Wednesday, June 6, 2012

How Bad Is the Labor Market

From David Rosenberg:
One Sick Labor Market
There were so many disturbing elements to the May jobs data that we're not sure we can do justice to the litany of disappointments (with some help from our friends at the Investor's Business Daily):

  • The share of long-term unemployment is at its highest level since the Great Depression (42%).
  • Fully 54% of college degree graduates under the age of 25 are either unemployed or underemployed.
  • 45 million Americans are on food stamps — one in seven residents.
  • 47% of Americans are on some form of government assistance.
  • The employment-to-population ratio for 25-54 year olds is now 75.7%, lower than it was when the recession supposedly ended in June 2009.
  • The number of people not in the labour force has swelled eight million since the recession ended; absent that effect, the unemployment rate would be 12% right now (about the same as President Obama's election chances would be).
  • The number of people confident enough to leave their jobs fell 11% in May
    for the second month in a row to 891k, the lowest since November 2010.
  • The ranks of the unemployed who have been looking fruitlessly for work for at least 27 weeks jumped 310k in May, the sharpest increase since May 2011.
  • The unemployment rate for males aged 16-19 is 27% and for males between 20 and 24 it is 13%. Draw your own conclusions from a social (in)stability standpoint.
  • One in seven Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.
  • Only one in six of the youth are working full-time and three-in-five are living with their folks or another relative (as per the NYT).
  • A mere 16% of the 2009-2011 graduating class has found full-time work, while 22% are working part-time. Even those hired from 2006-08, just 23% are working full-time.
  • According to a poll cited in the NYT, just 14% of high-school grads today believe they will have a more successful financial future than their parents Line of the day, as depressing as it is, comes from an 18-year old: "Thank God I had a buddy at Burger King who could help me out". Fast-food has emerged as the fast-growing industry in a country once led by technology. Even tech now is fuelled more by companies that produce nifty consumer gadgets and feed our narcissistic needs than those who focus on improving the nation's capital stock which is the ultimate trailblazer for productivity growth and durable gains in our standard-of-living.

Fed Begins New Round of Quantitative Easing (Destroying the Currency)

"...contrary to what purists may believe, the only way to inflate away unsustainable debt in a growth-free economy is by destroying the currency" Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Hussman Renews Recession Warning

"I expect that the U.S. economy is presently entering a recession, which is global in nature. It is unlikely to respond meaningfully to monetary stimulus, which has already gone well past the point of diminishing returns, and on to the point of recklessness.
"At present yields, a further round of QE would essentially amount to fiscal policy, subsidizing bond market speculators and banks, and ultimately producing near-certain losses for the Fed, after interest, and at public expense." John Hussman, Ph.D.

Spain Loses Market Access

I'm surprised stocks aren't down more, but I think there is a growing expectation of more QE and greater faith than there should be in its benefits. Here is the headline from WSJ:

In the longer run, over the course of the next few months, I expect that this will only get much worse. We have much further to go in this debt crisis.

China's Economy Falters

from Bloomberg:
"Bad tidings for manufacturing and services, and weakening consumer confidence: China sure packed a lot of disappointing economic news into just a few days. And it’s certain to strengthen recent calls in China for renewed stimulus measures, including through rapid approvals of new infrastructure projects and more credit easing."

But stocks are shaking off the news, beginning to ally this morning. 

Saturday, June 2, 2012

World Bank Warning


Friday, June 1, 2012

Stocks Close Below 200-Day MA

There was no relief to be found anywhere today. ISM manufacturing data disappointed in addition to a disappointing jobs report. Europe fared no better:

Awful Jobs Report

Compare this chart to the one I posted earlier this morning. Awful!


Stocks Seek Support at Jan 30th Lows

It looks like we are poised to break through the lows of January 30th shown by the olive-colored line in the chart below. Next support level would be from December of last year. Stocks are not looking good!


Eurocalypse


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Real Estate Pending Home Sales Collapse 5.5%

A 5 am head fake "rumor ramp" in Europe, was followed by this:

Pending home sales fell 5.5 percent in April, reversing a 3.8 percent gain logged in March, new data out of the National Association of Realtors shows.

The NAR also revised last month's gain 30 basis points lower, from an earlier estimate of a 4.1 percent increase.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Mauldin: State of Global Economy

Meanwhile, Back At the Ranch

It is simply hard to tear your eyes away from the slow-motion train wreck that is Europe. Historians will be writing about this moment in time for centuries, and with an ever-present media we see it unfold before our eyes. And yes, we need to tear our gaze away from Europe and look around at what is happening in the rest of the world. There is about to be an eerily near-simultaneous ending to the quantitative easing by the four major central banks while global growth is slowing down. And so, while the future of Europe is up for grabs, the true danger to global markets and growth may be elsewhere. But, let’s do start with the seemingly obligatory tour of Europe.

What If California Were Greece?

David Zervos is the managing director and chief market strategist of Jefferies and Company. He is an astute observer of Europe and brings a very interesting perspective to the trade, with his Greek heritage. I got an email this morning from him that I wish I had written. It is hard for many of us in the US to understand just how deeply flawed the structure of the European Monetary Union is (as opposed to the actual political union which, for all its flaws, seems to work quite well). David came up with a very fun analogy that makes the problem readily apparent. What if California behaved like Greece and the rest of the US was asked to pay for its debts and other obligations? What would ensue? So, rather than paraphrase what is already a very solid if short essay, let’s turn to David:

The Separation of Bank and State

“The euro monetary system is flawed. It is a system that was cobbled together for political purposes; and sadly it was set up in such a way that each member state retained significant sovereign powers – most importantly the ability to exit the system and default on debts in times of stress. There is virtually NO federal power in the Union, as witnessed by the complete breakdown of the Maastrict and Lisbon treaties. In fact, what we are seeing today is that the structure of the monetary system is so poorly designed, it actually creates perverse fiscal linkages across member states that incentivize strategic default and exit. Our new leader of the Greek revolt, Mr CHEpras, has figured this one out. And in turn he is holding Angie hostage as we head into June 17th!
[JFM note: CHEpras is David’s tongue-in-cheek name for the 37-year-old leader of the Syriza Party, Alexis Tsipras, whose rhetoric does indeed resemble Che Guevara’s from time to time.]
“To better understand these flaws in the Eurosystem, let's assume the European monetary system was in place in the US. And then imagine that a US ‘member state’ were to head towards a bankruptcy or a restructuring of its debts – for example, California.
“So let's suppose California promised its citizens huge pensions, free health care, all-you can-eat baklava at beachside state parks, subsidized education, retirement at age 45, all-you-can-drink ouzo in town squares, and paid 2-week vacations during retirement. And let’s assume the authorities never come after anyone who doesn’t pay property, sales, or income taxes.
“Now it's probably safe to further assume that the suckers who bought California state and municipal debt in the past (because it had a zero risk weight) would quickly figure out that the state’s finances were unsustainable. In turn, these investors would dump the debt and crash the system.
“So what would happen next in our US member-state financial crisis? Well, the governor of California would head to the US Congress to ask for money – a bailout. Although there is a ‘no-bailout’ clause in the US Constitution, it would be overrun by political forces, as California would be deemed systemically important. The bailout would be granted and future reforms would be exchanged for current cash. The other states would not want to pay unless California reformed its profligate policies. But the prospect of no free baklava and ouzo would then send Californians into the streets, and rioting and looting would ensue.
“Next, the reforms agreed by the Governor fail to pass the state legislature. And as the bailout money slows to a trickle, the fed-up Californians elect a militant left-wing radical, Alexis (aka Alec) Baldwin, to lead them out of the mess!
“When Alexis takes office, US officials in DC get very worried. They cut off all California banks from funding at the Fed. But luckily, the "Central Bank of California" has an Emergency Liquidity Assistance Program. This gives the member-state central bank access to uncollaterized lending from the Fed – and the dollars and the ouzo keep flowing. But the Central Bank of California starts to run a huge deficit with the other US regional central banks in the Fed's Target2 system. As the crisis deepens, retail depositors begin to question the credit quality of California banks; and everyone starts to worry that the Fed might turn off the ELA for the Central Bank of California.
“Californians worry that their banks will not be able to access dollars, so they start to pull their funds and send them to internet banks based in ‘safe’ shale-gas towns up in North Dakota. Because, in this imaginary world, there is no FDIC insurance and resolution authority (just as in Europe), the California banks can only go to the Central Bank of California for dollars, and it obligingly continues to lend dollars to an insolvent banking system to pay out depositors. In order to reassure depositors, California announces a deposit-guarantee program; but with the state's credit rating at CCC, the guarantee does nothing to stem the deposit outflow.
“In this nightmare monetary scenario, with the other regional central banks, ELA, and Target2 unable to stop the bleeding – and no FDIC – the prospect of a California default FORCES a nationwide bank default. The banks automatically fall when the state plunges into financial turmoil, because of the built-in financial structure. A bank run is the only way to get to equilibrium in this system.
“There is sadly no separation of member-state financials and bank financials in our imaginary European-like financial system. So what's the end game? Well, after Californians take all their US dollars out of California banks, Alexis realizes that if the Central Bank of California defaults, along with the state itself and the rest of its banks, the long-suffering citizens can still preserve their dollar wealth and the state can start all over again by issuing new dollars with Mr. Baldwin's picture on them (or maybe Che's picture). This California competitive devaluation/default would leave a multi-trillion-dollar hole in the Fed’s balance sheet, and the remaining, more-responsible US states would have to pick up the tab. So Alexis goes back to Washington and threatens to exit unless the dollars and ouzo and baklava keep coming.
“And that’s where we stand with the current fracas in Europe!
“Can anyone in the US imagine ever designing a system so fundamentally flawed? It’s insane! Without some form of FDIC insurance and national banking resolution authority, the European Monetary System will surely tear itself to shreds. In fact, as Target2 imbalances rise, it is clear that Germany is already being placed on the hook for Greek and other peripheral deposits. The system has de facto insurance, and no one in the south is even paying a fee for it. Crazy!
“In the last couple days I have spent a bit of time trying to find any legal construct which would allow the ELA to be turned off for a member country. I can't. That doesn't mean it won't be done (as the Irish were threatened with this 18 months ago), but we are entering the twilight zone of the ECB legal department. Who knows what happens next?
“The reality is that European Monetary System was broken from the start. It just took a crisis to expose the flaws. Because the member nations failed to federalize early on, they created a structure that allows strategic default and exit to tear apart the entire financial system. If the Greek people get their euros out of the system, then there is very little pain of exit. With the banks and government insolvent, repudiating the debt and reintroducing the drachma is a winning strategy! The fact that this is even possible is amazing. The Greeks have nothing to lose if they can keep their deposits in euros and exit!
“Let's thank our lucky stars that US leaders were smart enough to federalize the banking system, thereby not allowing any individual state to threaten the integrity of our entire financial system. There is good reason for the separation of the banking system and the member states. And Europe will NEVER be a successful union until it converts to a state-independent, federalized bank structure. The good news is that our radical Greek friend Mr CHEpras will probably force a federalised structure very quickly. The bad news (for him) is that he will likely not be part of it! I suspect this Greek bank run will be just the ticket to precipiate a federalized, socialized, stabilized Europe. Then maybe we can get back to the recovery and growth path everyone in the US is so desperately seeking.
“Good luck trading.”

Coming Together or Flying Apart?

The debate among very knowledgeable individuals and institutions as to the future of Europe is intense. There are those who argue that the cost of breaking up the eurozone, even allowing Greece to leave, is so high that it will not be permitted to happen. Estimates abound of a cost of €1 trillion to European banks, governments, and businesses, just for the exit of Greece. And that does not include the cost of contagion as the markets wonder who is next. Keeping Spanish and Italian interest-rate costs at levels that can be sustained will cost even more trillions, as not just government debt but the entire banking system is at stake. Not to mention the pension and insurance funds. If the cost of Greece leaving is €1 trillion, then who can guess the cost of Spain or Italy?
A total Greek default wipes out more than twice the ECB balance sheet. That means the remaining countries will have to put twice as much into the ECB as their present commitment, just to get the ECB back to where it technically stands today (because theassumption is still that Greek debt is good, and so the ECB is still lending money to the Greek Central Bank).
Then there are those who argue there is no way Greece can stay in the eurozone. The political costs are just too high, not only to the Greek people but to the rest of Europe. How long can Greece demand that Europe cover its government deficits, when its own citizens are not diligent in paying taxes? Listen to Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, at a campaign rally:
“There's one real choice in these elections: the bailout or your dignity…
“We want all the peoples of Europe to hear us, and we want their leaders to hear us when we say that no [country] chooses to become servile, to lose their dignity or commit suicide... We are the political party that with the help of the people will fulfill our campaign promises and cancel this bankrupt bailout deal.”
The Syriza Party appears to be ahead in the polls as I write, but that has shifted several times this week. Not only do European leaders not know what will happen, apparently even the Greeks cannot make up their minds, if we are to believe the polls. They want to stay in the eurozone but don’t want to have to endure the cuts in spending that simply moving toward a balanced budget will requirs. This is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I simply don’t know what the eurozone will do in the next year, or even the next month. If Syriza wins the elections and forms the government, how can Europe back down and give them what Tsipras is demanding? And if the Greeks continue to pull their money from Greek banks (and it is now billions a week), then it will not be very long before they have their euros everywhere but in Greece, and they will in fact have little reason to stay in the eurozone, as Zervos points out.
This latter fact will not be lost on Spanish and Italian voters. If there is not that great a cost to Greece for leaving; and especially if Greece, after a period of severe recession/depression, starts to rebound; then voters all over Europe will be paying close attention. Some will ask why they should not default as well, and others will wonder why they are paying taxes to support other countries that might leave.
Even if European leaders have no real idea what will actually happen, there are some things that are more likely than others. I think the whole idea of eurobonds is dead on arrival. Who would be responsible for paying that bond structure, which would soon be in the trillions of euros? Some European authority? The EU itself, which would then need to levy taxes and set national budgets? I can’t really see any country giving up control of its budget to Brussels, let alone give the EU the power to raise taxes. And if the eurozone has a problem raising a relatively paltry €400 billion for the ESM, etc., from the various governments, how can it expect to get the authority to raise trillions? Does anyone really think the German Bundestag will agree to their share of that?
That then leaves the options of either designating the ESM or some other entity as a bank that can borrow relatively unlimited amounts from the ECB, or having the ECB monetize the debts of various governments in trouble and saddling them with a program of budgetary reforms (which are clearly not popular if you are the one being reformed!).
I still think it is likely that Greece will leave the eurozone. It makes sense if you are Greece; and even though it will cost the other eurozone members huge sums of money, I think they are getting “Greek fatigue.” But let’s stay tuned, as they say.

Europe in Recession

Germany was able to sell €4.56 billion ($5.8 billion) of two-year bonds at a 0% coupon interest rate on Wednesday. That was not a typo. Why would people give Germany money to use for two years at no cost?
I can think of several reasons, but the one I think is most likely – and the one that will not be admitted in polite circles – is that it is basically a very low-cost call option on the possibility of Germany leaving the eurozone. If Germany left, they would likely denominate their bonds in Deutsche marks, which would rise in value over those of the countries that remained in the euro.
But this also points up the fact that Germany is falling into recession, hard on the heels of the rest of Europe, which is mostly already there – some countries severely so. Leading economic indicators as well as purchasing-manager indexes are down all across Europe. But the saddest statistic is that of youth unemployment. Below is a chart from Reuters (courtesy of Frank Holmes at US Global). Only Germany is seeing its youth unemployment rate fall below 10%.

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch

This letter is translated into Chinese, Spanish, and Italian; so I have to write with an international audience in mind, and also remember that I am of a certain age. Some concepts may not translate well, either to other languages or across generations. So let me set up the theme for younger readers and those not familiar with early 20th-century American culture. In the dawn of film, cowboy movies were all the rage. These were typically low-budget, and most were shot on the same set and ranch in southern California. The same saloons, jails, large rocks, and dirt roads kept showing up in movie after movie; but no one much noticed, back then. The magic of movies was still fresh.
You would watch your hero (you knew he was the good guy, because he wore a white hat) chase bank robbers and cattle rustlers and duke it out with gunslingers; and there was usually at least one pretty girl involved. In the era of silent movies, there would literally be a title graphic that said, “Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch” when there was a segue between the action involving the hero and the bad guys and the doings of the people back home on the ranch.

So then, “meanwhile, back at the global economy,” let’s look at a few graphs and some data to see what is happening in the rest of the world.
First of all, China is really beginning to slow down from its torrid pace of growth. Thr growth of their manufacturing output has fallen for seven straight months, and it is now contracting. Media reports everywhere are talking about actual statistics or anecdotal stories from Chinese merchants and businesses. Construction is under real pressure, as are real estate prices. Just as in the US or Europe, when construction starts to slow it affects all sorts of smaller businesses that supply products to people building or remodeling their homes.
A few data points. Deposit growth in China is slowing rapidly, and money supply suggests a decelerating economy. The ratio of M1 to M2 growth suggests an even weaker economy than the contracting purchasing manager’s index. The M1-M2 ratio is now back to where it was in the last financial crisis.
Let’s look at two charts from Credit Suisse. I have long been concerned about the very high percentage of GDP growth in China that is attributable to direct investment, bank loans, and infrastructure spending. While all of those are good things, the levels in China are without precedent anywhere in the world that I am familiar with, and have been there a long time.
What happens when you have to slow down investment and try to become a more consumer-driven economy? The transition is generally not smooth. And what happens when you try and do that when your largest customer (Europe) is in recession? And when the bank lending from Europe that finances the spending of many of the developing nations you sell to begins to dramatically shrink?

Reports from around the world show South African and Australian mines with lower sales, growth in Taiwan slowing and Great Britain in recession. The MSCI World Index, which tracks equity markets around the globe, is down more than 9% since mid-March.

A Slowing US Economy

The US economy is also starting to slow. Job growth is getting weaker. Food stamps are at an all-time high. The effects from stimulus spending have just about gone away, and there are large numbers of people falling off extended unemployment benefits. Lakshman Achuthan, of the Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI), has recently reaffirmed his belief that a return to economic contraction is likely in 2012, noting that the coincident data used to officially define economic-cycle boundaries continue to signal slowing growth. Achuthan is a very sober fellow, and you have to pay attention when he makes these calls. ECRI does not make them lightly.
Let’s also look at a couple charts from my friend Rich Yamarone, the chief economist at Bloomberg. (We will be together at a symposium at the University of Texas in Austin, on June 7, along with David Rosenberg.) Rich has also been stating that he believes the US economy is headed for recession, for a different set of reasons.
At our dinner meeting last week (as indeed he has been for months) he was talking about the fall in real disposable personal income. It is hard to get growth when incomes are not rising .

And he too is worried about the fact that government stimulus (transfer payments, unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc.) has had a major effect on consumer spending, but as people fall off extended unemployment benefits (and they are, by the hundreds of thousands each month) personal income could actually drop.

Where’s My Quantitative Easing?

The recent round of global quantitative easing is beginning to ebb. Europe, Great Britain, and the US are all wrapping up their stimulus and have not announced plans for any more. China is more or less on hold until the leadership changes in October (or that is what most observers I read seem to think).
The recent QE had provided a clear boost to commodity prices and stocks, and the anticipation of withdrawal seems to be having a depressive effect on market prices. This was the third round of global QE, and each round has resulted in less real benefit than the previous one. There is reason to believe that another round would continue that trend. While it is probable that the ECB will soon take action, as Europe is clearly in recession, there seems to be no such consensus as yet in the US. And with an election coming in November, if the Fed is going to do anything, they have just two meetings left (on June19-20 and August 1) before September, at which point the economy would have to be in very serious trouble for them to do anything before the election – which then takes us out to the December meeting.
Since the recent most QE will still be in effect at the time of the June meeting, that would leave August 1 for an announcement. We will only have two unemployment reports between now and that meeting. They will therefore be of more than usual importance. We will be watching.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Eurogloom

Headlines from WSJ:



Thursday, May 10, 2012

S&P Collapses on JP Morgan Emergency Announcement

from Zero Hedge:

Out of nowehere, JPM announced 40 minutes ago that it would hold an unscheduled 5pm call to coincide with the release of its 10-Q. Rumors were swirling as to why. The reason is as follows:

  • JPMORGAN SAYS CIO UNIT HAS SIGNIFICANT MARK-TO-MARKET LOSSES - "Fortress balance sheet"
  • JPMORGAN SAYS LOSSES ARE IN SYNTHETIC CREDIT PORTFOLIO - but, but, net is NEVER, EVER Gross.
  • JPM WOULD NEED $971M ADDED COLLATERAL IF RATINGS CUT ONE-NOTCH
  • JPM WOULD NEED $1.7B ADDED COLLATERAL IF RATINGS CUT 2 NOTCHES - how about three notches?
  • JPMORGAN: MAY HOLD SOME SYNTHETIC CREDIT POSITIONS LONG TERM - "Level 3 CDS FTW:
All of this is coming form the just filed 10-Q. The full link is here.Call dial in: (866) 541-2724 in the U.S. and Canada; (706) 634-7246 for international.
Stock now down 5% after hours dragging down ES 7 points with it.

What the Fed Bought in Stocks

Zero Hedge:
With the need for exponentially larger expansions of the central bank balance sheets - and most importantly, the rate of expansion (flow) not just the size (stock) - we thought it useful to see just how the Fed's actions had impacted the S&P 500. From the lows in March 2009, 1150 S&P points have been 'created-or-saved' thanks to central bank largesse. That is a cost of $2 million for every S&P 500 point since the Fed started to expands its balance sheet by $2.3 trillion. Money-well-spent, we are sure you'll agree. In the meantime, it is the printing-endgames that we care about and the horrible sense of deja vu that the following chart inspires should at minimum see investors scaling back (which it appears the sensible retail investor is) - despite the imploring of every long-only asset manager.
The S&P 500 overlaid with the various Fed experiments...

And it seems like the balance sheets of the central banks need to expand at an ever-increasing rate just to stand still in terms of asset prices...

Does make one wonder what the 'real' value of the S&P 500 would have been without all that assistance?
But we are heading towards the end of Operation Twist and given the previous examples we have seen, it seems we are echoing once again...


Charts: Bloomberg

Monday, May 7, 2012

Reinghart and Rogoff, And Our Debt Overhang

In a recent NBER paper, Ken Rogoff and Vince and Carmen Reinhart address the long-lasting consequences of high public debt loads. The authors findings are shocking to many - especially those who choose to look at 10Y Treasury rates as an indication of stress (as opposed to our earlier note on the stresses beginning to occur in the less financially repressed USA sovereign CDS market). Across 50 countries, they find 26 periods of public debt overhangs where the government has pushed gross public debt to GDP over 90% and held it there for at least five years. The stunning reality of their empirical work is four-fold: 1) the median duration of these overhang periods in 23 years (that's a lot of can-kicking); 2) real GDP growth averages 1.2% lower than trend during these overhangs; 3) real GDP drops by on average around 25% at the end of the deleveraging episode; and 4) most critically, "waiting for markets to signal a problem may be waiting too long because governments have the ability to suppress market signals." So while all the chatter of renewed growth in Europe has us ebullient with an unchanged US equity market today, the longer-term reality is - unless this time is different, there's a long and painful road ahead.


From Vince Reinhart's Morgan Stanley note:
Some Observations

Nations rarely move into a region where gross public debt is greater than 90 percent. Across 22 advanced economies since the early 1800s, there have been 26 such episodes lasting five years or more. When they get there, they stay there a long time. The median duration is 23 years.

The neighborhood is scary, in that economic growth averages 1.2 percentage points less relative to the years outside of debt overhang episodes. The duration and growth differential of those episodes compounds: In the typical experience, the level of real GDP is about 25 percent lower at the end of an episode than the experience outside the episode would have predicted.




The reason for this subpar economic performance is not always the force of market discipline pushing up real interest rates. Rather, high government debt induces some other form of crowding out of the private sector. This might include a reliance on distorting taxes to pay the interest service on the debt or more direct restrictions on finance that creates a captive market for government debt. The former concerns the dead-weight loss from taxation, and the latter is sometimes known as “financial repression”. Financial repression includes directed lending by captive domestic audiences, explicit or implicit caps on interest rates, regulation of cross-border capital movements, high reserve and capital requirements, and moral suasion applied to regulated entities.
In such circumstances, waiting for markets to signal a problem may be waiting too long because governments have the ability to suppress market signals. Despite the absence of market signals, or perhaps because of it, growth often suffers.

Lacy Hunt on Debt Disequalibrium

Via Lance Roberts of StreetTalkLive,
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT CONFERENCE - DAY 1
May 3, 2012?
If you have not read the notes of the first three presentations here are the links to Niall Ferguson on "Civilization", Dr. Woody Brock on "American Gridlock" and David Rosenberg from Gluskin Sheff. The last presentation I will report on from Day 1 of the conference is Dr. Lacy Hunt from Hoisington Research. Dr. Hunt was a previous member of the Federal Reserve board and is the Executive Vice President of Hoisington Investment Management who has run arguably one of the best performing bond funds over the past 25 years. With that I present the notes from Dr. Lacy Hunt.
____________________________________________
I want to begin by taking us back to the economic classroom. In any economic model there are two basic conditions - "Equilibrium" and "Transition"
For many years professors have drummed into students that equilibrium is the dominant condition and that transition occurs but it is generally smooth, unimportant and short. The commonest example is that of an airplane. When the airplane is on the tarmac it is at equilibrium. The takeoff and climb to altitude is the transition which is a generally short period relative to the overall trip. Once the plane reaches cruising altitude it is again back at equilibrium.
However, what we have learned is that equilibrium, in relation to economies, is very short. It is the transition periods that are long in nature. Economies consistently move towards equilibrium, achieve it temporarily, then began to transition again.
In the U.S. today, along with the rest of the world, we are currently engaged in "debt disequilibrium".
Currently, we simply have too much debt relative to GDP. This is not just a domestic problem. Excessive indebtedness is a global problem. Furthermore, as we take on consistently more debt, each additional increase in debt is becoming less effective, due to the law of diminishing returns, and eventually will produce a negative return. The reality is that for debt to be effective it must produce a positive return.
In the U.S. today the current debt to GDP ratio is roughly 360%. This is not the first time that debt to GDP has peaked. In 1875 the debt to GDP ratio peaked at 156.4% after the panic of 1873 following the collapse of the railroad boom. After that peak the economy remained in malaise for a very long period of time until the excess leverage was reduced. The process was repeated again in 1916 as debt to GDP hit 170.4%. This in turn led to the 1920-1921 depression where Federal spending was reduced by 50%, deleveraging happened very quickly and the economic cycle began to recover. However, this time the re-leveraging cycle quickly ensued in the roaring 20's which pushed debt to GDP to the next peak in 1933 at 299.8%.
Of course, the following gestation period and debt deleveraging cycle took a very long period of time as the psychological impact of the "Great Depression" changed behavior. It wasn't until 2003, 70 years later, before the debt to GDP ratio breached the 1933 peak at 301.4%. Debt since then has continued to soar rising another 80 points in 2009 to a peak of 382.8%. The debt deleveraging process has only just begun and if history is any guide it will be a very long and arduous process.
As stated previously by Dr. Woody Brock the addition of debt is acceptable as long as it produces a positive rate of return. Unfortunately, the U.S. has engaged in massive increases in the levels of debt but the average standard of living has not risen. The "debt disequilibrium" problem has now reached the point of producing negative impacts on the economy.
This is not just a domestic problem. It is a global problem. The Eurozone is at 450% of debt to GDP - which roughly 100 points higher than the US. The UK is at 470% and Japan is at 500% of debt to GDP.
Furthermore, Japan is the template of the US experience. This is not a popular view and is widely dismissed under various assumptions. However, Japan has done everything that the Keynesian and Freidmanite schools of thought have asked them to do. The results are not good. Yet, the current administration has failed to understand the consequences of those actions and have engaged upon the same path over the last decade.
The current debt problems occurred primarily between the years of 1998 to 2006. The issue that has yet to be realized is that you cannot solve a debt problem after the fact. It has to be resolved before it reaches critical mass.
In the early stages of a rising debt buildup it leads to both rising income and asset prices. It is in these early stages where actions should be taken to limit the debt buildup. However, since the corresponding increases in debt lead to a rise in incomes and asset prices - no one is willing to stop It The problem then becomes the crushing reality of declining prosperity as the negative ramification of excessive debt sets in.

"Debt is a two-edged sword. Used wisely and in moderation, it clearly improves welfare. But when it is used imprudently and in excess, the result can be a disaster." Stephen Cecchetti
Let's take a look at the U.S. versus China
China:
    Debt To GDP = 16.3%
    Hidden Liabilities as % of GDP = 144%
    Total Debt and Hidden Liabilities as % of GDP = 160%
    PCE as % of GDP = 30%
    Investment as % of GDP = 70%
    China's growth target for 2012 = 7.5% - slowest in 22 years
U.S.
    Debt to GDP = 102%
    Hidden Liabilities as % of GDP = n/a
    Total Debt and Hidden Liabilities as % of GDP = 102%
    PCE as % of GDP = 71%
    Investment as % of GDP = 16%
China is an unsustainable model. The critical danger is their rapid deceleration in growth. While many people are looking at external factors to influence China's economy the reality is that the system can be disrupted purely by internal factors. It has clearly happened in the past.
4 Archetypes of the Deleveraging Process - McKinsey Global Study of 32 Countries.
There are only 4 major ways for a country to deleverage itself based on the study of 32 countries.
    "Belt Tightening" — most common. (50% of countries studied)
    "High Inflation" — (25% of countries)
    Massive Default
    Growing Out of Debt
Types 2-4 were relatively rare and occurred in conditions that are not present today in the mature economies. The record suggests that today's mature economies are most likely to deleverage through a belt tightening process as deflationary forces keep a lid on inflationary pressures even as currency printing increases.
The massive increase in debt in the U.S. economy over recent years is now having deleterious effects on the consumer. The personal savings rate is declining as consumer debt is being made available. In recent quarters we have seen huge increases in debt to fuel consumptive spending due to the stagnation of incomes and rising cost pressures.
What is very interesting to look at is the massive surge in student loan debt that is now becoming another concern. Student loans are increasing but not because there has been a sudden increase in the number of people attending colleges. The student loans have been going to fuel consumption.
If you want to know how weak the economy really is all you need to do is look at the 30-year bond. It is one of the best economic indicators available today. If economic conditions are robust then the yield will be rising and vice versa. What the current low levels of yield on 30 year bond is telling you is that the underlying economy is weak.
"The 30-year yield is not at these low levels DUE to the Federal Reserve; but in SPITE OF the Fed," Hunt said.
The actions of the Federal Reserve have continued to undermine the economy which is reflected by the low yield of the 30 year bond
The "cancerous" side effects of nonproductive debt are being reflected in real disposable incomes. Just over the last two years real disposable incomes slid from 5% in 2010 and -0.5% in 2012 on a 3-month percentage change at an annual rate basis.
This is critically important to understand. While the media remains focused on GDP it is the wrong measure by which to measure the economy. A truly growing economy leads to rises in prosperity. GDP does NOT measure prosperity — it measures spending. It is the measure of real personal incomes that measures prosperity. Prosperity MUST come from rising incomes.
GDP, on the other hand, can be distorted through government spending, which masks the effects of declining prosperity through weaker incomes. GDP does NOT lead to a increase in prosperity.
This brings us to the issues with various debt driven stimulus and liquidity programs. While they may have a short term positive effect they ultimately all have a diminishing rate of return over time. Take a look at the effect of the QE programs on the stock market.
    QE1 - stocks increase 36.4%
    QE2 - stock rise 24.1%
    Operation Twist (Stealth QE 3) - stocks gain 12.9%
While the liquidity interventions by the Fed have increased stock prices — it has also continued to create pressure on the average American by deteriorating prosperity.
The Velocity of Money
The velocity of money is at what speed is money moving through the economic system. The commonest measure is: GDP (nominal) = Money X Velocity
The velocity of money tells you the effectiveness of debt relative to the overall economy. From 1953 to 1980 the velocity of money was stable which was showing that the loans being made by banks to individuals and businesses were being put to productive uses. Today, as debt is taken on, it is no longer the case as additional bank lending produces little return. In other words there is relatively little return for each dollar lent.
The increases in debt without a productive return will ultimately lead to a larger proportion of government debt in the economy, versus private debt, with no relative increase in GDP. To put this into perspective - without changes to the current system government spending will reach 40% of GDP by 2050. This will not happen as the system will collapse long before then.
While we should be in the process of working off debt and deleveraging the system — in actuality we are doing the opposite and in 2013 we will be at 110% of debt to GDP.
To put this into an investment perspective let's take a look at "20 Year Periods With A Negative Risk Premium" A negative risk premium is when there is a negative return between the total return of stocks versus the total return of bonds. This will not be the first time this has happened.
    1874-1894 = S4.4% in stocks vs. 5.4% in bonds = -1% equity risk premium
    1928-1948 = 3.1% vs. 3.9% = -0.8% equity risk premium
    1991-2011 = 7.8% vs. 8% = -0.2% equity risk premium
The bad news is that with the massive total increases in debt combined with the current policies being implemented under the current administration it is very likely that could extend the current 20 year cycle much longer. This has profound investment ramifications for individuals going forward.

David Rosenberg at Strategic Investment Conference

Submitted by Lance Roberts of Streettalk Advisors
Guest Post: Strategic Investment Conference: David Rosenberg
david-rosenberg
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT CONFERENCE – DAY 1
If you haven’t read the notes from the first two speakers, Niall Ferguson and Dr. Woody Brock, I encourage you to do so. The next speaker at the conference is a friend of mine and one of the most widely regarded economists today. David Rosenberg was previously the Chief Economist at Merrill Lynch and is now the Chief Economist and Investment Strategist at Gluskin-Sheff.   Here are his thoughts.
The 3-D's Deflation, Deleveraging and Demographics
“People continually label me a “perma-bear” which is very inaccurate. I have been a perma-bull on fixed income for a very long time. The reason that Gluskin-Sheff hired me is that my job is to take the economic data points and put them together in a structure from which investments can be made.”
"A Forecast is nothing more than the midpoint of a distribution curve."
When you talk about risk often enough you get classified as a “perma-bear”. The corner stone of asset management is not capital "appreciation" but capital "preservation".
In the second year of this economic recovery (2011) the economy was growing at 1.6%. This is important to understand because in a “normal” recovery the economy should be growing at 5-6% at this same point.
Bob Farells' 10 Market Rules: The 10 Commandments To Remember

  1. Markets tend to return to the mean over time
  2. Excesses in one direction will lead to an opposite excess in the other direction
  3. There are no new eras — excesses are never permanent
  4. Exponential rapidly rising or falling markets usually go further than you think, but they do not correct by going sideways
  5. The public buys the most at the top and the least at the bottom
  6. Fear and greed are stronger than long-term resolve
  7. Markets are strongest when they are broad and weakest when they narrow to a handful of blue-chip names
  8. Bear markets have three stages — sharp down, reflexive rebound and a drawn-out fundamental downtrend
  9. When all the experts and forecasts agree — something else is going to happen
  10. Bull markets are more fun than bear markets.
These are the ten commandments of investing. Not understanding this is what leads to individuals losing large amounts of money over time.
Rules #1 and #9 are the most important to conversation today.
The markets tend to return to the mean over time. Understand this. Just this year there have been two very important covers from Barron’s.
February 2012 - Barron's Dow 15000
April 2012 - Barron's - Outlook Mostly Sunny.
Barron’s has an absolutely horrible track record of putting on their covers bullish sentiment at just about the peak of the market. (He showed many examples of Barron’s covers going back over the past decade.)
At the point of peak bullishness by investors and money managers is when the “reversion” effect will occur. In other words, whatever Barron’s puts on their cover you are wise to do the opposite.
The “Fiscal Cliff”
Under status quo at the end of 2012 roughly 42 tax benefits will expire at the end of 2012. At that point there will be record drag (roughly 4%) on GDP from reduction of those tax benefits to spending. Since the economy is currently barely growing at 2% do the math – a negative 2% economic growth rate is a very large recession.
Ben Bernanke - the Fed has NO ability to offset the impact of the “fiscal cliff.” By the way - recessions tend to happen in the first year of the Presidential cycle.
The last two times, 1960 and 1969, that there was a fiscal retrenchment of the same magnitude both ended in recessions. If there is any one thing to worry about it will be this particular event more than just about anything else.
What about government spending? US government spending runs at approximately $1.50 for every $1.00 brought in. This level of spending is unheard of outside of WWII and is very unsustainable. Furthermore, the longer that this excessive level of debt based spending occurs the more that it becomes a structural problem. Interest payments are at a record share of total revenue as well as the debt as a share of GDP. The high level of debt to GDP, and the subsequent servicing of that debt via interest payments, reduces economic growth. This leads to the real problem facing the U.S. today…Deflation.
Outside of commodity based inflation there is deflation running in everything else from incomes to real estate. This deflation impacts the base of the consumer and the economy. Take a look at the current output gap which is still at some of the largest levels on record. The current economic growth rate is too weak to offset the current slack in the economy.
This is why QE3 is coming and is just a matter of timing.
The deflation in housing is going to continue. Housing is only about 40% through its reversion process. In fact, along with housing, the entire household debt deleveraging process is still in progress and still has a tremendous way to go. This deleveraging cycle will remain a dead-weight drag on the economy for quite a long time.
It is important to understand that the debt bubble didn't happen in 3 years and it won't be cured in three years either.
According to the recent McKinsey study the debt deleveraging cycles, in normal historical recessionary cycles, lasted on average six to seven years, with total debt as a percentage of GDP declining by roughly 25 percent. More importantly, while GDP contracted in the initial years of the deleveraging cycle it rebounded in the later years.
A further pressure on the economy remains excess unemployment. There are roughly 20 million still unemployed versus the long term average of about 13 million. The excess capacity of labor suppresses wages and economic growth. In other words, excess employment leads to deflationary economic pressures.
In regards to employment the only real report to watch is the U-6 report, versus U-3, because it is the most inclusive measure of unemployment. If two full time employees are converted to part time they are not included in the U-3 report but will show up in the U-6 report. The U-6 level of unemployment is still at a higher level than at any other recessionary period.
As I stated, high levels of unemployment, or excess slack in the labor market, leads to deflation in wages. Deflation is wages is very problematic and has a lot do with deflationary prices in the economy.
So, deflationary pressures are why I am still bullish on bonds versus stocks.
Here is an interesting side note. What correlates with bond yields?
88% Fed Policy
75% Core CPI
64% CPI inflation
With the Fed keeping yields at zero through 2014 there is NO rate risk in owning bonds. When bond yields jump up for any reason it is a buying opportunity UNTIL the Fed starts taking the punch bowl away.
Historically, the average yield curve spread between the short and long dated maturities is about 160 basis points. Currently, that spread is about 330 basis points. That spread will revert to the average over time which means that the long bond yield is going to 2%. Buy Bonds and you will get a better return than owning stocks with dramatically less risk.
What type of bonds? I like corporate bonds. Corporate balance sheets are great and have been cleaned up tremendously since the recession. The current corporate default rate is 2% and companies that are BB or BBB rated that have an A rated balance sheet make a lot of sense. There is no debate between stocks and bonds. Bonds are a contractual agreement to pay interest and repay principal over a specified period of time.
Stocks are currently priced for a 10% growth rate which makes bonds a safer investment in the current environment which cannot deliver 10% rates of returns. We are no longer in the era of capital appreciation and growth. The “baby boomers” are driving the demand for income which will keep pressure on finding yield which in turn reduces buying pressure on stocks. This is why even with the current stock market rally since the 2009 lows - equity funds have seen continual outflows. The “Capital Preservation” crowd will continue to grow relative to the “Capital Appreciation” crowd.
Investment Stategy - Safety and Income at a Reasonable Price
  1. Focus on Safe Yield - Corporate bonds
  2. Equities - Dividend growth and yield, preferred shares
  3. Focus on companies with low debt/equity ratios and high liquid asset ratios. The balance sheet is more important than usual.
  4. Hard assets that provide an income stream - oil and gas royalties, REITS.
  5. Focus on sectors or companies with low fixed costs, high variable cost, high barriers to entry, high level of demand inelasticity.
  6. Alternative assets - that are not reliant on rising equity markets and where volatility can be used to advantage.
  7. .Precious Metals - hedge against reflationary policies aimed at defusing deflationary risks.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Awful Jobs Report


Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Factory Orders Drop 1.5%

from Zero Hedge:
That March factory orders declined 1.5% was not very surprising: the market was expecting a decline of 1.6%. However, this is not good news as the prior February increase of 1.3% was revised lower to 1.1%, netting out as a negative two month change. Where this number was troubling is that this 2.6% swing brought the index to its biggest decline since March 2009 when the pumping of trillions started.