Broad Oak Blog

Steve Keen: Dow to drop 35%, housing 40%?

2012-01-03T11:32:00.003Z

Australian economist Steve Keen has previously argued that it is far more beneficial to bail out consumers than the banks, and now has made it part of a manifesto for avoiding a worse-than-the-1930s economic depression.

As part of his analysis, he looks at the Dow:

... and the US housing market:

If his exponential trend lines are correct, stocks will have to fall by a further 35% and houses 40%, ignoring overshoot.

If that seems overly pessimistic, consider James Howard Kunstler, who revisits his "Dow 4,000" mantra and modifies it to 1,000 by 2014. Unbelievable? Only if you think tomorrow will be no worse than yesterday, and ignore how freakish the whole period from the mid-1980s has been. I had a go at reading the patterns back in February 2011 and the next Dow low looked around 4,500 - adjusted for CPI, in view of our inflation-happy leaders.

What would I know about it, you may say. Well, what does anybody know, and more pertinently, what do they know?

I have to say that I may soon need to modify my investment disclosure, as it may be prudent to begin buying physical gold in regular small quantities, against the possibility of a serious market breakdown and savaging of the value of cash. The gold price is still rather rich for my taste, but what's the alternative?

Do you really think our politicians, bankers and economists have a credible plan to sort out the problems? I like Keen's, but I'll give you long odds against it ever happening. Still, better noble failure than dishonourable compromise, I think the Japanese would agree: 判官贔屓.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Foreign demand to support the price of gold?

2012-01-01T16:30:00.002Z

I start with an entertaining and informative investor newsletter: David Collum's annual personal investment report, which is worth reading in full. The prose is very sparky and the scorn and indignation laid on good and thick.

For the impatient, I can report that he begins by describing his own asset allocation:

With rebalancing achieved only by directing my savings, I changed nothing in my portfolio year over year. The total portfolio as of 12/31/11 is as follows:

Precious Metals et al.: 53%
Energy: 14%
Cash Equiv (short duration): 30%
Other: 3%

... which tells you where he stands in the bull/bear debate.

Now, here's a sweet little piece of possible future villainy:

[The Chinese] are rumored to have 1,000 tons of gold with a target of 8,000 tons. How do they buy 7,000 tons? They bid for it like everybody else. Chinese citizens have been encouraged to save using gold (a defacto gold standard and covert accumulation). Although the gold bugs in the US occasionally discuss confiscation, I think the Chinese proletariat are the ones being set up.

That is so nasty and cynical that it seems almost inevitable.

And easy:

7,000 metric tonnes of gold at current prices ($50,290.84 per kilo at time of writing) is worth a shade over $352 billion.

This IMF report from 2010 (fig. 3, p. 27) estimates Chinese household net savings at some 15% of GDP, and World Bank data estimates GDP in 2010 to be the equivalent of US $5.88 trillion. So the dollar equivalent of Chinese net household savings is around $882 billion.

So if Chinese convert merely 40% of their personal cash to gold (which David Collum seems to have done already), the target will be met. Theoretically, it's doable today. Meanwhile I still see not just one, but a number of shops offering to buy gold in my neighbourhood. Perhaps the gold is heading East, like the copper wiring from our railway signals and the wrought iron manhole covers from our streets.

It's not just China that's importing gold, of course; Indians (for example) save a third of their income in gold.

So it seems to me that the gold price won't crash back to the levels of some years ago.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

China is in the same debt boat as the rest of us

2011-12-20T08:15:00.003Z

Robert Wenzel reports a Roubini tweet that the real government debt-to-GDP ratio in China is 80%.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Trust is breaking down wholesale, hoarding has begun - UPDATED 02 Jan 2012

2011-12-18T18:24:00.000Z

The following started off on my grumble outlet Bearwatch, but looks like it's getting more serious:

“You can’t trust anybody and the entire system is collapsing. What’s the takeaway from this? It’s to make sure you have every penny in your pocket.”

Gerald Celente, Trends Research Institute founder, following the disappearance of his six-figure holdings at MF Global shortly before he was due to take delivery of physical gold. More here.

Update: and the chorus swells...

"It is up to you to decide how much you're willing to risk losing to a crook. If the answer is "none" or you cannot reduce the at-risk portion of your assets to what you're willing to lose to fraud then you can no longer participate in the market at all, in any form, nor even do business with a bank." - Karl Denninger.

"Now may be the time to exit all arrangements not specifically guaranteed directly by the government, and bring your money home. And better yet if no guarantees are required, and no parties standing between you and your wealth." - Jesse.

... and swells...

"Ultimately, I will not be at all surprised to see Europe’s banking system shut for days while the losses and payments issues are worked out. People forget that the term “bank holiday” was invented in the 1930’s when the banks were shut for exactly the same reason." - Dr Pippa Malmgren

"The whole system is going down. Pull your money out your Fidelity account, your Schwab account, and your ETFs." - Gerald Celente (again)

- both quoted here.

"Odds of a big market breakdown are both high and rising." - Mish.

... and balloons...

"The bottom line is that apparently some warehouses and bullion dealers are not a safe place to store your gold and silver, even if you hold a specific warehouse receipt." - Jesse (17 Dec 2011)

This gels with a recent post by David Malone, where he discusses a little-known rider to the (US) Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The amendment concerned overrides bankruptcy protection protocols that are designed to treat creditors equally, such that if Bank A has "repo" or derivatives contract business with Bank B, and Bank B fails (or is forced into failure...), Bank A can grab the collateral straight away, not waiting for the trustee to sort out who gets what.

And if some of that collateral is money or other valuables you (an innocent third party) deposited with Bank B, hard luck, it seems.

Ostensibly, this legislation was to prevent systemic collapse as Bank B's failure could make Bank A insolvent, then subsequently Banks C and D etc. But, as Malone points out, it's also potentially an invitation to stronger (or at least, public-money-supported) banks to tip weaker ones into insolvency and grab assets, leaving other creditors to sue for their return (if they can afford to do so). Possession is nine points of the law, as the adage goes. Apparently, this deadly revision is written into banking legislation beyond America's shores.

In turn, that reminds me of something Malone wrote back in October, reporting what a top Irish banker said to him, off the record:

"According to this very senior banker it was now known that the plan was all but agreed to re-capitalize all the banks but to the very minimum degree. France and Germany were agreed on this. As I wrote before I left, there has been a bidding war looking for the lowest amount.

"The horse trading and arguing is of a quite different nature.What is being thrashed out is a list, for use after this across the board, minimum bail out, of which banks will be saved and which will be left to die when they next have a problem. The horse trading is over who will be saved and who damned.

"In other words the decision has been reached that this is the last pan-Europe, all bank bail out attempt. After this it is recognized that Europe and the IMF cannot save all the banks. And so only the most systemically vital are going to be saved and the rest will be allowed to save themselves if they can or die if they cannot."

It's possible that a vicious internecine cannibalism is about to commence in the international banking industry, and plenty of innocent bystanders could suddenly find they're hurt.

Little wonder, then that even bankers have started to hoard food.

Further update (27 December - hat-tip to Jesse): Gonzalo Lira writes...

Now, question: When is there ever a panic? When is there ever a run on a financial system?

Answer: When enough participants no longer trust the system. It is the classic definition of a tipping point. It’s not that all of the participants lose faith in the system or institution. It’s not even when most of the participants lose faith: Rather, it’s when a mere some of the participants decide they no longer trust the system that a run is triggered.

And though this is completely subjective on my part—backed by no statistics except scattered anecdotal evidence—but it seems to me that MF Global has shoved us a lot closer to this theoretical run on the system.

As I write this, a lot of investors whom I know personally—who are sophisticated, wealthy, and not at all the paranoid type—are quietly pulling their money out of all brokerage firms, all banks, all equity firms. They are quietly trading out of their paper assets and going into the actual, physical asset.

Note that they’re not trading into the asset—they’re simply exchanging their paper-asset for the real thing.

Why? MF Global.

More... 2 January: James Howard Kunstler's 2012 forecast...

There are signs that a lot of people who still have something resembling money invested in various funds will go to cash in the weeks ahead, including under-the-mattress style. The distrust and paranoia is palpable now, with the frenzies of Yuletide bygone for another year. After all, why trust banks, especially the TBTF monsters. Such a mass move could take the starch even out of highly manipulated equity markets.
___________________________________________________________________________
INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

The bank runs are starting

2011-12-13T06:24:00.000Z

"Latvia's largest bank scrambled Monday to head off a run among depositors who were gripped by rumours of the bank's imminent ruin.

Weekend rumours that Swedbank was facing legal and liquidity problems in Estonia and Sweden sent thousands of Latvians to bank machines on Sunday, with some lines reaching as many as 50 people."

"... the outflow of funds from Greek bank accounts has been accelerating rapidly. At the start of 2010, savings and time deposits held by private households in Greece totalled €237.7 billion -- by the end of 2011, they had fallen by €49 billion. Since then, the decline has been gaining momentum. Savings fell by a further €5.4 billion in September and by an estimated €8.5 billion in October -- the biggest monthly outflow of funds since the start of the debt crisis in late 2009."

Quoted in The Economic Collapse Blog (see point 16 in that post)

This combination of distrust of banks with raids on savings to support normal expenditure is reflected here in the UK. I know of a British financial journalist who is starting to hoard cash, and ING's third quarter report on savings shows that the ordinary person's cash reserves are continuing to decline:

In a technical article (which I confess I find difficult to fathom - draw me a picture, somebody!), Tyler Durden looks at desperate attempts by the Federal Reserve and others to pump money into the economy as fast the "shadow banking" system is losing it.

We appear to be in a mighty conflict between the forces of deflation and inflation. A miscalculation one way will give us full-scale economic depression, and the other way will result in hyperinflation (followed closely by economic depression). The balance has to be got exactly right, and if our leaders, bankers and economists were clever enough to achieve that we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

It's not about the banks

2011-11-20T11:42:00.004Z

Like Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With The Wind", the banks believe their happiness trumps everyone else's. The web of bank debt and sovereign bonds has come to dominate the agenda, to the extent that Italy's government can be dismissed by foreign interests and replaced by a wholly unelected cabinet. 'This is not the time for elections but the time for actions', said Herman van Rompuy; no Abraham Lincoln, he.

Not all banks have misbehaved, but many of the largest now appear to be ruined enterprises, determined to take rest of us down with them. I cannot explain why our politicians have poured resources into these colanders, except in terms of self-interest as current or future workers for the money establishment.

The banks' self-absorption is assisted by news media such as the BBC, with e.g. their latest interactive infographic on the Eurodebt nexus. Here are some of the results, recast as a table - ranked by external debt to GDP:

The pundits' talk is of the PIIGS, yet after Ireland the next worst case - by a long way - is the UK.

Something is wrong here. It's not the facts (though in a fiat currency world, I'm not quite sure what a financial fact is), it's the perspective: we're forgetting to look at the balance sheet, i.e. the net international investment position (NIIP). Leslie Cuadra did this on Financial Sense at the end of August, and it paints a rather different picture. Of the 40 major countries he surveyed, the US is at the bottom, and Spain next up. Greece's position is much better, scarcely worse than that of France. Hmmm...

Let's widen the view a bit further. Here are Cuadra's figures, reinterpreted in the light of the IMF's data on GDP (click to enlarge):
This arrangement chimes better with our level of concern, at least with four of the PIIGS; yet it leaves us wondering why democracy has suddenly been abolished in Italy. And why are we worrying about Japan, when she looks so good on these rankings?

It would seem that there is no one picture that tells the whole story. And that, I would suggest, is because there are many stories, many competing agendas. There's a sort of economic Great Game going on, with a full cast of tyrants, traitors, spies, revolutionaries and dumb foot-soldiers pepper-spraying harmless women. It is a time of great and unpredictable change, which is why gold has soared and the people are stocking their cellars and buying ammo faster than it can be made.

An increasing concern, for me at least, is that the system (if it is a system) may not be able to contain this degree of instability, or at least, some parts of it are more vulnerable to fluctuation than others . If I may offer a pictorial analogy?

Equilibrium can be achieved at many different energy levels, and this has implications for the participants. If one of the mice hops off, there may be no effect at all, given the friction in a real-life device. But if Jumbo dismounts abruptly, Nellie will be lucky to avoid a broken leg, not to mention a possible smashed plank. And if Jumbo then playfully steps on one end of seesaw A, we're looking at a mouse in temporary low orbit, which is pretty much what happened in Iceland, Ireland and Greece.

Similarly, economic interconnectedness carries asymmetric potential perils, as shown in the table below, which uses the latest NIIP figures from the IMF's database (click to enlarge). For a small economy like Greece, a trifling sum such as $100 billion (a mere seventh of a TARP) represents around a third of national GDP, whereas the same sum is only about 3% of Germany's - chump change, almost. So it would be very easy for rich countries to forgive quite a lot of the debts of poor ones, and very beneficial for the recipients, especially those who have liabilities far exceeding their assets.

It would also be interesting to know to what degree, and in what ways, countries like Germany have benefited from tying peripheral European nations into the Eurozone. Perhaps it would be incautious of them to overplay, or over-rely on, the Protestant work ethic story in accounting for their dominance.

But the international web of finance has a further danger, for large and small economies alike. Those who are balancing mice, such as Russia (or even China, come to that) would not suffer a massive alteration to their NIIP/GDP ratio if asset or liability valuations changed by a few per cent; whereas a 10% valuation change for the UK means a boost or hit of two-thirds of GDP. Compare that with Austria, which has about the same negative NIIP in GDP terms, but which is balancing smaller figures.

One invests to get a return, and unless it's an in-and-out speculation the return is in the form of interest, dividends or rent. If your assets suddenly shrink - say because of relative movements in currencies - your income stream is pinched; if your liabilities swell, your outgoings become more burdensome. Clearly, Britain is exceptionally vulnerable to exchange rate fluctuations; but to a lesser extent, so are other countries such as Germany.

With share speculation, the growing volatility in the system can be insanely profitable for the gamblers - whose activities, far from being part of the steadying mechanism, may instead become a feedback loop that ends up smashing the engine. Andrew Haldane's July 2011 presentation to the Bank of England ("The race to zero") warned that as program trading in equities develops it will, mathematically, lead to more and worse "flash crashes".

But the bond market is much bigger, and the derivatives market is maybe 20 times world GDP. Never mind elephants, this is more like balancing two pods of blue whales. There's no room for error and there must be a political will to de-escalate. Sadly, I don't see it happening, yet. And it won't, so long as we think that the banks must be saved at all costs, together with their trading rooms.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Economic treason, zombies and village idiots

2011-11-14T13:36:00.008Z

This time it really is different. The Bank of England figures for percentage growth in M4 show a decline to zero for the quarter ending June 2009, for the first time since the data series began in 1963. That zero mark was reached again in June this year, and in the last quarter it plummeted to a record negative 8.1% annualised.

This, despite targets being set for lending to small businesses. I've just heard an interview on the News at One (Radio 4) with someone from one of the zombie UK banks, Lloyds. Under February's "Merlin project" agreement, gross lending to business was supposed to increase by £190 billion this year; the banks are on target to do so, but are not meeting their quota for small enterprises.

And there's fudging going on. The smart R4 interviewer said there are rumours that banks have been cancelling existing loans early and replacing them with fresh ones, so as to appear to comply with gross targets; the Lloyds spokesman dodged that point with a weak assertion that net lending had increased (he didn't specify by how much). And that's net lending to businesses, not net lending to the private market overall, so I shall be interested to see the M4 figures to December, when they are released.

Meanwhile today Marc Faber gave an interview on Bloomberg (see below), in which he said that current US policy is to keep interest rates at rock bottom until the unemployment rate drops below 7.5%. Faber cast doubt on this plan, observing that America now has a very large pool of unskilled people and that there may be a long-term 10% unemployment rate. He compared this to the Middle Ages, when there were economically-dependent "village idiots" all over the place.

(I give the link below, because the embedded video autoplays, which is irritating.)

http://bloom.bg/sI9WmW#ooid=xzZzgwMzouQa6FhZ4bE4b-YoI7IO8ztG

This is where the calculations of politicians have gone wrong. Imported un/semi-skilled labour (often exploited and brutalised, from what I read about the UK food industry) and foreign-outsourced industrial labour may have benefited the businesses concerned, but keeping large numbers of our fellows unemployed has rotted their skillsets, morale and work habituation, not to mention their health and family relationships. There is also a growing element of the service sector devoted to patching the damage - policing, law, social services, benefit payments, health services, special education for the children and so on.

There is a level of incompetence that is criminal; and if some of these effects were reasonably foreseeable, it could be argued that some of our leaders should be impeached for economic treason, under the category of "high crimes and misdemeanours".

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Greece: CMA predicted 68% haircut a month ago

2011-11-02T06:21:00.003Z

The credit default swap market was factoring-in a significantly higher debt discount for Greece as early as October 6, long before the Greek Premier's sudden passion for democracy:

http://www.cmavision.com/images/uploads/docs/CMA_Global_Sovereign_Credit_Risk_Report_Q3_2011.pdf

UKIP leader Nigel Farage interprets the latest move by Papandreou as putting pressure on the EU to agree to a shorter haircut:

"He himself is in favour of the package but has no option but to offer this vote.

"If he failed to do so he would be railroading the Greek people into a situation where he will have mortgaged their democracy, their liberties and their freedom. He cannot do that without their permission. He must also be hoping that his brinkmanship will result in a better deal from Brussels. The calculation is clear."

http://www.ukipmeps.org/news_383_Aristotle-had-a-word-for-it.html

If so, it's a shrewd move, since (as Farage says) the EU has a long history of paying over the odds to realise and preserve their dream.

(Apologies for giving link addresses below quotes - Blogger has continuing problems which I hope they will sort soon.)

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

European banking crisis news

2011-10-27T14:43:00.009+01:00

Tyler Durden references Peter Tchir in an analysis of the latest European deal re Greece. Essentially, the debt restructuring will be defined in a way that does not trigger claims under Credit Default Swaps (failure-to-pay insurance).

Karl Denninger points out that if CDS contracts don't pay as and when expected, that uncertainty will be built into the price in future.

Marc Faber says that the fudging will continue until sovereign nations bust themselves. The delay will simply make things worse in the end.

Charles Hugh Smith agrees, and compares the "rescue" to a lifebuoy made of plutonium - lethally heavy and poisonous.

Austerity is not the solution, says David Malone, recalling an Irish TV programme host who embarrassed Minister of State Brian Hayes by comparing Ireland's 14% unemployment rate with Iceland's 7% rate. But crisis is coming anyway: the blogger says he has seen a document from ECFIN (the European Directorate for Economic Affairs), which forecasts that the Irish Treasury will run out of cash in March 2012 and so desperately needs the next instalment of the IMF/EU bailout.

In a separate post, Malone says a top Irish banker has told him that this Europe-wide general banking bailout is the last, and next time round selected banks will be saved and others allowed to go bust. I suppose the financial industry will place its bets accordingly, so watch for high volatility in bank shares in due course.

A propos, Reggie Middleton declares Bank of America (BAC) doomed. He also discusses moves by BAC derivatives traders to transfer contracts to a subsidiary that has a lot of depositors' cash, so if/when there is a major loss it will become a liability for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The FDIC won't have enough to cover and so Congress will be forced to commit more taxpayers' money, so the public will be on the hook again.

Matt Taibbi brilliantly and passionately maintains that it is this kind of outrageous cheating and cronyism, not inequality per se, that has caused people to occupy Wall Street and other places around the world.

Back to austerity, and profligacy as its supposed cause. Marshall Auerback and Rob Parenteau say it's not Greece's overspending that have caused their problem, but the failure to collect taxes, especially from the top 20%, the legacy of a deal between the rich and the military junta that ran the country not so very long ago. That sort of cosy arrangement between society's winners might ring a bell with Americans.

However, if we go down the deflationary route, it may not be quite so bad as feared, according to Ralph Musgrave, who says that a major component of consumer costs in a country is the cost of labour in that same country. So if wages are cut, prices will come down. And, he continues, international wage differentials aren't everything: is it not, perhaps, better to work shorter hours in Greece, than long hours in Germany?

That's not quite how I think things will go. As governments around the world are locked into asymmetric trading arrangements, the exporters have a strong incentive to keep their currencies pegged to those of the debtor countries, and meanwhile the debtors keep multiplying their stock of money in order to finance their health and welfare systems. Apparently there is not much relative currency movement, then.

But that is like skydivers linking hands as they fall. What cannot be increased at the same rate as the monetary base, is commodities,which is why Alasdair Macleod says "Commodity prices are reflecting the increased quantities of paper money and credit." He argues, as so many do now, for sound money. However, it's how you get there that matters. At the speed we're going, it will not be a blessing that the ground breaks our fall.

In the long run, as Faber and others have said so many times, fiat currencies tend to zero value. The path has many twists and I fear there may be a sharp banking dislocation before then, so as well as considering what physical things to put what cash we have into (and worrying about the degree to which their price is too high because of others' speculation), I also have to consider the merits of continuing to hold cash - and perhaps, a sensible supply of it outside the banking system.

The 1933 Congressional Finance Committee hearings, chaired by Senator Reed Smoot, heard testimony from Marriner S. Eccles, soon to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Eccles showed that the stock of money had declined, not merely because people had begun to hoard it but also (and even more so) because of a decline in the velocity of its circulation in the economy.

We are experiencing another such decline in velocity,which deficit the authorities are trying to supply by injections of extra liquidity. This is not working, partly because (Australian economist Steve Keen maintains, with the help of his computer model) giving it to the banks is far (by two-thirds) less effective than giving it directly to debtors.

Another reason for the failure is the very different circumstances in which we now find ourselves. In the 1930s, rafts of US banks had been allowed to go bust, yet there was plenty that needed doing and plenty of people and resources to do it. And there wasn't a huge overseas workforce that was set up to undercut any bid by local labour.

As far back as 1993, Sir James Goldsmith perceived that GATT put the West into the jaws of a trap, as he explained in a book with that title. He argued the case in a TV interview against a complacent Laura d'Andrea Tyson; much good it did him, or us, though she's still going strong, it seems. Goldsmith advocated a sort of regionalised protectionism, to allow the West to survive while the developing world caught up by trading with its peers.

Instead, the world market has been opened up rapidly, and (maybe this is why it was allowed to happen) made some almost inconceivably wealthy while withering so many others. By the way, this process is not necessarily good for the developing economies, either. And it may be the worse for the latter when the system unravels.

We're hearing much at present about Occupy Wall Street - and St Paul's in London, and more. As I've suggested in the previous post, it may be that people are beginning to understand (however fuzzily) that the emerging economies have been used as an instrument in the process of transferring wealth, not so much from West to East, as from below to above within the developed world. It's not the embassies they're picketing.

Economics is becoming politics. If there is not an honest debate soon, we are contemplating a class war begun from above, a struggle that mad, hate-filled Communists used to welcome because of the magically wonderful millenial age that would follow it - a theory to which I in no way subscribe.

If the world is to remain open, then wage rates will have to tend towards some global mean, and that will only be possible if vast quantities of debt are purged from the system. You cannot have sharply reduced wages while attempting to sustain high liabilities fixed in nominal terms. Unless inflation does the job for us; creditors will resist that vigorously, so it has to be debt forgiveness (or default, it doesn't matter). In a world where personal indebtedness hugely outweighs government debt, official austerity measures will, in my view, be either ineffective or (because of effects on consumer demand, welfare costs and tax revenues) actually counterproductive.

Since this consumer slump appears to coming our way faster than the emerging economies can develop regional demand to replace it, I think the East is in for at least as hard a landing as the West.

However, they have come so far in such a short time that they may be able to cope psychologically with the material setback. And with all the tools, factories and industrial knowhow we sold them, the sources of essential raw materials they have secured in e.g. Africa, and the skills base they have developed, I think the East will be the first to pick themselves up and that is when the balance of world economic power will be seen to have shifted suddenly and decisively.

Goodness knows what our 1% will do then, or the 99%.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

The West is eating itself

2011-10-27T10:04:00.006+01:00

The Economic Collapse blog comments today on widening inequality in the USA (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-one-percent-gigantic-government-gigantic-corporations-massive-wealth-inequality-in-america/comment-page-1#comment-78618).

I think it's time to review who's really benefiting from globalisation. As I have said on that site:

Of course there's going to be widening inequality if the working class is undercut by foreign labour. This would happen even if the 1% didn't get richer.

But the dirty secret, I suspect, is not the economic destruction of the US (and UK, and just watch Europe) by outsiders, but the way that most of the international wealth transfer from globalisation has ended up where the money started.

James Kynge's book "China Shakes The World" says that only 15% of the end price goes to the Chinese manufacturers, the rest is captured by the middlemen - the importers, dealerships and supermarket owners.

America is cannibalising itself and throwing the bones abroad.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content.

Money velocity, not quantity, caused the boom'n'bust

2011-10-08T15:21:00.006+01:00

Reading "Extreme Money", the acclaimed new book by Satyajit Das, has highlighted for me the importance of money velocity.

As Das so clearly demonstrates (pp. 78-80), the banks altered their mortgage lending model in recent years. Instead of lending money and then holding that mortgage to maturity, they would sell it on for a sum that included the discounted value of future interest payments. This returned bank capital and depositors' money more quickly, which made it available for a new loan. Turning the money over faster massively increased the ratio of net profit to bank capital, so that the yield on banking activities outstripped other, one might say more productive, forms of enterprise. It became almost the only game in town, so that the economy has been skewed towards sterile financial hocus-pocus, instead of providing and exchanging useful goods and services.

The system created a boom, which could only be sustained as long as borrowers could absorb the increased quantity of loaned money. Asset prices boomed as fools sold on to bigger fools, and poorer-quality borrowers were suckered into joining. But we seem to have reached the limit of this pyramid scheme, and having run out of expansion room, the velocity of money is dropping and attention then turns to quantity instead.

The question now being asked - again, since we are in the throes of QE3 - is whether pumping extra cash into banks will balance the equation. If Wikipedia (see "money velocity" link above) quotes him accurately, I think the answer was given more than sixty years ago, by Paul Anthony Samuelson:

In terms of the quantity theory of money, we may say that the velocity of circulation of money does not remain constant. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” You can force money on the system in exchange for government bonds, its close money substitute; but you can’t make the money circulate against new goods and new jobs.

Banks have been given contradictory instructions: lend more, and build up your reserves. No wonder they take government support cash and buy safe, interest-earning government bonds with it. Effectively, the government is funding the gradual repair of bank balance sheets; it would be quicker and more honest if Uncle Sam and John Bull simply gave them enough cash to do the job.

But even that might not get the banks lending again. Would you, in their position?

Let's assume for a moment, sophisticated investor, that you have decided to stop day-trading because there's an increasing probability in this shark market that the bigger fool may turn out to be you. What longer-term investment might act as a safe haven for your gains?

Western manufacturing industry, with its high costs of labor and regulation?
Eastern manufacturing industry, so dependent on the once-profligate but now financially distressed Western consumer?
Industrial commodities, which have soared in the busy economic boom but also because of leveraged speculation?
Western real estate? Yes, the price-to-income ratio is dropping - but we haven't yet seen the drop in incomes that will continue the downward trend in nominal terms - especially as the borrower finds more of his limited income going on food and energy bills.
Emerging markets real estate? One for the specialists, such as Marc Faber.
Bank shares and sovereign debt? Junk bonds? Isn't that what got us into this mess?
Agriculture? Maybe.
Gold? Maybe - but what a rise it's seen in the last few years.
Cash? Inflation isn't hitting everything - big-ticket items have gotten cheaper in real terms for decades. Here in the UK my first new compact car cost me £6,000 in 1989 and I could get another for that price now, with higher specifications. If you can pay your living expenses from income, maybe cash isn't such a crazy option.

For the way our governments (US/UK) are seeking to shore up the system doesn't look destined to work. The increased quantity of money, now used so cautiously and unproductively by the banks, is not going to offset the drop in velocity.

Later, if that money stays around and is not withdrawn quickly enough, then when we revive economic activity there will be a rush of general price inflation; but not, I think, for some years yet. Such inflation as we're seeing now has different causes and effects from the type we saw before, and has more to do with physical supply and demand rather than monetary expansion.

So some experts are predicting "troubles ahead", "unprecedented velocity collapse", a "double dip recession", or even a breakdown that will make us envy simpler, more sustainable societies.

I don't go with that last, but then again, I don't expect my house to burst into flame and yet I still have smoke detectors and fire insurance; so I do think it's good to build up easily-accessible emergency reserves against the possibility of temporary disruption.

There is no royal road to predicting economic developments. All the charts in the world are no use when the powers that be decide something different really has to be done. The system is not a machine but a poker game, and a crooked one at that. So I expect the course of events to be determined by a negotiation between the interests of the powerful, which in our democracies also (to some small extent) includes us, the ordinary people.

For now, I'm still holding cash and government inflation-linked bonds, but if the consequences of deflation are too painful for the populace, then the rules may well alter. Maybe, in time, we will indeed get hyperinflation, even though these days the currency is managed in a very different way from that of Germany in 1923. Dr Faber noted recently that gold and bonds rose together, a counterintuitive phenomenon he analysed as arising from fear of systemic collapse. This fear may also explain why India and China (among others) are boosting their holdings of physical gold, which is supporting the price even as other commodities deflate.

But that time of game-changing crisis is not, I think, with us yet.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Humour: how the stockmarket works

2011-09-24T09:22:00.003+01:00

CityUnslicker reproduces the following story; the earliest version online I can find is from 1st February 2001, but that references "Felix", which appears not to be the same-name student newspaper of Imperial College, London:

Once upon a time in a place overrun with monkeys, a man appeared and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them.

The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to diminish, they became harder to catch, so the villagers stopped their effort.

The man then announced that he would now pay $20 for each one. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again. But soon the supply diminished even further and they were ever harder to catch, so people started going back to their farms and forgot about monkey catching.

The man increased his price to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so sparse that it was an effort to even see a monkey, much less catch one.

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys for $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on his behalf.

While the man was away the assistant told the villagers. 'Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has bought. I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.'

The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys. They never saw the man nor his assistant again and once again there were monkeys everywhere.

Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.

______________________________________________

If you think this is an overly cynical view of the investment establishment, remember that it has been re-posted by a City insider.

Also, at an Oxford college reunion some years ago, long before the credit crunch, I was talking to a fellow graduate who was "something in the City" about my bearish views and my thought that the East might eventually take over the business of the Western exchanges. He boasted that the City was adept at swindling foreigners and would manage to do so for years to come.

I'm just putting that on record. Hubris?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

The US' credit rating, the peril of interest rates and the need for wholesale reform

2011-09-19T12:10:00.014+01:00

As you know, S&P downgraded the US' credit rating to AA+ last month. That's still a lot better than most countries in this financially shaky world. But as long ago as July 2010 Dagong, a credit rating agency working for America's biggest foreign creditor, China, rated the US "AA with a negative outlook".

Here are a few graphs to tell the story of US public debt, and the cost of paying the interest on it as a proportion of gross Federal tax collections:

This next one might be a little surprising, even heartening:

That is greatly influenced by the long-term decline in interest rates:

For the period up to and including fiscal year 2000, the average rate on public debt was slightly over 7%, and has been reducing since the recession of the early 1990s in order to stimulate (and then rescue) the economy.

Now let's look at what interest would have been payable in dollar terms, if the rate had been (say) 7% throughout:

Had that 7% rate been applied throughout, this is what it would have taken out of the gross tax collections:

That is the big worry, and why I don't doubt that there's a lot of collusion and fudging going on behind the scenes.

But that doesn't make me a Tea Partier. This is not a story about wicked old government and how we'd be better off without it altogether.

The reason why debt has become particularly dangerous over the last couple of years, is that Uncle Sam has been trying to save our bacon. Perhaps he's done it in the wrong way, and should have let gambler banks go down - you have so many more second tier banks to take over, unlike here in the UK. Maybe it's not too late to for the US to do that, in a controlled way, even now.

And yes, we all need to look at social benefits, though again I'm not with the let-the poor-starve party. For example, we might just possibly question the profits of pharmaceutical companies (with their endless me-too variants on perfectly good drugs that are coming out of copyright); the profits and contractual get-out weaselling of insurance companies; the battening of lawyers on the medical system; the training costs and remuneration of the medical profession. There is more than one way to trim the fat, apart from abandoning US citizens to bankruptcy, ill-health and premature death. Can we please get away from an Orwellian Animal-Farm-style slogan-bleating of "private good, public baaad"?

I do have an issue with both the US and UK governments, not about their power and control but the exact reverse: their failure to moderate the growth of private debt over the last 30 and more years. Counterintuitively (if you think the Right is responsible with money), it was under President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that total debt to GDP soared, as I discuss at length in a previous post here, and most of that was private debt. Fighting one foe, they failed to notice the manoeuvering of another, namely the psychopathic greed of the financial industry whose aid they requested.

I am reminded how Ireland's freedom was lost because the King of Leinster invited the Normans to assist him in recovering his throne in Wexford, in 1169. Guinness-drinking Irish sentimentalists may lament "the Saxon foe across the water", but their real enemy was the bloodthirsty, land-hungry, Viking-descended Norman, and King Dermot MacMurrough, who let him in.

Both public and private sectors are due for reform.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Tax-free inflation-protected deposit scheme (UK) still available!

2011-09-11T10:01:00.007+01:00

Now that NS&I has withdrawn inflation-linked Savings Certificates, the Mail on Sunday looks around for alternatives. I'll give them a slightly closer look here, with links for you to click through. Please note that Yorkshire Building Society has a cash ISA version that means returns are tax-free even if you are a taxpayer!

1. Post Office Inflation Linked Bond - N.B. closing date 16 September (or earlier if fully subscribed)

Single lump sum investment, £500 min., £1 million max.
3-year term: RPI+0.5%, annually, OR...
5-year term: RPI+1.5%, annually
Backed by Bank of Ireland.
RPI adjusted once a year in August, according to UK Office of National Statistics RPI index.

Drawbacks:

No withdrawals allowed during the term
Interest is taxable (but remember that you or your partner may not be a taxpayer)

2. Cambridge Building Society Inflation Linked Bond Issue 1 - N.B. closing date 15 September (or earlier if fully subscribed)

Single lump sum investment, £5,000 min., £85,000 max.
5-year term: RPI+1.0%, annually
Runs from 16 Sept 2011 to 16 Sept 2016
RPI calculated according to UK Office of National Statistics RPI index over the investment period

Drawbacks:

No withdrawals allowed during the term
Interest is taxable (but remember that you or your partner may not be a taxpayer)

3. Yorkshire Building Society Protected Capital Account (PCA) Inflation Linked 8 Plan - N.B. closing date 15 September (or earlier if fully subscribed)

Single lump sum investment, £3,000 min., £85,000 max.
Managed by Credit Suisse International on behalf of Yorkshire Building Society
6-year term: greater of RPI and 16%, i.e. minimum return is 2.5% p.a. even if inflation is zero or negative!
RPI calculated according to UK Office of National Statistics RPI index over the investment period
Can also be accessed as a cash ISA (max. £5,340), for tax-free returns
Can transfer other cash ISAs into YB inflation-linked cash ISA
Can invest in cash ISA as well as non-ISA bond

Drawbacks:

Early exit fees apply
Interest is taxable (but remember that you or your partner may not be a taxpayer), UNLESS you opt for the CASH ISA VERSION

4. Santander Inflation Linked Bond Issue 5 - N.B. closing date 5 October (or earlier if fully subscribed)

Single lump sum investment, £500 min., £2 million max.
6-year term: greater of 105% of RPI (over the term) and 8%, i.e. minimum return is 1.29% AER p.a. even if inflation is zero or negative!
RPI calculated according to UK Office of National Statistics RPI index over the investment period

Drawbacks:

Early exit fees may apply - contact issuer for details on 0845 765 4321
Interest is taxable (but remember that you or your partner may not be a taxpayer), however according to the Mail article an ISA version is available - contact issuer for details

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Should Americans dump their dollars?

2011-09-09T18:54:00.003+01:00

Karl Denninger comments today on Greece's alleged failure to roll-over her debt, Germany's weakness and the fatal over-extension of debt in the American economy.

I respect Karl's expertise and information, but am often put off by his (to me) excessive use of bold type, underlining and capitalised words, dramatic language etc. Nevertheless, he's making a couple of radical predictions.

One is a very severe US stockmarket drop ("half -- or more", "try a 90% loss on for size"). Another is the consequent failure of insurance-based guarantees, including (a) annuities and (b) the FDIC.

Unlike here in the UK, where bank deposits are guaranteed by the Government, in the USA depositors are protected by a company, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, so the value of the guarantee depends on the value of the assets held by the FDIC.

I touched on this question of FDIC underfunding in 2008 (following "Mish") and 2009 (following Karl himself) and if Karl is right, the moment of truth could be drawing near.

Yet there are others, including Charles Hugh Smith, who contrariwise expect the dollar to strengthen as the world trading system unravels, or at least to survive because its collapse would properly collapse the system.

We do live in uncertain times. My instinct would be to hedge my bets, but the conventional methods employed by investors - insurance-type hedging - may not work in a very unstable situation. Consider counterparty risk.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

NS&I withdraw Savings Certificates

2011-09-07T17:52:00.002+01:00

On 28th May I said the clock was ticking for those who wanted to get into NS&I Savings Certificates; it's now stopped. Received by email today:

"Dear Mr Norfolk

As you’ve registered to receive updates from NS&I, I’m writing to let you know that all current Issues of NS&I Savings Certificates were withdrawn from general sale at close of business on 6 September 2011.

The latest Issues of Savings Certificates had been on sale for almost four months (since 12 May 2011) and have been very popular. When we launched the Issues we expected the amount invested to be substantial, and our expectations have now been met.

We’re sorry if you haven’t been able to invest on this occasion, but we will contact you again as soon as the next Issues go on general sale.

You can see the current rates for all NS&I accounts and investments on our interest rates page.

Yours sincerely

Garry Bond

Head of Customer Management"

To me, this makes clear that the Government is not really much interested in protecting savers; a point I made to Douglas Carswell MP back in May.

I'll let you know when these Certificates are on sale again - I guess it'll be early in the next tax year, i.e. April/May 2012, after "sales targets" have been set by the Treasury.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Who's bailing out Uncle Sam?

2011-08-31T08:53:00.004+01:00

Just a couple of graphs to show which foreign countries have most increased their holdings of US Treasury securities.

The UK seems the odd man out, bearing in mind its own financial difficulties, but it is widely suspected that much of the UK's holdings are cat's-paw transactions on behalf of China.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Is gold still fairly priced?

2011-08-28T17:12:00.005+01:00

At the time I first accepted Richard Daughty's argument that gold represented a great buying opportunity, I didn't have the money available. So, seeing the phenomenal rise in the price over the last few years, have I missed the boat?

It depends. Yes, if what I want is the chance to buy in well below trend and "make a killing"; but perhaps not, even now, if I'm merely seeking something that may protect my savings against inflation.

There are so many ways to define inflation, especially if you are a government incentivised to keep the official figure low. But let's take a look at one monetarist measure, the Mises Institute's "True Money Supply", and compare that to the price of gold since 1971 (the year of the "Nixon shock"):

According to the above, gold is just about on its long-term trend line; not a bargain, but that's not the issue here. However, that trend does include the dramatic spike of 1980, from which peak it took some years to climb down. So let's re-do the line from 1985 onwards:

Seen this way, we're a little above average at the moment, which is perhaps why Marc Faber is hoping for a near-term pullback of $100 - $200; but it's not egregiously high, which doubtless explains why he still sees it as his favourite investment.

Another straw in the wind is a comment by an investment banker on a recent blog-piece of mine entitled "Cash: the investment of the century". "Wolfie" says (Aug. 17):

"I'm currently 100% cash but I think the time has come to break cover and take a 30-40% gold holding. A storm gathers."

I certainly have to take seriously an industry insider who is clearly as bearish and cash-based as myself, but wouldn't you know it, I've been in the USA for the last fortnight and unable to do anything about it up till now.

Perhaps it's "a sign" that I was in NY for Tuesday's 'quake and had to fly out of Newark two days early, just ahead of Hurricane Irene. In any case, I'm now considering following Wolfie's suit sometime soon, even though I don't like the price much. For in the mass of unused money in bank holdings lodged with the Federal Reserve, and also with the more fortunate of transnational corporations who have been fleecing the American consumer for decades and blaming the Chinese who get to see only 15% of the action, lies true storm force potential.

I think we have some time yet before the cloud of cash makes landfall - I've been eyeing 2016 as the approximate end of the real underlying recession - but I shan't delay my preparations quite that long. As the ancient Greek saying goes, there is no borrowing a sword in time of war.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Cash - the investment of the century

2011-08-12T09:48:00.004+01:00

There's been comment recently about how the ordinary investor has been abandoning the market, in some cases with an undertone of contempt for the poor saps who are missing out on those incredible gains to be made just around the corner.

The banks who from time to time attempt to poach my clients often use past performance an an indicator of future returns, while of course covering themselves by the usual disclaimers. Typically they cherry-pick among terms of 1, 3, 5 and 10 years.

Let's see how the graph for the Dow would look over various time periods, and compare it with cash in your bedsock. To be fair, let's ignore the interest you could have earned on cash, and the dividends on stocks; as a special favour to the Dow, so being especially unfair to cash, let's also ignore the offer-bid spread and the fees and charges loaded onto the investor.

Over the last 12 months:, you could have made a good profit - well, you could if you'd got out a month early:
... over the last 3 years:
... over the last 5 years:
... and since January 2000:

"Mish" today points out that we are in deflation, if you are a monetarist, since credit and asset values have contracted. Inflation scares suit those who are running what some call a "wolf market" - come out, little pigs, it's all clear now.

What inflation? The consumer - and the inflation indices - may notice a rise in food and energy prices, but that's not what your nest-egg is for. Look at house prices - still going down in the UK and the USA - and all the other big-ticket items that in recent years were purchased with borrowed money.

I think Mish is right, for now. The concern I have - and it's reflected in the soaring price of gold - is what governments will do in their desperation once giving money to busted and corrupt banks (and governments) is finally seen as worse than useless. Can the bond market really dictate terms in an economic collapse, or will governments across the world break their currencies with the final splurge of money-printing that third-party control by central banks is designed to prevent?

Until that time, and despite the temptations of commodities, maybe cash-holders should hold the line while the enemy advances. A lot depends on your personal plans, of course; we're hoping to move house and such cash savings as we have may continue to appreciate against the thing we want. So really it's about relative values - comparing asset A with asset B - decided by you, not some index that doesn't reflect your priorities.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Where "should" the stock market be?

2011-08-09T20:42:00.000+01:00

There's a flap on about market declines. I think it's because the traders are kids.

Take a look at the graph below, which shows the Dow since the end of WWII. Bearing in mind that in real terms, a thousand points on the Dow was worth more in the past than today, where do you think we ought to be, if the market was "normal", or better yet "sane"?

Adjusting for inflation (CPI-U), and looking at the Dow's progress from August 1945 to August 1980 (around when the Great Inflation really started), then extrapolating, I figure the Dow should be a shade under 3,000 points today.

The rest is, effectively, monetary bubble - which is not to say it can't continue.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

China downgrades American credit to "A"

2011-08-08T09:43:00.001+01:00

Half a world away from the USA, China's Dagong credit rating agency can afford to be blunter than Standard & Poor.

Their view, shared by many in the West, is that the problems have not been solved but damagingly deferred; $4 trillion needs to be cut from the public budget within 5 years; QE3 is inevitable and "will throw the world economy into an overall crisis". Accordingly, on August 3 Dagong downgraded the US rating further, to "A, with a negative outlook".

If the Western rating agencies dare to echo that view (and some see last week's S&P's re-rating to AA+ as an attempt to break the news gently), it could be the trigger for a more serious selloff in the stock and bond markets. Disaster for many, opportunity for some - perhaps.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Crash? What crash?

2011-08-07T19:58:00.001+01:00

The hackneyed news media deadlines are trotted out again: "x billion wiped off shares". How quickly we forget.

Below are the charts for the FTSE and the Dow from their recent low points in March 2009:

The FTSE closed Friday 49.4% higher than 29 months ago; the Dow, 74.8% higher.

I think that ultimately, both will (in real terms) plumb depths significantly deeper than they did in 2009, but it will not happen in one go, and it will take a long time.

The stockmarket is not a store of money: A has already paid B for ownership of the shares, and the money went into B's bank account. The money is not parked on Wall Street or Paternoster Square, it merely passes through it.

On the way, it's purchased either the promise of a future income stream (and how reasonable is that hope in an unravelling world economy?) or the chance to sell on to a bigger fool (in the hope that it hasn't already happened).

Remember, you don't have to be in this game. I should like to know where the traders' and bankers' bonuses are invested at the moment: do they eat where they cook?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash (and index-linked National Savings Certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Gold and its correlation to debt and GDP - updated

2011-08-01T14:17:00.000+01:00

Jesse offers a chart showing an apparently close relationship with the price of gold and the growth of US official debt, thus:

He wonders how this might look in relation to debt/GDP, and I give below gold's correlation with GDP and with debt in its broadest sense (TCMDO, ignoring intragovernmental lending) in the period 1952 - 2010:

I would suggest that gold's basic correlation is with GDP, but with wild swings reflecting debt-fuelled manias and financial crises. On this showing, and despite what looks like a meteoric rise over the last few years, gold is merely coming home and is not yet overpriced in the long view. This, as I understand him, is what Dr Marc Faber also thinks.

Not having had the money at the right time, I missed the opportunity to climb aboard gold when it was severely underpriced; but may do so soon, merely to preserve some of the value of our savings.

I'm not so much a gold bug as a most-everything-else bear. When the system stops lending cheap money to the riverboat gamblers with dusty top cards on Wall Street, I'll be interested in genuine investment.

UPDATE:

Here's the price of gold compared to the growth in Total Public Debt Outstanding since fiscal year 1929 - this includes intragovernmental debt (please click to enlarge):

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None - YET. Still in cash (and some inflation-linked government savings certificates), and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Banks' final grab: the land

2011-07-29T20:49:00.006+01:00

UPDATE: It's happening! Unbelievable!

_________________________________________

Robert Wenzel comments approvingly on a course of action mooted in a meeting of primary dealers and the US Treasury held at midday today. The idea:

"Dealers suggested that the Treasury might be able to repo their MBS portfolio to raise cash."

Yes, I should think banks would like to suggest that: have the government that bailed them out, now sell the MBS (mortgage-backed securities) back to them at fire-sale prices. 31 million mortgages - about half of all the mortgages in the USA - delivered into the hands of the swindlers.

What daring. It is almost Biblical in the scale of its impudence.

For the record, let's list these players:

BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Barclays Capital Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
Jefferies & Company, Inc.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
MF Global Inc.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Nomura Securities International, Inc.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC
RBS Securities Inc.
SG Americas Securities, LLC
UBS Securities LLC.

You'll note that six of them are now Limited Liability Companies (LLC), the latest to convert being Morgan Stanley (as of May 31, 2011). Apparently, this has a tax advantage for derivatives dealers; but I wonder whether not having shareholders while also avoiding personal liability is an equally important consideration, as we approach the endgame, when bank shares may finally burn up.

Imagine what Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson would say, if they could see how in the Land of the Free a tiny elite not only owns most of the cash, bonds and shares, but now aspires to seize the real estate. America is approaching a peak of wealth inequality and mass servitude comparable to the condition of England in the eighteenth century, but without the hopes offered by the Industrial Revolution.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

When investing, remember inflation

2011-07-28T08:33:00.003+01:00

The lowest point (so far) in the above monthly sequence was February 2009. But we've still lost a third in real terms overall since the start of the Millennium.

And what does this shape suggest to you about future returns?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Hedge fund titans admit they don't know what's going to happen

2011-07-27T08:08:00.003+01:00

George Soros is retiring, closing his fund to outside investors and returning their money.

Some say it's because he's become old (81) and cautious, other suggest it's to avoid being regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but he himself has said “I find the current situation much more baffling and much less predictable than I did at the time of the height of the financial crisis.”

Stanley Druckenmiller, one of Soros' former fund managers, also threw in the towel last year, and he's only 58.

Closing hedge funds is a trend, and the issue now even has its own website: The Hedge Fund Implode-O-Meter. I see this as further confirmation that it is no longer "business as usual" in the investment world. It is, perhaps, like that stage in WWII when senior officials on the losing side prepared fake IDs and packed gold and art treasures for their flight; that is, it's no longer about gain, but about hanging on to what you've taken.

This, I think, is part of what's behind the current US budget crisis. Agreed, public spending is out of control, but that has been so for a very long time. What's forcing us towards disaster is the overall level of debt, of which much the greater part is private credit. Players in finance and politics colluded to encourage the housing and credit bubbles, which disguised the failure to nurture domestic production and balance imports with exports. Fees, interest and selling securitised debt, plus capital gains on inflated assets in a booming economy, made many people rich, and some super-rich; and they bought the government and regulators.

The ordinary Joe's real wages stalled for 30 years and more, but loading him with easy credit (and sending his wife out to work) kept the show on the road. Now, it seems, the objective is to get him to pay for everything, without asking his masters for any of the money they made out of the game.

If the elite succeed, they keep their extraordinary wealth and Joe suffers. Actually, it looks as though they cannot lose, since most cash, bonds and equities are owned by the top 1% of the population. Even their houses will tend to retain most of their value, since the only people who can aspire to buy them are other people with lots of money.

Inflation would hit cash and bonds, but the rich also have most of the equities and nice houses. Deflation would amplify the power of cash and (provided there is no default) attractiveness of bonds, and the rich have most of that, too.

So why do we feel that we're at some break point? I think it's because the balance of opportunity and threat has altered significantly.

Firstly, there's nothing much more to steal; expansion is no longer a prospect.

Second, the economy may not rebalance without an increase in taxation, and I should think some of the wealthy are on the lookout for the possible imposition of capital controls that would prevent them from fleeing abroad with their money. The more far-sighted are already renouncing their US citizenship.

Third, if the system cannot survive without some redistribution of wealth, but those who have it hold on too hard, there may be a breakdown in the social order. Last year, Marc Faber and Ron Paul were each predicting such problems, Faber recommending moving out of cities because they are such easy targets for attack.

I agree with them. I think that when irrational greed and resentful desperation meet, there can be no good outcome. We are planning to move soon to somewhere pleasanter, but also, we hope, safer. We are beyond knowing what to do with our savings, other than to diversify so that we don't lose everything, and not to entrust it all to third parties.

Looks like the super-rich hedge fund managers think the same way.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Pensions Review Summary

2011-07-25T08:08:00.003+01:00

Gambling on sovereign default may seriously disrupt equity and bond markets

2011-07-19T07:47:00.004+01:00

IMPORTANT: Please note the disclaimer below before continuing!

Matters are coming to a head in the financial markets.

The yields on Spanish and Italian government bonds recently exceeded 6% for a while; at 7%, it is estimated, Italian public borrowing becomes unsustainable and Italy then joins Greece in the category of countries doomed to at least partially default on their obligations.

On the other hand, it's possible that the 7% point will not be reached, or if it is, not for long. So much depends on market confidence and as is well known, fear may trigger a crisis that is otherwise avoidable.

But so can the greed of speculators. While Britain's 1992 "Black Wednesday" made George Soros a reported USD $1 billion, the cost to the UK of its attempts to support the pound against his and others' shorting is estimated at over £3 billion sterling. He has since developed a reputation as a philanthropist; we could wish for a less expensive way to fund a benefactor. *

The difficulties in Europe come at a most unfortunate time for the USA, since there is now a showdown between President Obama and Congress over raising the debt ceiling for American public borrowing. The President has indicated that a deal needs to be struck by this Friday to give time for enactment by the August 2 deadline, which I guess will really mean more last-minute hard negotiating over this weekend. Brinkmanship is a dangerous game to play: it nearly blew up the world in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and then as now, everything depends on both sides remaining sane.

It's ironic that a financial elite, having looted the economy for decades and left it pretty much unworkable, then blames the losers and expects them to pay all the costs of putting things right, and that without delay. What nonsense: America's problem is private debt, which over the last 30 years has so enriched some of these born-again pecuniary Puritans. Yes, public sector workers have enjoyed great salaries and pensions compared to the People of Walmart (though please, say nothing about the top 10 hedge fund managers whose average earnings are $1.75 billion); but what fortunes have been made on the back of arranging mortgages on their increasingly crazily-priced houses? It takes two to tango; and the same number to quarrel, as we now see.

Well, the reckoning is coming, even if some won't pay their fair share of the bill. As "Mish" reported yesterday, the yield on the US Treasury 30-year bond is increasing and he is predicting a bond market revolt "sooner than anyone thinks".

And, scarcely believably, here come the speculators again. They made money packaging debt, making sausages with as much old roadkill as fresh meat in them; then they made governments pay for the consequences; now they gamble on which countries will go bust as a result. Last month, Martin Hutchinson reminded us that he'd warned in 2008 about credit default swaps, especially the ones that are "naked", i.e. insure events that would not in themselves result in any loss to the investor. This simply gambling, and it makes a bad situation worse; it did so, he argues, with Lehman Brothers and others, and will do so with Greek debt, where the loss on default will have added to it the cost of an estimated $100 billion in side bets.

Now there are those who will argue that the CDS market, though enormous ($60 trillion in 2008, half that now), isn't a dangerous one, exactly because it's a gambling operation. Loser pays winner, so it's a zero-sum game.

But it's not.

Firstly, there's the question of mispriced risk. Hutchinson explains: "Wall Street's risk management looks at normal price fluctuations and then assesses the maximum possible risk as a modest multiple of the daily fluctuation, it was completely inadequate in measuring the risk of a CDS book. That, in a nutshell, is why AIG went bust and had to be bailed out with $170 billion of taxpayer money."

Then there's the interaction between the speculators and the authorities. Goldmans Sachs was compensated by the taxpayer for losses on AIG debt, in addition to claiming on its CDS on the same. It's like getting paid twice on an auto repair job. Rather questionable, that.

And there's the risk of outright fraud, which is how rogue trader Nick Leeson destroyed Barings, Britain's oldest investment bank: he hid his losses in a secret account and increased his bets to try to recoup them. That put Barings' capital at stake in a way that the naive, old-fashioned management failed to foresee.

Which leads us to the problem of contagion. Banks can go bust, but their depositors are protected (subject to limits) by the FDIC. Not only does that puts the taxpayer on the hook, but the FDIC, being a corporation with limited assets, may itself become insolvent if the scale of losses is too great (in fact, that was the position only two years ago). We then have either partially-busted depositors, or (if politics forces it) a further burden on what under the circumstances is likely to be an already-distressed public budget.

And what if insurance and pension funds have to pay out on CDS contracts? As Hutchinson points out, banks have limited balance sheets, but the funds that represent security for the nation's savers have much more to place at risk in contracts that many of the fund managers won't properly understand or calculate - which made them such suckers for packaged debt (CDOs and variants). "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Hutchinson, who ran a derivatives desk in the 1980s, assessed CDS as a "sophisticated scam". So I should like to know the total downside of CDS for pension and life companies. Could this result in massive extra welfare support for retirees?

Derivatives are the fourth horseman in Michael Panzner's apocalypse, or "Financial Armageddon" as his March 2007 book titled it (reviewed here in May of that year). The market, recently estimated at $601 trillion, is worth some 8.75 times the world's GDP (or nearly 40 times that of the US), so a relatively small percentage imbalance as per some of the ways illustrated above, represents a huge potential problem. The subsector including interest rate and CD swaps is expected to grow by 10% within a couple of years, according to Citigroup (itself a name to conjure with, in the light of recent history).

Will the Dodd-Frank Act prevent all problems in future? Not, I'd have thought, with many of the nation's brightest brains employed on Wall Street and perpetually looking for ways to game the system. I don't know the loopholes and weaknesses, but I'm betting on that talent, human nature and the fabulous scale of the incentives involved, to find them out.

One way or the other, the money looks as though it's going to run short. This will lead to increased reluctance on the part of lenders, and so raise interest rates and tank the market in existing bonds. Coming back to Martin Hutchinson, he wrote on Seeking Alpha at the beginning of this month, predicting an "epic" crash in September or December, though if things go wrong in current budget negotiations that date could come sharply forward. It seems inevitable that such a crash would also impact on equities, what with deleveraging and the depressing effect on demand of a severe deflation.

Will a mooted QE3 help? I'm not sure. What did QE2 do? The banks got a raft of money from government, couldn't find anyone who they wanted to lend it to and parked it at the Fed to get safe interest. In effect, the State is rebuilding the banks' reserves for them, on the drip. But as real estate continues to dwindle in price, the bank reserve ratios may actually worsen despite all this help. And whatever the outcome of current budget negotiations, the private debt ceiling seems to have been reached already, so the frightened consumer is hardly likely to shore up the economy with extra demand.

I cannot envisage how this can continue for much longer*, unless the government takes back from the Federal Reserve the right to issue money, in which case rip-roaring inflation is a possibility, followed by a total reset, as in Germany in 1923. But avoiding that is surely the point of a central banking system: not to have a Chancellor Havenstein operating 2,000 presses 24/7 printing currency with face values in the billions, truckloads of which were still waiting to move out on the day he died. Dropping dollars by helicopter might work in this terrible way (though C-5s would be more commodious); shoving money into the banks hasn't done so.

Perhaps the strategy will be debt default, but again I can't somehow picture the virtuous depositors being allowed to keep their dollars and see them multiply in spending power, even though at least one New Yorker appears to hold $100 million in a checking account. Is that a vote for cash as the best asset?*

Hutchinson's latest post advocates gold (an each way bet if you think deflation ends with a currency crisis), buying a house (even though he thinks it'll go down in value) and finally, a put option on Treasuries. Like me, he's struggling, really: gold is above its long-term inflation-adjusted trend, houses seems to be a bad investment for ready cash (unless you're one of the growing number of bottom-fishers snapping up distressed properties at 40% off) and options carry counterparty risk, which is where we came in.

In the event of a full-scale disaster, all bets are off. All I can suggest is diversification among all assets, plus holding some away from banks and other fiduciary institutions. And, of course, hope. ________________________

*Though I'm confused, it seems I'm in good company here:

"...even such "legendary" hedge funds as Soros' $25 billion Quantum are about as clueless as everyone else. Bloomberg reports that "the fund is about 75 percent in cash as it waits for better opportunities, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the firm is private."

The reason: "“I find the current situation much more baffling and much less predictable than I did at the time of the height of the financial crisis,” Soros, 80, said in April at a conference at Bretton Woods organized by his Institute for New Economic Thinking. “The markets are inherently unstable. There is no immediate collapse, nor no immediate solution."

- Zero Hedge
____________________________

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None, except for (UK) NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificates (similar to US TIPS). Otherwise, still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A reply from Mr Allister Heath, and my attempted rebuttal

2011-07-16T18:46:00.002+01:00

Following my recent needling of Mr Allister Heath at City AM in response to his article calling for a new Ronald Reagan, he has kindly responded thus:

I agree with you that monetary policy was too loose in the US and in the UK (disastrously so under Lord Lawson in particular). However, I was focusing on Reagan's fiscal policies and didn't mention his monetary policy in my piece. While the latter was bad, it was no worse than what we have seen later and still see today - so I don't think it's an especially anti-Reagan point (we also saw far worse prior to him; in fact, the history of modern monetary policy has been one of failure in almost all economies). In fact, it is simply wrong for you to claim that monetary over-expansion started in the 1980s - we have been plagued by it ever since fiat money (and even before, for example when gold was brought back in large quantities to Europe by Latin American explorers).

As to the statistical dispersion of post-tax incomes you refer to, I agree that it has increased since the 1980s - but I do not believe inequality of outcomes as a goal, evidently unlike you. I do not believe that this kind of inequality causes crime. I'm much more worried bythe fact that some groups and individuals in society lack opportunity, for example because of poor state schools or because of perverse incentives created by the benefits system. But I think that low marginal tax rates maximise opportunities and economic growth, and hence welcome what Reagan did on that front.

To which I have framed a reply, as follows:

Dear Mr Heath

Thank you for responding. I am sorry to reply late but must plead pressure of work. May I perhaps take up a couple of your points?

1. I accept that Reagan's successors tended to permit the same disastrous over-expansion (I said "acceleration") of the money supply that, I must insist, did indeed begin on his watch. I shan't bore you with the graphs but the facts are undeniable. Yes, the money supply has had previous bursts - e.g. in the lead up to the 1929 debacle (and I'm familiar with the gold-supply-boosted inflation of the 16th century) - but 1980-ish was definitely a watershed in the postwar era. It's reaching a bit too far back to make tu quoque an excuse. However, I certainly don't exonerate his successors, either.

2. I also accept that when tax rates are high, tax cutting does help increase tax revenue as well as stimulating enterprise. But I'm not sure how much more tax rates should be cut from the 15% or so that effectively the American rich are currently paying. At the other end, I seem to recall research by - was it the IFS? - that shows the poorer sort are paying proportionately nearly as much tax as the middle class (something like 40%), thanks to indirect taxation.

3. You don't have to be a socialist - and I am certainly not - to query how (for example) the top ten US hedge fund managers can now be averaging $1.75 billion earnings p.a. This sort of thing is hardly the only alternative to "equality of outcome", a phrase whose implications are somewhat mischievously deployed by you in a discussion that ought really to be rather more nuanced.

4. Fiscal policy that focuses solely on State spending and debt is what has led us to this pretty pass. The Flow of Funds data shows that US local and national government debt declined from 52% of total credit market debt in 1952, to under 15% in 2007. That is not what has blown up the economy. Australian economist Steve Keen maintains, plausibly in my view, that what we have seen is a private debt crisis, not a public one. And this was stoked by the ability of banks to inflate asset prices through reckless lending; as well as government interference in the housing market, on both sides of the Atlantic. The failure to control the egregious greed of bankers must be laid at the door of governments, who doubtless saw votes for themselves in an overstimulated financial environment.

5. As the late Sir James Goldsmith (no slapstick socialist he, either) observed as long ago as 1993 when GATT was under way, it is globalisation that is destroying opportunities for those sectors of society for which you express some concern. Indeed he foresaw the breakdown of social cohesion in the West which we are now beginning to witness, and which the extremely high and growing disparities of wealth and income are doing nothing to heal. Certain clever and unscrupulous individuals have exploited the massively enriching (to themselves) opportunities latent in this situation, so I think it's fair to suggest that there is a causal relation between the prosperity of the super-wealthy in the modern financialized economies, and the impoverishment and social decay in the same.

6. You say that poverty does not cause crime (though recent UK statistics are showing a significant increase in burglaries). I would suggest that the underclass has, to some extent, been bought off by the payment of various kinds of social benefits, although there has been a concomitant deterioration in morale and behaviour, the effects of which are becoming increasingly difficult to manage and which is breeding a growing number of angry and confused children. Schools are doing what they can, but people must have hope of a better life and the prospects of meaningful employment and self-determination. This is unlikely to be achieved when our government exploits economic migration to hold down wage rates. More exam passes (inflated grades or no) may merely create a class of Eliza Doolittles with attitude.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Some European debt ratings

2011-07-12T17:03:00.009+01:00

CMA Datavision reports on credit default swaps for sovereign debt and so its information, based on market rates, is not quite so compromised as that of some major rating agencies. The global rankings are for 67 countries. The eurozone includes 4 of the 6 best, and 3 of the 4 worst. It is not surprising that the euro garment cannot fit all sizes in this range and the problem was identified by some commentators over a decade ago when the Euro was introduced.

Note: Spain is the 21st worst - consider it deep orange!

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A reply to Mr Allister Heath

2011-07-05T08:35:00.004+01:00

UPDATE: No answer as at 12 July. Are journalists even more arrogant than politicians?
________________________________________________________

Allister Heath at City AM has written a piece in praise of Ronald Reagan and tax cuts. I have emailed him as follows and look forward to his rebuttal:

Dear Mr Heath

Bring back Reagan? You'd have to be amazingly selective about which policies. It was under him and Mrs Thatcher that the reckless acceleration of monetary expansion began, and if you track money supply against GDP you'll see that the response of the latter, though statistically significantly positive, was also significantly less than the increase in the money supply. We got roaring inflation, but this time in the stockmarket and housing, turn and turn about. These two and their successors have led us to the present, tragically debt-laden pass.

We also got, thanks to the cuts in income tax, an enormous increase in inequality, now the subject of much well-informed comment in the USA. We'll be lucky if we don't end up with a Colombia-type society where the rich live in gated compounds (sorry, "communities") and go shopping in armoured cars, though that appears to be trending here.

I don't suppose that either the affable Reagan or the honourable and principled Thatcher, both of them fervent patriots, intended any of this, but their financial naivety was grossly exploited by the money men.

Perhaps you could submit something on how "conservatives", aren't. Or how politicians generally need to be taught far more thoroughly on the E bit of PPE.

Yours faithfully

Rolf Norfolk

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

America's debt, the role of the State and the fight for survival

2011-06-21T15:34:00.022+01:00

I'm going to look at the contention that State debt is the real villain and all we need to do is cut taxes and social benefits, and let business have its head. I don't feel it's quite as simple as that, but please do put me right wherever you see the need. This is an exploratory essay so I'd welcome correction, and further information and ideas.

First, let's agree that somehow or other, the State has to balance its books (over some cycle of time, to allow for recessions), because ever-increasing debt ultimately leads to ruin. That seems intuitively obvious.

So, how bad are the government's debts? Here's a graph of the official annual figures for the 58 years ending last December:

That looks dramatic, though the very steep slope in the last couple of years is atypical because of attempts to deal with the post-credit crunch economic crisis. Now let's see it in the wider context of GDP:

For the Federal government's "real" (GDP-adjusted) debt, the lowest point is in 1974, then a few years later, starting around 1980, the debt begins to rise significantly, doubling from its low by the early 90s. After that there's the boom of the later 90s, the bust of the 2000s disguised/mitigated/deferred by monetary easing, and the reckoning of 2008 onwards. (The final slope looks much as it did in the previous graph, since the economy has stalled.)

We end the sequence actually not far above where we started in 1952, but this time against the background of a greatly changed economy and society. To understand this we need to widen the lens to include the panorama of Total Credit Market Debt Outstanding:

This doesn't fit conveniently into the conventional narrative. All those whirring government-debt-counting widgets on blogs, yet 2007 was an historic low point? Something's funny here; time to look at what else was going on in the credit market. Let's begin with the "domestic" elements:

Proportionally, households up from 19% to 25%, nonfarm up from 3% to 7%, others generally stable or declining. The domestic sector as a whole shrank from 95% of TCMD to 69%.

So what was responsible for most of the rest? The financial sector:

Four subsets account for most of the financial sector:

As you see, it's now mostly mortgage-related. The graph above takes us to 2008, and below you see the first decade of the new Millennium, including the bailout of mortgage pools:

This demonstrates the government's recent effort to maintain the status quo. Personally, I feel that criticising them for this is like stoning the firefighters when they come to the blaze. My gripe is about how the fire started, which was the attempt to support homebuying and then to shore up home prices.

Take a look at what happens when we include the above three mortgage-based elements in the category of household debt - I rename the aggregate as "house and home":

So it's not general government overspending that's the biggest problem; at least, not directly. And then, when the home lending cracks up, the government rides to the rescue:

Oddly, from 1974 on, home and government debt are almost mirror images:

But it wasn't so before, when the two lines ran almost parallel. Perhaps there was some postwar golden age when money was going not into the spendthrift government, not into illiquid and non-income producing homes, but instead boosting American business? It seems so, if we look at the other subsectors of the "domestic" heading:

Having partially re-categorised the debt in a way that I hope you won't think too unfair, here's the simplified big picture showing how things changed over those 58 years:

To me, this seems illustrative of developing malinvestment. We have been buying and even speculating on houses, and filling them with foreign-made TVs, computers, iphones etc; but we've had much of our consumption on credit and indirectly (via the Treasury), quite a bit of that from abroad. (I say "we" because my brother is now an American, and aso because Britain is America's mini-me in terms of its economic problems.)

Imagine if that money had gone into business ventures, instead of illiquid and non-income-producing housing assets. What if successive governments had reined-in credit and consumer spending, and encouraged the reinvestment of profits into industry and research, rather than the unreally-rewarded financial sector?

Far from over-regulating, it would seem that government has failed to regulate sufficiently. Laissez-faire economics may work okay when the quantity of money is limited, but fiat currency (and debt, which forms part of it) entails the duty to supervise and intervene when necessary.

Was debt ever good? I speculated earlier that there might have been a postwar golden age of beneficial credit, when business borrowing accounted for a third of all debt. Yet when we relate the credit market with GDP, here's the result:

It seems as though debt never fully pays for itself, and the faster the debt accumulates, the worse it gets. Coincidentally, Karl Denninger has just made the same point. Last year, Nathan Martin's "Chart of the century" purported to show that beyond a certain point, additional debt results not just in lesser growth, but actually reduces GDP. Are we all wrong, or is "sound money" a (maybe the) precondition of a sustainable economy? (And how do we square this with the fact that many individual businesses borrow and prosper - is it that leverage gets you market share but tends to shrinks the market overall?)

The size of the debt is unimaginable, though still calculable. Four years ago I was reading Michael Panzner reporting on comptroller-general David M. Walker's mission to warn the nation, Cassandra-like, of the scale of unfunded State healthcare obligations. Even then, the latter was talking about figures exceeding $50 trillion. Well, we've breached that ceiling right now, even without factoring-in the notional capitalized value of benefit programs. Here we are:

Some say we're approaching (and some others say we're past) the point where it becomes mathematically impossible for the economy even to service the interest on our obligations, let alone reduce the amount outstanding. I'm not sure I agree, though the challenge is certainly daunting. Here is the total credit market debt expressed as a percentage of GDP:

If we have to be deeply in hock, perhaps it's better to have the government take care of some of the burden, for three reasons:

1. The debt doesn't have to end, as for example a mortgage does. Loans may need to be rolled-over, but the nation as a whole doesn't retire, so it can borrow forever.

2. Government debt is more secure, in the sense that more fiat money can be created to make the payments. How can you run out of nothing, which is where the money comes from? (Or rather, it comes from diluting the value of other people's stock of the money.)

3. The interest rates are, accordingly, lower than for most private and corporate borrowing. The average for all Treasury interest-bearing debt is currently 3%, whereas fixed-rate mortgages (if you can get one) are running at 4% - 5%, and credit cards are now averaging over 16%.

So, by all means let the government play little Dutch boy, plugging the holes in the dam. The total interest on the national debt for fiscal year 2010 was $414 billion, a vast sum but still an effective interest rate of around 3%. What average rate is being paid on the other $38 trillion or so that's burdening the economy (not to mention capital repayments)? Imagine if that debt was on terms similar to the government's...

Maybe it's not the banks that should be bailed out, but businesses and consumers. How would things look if more debt was transferred to government and slowly retired and paid for by various forms of taxation? Could this help distressed consumers and businesses keep going for long enough to get back on their own feet? Or must we go the let-'em-fail way demanded by free-market Puritans? (In which case, can we also get puritanical about the money supply and who is allowed to supply it, please?)

Bailing out is a good thing to do when the ship is sinking, but we have to do much more than that. So much has to go right that it's no wonder Dr Marc Faber (aka "Doctor Doom"), away in his Thai retreat, reckons it's hopeless and predicts a complete economic "re-set" (including the death of the dollar) and war. I hope he's wrong for once, otherwise I'm wasting my time here.

Survival begins in the head: you have to believe you'll get through, so you can condition your mind to look for tools and opportunities. Can we work on the assumption that there is a way?

One way was suggested in 1993 by the far-seeing billionaire Sir James Goldsmith, who recognised the threat that GATT posed to Western economic and social stability. Sadly, the man is no longer with us, but his book, "The Trap", is still available and highly relevant, even more so now that Goldsmith's predictions are coming true.

Globalisation has tipped the balance of power so decisively in favour of capital and against labour that American - and European - society is beginning to tear itself apart. Sir James advocated a system of economic trading areas to protect against completely unbeatable competition from extremely low-cost labour forces.

Either capitalism - which, theoretically, creates work and wealth by allocating capital efficiently - must have some bounds set for it so that it nurtures the society that gave rise to it - or, as Marx predicted, its contradictions will destroy itself. If we don't want an Ayn Rand dystopia, we have to make it possible for our people to work and prosper.

We are presently trading away not merely our income but the jobs that earn it, and the capital and physical means that create the jobs, and the knowhow that utilises the means in productive projects, and the intellectual property rights that safeguard the knowhow. As for the development of fresh, potentially wealth-creating knowledge, I understand that businesses have been cutting their R&D and even the universities favour their MBA schools over maths and science.

We need a plan. It will call for visionary leadership, skilled and patient management, the most careful international diplomacy, and the co-operation of politicians, voters, workers, industrialists and financiers.

In the meantime, emergency measures may be necessary, and they may not be the ones the econo-fundamentalists want. Austerity could be the worst possible solution at this stage - it is the exact opposite of Keynesianism to let rip when times are good and starve the economy further when there's already a recession on, and others are making this point already, e.g. "Rortybomb" and Australian economist Bill Mitchell. And there are those who say that taxation is nothing like as onerous as many people believe.

Or do you go with "Doctor Doom"? If so, maybe you shouldn't be planning to be rich in your own country, but preparing to move far away from the consequences of the coming collapse.

If you think that is irresponsible doom-talk, consider the President's Executive Order of a couple of weeks ago. I don't read the establishment of a White House Rural Council as mere quasi-socialist interfering; I sense the beginning of a national plan to survive and feed the nation in disrupted times. If it isn't such a plan, then there should be one.

For it's about more than just money, now.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Why the stockmarket could fall by 70% in real terms

2011-06-03T09:56:00.003+01:00

(The following article was published yesterday on Seeking Alpha.)
_______________________________________

My Feb. 11 SA estimate that the Dow could drop to 4,500 is echoed in a May 16 video interview with Russell Napier, who is predicting an equities bottom at around S&P 400. Actually, this is even lower than my guess, in proportion to the index chosen, but Napier says his figure is an average of what he expects valuations to be.

I've had a little abuse for this view, some rather personal, and it seems I'm too dumb to notice that the market has just had its biggest, fastest rise in history. Actually, the latter fact has not escaped me, and I take my hat off to those who have got on and off the Enron-like ride at the perfect moments -- so far.

What we've really seen in the last decade is two economic heart attacks and liberal use of the defibrillator: First a slash in interest rates that (given the venality and criminality of some in the financial world) led indirectly to the busting of the housing market and some major banks, and then a pouring of resources into the banking system that is now busting the credit of whole governments.

In a way, conventional market analysis is now hardly relevant, because the system is so grossly interfered with by government that everything hangs on what the Fed decides to do ... and how long it can get away with it. I pointed out several months ago that China (among others) is becoming very antsy about the export of America's inflation to the developing world.

In a May 10 interview with MoneyWeek's editor Merryn Somerset Webb, Napier says he expects the "reset" to come in two stages: First deflation, and then sharp inflation. I've pondered the in/de question for a long time, and his analysis seems plausible to me. We're so interconnected these days that a bust wouldn't just wipe out profligate banks, but also would crater the pensions and investments on which we have come to depend ... not to mention the taxman, who (particularly here in the UK) has found it very convenient to harvest money from the swollen financial sector. So inflation will be seen as the way to steal wealth to spackle up the cracks in the system. (Can you make a whole house out of spackle and duct tape, though?)

What's unusual about the current situation is that bonds are not on the other end of the seesaw to equities. Napier foresees a swift move up in interest rates that will undermine both. They say you shouldn't give an estimate and a timeframe at the same time, but he does, for the bear "pit": 2014. We shall see.

Meantime, Mike Shedlock today gives an alternative view, pointing out that corporations are holding a lot of cash. Maybe so, though I'd like to know more about who has the cash and who has the debt; whether some have both; and what the latter may do if interest rates spike. Not to mention what will happen to the demand side when ordinary Americans finally run out of money, as indeed many are doing already.

I have suggested that cash is not a bad place to be, unless you are one of the SA-reading gunslingers who has a sharp eye and sharper reflexes. Given the growing vulnerability of the US dollar (and various moves to weaken its position as the world's reserve currency), Napier has said (in the May 16 interview linked above) we might consider the currencies of emerging markets.

And I hedge my bet on the destination of the market by saying it may not be Dow 4,500 or S&P 400 in nominal terms -- but the market could well be there after adjusting for inflation.

Finally, there is a bright gleam in the dark: As Napier says, the bottom won't be in for long, and those who have the cash then and get in fast can "go to the beach" for years afterward. Like, as the FT interviewer said, in 1982.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

NS&I Savings Certificates - the clock is ticking!

2011-05-28T18:12:00.003+01:00

If you're considering buying an NS&I Savings Certificate, especially the (RPI-) index-linked version, you may need to decide quickly.

NS&I's site says they "expect [them] to be on sale for a sustained period of time", which gives them room for manoeuvre as to timing and could leave ditherers suddenly high and dry. They also say "we are currently experiencing high volumes of calls" and this could mean that they will reach their overall sales target well before the end of the financial year - which is why, reportedly, the Certificates were withdrawn from sale last July . It's also worth noting that there is no specific target for Savings Certificates - as I reported here last month, it is merely expected that NS&I will end the tax year managing £2 billion more than it did at the beginning - spread over all its products, including e.g. Premium Bonds.

Moreover, there is commercial pressure to withdraw the Certificates. I reported that they were back on 12 May, and a mere two weeks later the Nationwide Building Society began complaining of "unfair competition" from NS&I.

The Government is in a cleft stick: people should have a secure and inflation-proof haven for their cash, but it is also a priority to get banks and building societies lending again to stimulate the economy.

It has also been observed that since the financial sector has been allowed to dominate the economy, the Treasury has become semi-dependent on taxes on bankers' bonuses. I have to bite my tongue at this point!

Actually, the competition complained of is not as fearsome as it was. True, you can invest up to £15,000 for a 5-year period (and can also buy them for children aged seven or more); but the 2- and 3- year versions are no longer available for new purchases (existing ones can usually be rolled-over on maturity), so the maximum you can invest has been sharply reduced: in 2006 you could have committed up to £45,000 per person, by buying three different versions at the same time!

Further, although the Certificates are still RPI-linked and tax-free, the additional interest is now only 0.5% per year. As before, you can access the cash before the end of the 5-year term (I suspect this term was chosen as being the least attractive), but you lose a year's interest.

Having said that, I still think they are better than what you can get elsewhere. As this FT article says (see end), the commercial alternatives are either taxable or carry a degree of investment risk.

If you do want to get in (and remember, this is NOT a personalised recommendation!), do so before the market whinges the Government into submission. You can apply online here.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: We're just considering buying some ourselves!

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

NS&I Savings Certificates return!

2011-05-12T20:00:00.003+01:00

Five-year index-linked and fixed rate NS&I Certificates are now available again, according to a hotline email received here today.

Demand is likely to be high so if you want to get in, NS&I recommend applying online.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Credit cards and consumer protection

2011-05-03T08:35:00.004+01:00

As reported in the Daily Mail today, you get additional consumer protection if you make a purchase of an item worth £100 or more by using your credit card.

The Mail piece is based on details on page 16 in the latest issue of "Ombudsman News", a regular publication by the Financial Ombudsman Service (aka FOS -see link in sidebar under "Financial Regulators (UK)"). In the case cited, a student had bought what turned out to be a faulty computer and when she complained, the shop advised her to contact the manufacturer; but she didn't have time to do this, so she sought redress from the credit card issuer instead. When the issuer refused, the FOS ruled in the student's favour.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (current version) states:

"If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor."

"Jointly and severally" means that the consumer does not have to deal with the shop or the manufacturer first, he/she can get the money back from the credit card company; but the supplier can also be dragged into the action, if the consumer so chooses.

This does not apply if the purchase is via a "non-commercial agreement", or if the item cost less than £100 or more than £30,000, or if the credit card terms have been breached (e.g. by exceeding the credit limit on the account).

In the definitions section of the Act, "“non-commercial agreement ” means a consumer credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement not made by the creditor or owner in the course of a business carried on by him" - in other words, loosely speaking, the transaction has to have been commercial rather than private.

Worth buying a car from a dealer this way, perhaps?

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A letter to Douglas Carswell MP

2011-05-02T15:26:00.003+01:00

Monday, 02 May 2011

Douglas Carswell MP
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear Sir

Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending) Bill 2010-11

Congratulations on your speech introducing the above Bill, which I have just seen on YouTube. May I offer some counter-arguments so that you can rebut them when others raise them?

• Were your Bill to become law, the banks might simply offer no interest on “storage bank accounts” and a sufficient differential on “investment accounts” to draw money away from the former, even from cautious savers (but still not enough in the latter case to match inflation). In fact something like this is already happening with people investing in stocks who shouldn’t.

• British business might be at a disadvantage if we have this rule but other countries don’t. Look what the US has already bought from us with “candyfloss money” – the old Cadbury Quakers must be spinning in their graves.

• Savings need to be safe in terms not only of the return of capital, but the return of its real value. NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificates fitted that bill, and were withdrawn in 2010 for the first time in 35 years. This is an indication of the Government’s priorities, surely. But even when available, money had to be locked up in those Certificates for years. And when first introduced, they were only available to pensioners.

• If you really want sound money for the protection of ordinary savers, then we should have index-linked (and linked to a properly fair index of consumer price inflation), instant-access (or short-notice access) cash ISAs, so that deferred consumption is at least not penalised, if not positively rewarded.

Very best wishes to you and for your Bill,

Rolf Norfolk

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Banks still under pressure?

2011-04-26T08:15:00.006+01:00

The banks are supposed to get lending again, and simultaneously rebuild their cash reserves. But Bank of England statistics show that reserves are actually falling, instead.

Figures for last month show that year-on-year, notes and coins in circulation increased by nearly 4%, but reserves held in bank accounts dropped by over 11%.

I reproduce the BoE's table below (interesting that they present it in a bashful pale grey on white - the visual equivalent of the civil servant's polite, embarrassed cough?) - click to enlarge.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Will the government really help us against inflation?

2011-04-24T17:29:00.003+01:00

Inflation-proof, government-backed savings will soon be back on sale - or will they?

On 19 July 2010, National Savings & Investments (NS&I) abruptly withdrew Index-Linked Savings Certificates from general offer to the public - for the first time ever. These plans were launched in 1975 and were originally available only to pensioners, at a time of high inflation (24.2% for that year).

Yet last July, inflation was only running at 3.1%, so why stop the offer at that time? The Bank of England base rate was at an historic low of 0.5%, therefore inflation was comparatively 6 times higher; but the difference in numerical terms was only 2.6%. In 1975, the BoE rate varied from 9.75% to 12%, with RPI running at more than double that and the rate difference was over 12%.

One reason for the NS&I hiatus will have been the emergency general review of Government borrowing requirements following the General Election. But another may be the kitten-weak condition of the banks, which are trying to fulfil two contrary directives, namely, to lend money again and also to rebuild their cash reserves. Perhaps they are to be spared too much competition. The anticipated rush for NS&I index-linked plans is such that they have set up an email alert system. When offered, the new certificates could sell embarrassingly fast and draw the public's attention to the Government's suspected inability to address worries about growing inflationary pressures.

But how much, exactly, are they going to offer, and when? Like many others, I misunderstood the Press (e.g. the Guardian) as saying that £2 billion would be on sale; but NS&I's release (23.03.2011) merely states that the target for the total funds they manage, spread over all their products, is an increase of £2 billion, which will "allow NS&I to plan the re-introduction of Index-linked Savings Certificates for general sale in due course. Subject to market conditions, NS&I expects to be bringing Savings Certificates back on general sale in 2011/12."

"... in due course", "... subject to market conditions"; one could hardly call that a blast on the post-horn.

Going back to the Government's own Budget plan as stated in the "Red Book" (Annex B, page 90), the guidance is merely that "National Savings and Investments (NS&I) is expected to make a contribution to net finance of £2 billion", without even a hint that any of this must be from inflation-linked plans.

By contrast, the same page sets a target of £38.4 billion of index-linked gilts. That sounds interesting, except most if not all of that may be taken up by institutions such as occupational pension funds in order to underpin their guarantees to retired members.

What about general savers? Few commercial outfits, if any, can offer guaranteed inflation-proofing and anything like 100% security, let alone exemption from income tax and CGT. This recent article from the Daily Mail details some options, but they are either taxable or risky.

So in some ways, even though inflation is still far from what it was in the mid-1970s, we may be worse off today. Theft by devaluation may have become official, if unstated policy.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

When will I get my State Pension?

2011-04-22T08:53:00.004+01:00

What with women's State Pension Age rising from 60 to 65 in stages, and proposed further deferments for both sexes, you may be confused about when you're actually going to get your State Pension.

Click here for the calculator from the Pensions Advisory Service and find the answer! They work in conjunction with the DWP so it should be right.

Please note that legislative changes may change the answer so check again when you hear further news on this topic.

I have also placed this link in the right-hand sidebar under "Other helpful sites".

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

US credit wobbles; hold cash not bonds

2011-04-22T06:07:00.003+01:00

The fuss about S&P's "AAA with negative outlook" for US credit is remarkable mainly for being so far behind the curve.

The Beijing-based Dagong credit rating company gave America a significantly lower "AA" with negative outlook, back in July 2010 (and the UK was one level worse than that). Remember that China is a business partner and needs a clear view of how commercial operations are proceeding; this is not about Oriental mischief-making.

On the other hand, the talk of US Treasury default is wild, and I quite understand how it makes pensions expert Leo Kolivakis decidedly impatient; after all, that "negative outlook" comment is screwed to the side of a continuing AAA rating. But I do rather doubt that current US bonds will be honored in the sense of preserving and slightly increasing your wealth.

Charles Hugh Smith's thesis, on which I commented a few days ago, is that the American plutocracy will consolidate its gains by forcing a bond strike; personally, I think it's unnecessary to postulate a conspiracy in order to agree with him about the consequences. With interest rates at an historic low in the Anglo-American sphere, there's really only one direction in which they can change. Why would you buy now? And more importantly, why would you hold, when a rate rise could savage the tradable value of your holding?

Those who need to keep exports flowing, such as China, may be prepared to pay the price of maintaining the status quo, making on profits what they're losing on bonds, but as I said in February ("Global Credit Warfare"), the language over there is getting rather anxious and aggressive. Dagong's report bluntly states that America is exporting inflation worldwide.

Having said that, inflation in prices is very uneven and unfair. Proportionally to income, the rising costs of food and energy are hitting the poorest worst: I can cut back on brandy and weekend leisure trips, but how does the underclass cut back on hamburger helper? And with a large wad of ready cash, the better-off are in a position to snap up residential property cheaply, and bargain hard for luxuries such as cars, computers and other shiny gewgaws. I should think this is a great time to go to bankruptcy auctions, especially since the taxman isn't much bothered about setting a reserve. So in many ways, inflation hasn't yet really reached the rich.

But invulnerability is an illusion. When the remains of Mayan civilization were discovered, no wealthy Mayans were found sipping mai tais among the half-finished stone carvings.

We're all in this together, and because it's global now, we're mutually involved in a way that hasn't happened before. As Adam Fergusson relates in his chilling book(recently reissued) "When Money Dies", during the 1923 Weimar hyperinflation and the period leading up to it, German export business did very well, so well that the jealous and punitively-minded French wondered who'd won the war. Speculators also prospered, until the currency was reorganised, at which point they "took off for Paris and went to work on the franc, their departure the first signal that stabilisation was a fact." For a long time, reports Fergusson, visitors to Germany would see apparent national prosperity, simply because the cafes and restaurants were full of the winners; they didn't see the middle class exchanging their pianos for a side of ham.

But now, with an increasingly integrated international economy, it's getting more difficult to evade the problems simply by moving to another country. Tensions are rising, and not just in the Arab street.Western governments are deferring the day of reckoning, consuming their own debt like the serpent Ouroboros but without the element of timelessness. The present state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely, as Karl Denninger has been saying since 2007.

What are the possible outcomes?

Outright default? Don't hold bonds.Bond strike, interest rate rise, savage economic retrenchment? Don't hold bonds.Total collapse of the currency? Don't hold bond. High inflation? Don't hold bonds.

The least nuclear of all the options is the last, so unless we have a collective death wish that seems the most likely. Jesse thinks the dollar won't go to zero, but have a few zeroes knocked off it, like the French franc in 1960 (not that that stopped the decline): "I think the reissue of the dollar with a few zeros gone is inevitable. It is the timing of that event that is problematic. It could be one year, or it could be fifty years. There is a big difference there for your investment strategy." Reminds me of the scene in an old Cheech and Chong movie where they offer a peasant dollars and he spits on the money, saying you haven't got Mexican? Except this time he'll want a chicken or a silver necklace, instead, because inflation now respects no national boundaries.

Whether the debt-accelerated system manages to slam on the brakes without hospitalizing the vehicle's occupants, or hits a tree (everyone got airbags?), or simply grinds to a rutted halt in a cornfield, buying into the bond market now without some ulterior motive looks like wanton self-sacrifice.

Don't take it from me; take it from Bill Gross, who "sees no value in U.S. government bonds at current interest rates" and has dumped them altogether.

Meanwhile, let's start a national debate about social cohesion. That or wait for the jungle to recolonise the abandoned temples.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

US university invests heavily in gold

2011-04-19T06:59:00.002+01:00

The University of Texas has doubled its holdings of gold in 2010, bringing the total to nearly $1 billion, according to Bloomberg.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Hold cash now, buy bonds when interest rates rise?

2011-04-18T08:13:00.003+01:00

On Friday, Charles Hugh Smith posted a theory that I can accept as at least plausible: America's rich will consolidate their long-term gains by engineering a bond crisis - a refusal by the Federal Reserve to keep financing government spending.

This will make interest rates soar (collapsing the tradable values of bonds and, I'd have thought, equities); new bond issues will have to offer much higher income; the rich move in with their huge reserves of cash; then comes the demand for serious economic retrenchment; interest rates fall; because of their locked-in high yields, the capital value of new bonds shoots up; hey presto, another killing for the millionaires.

If that's so, the strategy will be to copy the rich (if you have the resources) - hold cash patiently and pile into the bond market when interest rates peak.

Other implications that occur to me: don't owe any more money than you have to, don't overinvest in residential or commercial property, don't be in a business that depends on people's discretionary spending. Reconsider your balance of shares, bonds and cash. It may even be worth thinking about moving somewhere with historically lower crime rates.

What about "inflation-protected" investments, such as NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificates (due to become available again soon)? Smith observes: "Holders of TIPS [Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, in the USA] will do OK, unless the government fraudulently sets the rate of inflation well below reality. Hmm, isn't that exactly what's it's already doing?" But presumably there's a limit to how much the government can misrepresent inflation; and besides, Smith's thesis is that we are headed for deflation because inflation robs the rich.

He could be wrong; but if he's right, the word passed down the ranks of cash holders is "Stand fast!"

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

April News

2011-04-12T13:30:00.003+01:00

1. National Savings & Investments has not yet reintroduced Index-Linked Savings Certificates, but watch out for their return as reportedly they have a target (limit) of £2 billion in new issues. I think they will go very fast, bearing in mind continuing concerns about inflation. You can register with NS&I here to receive email updates and be among the first to get in.

2. As we are in a new tax year, you have a fresh ISA allowance. The overall limit per person is £10,680 of which up to £5,340 can be in a cash ISA; any excess must go into a stocks and shares ISA, which can be with the same or a different provider.

3. Investing for children: as you will know, the Child Trust Fund was launched in 2005 and vouchers backdated to include children born after 1 September 2002 - and now the scheme has been shelved. However, plans that have started can continue and contributions can still be made. This autumn (1st November) we expect the introduction of an alternative for under-18s, the Junior ISA. According to the Daily Mail, the allowance will be £3,000 per child and unlike adults ISAs it will be possible to switch from cash to stocks and shares and back again. It's also worth noting that this allowance also applies to children born before 1 September 2002 (who were not eligible for the Child Trust Fund). Please also see this article by Gaynor Pengelly on other options for children's investments.

4. For various reasons, my personal attitude to risk re stocks and shares is still cautious, except possibly for commodities - but even in that sector there are issues of big-boy speculation and market manipulation. If you invest now, I'd suggest you be prepared to take a long-term view. Do please contact me if you'd like a personal discussion of your own portfolio and future plans.

5. Contracting out of SERPS/S2P: from 2012, it will no longer be possible to contract-out through a personal pension, stakeholder or money purchase pension scheme. This is because the Government plans to introduce a more generous flat-rate State Pension for all, from 2015 or 2016. I warmly welcome this, because up to now we've had a terribly complicated scheme of giving with one hand and taking away with the other - Pension Credit, Pension Savings Credit etc. The bizarre result was something like an effective 40% tax rate if you had a small State pension and had a little extra income from savings - Higher Rate Tax for poor people! Here's an intriguing angle: We've yet to get full details, but a possible effect of this change of policy could be that if you are currently contracted-out (or have previously done so) and are due to reach State Pension Age after the new scheme starts, you may get the full new State Pension PLUS extra income from the contracted-out pension, whereas someone who had stayed in SERPS/S2P throughout would get nothing more. Maybe the Government will do something about it (surely their civil servants will have spotted it) - but let's keep our fingers crossed and hope they'll think it's too complicated to adjust now.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities. DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Index-linked savings to return!

2011-03-23T19:02:00.003Z

Great news: National Savings & Investments are reintroducing Index-Linked Savings Certificates, according to this article in the Guardian newspaper.

But there is a sales target (£2 billion) and then quite possibly NS&I will shut up shop again, as they did last year. So it's likely that these will fly out very fast and you should be on the lookout for the launch - click here to get email updates from NS&I.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

'Global Credit Warfare': China Preparing for a Treasury Bond Sell-Off?

2011-02-27T11:34:00.000Z

See my "Seeking Alpha" exclusive here.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Could the Dow hit 4,500?

2011-02-12T08:35:00.001Z

Read my exclusive on Seeking Alpha. Some of the reactions are bordering on the hysterical. How quickly we forget recent events.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

USA housing fraud summarised

2011-02-09T18:17:00.006Z

Hat-tip: Karl Denninger

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

News items for UK investors

2011-02-08T16:08:00.001Z

Catch up pension contributions from previous years!

From the new tax year starting 6 April 2011, you should be able to catch-up on unused pension contribution allowances from the previous 3 years, according to this business briefing - so long as you have a pension plan already in force that could have taken those contributions.

Inflation-linked savings

Birmingham Midshires are offering a 5-year fixed-term savings product that will grow by the rate of inflation (plus a bit). Please see here for details. Unfortunately it's not an ISA, so taxpayers will have to pay tax on the growth according to their tax rate and allowances - but it's an interesting proposition for non-taxpayers who just want to preserve the value of their savings. Closing date for the first issue of this plan is 10 March.

Have you given up smoking for at least a year so far?

If you have, then are you still paying your life assurance premiums as though you're a smoker? Rewriting your cover, or simply informing your insurance company (with evidence as appropriate), could save you money - see this article for details.

State Pension mix-up - check you're still on target!

There's been another computerised mess, this time with National Insurance Contributions, stretching back years, as this article explains. HMRC may not necessarily inform you if you're affected. I'd suggest you ask for an updated State Pension Forecast to be sure that you're not heading for a shortfall - click on this link to get one!

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

New "Seeking Alpha" article on liquidity and market breakdown

2011-02-07T16:23:00.002Z

"Seeking Alpha" has just published my latest post on QE, debt and the economy, which I can't reproduce here for commercial contractual reasons - but please click on the link below to read it there:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/251137-this-liquidity-will-soak-us-all

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A stark warning from Harry Schultz

2011-01-11T09:12:00.002Z

Legendary investment consultant and trader Harry Schultz has been publishing his financial newsletter since 1965. He has just retired with a sombre finale that is rapidly circulating on the Internet. Peter Brimelow at Market Watch gives us some extracts from that last letter, e.g.:

"Roughly speaking, the mess we are in is the worst since 17th century financial collapse. Comparisons with the 1930’s are ludicrous. We’ve gone far beyond that. And, alas, the courage & political will to recognize the mess & act wisely to reverse gears, is absent in U.S. leadership, where the problems were hatched & where the rot is by far the deepest.”

I think we are now clearly beyond the time when bearish commentators can be dismissed as melodramatic alarmists. Harry Schultz is no Chicken Little blogger but has appeared in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's highest-paid investment consultant. Maybe that makes him a Chicken Big.

The 400-year timescale in the extract above chimes with the ideas of D H Fischer's "The Great Wave" and other theorists who see very long term cycles in economics. But they are largely cycles of human social behaviour, so can we still break out? Santayana warned, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", so maybe knowing how it's played out before will help.

Schultz is not alone. He himself quotes a former financial officer of Ronald Reagan as saying recently: "We’re entering a global monetary conflagration. If a sell-off of U.S. bonds starts, it will be an Armageddon." In that context, Schultz does not see gold as being in bubble territory yet.

For Schultz's shorter-horizon defensive investment advice, see below as quoted by Brimelow; longer-term, we may have to seriously consider what to do in the event of a major disruption to normal living.

Here's what Schultz says for the boys still absorbedly playing the high-stakes card game in the first-class saloon of the Titanic (or the Laconia, or the Lusitania - whichever one gives you the bittersweet spine-tingle):

• 5-10% Stocks (nongolds).

• 15-20% Commodities: via futures, commodity stocks &/or physical assets.

• 50% gold stocks & bullion: 15% blue chips, 5% junior, 5% bullion via futures, 25-35% in physical bullion.

• 0% currencies (“Close out ALL fiduciary time/call deposits, money market funds & municipal bonds, pension funds…”)

• 1-5% Cash in hand. (“Stored privately.”)

• 0-5% bear stock market protection via ETFs like ProShares UltraShort Dow30

• 15-20% Government notes/bills/bonds (“In 3-6 month T-Bills/bonds only — buy these only in Swiss Francs, Australian dollars, Canadian dollars, Brazilian reals, Singapore dollars, Chinese Yuan only).”

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Jefferson, debt and democracy

2011-01-09T11:09:00.008Z

"Economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude"...

Now that we are once again in "times that try men's souls" (as Tom Paine put it) many are harking back to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and longing for a return to the principles of the United States Constitution. This makes it all the more important to establish exactly what Jefferson said.

Let's take a frequently-quoted passage: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must take our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labors and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.”

This is a hashed-up version of the longer and more elegant original; and even takes liberties with the language (for example, it wasn't "take our choice" but "make our election"). As so often with Jefferson quotations, there is no indication of when he said it, and to whom; and when there is, it may be wrong - this alternative mash-up says it's from "A Summary View Of The Rights Of British America" - it's not (see the 1774 text of the latter here, or here).

No: it wasn't written before the Revolution, but 40 years afterwards, with the weight of experience added to his undimmed passion for liberty, and as a result it's far more interesting.

Writing from retirement in his Monticello home, the 73-year-old is responding to historian and fellow-Virginian Samuel Kercheval, who has written a pamphlet calling for a convention to reform that State's Constitution and is seeking the support of the former 1770s representative to the Continental Congress , who in addition to later serving as President and Vice-President of the Republic has also been Governor of Virginia.

Kercheval strikes gold for posterity, if not for his immediate cause. Jefferson takes the opportunity to get down to first principles, including the "mother principle" of republicanism, which is that "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." More than even before the Revolution, he is convinced of the need for "equal representation" in the Senate and House of Representatives, and observes that the machinery of democracy fails these yardsticks in both bodies. He also worries about the near-immunity of the Governor and the supreme justices, and the poor quality of juries chosen not by the people but by legal functionaries. He concludes the first part of his letter by saying that the system has worked well so far not because of the Constitution, but in spite of it, thanks to the fact that "our functionaries" have been "generally honest men"; and then proposes ways to subdivide powers and responsibilities so as to maximise the involvement of "every man who fights or pays."

Setting aside our modern views on slavery, suffrage for women and property qualifications for voting, it's an interesting precondition that the republican should be ready to pay his full share of the price of decisions which he has (or should have) an equal part in making. The people in whom he reposes his ultimate trust, are those who put their property and lives at stake for their liberty. Perhaps Jefferson sees us more clearly through his green spectacles than we see him.

But there is no equality between debtor and creditor, and Jefferson keenly perceives that the money system has the power to destroy freedom. We shall go from debt, to taxation, to oppression. After the bully-boy performance of Treasury Secretary Mr Henry Paulson in October 2008, expressing his "disappointment" with Congress' decision to reflect the will of the people and refuse assistance for several distressed banks, one of which had recently had him as its CEO, do we catch a flash from those Monticello lenses?

Now, at last, to the passage (paragraphing and emphases mine) in which the old revolutionary warns how the Republic can be lost:

"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.

"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.

"If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers. Our landholders, too, like theirs, retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must wander, like theirs, in foreign countries, and be contented with penury, obscurity, exile, and the glory of the nation.

"This example reads to us the salutary lesson, that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, and to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

Now some will draw the conclusion that we have been brought to this pass, or close to it, by a system of public benefits; but it's more than that. Powerful private interests have weighed down the people individually with the burden of "private extravagance" and then offloaded their own heavy share of the costs of mismanagement onto the people collectively, while retaining for themselves personally the enormous fortunes they made open-eyed in their corrupt and destructive scheme.

This, over the same 30-odd years that saw the hollowing-out of the nation's economy by exposing it through international trade to competition for which the country was not adequately prepared, any more than the fish of the Atlantic were ready for the incursion of Pacific species to which the opening of the Panama Canal exposed them.

Had the people been informed by a knowledgeable and responsible news media; had they understood and been helped to accept the adjustments that would be demanded of them; had they been represented by delegates who knew their duty to their constituents; had their diplomatic and trade representatives managed the pace and scale of the economic transition; then they could have achieved economy and preserved their liberty, while allowing the less fortunate of the world to rise from unjust poverty. Instead, the aftermath of a profusion which continues to enrich a financial, politically-protected elite has, we must fear, condemned the people to servitude, or at least such inevitable obligations as will shackle their descendants for a generation or more, the attempt to escape which must involve tension and possibly worse between the nations.

Did Jefferson see this 195 years ago? It could have been yesterday.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Massive guaranteed investment gain: buy postage stamps!

2011-01-03T16:45:00.006Z

US financial analyst Peter Schiff points out that the introduction of "Forever Stamps" (postage stamps without a stated face value) represent a great buying opportunity - and even a speculation, for those considering stocking up to sell to others when rates rise.

In the case of UK customers, it's better still: we already have such stamps, and now we know what the next price rises will be - see here for details. They take effect on 4 April. If you buy now for the anticipated need in the coming financial year, you will avoid hikes of 12% - 14%.

This is at a time when interest rates on cash ISAs are under 3%, so even allowing for the opportunity cost of leaving money in secure, tax-free deposits, you can make a rock-solid net gain of 9% - 11%.

This should be a sell-out, so I'd suggest buying in March.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Electronic paper has a bright future

2010-12-31T10:27:00.004Z

The Chinese are set to overtake both the Kindle and Nook (and Sony's Reader) with a new reflected-light colour e-book reader, according to this article last month.

The screen changes more slowly than radiant light screens, and has a more limited range of colours, but I've been looking for something like this for quite a while. I can see three distinct advantages of the new development:

1. It isn't radiant light. I read a lot on my laptop, and come away feeling my eyes are bruised. So much nicer to browse my Kindle with a cup of tea (Luckwar, since you don't ask).

2. If it works like monochrome e-paper, it uses much less power when offline, only enough to change the screen when you want it to. This should mean much longer use time on battery.

3. It's readable in bright sunlight.

4. See (1) again. There must be tens of millions of keen readers like me and we're in danger of macular degeneration thanks to modern but not cutting-edge technology. What with the hearing impairment suffered by the younger generation on their maxed-out audio systems, soon the deaf will be leading the blind.

What this will do for the fortunes of E Ink and LG Display (both have recovered well from October 2009 lows), and what it's now doing for China's Hanwang/Hanvon companies, I don't know; but I can't wait for an e-ink colour reader to reach Britain's shores.

I must be very nice to my wife next year, and invest in a nice, stretchy stocking for the mantelpiece.

INVESTMENT DISCLOSURE: None. Still in cash, and missing all those day-trading opportunities.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Income inequality in China and USA, and the international battle for resources

2010-12-29T12:09:00.001Z

The Gini Coefficient measures personal income inequality (the nearer to 1.0, the nearer to maximum inequality).

This January 2010 study by the Brooks World Poverty Institute (PDF) says that the coefficient in China (PRC) rose from 0.3029 in 1978 (when the post-Mao economic reforms began) to 0.4448 in 2006 (table 2, p.20). By comparison, according to Wikipedia, the UN's Gini calculation gives the USA a coefficient of (est.) 0.408 in 2007 (though the CIA reckons it to be 0.45). There are some 63 dollar billionaires in mainland China as of 2007. Perhaps this explains the > $81 million paid for an antique Chinese porcelain vase last month in a British auctioneer's salesroom.

So the Chinese are really silk-hatted entrepreneurs like us, right?

I think not.

The thing to remember is that capitalist methods are being used by the Chinese to further Communist (and nationalist, I would suggest) objectives. The upper and middle classes, both growing, are being used as well-remunerated donkeys to pull a cart filled with a billion of their fellows out of the abject poverty in which they languished at the beginning of the last century. Attempts by the successful to pull off tax avoidance stunts like the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich (see Google's wheeze here) would, I suspect, end with bullets in heads. That cart has to keep rolling, at all costs.

We can get a hint of the longer-term strategy from the machinations in the market for rare earths. Smart traders are trying to second-guess what China will do with its near-monopoly; it looks as though she can't resist the power this gives her to jerk the chain, as witness yesterday's announcement of tighter export quotas. Following September's allegedly punitive suspension of shipments to Japan, the latter has no intention of being held hostage in future and is busy stockpiling reserves.

Other Western countries would be well-advised to turn their attention a little from efficiency and budget balancing to survivability. Just-in-time logistics may become just-too-late. Clausewitz's famous dictum "War is the continuation of economy by other means" must needs be turned on its head in an era when war between major nations is simply too perilous: it is the field of the economy where great States will battle in future.

Disclosure: None

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Public pensions conundrum

2010-12-29T10:11:00.004Z

Mike Shedlock comments on Illinois' budget problems and the new Governor's notion of borrowing billions more to keep the ship afloat.

Unfunded pension liabilities are a major part of the problem for this and most other States. The total deficit for such schemes nationally was $3.04 trillion in mid-2008, according to this February 2010 study by Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute. Illinois has the fifth-worst (40%) underfunding in proportion to State GDP (fig. 6, page 48).

Of more concern to a long-term bear like me is where those funds, inadequate as they may be, are invested. Here's Figure 1 of that study:

If' like me, you fear that both stocks and bonds will be hit badly when the credit crunch finally matures into a lender's strike, then a radical revision of pension entitlements is on the cards.

Disclosure: None

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Doubts growing over UK economy

2010-12-28T10:20:00.007Z

CMA Datavision reports concerns by the market in credit default swaps about the UK's ability to service its debts, as the following shows:

Britain's largest bookmaker Ladbrokes now rates 2011 as the second most likely year for a General Election:

The Odd Couple coalition of the Liberal Democrats (thought by many to be to the left of the British Labour Party until the latter reconnects with its old-style socialist roots) with a superficially touchy-feely new Conservative Party, may not be able to handle the strain of living together.

Already we have seen riots (to some extent sympathetically covered by the news media) about the raising of tuition fees for students, and the Coalition has been embarrassed by the publication of critical private remarks by Liberal MPs about their Conservative colleagues.

The present British Government is the first non-wartime coalition since 1922. If it cannot hold its crew together in these choppy seas, it will not be able to steer through the economic storm to come - and then our troubles will begin in earnest.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

How America can climb out of the hole: the first step is seeing the light

2010-12-27T08:52:00.003Z

Bruce Bartlett in the Fiscal Times (htp: Michael Panzner) submits a first-class, balanced essay on how the mess can be straightened out.

The key first step, he says, is to introduce honest financial reporting on the basis that corporations have to use, i.e. accrual accounting, for this will reveal the future economic effects of policy decisions made today. Doing so will help policymakers to make sensible adjustments and the public to accept them.

And it's not all bad news: for example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama into law on 23 March 2010, is projected to save $15 trillion over the next 75 years. Raising the State Retirement Age and modifying other social benefits could bring the budget back into balance, long-term.

It won't be painless. If America starts to retrench now, the estimated cost is 2.4% of GDP. But delay merely magnifies the problem - a decade of further obfuscation and inaction raises the bar to 3.7% of GDP.

It is most fortunate that the US Government is required by law to produce a financial report of the kind that makes Mr Bartlett's comments possible. This law was signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, one thing at least for which future generations must thank him.

Over the last few years, I have found it far easier to get useful information about the economy of the USA than about that of the UK where I live. Here, the truth seems harder to establish and dissent increasingly crushed. For although there is guff-talk about our being citizens, essentially we are merely subjects whenever it pleases our masters. Absent overruling by the courts of the European Union (itself a highly undemocratic organisation), our civil rights and liberties could be abolished at a stroke by the Privy Council, the legacy of the Anglo-Saxon kings' witan, or committee of high-born advisers (and potential rivals for the throne).

Long live the American Constitution: for all your well-founded instinctive distrust of power and authority, and for all the powerful businesses that lobby against any change that might slow their own accumulation of wealth at the expense of the citizens, Uncle Sam is still a people's government - so long as the people take an interest.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Long term care, insurance & "Death Panels": fact and fiction

2010-12-26T09:19:00.011Z

US insurers MetLife (MET) and John Hancock (HPI) are backing out of the long care insurance market, according to an article by Anna K. Pfaehler in Economic Policy Journal today. The former will stop selling new policies at the end of this week, and the latter is asking for a 40% hike in premiums.

Partly this is because insurers' investments have performed poorly in recent years, thanks to the artificially low interest rates to which governments on both sides the Atlantic are now haplessly committed.

But also it will have something to do with the volume of claims, and how long modern medical science can keep the sufferer alive. The Family Caregiver Alliance says that 63% of claimants are over 65 but the rest (37%) are younger. The average stay in a nursing home is 2.44 years, says Long Term Care Link; but over half of inmates are 85 or older, a demographic that is expected to "increase dramatically" in the next 20 years.

I seem to remember an interview with Whoopi Goldberg in which she joked that children are keen for you to pass on "so that they can git yer stuff", but inheritance is certainly an issue, as well as the increasing burden on the State of the elderly poor. Here in the UK, ever since the Community Care Act of 1990, there's been a battle between local authorities who were thereby charged with the duty of providing care, and sufferers and relatives who don't want to pay for it directly.

There is a moral hazard in this financial pressure, and one wonders whether it's a factor in the British Government's seeming reluctance to punish those who "help" relatives to make a quicker end. I think we should resist the temptation and if you possess a Kindle, please read my e-story, "Dignity"!

P.S. Looks as though President Obama is already going down the road towards officially-sponsored euthanasia.

Rolf Norfolk

Disclosure: author of "Dignity"

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Will rising interest rates crash the market?

2010-12-23T07:39:00.006Z

This item may seem to be UK-based, but essentially the situation is much the same on the other side of the Atlantic. It's a story, not about domestic mortgages but about the sleeping bear of the bond market:

The UK's Daily Telegraph reports comments by MPC member Paul Fisher that homeowners should steel themselves for an increase in interest rates, with an ultimate target of 5% (currently the Bank of England's lending rate is 0.5%).

This would be a two-edged sword. It would combat inflation and begin to reward savers; but it would also worsen conditions for business, by reducing the consumer's disposable income and raising the cost of commercial finance (which is already hard to get, particularly for smaller businesses).

The effect on the stockmarket would be negative, as higher costs and lower turnover would squeeze profits; and debt-fuelled share speculation would become more expensive and so riskier for the investment banks, who might give up looking for a bigger fool and race for the emergency exit.

However, there is no timescale given for this process and the article says that the market expectation is that the rate will rise to only 2% within the next two years.

I think Mr Fisher's statement, ostensibly warning borrowers to tighten their belts, is actually intended to be overheard by the bond market, trying to reassure the latter that it won't be ripped-off by inflation.

I also think it's a tactic characteristic of the previous government, namely to make a tentative policy announcement in order to gauge reactions and trim sails accordingly. It's come from a source that can later be spun as having been a personal view or at most, merely a long-term aspiration of the Monetary Policy Committee.

There are dangers in this type of nebulous news management. To me, it's a sign of the real weakness of our current economic position. And if the bond market thinks it's being bluffed because the government hasn't a clue how to proceed, it may decide to call for a show of the cards. Then the rate rise would come, in a quick and uncontrolled way, triggering a crisis that would end in deep recession, or some combination of default and currency devaluation.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Bank of America to be hit by Wikileaks

2010-12-22T06:49:00.004Z

As I relayed here on 1 December, Julian Assange hinted at revelations about a major US bank. Now, according to the London Times, (htp: EPJ) he confirms it's BoA. He's going to be releasing much material next month and if its management is "responsive" there "will be resignations".

Journalists like to hint at causative connections - Yahoo News says "Shares in Bank of America have fallen amid speculation that it was a WikiLeaks target" - but in fact according to Yahoo Finance itself, BoA's shares have been trending down since mid-April and have actually risen slightly in the last week. Perhaps Assange appeals to the chip-on-the-shoulder Robin Hood element in the powerless scribe's psyche.

Men reveal their ambitions in their persons, but their souls in their writing. Assange set out his agenda in a couple of essays several years ago, and if you read with attention they tell us plenty about him. If you'd like to know a little more about how he thinks, I've recently done a little piece here.

That's not to say I trust banks any more. If there were no depositor insurance, I'd have my stash (accompanied by their ATM withdrawal slips) in my workplace locker or something similar. I started to do this when the banking crisis was on, and it seems the Irish are doing it now.

Buy your popcorn and sit down for the bank show overture in January. And, if Seeking Alpha commenter "Savelife" is to be believed, the whole investment and economic Ring Cycle drama over the course of 2011. Maybe it'll be best not to have a front seat.

Disclosure: None.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

More on Barnes & Noble - a contrarian view

2010-12-21T12:24:00.002Z

Phil Wahba's article in ABC News / Money points out (a) that Borders outlets overlap substantially with B&N and (b) the leases on Borders stores are long, which suggests they could go out of business first - leaving a cannibal boost for B&N.

We should also remember that in addition to the high street presence, B&N have 637 college stores. Blackwell's has done famously meeting the text needs of generations of Oxford University students and I'd have thought the college connection will continue to be much to B&N's advantage.

Further, the Nook Color is getting favourable reviews e.g. here and here , and this says they expect a million sales by year end.

I don't tip shares - but I'll keep an eye out for B&N news and wouldn't be surprised if the shorters get a surprise in 2011.

Disclosure: None.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Barnes & Noble not finished

2010-12-20T07:51:00.006Z

In February this year, investment analysts Stansberry and Associates recommended short-selling booksellers Barnes & Noble (BKS). Less than 5 years ago, the share price stood at $46.25; on Friday it was at $14.30. More recently, Stansberry has explained how doomed B&N are, what with their debts and the impact of new technological alternatives.

I sometimes wonder what American business could achieve if all - or even half - the talent that went into stock trading and analysis, finance, banking and law were diverted into actually making things and running businesses.

"Retail is detail", so the adage goes. Please bear with me for an anecdote: I recently idled away some time on a little sim game by Armor Games called "Coffee Shop". You have a sidewalk coffee stand and only one product. All you can change is the recipe, your inventory and the price. Simple enough, and after setting these parameters and running the simulation I ended with a few tens of dollars profit. Isn't business easy?

Then I looked at the high scores - several were over a thousand. What I hadn't thought to do was change the variables according to the forecast weather. So instead of trying not to go broke, I doubled the price, strengthened the mixture and multiplied my final score.

That was without being able to increase my range of products, investing in advertising and marketing, researching locations etc. Macdonald's does, and has turned a hot meat sandwich into a global empire.

So imagine if Barnes & Noble were a sim game and someone let you see the high score beforehand - let's say a mere 13% compound annual growth, which would beat their previous high within 10 years. If you knew for certain it could be done - had been done - don't you think you might find a way?

According to this 2007 article in the Washington Post, Americans read on average 4 books a year. Yet in still-poor, workaholic China the average is 7 - and 25% have read an e-book.

Books increase mental power. Stalin and Mao were huge readers, which helped them dominate their unfortunate fellow man. On "The Long March", Mao was carried about in a litter as he continued to stock his mind with his reading; in his case, it should've been called "The Long Carry". 50 years ago, President Kennedy was concerned that US rates of literacy and scientific learning were falling behind those of Communist competitors; we need to re-visit this issue as our youngsters give themselves eyestrain with PCs, partial hearing loss from cranked-up iPods and repetitive strain injury from thumbing their DSs.

You could argue that B&N aren't done yet. They may have come late to the e-book party, but their Nook e-reader has been out for a year and done well - Amazon are now in the position of playing catchup with a 3G version of Kindle (which I've just bought) - and we've yet to see the impact of the new Nook Color.

That's not to say that the dead tree press is finished, either. Allowing for the 25% of Americans who don't read books at all, the per capita read is 7 books a year and B&N's 1,352 stores therefore have a potential customer base of maybe 150,000 adult readers each. One extra book per year = 14% growth.

There's also the fact that we read products in different ways. I'm enchanted with my Kindle, which I can glance at as I drink my tea without the cover flipping over and losing my place; but although it is good at marching you through a novel, it's not so good for the skimming, riffling through and back-and-forthing I do when I read a newpaper or magazine. It's great if I know what I want to find and download; it's not so great at the serendipitous finds you make browsing through a good shop. And it doesn't serve me a coffee, a doughnut and a pleasant smile.

Did paperback kill hardback? The car, the bicycle? The movies, radio? TV, the movies? No: but the market developed, and some of those that made their money in one invested most profitably in the next (remember when IBM made comptometers? Nor do I).

When I say invested, I mean got involved. It's all very well quoting the debt load, the tight margins and all, but perhaps you'd agree with me that the real driver of success or failure is quality of management. Here in the UK, Philip Green (now Sir Philip) took over the failing BHS store chain 10 years ago, grew it an estimated 600% and built an empire. Short, stocky, shirtsleeves rolled up, he got his hands dirty and a billion-plus (sterling) into his wife's Monaco account.

When America (and even more so, poor benighted Britain) gets back to minding the store, instead of boosting its executive perks and playing beggar-my-neighbour with fellow short-term investors, the country will get back on its feet. Don't play the funeral march just yet.

DISCLOSURE: Not trading. 100% in cash.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Will commodities protect investors in a major crisis?

2010-12-12T11:00:00.004Z

John Butler fears that we will be overwhelmed by debt and governments must - perhaps should - default. In his Financial Sense article "A Century of Money Mischief and the Rising Sea of Debt" he looks to commodities as the Ark that will save us from the flood:

Everywhere you look, there are increasing risks to currencies, sovereign bonds, corporate securities and financial assets generally. The problem is, as pointed out above, there is just too much credit risk in the world and investors demand that it be reduced, by crisis if necessary. But how to avoid taking credit risk when even sovereign debt is at risk of default? When the world’s reserve currency, the dollar, is being deliberately devalued? There is only one asset class that has zero credit risk or devaluation risk: Unencumbered real assets. While in principle this includes property owned free and clear, with banks still on the hook for massive losses in residential and commercial lending, most of which are still not marked-to-market on balance sheets, we think it is too early to venture back into the property market. A much safer alternative is liquid commodities that can be traded for other goods, or services, all over the world. These cannot be defaulted on. They cannot be devalued by central banks or governments. As such, in a world of unstable currencies and financial markets generally, a well-diversified basket of liquid commodities provides the best available store of value until the reduction in credit risk has run its course, one way or the other. As global debt levels are still rising, we have a long, long way to go yet.

In the long run, he may be right. But although commodities tend to rise in value in the buildup period, the liquidity shortage when the crisis hits forces them down with other assets, as we see from the events of 2008:

Chart: Google Finance

In the above chart, we see that the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodities Index rose while the Dow fell, then collapsed, almost closing the gap. This suggests that a potentially very profitable strategy for the nimble and daring, would be a switch to cash just before the dam breaks. That still assumes a degree of normality, and I'll say a little more about that in a moment.

Meanwhile, how is the DBLCI doing now? It's nominally around where it was in the Summer of 2007 and has been trending up from its low of December 1, 2008. But allowing some adjustment for inflation, it seems to be indicating, not a crisis, but a slow recovery from crisis.

Chart: Yahoo! Finance

That's not to say that a fresh catastrophe is remote, but we have to remember that the worst part of the 2008 crunch was the moment when interbank lending broke down. Now that governments have established a policy of supporting the banks (or at least, their favoured ones) at all costs, the next blow is more likely to come from a different direction; maybe in the form of a breakdown in Eurozone intergovernment lending.

Or perhaps we may see the sort of sovereign default that Mr Butler urges; but this could spread in a way that might make conventional investment strategy irrelevant. And default is a more brutal and naked form of cheating others than the slow embezzlement of inflation. What will those who stand to lose the money they've loaned, do about it?

It seems to me that some financial commentators are like those people who stood still and stared at the pretty white line on the ocean in the 2004 tsunami, unconscious of the need to move immediately; or like the farmers who grudgingly gave my refugee grandparents shelter in their barn in 1945, not dreaming that a couple of days later the Soviet Army would overtake them also.

Instead of a market readjustment, with winners and losers in a system basically unchanged, we may be facing a reordering of world affairs, one that may not have a comfortable place for ourselves personally. If Mr Butler is right in comparing debt to global warming, we must hope for the financial equivalent of the Kyoto and Cancun Summits.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Bears go mainstream

2010-12-07T17:36:00.002Z

If you won't quite believe bloggers and even doubt financial world insiders, perhaps you'll listen to one of the voices of middle-class, middle-brow England: Max Hastings. Britain's most-read newspaper the Daily Mail today published a piece by Hastings titled "We're all doomed."

It's only half-joking, and reminds me of the British hedge fund manager who, in 2008, actually came home at the end of one week and bought a farmer neighbour's flock of sheep, to ensure that his family would have something to eat in the general system breakdown.

Be prepared for emergencies, even if you don't expect one.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Is quantitative easing the cause of the rally?

2010-12-06T15:01:00.004Z

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge thinks so, and offers the following graph to illustrate the correlation:

Correlation is not the same as causation: I'd be a little happier about this theory if the mechanism could be explained. How exactly did the Federal Reserve's purchase of government bonds force up stocks?

I suppose the effect was indirect, in that the stock market recovered confidence when it saw that interest rates would be kept low with this extra demand for government credit, so making debt-fuelled market speculation cheap and easy. Also the fear of a banking sector collapse eased as the policy of official support at all costs became clear.

I guess the new bubble is in government credit, and will continue to inflate until a weak seam in the fabric splits. Keynes said, "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent"; similarly, governments can stay irrational longer than you can afford to short their darlings. I'd be in no hurry to bet on a market reversal, even though it "should" happen and the present state of affairs is not tenable indefinitely.

Which is why I grit my teeth and hold cash.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

The correction will be delayed until after the bonuses are calculated

2010-12-06T14:40:00.004Z

Bob Clark over at FSU airs the bonus-conspiracy theory of stock market movements, and after the way 1999 ended I'm inclined to give it some credence:

... there are a lot of Christmas bonuses tied to fund performance at year end. If you are the Fat Boys, why not let the funds buy the price up into a strong, year ending close. Sell to them, then kick the stool out from under them early next year. They make easy victims.

On 3 December on CNBC, Gary Kominski said (video embedded here) that effectively, there were only 9 trading days left because there is very low volume in the last two weeks of the year - "the 17th is your last day to make a significant change to your portfolio." If Clark is right and the "Fat Boys" are setting us up for a fall, I'd expect them to sweep up the cards and stand up from the table a week before Christmas. Perhaps we should be watching the behaviour of "the usual suspects" in this period.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Measuring GDP for real

2010-12-06T14:21:00.002Z

Another thing to thank Wikileaks for:

GDP figures are “man-made” and therefore unreliable, Li said. When evaluating Liaoning’s economy, he focuses on three figures:

1) electricity consumption, which was up 10 percent in Liaoning last year;

2) volume of rail cargo, which is fairly accurate because fees are charged for each unit of weight; and

3) amount of loans disbursed, which also tends to be accurate given the interest fees charged.

By looking at these three figures, Li said he can measure with relative accuracy the speed of economic growth. All other figures, especially GDP statistics, are “for reference only,” he said smiling.

So, how would that set of measures work in our case?

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

The uselessness of gold

2010-12-05T16:57:00.006Z

An article by Elliot Turner last week ("Why I Sold My Gold") echoes what I've been saying for a while:

No one knows what will happen in the event of chaos, but to me the only real answer would be to buy a cave stocked with canned goods. Forget about gold, as that would do nothing in a state of anarchy. Gold ultimately relies on the same psychological comfort that fiat currencies do in universal acceptance, and therein lies the gold as currency paradox.

I'd suggest that gold is not a protection against disaster per se, but a speculation during moderate troubles, and a store of wealth for a future time after disaster, when recovery has happened. But as with the Staffordshire Hoard, that latter time may be a long, long while later and you may not be there to benefit.

So I propose a new currency valid in good and bad times:

"Ah," you may say, "but this currency is perishable." So was the scrip issued in Wörgl in 1932-33; in fact, a negative interest rate was built into the scheme to encourage circulation instead of hoarding during a deflation. It worked wonderfully - so well that it displeased the local socialist party and the central bank.

Which leads me to think that the true measure of a currency's virtue, as of a man's, is not its supporters but its enemies.

Footnote:

The Heinz will also be superior to the current pound (= 100 pence) in terms of giving change, as was the old British pound. The latter was worth 240 pence, each penny legally exchangeable (until the end of 1960) for 4 farthings, thus £1 = 960 farthings.

You can get two 400g cans of Heinz beans today for less than £1, and each tin contains over 400 beans. So the modern pound must buy you c. 960 individual baked beans. I therefore propose to call a single baked bean a "farting".

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Restructure debt, or lose prosperity and liberty

2010-12-05T08:16:00.007Z

Karl Denninger draws our attention to an interview with David Stockman on CNBC (see below). Key points:

Combining middle-class earners with government employees (aside from teachers), we see that millions of jobs have previously been lost and there is now no net gain in half the 130 million American jobs market. Stockman terms this the "new normal".
Numbers are increasing among part-time earners, but their annual pay averages $20,000 instead of the middle class' $50,000. As Stockman says, you can't support a family on that.

This is industrialization in reverse gear. America - and even more so the UK - now faces a great question: are we prepared to watch our industry eaten away? Last month, it was reported as a sort of victory that Britain made a deal with China to export pigs to them. Though agricultural production is important - God speed the plow - I don't see a bright future for the whole nation as pig farmers.

In a digitized world and globalized economy, our problems are evident and important to our competitors. Back in September China's "Beijing Review" crisply summarized America's woes and their causes:

Increasing financial pressures forced middle class Americans to rely on debt to continue their current lifestyles. Meanwhile, thriving financial innovations on Wall Street have encouraged their lifestyle of high debt and high consumption. The median debt-to-income ratio of the middle class families climbed to 1.19 in 2004 from 0.45 in 1983. So basically, credit-supported over-consumption of the middle class laid the groundwork for U.S. economic prosperity over the past three decades.

The over-consumption can be corrected by cutting back - something that is certainly a matter of concern to Beijing - but though the spending song is over, the debt melody lingers on. Private and public debts are absorbing the resources that should go into trade and industry. Lowering interest rates further is scarcely possible, and as Michael Panzer reports in "Ready for some crowding out?", the need (especially in Japan and the USA) to roll-over huge amounts of debt in the near future may see a bond market revolt and higher interest rates, instead. Commercial finance may well become both harder to obtain and significantly more expensive.

Meanwhile, the burden of debt now lies not in interest rates but in the capital repayments. As average incomes fall (owing to the shift from higher-paying to lower-paid jobs), the liabilities will grow heavier in proportion. Some of this ballast may have to be ejected from the balloon if we are not to crash to earth.

Normally, one would say that letting debtors off the hook is a moral hazard, but I think the scale of the emergency takes us beyond that consideration. In any case, default is already happening piecemeal in the residential mortgage market, and would be far more extensive if lenders constrained by capital adequacy requirements were not reluctant to foreclose. Beneath the tide of "jingle mail" is a savage undertow of tolerated delinquencies (*). Similarly, the banking sector would be pretty much dead if the government had not also been willing to defer foreclosure.

The challenge is to tackle the debt monster openly and through policy, not inaction and denial. Cutting welfare won't do it fast enough and generates many other problems. If we can't restructure our debts by agreement with creditors, we have to accept the "new normal": high unemployment, a reduced and distressed middle class and, perhaps, political instability barely restrained by greater authoritarianism.

(*) See today's post (with many graphs) by Michael David White, who thinks housing in America is only halfway through its correction.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Governments should provide secure inflation-proof savings vehicles

2010-12-04T08:10:00.005Z

Logically, speculators and investors should be residing in two different groups, but the two kinds of sheep keep wandering out of their respective pens. And there are wolves outside the pens.

John Lounsbury, reviewing ‘What Investors Really Want,’ by Meir Statman.

This is the difficulty we face now. If you are a savvy speculator and willing to accept a high degree of risk, you may (with luck) do well in today's volatile markets.

But if you are an ordinary investor (like most people), you are looking for something that will at least preserve the value of your savings and reward you with modest real growth for not spending them.

Unfortunately for investors, our governments' attempts to shore up an essentially bankrupt banking system and profligate welfare system involve lower-than-inflation interest rates, and at least one product that is guaranteed to overmatch inflation has been withdrawn - see what happened to NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificates in July.

Sadly, one suspects that even if such products continue to be available, inflation will be defined in a way that does not fully reflect increases in the cost of living for ordinary people. In fact, definition tweaking is already happening, as in the case of "hedonic adjustment" in the American CPI Index. This means, for example, that a new computer that costs the same as your old one but has double the memory, has effectively halved in price - even if the extra computing speed has absolutely no practical benefit for you (we don't all live in the fantasy world of role-playing games).

I'm quite happy to let the speculators play high-stakes poker with each other, as long as the rest of us can humbly and patiently build security through thrift. It should be a lasting shame to governments that they are denying us ways to do this.

"The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed."

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Will Wikileaks break a US bank?

2010-12-01T18:42:00.005Z

Which American bank is going to be blown apart by promised revelations from Wikileaks?

Britain's Daily Mail newspaper today reported US speculation that it might be Citigroup, but that doesn't appear in the online edition so maybe it was just a wild guess. Tyler Durden hears that the hard drive of a Bank of America executive casts a shadow over Merrill Lynch and/or Countrywide.

Slightly creepy though Julian Assange may be, it seems he's doing what our journalists over here used to do, before they started to see themselves as part of the New Aristocracy. When the horse-puckey hits the turbo, maybe we could see another Enron-type scandal complete with jailings and business foldups.

But I think there will be other repercussions. One will be, presumably, a drive to "clean up the act" - more regulations to try to bring the rogues under control.

Another will be how discussions are (or aren't) recorded in future. I'm sure that thanks to Assange's latest stunt, many diplomats will now be encoding their gossip prior to transmission.

But the most significant will be how observation will be evaded and rules circumvented.

This has already happened in politics: it's one of the curious features of Tony Blair's decade-long "sofa government" that decisions were often made without civil servants present to take minutes: no name, no pack drill, as they used to say in the Army.

We can expect the same in commercial circles. Again, some smart guys have been doing this all along: Jordan Belfort's book "The Wolf of Wall Street" describes how, in order to carry on share-ramping without the inconvenience of explaining their office telephone transcripts to SEC investigators, his boys would simply tell the client they'd call back, then go out and fire up their personal cellphones for an intimate, no-repercussions sales spiel.

The Sicilian Mafia showed them all the way. Bernardo Provenzano ran the Outfit from a shack, avoiding all electronic communication and typing little notes ("pizzini") on his Olivetti instead.

It's kind of a Darwinian co-evolution of predator and prey. We can expect continued crookery, with heightened secrecy. And a surge in sales of two-colour typewriter ribbons.

DISCLOSURE: No positions. Not even in typewriter ribbons.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Has gold ended its bull run?

2010-11-30T08:41:00.005Z

The price of gold has soared in the last decade. Can it continue?

Two views make a market, as the saying goes. in "Gold's Run is Over -- I'd Much Rather Own This Stock", Tim Begany writes:

"Gold is the worst investment around. Anyone buying it now is doing so at their own risk, near the end of a bull run that's apt to end badly.

A major clue gold's time is up: institutions and hedge funds are starting to get out.

In October, for example, these big players reduced their long gold futures by -9%. Meanwhile, small investors added +5% to their long gold positions. It's a familiar pattern in which large investors exit the market of an overheated asset in a timely fashion, leaving the little guy to drive the final run-up to the big pop.

I give gold up to another year, maybe two, before it peaks. From there, it's all downhill."

Tim prefers shares in an ex-bankrupt company - Owens-Corning (NYSE: OC) - that makes insulation for buildings.

Bargain-hunting among distressed firms can be rewarding. The financial journalist George Goodman (aka "Adam Smith") once interviewed a fund manager who'd bought stock in the Santa Fe railroad, then bankrupt. The manager explained that the land, buildings and rolling stock had substantial value that was not yet reflected in the share price. This was decades before Warren Buffett and George Soros (an ex-railway porter) discovered their recent interest in choo-choos - maybe for similar reasons. (But it's worth noting that Soros recently sold his holdings in Canadian Pacific - cold feet?)

And it's true that the ratio of the Dow to gold has dropped below the long-term average since the closure of the "gold window" in 1971:

- though the ratio hasn't fallen to its 1980 low. It's also true that gold has outpaced inflation in a way not seen since the end of the 1970s:

So why do the gold bugs still have a voice?

I'd say it's because, as in 1980, these are not "normal" times. JK Galbraith said "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable" and all their cyclical predictions are junk when an asteroid is spotted coming in our direction. That asteroid is a combination of the vast debts of Western nations, the dependence of much of their populations on wealth transfers within those economies, and globalized trade.

Can we deflect it with rockets of bailout and default? The bailouts appear to be devaluing our currencies and may end with high inflation in necessary commodities; sovereign debt defaults would affect not only international relations but the mutual and pension funds on which many of us hope to live in retirement. If the biggest banks are allowed to fail and their shares go to zero, what will that do to Everyman's portfolio?

Gold is a speculation unlike most others: it's a vote of no confidence. As such, it's a systemic indicator, not an ordinary item of trade. At this level of the debate, graphs are meaningless. Among the bears, opinion is divided between people like Peter Schiff who think we can make something out of this crisis, and those like Michael Panzner who believe that when a civilization falls, even the richest citizen can lose all. For example, the biggest-ever hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold was discovered last year, not far from where I live. It's thought to be from the Kingdom of Mercia in the 7th or 8th century. The people who put it there never came back.

We should turn our minds from playing with money to repairing the framework of our nations, and preserving our liberty and democracy.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

If you think I'm a bear, read THIS...

2010-11-28T19:49:00.002Z

By his own account, "Savelife" is a mental health professional who is "a professional investor for a charitable trust" which pays richly for investment analysis by outside experts. Their assessment exceeds the worst I've dared suggest - and it's coming very soon.

"Their call: Markets will crash within two to six months (can happen at any time). First drop, in seven days, 3,000 points on the DOW. Then over six months, DOW will tank to about 1,000 points. Then a unionizing recovery will occur to the upside. Allow a decade or better for total recovery."

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Reasons to be fearful: a warning about the stock market

2010-11-27T16:45:00.009Z

Previously published on Seeking Alpha - the business site with 3m readers monthly:
_______________________________

This is the time that tests bearish investors.

Interest rates on deposits are lower than inflation, if you look at food and energy costs. Since the 1990s, I have been more cautious than most of my investors and have been careful to suggest that they might like to keep their powder dry. Some listened and switched to cash in 1998 and 1999, and so avoided the fall out of the 2000-2003 decline.

Just when I was beginning to feel that things were getting sensibly priced, interest rates were pushed down and the already-existing house price bubble superinflated from 2003 on, along with much else. And then...

But now there is talk of investors being "forced" into the market by negative real returns on cash - and fears that inflation may rise significantly. I recently displayed a graph from the Now and Futures site, showing how German shareholders survived the Weimar hyperinflation of 1923, after a severe interim drop. "Financial Armageddon" author Michael Panzner justly pointed out that there was a danger that investors in a similar situation might lose their nerve, sell out and miss the market recovery.

It is also very hard to stay out of the market when it has risen dramatically. I was batting away queries from clients in the latter stages of the tech stock boom with warnings of what I strongly suspected was a bubble ready to burst. But there is pressure to get in, not merely because of greed but in the case of fund managers, fear: the fear that your boss will use peer benchmarks to judge you negatively and appoint someone else to take over the portfolio. So you need nerve at more than one level in the organization.

Invesco Perpetual's Neil Woodford has that kind of nerve. During the dot com craze, he stayed out and stuck to his guns despite the stellar tech-invested performances of others' funds - and fortunately the management backed him.

Woodford was very bullish - selectively - in January this year, according to the Daily Telegraph. So how does he feel now? Well, bearish about China this week, according to Investment Week. This, at a time when others are coming late to the emerging-markets party, looking for something to get exciting returns. Surely, we tell ourselves, someone's making money somewhere, and we want a piece. This, I think, is the dangerous time.

It's caught out geniuses before now. During the South Sea Bubble of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton bought in, sold out and made £7000 profit - about £1 million in today's money. Then, seeing the market soaring further, he bought in again. And the scam crashed, costing him £20,000 - the equivalent of nearly £3 million.

Some say the market now has been climbing a "wall of worry", so that really we're not in a mania and reasonable concern has already been factored into valuations. Personally, I fear that this is like a lunatic certifying his own sanity and discharging himself from the hospital - "I'm all right now."

I'm not alone in this fear. In a Financial Sense article by Tim Wood yesterday, he says:

"I continue to believe, based on the evidence at hand, that the rally out the March 2009 low is a large scale bear market rally that should ultimately prove to separate Phase I from Phase II of the much larger and ongoing secular bear market. But, just as I told my subscribers before that low was even made, the longer this rally holds up, the more dangerous it becomes. Reason being, it becomes more and more convincing."

We have interest rates lower than ever, debts higher than ever and a financial sector borrowing cash at giveaway rates and playing games in the market. We now have an interdependent world economy, which is like lashing all the lifeboats together - extra security in a small storm and complete disaster in a big one.

Granted that the situation is such that there is no completely valid basis of comparison - and remembering that the Dow now lists companies that garner much more from foreign earnings than they used to - let's take a look at the Dow adjusted for CPI inflation since the peak before last - the one in January of 1966:

Remember, too, that everyone agrees that we've just had a recession, and many say we're not out of it. Where would you pin the tail on this donkey? Mr Market appears to have stuck it on the back of his neck.

If we are climbing the Wall of Worry, we're starting from very high up. Don't look down.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Protect your cash savings (UK customers)

2010-11-27T08:22:00.003Z

The following is an extract from a just-published article by Nadeem Walayat on securing your bank deposits in the UK:

UK Savers Emergency Plan:

a. Ensure that you have at least 2 current accounts across banking groups.

b. That you have procedures in place to ensure that you can act fast to initiate transfer of funds from instant access savings accounts, especially if your total funds with a particular banking group exceeds £50k / £83k (1st Jan 2011).The best strategy is to limit exposure per banking group to the limit.

c. Do not have ANY savings are fixed deposit exposure to banks that do not fall under the UK Financials Services Compensation Scheme.

d. Limit exposure to PIIGS banks, that is Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy as these are at the most risk of going bust thus triggering a lengthy process of Savers having to wait for compensation.

The following list represents Britians' largest deposit taking banking groups and the banks that fall under each.

Note whilst banking groups may have multiple licences as a consequence of mergers and takeovers, however they also may be in the process of merging licences so for ultimate safety one should remain focused on banking groups.

LLOYDS BANKING GROUP
Lloyds TSB Bank
AA Savings
Bank of Scotland / HBOS
Birmingham Midshires
Capital Bank
Cheltenham & Gloucester Savings
Halifax
Intelligent Finance
Saga

SANTANDER GROUP
Santander bank
Abbey National
Asda Savings
Alliance and Leicester
Bradford and Bingley
Cahoot
Moneyback
Honycomb
Nationwide Building Society
Nationwide Building Society
Cheshire Building Society
Derbyshire Building Society
Dunfermline Building Society

BARCLAYS GROUP
Barclays Bank
Standardlife Bank

HSBC GROUP
HSBC Bank
First Direct
Marks and Spencer Financial

ALLIED IRISH GROUP
Allied Irish Bank
First Trust

CITI GROUP
Citibank
Egg

CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
Co-operative Bank
Britannia
Smile
Unity Trust Bank
RBS Group
Royal Bank of Scotland
Nat West Bank
Direct Line Savings
Lombard
The One Account
Drummonds
Ulster Bank

Additional comments

Foreign Banks under UK FSCS Scheme - ICICI (India), First Save (Nigeria)

Small business are covered by the FSCS on the basis of 2 of following 3 conditions - upto a turnover of 6.5 million, less than 50 employees, balance sheet total not more than £3.26 million

Banks not under the UK FSCS.

Post Office - Currently Guaranteed by the Irish Government, pending coming under the UK FSCS.
ING Direct, Tridos - Dutch
Anglo Irish, Bank of Ireland - Ireland

Don't delay! Act today to form a quick personal savings protection contingency plan, otherwise you may wake up one day to find yourselves locked out of your funds Iceland style!

For more on how to protect your wealth from debt default bankruptcy see the Inflation Mega-trend Ebook (FREE DOWNLOAD)

Comments and Source: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24572.html

By Nadeem Walayat

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk

Copyright © 2005-10 Marketoracle.co.uk (Market Oracle Ltd). All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A snapshot of the Irish disaster

2010-11-23T18:43:00.005Z

In their third-quarter survey of credit default swaps (insurance against debt default), CMA Datavision rate Venezuela the riskiest country by far (see first graph); but currently (Tuesday, 23 November 2010 16:30 BST) the sub-investment grade of Allied irish Banks (AIB) is much, much worse (second graph).

Some might say that supporters of the Euro currency system are throwing good money after bad. It is not a good thing to let the markets sense an emotional attachment to a position, and the bond traders may find a way to exploit this weakness, just as George Soros did when the UK attempted to preserve its link to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis of "Black Monday" (16 September 1992) merely made Soros a billion dollars and cost the UK Treasury £3 billion sterling.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Inequality, housing costs and resetting the economy

2010-11-23T07:33:00.005Z

Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."

Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.

(adapted graph from Calculated Risk) - click on image to enlarge

It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.

Debt default, or debt forgiveness, may be the only way out.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

The State of the Union, in credit terms

2010-11-15T10:09:00.004Z

CMA DataVision's third-quarter report gives the latest assessments of sovereign debt default risk, as measured by the price of credit default insurance. This edition also includes ratings for selected individual States of the USA. I have combined the latter with the former in a ranking below, so that you can see the ratings of States in some sort of context. Please click on the picture to enlarge.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Sovereign debt default risk

2010-11-15T08:31:00.003Z

On October 7, CMA DataVision released their third-quarter report on the credit ratings of sovereign countries. CMA's ratings are worked out by looking at what the credit market charges for insuring against default. This market-based marking is different from the assessments of Standard and Poor's, Moody's, Fitch etc, who are paid by the organisations they rate and whose reputation has been brought into question after the events of 2008.

On page 4, CMA says that four of the 10 most risky nations are in the EU (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania). It's worth remembering that a fifth on that list, Ukraine, is eager to join the EU. (For those who want to know about all the "PIGS", Spain is 21st most risky.) How is the currency and banking of the European Union meant to contain these problems?

The UK is rated 59th most risky (or 13th safest), with an implied credit rating of aa+ (as opposed to the official AAA rating that has helped to keep down the cost of our credit).

Four Nordic countries lead the list of securest debt: Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Only four other countries share their "implied AAA" rating: Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Australia.

The United States has been downgraded this quarter, from "aaa" to "aa+" - the same as for the United Kingdom.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Could shares protect against inflation?

2010-11-14T19:33:00.007Z

It is well-known that German money became worthless in 1923, thanks to hyperinflation. The value of cash savings was wiped out; fixed rents also became worthless, which benefitted the ordinary person; but practically all one's income was spent on food, instead (see Table 6 at the bottom of this page).

What is less well known is how investors who didn't have to sell their shares actually gained, after a market pullback.

UPDATE: As Michael Panzer points out, what I called a "pullback" should more properly be termed a horrendous crash! Unless you have the titanium nerve to hold on through such an event, there is a grave danger that you could buy in now and sell in a panic later and lose most of your wealth.

CLARIFICATION / CORRECTION:(I should have made it clearer that the graph above is not mine - it comes from the site I linked to in the text, i.e. Now and Futures. Apologies for any misunderstanding, which I didn't intend.)

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Gold is merely the thermometer of inflation?

2010-10-09T09:00:00.003+01:00

The vitally important inflation / deflation debate continues. In my last post, I relayed one view, which is that the very rich and powerful will not permit runaway inflation, because it erodes the value of money and the rich have most of the money.

As a corrective, I give below the latest video from the National Inflation Association (NIA), a US group that has warned about credit growth and inflation for a long time. Their motivation appears to be patriotic - a return to sound money as part of what makes individual prosperity and freedom possible.

The NIA argues that the rise in the price of gold is not because of mass speculation, for although a lot of gold has been bought recently, a lot has also been sold. What may be happening now is a transfer of privately-held gold from relatively poor people who need to raise money, to investors who are looking ahead to a time when cash will rapidly depreciate. Think of all those gold-buying outlets (or inlets) you now see on your High Street. As someone said a while ago, the mania will be when those shops start selling you gold instead of buying it from you.

As many have now said, trading nations around the world are devaluing their currencies to keep pace with one another, for fear that their exports will be hit if they don't. So the soaring value of precious metals can be seen as a better indication of inflation than currency exchange rates.

You may think that if currencies are depreciating, then surely prices of goods and services in general must also increase rapidly, and we don't see this yet. But we are in a recession and the threat of unemployment is keeping down wage demands; the self-employed are willing to lower their rates, perhaps especially if paid in cash; and traders in items such as cars and computers are offering discounts to clear stock and keep paying their overheads.

However, the NIA and others say there will come a time when the system begins to crack. Governments are buying their own debt, or lending money to banks to do it for them, to maintain the appearance of normality and control; this can't go on forever. The prediction is that we will get either default or hyperinflation. So the gold bugs say buy gold, silver, maybe oil and agricultural commodities etc - anything tangible that can't be multiplied at will.

I don't think (feel) that the turning point is imminent, because of recession and the attempts by some governments (such as the UK) to retrench. But I fear that these last-ditch attempts are untimately doomed to partial or complete failure. In that case, the gold bugs will probably be vindicated.

The other thing I'd say, as I've said before, is that if the system really does come under severe strain, the price of gold may not be the most important of your concerns. If you accept the inflationists' thesis, you will be quietly making preparations to cope with emergencies of different kinds.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

What inflation? "Them" won't let it happen

2010-09-14T09:36:00.004+01:00

Inflation in food and soon, it is reported, in clothing, is owing to factors such as bad harvests, rising energy costs and government export restrictions.

But if you agree with the monetarists that inflation is caused by the expansion of money and credit, then until people and governments have paid-down (or defaulted) enough debt to feel confident about spending again, we are in a deflationary environment and whoever holds money is going to do well.

That said, there is a subset of monetarists who think that somehow, governments will force-feed money into the system to create inflation, or hyperinflation.

While this is technically possible, people like Mike Shedlock counter that the ruling elite will not allow this to happen, since it would destroy their wealth.

It's a rigged game, not Russian roulette. So barring some catastrophic default, we've got to sweat it out through a new Depression era.

Save money.

"Commercial real estate lags residential and residential real estate has not yet bottomed, and indeed may not bottom for years." - Mike Shedlock

"The most important indicator is “credit growth” or lack thereof. Everything else follows... There is no credit growth, and therefore, according to my long-standing theory, there can be no sustainable economic growth unless and until miraculously credit starts growing. However, given current policies in Washington, that seems unlikely at this time." - Bert Dohmen (htp: Karl Denninger)

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Should retirees look to the stockmarket for income?

2010-09-07T11:48:00.005+01:00

Adapted from my advice to a client this weekend:

Price inflation is not uniform or universal. Food and fuel have risen in cost recently, but State Pension benefits are linked to a cost of living index and should therefore approximately keep pace with increases in the price of basic needs.

In other areas (e.g. cars, cruises) prices have remained stable or even fallen. During what I suspect will turn out to be a long, Japan-style recession, it may be that the price of luxury goods and services will not inflate greatly, except perhaps for the luxuries of the very wealthiest.

Other than cash, what other ways could you invest?

First, one could look at deposits that link to inflation indices. Unfortunately, NS&I recently withdrew their index-linked savings certificates, the first time they have done so in 35 years. National Counties Building Society has an RPI-linked cash ISA (available until 30 September) but this is for a fixed amount (£5,100), runs for a fixed 5 year term and does not permit earlier withdrawals, so it may not fit in with your requirements.

If the government issues new index-linked gilts, these provide income and capital growth in line with RPI. The initial income may be low, however. For further details, please see the website of the Debt Management Office or a stockbroker. Generally, I would not now strongly recommend government bonds on the second-hand market, because the demand for them has become so high in these troubled times that the yield (ratio of income to traded price) is very low. If public finances unravel and interest rates rise, the effect on the capital value of bonds would be very depressing. As it is, the UK is struggling to maintain its official AAA rating and the implied credit rating on the credit default insurance market is actually rather lower already.**

Residential property appears still to be overpriced in historical terms. I think the only reason prices haven’t fallen much further is that interest rates are very low, which allows homeowners to maintain their mortgage payments on large loans. As the budget cuts begin to take effect, I think we will also see a depression in commercial real estate.

The stock market is also in a bubble, I believe. The ratio of price to earnings is still very high and the earnings may not truly reflect the forward position*. Companies are reportedly maintaining some degree of profitability by running down stocks, closing sites and laying off staff, but there is only so far they can go down this road. Many leading companies derive a significant part of their earnings overseas, but world trade is so interconnected these days that a slowdown in Western consumption will also impact on Eastern production.

The general picture appears to be deflationary, and although governments would like to stimulate further inflation in the way they have done over the past 30 years, there are respected economic and investment commentators who say we are now saturated with debt and unless we see outright defaults by sovereign nations (which could still happen), we will have to go through a long and painful process of retrenchment and paying-off debt.

Others look beyond deflation and think that it will ultimately force governments to find some way to increase the monetary base and devalue their currency. It may be significant that both Russia and China have made substantial purchases of gold in the last few months, and China has announced its intention of increasing her holding from c. 1,000 tonnes to six or ten times that amount in the next decade. But here we are in the realms of financial speculation, and the inflation speculators are already buying into agricultural commodities, precious metals, oil etc.

However, extreme or unconventional government strategies to deal with deflation don’t seem imminent and so I think that over the next couple of years, cash savings are likely to be a good way to build up funds for your envisaged discretionary expenditure***. Should there appear to be a major policy change, then we may have to look at investments that could protect against high inflation.

* Albert Edwards at SocGen expects a major reversal, the FT reports today.

** Though CMA DataVision have raised the UK from aa to aa+ in their Q2 report.

*** "There are no longer any “defensive” securities on the planet. The old asset allocation models and the diversification models don’t and won’t work any more and they haven’t for over a decade. I can’t believe that prominent asset managers are still using this approach." - Steven Bauer

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

A response to "Capitalists@Work"

2010-08-28T09:01:00.003+01:00

"City Unslicker" has posted a feelgood piece and entitled it "Bearwatch". If this is intended as a tease, looking sideways at my first blog which started three years ago and forewarned of the credit crunch*, banking collapse etc, then it's worked. Not that I claim any wisdom, but a strong gut feeling got me looking around for sources of information other than the useless Press.

Perhaps I should feel flattered that anyone from stockbroking or banking pays me any attention; or maybe it's just a naming coincidence. Nevertheless, here is my reply: you experts can be both right and wrong at the same time.

I'd like to have made a graph for the FTSE over the period I think we should be looking at, but that index only started in 1984. Besides, ours is a mixed economy, doing the hokey-cokey between privatisation and nationalisation, so it's very difficult to discern the reality underlying all the fudge.

So instead, here's the history of the US stockmarket "boom" of 1974. The blue line is the nominal index, and then I reinterpret the figures in the light of the Consumer Price Index. We start at the beginning of 1974 and continue for 10 years.

*"a systemic risk that could have really serious consequences is the possibility of a major failure in the mortgage and credit markets, which could then roll on to the banking sector." - 31 July 2007

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Underneath the headlines, debt continues to increase

2010-08-27T08:35:00.002+01:00

There's much argument on the wires about the issue of inflation vs deflation. As James Quinn points out, the mainstream media aren't helping much because if they comment at all, they may still misunderstand what they're reporting. The official figures appear to show that debt in the US is reducing, but this needs to be reinterpreted in the light of write-offs:

If consumer debt was $13.8 trillion at the end of 2008 and the banks have since written off 5.66% of that debt, total write-offs were $800 billion. If total consumer debt now sits at $13.5 trillion, then consumers have actually taken on $500 billion of additional debt since the end of 2008. The consumer hasn’t cut back at all. They are still spending and borrowing. It is beyond my comprehension that no one on CNBC or in the other mainstream media can do simple math to figure out that the deleveraging story is just a Big Lie.

Reading around, it seems that a lot of credit card debt has been written-off, but better-risk customers may be increasing their usage, especially business owners (perhaps finding a way around the dearth in other forms of bank lending):

Credit cards are now the most common source of financing for America’s small-business owners. (Source: National Small Business Association survey, 2008)

44 percent of small-business owners identified credit cards as a source of financing that their company had used in the previous 12 months —- more than any other source of financing, including business earnings. In 1993, only 16 percent of small-businesses owners identified credit cards as a source of funding they had used in the preceding 12 months. (Source: National Small Business Association survey, 2008)

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Gold up, shares down?

2010-08-27T07:58:00.004+01:00

Hot on the heels of China, which has recently increased its gold hoard to over 1,000 tonnes and intends to accumulate far more, comes Russia, which has acquired an extra 10% in the last seven months.

This is at a time when the wealthy are turning pessimistic about the economy again. As I said two years ago, generally I now see newspapers as useless, except for tidbits like that: "Other than weather forecasts, the last usable information I can remember is from the summer of 1987, when I learned that Sir James Goldsmith had sold all his shares on the Paris Bourse, which confirmed my feelings about the way the market was going - but that item came from Private Eye magazine." The current pessimism is reflected not only in last night's close on the Dow (now below 10,000 again), but also in a surge in demand for safe government bonds, as "Jesse" reports.

I said a few days ago that the price of gold was well above its inflation-adjusted trend, but the interest of foreign countries, bearish millionaires and speculative funds boosted by cheaply borrowed money may keep the market buoyant for some time yet.
And I'm sure we'll all be watching the stockmarket with some interest this autumn.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Don't look at the FTSE, all is NOT well here

2010-08-26T09:28:00.002+01:00

Gary Dorsch points out that the UK bond market is a better indicator of local economic conditions than the UK stockmarket:

FTSE-100 companies equal about 85% of the market capitalization of the London Stock Exchange, and nearly half the companies are headquartered outside the UK. Roughly one-third of the FTSE is concentrated in the natural resource sector. Thus, the Footsie is viewed as a global bellwether rather than a reflection of the state of the British economy.

Right now the sharp downward trajectory of UK gilt yields is flashing warning signals of a sharp downturn in the British economy, which could trigger deflation in wages and UK home prices.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Time to invest in helium?

2010-08-25T09:55:00.004+01:00

One for the commodity punters: the Daily Mail reports on the potential price boom in helium:

The world's biggest store of helium - the most commonly used inert gas - lies in a disused airfield in Amarillo, Texas, and is being sold off far too cheaply.

But in 1996, the US government passed a law which states that the facility - the US National Helium Reserve - must be completely sold off by 2015 to recoup the price of installing it.

This means that the helium, a non-renewable gas, is being quickly sold off at increasingly cheap prices, making it uneconomical to recycle [...] The US stores around 80 per cent of the world's helium and so its decision to let it go at an extremely low price has a massive knock-on effect on its market. [...] The only way to obtain more helium would be to capture it from the decay of tritium - a radioactive hydrogen isotope, which the U.S. stopped making in 1988.

The article says that because of the too-low price, it's being used very much faster than it can be replaced and reserves will be used up in 25 years. Professor Robert Richardson of Cornell University is arguing for a return to the free market in this commodity.

According to this site, major companies supplying helium in the US are Air Products (NYSE: APD) and Praxair (NYSE:PX).

Too exciting for me as an investor, and besides I don't know when in the next 25 years the market surge might start, if at all. But it's another story in the saga of finite world resources.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

When will the bear market end? How bad will it get?

2010-08-22T08:36:00.008+01:00

Tim W. Wood at Financial Sense reckons the last bull market ran from 1974 to 2007 (extended by government interference or support, depending on your point of view). His research tells him that bear markets last one-third as long as the preceding bull market, so he sees the present stockmarket rally as a "dead cat bounce".

That's my gut feeling, too, though I'm aware of the dangers of confirmation bias.

Below, I give two charts showing the course of the Dow from August 1929 (close to its pre-Crash peak) to August 2010, 82 years later. The first shows the raw index, which as you see only breached the 2,000 mark in the late 80s, making the last 20 years look freakish.

The second adjusts the Dow for inflation as measured by the CPI, so we can see where we are "in real terms" in comparison to the great speculative bull market of the late 1920s. Note that the recent low point (March 2009) is above the high point of the bull run that ended in January 1966, whereas the low of June 1982 was less than 40% of the 1929 peak.

If the eventual market bottom this time has the same relationship to the 1966 peak, as 1982 had to 1929, the Dow should go below 5,200 points (adjusted for inflation between now and the future low point).

So much has changed over the last 3 generations that the attempt to turn historical data into predictable cycles may be fruitless. On the one hand, debt is now an even greater burden than in 1929; on the other, big companies are multinational and the fortunes of Wall Street are less bound up with those of Main Street.

Yet global trade means that the fortunes of sovereign nations are increasingly interconnected, and while China is set to overtake Japan in size of economy, it is also (apparently) heading for a Western-style banking bust; should China choose to raid its overseas investments to tackle such a crisis, then the American markets (where China holds over $1 trillion of assets) are in trouble.

I still feel that a major breakdown is on the way, I just don't know exactly when. It's like waiting for the Big One in California: every day it's "not today", yet it's never "never".

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Gold, inflation and the Dow Jones Industrial Index

2010-08-21T09:33:00.004+01:00

I give below two charts that look at how gold has fared since President Nixon de-linked it from the dollar in 1971. In inflation terms (as measured by the US CPI-U), gold now worth is almost twice as much as its long-term average; but in turn, the Dow is still running very high against gold.

It may or may not be the case that gold is overpriced (perhaps we should be looking at inflation as measured by average earned income, or GDP, or something else) but either way, the Dow is still extraordinarily high. It does indeed look as though there was a "new paradigm" from the early 1990s; but perhaps a dangerously misleading one. Will gold double? Will the Dow halve?

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Gold and Goldman Sachs

2010-08-20T08:03:00.007+01:00

It appears that Goldman Sachs will simultaneously predict a rise in the value of gold, and a fall, depending on how valuable a client you are. Mind you, that could reflect the difference between the advice one gives to active traders as opposed to buy-and-holders, so it's not enough evidence to convict, I think.

I looked at gold's longer-term price history in February of last year, starting in 1971 when President Nixon finally severed the official link between the US dollar and the precious metal on which it used to be based. Since then, and adjusted for the American Consumer Price Index, gold has averaged 2.8 or 2.9 times its September 1971 price. I reproduce the graph below:

In September 1971, gold was trading at $42.02 per ounce, when the CPI index was at 40.8 . As I write, the New York spot price is $1,232.40 and July 2010's CPI figure is 218.011. So "in real terms" gold is now worth 5.49 times as much as in the autumn of 1971, i.e. nearly twice its long-term, inflation-adjusted trend.

As I've said before, we're now not looking at gold as a "good buy" because it's undervalued, which it isn't (it was, 10 years ago). Instead, it's assuming its role as a form of insurance against economic breakdown. I've noted recently, as doubtless you have too, how shops and internet sites have been springing up, offering to buy your gold. There must be a reason - though remember that these purchasers often don't give you the full melt-down value of your jewelry, so there's a profit margin for them already.

It may be a sign of the times, but that also means that it's a temporary phenomenon. Unless you're willing to keep a sharp eye out for price movements and can sell fairly quickly when you have made a gain, perhaps you should keep out of this speculative market.

Unless you believe the future is rather more catastrophic. In that case, as some are now advising, you may wish to build up your personal holding of the imperishable element. But consider the ancient buried hoards that have been discovered over the last few years by people with metal detectors: presumably those ancients thought they'd come back for their goods, but were overtaken by events. If you really have the disaster-movie outlook, maybe there are other, more useful things you should be doing to ensure that you survive and thrive.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Beating inflation safely

2010-08-19T07:58:00.004+01:00

UK investors who are concerned about the threat of inflation have recently (19 July) lost access to an ideal solution, the NS&I Index-Linked Savings Certificate. Now a building society is offering something to fill that gap in the market.

National Counties are marketing an index-linked cash ISA. This is not quite the same as NS&I's product, because the investment is for a fixed amount (the maximum cash ISA allowance, i.e. £5,100) and no withdrawals are permitted within the 5-year term of the plan. As with NS&I, the return is linked to the Retail Price Index (RPI), plus 1% p.a. For further comment by Citywire, see here.

A lot depends on what you think may happen in terms of inflation, which brings us to the great inflation-deflation debate. Some commentators are saying that Western economies are so indebted that we have reached a turning point and people will spend less and save more (or pay down debt, which amounts to the same thing). Governments are going to have to follow suit, and the UK government is currently busy trying to demonstrate its commitment to do so, fearing that bond markets may lose confidence in our financial management and will then charge higher interest, which would really put us in a pickle.

So demand is reducing. We see this in the recent bankruptcies of UK holiday companies and the pages of cut-price cruise adverts in the middle-class press. If this is the pattern generally, then holders of cash will benefit as prices reduce - the pound in your pocket will grow more valuable, quite safely. Even better, this type of deflationary gain is not taxed, at least not until the government nerves itself up to simply confiscate your savings.

But that's not the whole picture. While demand for luxuries is lessening, there are other things that we still have to buy, especially food and energy. Here, prices are rising. And if interest rates do rise, that will also increase RPI, which unlike the Consumer Price Index (CPI) includes housing costs. So it is quite possible that inflation as measured by RPI could be high, even as the economy slows down. It's worth noting that the government has recently changed rules on private sector occupational pensions so that their benefits will increase in line with CPI instead of RPI, which suggests that our rulers believe that one way or another, RPI will rise faster than CPI in years to come.

The BBC appears to have bought the official line that we should ignore food and energy costs, referring to CPI as "core" inflation and noting that it's now a mere 3.1%, as opposed to RPI which is running at 4.8%. However, unlike the mandarins at Broadcasting House, the rest of us need to eat and keep warm; or, to be a little fairer, food and energy is a more significant part of most people's budgets than it is for the upper echelon of the mediaocrities.

An RPI-linked cash product is a good each-way bet: if prices do reduce, then your money becomes more valuable; if prices increase, the value of your savings is preserved; and either way, you benefit from that extra 1% p.a. sweetener.

Reasons not to? You may find you need access to cash within the 5 year term; and if you're a gambler, you may be looking at investments that could outpace inflation (think of the current fever for commodities such as gold, silver, oil and agricultural products). But you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, and most ordinary people aren't gamblers when it comes to their nest-eggs, so this product is worth a look.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Growing ownership by foreigners

2010-08-17T09:58:00.004+01:00

One indication of our plight is the balance of ownership between ouselves and foreigners - who owns more (including official debt) of whom? The Econbrowser blog reproduces the following graph from a study of the US position:
And I give below a graph I've constructed from official figures, showing what's happened here in the UK:

For those inclined to blame solely New Labour for the economic disaster, this should be an eye-opener - look where we were in 1997.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Is gold a safe haven?

2010-08-04T08:51:00.006+01:00

I've looked at gold a number of times on Bearwatch, trying to see whether it's a protection against inflation and/or falls on the Dow Jones Index.

The trouble is, there's so much wealth in the world that the relatively small market in gold can be manipulated by speculators, so it doesn't compensate for inflation etc in a smooth way.

It is also, many suspect, manipulated by central banks and governments, in order to preserve the illusion that the economy is under control. Sharp rises in the price of gold are traditionally seen as a vote of no confidence in national economic management, especially paper money (the last official link between gold and the US dollar was broken in 1971).

The graph below correlates gold and the Dow since the beginning of the 20th century. It's interesting because it shows how major crises impact on investment and gold.

It's also interesting because it suggests some sort of cycle, and the logarithmic scale makes the peaks link up in a straight line. Less so the troughs - many "gold bugs" keep looking back to the panicky spike in the gold price in 1980, which was clearly very exceptional (though the gold bugs still hope it's a benchmark for the future).

Beware: the human mind is very good at perceiving patterns, and will force them onto random data, which is why people used to think they could see canals on Mars.

Having said that, note the green line on the graph, which indicates the long-term trend. In particular, note that the blue line is now well below it, though nowhere near previous troughs. This could mean that gold is overpriced, yet still in the zone where a "bigger fool" may come along and pay even more for it. Such is our vanity, we tend to think we'll never be the biggest fool, ourselves.

On the other hand, since this graph relates gold to the Dow, it could suggest that the Dow is underpriced, and I have been reading a number of commentators who expect a continuation of the recent recovery in the stockmarket, though this opinion is not universally shared.

A further caveat: the graph looks as though it's a fairly regular cycle, but there are features of our present situation that are not cyclical, at least not in the usual few years/couple of decades frame. Some see the downwave of several longer-term cycles coming together in the not-too-distant future - here's an example from Charles Hugh Smith:

Here are some other reasons why the present recession (I believe it hasn't finished and has only been disguised by recent official financial intervention) may not be part of the "normal" business cycle:

The ratio of total personal and public debt to GDP is the highest in modern history - higher even than just before the Great Crash of 1929
There's been a social change in the West over the last generation or two, that has seen families become dependent on two earned incomes instead of one, so the option to earn more by sending one's partner out to work has already been exercised by many
In developed and developing economies (e.g. China), the average age of the population is increasing. This means that more of the populace is looking to spend money on their needs (and older people need more healthcare), and fewer are in work and saving money
National economies have become much more closely linked with one another. Many Western economies are in a similar, difficult financial situation and many Eastern economies have come to depend on trade with us, so that global fortunes are co-dependent in some ways. Investors may not be able to escape these problems by moving their money into other countries
International trade has put highly-paid Western workers in much closer competition with workers in other countries where wage levels are far lower. Western wages per hour, already stagnant in real terms since somewhere in the 1970s, must (I believe) eventually come closer to Eastern pay rates; yet mortgages and other personal debts won't reduce just because the pay packet gets smaller
Developed nations have set up expensive public systems of health treatment, education and social welfare benefits. It is going to be extremely hard to reduce these commitments in order to reduce taxation

Respected commentators like Mike Shedlock and Marc Faber (see yesterday) believe that the US, UK and other countries will not be able to square the circle. They differ only in how they think the disaster will play out.

In short, I would say that investing in gold is indeed a speculation, and to get into that market now appears to be coming a little late to the party, but if you share the wider outlook of many of the "bears" I've been following for the last 3 years, it may still be worth considering as an insurance against disaster. Perhaps we're at the point where we might even be prepared to accept a degree of loss on such a speculation, rather than lose far more if we remain in cash and see inflation destroy the value of money.

Investing in gold isn't the only precaution to consider. Look at what Faber says in the interview I posted yesterday - he's thinking in much bleaker terms and talks about buying agricultural land, moving out of the city etc. Faber isn't the only gloomy one: US Congressman Ron Paul is predicting social unrest when the government begins to fail on its commitments to citizens.

In short, the recent past is no guide to the future. Those graphs issued by investment funds and financial retail outlets, showing growth over 3 or 5 years (or whatever carefully-selected period makes their recommendation seem promising) are, in my opinion, pretty much useless. Whichever view you take, it is now important to make that a wider, longer view, because macroeconomic factors have become more significant.

And yes, the doomsters could also still be wrong, either about how things will go, or how soon, or both.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Inflation or deflation? Crisis, either way.

2010-08-03T16:32:00.004+01:00

Mike "Mish" Shedlock, financial analyst at Sitka Pacific, and Dr Marc Faber (Thailand-domiciled investment guru and economic commentator) are thought to represent opposite points of view - deflation versus inflation, respectively.

In this interview, it's clear that to some extent they agree: the US Government will see huge budget deficits for years to come, and it's not going to be a re-run of the 1970s: there is no ability of the people to take on more debt because (as Mish says) we've now gone from 1- to 2-wage households (where work is available).

Faber accepts that the government may eventually choose to default with respect to foreign creditors, but otherwise he sees monetary inflation to cover the public funding gap and stimulate economic demand. Mish sees price rises as compatible with his judgment that the economy will deflate.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.

Too much wealth tied up in houses

2010-08-03T07:44:00.005+01:00

A release from the Office for National Statistics, widely reported in the papers today, says that the UK's net worth is £6,669 billion. Of this, 61% (£4,048 billion) is tied up in housing.

According to Credit Action in April 2010, 11.1 million households have mortgages, at an average of £111, 612 per mortgage. The total of personal debt in the UK (including mortgages) is £1,464 billion; UK GDP in 2009 was an estimated £1,396 billion.

Much of the value of housing depends on the inflationary effect of lending. According to a release by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, in May 2010 the average loan to value for first-time buyers was 75%, and for house movers it was not much less (67%).

Housing has become a far more important element in our economy, over the last 50 years. Here is Table 1 of a press release by the Halifax in May 2010:

Since 1959, total net household wealth has increased 5 times in real terms. But houses have gone up in value 11 times, and mortages are 23 times bigger. Consumer credit is also 13 times greater.

I don't think we can really run a successful economy on the basis of inflating the value of our huts by getting into hock with moneylenders. Sooner or later, we have to get out there and hunt something.

DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.