The Room : Housing Crisis

The Room – 04/10/2009

David Galland — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:18:00 GMT

Dear Reader,

A quick comment is in order on the recent stock rally. While I could provide that comment, few people do the "dose of reality" thing better than my globetrotting partner and friend of many years, Doug Casey.

Begging the forgiveness of our paying subscribers to The Casey Report, I would like to quote Doug from the current edition, just published...

David again. Given that Doug and, to a somewhat lesser degree, our own Chief Economist Bud Conrad, are deeply negative about the current economic set-up, I make it my personal mission to try and look at the brighter side of things -- though readers of this weekly missive might find that assertion laughable. It has been, I admit, a challenge to find the sunny spots in the economy over the last year or so, a challenge I have often failed at.

Even so, I had been expecting this latest rally for a couple of months, based in part on the large amount of cash sitting on the sidelines and looking to get "active." People don't enjoy being constantly bearish, and investment managers, whose livelihood – not to mention the payments on their Maseratis – depends on deploying the money entrusted to them, are always looking for excuses to be bullish.

If you look at the history of these sorts of crises – the domestic paradigm of which is the Great Depression of the 1930s – you will see that even in an event as dire as that, there were any number of fairly significant bear market rallies. In fact, it may surprise you to learn that of the 20 largest stock market rallies in the history of the DJIA, 17 occurred during the Great Depression.

While I agree to the level of my DNA with Doug's assessment of the dark outlook for the U.S. and global economy, I am of an equally firm opinion that the stock market will bottom well before the economy recovers anything close to the effervescent days of recent past.

The chart here helps make the point. Specifically, even though the Great Depression lasted well into the 1940s, the stock market bottom was put in all the way back in 1932. It is important, Doug and I agree, not to conflate the stock market with the economy. While they are certainly linked, they are not the same.

That is not to say that you could have invested in the stock market at any point following 1932 and made a profit. Far from it.

But rather, as the chart confirms, there was a significant opportunity for those who got positioned following the DJIA’s wipeout and capitulation in 1932, by which point it had fallen a full 90% from its pre-crash peak.

With the market now off "only" about 50% from its pre-crisis highs, we believe that there is still a steep cliff waiting for unwary equity investors on the other side of the current stretch of Happy Highway.

Even so, the rally now underway could last for a while, maybe even a month or so – and therefore offer traders a quick speculative opportunity.

iShares Dow Jones US Financial Sector (IYF)

But the real opportunities will come on the other side of this rally, when investors learn the full wrath of a very angry Mr. Market... and again following that dose of hard reality, when the investment masses are huddled in a fetal ball, sucking their thumbs and whimpering pathetically.

In the first part of that two-part profit equation, we’ll be shorting the zombie institutions who are only briefly being reanimated by the current bear market trap… and in the second part, we’ll be buying deeply undervalued stocks with both hands.

As an investor, you can choose to speculate on the rally lasting a bit longer, but do so only with the understanding that things could turn on a dime – and when that happens, your dime can quickly turn into a couple of pennies. Alternatively, one can make a good case for simply remaining patient, with heavy allocations to both cash and gold. In either case, as we explained in the current Casey Report, now's a good time to begin getting positioned for the inevitable turnaround in interest rates.

[It would be remiss of me not to mention that The Casey Report offers a generous no-risk trial period, for those of you who are interested in staying closely in touch with the evolving economic and investment situation, and the various ways to profit. Click here to learn more.]

Speaking of Zombies

(For the more musically adventurous, while you read this next bit, you might want to listen to a song in a genre I normally don't gravitate to – and I almost guarantee you that most of you will hate -- the "Goth” classic Bela Lugosi's Dead by Bauhaus. But really, unless you're a bit of a freak, you probably want to give this one a pass.)

Casey Research CEO Olivier Garret and I traveled to the Washington DC area earlier this week for several meetings, including a cup of coffee with Washington correspondent Donald Grove.

The thing that struck me most on this visit to our nation's capital was the large number of homeless people wandering its streets. There was not a single city block, it seemed to me, where one could walk without having to weave in and out of the slowly moving, numb-countenanced, living testaments to failed lives.

Please do not think I’m insensitive, I’m not (or at least I like to think I’m not… a friend once told me I was the most insensitive sensitive person he knew). Rather, I provide this observation to make the point that even at the very epicenter of our coddling government, some significant percentage of the citizenry appears to have veered onto a very bumpy stretch of life’s road, leaving them with addled brains, the clothes on their backs, and not much more.

Also commonly seen on the streets of Washington D.C. are the well-coiffed, Armani-suited creatures of government that are, in my opinion, zombies of another and more dangerous sort. Rather than simply trying to shuffle in your way long enough to solicit a voluntary donation, this elevated breed of zombie gravitates to the power that resides in Washington DC, with the clear intent to use it to forcibly shake you down and then, if in the mood, proceed to suck the blood out of your very existence.

While the first form of zombie should, and does, evoke a certain amount of sympathy, the latter deserves nothing but scorn.

Shifting gears, but still in Washington, as is often the case, because of my prior experience in the trade, I took the opportunity to chat with the taxi driver who delivered us from the train station to our first meeting.

He was a very engaging, middle-aged man from the nation of Eritrea who had been residing in these United States for about 16 years. After discussing the geography, politics, and the language of his country of birth -- a discussion that included a demonstration of his native language, a fascinating collection of sounds and words that would not have been out of place in the Star Wars bar scene – the conversation turned to life in the big city.

"So," I inquired, "how's business?"

"Pretty good," he replied. Adding, rather perceptively, I thought, "I figure this place will probably do all right. It should be one of the last places to experience a bad economy."

"Good point," I concurred. "After all, it seems like the business of government is a growth business these days."

"Yes," he added, "the business seems very good."

"What about crime?" I asked, my countryside sensibilities always attuned to the dangers of big-city life.

"It's better than it was ten years ago, but it seems like it's getting worse lately."

"How many times have you been robbed?" I asked, never thinking to ask if he had been robbed -- if you’ve driven a taxi in Washington DC for any time at all, that you’ve been robbed is a given.

"Yes, recently," the cabbie volunteered, "but they didn't take my money."

“Why not?"

“The two guys told me that I was such a nice person, they decided not to rob me. They also told me to tell my fellow cabdrivers that they should not assume that all young black men are robbers, and should pick them up. They were quite angry, you see, because they had to wait for a long time before any cab would pick them up, which was me."

"But, in fact, they were robbers, right?" I asked.

"Yes," he said with a wry smile.

(Not only am I not insensitive, I’m also not prejudiced… and I apologize if that story might be misconstrued as such… I just thought the robbers’ admonition to their intended victim to be something approaching a classic in the annals of irony.

In fact, for the record, the cab driver from Eritrea was well dressed, fit, thrilled to be in America, and happy in his work… all of which was in stark contrast to the lecherous Las Vegas cab driver I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, who was fat, sloppy, and an all-around malcontent. Given the choice of neighbors, the good-natured and hard-working Eritrean or the "all-American" cab driver from Las Vegas, the Eritrean immigrant would get my vote, hands down.)

Since I seem to have fallen into a slipstream here, I’ll go with it a bit further.

Have you seen the idea bandied about that the U.S. government could provide substantial support to the free fall in housing prices simply by offering immigrants the ability to gain citizenship, perhaps after some modest waiting period, by purchasing a house with a value in excess of some reasonable number – say $300,000?

This is not a new concept but was used very successfully by the Canadian government, on the verge of the Chinese takeover of the former British colony of Hong Kong, to encourage immigration from the well-heeled community of Hong Kong Chinese. Likewise, countries like Switzerland have for years offered economic citizenships, albeit with a higher price tag.

I gather from John Mauldin, who spoke at our Las Vegas seminar, and who had run this idea by his subscriber list, that it had generated a lot of negative feedback. I have a hard time seeing what the problem is, given the destruction of the net worth of so many American homeowners… and given this nation’s long and altogether positive experience with immigration.

What am I missing? Drop me a line at David@CaseyResearch.com.

The Cloudy Crystal Ball

For no particular reason other than curiosity, I spent some time this week looking at a couple of charts that conventional knowledge says should provide something of a look into the future.

The first chart, shown below, tests the idea that the stock market is a sensitive precursor indicator for the economy in general.

But if you look at the chart, you’ll see that the DJIA peaked about two years after the peak in the housing market, the key economic driver of the recent boom times.

Is there something to be learned from the chart? Besides the fact that the old adage about the stock market as a leading indicator doesn’t hold much water, it suggests that you should be paying far closer attention to what's going on in the real economy, rather than the stock market.

While the headlines of the financial press of late have carried story after story discussing whether the recent stock market rally is signaling the bottom in the economic downtrend, if you focus only on the tangible data emanating from the real economy – data that confirm continuing negative trends in unemployment, house prices, and defaults in virtually all credit instruments – you're likely to get a much better fix on where we are in the economic cycle.

The second chart has to do with the old saw that “Dr. Copper” is particularly adroit at predicting turns in the economy. While you might look at the chart below and see something I don’t, what I see is a very poor correlation between copper and the beginning – or end – of recessions.

In hindsight, the idea that a single indicator, however logical it might be, can tell you anything important about the future seems silly. If for no other reason than if it could, everybody would pay close attention to it and act accordingly, and so it would quickly lose its potency.

Feed the Pigs, Own the Pigs

Speaking of old saws, I’m sure you've heard the oft-repeated story about how a smart guy once captured a heard of especially wild pigs, a story that is usually set in some remote corner of the state of Georgia.

For the few of you who haven't heard the story, all the smart fellow does is to begin putting feed on the ground in a certain spot where the pigs are known to pass… and to repeat this activity daily for several weeks. At that point, with the wild pigs accustomed to the apparent manna from nowhere, the man builds a pen surrounding the feeding spot and waits until the next time the pigs are snout-deep in their victuals – at which point he simply closes the door of the pen.

That story came to mind on reading this week that the new HUD secretary, Shaun Donovan, has gone on record as saying that banks that receive TARP funds will soon be required to modify the terms of their mortgage loans to ease the burden on those struggling to pay.

Need I say more?

Probably not, but I will add a footnote in the way of the photo below, which I swiped from my favorite blog, www.planetmoron.com. The photo is of the prototype for a new vehicle to be produced by a partnership between GM and Segway… in other words, this rolling coffin will be funded in no small part with the taxpayer funds you were so kind to provide.

No, seriously, I’m not joking… they actually think they are going to sell these things, simply because they can label them green. Really, who are these people? Where do they come from? How did they make it through the gene pool intact?

Then again, anyone insane enough to strap themselves into one of these devices and pull into an active roadway likely will be removed from the gene pool in a hurry.

A Shift in Tide for the Trade Deficit

Our own Bud Conrad threw together the following chart showing the recent deep reversal in the trade deficit.

Some people might view this chart with optimism – because we all know trade deficits are bad, especially those of historic portions. And so, a reversal in the trade deficit can only be good, right?

Maybe not.

Seeing this sharp reversal, a couple of thoughts come to mind.

For instance, the foreigners on the receiving end of the deficit have been redeploying the massive quantities of dollars they received by selling us flat-screen televisions, etc., to buy up equally massive amounts of U.S. government debt. In fact, they have been the largest buyers of U.S. Treasuries, by a wide majority, in recent years. Thus, a reversal of the trade deficit means that these same foreigners will now have far less cash with which to purchase U.S. Treasuries… at the very same time that the U.S. government has obscene amounts of Treasury bills to sell.

Our own Doug Casey has often said that while one should be concerned about the trade deficit, it is when the trade deficit goes into reverse that you should get most concerned. Doug’s point is simply that the reversing trade deficit is likely an advance indicator that the flow of dollars is beginning to reverse and head back toward our shores. Put another way, over the last decade Americans have essentially exported their inflation, but the reversal in the flow strongly suggests that we are now heading toward the opposite scenario.

The More Things Change...

Tim Diering from the office sent over a cartoon, cut from the pages of the Chicago Tribune circa 1934.

While the cartoonist clearly demonstrates a flair for the dramatic in his etchings, I found the general talking points eerily similar to those you might come across these days in the public discourse about the Obama administration's liberal application of stimulus, combined with equally generous implementations of new and larger government programs.

You can view a full-sized version of it here.

Miscellany

What’s a Trillion, Part II. A week or so ago in this column/blog thingy, I included a link to a very competently done graphic demonstrating just how much money $1 trillion really is. I thought that would be the last word on the topic, but then John from the office sent over a link to a video that does an even better job of communicating just how much $1 trillion is. Give it a watch by clicking the link here …

… and then use the tool on this page to forward this missive to a friend or relative in the hopes of illuminating more and more people as to both the magnitude and the insanity of the government's plans to spend trillions -- and as much as $12 trillion has been committed so far -- in trying to return to the halcyon days of the bubble years now gone by.

What’s a Ton(ne)? As we have also touched upon lately, often times you will find that the media uses “tons” or “tonnes” when discussing the sale bulk quantities of gold. Yet, because gold is most commonly priced and sold in troy ounces, using any other measure serves mainly to obfuscate the situation and confuse the average reader.

In an attempt to resolve this question once and for all – and I am encouraged in this effort by both Doug Casey and reader Steve D. -- there are 32,150 troy ounces to the metric ton or tone, which is the measure usually used in discussing large gold sales, but shouldn’t be. [Note: Whenever here in the U.S., you read the word “ton” without a qualifier, it almost always means short ton. There are 2,000 lbs. to the short ton and 2,205 lbs. to the metric ton. To confuse you even more, likewise, a troy ounce differs from a standard, or avoirdupoiss, ounce – the former equals 31.1 grams, the latter only 28.4 grams.]

A “tonne” of gold seems a lot… a lot more than 32,150 ounces. So, maybe the use of tonnes is a deliberate attempt to spook the market? I’m not conspiracy-minded, but just maybe…

Panama Errata. In a recent article titled "Move Your Money Out of the Country, and Soon," the editors of Without Borders provided the names of several firms in Panama that might be able to assist readers with the international component of their portfolios. One of the firms involved, Verdmont Capital, S.A. contacted us to let us know in no uncertain terms that they will not accept American clients. Apparently, other companies named also no longer accept U.S. clients.

We are sorry if any of you wasted time by reaching out to those firms. At least you can take consolation in the knowledge that Uncle Sam is keeping a close eye on your money.

And that, dear readers, is it for this week’s edition. With the markets closed for the Easter holidays, I won’t be offering a final comment on the market action, as I so often do.

I will, however, wish you all a very happy holiday. May all the golden eggs be yours!

Until next week, thank you for reading and for being a subscriber to a Casey Research publication.

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room - 01/30/2009

David Galland — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:11:00 GMT

January 30, 2009

Dear Reader,

Like most people, I occasionally find myself overwhelmed by the tasks involved with everyday life.

This week, I have been, to use the old adage, "working like a dog." Though, now that I think about it, I have a hard time imagining the origin of the term. Even in his youth, my now elderly companion General Beauregard Piddle didn't seem to take on anything more rigorous than climbing up on an unattended couch for a nice nap.

In any event, it's been one of "those" weeks. And so today, as I prepared to write this weekly missive, I found myself groaning, "Arrgh, I've got to write The Room," to my ever patient and entirely wonderful wife.

"But," she said, misunderstanding the nature of my apparent complaint, "I can't see how that's a problem. There's so much to write about."

"Exactly!" I said, "That's the problem!"

In actual fact, I almost always look forward to these weekly writings as a form of personal reflection and even entertainment... and as a usual way to keep myself in the flow of the passing parade.

But some weeks – most weeks, it seems of late – the sheer volume of important news that I should comment on, at least if I were trying to be a good correspondent, is so staggering in dimension, it is a real challenge to know where to begin.

So, instead, I start by writing about old dogs and wonderful wives. Go figure.

Okay, enough of that. Procrastination is almost never a good idea, unless it is on the part of legislators who, I always hope, procrastinate to the extent that they don't ever quite get around to doing anything. Unfortunately, with the mantra of the moment being "Yes, we can," that is probably a false hope.

Turnaround in Interest Rates?

A few weeks ago in these musings -- January 9, 2009, to be more exact -- I wrote the following in response to Bud Conrad's latest projections of a deficit that could go to $3 trillion in fiscal 2009...

Well, this week we began to see a whiff of the situation just described. Here's the article from Bloomberg...

Note that Bloomberg still estimates the total deficit at $1 trillion. They are dead wrong... my money (literally) is on the number coming in much closer to Bud's stunning projection. And that means that interest rates will have to go higher... much higher.

It is for that reason that all four editors of The Casey Report -- Doug Casey, Bud Conrad, Terry Coxon and yours truly -- are in agreement that positioning yourself to profit from rising interest rates should be the big money-making play for 2009 and beyond.

It's not too late to jump on board... and it's easy to do so, with the no-risk, three-month trial being offered for The Casey Report. Click here for details...

Bait for the Two-Legged Rat

I have often said that humans are like rats in that they are extremely ingenious when it comes to looking after their personal interests. Lock a rat in a metal box and it will almost be able to figure a way out. Almost. A human would actually have a shot at it.

In the debate about what went wrong with the economy and how to fix things, the topic of loose credit standards usually arises early in the discussion. And correctly so. Due to loose credit standards, people without the financial resources to own a home were practically carried across the threshold by predatory lenders.

Well, at least that's how the outraged political class and their adoring punditry see things.

According to that section of the jeering crowd, these lenders were so avaricious, greedy, and downright dastardly that they would actually hand the keys to a $500,000 house to an individual with not just poor but pitiful credit and with little or no money down. Bastards!

Of course, as a former banker (shudder), I have a somewhat different perspective.

Because no matter how devious or dastardly a lending institution might be, it wouldn't even contemplate making such loans if it didn't have a fairly well-reasoned plan in mind to actually get paid back... with interest.

Enter the government in the form of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the quasi-state-owned (and now absolutely state-owned) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Absent their guarantees, the private sector would never, but never, have made the loans just described. That's because...

As a result, within the acceptable tolerance range for any human endeavor, banks are historically careful in setting lending standards.

But add into the equation a rate-slashing Fed looking to stimulate things a bit, side by side with a bloated Uncle Sam looking to engage in some social engineering by putting people without the credit or means into a house, and the picture quickly changes. Why, even the FHA's own website does a good job of summing up the role they played in the pumping up the housing bubble. Some relevant excerpts...

For lenders, our mortgage insurance protects lenders against loss if the homeowner defaults on his or her mortgage loan

For the record, there are about 55 million single-family mortgages in the U.S., so the FHA has over 10% covered.

But the FHA is just one of Uncle Sam's kissing cousins. Others, including the aforementioned Fannie and Freddie, guarantee another 31 million mortgages between them. So, in total, U.S. taxpayers now stand behind about 65% of all home mortgages in the U.S. But it is worse than that, because ever since the credit crisis began, over 80% of all new mortgages generated have been "conforming" in order to go onto the books of a government agency.

Thanks to Uncle Sam's largess and no-risk lending guarantees – warmly applauded by the nation's banks and sundry money shoppes, to be sure – since 1992 there has been about a 50% increase in U.S. homeownership.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that until recently you could spot a loan officer by the wide smiles on their faces, as well as their ink-stained fingers, the result of producing prodigious quantities of freshly printed loan contracts?

The way it all worked was very simple. Uncle Sam shouts for all lenders to hear, "Bring me your poor, your unqualified, your liars, and your wannabe speculators, and I will buy up their loans, allowing you to make a quick profit for generating them, and then passing them like a hot potato into my portfolio."

Given the opportunity to make money by giving money away – not a real hard sale – the lenders rose to the occasion. A rat, sniffing out a crust of bread down an unguarded alleyway, would do much the same.

Likewise the masses, equally quick to discern the opportunity, can hardly be faulted for scrabbling to take the house, oftentimes along with a loan that put extra money in their pockets in the process.

No one was much concerned about paying for the homes; the lender's risk was assumed by the government and the unqualified buyer didn't have much of any money in the game, and besides, everyone was certain that house prices could only go in one direction, up. As for the government, well, the government doesn't really pay much if any attention to the money it spends, because it's not their money. It's yours – if you are a U.S. taxpayer, that is.

But you have never paid much attention to how the government spends your money, have you? No, like a former client of wily Mr. B. Madoff, you just assumed Uncle Sam was on top of his game.

Of course, as the smell of free cheese and wealth without end spread throughout the ether, more and more two-legged rats acted on what they perceived to be their self-interest, causing a steady influx of new buyers to stream into the alley of homeownership. Many of the early adopters, sensing that if one was good, two could only be better, began to double and even triple up.

And the next thing you know, you have a housing bubble of historic proportions.

But you know all this, so why am I repeating history? Well, because this week, I stopped in at a local sandwich shop and, to occupy myself with something other than looking out the window, took hold of a regional real estate guide that, as part of its editorial features, includes a table showing all of the lenders who do business in the area – 16 in all.

Among other information, the lenders' table displayed whether or not the various lending institutions offer "Mortgages to Buyers with Less Than 20% Down?"... and whether they "Offer Mortgages with Credit Scores Under 600?"

Even today, after all the news and global angst, 9 out of 16 still advertise that they offer loans to individuals with credit scores below 600, and four of them actively promote the fact that they'll go down to 580 – which is roughly the credit rating of an escaped felon on the run for credit card fraud. But such a loan, each of the listing institutions further qualifies, is available "Only w/FHA."

And 12 out of 16 will still give you a loan with less than 20% down... in fact, "w/FHA," the solid majority will still provide a loan with less than 5% down, and one touted the availability of a 103% loan.

Alas, despite the understandable desire of lenders to earn yet more cheese by generating poor-quality mortgages for Uncle Sam, borrowers now believe real estate can only go down. Given the oversupply, they are largely right for the foreseeable future. On that basis, they whiff the downside, spot the trap that waits behind the front door of Home Sweet Home, and scamper away.

The lesson in all of this, other than that once I get pounding away on the keyboard, I seem to have no off-switch, is that the real cause of the housing-led crisis was a failure to appreciate the similarities between humans and rats. Every government interference in the market, no matter how well intentioned, carries the seeds of dangerous unintended consequences. Just ask the twenty-something welfare mothers of the 1980s who, when offered monthly pay for each new offspring, quickly converted their wombs into baby factories.

I wish I could say that this lesson – that humans, like rats, will always figure out a way to pursue their self-interest, even if it requires chewing through a real or proverbial wall – has been understood, thanks to the crash.

But as evidenced by the following item, also just in from Bloomberg, it's clear that the lesson is far from learned... at least by certain rats...

Dolts!

Fortunately, there is consolation to be had from the current trend towards more and bigger government. Namely, if you can fully understand what's going on and what's coming next, you have a rare opportunity to – in the words of a stock promoter who used to speak at conferences some years ago – get "stinky, filthy, sloppy rich."

We'll do our part to help you achieve that elevated position, in our various publications and at the upcoming Casey Research Crisis & Opportunity Summit in Las Vegas, March 20 – 22.

Speaking of that event, even though we still haven't gotten around to widely marketing it, the Las Vegas Summit is now more than 2/3 sold out... with less than 100 seats remaining. You should make the effort to get there if you can... there isn't a better time to step away from your computer and everyday life and spend a couple of days in the active contemplation of what's coming next and how to profit. You will get your most pressing questions answered. An updated schedule and registration information is available by clicking here.

Obama Watch

Looking past the rhetoric to the actions of those with their hands on the tiller of power this week, we find some items of interest.

Higher-mileage, lower-emission standards on the way. It increasingly looks as though the enviro-alarmists within the Obama administration are willing to pursue a scorched-earth policy in order to advance their agenda. This week, they set the ball in motion to accelerate the date when car manufacturers have to dramatically reduce emissions and raise fuel mileage... and looked to set a precedent whereby individual states can set their own, even more rigorous, standards. In the best of times, these sort of dictates are often stupid and counterproductive. In the worst of times, they are also dangerous.

In my view, left alone, people and industries will fluidly adapt to changing conditions... even if that adaptation means some businesses will fail and others rise. Unfortunately, the government and far too many members of the voting public just don't see it that way. And so, as with the housing crisis, expect unintended consequences.

Not having to look very far for examples of this principle in action, it was reported this week that State Farm Insurance will be dropping 1.2 million customers and withdrawing from Florida's residential home insurance market after state regulators refused the company's request for a rate hike. According to Bloomberg...
Stimulus or another brick in the wall? This just in from Washington Correspondent Donald Grove...
(Don isn't the only one encouraging a "no" vote on the stimulus bill. Check out this ad from the folks at CATO... http://cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf
Things that go bump. Recently I shared comments by Fitzroy McLean, former intelligence operative and co-editor of Without Borders, on the topic of the daily intelligence briefings that every U.S. president since Bill Clinton has received. To recap, this briefing contains info on a wide range of real and potential threats. The president is then asked to make a decision on how to act. Failure to do so carries with it the potential for a political blowback, should the threat assessment turn out to have been accurate. Thus, even though he was only in office a few days, President Obama approved a drone attack into Pakistan's sovereign territory, killing 20 or more locals, including a number of women and children.

Now, I can't say, because I don't know, whether the intelligence leading to the attack was sound, or whether the "collateral damage" was worth it. But it is important, in my view, to note that the new president has shown himself willing, like his predecessor, to ignore international law and risk further destabilizing an already unstable ally. Was the drone attack warranted? Or was President Obama simply continuing the new presidential tradition of covering his hindquarters by acting reflexively to things that go bump in the night?
Speaking of Afghanistan. This week, we also heard Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirm that (a) there will be a build-up of more U.S. troops in that country, and (b) the whole notion about helping stabilize the country through development activities will likely be back-burnered in favor of just killing unfriendlies. In his own words, the DefSec testified...
As is made clear in Counterinsurgency Warfare by David Galula (available at http://www.praeger.com), probably the best book ever written on the topic, you simply can't win a war against insurgents with blunt military force alone. Gates, who I am almost positive has read the book, knows this, so I find a certain tired resignation in his words. We send more troops to Afghanistan not because we expect to win, but because Obama said we would in his campaign.

Supporting my contention of the futility of the conflict is the fact that the Soviets were incredibly brutal in their attempt to pacify the country, going so far as to drop toys that would explode when handled, the idea being to blow the hands off the next generation of Mujahedeen. So, let me ask you – if we aren't willing to go to that sort of extreme, and beyond... and we have given up on the idea of winning Afghan hearts and minds through on-the-ground politicking and development... then what, exactly, is the endgame?

To get a better sense of the situation, watch this video, it details an eye-opening trip to the largest arms bazaar in the Khyber Pass. (Thanks to Dave M. for sending it along.)

The link is here: http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGFE2305DC&sc=1363196

But if we pull out, won't a new gang of terrorists reestablish themselves and begin to train for the next 9/11? Could happen, but there are better ways of dealing with those threats than getting deeper and deeper into a country that history has correctly awarded the moniker as "graveyard of empires."

(While its lyrics refer to a different sort of road, this week I've been listening to Chris Rea's The Road to Hell, which seems fitting to a discussion of the Khyber Pass. You can listen to it here)

The above list of actions of the Obama administration is not in any way meant to be a complete tally of what's been going on. For example, according to the news, later today President Obama is expected to "issue executive orders to reinforce the rights of organized labor." And he has added to his new administration Harvard Professor David Cutler. According to Harvard's web site...

"Cutler, who specializes in health care and public economics, is a vocal proponent of increasing America's health care spending, arguing in his most recent book, "Your Money or Your Life: Strong Medicine for America's Health Care System," that such spending has been worthwhile despite its high costs."
To all of which I can only repeat, "stinky, filthy, sloppy rich."

Go Gold!

For obvious reasons, there has been a lot of news on the gold front this week, with an increasing number of articles showing up in the mainstream financial media on the shift towards gold as a safe-harbor investment. Even famous hedge fund managers and other institutions are beginning to buy into the case for gold. And not just bullion, but gold stocks. This from Bloomberg this week...

Meanwhile, GLD, the largest gold bullion ETF, reported that its holdings reached an all-time high of 832.57 tonnes last week.

Miscellany

Bye, Bye, Bobby. The freshly minted Zimbabwean $100 trillion note didn't last long. This week, that nation's befuddled kleptocracy finally threw in the towel on its own currency and is allowing the citizenry to use pretty much any form of currency they can get their hands on to trade among themselves. Without the power to print and no reserves of anything of value left, the end of the Mugabe administration can't be far off. In fact, I'll go on record saying that he'll be out of power within three months. Want to bet $100 trillion Zimbabwean dollars on it?
Scapegoat Bank, MEMBER FDIC. Recently I discussed the idea of the government implementing a "bad bank," an idea that has come to life this week, with the FDIC raising its hand to manage same. Subscriber and correspondent Ian M. of Toronto sent in the following this week, which I thought was both interesting and relevant.

And that, dear readers, is that for this week.

Juggling my responsibilities as managing editor of The Casey Report, the next edition of which is due out on or about February 6, I started this week's edition of The Room yesterday afternoon... and so I am finishing up earlier than usual, at about 11:15 am. While I can't say where the markets will end today, I can report that, at this moment, the DJIA is off about 84 points, oil is up modestly to $46.05, and gold is up to $920.

Given the sheer volume of bad news this week, with unemployment continuing to reach new highs, home sales continuing to collapse, and consumer confidence – and spending – in a steep slide, the stock market should have been crushed... but it wasn't. That it wasn't, I can only view as being due to base building in anticipation of Super Obama's magical plan... you know, the big New Deal "get it done" plan to end all plans.

It's coming...

And I am going...

Until next week, thank you for reading and being a subscriber to one or more Casey Research services.

Sincerely,

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room - 10/17/2008

David Galland — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:31:14 GMT

Dear Reader,

Keeping up with the complex drama now flashing across the global screen is becoming more challenging with each passing day.

In lazier days, a scene might be allowed to unfold at a measured pace, the interactions between major characters developed through subtle nuance and lingering shots and close-ups of, perhaps, the furrowing of a brow or the sly upturning of the corner of a mouth.

These are not those days.

Instead, we are living in the world of 30-second commercials, directed by a speed-addicted music video director, strung together in a nonstop explosion of two-second jump cuts.

One minute stock markets are soaring, the next crashing. Gold jumps $20, then falls $40. Banks fail, banks get bailed out. Politicians elbow each other out of the way to throw billions, trillions even, into deep, dark holes. Oil tumbles, then bounces, then tumbles again.

While the volatility has allowed me to make some fun money through the all-terrain investment vehicles of futures and options, it has also made the task of trying to keep current on the news and, more importantly, on what's important, daunting indeed.

Even so, it is Friday morning and so, cup of coffee at hand and the music turned up on Citizen Cope's Bullet and a Target (the very same position that the Fed now finds itself in), I turn to the task at hand... the task of trying to make some sort of sense out of the chaos.

Given the frenetic nature of the markets, I hope you'll forgive me if my commentary this week is similarly frenetic.

Unintended Consequences

As you likely know, we are not optimistic about the outlook for real estate, that lynchpin of the U.S. economy. This pessimism is evoked by a number of factors, starting with the simple fact that residential housing increased by about 50% between 1992 and 2007, massively outpacing population and income growth over the period. As you absolutely know, much of that excess inventory is in the hands of individuals who simply can't afford to pay the freight.

Then there is our hardened belief that the equivalent of an express train wreck is about to happen in the 4 – 6 trillion dollar U.S. commercial real estate market. There will be a lot less in the way of Ho! Ho! Ho! this holiday shopping season, and a lot more Oh... Oh... Oh's.

And none of it is helped by the inevitable rise in interest rates, which are today at near 50-year lows. While we might not be quite at the bottom, we're close... after which we expect a persistent rise as the government bailouts flow through the inflationary pipeline. Of course, wounded housing markets react about as well to rising interest rates as I do to the prospect of my taxes going up in the next administration.

Unfortunately for the housing market and by extension the U.S. economy, we are already seeing the ghosts of what's to come. This just in from Bud Conrad...

The result is that housing will be further hurt with the higher rates and will continue to fall in price.

On the same topic, the news is out this morning that in September, single-family home starts in the U.S. fell to the lowest level in 26 years. Just 544,000 new homes would be built over the next 12 months (if the trend were to stabilize here, which it won't).

Just so you have the right perspective, at the peak of the bubble, annualized housing starts in the U.S. were running at 2,265,000 units, so we're seeing about a 75% decrease.

By the time this is over, it wouldn't surprise me to see housing starts fall to 10% of the peak.

Of course, housing is far more than just "another" economic stat. In addition to the tragic financial and emotional implications of coming up short on the mortgage on a personal and even societal basis, there are the direct consequence to the broader economy. No more excess equity to borrow against to fund shopping sprees, and none to allow for a comfortable retirement for far too many.

This is, and will continue to be, a big problem for the economy. While there is no soft solution at this point, the best we could hope for is that the damage will be quick to come and quick to pass. But the only real way for that to happen is for house prices to fall to the point where ready buyers are available. And that entails workouts between lenders and borrowers, or outright foreclosures, to clean up the mess and allow the market to function as it certainly can, and will again... if left to its own devices.

Unfortunately, the plans now being bandied about by the government envision pretty much the polar opposite of letting the market clean itself up. Rather, they involve taxpayers buying defaulting mortgages and even the imposition of a moratorium of some duration on foreclosures. Most people read news such as that and shrug it off. It may help to view these ideas through a narrower spectrum.

For example, imagine you are the president of a small bank and you had lent money in good faith to someone in the neighborhood. We'll call him Joe as that seems to be a popular name for these sorts of examples these days.

For reasons only known to him, Joe has stopped paying on his mortgage, leaving your little bank on the hook for $200,000. Following procedure, you have Mrs. Smith down in the lending department send Joe a nice letter asking him what's up, to which she receives no response. So you personally send him another letter, this one offering to have him down to the bank to have a chat and see if you can work things out.

No response, no money.

So, uncomfortable at having to perform the duty, you give Joe a call and he admits he is in over his head. When you offer to help him work out a payment plan, he calls you a blood sucker and hangs up on you.

Pained by the outcome of your loan, because you'd rather be getting paid back on the agreed-upon terms, you call up your lawyer and reluctantly authorize the expense of beginning the foreclosure proceeding. At that point, you know you will likely spend thousands and the better part of a year trying to get back your property (and it is your property). But what choice are you left with?

And then you hear – as does Joe - that Congress is going to pass a moratorium on foreclosures, and you reach into the locked drawer of your desk for the flask you keep there for such occasions. Joe, meantime, heads down to the local deli for a six pack to celebrate free rent for the foreseeable future, perhaps paying for his purchase by selling off the copper pipes he's ripped out of the guest bathroom.

This exercise is, of course, little more than the morning musings of a sleep-deprived mind, and I am well aware that the circumstances surrounding the defaulting on loans are as varied as humanity itself. Even so, the underlying principles are the same. There is a contractual agreement between a lender and a borrower that no one had to be waterboarded to sign. In the event of a failure to perform on the part of either party, it is up to the two parties alone to resolve -- with the help of an impartial judiciary if an impasse occurs. Interjecting an overreaching government run by perfect-worlders into the process can only gum up the works.

And, I would contend, result in just the sort of unintended consequences now being reflected in jumping mortgage rates. Or, for that matter, the entire housing mess in the first place... much of which is the unintended consequence of Greenspan ratcheting down interest rates instead of pouring himself a nice cup of tea and watching as the participants in the dot-com mania received their just desserts.

Personally, I am shocked by the rising cacophony of calls for more, not less, government regulation. Given the widespread chanting now going on in favor of elevated levels of oversight, retribution, taxation, meddling, and outright nationalization, it is clearer than ever that the views I just expressed are in a minority. And the situation is only going to get worse as the next wave of well-intentioned government operators step up to the controls... controls that are being firmly bolted onto the machinery of markets.

We are about to enter a dark period for the free markets. That's the bad news.

The very good news is that, seeing it coming, you can anticipate where the next unintended consequences will occur and position yourself to profit.

Getting Stupid

Despite gold weakening over this week, we remain utterly unconcerned about gold... and I couldn't mean that more sincerely. In fact, I just now paused for a moment to email my broker to sell a $750 put option on gold.

While somewhat off topic, I'll provide some details because I love this kind of trade (which I learned about at our Futures and Options Summit, as an aside).

Selling a $750 put earns me a fat premium – the higher the volatility, the higher the premium -- of $6,300. That money goes straight into my account. While there is a bit of nuance (for example, the potential for an inconvenient margin call), the worst case is that if gold is trading below $750 in March of 2009, when the option settles, I'll be on the hook to buy 100 ounces of gold at $750. Actually, less than that, because of the premium I have received. If at expiration, gold is at or above $750, I will have earned the premium with no money down.

The trick, of course, is to want to own the underlying commodity at option price. And you can use this sort of strategy for stocks, too.

Using futures and options, which I earlier referred to as the all-terrain vehicles of the investment world, gives you a nearly limitless number of opportunities to profit... regardless of the direction of markets. (We'll be launching a trading service soon, but that is a story for another day.)

But there are opportunities outside of futures and options. In fact, the junior resource sector, which has been a big disappointment of late, is now officially reaching stupid levels of valuations.

On that front, this week I was looking at a high-quality junior gold exploration company that is being followed in our International Speculator letter. The company has been advancing a big deposit in a great location in Canada and has just released its first resource estimate. The report confirms that the company has proven up just shy of 5 million ounces in a near-surface deposit, and the deposit is still wide open, so you can expect them to add significantly to the resource in the months ahead.

Generalizing, in an "okay" market, gold in good ground sells for around $50 per ounce. And Ontario, Canada, the ground where this deposit is located, is some of the best (as opposed to, say, the Congo). In a better market, gold in the ground might sell for $80 to $100 per ounce. And in a heated-up market, such as we saw back in 2005, valuations can rise as high as $150 or even $200 (which would be steeply overvalued, at anywhere near today's prices).

So, what value is now being assigned to the 5 million ounces of gold (plus blue sky) this very well-run junior is sitting on? Dividing the market capitalization of the company by the number of ounces of gold gives us a valuation of an unbelievable price of just $5.20 per ounce.

Okay, okay, I can almost hear you saying, "What's the problem with the company? I bet they are low on cash, and so shareholders are going to get hugely diluted when they go back to the market to finance."

To which I reply, "Nope – they have enough cash in the bank to cover an estimated two years of operations." In other words, we have looked at the company in depth, and there is nothing wrong with it – other than the broader market and forced selling by cash-strapped funds and investors.

And, as good as this company is, there are any number of other quality juniors – virtually all of which are now selling for the sorts of prices you might have expected to pay back in 1998, before the gold price took off, and before the companies had even found anything. But in this case, the company has 5 million ounces on the books.

And it is not just in futures and options and junior golds where you can find opportunities now. There are some great businesses that have been as heavily punished by non-discerning selling as bad businesses.

While caution remains the watchword of the day for the majority of your portfolio, if you have the capacity, be vigilant for the sort of stupid values just discussed. No need to rush in, but rather buy in tranches, maybe taking positions in 20% increments over the next six months. It may take awhile for you to realize the big returns -- there is a real threat to the equity markets later this year as aggressive tax-loss selling meets up with the retraction in consumer spending in the traditional holiday shopping season -- but after that, things, for the right businesses, selling at the right valuations, should begin to look up.

Given our view of where the economy is headed, you'll need to pick your battles carefully... and we'll be on your side every step of the way... but the time to begin laying out your plans should begin now, and not after gold is racing for the moon with the gold stocks close behind.

So, no big rush... just some food for thought. Of course, we'll continue to keep our many ears close to the ground on your behalf.

The Greater Repression

In my spare time, I'm working on a separate article titled "The Greater Repression," the theme of which is that one of the outcomes of the current financial crisis will be an acceleration in the growth of the state, and the coercion that that implies.

On that topic, did you read how Henry Paulson got the heads of the nine major banks to sign on to the Treasury's plan to partially nationalize them? He basically called them into a room, put a one-page document in front of them and informed them that they were required to sign it. Some excerpts from a story out of the New York Times from earlier this week...

...by 6:30, all nine chief executives had signed — setting in motion the largest government intervention in the American banking system since the Depression and retreating from the rescue plan Mr. Paulson had fought so hard to get through Congress only two weeks earlier.

What happened during those three and a half hours is a story of high drama and brief conflict, followed by acquiescence by the bankers, who felt they had little choice but to go along with the Treasury plan to inject $250 billion of capital into thousands of banks — starting with theirs.

Mr. Paulson announced the plan Tuesday, saying "we regret having to take these actions."

Pouring billions in public money into the banks, he said, was "objectionable," but unavoidable to restore confidence in the markets and persuade the banks to start lending again.

... All told, the potential cost to the government of the latest bailout package comes to $2.25 trillion, triple the size of the original $700 billion rescue package, which centered on buying distressed assets from banks. The latest show of government firepower is an abrupt about-face for Mr. Paulson, who just days earlier was discouraging the idea of capital injections for banks.

... "It was a take it or take it offer," said one person who was briefed on the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. "Everyone knew there was

only one answer."

(You can read the full New York Times article by clicking here.)

But wait! Thanks to a top-secret Casey Research hidden video cam, you can actually watch a video clip of the meeting itself!

The video segment covers the pivotal point in the meeting when Paulson makes a convincing argument as to why bank presidents should fall in line and get on the team. Watch it by clicking here now.

No question about it, we are not only in uncharted waters economically but politically as well. All the media reports on the crisis have painted the free market as the culprit and called on the government to fix everything, whatever it takes.

It is like inviting a wolf into your house to get rid of a mouse. Sure, the mouse may go away (at least temporarily), but then the real trouble begins.

Bretton Woods II

This week, a number of you brought to my attention a rising call from the heads of some governments for a return to something that resembles the discarded Bretton Woods agreement, an agreement that had as a central tenet the convertibility of paper currencies into gold.

Naturally, we salute the notion of a return to a more disciplined approach to the handling of government finances than that which is now favored, and which might be loosely expressed by imagining a conversation such as "Hey Hank, Bennie here. Listen, I'm running short, can you print up a hundred billion or so and shoot them over when you get a chance? Thanks. No, no rush. Tomorrow afternoon would be fine. Best to the Missus, see you down at the club."

That the prime minister of Britain and the head of the European Central Bank have both referenced Bretton Woods this week can only be taken as encouraging. In time, we are convinced, circumstances will force a return to such discipline, with a system based on gold, or at least a mix of tangibles, including gold.

But I wouldn't start holding my breath. For starters, Bretton Woods was almost unilaterally shaped by the U.S. government to take unto itself the keys to a global monetary hegemony. It would border on delusional to think the U.S. will hand those keys off to anyone else until forced to it by events out of its control. Thus, while we might see a sit-down of top finance ministers at some point in the next year (in a six-star seaside resort, one might assume), the actual business of crafting a new monetary order will drag on and on and on.

The potential game changer will be if the currency crisis we foresee as inevitable reaches the point where no one wants any unbacked currency almost at any price. You'll know when that point is approaching when the price of gold blows through $5,000.

Burn, Baby, Burn

Last week, I shared my new basement digs for a day with Brian the electrician, who was putting in a fan and upgrading some fixtures. In addition to being a fine judge of music, commenting as he was putting away his tools at the end of the day that "The music here was the best of any job I've ever been on," our conversations revealed that he is also a financial analyst of no small potential.

"Early last year when I saw all the building going on and the prices of houses going up, I told myself that this couldn't last. So I let go of my employees and sold my new pick-up truck back to the dealer and bought a used one. I've been putting money aside ever since."

Smart guy. Of course, I asked him how business is now.

"Real slow," he answered in the cautious patois that marks a native New Englander. "Except for this one company that deals with fire and damage," he added. "They've been real busy, and they expect to be a lot busier."

"Oh, why?" I inquired.

"Well, apparently, it's because so many people have been putting in wood-burning stoves, trying to save on energy costs and all that."

"I wonder if it could also be because sometimes a fire can solve a problem," I asked. "You know, like a mortgage you can't afford or a business that is failing, if you get my drift."

"Yep," he said with a knowing nod, "and there's that, too."

I was reminded of that conversation the following day as I was watching cable television while laboring down at the gym on the stairway to good health, otherwise known as the cursed StairMaster (it's the only time I watch cable, because I refuse to have it at home).

Through sweat-stung eyes, I watched video coverage by the ScareMasters – CNN, in this case -- of a wildfire somewhere in California. From the bird's-eye perspective of a helicopter cameraman, I watched as flames jumped a road and began doing their worst to what looked to be a dealership specializing in large pick-up trucks.

"Why," I panted to myself silently, "didn't the dealer, who surely knew the fire was approaching, gather around some folks and drive those nice trucks out of harm's way?"

Then I remembered my conversation with Brian the electrician and nodded knowingly to no one, imagining in my mind's eye the owner of the dealership watching the same broadcast and dreaming of a fat insurance check and a nice, long holiday followed by a fresh start. Who knows, perhaps he'll turn to selling the new fuel-efficient cars that U.S. car companies, freshly cashed up themselves with a nice $25 billion handout, will soon be producing with the aid of their five million new employees (I think that was the number bandied about by Obama in the debate).

But I digress. Because in addition to the economic motives for the pending wave of mysterious fires that are likely to descend on the nation, I fear a social motive.

In that regard, I have read and even heard on talk radio (which I occasionally listen to in order to keep my blood heated to the point where I won't fall asleep behind the wheel, a particular problem I have on any drive of more than about 30 minutes) that the Republicrats are all steamed up about the purported voter fraud being perpetuated by the lefties of Acorn.

Now, I can't say, because I can't know, whether or not Acorn and the Demopublicans are actually in the process of stealing votes, but I will say that that particular line of attack is one that has the potential to result in serious consequences.

Think it through.

Let's say that the drumbeat about Acorn really takes hold and fires up the imagination of McCain loyalists, as it certainly seems to be. Okay, now let's say that Obama wins, maybe thanks to a couple of squeakers in states such as Ohio. Could we perhaps see some serious civil disturbance, and maybe even worse, as good, patriotic Americans pick up their rifles and decide that their country has been taken over, unjustly, by terrorist lovers?

Could happen.

Okay, now let your mind swing the other way. That the Republicrats manage to challenge voter registrations in said key states and McCain actually wins? At that point, might the dashed aspirations of Obama's many admirers spill over into the streets? Certainly not out of the question.

Now, I am not saying that people shouldn't be vigilant about vote fraud... but it strikes me as the sort of issue that one wants to tread very carefully on – to double- and even triple-check the facts on the ground – before starting with a lot of arm waving.

Especially in an environment as politically charged and economically challenged as we are currently living in.

It has been a long time since I watched, as a teenager, the cities of America burn. And if I can make it all the way through to my long nap without seeing it again, that would be just fine.

In the final analysis, it won't really matter who wins – and I know that grates with many of you – but it's true. The economic stage has been set and the furniture cemented into place. The leading actors in the next act will be, as if marionettes controlled by the hands of a god, made to follow, not lead, the events that are now both inevitable and imminent.

The only question now is, will the transition to what's next be calm and orderly, or will the old war cry "Burn, Baby, Burn" be heard again?

I really don't know what makes the idea of the presidency so appealing that people would go through such personal trauma to attain the station. If you could, and did, walk in tomorrow and offer me the office, I would politely thank you for the offer and escort you as quickly as socially acceptable to the front door.

Laughing Between the Tears

On any given day, I swear I am going to delete all my email accounts, put the boots to my cell phone, and retreat to a nice, quiet cave. But then I get an email from a friend with a whopping good joke, and I forgive Mr. Email from stealing so much of my time.

This week, I received a few at least somewhat related to the current crisis and so thought I'd pass them along. This might become an occasional feature.

The first three came to me via Hugo in London...

For Geography students only: What's the capital of Iceland? Answer: About Three Pounds Fifty...

Quote of the day (from a trader): "This is worse than a divorce. I've lost half my net worth and I still have a wife."

Here's another one, from subscriber and correspondent Ronin...

Now we are trusting the economy of our country to a pack of nit-wits who couldn't make money running a brothel and selling booze?

Today, I received the following from the hard-working researcher/editor Shannara Johnson.

As the topic is Sarah Palin, those of you who are Obama fans will especially appreciate it... but so will anyone with a sense of humor or an appreciation for creativity and technology. Click the link here: http://www.palinaspresident.us/. After you click, an interactive photo will load. Clicking on the items in the room and on the desk makes fun things happen!

Joke of the Week

This came to me via Clyde Harrison, one of the smartest (and funniest) guys working in the commodities sector today...

Chuck replied, 'Well, then just give me my money back."

The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Chuck said, "Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey."

The farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Chuck said, "I'm going to raffle him off."

The farmer said, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Chuck said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he's dead."

A month later, the farmer met up with Chuck and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Chuck said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars apiece and made a profit of $998."

The farmer said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Chuck said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Chuck now works for Goldman Sachs.

Miscellany

Phyles. Herb in Jacksonville is looking for additional phyle members. Ditto, Ron in Southern British Columbia is going to try to start one. And I have had some correspondence with Vermonters interested in getting together. Not sure when or where, but if you contact us, we'll try to set something up with some of the Casey crew. As always, if you are interested in meeting up with other Casey subscribers, drop Kristen a note at phyle@CaseyResearch.com.
Bud in New Zealand. Bud Conrad will be the keynote speaker at the CFA Society of New Zealand's Fourth Annual Forecast Dinner in Auckland, Thursday, November 6. I am sure that he'd be happy to take time during his trip to meet up with subscribers in the area. Drop us a note at info@CaseyResearch.com and we'll try to set something up.

And that, dear readers, is it for this week.

As is my habit, I turn (with no small sense of suspense) to the screens to see how the day is going for things financial. I see that the DJIA is up 166 points on news that consumer confidence has fallen the most on record. Now, there's a reason for a stock market rally!

And gold is down, again, to $784 in spot markets, while oil has come back a bit... to just a touch over $70 per barrel. And that gold stock that just announced a 5-million-ounce deposit? I just took a glance at the portfolio page of the International Speculator, on our web site, and see that it is down another 11% today!

My next task after signing off is to call my broker. I could, and probably will, take a loss over the short term, but I don't care, because I would kick myself if I missed the bounce on that particular stock.

(As an aside, I am not being coy by not sharing the name of the stock with you... I have mentioned it to provide a real-life example of how stupid valuations are getting in the resource sector. It would be unfair to existing International Speculator subscribers to share the name here, in the open. They are entitled to buy their fill without any added competition. I hope you understand.)

And with that, I must sign off by thanking you sincerely for spending some time with me this week, and for being a subscriber to a Casey Research publication.

Hang in there – and hang on tight – because who knows where this joy ride is heading next.

David Galland

Managing Director

Casey Research, LLC.

Where Is the Economy Going in the Next Six Months?

David Galland — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:04:21 GMT

By Bud Conrad
Chief Economist,
The Casey Report - Casey Research

As investors, the question we have to focus most of our attention on just now is what impact the credit crisis, the bursting housing bubble and the actions of the U.S. government will have on the economy and investment markets in the next six months.

We have seen the Fed and the federal government move to panic mode as they try to keep the system afloat. As expected, they have cut rates, as well as having given away checks and rearranged the Federal Reserve's entire balance sheet.

The underlying problems have not been fixed with this massive bailout. There are still many credit pot holes out there and new lending remains highly constrained. Even the government tax rebate checks, rather than boosting the domestic economy, were largely absorbed by higher oil prices. The resulting cut-back in consumer spending, coupled with ongoing constrictions in lending, will cause a severe slowing of the economy.

But the much bigger implication is that the Fed is busy pouring more gasoline on the fire by fighting the collapsing housing bubble, a housing bubble created by excess liquidity, with yet more liquidity. That is the key point that should be taken from this mess. The dollar is now firmly on an even steeper slope to its ultimate demise. Other currencies will be sliding down the same slope, so another paper currency is not the answer.

This, then, is a high-level context for many of our investment recommendations in the months ahead.

Short Term Projections

1. The housing decline is not yet done, because we will need another year to unwind foreclosures in the pipeline. In addition, the exuberance shown by appraisers at the height of the housing bubble still has a long ways to go to fully deflate. What is that house on the market down the road really worth? At this point, no one knows... and no one will know until it and many others are bought by willing buyers (as opposed to unwilling lenders taking them onto their books in a foreclosure).

2. Consumers in the U.S. are not able to expand credit and are increasingly concerned about the outlook for the economy, so they will slow spending both at home and on imports.

3. The financial/banking system is weaker than understood. The complexity of the global system and the ubiquitous presence of interlocking financial and credit instruments and literally trillions of dollars in derivatives has left the world's banks teetering on the edge.

Adding a push from behind, we have broadly rising inflation and soon the persistently higher interest rates that are the bane of fixed-income investors and financial institutions in general. As the dollar continues its fall, and the banks continue to come under pressure, the lack of confidence in these keystones of the modern financial system will deepen. Already, the Sovereign Wealth Funds that rushed in early in the credit crisis to prop up the big investment houses are now signaling that, at least for the time being, they are going to step back and watch how things shake out.

4. A slowing economy - recession - coupled with inflation, creates a condition often referred to as stagflation, presenting much bigger policy challenges for the government than one or the other alone.

5. The food crisis. Shortages of food production come from rising energy and fertilizer costs. Rising demand comes from a shift in diet, especially in emerging markets, where increasing prosperity leads the citizenry to add more protein to their diets. Important shortages in grains have arisen that don't allow for a bad crop year. Most concerning is that these shortages are occurring despite good crop production last year, an occurrence that can be blamed, in part, on the diversion of some agriculture production for ethanol and bio-diesel.

These food shortages have already contributed to a doubling and tripling in the price of grains over the last two years. But even these elevated prices have not been sufficient to offset the higher costs of the energy required to produce the crops. And, despite today's higher prices, agriculture still lags the price increases seen in many other commodities.

[For more information on the subject of food, watch my recent appearance on FOX Business News here.]

The result of this is that the inflation rate, interest rate, food, energy and precious metals are heading higher as the dollar is debased.

Higher rates are not good for housing and stocks. In the long term, they will recover in nominal terms, though not in actual terms. That's because, while their nominal prices may return to current or near current levels, the dollars used to express their value will have much reduced purchasing power... making those assets a mediocre investment for the foreseeable future.

Finally, it is important to recognize that the world remains in the throes of a deep and serious crisis. While many analysts will express the view that the worst is over or that, after a modest downturn, things will bounce back just like they always have, our view is that what we will actually witness going forward is a fairly steady occurrence of crisis and panic. The crisis will accelerate, moving faster, even, than in previous major shifts such as that witnessed in the 1970s.

While history may find we are too pessimistic at this point in time, in our view it is far better to prepare for a worsening crisis and hope that it does not materialize, than to expect business as usual.

Bud Conrad is the Chief Economist of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Doug Casey's International Speculator which provides unbiased research and recommendations on the highest quality junior exploration companies.

Casey Research has also recently launched a brand new monthly advisory, The Casey Report, which focuses on the most powerful trends now driving the U.S. and global economy, and how to profit from those trends. As a special introductory offer, when you subscribe to either the International Speculator or The Casey Report before the end of July 2008 you will receive the other free of charge for as long as you remain an active subscriber. Plus, your subscription comes with a full three month money back satisfaction guarantee... so you have nothing to lose when you try these publications today. Learn more about this special offer now.

The Room 4/29/08

David Galland — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:56:33 GMT

Written: April 25, 2008

Dear Reader,

What an interesting week!

Having been a single parent for two weeks, with the kids on spring break for the second of those, I have attained a whole new level of appreciation, yes, I think that's the word, for the difficulty associated with holding down the home front.

I'll have some more thoughts on the topic of domestic servitude in a bit, but first I want to turn to this week's even more interesting developments in the gold markets.

The Battle for $900 Gold

With few exceptions, as gold has approached each new psychological price barrier in the unfolding bull market, it has gingerly touched the barrier, fallen back and then traded in a fairly narrow range before decisively taking it out and moving on. Not unlike, perhaps, Napoleon's army, with small skirmishes leading up to a full-scale assault and crushing victory.

The current battle is around the $900 level, a fairly steep retrenchment from the recent highs of $1,011. Some investors, their hopes dashed that $1,000 would be quickly and decisively overrun, are seeing Waterloo in this correction and dropping their gold as they run for cover.

So let's get to the nub of it.

Do we think we are now seeing a reversal in gold's fortunes? That, rather than cheering gold on as it defeats the fiat army and breaks through one whole number barrier after another... we'll now be playing a dirge as gold retreats down through those same whole numbers on its way toward lonely exile as a broken footnote of history?

In a word, no.

I'm not going to go into meticulous detail here, because that sort of coverage is found in our paid letters. But I do want to share some thoughts that may be of some use... if for nothing more than playing them back to me in sarcastic emails several months down the road if we're proven wrong.

A few things to ponder as the battle for $900 gold rages...

Current Correction Not Yet Exceptional. Since the current bull market began in earnest in 2001, there have been 9 corrections in excess of 8%. During the three worst pullbacks, gold fell 15.98%, 18.27%, and 27.7%, respectively. And the average of those corrections is 13.6%, so the latest, which touched 13.9% at its worst (so far), is only fractionally worse than average.

Put another way, for the current pullback to match the sharpest correction to date, a drop of 27.7%, gold would have to fall to about $730. Could it happen, again? Sure, why not?

And if it does, rest assured that, just as they did when gold moved down by that percentage in May of 2006 - falling from $725 to $567 -- analysts will line up to say that the back of the gold bull has been broken. But if you had listened to the naysayers back then and bailed out at the bottom of that correction, you would have subsequently missed a rebound of close to 100%.

I mention this to stress that the fits and starts we are currently experiencing are nothing unusual. Quite the opposite, they're the norm for any sustained bull market. In the 1970s' sustained gold bull market, a very similar pattern occurred.

The bottom line is that if you are going to invest in the resource sector, you need to take a long view. And, I would stress once again, you have to be invested with money that you can afford to lose a substantial portion of and not be overly concerned. Otherwise you'll invariably become shell shocked during periods of volatility and be prone to breaking ranks and selling at the worst possible time.
Big Gold Companies Delivering. Newmont just released its first-quarter 2008 financials, the first of the big gold producers to do so. As we have been forecasting, they had record sales of $1.94 billion, realized a record price of $933 per ounce sold, and saw their cash operating margin soar by 119% from the same period last year. Further, net income was up 444% from Q1 last year. And the company's cash operating margin rose to a record $537 million in Q108 over the prior record $419 million earned in the previous quarter.

Over the next couple of weeks, we'll see a string of similar results from the other major producers, offering a stark contrast to the billions upon billions in losses being suffered by the banks, investment houses, housing industry, airlines, etc.

So, what happened to Newmont's shares on releasing its financials? They fell, albeit modestly, victim to this week's softening gold price and a dumb remark by the minister of mines of Ghana -- where Newmont has significant projects -- about the need for mining reform in that country. More on that latter topic momentarily.

The key point is that the increase in the profitability of the gold miners, a prerequisite for the entire gold share complex to get moving, is now materializing.
Oil is stubbornly holding on over $100 and food prices are on the rise everywhere. This is simply the most visible evidence of the inflation now gripping the world. As we have discussed in our various publications, there is a very tight correlation between rising oil prices and rising gold prices. While oil prices may moderate at some point - because, again, no market goes straight up or down - the trend is clearly for sustained high prices. Gold is well supported, in our view.

So, What's Going On?

This week Dennis Gartman, who I am told is a fairly widely followed guru, announced he was exiting gold because, as he expressed it, the yellow metal had failed to rally last Friday to the extent he thought it should. But the final straw, according to his letter, was that the following day he saw some TV commercials that called for people to sell their scrap gold.

"What caught our eye over the weekend was a déjà vu moment when watching national television here in the US Saturday morning. We saw a brief show regarding the massive selling of gold jewellery on the part of the public to cash in on gold's sharp rise. The public is selling its old wedding bands; high school and college rings; necklaces; write bands "bling," [sic] et al, and it is doing so aggressively."

Now, he didn't provide any hard data to actually prove anything -- for instance, is the ratio of scrap coming on the market now running at extraordinary levels versus demand. But for the sake of argument, I'll assume he is right and that an extraordinary number of American consumers, strapped for cash thanks to the unfolding financial crisis, will dump their gold.

Will their heirlooms heading for high heat and then back onto the market as bullion overwhelm the bull market? Could that be the cannon barrage that ends the charge of the golden bull? Will that be what it takes for people to turn their back on gold in favor of the bottomless dollar?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. What I do see, as mentioned, are the facts on the ground. And those facts include rapidly rising global inflation and more bad news on top of bad news for the financial sector, housing, banks, etc.

In just the last couple of days, there has been hard data showing that -- per the comments of real estate expert Andy Miller, which I have recently related here -- the commercial real estate sector is now heading into serious problems. A report by the Office of Thrift Supervision this week has it that non-performing commercial loans rose by a factor of five last year, and now represent 4.6% of the total.

And the fuse on that very big barrel of powder is still freshly lit. How big? At this writing, there are well over $3 trillion in outstanding commercial real estate loans. So, 4.6% of that is not a small number. But it will be viewed as such when commercial defaults head for 10% or even 20%.

[Ed. Note: Andy also points to a pending bloodbath in the condo market. Providing support to that contention, I had a conversation this week with a top realtor in the small resort town that serves as global headquarters for Casey Research. She told me that of the 112 condos put up for sale in this town last year, only 12 sold.]

Credit card debt is also starting to go south, fast. You don't need me to tell you, but I will anyway, that a reasonably well-maintained fence post could have gotten a credit card between 2000 and 2007. And so it is no surprise that this week we heard that the Target discount stores were writing off over 8% of their outstanding credit card balances. A straw in a tornado, if you ask me.

I could go on, and on, and on... but won't. I will say, however, that faced with these far-from-resolved challenges, there is only one certainty: the government will mount a massive artillery barrage. But instead of grape shot, it will be greenbacks they'll be firing as fast and as furious as they can.

Technical, Shmechnical

More than once in the past I have blown a passing raspberry in the general direction of the technical analysis that Mr. Gartman relies on, in addition to his television programming, for his investment recommendations.

After a long career in this business, I think I have some basis for my general disdain for the art of technical analysis. Note I didn't say "art and science" because as far as I can tell, other than some scientific-sounding parlance, there is nothing scientific to it.

Am I being too hard on technical analysis? Maybe. But I think I have a legitimate gripe when I point out that technical analysis is so subjective that two analysts can look at exactly the same wiggly lines and draw two completely different conclusions... and they can still both be wrong.

And an analyst can, using the same methodology month after month, readily explain with a straight face how it was that the results predicted in the previous month but which came out differently than expected, are actually consistent with their previous forecast.

Consider this paragraph I received from a well-known technical analyst this week (who will go unnamed because I actually like him a lot). Commenting on the U.S. dollar, his service writes...

The USD appears as an ending diagonal triangle pattern, currently in wave 4 of wave (5). The last update indicated that the USD was possibly in a (contracting) triangle but it will likely complete as an (ending diagonal) triangle.

Contracting triangles and ending diagonal triangles are both very corrective patterns. The previous newsletter indicated that a possible triangle was in play and the pattern appears to have evolved into an ending diagonal triangle pattern. We have both possibilities illustrated in the animated chart below. The contracting triangle pattern would suggest the downside is complete, while the ending diagonal triangle indicates that one more wave down is expected to complete the pattern. A move above the green horizontal line would indicate that the contracting triangle is complete. We are expecting one more choppy wave down to the recent lows and this would indicate the ending diagonal pattern is completing. Ending diagonal patterns always end with sharp reversals to where the pattern began, so once it is complete, we can expect a sharp rally above 73.

Hold on a couple of seconds while my head stops spinning. Okay, that's better, I'm back.

Now, could the U.S. dollar, which has been beat mercilessly these many months, make a rally? Of course. It would be extraordinary in the extreme if it did not. But to actually try to manage one's portfolio based on the tangled technical entrails such as those splattered on the page just above is, at least for my money, a non-starter.

Instead, I have to look at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is a serious financial crisis getting worse, and rising inflation and even trade protectionism now sweeping the world.

You go right ahead and sell your gold. I'm hanging on to mine. And if I'm hanging on to my gold, I'm hanging on to my gold stocks, because that's where the real juice will be.

Maybe not this month, or next... or maybe not until this fall, or even beyond. But when I look at the alternatives and the amount of risk I would have to take to get even a 10% return right now, I am very, very comfortable biding my time, continuing to buy gold and gold share bargains with the expectation that the 100%, 200%, 500% gains down the road will catch me up in a hurry.

Other Views

Casey Research Chief Economist Bud Conrad dropped me an email in response to a call made by one technician to sell gold. His comment...

The reasons provided here are technical, looking at the moving averages, "moving average crossover," etc. To trade this, you need to know when to get out and when to get back in; which requires two timing decisions. I don't know that many famous, rich technical traders. Soros, Rogers, Buffett are all fundamental investors.

My view is still long-term bullish, and I am even more convinced after looking at the actions of the Fed to debase the dollar, and the world food shortages and Peak Oil energy shortage that drove crude to $120.

My $1,200 gold prognosis for the end of the year is intact.

I also spoke to Doug Casey, who is currently working out of an apartment in Buenos Aires. His basic take is that while he is concerned that we'll see more weakness in the gold shares, based on the old adage "Sell in May and go away," he remains entirely bullish on gold and it is where all his loose cash goes.

Clyde Harrison, the creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index and now the Brookshire Raw Materials Fund (www.brookshirerawmaterials.com), and one of the smartest guys in the commodity business, sees most commodities trading in a range for the next few months. The exceptions are copper, which he is a screaming bull on... and rice, which he thinks is a great shorting opportunity.

A Word About Political Risk and Gold Stocks

This week, the Ecuadorian government committed economic suicide on behalf of its struggling population. It did so by passing a six-month moratorium on all exploration and mining development.

As a consequence, as you read this, the technical staffs of the many good companies working in Ecuador are draining their last beers in Quito before climbing onto planes for their new jobs in more mining-friendly corners of the world. Rest assured they will not go unemployed, given the massive shortage of skilled help in the sector. And they won't be returning to Ecuador anytime soon.

This end of mining in Ecuador has cheered the very active NGOs working there, which make their daily bread by interfering with any extractive industry (that is not an exaggeration - we have met with them there).

In fairly short order, however, this draconian move will backfire on the politicians, and the Ecuadorian people, in a big way. For the simple reason that money goes where it is treated best. Certainly not the case in a country where existing contracts can be nullified literally overnight based on nothing more than a light breeze.

Soon, once the last of the disgruntled miners throws up his hands and stomps out, the hallways of the country's ministry of finance will grow silent enough to hear a beetle crawl.

And it will stay quiet until the ranks of the poor, swollen by the unemployed former staffs of the many resource companies previously doing work in the country (and their many dependents), make their voices heard outside of the windows of government. Punctuated, we hope, by the occasional attention-getting rock being delivered through said windows.

At which point the staffs of the NGOs will retie their ponytails, quickly pack their L.L. Bean distressed-washed backpacks (equipped, no doubt, with the latest personal rehydration units) and follow the geologists out of the country, leaving the Ecuadorian people to their own devices.

Unfortunately, this sort of idiocy is not a trait of Ecuadorian politicians alone. The fact is that resource bull markets inevitably lead the locals to put aside any form of rational thought and reach instead for masks and guns. All in the name of the "good of the people," of course.

In recent months, the Democratic Republic of Congo, a misnomer if there ever was one, pushed the reset button on all current mineral concessions. And this week, per above, the Ghanaian minister of mines commented that that formerly steadfast bastion of mining and sound contract law was going to do a rethink with an eye towards grabbing a bigger share of the mining pie.

And it is not just the third world where this sort of thing goes on; how many energy companies (and their investors) were blindsided by the penurious new royalty regime heralded by the brights running Canada's Alberta province? And how many will likewise be affected if the U.S. moves ahead with mining reform, as appears now to be likely?

The fact is that the extractive industry has few friends and many detractors. And so you can get everything right when picking a good company to invest in (Aurelian in Ecuador, for example), but still get cut off at the knees by the politicians.

I mention this because it is near the top of my mind as I write. And because here at Casey Research, we will be redoubling our efforts to stay in even closer touch with the countries where our recommended companies have important projects. (We had been watching Ecuador closely, including receiving and reading regular local reports written in Spanish, but we were still surprised - along with the companies working there - that the Ecuadorian legislature moved so quickly, and in such a negative direction.)

To help us in our efforts, we are in the process of setting up correspondent offices in all of the major mining jurisdictions, establishing an even more highly tuned early-warning network, if you will. This will still be no guarantee that we can't get blindsided, but it certainly can't hurt.

Regrettably, as with pretty much every investment you make, politics looms large. In fact, it now towers above all other inputs by a very wide margin. And on that topic...

Food & Politics

Lately, there has been a tremendous amount of media coverage about rising food prices. In fact, it has risen to "OJ" status. Not as in Orange Juice, the healthful breakfast beverage, but as in the affair of "OJ Simpson," a media-created frenzy designed to assure avid readership by a citizenry suffering from wholesale attention-deficit disorder.

While there are certainly structural issues that are putting pressure on food, and likely will for some time, this week one of my regular correspondents, Steve Henningsen of The Wealth Conservancy, forwarded a link to an excellent article on the food crisis that appeared on mises.org. You can read it here.

http://www.mises.org/story/2952

I find it very interesting to watch the actions being taken by governments in response to the rising food prices. The Indian government, which retains the programming received at the end of a swagger stick while part of the British Raj, announced this week it will be prohibiting certain food exports.

The less hidebound Thai government, by contrast, said this week that they have no intention of stopping the export of rice, but rather are viewing higher prices as a commercial opportunity for their farmers.

Meanwhile, the Canadian government announced that it was going to pay pork producers $50 million to kill their hogs, 150,000 of them. I don't have time to go into the long-term problems caused by this sort of meddling, but I will report the news from a hog farmer friend of ours in the U.S. that, even without subsidies, he and his cohorts in that business are now killing their male baby hogs and using them for compost.

And there are increasing calls in the U.S. for the regulators to change the rules on commodities contracts in an attempt to stop speculation.

But, other than the laissez faire Thais, none of these actions will plant another ear of corn or another stalk of grain. Instead, killing exports will only hurt farmers, assuring that the food shortage becomes a real food crisis.

What to do? Personally, I have recently been acting on Doug Casey's recommendation to buy beef... with hogs as well. While the cost of feeding them may cause a flood of meat on the market in the near term, as the farmers cull their herds... in time, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be a meat shortage.

[Ed. Note: Our own Bud Conrad was early into agriculture as an investment, and has been doing a lot of analysis on the topic. We'll continue to update you on his recommendations in the International Speculator. If you are interested in staying up-to-date on agricultural investments, details about our three-month, no-risk trial can be found here.]

Junk By Any Other Name

This week Moody's announced they were downgrading 32 different tranches of previously AAA-rated "Alt-A" mortgages. These are popularly referred to as "liar loans" - by the very same people who sold them in the first place -- because these loans don't require the applicant to provide proof of income or assets.

Given the previously staid reputation of the industry, one would expect that when down-grading bonds, the rating agencies would review their paperwork and realize that, perhaps, Mr. Jones in the cubicle down the hall made a slight oversight when initially appraising the bond portfolio. And so, after a quick admonishment to be more careful in the future, the rating agency would drop the portfolio down a notch or two.

Oh, if it was only so. Instead, what is going on is akin to learning that Mr. Jones has been indulging in a daily dose of hallucinogens. And so the latest Moody's downgrades are seeing many of the bonds knocked back from AAA, which is supposed to be above reproach, to junk status overnight. And Moody's is far from done; they have put another 254 Alt-A bond tranches on their negative ratings watch list.

The lame-stream media may want you to believe that the credit crisis is over, but quite the opposite is true - it's accelerating.

And so, for your further reference in the weeks and months ahead, I provide just below a guide to the Moody's rating scale, lifted wholesale from the AARP website. (Try not to giggle as you read the description of Aaa-rated debt...)

Moody's Bond Ratings

Aaa -- Best quality, with the smallest degree of investment risk.

Aa -- High quality by all standards; together with the Aaa group they comprise what are generally known as high-grade bonds.

A -- Possess many favorable investment attributes; considered upper-medium-grade bonds.

Baa -- Medium-grade bonds (neither highly protected nor poorly secured). Bonds rated Baa and above are considered investment grade.

Ba -- Have speculative elements; futures are not as well assured. Bonds rated Ba and below are generally considered speculative.

B -- Generally lack characteristics of a desirable investment.

Caa -- Bonds of poor standing.

C - Lowest-rated class of bonds, with extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing.

Of course, downgrading a bond from AAA to junk overnight is not unlike pulling it out of the drawer and setting a match to it. I can tell you one thing. If I were a conservative buyer of AAA bonds, I would be none too happy. It's a good time to be a lawyer.

I Am Womyn!

Laundry, cooking, tidying up, promoting basic hygiene and healthful activities, all while trying to keep up with my regular duties at Casey Research... for a day or two at the beginning of my wife's European vacation, it was something of a personal challenge. Sort of like seeing a mountain and, strapping on the boots, striding forth indomitably, chin up and eyes flashing with the goal of reaching the distant top.

But the difference between mountain climbing and a steady course of single-parenting is that the mountains of daily duties are as if on a moving sidewalk, coming at you one after another, no end in sight.

For one shining moment this week, I pushed what I thought was the final load of laundry into the basket, but no longer than 15 minutes later uncovered a new stash of the stuff, tucked into a forgotten hamper. Then I realized the sheets on the beds needed changing, then the kids had a particularly muddy play session and next thing you know, the vanquished pile had returned with reinforcements.

Summing up the experience: while many and maybe even most members of the male gender have long paid polite lip service in acknowledging the challenging task their wives have in keeping up with domestic chores -- lip service usually accompanied with an understanding though insincere smile and maybe a gentle pat on the derriere -- the time has come to admit that women are tough. Far tougher than men, in fact.

Forget this whole, "Woe is me, I have to work at the office all day" nonsense. Many women have to work all day, but only after working all morning to get the kids out the door to school. Then, on return from their day jobs, they are greeted with yet more work, providing sustenance to the crowing beaks of their broods before rolling up the sleeves to get the laundry done, the pets fed, the kids to bed, etc. ,etc. -- ad infinitum.

While I have always tried to chip in and do my fair share of the daily chores, I realize now that what I consider "my fair share" is probably a tenth of what has to go on to keep the household from regressing to a level on par with that experienced in the Dark Ages: dirt-covered floors, filthy, rag-clothed children and mangy dogs fighting each other for the underprepared table scraps.

And so, speaking only for myself, I hereby apologize to all womynhood for my personal lack of true understanding these many years. And I'll go one step further and swear that, should they allow me into their club, I shall from this point forward be a card-carrying feminist. Let my people go! I say.

Furthermore, I will throw my wholehearted support behind Hillary. Compared to any of her gender, Obama and McCain are wimps that she could take with one hand while the other was flipping the morning pancakes!

Manhunt Report: Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend?

Last week I promised an update on "Manhunt." Well, true to her word, the subject in our experiment in matchmaking has sent her first report, which follows...

Inquiring minds want to know an update to Manhunt, an ad which ran in this Casey Research publication a few weeks ago. The response has been overwhelming. I've never experienced so many quality emails -- and quality males -- all in one place, courting me, all at the same time. I'm quite overwhelmed and am at a loss for words at the moment. To best illustrate what it has been like to be me ever since Manhunt was published, I present to you Marilyn Monroe's performance in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes:

Marilyn Monroe vocalized:

The French were bred to die for love they delight in fighting duels
but I prefer a man who lives
and gives expensive jewels.

A kiss on the hand may be quite continental
but diamonds are a girl's best friend . . .

Are diamonds really a girl's best friend? No, no. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, Marilyn Monroe. Nay, I say. Diamonds are not a girl's best friend, at least not in this day and age of the New Diamond Age. The song of myself I sing:

The French were bred to die for love they delight in fighting duels
but I prefer a man who gives
and lives to break the rules.

A kiss on the hand should be intercontinental
Casey Research Subscribers are a girl's best friend . . .

I happily excuse Marilyn's perspective. To each her own. Not to mention Marilyn's performance was in 1953. That was then, and this is now. The world transforms. Values change. Courtship e-volves. An "anti-suitor" sent me an email, implying that I was a gold-digger. I clarified to him:

I'm not a gold digger. Should I be? But I'm a libertarian-digger. More precisely, a security-digger. Meeting a man well invested in metals would provide me with a greater sense of security. I'd like to be optimistic, but realistically, I don't see the dollar just dropping -- I see it altogether imploding. My lifestyle is extraordinarily simple, and I like it that way. I detest shopping, especially for shoes. And diamonds really bore me. A dog is a girl's best friend.

As for gentlemen, some still prefer blondes, but others turn their heads for brunettes. In fact, some even say that blondes are becoming an extinct species. Nevertheless, I digress.

The Manhunt has practically become a full-time job for me. What's a woman to do when she has handfuls of wonderful men at her fingertips? Proceed slowly. Set up a spreadsheet. Track and filter accordingly, for, more valuable than diamonds or gold, is the ability to connect with like-minded people. Or, in my case, to ultimately find a compatible long-term mate. The Project Manhunt men who've contact me are gems -- individuals of great value. If someone gets filtered out due to partner incompatibility, I still keep him on record for friendship-ability.

Two weeks into Project Manhunt, the content/experiences I've already encountered are worthy of being written into a book. (Suitors: Don't worry, I won't use your names. Nor will I send your contact data to marketers. I'm pro-privacy.)

I don't want to waste much more of David Galland's newsletter space, so before I go, I'll provide you with tidbits of Project Manhunt tabloid gossip. One man has proposed marriage to me via email. Another is a kind widower with children, and his family sounds quite dandy. A different suitor wants me to be his co-pilot -- seriously -- and is eager to teach me how to fly his plane.

Matches aren't made overnight and I'm certain Project Manhunt e-courtship shall continue for quite some time. So keep the emails coming, boys. Stay tuned for Project Manhunt Report #2 titled "Material Girl."

Miscellany

The philosopher/poet George Santayana is credited with the words, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I wonder what he would say, then, about White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. According to an article my friend Brian Hunt read in Playboy (which I am sure he reads only for the articles) and quoted to me, she admitted on a radio program that she didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.

"I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about the Cuban Missile Crisis," Perino said of the time during a White House briefing when she was asked a question that referred to the confrontation. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

It is always remarkable to me how it is that people labor under the impression that those in positions of power possess a superior intellect, sharpened by years of study.

And so I'd like to thank Ms. Perino for doing her part to help correct that wrong impression. (Just for the heck of it, this week I am going to survey every adult I meet on their awareness of the Cuban Missile Crisis and see whether Ms. Perino's ignorance on the topic is, rather than an indictment of political class, a commentary on the failure of American education.)

Also in the Miscellany category this week....

Dallas Phyle. Maria W., who has taken it upon herself to organize a get-together of Casey subscribers in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area has written in that the first meeting will be held Friday, May 2nd at 6:30 pm at Beau's at the Crescent Court Hotel. If you'd like to attend and share views with other members of the Casey family, then drop us a note at phyle@caseyresearch.com and we'll get you connected.
Bud Conrad in the Big Apple. Casey Research Chief Economist Bud Conrad will be speaking on the topic of "Peak Everything" and doing a workshop at the upcoming Hard Assets Conference at the Marriott Marquis in New York. You can learn more about the conference by visiting this website. http://www.iiconf.com/pebble.asp?relid=62254
Save the Witches! Some people have suggested that the massively undeveloped and fertile lands of Africa might hold the solution to world hunger. Based on many business trips to Africa over the years, I'm not so optimistic. You may better understand my skepticism if I relate an experience I had with a driver I once used to take me here and there in South Africa and Bophuthatswana.

He was, I can assure you, a very elegant and well-spoken man. After spending much of a week in his company, I thought I knew him fairly well. Until one morning, while reading the morning paper, I came across an item describing how some local villagers had become convinced that three young women had sold lightning to the devil who then hurled it back in the vicinity of the village. To assure it wouldn't happen again, said villagers rounded the women up, locked them in the trunk of an abandoned car and set it on fire.

When I asked my driver about this unfortunate incident, he went on a diatribe - not against the barbaric ritual, but soundly in favor of it, claiming that the presence in Africa of the white man had erroneously deprived the locals of their magic. We didn't speak a lot after that.

Of course, while this sort of ignorance will only be put to rest with economic success and the educational opportunities that accompany such success, there is nothing to say that Africa can't, or won't, someday be a more successful continent. But I fear it may be many decades away. I mention this because this week, someone sent me a link to a rather humorous example of the superstitions that continue to plague Africa... a widespread panic over the theft of men's private parts, to use a delicate term. If you have nothing better to do, click here to give it a read...
China's Coal. Just last week in these musings, we discussed the outlook for coal. Which, depending on how you view these things, is either helped or hurt by the news that China is down to just 12 days' supply. For a country that is largely run by coal, this is no small thing and should provide a lot of support to coal for some time to come.

(Coal is, of course, one of the areas we follow in our Casey Energy Speculator, an exceptional value in our admittedly biased opinion. Checking it out is easy with our risk-free three-month trial. Don't like it, cancel within 3 months and you get all your money back... what could be more fair than that? Learn more by clicking here.)

And That, Dear Readers, Is That for This Week

As always, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to read and to subscribe to a Casey Research publication. If you have written me in the last ten days and I have not responded, I apologize as the household tasks, on top of my duties with Casey Research, have vaporized any spare time. I will endeavor to respond early next week (my wife returns tonight... big party!).

As I sign off, gold is battling back toward $900 and the DJIA is off a fair bit based on the news that U.S. consumer confidence has plummeted to the lowest levels in 26 years (no surprise there).

A couple of weeks ago, I closed with a guess-the-gold price competition. We'll do it again this week. The parameters are that you have to have your bet in by midnight (EST) Monday, April 28. The person closest to the intraday spot price high for the week, as of noon on Friday, May 2, wins a one-year subscription to BIG GOLD, our publication dedicated to providing profitable analysis on large-cap, gold and silver-producing and near-production companies. Send your entries to David@caseyresearch.com.

My bet for next week's high? $927.

See you next week!

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room 4/14/08

David Galland — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:05:18 GMT

Written: April 11, 2008

Dear Readers,

No question about it, we humans like to keep things simple. And no wonder; if the world is anything, it is chaotic.

And so we look for our philosophy in un-taxing nuggets, the sort, perhaps, that might grace the back of a cereal box, be squeezed onto a bumper sticker or unfold fully contained in a 5-second sound byte on the evening news.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" pops to mind.

As does, "You are either with us, or against us."

But few hold a candle to, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Thus wrote Karl Marx, by reliable accounts a penniless, unpopular, slovenly loser throughout the entirety of his miserable existence. Yet, avoiding any deep contemplation, the masses gravitated to his slogan, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths and untold misery that carries forward even to this day.

This willingness, nay, rush, to unthinkingly embrace the simplistic is very possibly coded into our DNA. And for good reason.

After all, if our club-bearing ancestors had paused to inquire more closely into the root reason that the rest of their hunting group was running screaming from the large growling sound emanating from a nearby bush, then we wouldn't be having this chat today. Instead, they took the cue and dedicated themselves to outrunning their companions (a race that our very presence here today attests they won).

Millennia of similar experience, and the need to efficiently sort through the daily onslaught of input our poor minds receive, has resulted in a tendency by humans to think in one of two ways, depending on our individual temperaments and the need at hand.

The first form of thinking is cue-based, or heuristic. The second is termed "systematic." To understand the difference, consider the process you might go through when looking for a new computer. You could do all the hard research yourself; that would be thinking systematically... or you could simply pick up the current edition of some suitable buyer's guide and flip straight to the "Best of 2008" award and you are done.

While we all think in both modes, most tend to shift between the two, some more frequently than others. And because it is more difficult, most of us look to reduce the amount of systematic thinking we are required to do by delegating that responsibility to those who are good at that sort of thing. For example, we might pay an accountant to do our taxes. Likewise, if you are collared for some real or imaginary offense, you could immerse yourself in all the various case laws that apply to your situation, or you could pick up the phone to call a lawyer.

In my view, it is essential in this modern age to keep this aspect of our human nature in clear perspective as you listen to all the electioneering, posturing and pontificating that now competes for your daily attention.

Or, put another way, when confronted with convenient explanations or fine-sounding platitudes, make a concentrated effort to shift into systematic thinking mode.

While I could point to literally hundreds of jingoistic but empty ideas floating through the ether just now, our globe-trotting chairman Doug Casey has just written in from Argentina with a good example , one that has specific relevance to us as investors. Namely that today's inflation is being caused by rising commodity prices.

Rising Commodity Prices and Inflation

By Doug Casey

Many people blame inflation on higher prices of gasoline, wheat, copper, or what have you. This is an old, idiotic, and tragic economic fallacy.

It's idiotic because it confuses the consequences of currency inflation with its cause. And tragic because it blames inflation on those who produce real wealth, as opposed to the government, which is the actual cause.

In today's world, governments, through the central banks, control the amount of money in existence. If they double the money supply, the general price level would double. Of course not everything rises at the same rate. Since inflation initially makes people feel richer, perhaps the prices of Ferraris would go up a lot - but the prices of old Chevys would drop - who wants old cars when loans are out there for a new one?

If the money supply is stable, and one commodity goes up a lot, the price of others must drop - the general price level, in terms of dollars, stays the same.

Inflation causes people to save less. That means there's less capital to invest for new production, even while it encourages more consumption now (to beat anticipated higher prices). This is the main reason inflation causes the standard of living to drop - in addition to causing the business cycle.

Bad Speculators

David again, though continuing on the same theme. This morning I heard an interview between a National Public Radio host and Robert Zoellick, head of the World Bank, about that august body's recently released report on rising food prices and the social unrest now beginning to break out as a result.

I have to say, while I tend to be very skeptical of supra- organizations such as the World Bank, Zoellick impressed me as a reasonable man when he failed to rise to the bait of the interviewer who must have asked the same question 5 times, along the lines of "How much are speculators having to do with the food price run up?"

It was only after much more of the same that the conversation turned to the actual biggest culprit identified in the World Bank survey; the shift toward redirecting food crops, and the land used to grow same, to the production of biofuels. A misallocation that would not have been made without government mandates and massive subsidies.

I recently read a pretty good book on the history of the U.S. dust bowl that has become iconic, along with soup lines, of the Great Depression of the 1930s. The book, titled The Worst Hard Time, was quite revealing... for example, of the stubborn optimism of certain people who -- despite year after year of failed crops and dusters that would cover the floors of their shacks in a foot of fine dust, kill the cattle and even close family members -- refused to move away, figuring it couldn't last forever.

If, in fact, they had done a systematic evaluation of the climate of the dissected areas where they had been encouraged with free land by the government to set up their farms in order to meet global food demands triggered by World War I,they would have found that drought in the Texas panhandle is the norm, not the exception.

In the latter years of the disaster, the Roosevelt administration commissioned an extensive study to reveal what had gone wrong. According to the author, Roosevelt and his merry men expected to find it was caused by climate change coupled with excessive speculation. What the study's leader eventually reported, however, was far less pleasing: it was the government's own well-intentioned but poorly considered machinations that were behind the dust bowl. That's because without the subsidies, the mass migration to an area that was climatologically ill suited to agriculture would never have happened.

Not one to suffer second guessing, Roosevelt pretty much disregarded the study. In fact, he went further and, disregarding the whole "climatologically ill suited to agriculture" part, attempted to solve the problem by ordering the planting of millions of trees... virtually all of which quickly died.

But back to the present. As food prices rise, along with virtually everything else, the sloganeering and rhetoric are going to reach a shrill pitch. The government will begin to point the finger at anyone and anything other than the real causes, starting no doubt with "speculators," who will be portrayed in the same light as war profiteers.

The practical implications of this -- other than stirring up the class warfare so fondly anticipated by Marx as he sat in his grubby chair scrawling a screed against the capitalists -- will be to unleash any number of government "solutions" that will sound high minded, but lead to low results. Price controls... interference in the free flow of foreign capital... trade sanctions... changes in margin requirements for commodities accounts... higher capital gains taxes. It's all coming.

At our recent Scottsdale Summit, one of the more memorable thoughts was shared by Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute when he pointed out that the government was increasingly using higher taxes on tobacco to raise the costs and therefore curb the habitual use of the noxious weed. "And, you know what, the government got it right. Higher taxes do reduce consumption," Mitchell commented, adding, "So why is it the politicians don't understand that the same principles also apply to commerce and investment markets?"

A good question, but one that most people won't ask themselves as they applaud President Obama's proposed near-doubling of the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%.

Take cover.

Guess Who Will Soon Own 1,000,000 Homes? You Will!

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the view of real estate pro Andy Miller that, absent government intervention, the real estate meltdown would be incredibly painful, but relatively short lived. But if the government rolled up its sleeves and set about "fixing" things, the pain could stretch out 10 or even 20 years.

At this point, the odds greatly favor the latter.

In fact, we seem to be in a race to the bottom for the candidates, egged on by the professional posturers that hold forth in Washington.

Case in point, House Finance Committee Chairperson Barney Franks, maybe the least financially savvy human being I have ever heard discourse on the topic of finance, has teamed up with Senator Christopher Dodd to propose the nation set up a special $400 billion taxpayer-funded pool for the sole and specific purpose of buying non-performing loans from troubled lenders.

When confronted by such largess in the past, I have been known to make indelicate remarks. A plan of this degree of sheer disregard for anything remotely resembling the free enterprise system leaves me nearly speechless. $400,000,000,000 is a lot of money, no matter what anyone tells you.

And the democrats are not alone. Even John McCain, bending to the anticipated wishes of the voters this next November, has just done a brisk about-face and announced his own bailout plan. A plan that but for some modest window dressing, is almost identical to that which has been proposed by Mssrs. Barney and Dodd. To quote Bloomberg,

The (McCain) plan would retire old loans that homeowners no longer can pay and replace them with less expensive, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages that are federally guaranteed. McCain said families would gain "the opportunity to trade a burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects the market value of their home."

Karl Marx would be proud.

But am I being too harsh in condemning government action? After all, when we are talking about collapsing housing prices, we are talking about real hardship being felt by real people... with lots more to come.

It's a good question, even though I asked it myself. But the answer is relatively straightforward, albeit in the form of another question.

"Which economic system has history proven to provide the maximum reward to the maximum number of people over a sustained period of time?"

I think the answer is clear. So, faced with an economic distortion encouraged by decades of government meddling, do we step further away from free-market capitalism and toward yet more meddling? Or, do we accept that there is a price to be paid and the longer the bill remains unpaid, the steeper it inevitably will be?

Humankind is remarkably adaptable and, when pushed to it, resilient. If the government could resist doing anything at this point, lenders would fail, house prices would return to a market clearing level, people in the housing trades would find other employment... but the world would not come to an end.

That said, I can't see any way that the government is going to be able to resist organizing a big bailout... so all I can do is the next best thing: position my portfolio to profit by betting on the inflation that such a bailout makes inevitable.

The Ascent of Humanity

My friend and favorite partner of all times, Doug Casey, is well known to be a pessimist in the short term, but is, I can assure you, equally so a raving optimist in the longer term. Viewing the world through his longer lens, he sent me an interesting, albeit brief, essay from John Robb this week.

It is an update of sort on humankind's progress in trying to create artificial intelligence. Robb's thesis has it that we are very, very close – a few years at most – from being able to reliably duplicate the intelligence of an insect. Within a decade, he expects we will have reproduced the intelligence of a mammal. Say, a rat. And by the end of the next decade, we will have succeeded in duplicating the intellect of a human being.

Each of these milestones, according to Robb, will change the face of the world as we know it. You can read his full essay by following this link here: http://www.blogdimension.com/en/cache?s=36282661-of-rats-and-superempowerment

In making his case, Robb links to a video of the Big Dog robot, which is quite amazing. You can skip straight to the You Tube clip by clicking here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

And this is just one of many areas where humans are making rapid progress toward a more promising future. For instance, if you credit the reports out of the Swiss firm, CERN, they have figured out how to make the Internet 10,000 times faster.

Given that I am already able to use the current version of the Internet to view a wide selection of movies from Netflix, near instantly, it's hard for me to fathom the possibilities inherent in an exponentially faster Internet.

The new system will be available to universities this summer and, I have to believe, will roll out pronto thereafter.

Is there an investment angle in this stunning new development?

While a topic for greater exposition than time allows now, there are two companies (in addition to CERN) that are standing squarely in the path of this breakthrough, and both are related to fiber optics, which is a prerequisite for delivering information at this speed. The first is JDS Uniphase (JDSU), the leader, by a wide margin, in the manufacturing of fiber optics switching equipment. The second, my friend Porter Stansberry told me last week on Jekyll Island, is Verizon (VZ), which has been spending the majority of its revenues in recent years building out the most extensive fiber optics system in the United States. The build-out will soon be done, allowing the company to redirect the billions they have been spending on infrastructure back to the bottom line. And, more importantly, to sally forward as a primary beneficiary of the new and vastly improved Internet.

Watch Out Below

As predicted by our own Bud Conrad, bond insurer MBIA, Inc. was downgraded this week by Fitch Ratings to AA from AAA.

The knock-on effect of this has yet to be felt, but the way these things work is that any of the AAA bonds insured by MBIA will now have to be similarly downgraded, because no bond can have a higher rating than the company that insures it. Holders of these bonds now have to revalue them in their portfolios, especially if, as expected, the other rating agencies follow suit.

For a quick snapshot of the sort of turmoil this could unleash, here is an excerpt from the January 2008 edition of the International Speculator.

Credit Insurance. The smaller corporate and municipal borrowers (which together represent a large segment of the bond market) depend on credit insurance. Now the credit insurers are in trouble. S&P cut the credit rating of ACA Capital Holdings by 12 levels, to CCC (junk), after the company posted a $1.04 billion third-quarter loss in November. ACA has $1.1 billion to cover potential losses on $7.1 billion of bonds it insured. It turned itself over to the regulators for protection in late December. The credit rating companies are now reviewing MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group Inc. and other bond insurers because of concern they don't have enough money to cover losses on accelerating downgrades of the debt they guarantee. Weakness in these companies would endanger the value of $2.4 trillion of securities they've insured.

It goes on and on. Certain money market funds have been hurt by the commercial paper meltdown. More may follow. Because of their bond investments, some insurance companies are in the crosshairs as well. Stay tuned...

China's Olympic Torchture

In the March 14, 2008 edition of this weekly feature, I touched on the decision by the Chinese to hoist the Olympic torch to the top of Tibet (Mount Everest, to be more specific) as possibly being one of those accidents of history with serious repercussions.

But I didn't foresee how fast and how far things could have gone off the tracks. In the lead-up to previous Olympics, being selected to run with the torch was a high honor. The sort to be photographed for your personal posterity and dropped in passing into every cocktail conversation you might be drawn into. This time around, however, carrying the torch is akin to being selected by Native Americans of antiquity for the dubious honor of running the gauntlet. You might survive, but it's no sure thing. And it is certainly nothing you'll be bragging about to anyone in particular, lest you be accused of being a keen supporter of oppression.

Even if the Chinese, who have assigned a cadre of toughs to protect the flame, go one step further and borrow the Popemobile to finish delivering the torch to Beijing, the public relations damage they are suffering is akin to the death of a thousand cuts, with each step along the route bringing another cut. (For those of you with strong stomachs and curious about the origins of that term, I provide this link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_slicing)

While we can't yet know how the Chinese will react to their global humiliation, if you look at the language used by China's foreign ministry in objecting to a U.S. resolution calling for China to stop beating up the Tibetans, you can get a sense of the emotions involved...

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu labeled the resolution passed Wednesday by the House of Representatives anti-Chinese, saying it "twisted Tibet's history and modern reality... seriously hurting the feelings of the Chinese people."

(I suspect that whoever it was that conceived the idea of taking the torch to Tibet has already received some indication of the leadership's displeasure.

I can imagine a short conversation along the lines of, "Mr. Han, please come in. We would like to talk to you about that idea you had about taking the Olympic torch to the top of Mt. Everest. No need to sit down; in fact, if you'd be so kind to just stand up against that wall over there... yes, that should be fine.")

Given the clout that the Chinese currently have in the global economy, and given the fact that they are actively competing for all manner of natural resources with many of those nations whose spokespersons are now lining up to condemn them over their human rights record, this is definitely a geopolitical situation to keep an eye on.

On that latter point, this week the news came out that China is looking to buy 9% of BHP Billiton, the world's largest mining company... a move that follows their purchase of 9.3% of Rio Tinto in February for $14 billion. And last week it was revealed that they had dropped $2.8 billion to buy a stake in Total, the French oil producer.

This week the market was moved by news that the Chinese are on the hunt to acquire Canadian uranium companies. Referring to its quest for uranium companies, according to Bloomberg...

State-owned China National Nuclear is considering options including takeovers and supply agreements that range in value from "several hundred million dollars to more than a billion," Cui Jianchun, general manager of subsidiary CNNC Finance Co., said in an interview yesterday in Toronto.

Call it what you will, but I think you can safely call it a War for the World's Resources, with U.S. dollars being used as ammunition.

It is too early to discern what will be the ultimate consequences of China's Olympic-sized embarrassment – which will continue through the event's closing ceremonies on August 24 – but they could be serious.

[Ed. Note: In my reading this week, I came across a pretty good essay on this topic on the BBC web site. You can read it here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7339764.stm]

And There's This...

While we are on the topic of China, I thought I would share an email from one of our many fine subscribers. He penned the following in response to my previous skeptical musings on what I see as the myth of Chinese invincibility....

Dear David,

I have been a Casey subscriber for a number of years now and find that one of the highlights of my week is 'The Room.' Your easy style is always a pleasure and it never detracts from the clarity of the underlying message; however, when discussing China - its massive (and growing) economic influence and the ability, or otherwise, of its ruling elite to "manage" the immense changes taking place - I find it odd that no mention is ever made of the demographic time bomb inherent in the One Child diktat.

My wife and I traveled through China in the mid-1990's and wherever one went, you would see groups of parents and grandparents fawning over a single child. Fast forward to today and consider the consequences. Those children have no uncles, aunts or cousins. A typical family would now comprise - in it's entirety - one grandchild, two parents and four grandparents! Also consider the fact that traditionally, boy children are preferred to girls. The result is a significant gender imbalance eventuating in a preponderance of males.

In a society where security in old age has always depended on the support of an extended family, an intolerable burden is now placed on a single grandchild and that grandchild, if it is a male, is also going to have a tough job finding a wife! As this imbalance works its way through the Chinese population, we can expect severe, and unpleasant, consequences.

Yours sincerely,
R.H.

Not a new story, but one that has yet to really play out. Food for thought, to be sure.

Miscellany

Lunch Money. Follow the link here to read another reason for keeping some of your money in gold. I love the bank's response, which is pretty much, "Sorry about that." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7334033.stm

Out of Silver? There has been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about the lack of silver coins at dealers. We did some research on the topic and the situation appears to be nothing more than a miscalculation by the mints leading to a temporary shortage in the circular blanks required to make coins. Proof of that point comes from one close acquaintance of ours who placed an order for $1M in silver the week before last and had the bars promptly delivered.

A Solution for Global Warming! I had a good chuckle this week when reading a story by Bloomberg on a study issued by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the possible consequences to the environment by a nuclear war involving "100 Hiroshima-size bombs." The story relates how, should such a conflagration occur, it would cause damage to the ozone layer, resulting in an increase in skin cancer, eye damage and similar illnesses caused by more extreme exposure to sunlight. But nowhere in the story was there a single mention of the straight-up death and destruction caused to people by "100 Hiroshima-size bombs" going off, or the ill effects of the clouds of radiation that would soon blot out the sun. They did mention, however, that one possible outcome was that global land temperatures would drop. So, there's that to look forward to.

* Errata. Last week, while writing in the fog of early morning, I misplaced a decimal point when discussing the percentage of GDP represented by Mexican oil exports... which, based on the Export Land Model, should cease in, or before, 2014. While the error was fixed on Monday morning -- to more accurately reflect the total at about 6.5% of GDP versus the errant 65% -- if you viewed this missive over the weekend, you might have seen the erroneous number and so have sallied forth with poor information, for which I apologize. While not nearly so significant, the lower number is still very significant.

That's It for This Week

As I prepare to sign off for this week, it came across the screen that consumer confidence in the U.S. has now fallen to a 26-year low. One of the drivers of this pessimism, according to the report, was the price of gas... a commodity that indeed hits consumers straight in the pocket. Earlier this week, I read a report by the International Energy Agency that they expect oil to remain above $100 per bbl for the rest of the year.

This is one of those stubborn economic inputs that the U.S. government, despite all its real power, is helpless to affect. That's because the U.S. imports over 65% of its oil. We can't, therefore, force producers to sell it cheaper to us... because the Chinese, among others, will simply step in and pay the market price. Confronted with consumer backlash, the only real action I can see that is left to the U.S. government, should it wish to be seen as "doing something," is to subsidize prices. In other words, reach into the public coffers to pick up some of the tab. But that, of course, simply adds fuel of a different sort to the inflationary fires. There is no positive way to view this situation, especially for those who have a long commute, or for businesses – airlines for example – that are so solidly impacted by persistently high fuel prices. On that last point, you might want to check your portfolio for exposure to any companies where fuel looms large in their P&Ls.

As always, thank you for reading, and for subscribing to a Casey Research publication. (If you had this edition passed on to you, and you would like to subscribe... visit us at www.CaseyResearch.com).

Sincerely,

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room 4/7/08

David Galland — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:03:54 GMT

Dear Readers,

This week finds me writing from Room 2218 of the infamous Jekyll Island Club. The hotel's adjective comes from a secret meeting held here in 1910 involving some of America's most powerful men. Here's an official history of that seminal event...

Soon after the 1907 panic, Congress formed the National Monetary Commission to review banking policies in the United States. The committee, chaired by Senator Nelson W. Aldrich of Rhode Island, toured Europe and collected data on the various banking methods being incorporated. Using this information as a base, in November of 1910 Senator Aldrich invited several bankers and economic scholars to attend a conference on Jekyll Island. While meeting under the ruse of a duck-shooting excursion, the financial experts were in reality hunting for a way to restructure America's banking system and eliminate the possibility of future economic panics.

The 1910 "duck hunt" on Jekyll Island included Senator Nelson Aldrich, his personal secretary Arthur Shelton, former Harvard University professor of economics Dr. A. Piatt Andrew, J.P. Morgan & Co. partner Henry P. Davison, National City Bank president Frank A. Vanderlip and Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. partner Paul M. Warburg. From the start the group proceeded covertly. They began by shunning the use of their last names and met quietly at Aldrich's private railway car in New Jersey. In 1916, B. C. Forbes discussed the Jekyll conference in his book Men Who Are Making America and illuminates, "To this day these financiers are Frank and Harry and Paul [and Piatt] to one another and the late Senator remained 'Nelson' to them until his death. Later [following the Jekyll conference], Benjamin Strong, Jr., was called into frequent consultation and he joined the 'First-Name Club' as 'Ben.'"

And so it was that the Fed, that blight upon the U.S. dollar and instrument of unlimited government power, was born. Some of you, learning in last week's missive that Doug and I were heading to this place, wrote strong words condemning the place as if it had a life of its own. Like, perhaps, the set piece of one of those classic horror films.

But writing from the perspective of an instant expert (as I have only been here three days now), the hotel is grandiose and very pleasant in a Southern manor sort of way. The food is excellent, the amenities are plentiful and the weather far more agreeable than that gripping my hometown in the Northeast. I would, however, caution you to avoid the place in summer; in addition to high heat, the bugs are reputed to be both fierce and relentless. Even now, in early spring, the truth of that reputation is confirmed by the occasional no-see-um enjoying a snack at my personal expense.

Apparently, the old club had fallen into disrepair after World War II, when the money men that founded the place, including J.P. Morgan himself, stopped coming here in favor of the more refined holiday resorts of Europe. Such disrepair, in fact, that it was closed for four decades before eventually limping back into existence as a 4H camp and, some have said, even a flop house. Thanks to a substantial infusion of cash from the state of Georgia, or, more correctly, the taxpayers of Georgia, the club and its grounds have been restored to their former state of glory and are now very much up to code.

But why are Doug and I here? As much as I wish it was pure holidaying, or even plotting to replace the Fed system and returning to one that is actually based on something more tangible than political whim, we are here at the invitation from a friendly competitor, Porter Stansberry, to attend his annual editors conference.

It has been an interesting experience because Stansberry tends to focus on investment areas we tend to avoid. That said, there is a solid contrarian streak that flows through the organization, such as the one that has some editors talking about homebuilders being a good buy just now.

Homebuilders? Surely you jest, I thought to myself as I listened to the presentation. But then, Steve Sjuggerud, editor of the highly popular and widely read Daily Wealth, discussed how, in a typical housing collapse, the shares in the homebuilders will go down by as much as 75% to 90%, a level that would make it seem hard to get hurt. But the more important thing is that when they rebound from those depressed levels, they can go up by as much as 300% to 500%.

Consulting the ever-reliable stock research tool on the CaseyResearch.com website, I find that Steve has a point. Centrix (CTX), which is shown in the chart below and will be mentioned later, is off by about 68%.

And the following chart is from another of the nation's largest builders, Toll Brothers (TOL), which is off from about $57 to $24... a loss of about 58%.

While I personally am of the belief that the real estate that underlies these companies has a long way to go before touching bottom... a topic we'll return to momentarily, it is hard to argue with Steve's basic premise that, at some point, the home builders sell at such a steep discount that there is pretty much only one way they can move: up.

It is a classic contrarian play and one to watch for. When the blood-letting has these stocks down by 80% or more, which I think we'll see, you can assume that pretty much anyone who is going to sell will have sold... which, for the speculative minded, is the time to buy. Then sit back and wait for the next upswing. It may take quite awhile for the payoff, but provided the companies have the financial ability to avoid bankruptcy - a matter for further and serious investigation - in time the upswing will come and provide a big payday.

The Trillion-Dollar Sure Thing

After falling as low as $887 earlier in the week, gold has come quickly back to $907 as I write in the wee hours of Friday morning. Why the fall? Sometimes it is hard to divine the minds of humankind, so I'm not really sure. Misplaced optimism? Profit taking?

Even so, gold showed its spine, returning quickly to the $900 level, a level which, as we have recently discussed in this missive, may be the new base for the yellow metal... a level below which people intuit that gold is "cheap." Which it is.

Why? Because it is the U.S. dollar that most people use when assessing the value of gold. And the U.S. dollar is being increasingly put at risk by the growing list of bailouts that are hastily engineered by the government and all its various apparatchiks. During a phone call the other day, our own Bud Conrad started tallying up all the money that the government has applied or committed to the unfolding crisis so far. The sum is now closing in on one trillion dollars.

Does that number concern you? Does it surprise you? Does it make you, mouth agape, stumble toward the nearest barkeep, your hand waving in a frantic attempt to capture his attention so that he might provide a restorative?

I suspect not.

Thanks to our being inoculated with a steady dose of large numbers, a number as huge as a trillion probably only softly touches your individual consciousness. The way, perhaps, that an acquaintance in this gentle clime might helpfully brush a fallen magnolia blossom from the shoulder of your white linen suit.

The impact should, however, register more like a solid slap across your ruddy jowls delivered by a southern belle after an imprudent remark encouraged by one too many mint juleps.

But a trillion-dollar bailout, just like a three-trillion-dollar war - or more correctly, in addition to a three-trillion-dollar war -- carries with it consequences. As an old and wise friend of mine now in his twilight repose in Portugal likes to ungrammatically say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." And he's right, mostly.

A basic tenet of economics has it correctly that if you flood the market with a large supply of anything, the value of each successive unit must fall. Money is no different, and monetary inflation will, as sure as day precedes night, result in price inflation. And you don't need me to tell you that the cost of pretty much everything at this point is going up.

While the sort of price inflation that eventually stirs the masses to action is still ahead of us, there is little question at this point that it is inevitable. Therefore, betting that interest rates will rise as lenders demand compensation for the anticipated erosion in the value of their money between the time it is lent and the time it is returned to them, is as close to a sure thing - even a free lunch -- as you can imagine.

In the past I have mentioned those fairly rare occasions where Doug Casey, our illustrious chairman and resident guru here at Casey Research, gets a certain look in his eye and speaks with a certain tone in his voice that indicates that he is issuing forth, oracle-like, a forecast that invariably comes true. His view on the inevitability of interest rates rising strongly over the next few years is delivered with that same force of conviction. In fact, he is on the record, as recently as yesterday morning, saying it is the single most powerful trend he sees just now.

Personally, I have placed my bets on that particular outcome and you might want to consider doing so as well.

One of the best ways to do so is with properly organized EuroDollar puts. If you are a subscriber of the International Speculator and want to re-read our write-up on that investment strategy, simply access the March 2008 issue from the archives, or by clicking here.

If you are not yet a subscriber to the International Speculator, sign up today with our 3-month, 100% satisfaction money-back guarantee. Click here to learn more and sign up now.

(There is a reason that this publication is now in its 28th year, but me telling you and seeing for yourself - without risk - are two different things.)

China on the Brink?

At our recent Scottsdale Crisis & Opportunity Summit, I had an exchange with one of our many interesting subscribers. In the interest of his privacy, and because of where he calls home, I will call him only CG. He is an international entrepreneur whose latest venture has led him to take up residence in China for some time now.

In Scottsdale he told me that he had translated some recent observations I had made in this weekly column on the topic of China for his Chinese wife. His wife, as he relayed it, said something to the effect of, "He is exactly right. How does he know this?"

While it is always flattering to have one's opinion thought worthy by those in the know, what I found most interesting, and why I share this story here, is that my comments were about the potential for civil unrest in China. Not to be repetitious, but I think the topic important enough to repeat the paragraphs which CG's wife found so revealing... here they are:

After all, while many of the world's economic observers fawn over China's remarkable progress, the facts are simple. (a) The U.S. already has the infrastructure in place that China is now trying to build; (b) China is run by a cadre of corrupt communist comrades, not exactly a model ripe for emulation by a thinking person; (c) they have over a billion mouths to feed. Which is to say, any setbacks that cause the aspirations of its large public to be disappointed could result in social unrest and worse. (The rocketing cost of rice, up almost 100% over the last year, may be a catalyst for such unrest.)

Adding to the discomfort about the potential consequences of social unrest, one only needs to glance casually into the cupboard to find tightly packed examples of the culture's apparent disdain for steadily beating hearts.

Reaching into said cupboard, we pick up Barbara Tuchman's excellent Stillwell and the American Experience in China to read her accounts of General "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell's arrival in that country in the support of Chiang Kai-Shek, as despicable a two-legged creature ever to have wandered onto the human stage. In between other duties, Joe had to restrain himself, and his men, from opening fire on officers of Mr. Kai-Shek's nationalist army that would routinely punish the loss of even so much as a single lice-ridden blanket by a foot soldier with summary execution.

But as degraded as Chiang and his fellows were, they were nothing compared to the big guy himself. Based on readings on the topic, confirmed with an airplane seat consultation with an academic who had made the study of such things his life's work, Chairman Mao was reliably responsible for the unnatural deaths of over 50,000,000 of his fellow countrymen.

To disabuse you of the notion that China has reached a level of permanent stability, I would like to share with you a YouTube video that our own Louis James brought to my attention. While I have only watched part 1 of the 8 parts available (I plan on ordering the full documentary), it's enough to give you a better sense of the place than you'll get from the mainstream media.

The documentary is called The Tank Man and it is quite moving. View it here...

One of the consequences of a sense of unsettledness in that populous nation will almost certainly be a move to stash away more gold, something they can do more easily these days, thanks to a liberalization of gold ownership that began in 2005.

How You Trade: The Casey Broker Survey...

Recently we conducted a fairly comprehensive survey of how you, our highly valued and much appreciated subscribers, traded the resource stocks. Do you favor online brokers or the full-service variety? Do those of you domiciled in the U.S. buy on Canadian markets or over-the-counter? Who are your favorite brokers? What are the best ways to save on commissions? All these questions and more were addressed in the survey, the results of which you can read by clicking here.

We would also like to thank those of you who took the time to take the survey... it offers a valuable look at an important topic.

My Mother's House - Continued

Jim Turk of GoldMoney.com likes to view the economy and markets, using as his lens grams of gold, as opposed to the U.S. dollar, a fiction at this point. Apparently a regular reader of these weekly ramblings, he weighed in on the recent discussion of the current value of my mother's childhood home, a photo of which she sent along since my first posting on the topic. Here are Jim's comments...

Here's another way of looking at the price of your mother's childhood home in Mont Clair, New Jersey, which you note was purchased in 1929 for $45,000, sold below that price almost 20 years later, and now valued by Zillow.com at $1.24 million. Your comment that "the actual current value of the property is likely closer to twice that value" because it was subdivided into a number of lots is a pretty good estimate when viewed in terms of real money.

The dollar in 1929 was defined as 23.222 grains of gold, which meant that one ounce could be exchanged for $20.67. So that 1929 price was really 2,177.1 ounces. Gold today is trading around $930, which means the adjusted purchase price of your mother's house, allowing for inflation and other debasement of the dollar, is $2,024,703. It's not quite double the Zillow.com estimate, but that could be because gold is still relatively undervalued notwithstanding its rise in price the past several years.

In any case, this example explains why gold is money -- gold communicates value very effectively over long periods of time, making it the ideal money for economic calculation.

Regards
Jim Turk
(www.goldmoney.com)

While on the topic of real estate, I'd like to share another email from one of our subscribers, Frank, on a topic that I think you'll find of interest. As you'll see, he touches on some recent transactions made by Centrix, the homebuilder mentioned earlier.

I am a subscriber to Big Gold and International Speculator.

I am a real estate developer based in Sacramento, CA and doing business throughout Northern California. If you use this information, please do not use my last name.

In the Sacramento and surrounding area MLS, 51% of all listings are REO or short sale. 61% of all actual transactions are REO or short sale. With a bulge of ARM resets through July, the existing resale market should be soft for the next fifteen months anyway.

The real blood bath is bulk residential lots, both paper lots and finished lots. The privately held builders are mostly headed to bankruptcy. Of the big residential, privately held developers in my area, literally perhaps two survive and all the rest go down. When I meet with a residential developer who wants to "fire-sale" lots, there is no possibility for a transaction because in most cases the debt exceeds the land value. Which brings up the lenders. The lenders are not foreclosing yet. Why? Are they not being leaned on by the regulators yet? The attitude from the lenders so far is denial that they have problems. Other banks have problems but not them.

Some of the public builders are starting to dump lots. 30 days ago, Centex sold approximately 880 paper lots that they had paid $60,000,000 for three years ago and had spent an additional $10,000,000 in entitlements for a total of $70,000,000. They sold these for $8,000,000. $70,000,000 to $8,000,000 in three years! Centex sold 97 finished lots on Friday, March 28, for $27,000 per lot. The cost to finish these lots was approximately $40.000 per lot, therefore the residual land value is less than zero. 12 months ago, Centex had over $900,000,000 in unrestricted cash. Today they have just over $65,000,000. Do you see a trend? I think the residential market starts to come back in California in 2-3 years. The public builders run out of lots over the next 18-24 months and California keeps growing and there is continual if diminished housing formation.

Additional bad news is that the retail and office markets are starting to roll over now. These foreclosures have not started but will soon and will lag residential by 12 months or so. Office vacancies are rising and the big box retailers and grocers have all pulled out of the market.

In a follow-up email, I asked the author of that email, "How are you going to manage?" To which Frank responded...

Thanks for asking about me. I have no bad projects, one that is underperforming has NO DEBT! That is how you survive as a developer. Plus, having turned $250,000 into $1,500,000 over the last eight years, thanks to your investment publications plus Richard Russell's Dow Theory Letters, I know I will survive just fine.

I would keep one thing in mind, just about everybody is bearish on the real estate market and that is when it will eventually turn. I say the bottom is in 2009, not 5-10 years out, and then we will start a slow process of recovery but from a much lower base.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We have the best subscribers in the world. If you have comments you'd like to share, drop me a note at david@caseyresearch.com.

Energy Chart of the Week

Natural gas markets used to be regional and disconnected. Not so long ago, the gas price in Europe bore little relation to the gas price in the United States and vice versa.

Pipelines, even just fifteen years ago, were the only way that natural gas, on a mass scale, was transported. But not anymore...

The rapid growth of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) business has transformed natural gas into a global commodity. Nations like Japan now rely on LNG supertankers for the fuel to meet a significant chunk of their energy needs.

LNG is linking together natural gas markets from around the world. It's allowed the tiny Middle Eastern nation of Qatar, which has the world's third largest natural gas reserves (after Russia and Iran), to become an energy superpower.

Generally, the higher associated costs of LNG (liquefaction, transportation, regasification) have meant that the LNG price has been higher than the U.S. domestic price. This trend flipped between 2003 and 2006 due to a sudden uptick in LNG supply followed by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, which wiped out production in the Gulf of Mexico and drove up domestic prices.

[click to enlarge]

In the last two years, we've seen LNG prices rise higher than Henry Hub prices once again. Indonesia's state-owned Pertamina just negotiated a deal with Japanese gas companies to sell LNG at over US$10/MMBtu until 2011. The Japanese are competing with Taiwan, South Korea, and a fast-growing Chinese market, all of which are clamoring for more LNG. When a minor earthquake took a Japanese nuclear power plant offline, Japan had to scramble to pick LNG for its natural gas-generated electricity, paying over US$20/MMBtu for some cargos, proof that its deal with Pertamina is no stretch and might actually look like a steal in a few years.

Another factor that few investors realize is that LNG prices in Asia are tied to the Japan Crude Cocktail, a benchmark for crude oil markets in the region. As the dynamics of Peak Oil make themselves felt, LNG prices will rise in tandem with oil prices.

Combine this with a growing need for cleaner fuels, like natural gas, and it's clear that the LNG market, and consequently LNG prices, are headed higher for a long time to come.

[Ed. Note: Jeffrey Brown, one of the faculty members at our Scottsdale Summit, is a petroleum geologist. He gave a very compelling presentation on the concept of the Export Land Model, which shows how declining production combined with rising consumption can result in oil & gas export countries rapidly reaching the point where they can no longer export.

Among many interesting points he made during his presentation, the most interesting was that, based on current trends, Mexico will ship its last barrel of oil to the U.S. in or around 2014... just 6 years from now.

This has, in my opinion, huge implications. For one, Mexico is currently the second largest source of oil for the U.S., so we will have to fight it out with our international competitors to replace that oil. Secondly, Mexico gets something like 65% of its GDP from its oil exports... which means we could see some real trouble south of the border.

You can read some articles by Jeffrey on the Export Land Model on EnergyBulletin.net, but for ways to invest in this trend, there is no better source than the Casey Energy Speculator or, for the more active traders among you, the Casey Energy Confidential. The trend of higher oil prices is a trend in motion that will stay in motion for years to come... so getting positioned in the right plays now should pay off in spades going forward.]

Miscellany

LAX Phyle. We have yet another brave individual willing to help coordinate a get-together with other members of the Casey "phyle" (yet-to-be-named)... this time in Los Angeles. If you live in that area and would like to meet up for a cup of coffee down at the corner store (or whatever passes for same in a city of 3.8 million), drop Kristen a note at phyle@caseyresearch.com and she'll help get you organized.
Just for laughs. Back in the day, I periodically used to have to suit up in coat and tie and wander through the canyons of Wall Street and other haunts of Corporate America where I would sit in endless meetings listening to oh-so smart people wax forth on things like strategic planning and "best practices." It did not take me long, even though I am a college drop-out, to ascertain that underneath the suits were just human beings. Conversant in the latest nomenclature and buzz words, yes, but human beings nonetheless. Someone kindly forwarded me the following video, which is funny - especially to those of you in the Southwest... but on one level, it is a bit close to the truth. Click here to view.
Favorite headline of the week: "Some homes worth less than their copper pipes"

And That, Dear Readers, Is That for This Week

I am now going to take advantage of the weather and the good company to wander the local golf links. I am fairly new to the sport, but enjoy learning it.

I usually close with a quick check of the markets, but I started so early this morning in order to rendezvous for the just mentioned game of golf, that the stock markets won't be open for another hour and a half.

Speaking of the stock market, you may have wondered why I made no mention of the new "Paulson Plan," but when you think of it, why bother? The final form of same will only really arrive after many months and endless political re-jiggering. In the end, the odds are good that the plan, if there even is one, will bear little resemblance to the current version being floated. Pay attention to the big trend, and the rest of this stuff is just noise.

And with that, I take my leave for a rare day of doing not much of anything at all.

Thank you for reading.

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room 3/31/08

David Galland — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:08:36 GMT

Dear Reader,

I am writing to you in the pre-dawn from a soft chair in a Starbucks in Scottsdale, a vast improvement over the small desk in the cluttered toy room that I usually write you from on Fridays. 16 inches from my left hand is a "vente" (in the Starbucks' nomenclature, that means super sized) Americano (four shots of espresso with a dash of water to hold them all together) that I will be consulting with throughout this correspondence. I do so in an attempt to sterilize the effects of a glass of wine or two too many following the close of what I felt was another excellent Crisis & Opportunity Summit.

For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of sterilization, at least as the word is used in the discussion of modern economics, a topic that occasionally slips into these paragraphs, I will elaborate. Sterilization refers to the notion that a central bank can, upon spotting a storm cloud gathering on the horizon, unleash a flood of loose money - the amount is almost irrelevant, as long as it is enough, in their studied opinion, to re-juice the economy and keep the consumers consuming. Then, once the danger is passed, the same central bankers simply cut the supply of money, thereby "sterilizing" the prior injection of cash before the ill and otherwise inevitable effect of price inflation kicks in.

It all seems so logical, this fundamental underpinning of fiat economics. Sense a threat - unleash money. Threat passed - tighten up.

Yet, as you may have noticed, it apparently doesn't work. At least if you use the value of the dollar as the metrics of success, the staunch defense of which is supposed to be job #1 of the Fed. If you are looking for further proof of that contention, your contemplations need extend only far enough to notice that the greenback has lost some 80% of its purchasing power since its link to gold was broken in 1971. There is another side effect of the flawed foundation of the fiat system, at least as it is pursued in the U.S., namely that American consumers, encouraged by the loose money to make a hefty dose of spending a part of their daily activities, are now up to their nostrils in debt and many are underwater.

Over the last day and a half here at the Summit we have heard much about these and other consequences of the government's failed jiggering of the economy and, in particular, the depth and breath of the current crisis. Regrettably, I don't have time to go into great detail in this week's edition, as attempting to do so would result in my missing the plane back home.

To move things right along, I'm going to take the short cut of inviting others to join me on the page. Starting with John, a subscriber who earns his daily soup by serving as a professional real estate appraiser in Northern California. John kindly agreed to candidly answer a series of questions we sent him in our attempt to get a clearer picture of what's going on behind the scenes and under the hood in the all important real estate market.

Real Estate, the Insider's Perspective

Before we get to John's interview, I'd like to share some observations on just one of the many great presentations held at this Summit, that delivered by Andy Miller, one of the most substantial real estate investors in these 50 states (for Andy, a typical day's labor might involve the buying or selling a hundred million dollars worth of real estate or loans connected with same). Andy accepted our invitation to Scottsdale to share his perspective on the outlook for real estate going forward. While Andy used far more sophisticated language than I, I will summarize his outlook as thus:

RUN FOR COVER!

To be more specific, his view on real estate - and remember, Andy is as "inside" as inside gets - is that we are nowhere near the bottom and that some segments, commercial and condos especially, are going to fall off a cliff.

While there is little in the way of specific actions you can take to invest for a short-term profit from this unfolding situation - mainly because the stocks of almost all the publicly-traded real estate firms have already been crushed - Andy does believe that as this crash occurs it will create the opportunity of a lifetime. If nothing else, in six months or a year down the road you should be able to pick up that dream condo on your favorite beach for an off-key song. As to when the market might bottom, Andy's take is that it all depends on the actions of the government. If it stands aside and lets the market take its righteous toll on the overextended mortgagees and those who hold those mortgages, then the worst of the damage could be over in a couple of years (at least that was my sense of the timing Andy suggested). However, if the government, as it is prone to do, rolls up its sleeves and sets about fixing the many dislocations in the real estate market, then, like the Japanese before us, the real estate fiasco and attendant damage could stretch out for a decade or more. Hot tip: watch the politicians carefully (always good advice, in my opinion, especially if you find yourself in a tightly packed elevator with one).

Another of Andy's many insightful comments was that you should not trust appraisals. That's because, as the bubble inflated, loan officers, looking to make as many loans as possible, and the bigger the better, naturally gravitated toward the most liberal appraisers. By contrast, the more cautious appraisers soon found themselves in an un-enviable position portrayed so convincingly by the MayTag Repairman: sitting at an uncluttered desk, staring forlornly at the silent phone.

As is human nature, a great many, if not most, of the appraisers swallowed their ethics, put away the textbooks they studied when learning their trade, and as a basis of their appraisals began to use the amount of money they felt would evoke a smile on the thin lips of the loan officers.

The task of over-inflating the values became increasingly easier as the "comparables" available to appraisers began to reflect the new reality. To wit, if the shack down the street actually sold for $650,000, then who could dispute that the lovely fixer-up, lacking only in a little TLC (read: "new plumbing") was worth $1,000,000?

Which brings us, finally, to our guest interview with John, a residential real estate appraiser in California. As he described himself in the correspondence leading up to our interview... "I've been appraising in California for 18 years, and deal with the gamut of lenders, borrowers and developers, and see every story, scheme, and scenario possible. I have lots of anecdotal stories and evidence, as well as research and conclusions, from the extremely overbuilt new tracts, where builders are still building—because they're committed—and competing against first generation foreclosures in their earlier phases, and losing money on every sale, to small projects dead in the water or upside down, to the very rural, to the very upscale still paying cash."

With that introduction, here is our interview...

1. Have you ever seen things in the real estate market this bad?

In terms of the all-around uncertainty and worry being felt by borrowers, lenders, buyers and sellers, nothing this bad.

I was in southern California in the mid-1990s downcycle. Things had gotten overheated there especially, but the decline was much more orderly, over maybe 3-5 years, than this one has been in just two or so. In retrospect it was a fairly normal and not surprising correction. People and borrowers got hurt and became wary, but there wasn't the pervasive worry about the bottom falling out. And it wasn't as widespread. That is, while most everyone lost value in their homes in the mid-1990's downturn, fewer people were as directly impacted or in such a critical situation. There wasn't nearly the breadth and depth of indebtedness then. Today there is a much higher percentage of borrowers with a much higher level of debt because, in this run up, so many people continually ran up debt and sucked out their equity.

The frenzy of borrowing and lending up until a year or so ago was far greater than that which led to the escalating prices, and subsequent correction, in the early to mid-1990s. I see instance after instance of someone with say a $300,000 loan taking out a second mortgage or an equity line for $50,000 a year later, followed by an all new mortgage that consolidates the previous two plus tacks on another $50,000. So now they've got a $400,000 loan. Ten months later they get another $60,000. And, in 2004 through 2006 especially, there was a lot of 100% financing, usually a first and a second mortgage, often with the same lender.

The downtrend is not as steady as the mid-90s. It goes in real fits and starts. In cases of some very overbuilt communities I've seen the bar lowered by $30,000 in a single month in a $300,000 to $400,000 neighborhood. It's usually caused by sellers -- often banks -- unloading after a period of waiting or stagnating sales. All of a sudden what was thought of as a competitive asking price is now overpriced by $30,000 or more.

[Ed Note: Andy Miller said the best time to buy properties, when the time is right, of course, is at the end of quarters when the institutional holders dump properties in an attempt to clean up their books.]

2. Are appraisers under any pressure to give rosy valuations?

Not as much at this time, because the lenders are more deeply affected and truly reigning in. Mortgage brokers, who don't fund their own loans, will still try to put some pressure on, but the lenders—the ones actually putting out the money—are saying "tell us what's really happening in the market." They want to know because they've got lots of exposure and want to know the real story. In fact, where before, in the 1990s downturn, FNMA and most lenders encouraged appraisers to call the market "stable" versus "declining" even if everyone knew they weren't stable, this time around they expect to see the declining box checked, unless you make a very convincing case that values are in fact stable (not too common here in California). So, at this point lenders are really tightening. So even the magic cure of lowering interest rates won't help much when lenders are increasingly risk averse.

3. When a property doesn't sell in two or three times the normal time span, why doesn't the seller face facts and slash the price?

I've seen some slashing, and some sellers chasing the price down, but always a step behind. What they'd settle for now, but can't quite get, they could've gotten last year when they were asking $60,000 more. Reductions are more frequent and often sizeable. It used to be that you'd see a token $5,000 reduction, more just to get your listing visible again. Now large reductions are common. This is especially true in the high-end and custom spec homes. Every contractor and contractor's brother was building a spec home, getting bolder in how big and fancy they'd build them. After all if you can make $60,000 on a 2,000 square foot $400,000-value home, why not build a 4,000 square foot home with all the bells and whistles...it'll cost more and take a little longer but the market's just going up anyway. I watched one 6500 sq ft very high quality spec home go from a $2.5M asking price a few months prior to completion in 2005, slowly down to $1.9M, then $1.6M and so on, eventually to $1,200,000. In the end it sold for around $1,150,000. The guy must have lost money because I'm sure that quality cost him close to $200/sf just to build, not to mention the land (probably $200,000+) and the enormous holding costs for 2-3 years.

The other sellers are, of course, banks, whose motivations vary greatly. I've seen a few put money and effort into a home and try to hold out for reasonably close to market value, but most often they want to get them off their books as quickly as possible. Sometimes they're competitive and sometimes they blow them out. I had one agent who handles REOs (Real Estate Owned) for several lenders tell me sometimes they'll get word to get two sold in the next two weeks. He said that a decision was made, for example, to clear 100 properties nationally off their books in the next 30 days, so that meant orders were going to Region A to unload 12, Region B to unload 15, etc.

He said it was sometimes the case of regulators requiring them to reduce their REO units. In one case, the agent reduced a small home on 5 acres with a 3600 sq ft barn with additional 2BR apartment from $569,000 to $400,000, overnight. It was contracted in three days, and closed a few weeks later for $392,000. Someone had paid $710,000 for it in 2005 with 90% or maybe 100% financing. In another case a lender was asking $325,000 and accepted a cash offer of $175,000. The house was dumpy but sound and livable, and reportedly not a major fixer. It was just not worth $325,000 and the bank was tired of looking at it, and took the offer. Until then nothing in a 3BR/2BA in that neighborhood went below $275,000 or $250,000. Of course these are exceptional cases, but the downward pressure is very real, and very intense still. There are many properties for sale, and buyers are wary, or waiting. Some sellers, those fortunate enough not to have to sell, pull out of the market. Those that have to sell usually have to reduce their expectations.

4. Are there sellers who have been in denial for months about what their property is worth but who are about to come out of denial and make a big cut in the price? Are there many of them?

See #3 above. Again, there are always those that must sell. And, there's another category that falls in between the regular homeowner and the bank. It's the owner/borrower who's in trouble and must sell, or lose the house. This is the "short sale" situation, where the borrower owes more than the property is worth, and is engaging the bank in the selling process to have them accept less than the outstanding loan balance. The bank is involved in negotiations and must approve the final sales price. They're fairly agreeable, because the alternative is going through the entire default process, sinking more time and money into it, and likely losing more. And here we're just speaking about the first mortgage (trust deed in California) holder. Often a second mortgage holder will lose their entire loan amount; after all why would they step in and pay off a first mortgage that alone is more than the value of the collateral?

5. How is the market for buildable lots? More depressed than for houses? How much more difficult has it become to get financing for a buildable lot?

The market for lots has completely dried up. In this area (semi-rural northern California) land was on fire for several years, as contractors bought up nice lots and not so nice lots to build homes on. For a while everything turned to gold. People were selling land held in the family for a long time (just like silverware in the late 70s!). Developers, many inexperienced, were getting in to subdivide land to make 4 parcels, 12 parcels, or whatever zoning allowed. But it is a long and expensive process.

The craze and demand peaked probably in 2005-2006, and I still see some of these projects just coming to market. People have spent two years, and more money than they expected, to get their golden little subdivision, all finalized and ready to go to market...and the market is not there. The demand is so low for unimproved land now, but I haven't yet seen the capitulation I expect. I've seen small and medium sized subdivision projects, which are completely upside down. A friend of mine owns a commercial appraisal firm and specializes in large subdivisions. He's been the bearer of bad news too. In the frenzy, national builders were buying farm land in the middle of nowhere, some two plus hours from metro areas, to create new subdivisions and planned communities. Many of the tracts and phases that never got built now have a residual value of less than zero! That is, taking the estimated value of a proposed completed house (times 20 or 200 or 2,000 depending on how big your plans were!) and backing out the cost to build the house and all your infrastructure, bond obligations, etc., the land is worth less than zero. Of course, it is worth something, but only to speculators willing to sit on it for a long time. There's a reason it was farm land in the middle of nowhere to begin with. Some can't even go back to farming because of zoning and general plan changes and new houses now adjacent. [A whole other topic is farmers selling water rights to new developments and municipalities, resulting in what is an increasing amount of fallow land that's apparently not farmable now. Lots of unintended consequences, and unfolding opportunities?] It's going to be very interesting to watch the market unfold.

6. Based on what you are observing, how much further do you think prices are going down?

My answer would have to be anywhere from "some" more, say 15-20%, should well grounded optimism magically set in before year-end, to a lot more, possibly 30-40%, should news and conditions (and perceptions) worsen and snowball, or there be some unexpected large macro event that shakes things up on top of the underlying situation.

This, of course, is the unknown and unexpected, but these things happen. It could be a natural disaster, a military showdown, somebody doing something big and stupid in the Middle East, political correctness of "Olympic" proportions (what if the Tibet situation goes south, Richard Gere and fans get half the world to boycott China this summer and cause them to lose face in an epic way, and they decide in turn to boycott our dollar...), or simply some confluence of events, in the US or elsewhere, that ratchets up fears and concerns here.

In other words, if the stars line up, and lots of things go well, or appear to go well, throughout 2008, things may stabilize with maybe only a 15% haircut, from here, in general real estate values in the US. To predict less than this just calls for too much precision with all the variables and uncertainty, unless you really believe the downturn is about over, which I don't see. Under current conditions 5-10% can potentially whiz by in a month or a quarter, and is really just noise, between commissions, negotiating skills, fear and uncertainty, and the varied motivations of both buyers and sellers.

On the other hand, if things continue along with the same pressures as I see now, we'll likely see drops of 15% to 20%. If conditions fail to improve in the next 6-18 months, or are exacerbated in some way, then I think we could see larger drops in value, and a more prolonged decline.

Of course, there are many markets and sub-markets throughout the country, and some are more volatile and some more insulated than others. There will be some exceptions and some extremes. In general, though, I believe we're in for some more decline.

7. How long do you think it will be before we see prices come back to the levels they were before the crash? Are we talking months, years or decades at this point? We know this is pure conjecture, but what is your gut feeling based on many year's experience?

That's a long way to go back up, especially since we're still going down at this point. I'd have to estimate as much as a generation, at least for the areas that are being most impacted. It got so overheated with lenders, buyers and borrowers making mutually terrible decisions. Everyone is going to be wary for a long time, especially because this became such a speculation-driven run up.

Besides lots of average homeowners forgetting common sense (and forgetting that even attractive loans still require repayment) and assuming (speculating) that values would keep going up, there sprang up a whole class of everyday people that became speculators, and actually went out and bought second and third homes to turn over. These were people who otherwise don't do real estate deals, because the market doesn't normally afford that kind of opportunity. There was a huge disconnect from what typically drives a real estate market. Most people probably won't go near real estate speculation again, will be careful in their future borrowing, and will be wary of buying more houses than they need and can afford. So, until they're no longer the primary buyers and owners of real estate, and their kids and grandkids stop taking their advice, we probably won't again have conditions that will lead to a rapid increase in values.

Of course, natural growth and demand do cause values to rise, but it could take 10-20 years of typical appreciation (1-3% per year in traditionally less volatile areas, to maybe 3-6% in more active markets like California, the East Coast and Florida) to cover the ground of 4-8 years of frenzy. And that will be after the current downturn stabilizes, meaning oversupplies are absorbed, foreclosure and defaults have run their course, indebtedness is at normal levels, and healthy market conditions are back in place. That in itself will probably be another year or two at best. It doesn't seem likely that the down cycle will last only 2-3 years, considering the last one lasted 3-6 years when the underlying problems were not as bad. To summarize, to get back to where we were at the peak, at least in the areas hit the hardest, we'll need the time it takes to stabilize, at least a year or two, and then, depending on where things do stabilize, likely a decade or two of healthy and typical appreciation.

David again... my sincere appreciation to John for taking the time to work with us on this interview. Correlating his remarks with those of Andy Miller, and taking into account the sheer magnitude and importance of the real estate markets to the U.S. economy, I think the picture painted is fairly bleak.

That said, per Andy, when this wildfire eventually runs its course, it will create the opportunity of a lifetime for investors who have avoided the worst of the losses and have their capital intact.

As an aside, if you are, like John, an insider in a business with experiences that you think other subscribers would like to hear about, drop me a line at david@caseyresearch.com.

Democracy Versus Republic

As you may have noticed, I am no big fan of the idea of democracy because, in time, democracy inevitably devolves into a fight - with votes - at the public trough. Today, over 51% of the populace of the U.S. are net recipients of money from the U.S. government (read: their fellow citizens).

But if not democracy, what? In my view, it is a republic... a form of government whereby the government is limited to specific functions and no more, and where rights are inviolate and not subject to tampering by whichever gang of powerseekers have captured the flag.

On this topic, one of the participants at the Summit wandered over to me to share the following illustration of the difference between the two forms of government:

In a democracy, two wolves and a sheep get together to decide who they are going to eat for lunch.

In a republic, eating the sheep would be outlawed.

Universal Health Care Anyone?

At this point, given the high cost of health care, the high levels of indebtness which makes those costs unbearable to so many Americans, and because changing the system is as easy as voting in the Democrats, it is my opinion that universal healthcare is a sure thing for the U.S.

Given my time constraints, a more detailed discussion of the wisdom of adopting this large-scale giveaway will have to wait. But I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that will give you a hint as to my general views on the topic.

The first came out of a newspaper I picked up on a recent trip to Canada. The first paragraph, about patients in Ontario, pulls back the peel on the rest of the story, and reads as follows:

"More than 400 Canadians in the full throes of a heart attack or other cardiac emergency have been sent to the United States because no hospital can provide the lifesaving care they require here."

In the same newspaper (the Globe & Mail if I recollect correctly), I also noticed large ads paid for by the Canadian government, couched in a pleading language, for doctors. Given the sheer volume of red tape and effective income restrictions doctors in that country are saddled with, it is no wonder so many of their best and brightest now practice their professions here in the U.S., and there are shortages up north.

My second anecdote comes from a fun service I subscribe to called "This is True" (thisistrue.net). Here it is...

"PLEASE HOLD: More than 43,000 patients had to wait outside in ambulances for at least an hour last year before they could be seen in Britain's National Health Service emergency rooms. Standards require that patients must been seen within four hours when they arrive at an emergency room, so when busy, patients must wait outside so the clock doesn't start ticking."

Who knows, maybe the government in the U.S. will learn its lessons from the various universal health care systems being employed around the world, and won't let politics or demands from constituents drive the creation of a system that destroys the few remaining positive aspects of the U.S. medical system... or beggars the country any more than it already is... but that is a long-shot hope at best.

Inflation? What Inflation?

Last week I shared the story of my mother's childhood residence, in Mont Clair, New Jersey, purchased in 1929 for $45,000, and sold below that price almost 20 years later.

My friend of long standing, Ian McAvity, the editor of Deliberations, an excellent service for those of you who lean toward technical analysis, dropped me an email with the following message.

David,

You might be amused that Zillow.com estimates the value of 10 Sutherland Road, Mont Clair, NJ at $1.24 million currently.

Ian

So, $45,000 to $1.24 million in about 63 years. But it is worse than that, because the former family homestead was, according to my mother, subdivided into a number of lots, so the actual current value of the property is likely closer to twice that value.

I said to my wife the other day, following an expensive meal, that I need to recalibrate how I think about money. Simply, $20 is no longer the $20 I remember from my youth, but is actually more like $2.00, or even $1.00.

Thus, a dinner bill of $200 for a family of four at a decent restaurant should not evoke a reaction such as "$200! This is ridiculous! How does anyone manage to survive these days, let alone save any money!".

Rather, recalibrating my sense of value to the brave new world whose air we now breathe, my reaction should, going forward, be nothing more than, "Nice dinner, and look, it was only $20."

A self-delusion, or the new reality? You decide.

Bearish Questions

Ed Steer, the hardworking contributing editor to our Daily Resource Plus, sent along an article from Reuters on the Bear Stearns buyout, which I thought you would find of interest. I certainly did. Here's an excerpt...

NEW YORK -- Stunned Bear Stearns shareholders who saw investments virtually wiped out overnight when a takeover deal with JPMorgan Chase was unveiled are demanding to know how it was put together in the first place.

For instance, they -- and Washington lawmakers -- want answers on how the deal was arranged, and gained government approval and financing, all in a few hours, and seemingly without alternative bidders being canvassed.

They also have a host of questions about the role of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department in engineering the emergency deal.

So far some crucial details remain murky.

"Under the circumstances, shareholders should be entitled to know just about everything," said James Melican, chairman of shareholder advisory firm Proxy Governance Inc., which is expected to make a recommendation to investors on whether the deal should be approved.

"There needs to be full disclosure of exactly what happened over the weekend," he said. Investors have "an absolute right to know whether there is any other alternative mechanism that could either keep Bear Stearns in business or at least have them get a more appropriate price for their shares."

Billions of dollars in shareholder value have been wiped away in the last week. Based on current market prices, the takeover is valued at $2.41 a share, a shockingly low offer compared with Bear's $159 stock price last April.

Another highly unusual aspect of the deal is the way JPMorgan Chase & Co. has been allowed into the Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. to provide "management oversight of its operations."

If shareholders were to reject the JPMorgan offer, JPMorgan still would have been in a position to understand everything about Bear's trading strategies, staff quality and assets.

JPMorgan even has an option to buy the Bear Stearns' building if the deal collapses.

Congress also wants answers, particularly on the involvement of the Federal Reserve in pushing the deal, which came as Bear Stearns faced a sudden cash crunch and possible collapse. In an unusual move, the Fed agreed to lend $30 billion to fund illiquid Bear Stearns assets to help seal the takeover.

Among the unanswered questions are:

-- Were other parties asked to bid on Bear Stearns, or did the government solely approach JPMorgan about the takeover?

-- Were any overseas banks or private equity firms asked to consider a bid, or did the buyer have to be a large U.S. bank?

-- How did the Federal Reserve arrive at the $30 billion figure and did it discuss with Bear whether it was preferable to arrive at a quick sale or explore a bankruptcy filing?

-- How could due diligence be done and the deal approved in the space of a few frantic hours on Sunday?

-- And how can a party taking over another be allowed to run the target before the deal has gone through?

With so many unknowns, the Senate Finance Committee is reviewing the sale and particularly what implications it may have for taxpayers. On Thursday afternoon the committee's top Republican, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, said he wanted details of the Fed's financial support of the deal, as well as how Bear insiders were being treated under the buyout.

In the House of Representatives, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also wants to know more. The committee is conducting a "preliminary review" of the deal, an aide to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, who chairs the panel, said on Thursday.

A decision on whether to launch a more formal investigation or to hold committee hearings could take several weeks, said the aide, who declined to be identified. The aide added that the Bear Stearns developments dovetailed with separate hearings that Waxman's committee has conducted on compensation packages for top executives at troubled firms.

Here's a link to the full article.

And That Is It For This Week...

As usual, I have so much more I would like to discuss. But unusually, I have almost no time to dive in further.

I will leave off, however, by saying that I was pleasantly surprised while idly looking through a discarded copy of USA Today, while waiting for yet another jolt of caffeine to be delivered, to find the front page article of the Life Section of that publication dedicated to a glowing discussion of the town of Cafayate and the surrounding wine country, where my own favorite partner of all times is building out his own version of Galt's Gulch. (You can view more at www.cafayateliving.com).

Doug has always had a spectacular eye for moving into the right real estate markets at the right time, and it looks like he's done it again.

In any event, it is time to wrap these weekly musings and rush madly for the airport. Next week I will be writing from the forebodingly named Jekyll Island, Georgia, where Doug and I will be spending a few days in good company further pondering the world as we know it.

Until then, thank you for reading and for subscribing. And a special tip of the hat to all of you who attended our Summit. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, our subscribers are a remarkably philosophically sound and interesting lot. It is always a pleasure to spend time with you, and the Scottsdale Summit was no exception.

Very sincerely,

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.

The Room 3/24/08

David Galland — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:56 GMT

Dear Reader,

It used to be of no little pride in the small New England town where Casey Research is headquartered that school went forward, no matter the weather. Hail, 8-foot-high snow drifts, ice rain and, should they have occurred hereabouts (which they didn't), I am fairly sure that even hurricanes and tornadoes would not have kept the school administration from its daily labors in the brainwashing of innocent youth.

That all changed when, earlier this winter, a school bus missed the turn on a gently sloping hill and rolled onto its side, fortunately causing no serious injuries (for some reason, which continues to baffle me, the police will stop and ticket you for driving without a seat belt, yet school buses are systematically unequipped with same).

The accident, no doubt, made the school officialdom aware of some previously unexamined legal consequence because the school now delays the morning opening or closes down tight on what appears to me to be so much as a semi-reliable report that a single threatening snowflake has been observed in the general vicinity.

And so it is that, with a modest snowfall in process, the kids are home again today, lounging about and, because it is Friday when I write from home, crowding me out of my office (which counter-intuitively also serves as their toy room). Which leaves me to write to you from a couch upstairs, with stern instructions to the kids that while I may appear to be in residence, they should assume I am a figment of their youthful imaginations until I have finished writing this weekly epistle.

While it is typically with a good deal of pleasure that I sit down to reminisce about the action of the week just ending, this week again, the volume of news coupled with the magnitude of that news makes the task daunting. But no amount of dithering will make the task go away, so here we go.

"Commodities Drop, Rally in Dollar, Stocks Vindicate Bernanke"

That headline is not mine, it is from Bloomberg this morning. Bloomberg's enthusiasm is based, as hard as I find it to believe, on little more than that the Fed cut the rate it charges banks to borrow by "just" 75 basis points this week, and that the stock market rallied, then fell, then rallied again in response.

The herd was, apparently, expecting 1%. Further, not only were they expecting this, they were mentally prepared to accept a 1% cut as a sign that the economy remained in dire straits and that, as a result, the Fed would have to continue its loose money policy. According to the punditry, a 75 bps cut indicates that Bernanke and Co. have drawn a line in the sand, signaling they were going to be restrained in their approach to the crisis now stalking the land. Further, this show of confidence portends that the worst of the crisis is nearly behind us.

Ready to push the trigger to buy more commodities on a 1% rate cut, the market instead rushed into buy stocks and sell commodities... then changed its mind and sold stocks and commodities... then bought stocks again, but still sold commodities.

Gold, silver, oil, grain... you name it, if it shows up under the heading Commodities in the back of your favorite paper, then it got hit.

But of course, there was a whole lot more going on this week. We'll come back to the commodities momentarily. First, however, we need to walk up a few floors to get a better view of the bigger picture.

Problem Solved?

Now, you will excuse me if I seem a touch skeptical, but I can't help but notice that short of climbing aboard helicopters rigged to carry pallets of dollars, the Fed is now doing exactly what we have been expecting it to: provide all the liquidity it can muster using its near mystical powers of money creation.

In addition to yet another deep cut in the Fed Funds rate, they are now making the almost unprecedented move (at least since the Great Depression) of lending money to non-commercial banks, in the process effectively putting taxpayers on the hook for $30 billion in suspect collateral from Bear Stearns.

And that's just one of many moves of late, including cutting discount rates by a total of 1%, to 2.5% over the past week alone, and opening up new lending facilities that allow the investment banks to borrow directly from the Fed using as collateral the same sort of suspect paper that brought down Bear.

Playing their part, three of the biggest investment banks, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and, importantly, Lehman, announced that they were going to access this new lending facility, whether they need to or not, in order to remove the "stigma" (their term) of stepping up to the window, so to speak.

Give that some thought for a second. What they were saying for all the world to hear was that they were going to engage in what is effectively an institutional shell game... a deliberate attempt to obfuscate which of the banks are actually in trouble. As a shareholder in one of these companies, you won't have any idea whether your bank is accessing this emergency facility because it is, in fact, in trouble.

Given the estimates that the assets being carried as capital on the books of Bear Stearns were worth only 10% of what was being posted, and the herd-like business practices of the big investment houses, the odds are fairly high that Bear Stearns is not the only institution teetering on the brink.

Yet this week investors seemed to actually buy the idea that the worst is now over, and that the all-clear signal will soon be sounded.

What to believe? Whom to believe? Could the Fed have finally figured out the right combination to re-open the safe of prosperity? And what of the commodities, especially gold?

This week I have received a larger than usual amount of incoming emails presenting all sorts of theories. Some have it that JPMorgan, the world's largest bullion bank, was in real trouble with shorts on gold and had been buying the metal back, helping to fuel its meteoric rise of late, but that the liquidity provided by the Fed has now taken the pressure off and allowed them to stop or slow their buying (our own Bud Conrad has been looking into this notion, but so far has uncovered no solid proof).

As for the financial sector and, by extension the rest of the market, we can't know for sure what's going on behind the scenes, because the government and the big banks are playing it very close to the vest. But we can, from our higher perch, try to sort the unknown from the known, and start with the latter.

This week we had a major bank failure (as predicted many months ago by Bud). Despite Jim Cramer's firm belief in the firm, Bear Stearns, the fifth largest U.S. investment bank and a firm tightly connected as a counter party to hundreds of billions in derivative agreements, suffered a good old-fashioned meltdown.
We know that the share price of Bear Stearns has fallen from over $150 last year to as low as $2.00, and what is left of the firm is now being sucked into JPMorgan, but only because the Fed has agreed to stand behind the deal to the tune of $30 billion, an intervention the likes of which was last witnessed in the Great Depression.
We also know that the vultures were starting to circle Lehman, another member of the big five U.S. investment banks. Absent the Fed's aggressive intervention, the odds were fairly high they would have been next to get hit with the equivalent of a run. This is why the Treasury and the Fed worked so hard to get the Bear Stearns deal cobbled together over a single weekend, before the markets reopened and Mr. Market could recommence beserking. From where I sit, it appears that we came within hours of seeing another of the nation's largest financial institutions crash, potentially taking down the whole house of cards.
And we know the Fed dropped the Fed Funds rate by 0.75, only the second time in the last decade that it has cut rates by an amount that large.

We know some other things as well. For instance, that commodities have been on the equivalent of a one-way-up escalator in recent months. And we know that no market goes in only one direction for any sustained period of time, and so a correction was inevitable. Gold, oil, the grains... they all had to take a breather. And so they have.

But Let's Try to Keep This All in Perspective...

What has actually occurred over the last month, between February 21 and March 20?

	Gold	Silver	Copper	Oil	Bear Stearns	JPMorgan	Lehman
21-Feb-08	$945.00	$17.98	$3.77	$98.39	$82.23	$43.07	$54.14
20-Mar-08	$925.75	$17.53	$3.62	$104.49	$5.96	$45.97	$48.65
Gain or Loss	-2.0%	-2.5%	-4.1%	6.2%	-92.8%	6.7%	-10.1%

Okay, so gold and silver are off a little, copper a bit more, oil is still up, Bear Stearns is a smoking hole in the ground, JPMorgan is up a bit, and Lehman is down 10%. Other than Bear Stearns and, to a lesser degree, Lehman, I'm not seeing anything so earth shattering. (Sure, gold recently took a high dive off the $1,000 per ounce mark... but it is still over $900, a level that not one in ten thousand investors, if asked a year ago, would have expected it to trade at. And oil over $100? Forget about it.)

There are a few more things we know. For instance, that consumers are debt strapped and the housing bubble has burst and is deflating rapidly. And that falling home prices are wiping out the net worth, discretionary spending power and positive sentiment of the U.S. consumer who has, heretofore, shown a seemingly unlimited willingness to go into debt up to their eyeballs to keep the world economy afloat. That is now changing.

We also have proof, if proof was needed, that the government will do whatever it takes to avoid a meltdown. While they are shoving the walnut shells around so fast that it's hard to figure out where the pea is these days, what is increasingly clear is that there is only one real plan at this point: to apply as many billions of dollars as they feel is necessary to keep the ship of state afloat.

And while some might like to think that the country is not in a recession, at this point I am going to put it down as fact that a recession is now underway and that we need to be worried about it becoming much uglier than that.

Blame it on Smokey the Bear

A good way to understand both the degree and the nature of the current crisis is to look at the state of the nation's western forests. Before the 1940s, forest fires were allowed to run their course, just as they had over the millennia. But then the government adopted a policy to fight every fire, a battle epitomized by the introduction of the iconic Smokey the Bear. What has happened since is a massive build-up in the fire risk in federally managed forests.

The following is from a CATO Institute document on the topic...

Since the advent of the Smokey Bear era in the 1940s, tree density in federal forests has increased from 50 per acre to as much as 300 to 500 per acre. Federal forests are filled with dense stands of small, stressed trees and plants that combine with dry deadwood to provide virtual kindling wood for forest fires.

According to Forest Service statistics, some two-thirds of federally held forested lands are in deteriorating health.

The consequence of governmental meddling in the forest is that when a fire now breaks out, it is exponentially larger, more dangerous and more expensive to fight. Nationwide, the forested area now at extreme risk is equal to an area about the size of the state of California.

One of these days, and probably sooner rather than later, there will be a forest fire of biblical proportions... and Smokey's real-life brethren, along with houses and all that moves or doesn't, will go up in smoke.

Similarly, by continuously tampering with the business cycle, the government has led us to the point where the dried underbrush is piled high and just waiting for a match. The Fed was able to throw a quick tanker load of water onto the Bear Stearns fire... but that doesn't mean we are anywhere near out of the woods. (Don't you just love it when your metaphors snap so nicely in line? I sure do!)

Which Brings Up an Interesting Question

Given virtually unlimited power, including the ability to create money out of nothing, or to change any rule or law or convention, bend any arm, or ban or hinder trading in any commodity... just how much power can the U.S. government apply to the problems now besetting our economy and, by extension, the world?

Or, looked at from the reverse angle, given its unlimited power, is there any way Paulson, Bernanke, et al can fail to stabilize things?

It is an interesting discussion, and one that requires more analysis and data than I'm in a position to provide sitting here on my couch on a Friday morning. (We will go into it in more detail in a special report on the crisis that is being worked up for paid subscribers, and which should be issued following our Scottsdale Crisis & Opportunity Summit next week.)

I will, however, comment just a bit further.

Let's start with the proposition that the government has absolute power, which is largely the case these days, especially because the populace is so numb to large numbers that outrage at the beggaring of future generations no longer seems to be of any concern to anyone.

So, the Fed can effectively pump out all the money it needs to "get her done" and if that doesn't do it, then the Treasury can step back in. This approach, from a policy maker's perspective, is quite attractive because it essentially papers over the problem. Look at it this way. If housing prices fall, on average, 20% nationwide, but the currency depreciates at the same level, then housing weakness would be masked... ditto 20% of stock market losses. In case that point is not clear, look at it like this. If your house is worth $100,000 and it loses 20%, its value would fall to $80,000. But if the dollar was to simultaneously lose 20%, then the price of the house would remain $100,000. The average person would be clueless they have just taken a 20% haircut. Pretty cool, eh?

Unfortunately for the government, there are natural limits to everything. In this case, the most immediate threat to this plan resides in the trillions of dollars held by foreigners.

In recent decades these foreigners, trading partners mostly, have been willing to swap our inflation in exchange for market share within the U.S., the greatest consumption engine on the planet (as an FYI, the eurozone just surpassed us).

But that inflation is beginning to be felt back home: in China, in the Middle East, Russia and everywhere between. At some point, the pain, and the realization that inflation in the U.S. is only going to get worse, is very likely to make these dollar holders get serious about breaking their links with the dollar, and dumping the trillions they now hold.

And while U.S. consumers are well aware that everything costs more these days, no matter what the jury-rigged CPI tells them, it is when the foreigners start repatriating our dollars that the real pain of inflation will begin. At that point, the fire starts in earnest.

I call this the Point of Mugabe, named in honor, of course, of Robert Mugabe, the supreme overlord of Zimbabwe. A dictator with absolute power in all matters, Mugabe's maladministration of his country's economy has finally reached the point where today, as much as he dictates against it, inflation runs in excess of 100,000% annually. While the sheeple of that country seem either particularly stupid, beaten down or tolerant, sooner rather than later Mr. Mugabe's ridiculous regime will come to an end, and probably not in a manner that he will find personally pleasant.

In the final analysis, I remain convinced that the praise of Bernanke et al based on their extreme actions this past week will find its way into the history books along with quotes such as these...

"The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most." --Irving Fisher, November 1929

"I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress." --Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, December 1929

And, of course, my favorite recent example... Jim Cramer's rant that people should not take their money out of Bear Stearns, just a day before that firm collapsed. You can watch history in the making by clicking here.

We'll have a lot more on this topic in our upcoming special update report on the crisis, which will be sent to all paid subscribers the week after next.

What's Coming

In my reading for the above, I came across the September 2007 edition of the International Speculator and its lead article, Preparing for Crisis . I thought the following excerpt was worth sharing, not just because it shows how spot-on Bud Conrad, the chief economist of this operation, has been in forecasting the specifics of the unfolding crisis, but because it is still as useful today as then in understanding how things are likely to keep rolling out (the full article has much more detail, well worth reviewing). Here's the excerpt.

The credit crisis will not end soon. Here's what we think is coming.

More Defaults. The bulk of the subprime loans are adjustable rate mortgages. The continuing reset of up to $50 billion per month of subprime ARMs will keep mortgage defaults growing, which will keep home prices falling, which means that more of the defaults will turn into unrecoverable losses for the investors holding the paper. The hedge funds that haven't thrown in the towel on subprime mortgages will collapse one by one.
The economy will slow down. Lending to risky customers has dried up. Earnings of most corporations will slide because consumers, who can no longer turn to home equity loans and whose credit cards are already maxed out, will cut spending. The mounting losses in CDOs and the continuing defaults in the housing industry will precipitate a severe credit crunch. The capital of many banks is about to shrink, which will hamper their ability to lend.
Stocks will fall. The next phase down in the stock market will come from reduced earnings estimates for 2008. We could see an auto company or a big bank announce insolvency. Fear, and then the fear of fear itself, and the fear of being the last one out the door will take over. Big, 300 or 400 point moves - mostly down - will become regular events. People have forgotten, but they are going to be reminded, that stocks have, until fairly recently in history, normally yielded about twice as much as bonds, simply because they're riskier.
Dollar down. While U.S. citizens are looking to build cash - another source of pressure on spending and investment - few foreigners now want U.S. dollars or dollar-denominated debt. After the failure of large U.S. institutions begins and the Fed turns the printing presses on full blast in an attempt to keep liquidity in the system, flight to safety will mean a flight from the dollar. How fast they will print is hard to guess. They've already started, but will probably panic as the economy slows, and then turn the presses to high. The dollar will fall in purchasing power. Interest rates will rise across the board, with low-quality paper hurt the worst.

If you are not yet receiving the International Speculator, now is a great time to sign up. With the 3-month risk-free guarantee, you can take a leisurely look at the publication to see if it's right for you. Check it out.

Show Me the Money!

This week we have, as you'd expect given gold's steep plunge, received some email wondering when the junior gold stocks we tend to favor in the International Speculator (among other investments that we feel are appropriate to the current environment) will pick themselves off the mat and get on with the business of making serious money.

This is, of course, a topic I have discussed at some length recently, so I won't go into the topic much again here (look back over the past couple of issues, using the archive link below).

But I will say, again, that I remain convinced that the next big move in the junior explorers is still ahead, and will come as the big gold stocks once again confirm the new reality that they are becoming cash machines. And they begin using their newly beefed-up balance sheets to acquire the deposits needed to replenish their depleting reserves. If you keep selling ounces without replacing them, in time, you are nothing but a shell... and so replacing reserves is a business dictate.

On that front, Barrick just announced that it will spend $10 billion to acquire new mines and resources over the next little while. You can read the story here:

And there's this. This week, PricewaterhouseCoopers released its Mining Deals 2007 Annual Review... which, among other prognostications reported on in an article on same by the folks at MineWeb, included these...

"2008 looks set to see mining deals reach very high record levels as super-consolidation takes place in the market."

Despite the credit crunch, the report finds "little evidence of a slowdown in [mining] deal activity."

"Underpinning these trends is the quest for world scale, resource acquisition and resource diversification," the analysts asserted.

The study noted that exploration costs are at all-time highs, permitting takes longer, and mining companies are facing skills' shortages. "These are significant barriers to meeting what is a major upturn in world demand."

(read the full MineWeb article on the topic by clicking here.)

This is all just the tip of the iceberg if you ask me, and it bodes very, very well for the juniors that are already sitting on a discovery. Yes, it is frustrating that some of our favorites have fallen with the broader markets lately... but this is a sector you need to be patient with.

On that topic, yesterday someone asked me if our subscribers were early adopters. And, after a moment's thought, I answered, "Yes. They are looking to get in early on a trend, and in investments that will provide far bigger returns than average."

Early adopters, however, have to possess both patience and a tolerance for risk. If not, then you may be invested in the right sector, but with the wrong temperament... a recipe for disaster. To wit, you won't have the emotional staying power to get you through the inevitable down swings and so you will invariably sell at exactly the wrong time, on a big setback. By contrast, an individual with the right temperament will continually look to buy under the market and, when that corner of their portfolio dedicated to the quality gold juniors is topped off, will look to continually upgrade at lower prices. Because they won't be chased out by the volatility, they'll still be there to collect the big profits as the endgame unfolds.

This is also why investing only with money you can afford to lose and still sleep well is so important. It assures you don't get over-emotional and greatly improves your odds of staying the course. And in the worst case that we are wrong and these stocks only head down to more or less a total wipeout, you might be discomforted, but you won't be put out of the house.

I guess what I am saying is that we have never made any bones about the volatile nature of these stocks. Please be clear on why you are buying them, and don't kid yourself into thinking they couldn't go down 50% even from here. They can. But we wouldn't be recommending them, or investing in them ourselves, if we didn't think this was a play that will blow the doors off almost any other investment you could be making just now.

Energy Chart of the Week

Public displays of hand wringing over America's dependence on foreign oil have become very popular, but little attention has been paid to how natural gas imports fit into the U.S. energy equation.

[click to enlarge]

Twenty years ago, the United States' natural gas production met nearly all domestic demand, but that is changing - and quickly.

The current situation is nowhere near as dire as America's predicament with oil supplies, of which 60% come from net imports. But the trend of imports making up a greater share of consumption is accelerating at a more rapid pace for "natty" than it is with crude oil. From 1985 to 2007, America's reliance on crude oil imports doubled, but its reliance on natural gas imports has nearly quadrupled.

Because the vast majority of natural gas imports come from Canada - normally considered a safe source of supply - little fuss has been made. If America has to buy more natural gas from its neighbor to the north, what's the big deal? They've been a steady supplier in the past, and it's not the sort of place where rebels run amuck blowing up pipelines, disrupting the supply chain (as has been the case in Mexico).

Under NAFTA's proportionality clause, Canada is bound to send 60% of its natural gas to the United States. The problem is that Canada's natural gas production is declining. Making a bad situation worse, the tar sands require huge amounts of natural gas to ramp up their heavy oil operations. Canadian winters aren't getting any warmer either, which - coupled with a growing population - has meant steady growth in Canada's natural gas consumption.

At recent debates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been arguing over who would be most qualified to tear up the NAFTA agreement. Lost in this storm of campaign rhetoric was Canada's response. "You might not want to renegotiate NAFTA if you knew how badly you need that oil and gas" was the message from Jim Flaherty, Canada's finance minister. The Canadian government would jump at any chance to wiggle out of NAFTA's proportionality clause, and a Democratic president might give them the opportunity.

The good news is that natural gas imports no longer arrive solely via the pipeline; they also arrive by ship through the emerging global market in liquefied natural gas (LNG). So the United States is not restricted to Canada when looking for natural gas supply, as it was even just twenty years ago. The bad news is that many of the biggest suppliers of LNG are located in the Middle East and Russia - precisely the regions that America wants to become less reliant on for its future energy needs.

[Ed. Note: Over coffee early this morning, I re-read the latest edition of the Casey Energy Speculator. In addition to a number of other excellent articles, it included a fascinating article on "run of river" energy projects, a "green" energy technology that has tremendous upside. It produces power from rivers, without damming them, and with relatively minor disturbance to the environment. The article includes two recommendations, one low risk, one high risk. If you are not yet a subscriber, learn more about giving it a trial run. ]

China Still Is Selling Us More and More

Bud Conrad took a break from his preparations for our sold-out Scottsdale Summit to send over the following chart he thought you would find of interest.

[click to enlarge]

There are a couple of take-aways from that chart, but the one that pops out at me is that it is a picture of American manufacturing being shipped overseas. As a result, while there is no question that a weakening dollar will help American manufacturers, the fact that their ranks have been reduced to such a degree, will likely mute the benefits.

Real Estate, Real Trouble

I ran into the mother of a close friend and a former partner at the store the other day. I don't think I would be exaggerating if I said she was the powerhouse real estate broker here in the resort town that is the headquarters of Casey Research. She is the quintessential über-agent, "can do," "get it done" and "never say die" kind of individual. Always an upbeat word about the local market and tough as nails, when needs to be, to get the sale. Yet, in our check-out conversation she made no bones about the fact that her views on the local real estate market are far less positive these days. In fact, her words were along the lines of, "I don't think that house prices are going to come back for another decade."

In a discussion on the topic of real estate with my mother, who holds down the family fort on the Big Island of Hawaii, she related a tale that I had heard before, but thought relevant to the current market, and so asked her to write down the facts of the case. Here they are:

"Grandpa bought a large house in August of 1929. The address was 10 Sutherland Road, Montclair, N.J. The price was about $45,000. He finally sold it for slightly less in 1945 after trying for years. I have an excellent photo of the house but can't send it until later today when (and if) I manage to reinstall another all-in-one with scanner. Love, Mom"

Could real estate really go down and stay down for 20 years? As hard as it seems to imagine, the answer is yes. This is a topic I'll have more on next week, when I share an interview with one of your fellow subscribers who is a professional real estate appraiser of many years and great experience from Northern California.

And That, Dear Readers, Is It for this Week...

I'm off tomorrow to our Scottsdale Summit. Next week's edition, written on the fly (literally) will likely be a bit reduced. The U.S. stock market is closed for Easter, but I can't even begin to imagine what thrills and chills it has for us next week.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

As always, thank you for taking time to read these hastily assembled thoughts... and, of course, for subscribing.

Warm regards,

David Galland
Managing Director
Casey Research, LLC.