and basically lived the good life. However, since 1966, each dollar of additional debt has given the economy less of a boost. In 1966, $1 dollar of debt boosted GDP by $.93. But by 2007, $1 dollar of debt lifted GDP by less than $.20.

The message from these facts is fairly clear. Debt levels are high, and any increase in interest rates will impose a bigger burden on the economy and quickly stunt growth. Consumer debt is already so high and interest rates are so low that it will be difficult for consumers to add debt. This means economic growth will be far weaker than the debt induced growth of the last 25 years. As consumers increase their savings, GDP will be lowered by .70% for each 1% consumers increase their saving, since consumer spending represents almost 70% of GDP. In addition, the banking system remains crippled. Lending standards are high and are not coming down with the economy remaining weak. The need for additional capital will lower future lending by several trillion dollars, as banks work to repair their balance sheets and lower their leverage ratios from 30 to the low teens. The securitization markets provide more credit than the banking system, but they remain on life support. Credit availability will remain constrained well into 2010, which represents a headwind than will mute some of the lift from fiscal stimulus.

The diminishing boost given to GDP from each additional $1.00 of debt since 1966 strongly suggests that adding more debt will not return the economy to prosperity. I am reminded of a movie from the 1950's, 'The High and the Mighty'. It starred John Wayne and Robert Stack and was about an airline flight from Honolulu to San Francisco. During the flight, one of the engines fails, but they are past the point of no return, so they must try to make it to San Francisco. Over the last 60 years, the United States has used a combination of fiscal stimulus and monetary policy to soften each recession and spur the subsequent recovery, with a fair amount of apparent success. From 1982 until 2007, the U.S. only experienced two shallow recessions that each lasted just 8 months. This stretch of 25 years may be the best 25 years in our economic history. But much of this prosperity was bought with debt, as the ratio of debt to GDP rose from $1.60 to $3.50 for each $1.00 of GDP. Sometime in the last 25 years, we passed the point of no return. Unfortunately, Hollywood won't get to write the script on how this ends.

E. James Welsh

John Mauldin's Outside the Box : GDP

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

Eclectica November Fund Commentary

The Yellow Brick Road

Perhaps I Should Stick to the Twenty-First Century?

What an Ungrateful Lot We Are?

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

Last Orders: Inflation or Deflation?

American Gothic

In Bernie We Trust?

What Do I Mean?

But the Economy is Growing?

Does Life Imitate Art?

Poor Old Norsk Hydro?

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

Liquor before Beer - In the Clear

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

Quarterly Review and Outlook - Third Quarter 2009

Ponzi Finance

A Downward Spiral

The Impossible Promise

The Hesitant Fed

Dollar Weakness

Growth in Potential GDP

Daily Observations from GaveKal

Growth in "Potential GDP" Shows Limited Potential

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

Slow Long-Term Growth, And Government's Response

Six Causes of Slow Long-Term Growth

Slow And Weak Recovery

2.0% GDP Growth

Consumer Spending Growth

Consumption vs. GDP

Where's The Growth?

Capital Spending

Imports and Exports

State and Local Government Spending

Rescued By Slow Productivity

Big Federal Spending

Savers To The Rescue

Debt Reduction

Future Insights

U.S. GDP Review -- Consumer, Where Art Thou?

Lunch with Dave

U.S. GDP Review -- Consumer, Where Art Thou?

Canadian Monthly GDP Weaker Than Expected

Should the Fed be Responsibly Irresponsible?

Fiscal ruin of the Western world beckons

What If?

Debt and Deflation

Quarterly Review and Outlook Second Quarter 2009

DEBT ACTS AS A BRAKE ON THE MONETARY ENGINE

THE COMPLEX MONETARY CHAIN

A FISCAL POLICY DRAG

BUSINESS CYCLE IMPLICATIONS FOR EQUITIES

DEBT DEFLATION AND BONDS

Make Sure You Get This One Right

Make Sure You Get This One Right

A Tale of Two Depressions

A Tale of Two Depressions

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

It's a Depression alright

Policy responses: Then and now

Conclusion

Fear for a Lost Decade

Fear for a Lost Decade

History lesson for economists in thrall to Keynes

History lesson for economists in thrall to Keynes

The End Game Draws Nigh - The Future Evolution of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

The End Game Draws Nigh – The Future Evolution of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

A. Introduction and Overview

B. The Good News — A World of Greatly Reduced Uncertainty

C. The Bad News — Two New Uncertainties

D. The Critical Dynamics of the Debt-to-GDP Ratio

E. The Case for Driving Down the Debt-to-GDP Ratio – "It's the Growth Rate, Stupid!"

F. Four Debt-Minimizing Strategies

G. Growth-Maximizing Strategies

G. 1. The Two Principal Sources of Real Economic Growth

G.2. Productivity-Enhancing Growth Strategies

G.3. Workforce-Enhancing Growth Strategies

Quarterly Review and Outlook
Second Quarter 2009