And counter to our prediction of an imminent, counter-trend U.S. dollar rally, the dollar is most definitely not surging. Take a look at the chart below. We’ve been writing about the decline of the dollar for nigh on ten years. So we looked at a ten-year chart to tally up the damage. It is considerable.

Dollar Index Threatens New Lows

What’s at stake with the interpretation of this chart? If the dollar rallies on short covering from the dollar carry trade (a BIG if), then other “risk” assets like gold, stocks, and emerging markets would probably sell off.

The chart shows that the index’s 50-week moving average is set to cross below its 200-week moving average. That is mixed news. The first time it happened on this chart was back in early 2003. That was the early days of a long decline in the index. The second time, though the move failed to confirm the “flight to safety” rally of 2008 had staying power in 2009.

Once the fear that gripped markets in 2008 went away, the investment world sold the dollar and started borrowing en masse to buy other, higher-yielding currencies and assets (like the Aussie dollar and resource stocks). That’s where we are now.

But based on the chart, is the next move down in the dollar index a new low, which the crossing of the long-term MA by the short-term MA would suggest? Or is it a false move? Will the dollar quickly and violently rally for some reason (geopolitical perhaps) that currently remains unknown to the human beings of this world?

“It’s an interesting chart,” said our technical analyst Murray Dawes. “But it is not useful for timing your moves out of or into trades related to the dollar’s movement.”

“So you’re saying our chart doesn’t have any useful information from a trader’s perspective?”

“Not really.”

The one piece of important information communicated by our chart is that the dollar’s trend is down. But there IS a catch.

The catch is that when this many people are this uniformly bearish, everyone is probably wrong. Consider this a warning then, that a dollar rally is just the sort of thing that will lead to a correction in the gold price and the stock market. We won’t speculate on the sort of things that could lead to a dollar rally. But surely they’re out there and sooner or later they’ll come.

The other possibility is that the dollar is in its death throes and that this is the big one, in currency terms. That is such a momentous and disastrous event that people consider it both kooky and unlikely, not to mention undesirable to a predictable and comfortable world. But it IS possible.

And do you get the feeling that this kind of manic melt up rally is the sort of irrational frenzy that comes just before everything goes haywire? Haywire is not a precise financial term. So what do we mean?

We meant that the world enjoyed a 20-year economic relationship based on a fundamentally unbalanced global economy. Manufacturing capacity migrated to Asia where wages were lower. For awhile, this was mostly good news in Western countries. Goods got cheaper but jobs didn’t vanish.

Now the situation is not so pleasant. The world is awash in manufacturing over-capacity, especially in China. Wage deflation (in the Western world) looks like a long-term trend, leading to a lower standard of living. This wage deflation is occurring at exactly the same time that Western governments are encountering demographic crises of ageing populations.

We all knew the ageing of the Boomers would put pressure on public finances right around now. But no one reckoned on a global financial crisis further saddling the public balance sheet with debt. And no one reckoned that Western wages and incomes would be falling at just the time people needed them most. And no one reckoned that savers would lose the most from low interest rates on fixed income — even though those low rates are keeping the American housing sector on life support.

It’s a bit of global impasse. America’s needed structural adjustment has come. Households and businesses are reducing debt, trying to live within their means. But the net adjustment to the American balance sheet is not happening because public sector debt is growing so fast.

Meanwhile, the other obvious adjustment is that the Chinese currency ought to be allowed to strengthen. For political and social reasons though, China will not allow this. It means China is actually adding to its industrial over capacity. It is conjuring up the world’s largest ever bubble in fixed asset investment, including commercial real estate.

It is easy to see why China is reluctant to allow a stronger Yuan. Exports account for 39% of Chinese GDP. The Chinese economy, and probably the Communist Party itself, cannot survive on unleashed Chinese domestic demand. They need American markets. But American consumers — in addition to reducing debt — are now realising that the focus on finance over manufacturing from American policy makers has worked out for Washington and Wall Street, but not terribly well for the average American worker.

Where do we go from here? How about the blame game. U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner once blamed the Chinese for being currency manipulators. He back-tracked later. And yesterday, Liu Mingkang, the chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, had a go at America.

“The continuous depreciation in the dollar, and the US government’s indication that, in order to resume growth and maintain public confidence, it basically won’t raise interest rates for the coming 12 to 18 months, has led to massive dollar arbitrage speculation.” He is blaming the U.S. for fuelling a destabilising global bubble.

Of course that bubble is felt most acutely because China pegs its currency to the dollar. China is right to blame the U.S. for manipulating its currency to try and improve its competitive position. And China is right to worry about the value of its dollar-denominated assets in a world of exploding U.S. debt supply.

But China has put itself in this position. And here we are at the end of 2009 with a world still fundamentally un-adjusted to a new, workable currency arrangement. The world remains burdened by trillions in assets purchased with debt. Those assets linger on bank balance sheets, on government life support but fundamentally lifeless at fictitious book value prices.

And meanwhile, the China-US currency arrangement has fuelled a global bubble. The question is how it will end. In the U.S., the housing market looms as the Achilles heel of the economy. It could strike households, banks, and the government again in the next 12 months are more mortgages reset at higher rates (with lower home values).

If the event that pops this bubble comes from America, look for the supply of credit to the emerging world to dry up again. If the bubble pricking comes from China, what then? Well, China does everything big. So a Chinese bust would be world-class.

Regards,
Dan Denning

November 18, 2009

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the Daily Reckoning Australia as “Dollar Rally the Sort of Thing that Will Lead to Correction in Gold Price.” To view the original article, please click here.

Will a Dollar Rally Lead to a Gold Correction? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

In deciding to make hardly any changes to its interest rate policy or even the language from its last statement, the Fed is encouraging traders to resume the dollar carry trade. For now, it looks safe to borrow in low-yielding currencies like the U.S. dollar and invest in higher-yielding assets like the Australian dollar, emerging market stocks, and some bonds.

Go, you bubble beauties!

It’s hard to believe the Fed is willfully stupid. The market, through the price of gold, has clearly communicated that it thinks U.S. monetary and fiscal policy is lousy. But rather than defend the U.S. dollar – indeed the integrity of U.S. monetary policy itself – the Fed is choosing to support asset prices through easy credit.

It’s also possible that the Fed thinks a weak dollar will reduce America’s trade deficit, boost its export competitiveness, and lead to higher employment. We think this is a pipe dream. And we’re not talking about a lead pipe. We’re talking William Blake-style opium.

But smoke and mirrors aside, does this mean there will be no end to the dollar carry trade? If the U.S. dollar index rallied, we expected to see a falling Aussie dollar, falling Aussie stocks, and (even though it’s strange) rising U.S. bond prices. All the leveraged risk trades would unwind a bit as dollar shorts covered.

But now what? Is this the all clear for stock indices to make new highs as traders borrow money and plow it into markets to engineer huge returns for the end-of-year statements to investors? The early returns are inconclusive. The Dow was all over the shop, unable to make heads or tails of what the Fed’s non-change means. Gold futures made a new nigh, though. And about that…

Gold is very popular lately. It’s not returning our calls anymore. And when we see it in public, all it does is glitter and bask in the glow of so many newfound admirers. That makes us very nervous, and perhaps a bit hurt. We stood by it all those years when no one loved it.

We like it all the same, although we’re just friends now and it’s based on gold’s ability to preserve the purchasing power of our wealth, not any inherent beauty it may or may not have. But as a practical matter, when you enter a position as the asset is making a new high, you usually get hammered.

That’s what happens when you go along with the crowd. It’s an axiom that an asset has to make new highs…to make new highs. But it would be nice to buy gold on a correction. Perhaps, though, we are seeing a big shift in market psychology with respect to gold. India’s purchase of IMF gold is just one sign of that shift.

One interesting result from the events of 2009, Murray Dawes mentioned last week, is that gold is decoupling from the U.S. dollar. He sent over the chart below. It shows that two times in the last five years, gold (the black line) has strengthened eve as the U.S. dollar index (the blue line) rallied. And each time after this period of dollar strength, gold then took off to a new move up.

Why does that matter? Well, gold usually moves up when the U.S. dollar moves up, and down when the U.S. dollar moves up. For gold to show strength when the dollar is strong shows that gold itself may be breaking out of its correlation to the greenback. And what would that tell you?

The bigger picture: gold breaking its negative correlation with the USD would tell you that gold is being remonetized in the world financial system. It would tell you gold is appreciating against nearly all paper currencies. And it would tell you that even if we do see a U.S. dollar rally, you could still new highs in the gold price.

Above all, it shows you how valuable it is to own an asset that is not anyone else’s liability. We are entering a global sovereign debt crisis because the world’s large economies have been engaged in a multi-decade long competition to devalue their currencies. The cheaper your currency is relative to your trading partners, the cheaper your goods are and the higher your exports.

Overly the last fifty years, nearly every country in the world has engaged in some kind of currency manipulation to keep its currency cheap relative to the American dollar. That’s because the American economy was the world’s largest, and everyone wanted to sell into it.

America’s economy is still big, of course. But a lot is changing, yet the currency manipulation has not caught up with the new economy reality. And Western Welfare states are still borrowing money as if emerging market creditors will be happy to fund fundamentally flawed fiscal policies for ever. Not likely. But tomorrow is another day.

Regards,
Dan Denning
The Daily Reckoning Australia

November 10, 2009

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in The Daily Reckoning Australia as “Price of Gold Communicates U.S. Monetary and Fiscal Policy is Lousy.” To view the original article, please click here.

Gold Price Says U.S. Monetary and Fiscal Policy Stinks was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

First, let’s check out the chart below from the 2008 annual budget audit by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It shows that the U.S. government must roll over $3.4 trillion in debt over the next four years. This $3.4 trillion does not include any additional borrowing that may be required for other government programs (wars, healthcare, wars, school lunches).

What’s the big deal? $3.4 trillion is a small number by today’s standards, isn’t it? Not exactly.

The chart shows how incredibly interest-rate sensitive U.S. government borrowing now is. Not only is it a big ask to ask the world’s creditors to continue funding such large deficits (there are only so many savings available to borrow, after all), but the interest expense on that debt is likely to go up as the fiscal position of America deteriorates.

And if America can’t find anyone willing to finance its deficits, what then? Well, the luxury of issuing debts in the currency you also print is that you can print money to pay for them. Technically, you can never become insolvent when you enjoy this privilege. The Fed, for example, can create new money to buy debt issued by the Treasury, funding deficits ad infinitum.

But this monetisation of the debt is another way of saying that international creditors are no longer willing to pick up America’s spending tab. They will be betting against the American economy, not on it. Even if the Fed takes the unusual step of moving out further along on the yield curve to set interest rates (and keep the bond vigilantes from sending yields to the moon) this is a clear signal to owners of dollar-denominated assets and holders of dollar currency reserves to get out.

Another scenario to watch for is when creditors begin asking the U.S. to issue debts in currencies other than its own (Yuan, Euros). That would be something. In the meantime, they will look to lessen their dollar reserves.

That may not be such an orderly process. And the urgency to get out of the greenback and into something better will only pick up pace as it becomes clear the politicians in America (along with the Fed) are not likely to suddenly rediscover fiscal prudence.

You never know. The Fed may assert its independence and baulk at more quantitative easing. But we wouldn’t count on it. And we reckon tangible assets and possibly emerging market equities would be the biggest beneficiaries of capital flows out of the dollar…and into anything else.

The next chart is for you, Paul Krugman. Krugman, among others, continues to insist that larger public sector deficits are necessary if the Western world is to avoid a Japanese-style deflationary “Lost Decade.” He claims the government must increase spending as households and businesses deleverage and reduce debts.

Advocates of this idea claim that public sector deficits, as a percentage of GDP, have no real limits. And the example they cite is Japan. As you can see from the chart below, Japan’s debt to GDP ratio is nearing 200%. America’s isn’t even half of that yet (it’s about 98%, or $13 trillion). If Japan can finance a deficit at 200% of GDP, then why are we worried that U.S. deficits half that size would threaten interest rates or the dollar?

First off, it’s worth pointing out that high public sector-debt-to GDP ratios haven’t worked in Japan, if by work you mean pave the way to a stable recovery. Advocates might say-as advocates of the stimulus here in Australia often say-that the public spending made things less worse. But the opposite is true. It’s made things more bad!

Or just worse, if you prefer. We mean that the public spending has done two things, neither of which is productive, and both of which, in fact, waste capital and resources. First, public sector spending to prop up financial firms with dodgy assets prevents the needed reckoning in asset prices that would produce market clearing prices for commercial and residential real estate. You get zombie banks and a zombie economy and zombie house prices.

Secondly, there’s no indication that all the infrastructure spending in Japan has produced any kind of lasting growth for the economy. It may have built some great roads and bridges. But we wonder if it solved any of the underlying problems? What’s more, the capital and resources that went into those projects was directed by political considerations and not available for the private sector, which could have put them to some use at least designed to produce a return on the capital.

The underlying problem which deficit spending does not solve is compounded by demographics. Japan’s government is hoping that continued borrowing can be financed at low rates by pensioners who will be cashing out of their pensions but seeking safety. However, we suspect that Japanese pensioners will begin to consume their savings as they downsize their lives into their twilight years (which tend to last much longer in Japan, as the number of Japanese centenarians shows).

That means interest on Japanese bonds-which already one fifth of the Japanese budget-will consume even more of the nation’s resources, if the older population clams up with its money. And like in the U.S., you’ll see the government borrowing more and more of every new yen spent, with more of that borrowed yen going to pay a previous creditor. That’s bordering on Ponzidom.

Japan has been able to run a higher-than-average public debt-to-GDP ratio because it has had such a high personal savings rates. This kept borrowing costs low for the government. But we’d expect that to change soon. A debt-to-GDP ratio of 200% will be very difficult to finance in the world as it is-much less in a world where those rates begin to rise and when Japanese savers begin to consume their savings.

Finally, what about Europe? Our argument here is simple: Europe’s monetary union is going to come unstuck. Why? Europe has one interest rate for twelve different economies. That does not leave national governments with the flexibility to print money and inflate away political problems. This will be intolerable, the monetary union will break up.

The sign to watch for is a spike in the yields on euro-denominated debt. As the chart below (from Stratfor) shows, earlier this year bond yields did in fact begin to widen. Germany Bunds have the most stable rates, as Germany has traditionally the most stable fiscal and monetary policies in Europe (they did not go hog wild for stimulus).

But for Spain, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Italy and Austria (whose banks lent large for real estate in Eastern Europe), another round of falling asset values really would show that the GFC has become a sovereign debt crisis. And will Germany bail out these nations? Can it afford to?

We don’t know the answer to those questions. But it is worth pointing out that by assuming or guaranteeing the liabilities of the financial sector, national governments have also assumed the risk. And the bond markets will be left to decide how to price this risk.

How it ends is anyone’s guess. But our take is that the Super Cycle in fiat money is at its peak. And as it unwinds, it’s going to take national governments and their financing model with it. They will be forced to adopt a new model and take a new form to survive.

This means a great deal of political and economic upheaval. It’s no coincidence that the last time the world faced such monetary upheaval was when it went off the gold standard and straight into essentially thirty-two years of military and economic conflict (1913-1945). If the world is about to become that disordered again, you’ll need a plan to deal with it.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Daily Reckoning Australia

November 5, 2009

Debt to GDP Ratios Indicate Governments Going Bankrupt was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

It was a truly bullish way to wrap up the week. China reported a 7.9% rise second in quarter GDP, driven mostly by a 15% surge in June consumption and a huge boom in bank lending and government stimulus. Aussie stocks felt the warm glow and rallied just below 4,000 on the ASX/200 Friday. Aussie stocks were up nearly 7% for the week.

But the even better news from the bullish camp is that perma-bear Nouriel Roubini has defected! Yes, Roubini told a conference that the “free fall” in financial losses is over and the U.S. may exit its recession by the end of the year. This was enough sweet talk to send the Dow up nearly one percent.

And then there was an upgrade to second half U.S. GDP forecasts from the U.S. Federal Reserve. In April, the Fed said second half U.S. GDP would shrink by 1.3% to 2.0%. The revised forecast released yesterday now says U.S. GDP will only shrink by 1.0% to 1.5%. A stunning upgrade!

The Fed’s revised projections also show that the U.S. economy will grow faster than it first thought in 2010, once the much-anticipated recovery takes hold. In April the Fed thought the U.S. would grow by 2.0% to 3%. But in the revised forecast now says the growth rate should soar from 2.1% to 3.3%. A stunning upgrade!

The only negative note in the Fed’s forecast is that it reckons U.S. unemployment will keep growing to over 10%. That, presumably, is a drag on the economy. But if credit conditions improve, maybe all the people who’ve lost jobs because the U.S. economy is not producing and not competitive can, you know, get a credit card and live off of that.

But putting on our serious face, and while we are giving valuable publishing space to the optimists, we should point out that some people think the worst case scenario for the U.S. Housing market is already priced in to financial stocks. This leaves said stocks all clear to lead the market higher, along with tech, resources, bonds, and cash!

For example, Jim Cramer reckons that if you assume a 50% total write-off rate on the 14 million mortgages written between 2005 and 2007 in the U.S., you are only talking US$1.4 trillion in losses (7 million homes X $200,000 per home. ) Cramer says the banks have already written off that amount and that the banks stocks are priced for a worst-case scenario that may not materialize.

And if it doesn’t, it would lead to a faster recovery in bank balance sheets, which in turn would lead to a recovery in bank lending, which would not lead to inflation because the Fed has a plan to remove liquidity from the system and everything thing will be fine!

And you thought Neverland was a ranch in California.

Whether Cramer is right depends on which vintage of mortgages have accounted for the losses in the financial sector so far and which are still going bad. The chart below from the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve suggests to us that there are more losses to come than have been accounted for. Why do we say that? First the chart…

What does the chart tell us? Well, it shows that in 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led the surge into subprime lending. This is the vintage of loans that went bad in the last year as interest rates moved up and house prices moved down, putting many new buyers and speculators underwater. This is where the first $1.4 trillion in losses came from.

But the real issue is the quality and quantity of mortgages that were packaged up and securitized from 2005 to 2007. As the GSE’s reduced their originations, banks stepped in—often having acquired non-traditional lenders for just this purpose—to keep feeding the boom. The banks wrote the loans and sold them to each other, purchasing default insurance on the securitized loans from AIG.

These loans are not subprime but supposedly higher credit quality Option ARM and Alt-A loans. And these are the loans the banks, we’d suggest, are carrying at elevated values. We’d also suggest the banks are not adequately capitalized to realize losses on these loans should the housing market get swamped again by another wave of defaults and foreclosures. This is where the second $1.4 trillion in losses will come from.

But of course it’s wacky to suggest all that. We might as well say that aliens crashed at Roswell and that the moon landing was faked (it probably was). There’s just no way it could get any worse than it did in 2007. Could it?

Regards,
Dan Denning

July 21, 2009

Mortgage Defaults May Trump the Fed was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The U.S. Labor Department reported that around 467,000 Americans lost their jobs in June. This was unwelcome news. The data had been getting less bad every month since January. Then the June numbers rocked up, fell out, and took stocks down with them. This is causing everyone with a pulse (and most with a brain) to have second thoughts about just how good things are-or how much worse they might get.

The S&P and the Dow both fell nearly three percent. Oil and gold were down too. About the only things up were Treasury bonds and notes. Speaking of which, the U.S. will auction another $73 billion of those this week. Wednesday’s auction is for $19 billion in ten-year notes while $11 billion in 30-year bonds go on sale Thursday.

“You may have green shoots, whatever you want to call them, you may have temporary relief, but you are still in a world that’s breaking,” Black Swan author Nassim Taleb told CNBC’s Squawk Box. “Anything that’s fragile like the financial system will eventually crash, he said…We’re in the middle of a crash…So if I’m going to forecast something, it is that it’s going to get worse, not better.”

Taleb’s point is not a popular one. But it is a realistic one. The fiat money, leveraged finance Western financial system went global in the last twenty years, providing an epic rise in asset prices (and the debt used to purchase them). There’s no doubt that real goods and services have traded hands with world growth. But now we wonder how much of that is sustainable when you take the credit away.

Did we use phony money to build a world with completely unrealistic levels of growth? Were trillions of dollars of capital allocated based on final demand that was artificially pumped up by credit, currency manipulation (low U.S. interest rates and global dollar pegging), and government stimulation?

Yes we did!

Mind you, the crash of the financial system is not the end of the world. It is a massive calamity to be sure, wiping out the value of retirement assets many people were counting on to make it through their golden years. But as many readers have reminded us in the last few months, there is more to life than money.

Fair enough. But there is more to wealth than money too! Peace of mind, having your assets in forms that can’t be inflated away or won’t suffer from debt deflation…we would count these as “wealth” at a time like this.

That brings us back to the problem growing at the back of our mind yesterday. Can a massive deflating credit bubble nullify the liquidity measures by central bankers, which are puny in comparison to the nominal value of the assets at risk? “Yes you can!” comes the answer from some of the friends we put the question to.

“I’m tempted to disagree that expansion in government credit won’t reach the economy and therefore won’t be inflationary,” replied Money Morning editor Kris Sayce. “I’m not mistaken, the Fed is buying up these ‘assets’ in order to take them off the banks and also to help price them. If the Fed didn’t do this then the banks wouldn’t be able to lend extra money to customers as they would breach their lending limits.”

“It’s not so much that the Fed is directly feeding the banks money which flows through to the economy, it’s more that the Fed is feeding the banks money which allows them to expand lending which they otherwise wouldn’t be able to do. Thus at the very least is preventing prices from falling, or from falling as much as they ordinarily would without the intervention. In effect there is more money flowing in than there otherwise would be. There already IS inflation.”

Another colleague in the States replied that, “I am leaning more and more to the idea that the credit-based stuff will deflate (real estate, stock prices) but the cash-based stuff could rise (like foodstuffs, energy). In a way, it’s not a debate about inflation or deflation, but which assets inflate and which deflate. There might be a strong dichotomy within the economy between the two.”

To the extent that you cannot eat a mortgage-backed security, we see the wisdom in this view. The world has a lot of people. They have a lot of real needs. Regardless of the value of derivatives and opaque financial assets, a certain level of economic activity for a certain kind of tangible good will still be there. The challenge for investors is to determine if you can profit from this in traditional ways (stocks and bonds) or if you have to venture into less traditional asset classes and forms of ownership (land, real commodities, precious metals).

And of course, the thesis could be incorrect. If credit is not money-or if the large lending and government guarantee programs don’t reignite a lending boom in the real economy-then you may simply see a lot of wealth disappear down the memory hole.

Finally, a mystery Aussie commentator who wishes to remain anonymous but whom you may hear from in the future in this space sent a philosophical yet practical reply.

“What is money? Currently, that’s what the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) put in the reserve accounts of their member banks. The banks then use this as a base to create their own money, or ‘like money’. I guess this is also known as credit. So yes, credit is not money.

“And this bank credit is now contracting as the natural force of the market tries to drive prices lower and correct the boom. The Fed is offsetting this process by swapping ‘money’ (fed funds) for the impaired assets. But the banks are sitting on the cash, and obviously do not have the risk appetite (or the demand) to lend it out.”

“So at this point additional base money is not being lent out as inflationary ‘like money’. I’m not sure the Fed has the mechanism to make out and out purchases of assets other than through lending facilities, unless they are Treasury or Agency purchases. As far as I’m aware, the Fed can only distribute its newly created money through the banking system, and no other way. The banks have always been the source of inflation, and they need to lend to create this. They will probably use their excess reserves to buy Treasury’s in the coming years, and then the Fed can but the Treasury’s back off them in time. This will be inflationary.”

“Where does gold come into it? Well, gold is real money….chosen independently by the people. As trust in the US dollar continues to evaporate, demand for gold will increase. At some point gold will again be referred to as money. Because the amount of credit (debt) in the world dwarfs the amount of gold, and because gold will be a legitimate extinguisher of the debt, gold will likely rise massively to have the capacity to extinguish the debt. This is a process unfolding over years though.

“A rising gold price is actually deflationary in that it represents a rise in the purchasing power of money. So I think deflation is the ultimate force that cures this massive credit bubble…outright deflation if long-term faith in the US dollar remains, or gold price induced deflation should the bottom fall out of US dollar trust. The quantity of US dollars may be rising at the moment but the real turning point will be when the perceived quality of the dollar declines.”

Hmm. Gold rising indicates the rising value of cash…because gold is money. But if money is not wealth…and gold is money…does this mean gold is not wealth? Now there is something to think about.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Daily Reckoning Australia

July 7, 2009

Money Isn’t Wealth was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

And speaking of colossally stupid government programs, you may have seen the news that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a climate change bill on Saturday by a narrow vote of 219-212. The cap-and-trade bill, otherwise known as Waxman-Markey (for the nominal writers of the bill), mandates that U.S. manufacturers and utilities reduce carbon emissions 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

Under the sausage making process that is the American Congress, the bill was filled with compromises. Congressmen from coal-producing states or states with lots of manufacturing jobs had to be bribed into supporting it through various means. It must now go the Senate, which must pass its own version of the bill.

If the Senate bill is different from the House bill (and it almost always is, given the different agendas in both bodies and the need for more bribes), the two bills go to “reconciliation.” That’s where a committee made of members from both houses settles on a final compromise version of the two bills and sends them back to their respective bodies to be voted on. Then it gets sent to the President to become the law of the land.

By the way you may have missed an amendment to the bill that’s stirred a bit of controversy. It was inserted the night before among the bill’s 1,200 pages, which you can be sure none of America’s elected officials actually read. The amendment placates Congressmen from Rust Belt states who worry about losing even more manufacturing jobs to the developing world (China). It requires the U.S. President to make a “border adjustment” on goods from countries that do not cap or reduce carbon emissions by 2020. It’s a tariff.

Already President Obama has backed off that particular amendment. He says, “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there.” Very careful, sure. But you already did send the signal didn’t you?

For what it’s worth, we think this was all an exercise in political window dressing to get some version of a bill passed. If the Senate and the House actually agree on a climate change bill that puts a high tax on carbon, then the apotheosis of Obama will be complete.

We will take The One at his word, though. Besides, as everyone knows, the real purpose of the bill is not to start a trade war (although it may do so). The purpose is to make conventional energy more expensive AND—in an era of declining government tax receipts and rising liabilities—to create a huge new source of government revenues by taxing carbon. It’s a revenue and power grab by an institution (the Nation state) that finds itself increasingly off-balance.

It’s also a massive project in socioeconomic engineering that ignores the reality (and physics) of energy generation in an industrial society. It’s true the world could benefit from cleaner and cheaper energy. But cleaner and more expensive energy is a recipe for economic suicide. It’s something Western nations seem particularly keen on committing, although we can’t really figure out why. It could be that the global Left simply finds modern life aesthetically ugly and consumerism (with all that pesky individual choice) a vulgarity that should be destroyed via legislation.

But speaking strictly in economic terms, unless a region or a country has ample hydroelectric or geothermal resources, it’s impossible to meet base load electricity needs reliably with renewable energy. Advocates envision a world full of ultra-long life batteries, windmills, and solar farms. But it’s just a fantasy. If the climate bills become law in Australia and America, it will accelerate the deindustrialising of Western economies and mean the transfer of even more manufacturing jobs to the developing world.

Of course maybe that’s just what the architects of these laws want. Who knows? We know they want to tax productive enterprise and make the bulk of the population dependent on government handouts. That makes people compliant and easily controllable. That is big government Utopia. Advancing the fears of climate change is the easiest way to get more control.

We’d expect to see the construction of a lot more natural gas fired power plants in the coming years in the West (although they are more expensive than coal-fired plants). All those re-chargeable plug-in hybrids have to get their electrons from somewhere. If it’s not going to be coal (which will be taxed out of existence), it’s probably going to be cleaner-burning natural gas power plants, powered by both conventional and unconventional gas.

Right now, global LNG capacity is rising and stockpiles are fairly high. But if you keep your eye on the big picture and we see a transition of the world’s power plant fleet from coal to natural gas, it obviously favours gas producers and explorers. Australia is moving ahead by leaps and bounds in this area with conventional offshore production in the North West Shelf and Timor Sea and more unconventional production (hopefully) from coal-seam-gas in Queensland.

Regards,
Dan Denning

July 1, 2009

Climate Change, Cap, Trade, and the End of the Industrial West was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

The World Bank now says the global economy will contract by 2.9% this year instead of 1.7%. That could be right. But that’s not the reason stocks are falling. The rally that began in March has now run out of steam. It’s also run out of news events to send it higher. So what now?

Well, the primary trend—and by that we mean what we think the dominant trend is for the next few years—is the systematic reduction of debt in the household and business sectors. That ought to lead to write downs in asset prices and a general contraction in credit. Perhaps that is why—despite the mondo auction of $104 billion in new debt—even U.S. government bonds followed stocks and commodities down.

Let’s take a quick look at what the Federal Open Market Committee said yesterday in regard to U.S. interest rates. We’d planned to watch for language that tipped the Fed’s intentions regarding the bond market. It all begins with the bond vigilantes these days. So what did the Fed say?

It made clear low rates-at least the Fed’s target rate-are here to stay. “The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period.”

Whether the Fed can talk down or manipulate long-term rates into staying dormant is another matter. But it had more to say on the subject. “As previously announced, to provide support to mortgage lending and housing markets and to improve overall conditions in private credit markets, the Federal Reserve will purchase a total of up to $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and up to $200 billion of agency debt by the end of the year.”

The important part here is “as previously announced.” This sounds a bit like, “I really mean it. I’ll do it. I’m dead serious. Don’t make me buy those mortgage bonds. I’ll do it if I have to. Don’t push me.”

In other words, the Fed is merely repeating what it said it would do earlier. It did not announce a new policy or its intention to expand quantitative easing to keep bond yields down. We imagine it would not want to advertise its willingness to keep buying bonds. That might induce a lot of selling and have the perverse effect of pushing U.S. yields up and investors into other assets.

But just for good measure the Fed repeated itself one more time. “In addition, the Federal Reserve will buy up to $300 billion of Treasury securities by autumn. The Committee will continue to evaluate the timing and overall amounts of its purchases of securities in light of the evolving economic outlook and conditions in financial markets. The Federal Reserve is monitoring the size and composition of its balance sheet and will make adjustments to its credit and liquidity programs as warranted.”

So it’s a waiting game now. The Fed hopes the economy recovers this year and that it can withdraw its massive liquidity measures before they leak through into the economy to cause inflation. So far, its credit facilities have not translated into an expansion in the money supply. That’s what the bond market fears (which is also why ten-year Treasury yields were up on the day).

We reckon investors and insiders will wait to wade back into the stock market until this correction (if that’s what it is) runs its course. After all, the insiders have not been buying the rally. They’ve been selling into it.

According to research service TrimTabs insiders of S&P 500 listed companies have unloaded $2.6bn in shares in June, compared with $120m in purchases. “The smartest players in the US stock market – the top insiders who run public companies – are not betting their own money on an economic recovery,” says TrimTabs CEO Charles Biderman.

So the American insiders are bearish. They’ve been net sellers for fourteen straight weeks, according to Ben Silverman at InsiderScore. If the inside money is getting out, we reckon shares are going to do some bottom searching over the next few weeks. The World Bank announcement, then, merely confirmed what the action in the market has been telling us for the last few weeks.

Insider selling is a particularly charged bit of investment intelligence. But in our experience it is a piece of information that confirms what is already apparent through an analysis of other technical and fundamental variables. It doesn’t necessarily tell you anything you can’t figure out by other means.

It’s true that the insiders may be selling because they have access to information not known by the general public (although trading on this information would, of course, not be legal…but there you go). And insider sales—at least on large stocks with lots of liquidity—are easier to conceal in the general course of trading. But the money flow and volume still tell the tale, especially with smaller stocks.

If you step away from the technical guts of the market for a moment, the larger question is whether this last financial year will trigger any shifts in the investment habits or psyche of the Australian public. Judging by the number of people who stayed in balanced or growth funds over the last year, the Australian public is brain dead (zombies!). But then, let’s be fair. Maybe they ARE keeping their eye on the bigger picture. They just see the picture slightly differently than other living, thinking people.

The bigger picture can be seen below, courtesy of Super Ratings, in the value of a balanced Aussie super fund versus cash since 2003. Cash is slow and plodding and lazy and conservative. Very turtelish. The balances super funds, on the other hands, had three ripper years up to 2007, and two disastrous ones since. Even after an epic charge in commodities, balances super has barely beaten cash. Hmmn.

The Tortoise Cash and the Balanced Hare

You can see that after reaching parity earlier this year (at the markets slow) balanced funds have since rebounded. But you have to wonder how balanced they really are. Balance-according to our Super expert Kris Sayce-is supposed to be a kind of middle ground between aggressive growth and conservative cash. It also sounds sensible. Who is against balance? It’s prudent, right?

But if we read the latest report right from Super Ratings, the median balanced fund has 60%-76% of its investment portfolio allocated to growth assets, the riskiest type! That sounds distinctly unbalanced. It sounds, in fact, really stupid, considering this is a bear market in stocks.

Balanced zombie minds will point out that on rolling five, seven, and ten-year periods, balanced funds are all still up (4.75%, 4.99%, and 5.07%, respectively). But we would humbly suggest that there’s never been a better time to question the basic assumptions about investing in balanced funds-or any funds for that matter.

That is, a passive approach that assumes markets always go up and time is on your side is probably going to get you slaughtered in the coming years. If inflation doesn’t kill you, a few bad years could. And if your rolling period coincides with some of the frequent 17-year periods in which stock markets do not go up at all-well then the whole idea of using the stock market as a retirement machine is as dead as a zombie.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Daily Reckoning Australia

June 26, 2009

The Fed and Zombie Investors was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

By the way, last year at the Agora Wealth Symposium in Vancouver, one of our colleagues took the stage to point out that your editor was complete moron. In this particular case, it was for being bullish on gold

He said that gold hadn’t done much adjusted for inflation since 1980. What’s more, he said that it’s worth less—adjusted for inflation—than it was twenty years ago. How, he speculated, could anyone take the advice to buy gold seriously when it had performed so abysmally?

Well here are the facts. The gold price bottomed in October of 2000 at $263.80. At that time, the S&P 500 traded at 1,379. Since then, the S&P 500 has fallen by 31% (closing yesterday at 942.43) while the gold price is up 262% to $956.

We’ve asked Kris Sayce to bring this small fact to the attention of our colleague when he attends this year’s Vancouver show next month. The theme of this year’s show is “Ten Years of Reckoning,” Symposium Promo celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Daily Reckoning. Kris will be spearheading the Australian delegation. More details on that later this month.

In any event, it seems pretty obvious, that for the last ten years anyway, selling stocks and buying gold would have been a good trade/strategy. Stocks ended an 18-year bull market in 2000 and gold ended a 20-year bear market. One asset class was at a cyclical low. The other was at a cyclical high. In fact, you might even say that one was at a generational low and the other was at a generational high.

Gold is no longer as low as it once was. But it’s still not as high as we expect it to go before it starts to look foolish. Meanwhile, today’s government bond market looks an awful lot like the stock market circa 2000. You’re seeing a generational high in bonds. It’s another version of the “high-low” strategy.

This time around, though, we would add energy stocks to the mix, along with gold. Crude oil climbed to an eight-month high over $70 on Tuesday. Bloomberg says the weakness in the U.S. dollar is, “bolstering the appeal of energy as an alternative investment.” Sell bonds, buy energy. Pretty simple.

There is probably some truth to the fact that oil’s latest move is driven by investment demand more than, say, demand growth in the real economy. But investors ARE looking for ways to profit from U.S. dollar weakness. Oil is liquid and popular. In the long-run, it’s the smaller-than-expected oil supply growth that will drive the market.

One thing Kris will probably be making clear to U.S. dollar-based investors is just how relatively attractive Australia’s position is in the developed world. “Even as Australia’s challenges increase, it will still be the envy of the developed world,” writes William Pesek at Bloomberg. “Even in its worst moments… Australia is among the least unsightly economies anywhere,” he adds rather optimistically. We’ll see about that.

Finally, we meant to write a bit about other possibilities in China today. That is, we were going to explore collapse scenarios (financial, political, and societal). But we did not realize it would be ambitious to try that in a few hundred words. So look for something more considered later this week in the essay spot.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Daily Reckoning Australia

June 11, 2009

Last Decade: Buy Gold. This Decade: Buy Energy. was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

If we were using numbers instead of metaphors, we’d say the CRB Reuters/Jeffries Index had its biggest monthly rally in 34 years. It was up 14% on the month. That was the best performance since July of 1974.

A monthly performance like that can only mean one thing. We’re just not sure what one thing it is. It could mean commodities have rebounded from being oversold, as they were in late 2008. It could mean that markets are less pessimistic about the global economy than your editor at the Old Hat Factory (though we doubt that).

It could also mean that investors increasingly prefer tangible assets as a long-term growth strategy over financial assets. Even after $1.465 trillion in realized losses by global banks and financial institutions, there are trillions more to come. Commercial real estate…the option-ARM recast period in the U.S. housing market…European banks…any or all of these things could conspire to lead to more losses and more capital raisings in the financial sector.

Perhaps that is what explains crude oil’s biggest monthly gain in a decade. July crude futures traded at $66.52 in Friday’s New York action. The U.S. dollar price of gold powered to $981.20, before sliding back a bit $975.

The Aussie gold price is fighting its way up despite the fact that the Aussie dollar keeps gaining on the greenback. While the Aussie gold price is up just $1.71 in the last 30 days (0.14%), the U.S. gold price is up nearly nine percent. We reckon the Aussie gold price will begin moving up closer to $1,500 again on a combination of events (weakness against the greenback for one.)

There are also two data releases this week that will affect the Aussie dollar. The RBA meets today to decide the price of money in Australia (set interest rates). And then Wednesday, the March quarter GDP figures come out. This will tell us how bad the recession is, although not how bad it may become.

It’s no use predicting these things, but for what it’s worth, our view is that we’re in a bit of a plateau between down moves. The “down moves” will come again in financial stocks, although they may not be as “down” as before, and employment. Mostly, the indices are going to have to price in very slow GDP growth for the remainder of the year and more job losses.

The wildcard for Australia is trade. Its proximity to Asia means that a rebound in that part of the world provides some cushion to resource companies. But then, we thought the resource stocks would be pretty well insulated from the first round of deleveraging too, and we were wrong about that. And the second time around?

Well, even if the long-term underlying demand for Aussie resources is real and growing, it still takes real money to make new projects happen. The financing of resource projects will continue to be a key issue in your stock selection. The other issue, obviously, is the direction of commodity prices.

Take LNG, for example. Last year the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association said it wanted to triple Australia’s LNG output to sixty million tons per year. Meeting this weekend in Darwin, the group says 50 million is a more realistic target, given both the slump in energy prices and tight credit markets.

If LNG prices track oil prices-as they did in the big run up to $150 per barrel for crude-the economics of big Aussie projects get a lot better. Our view is that energy prices are going structurally higher anyway. Global recession aside, the big plunge in energy capital spending virtually guarantees a supply shortage in the coming years anyway.

Besides, you have to wonder why big international energy firms would be investing in conventional and unconventional Australian LNG projects if they weren’t convinced that a) oil prices were going higher, or b) more carbon-friendly fuels like gas would gain as coal gets politically demonized and punished with cap-and-trade or emissions-trading-schemes.

Obviously, if global trade continues to contract and a second round of losses in the global banking industry triggers another financial crisis, demand for energy is going to fall. And while we’re at it, stocks would probably test the 2003 lows too. We enter a new stage of grimness.

In the meantime, energy and precious metals stocks are riding higher commodity prices. And there’s a distinctly 2007 mind-set in the air. It’s vogue to be long-commodities and indifferent to risks in the financial system. It’s enough to make an investor with a short memory nervous.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Daily Reckoning Australia

June 2, 2009

What Are Commodities Saying About the Financial Crisis? was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder

So when you hear anyone say that the level of taxation in a country should be based on the “ability to pay”, be very afraid. These people are not only coming for your money. They’re coming for your economic liberty too. Ultimately, that means they’re after your political liberty as well.

Progressive taxation is the idea the larger your disposable income, the larger percentage of that income you ’should’ pay in taxes. Proponents of it—and these days nearly everyone one is—claim it is more ‘fair.” But let’s be honest and call things by their right names and say what progressive taxation is really about.

Even John Stuart Mill, who favoured it, called progressive taxation “a mild form of robbery.” That’s because progressive taxation is about using the tax code to redistribute wealth. It’s base on the class-warfare idea that the rich get rich illicitly and conspire to keep the riches of society for themselves. It uses the law (coercion) to correct what some people see as the social and economic injustice meted out by the marketplace.

But how people treat private property (and wealth IS private property) determines the character of society. A society that promotes the idea of wealth accumulation and that everyone can get rich is one in which standards of living will rise over time. It doesn’t mean getting wealthy is the only or even the most important ambition in life. That’s a matter of personal choice and values. But it just means that if you want to raise standards of living over time, you should guard economic liberty and not use taxation to punish personal incentives.

The only fair argument for progressive taxation is that indirect taxes (consumption taxes) hit the poor harder than they hit the rich. This is certainly true for taxes on consumption goods. But it is not true for income taxes, most of which the poor do not pay anyway. A tax on Gucci handbags is less onerous than a tax on a slab of beer. But that doesn’t justify the argument that just because you can pay more taxes, you should.

When is it ever right for a man to come in to your home and take what’s yours simply because he’d decided that someone else needs it more? And how is the government arbitrarily deciding to raise income tax rates on only certain citizens, based on their ability to pay, any different? Yet that’s the argument for progressive taxation in the modern world. And most people seem to think it’s fair and just.

Mind you, that doesn’t mean that free people can’t use legislatures to levy taxes in order to pay for projects they believe should be provided by the State, like roads, bridges and other infrastructure. But there is a difference between that kind of public spending and public spending financed by wealth redistribution to achieve particular social and economic outcomes.

How did we get to the point in civil society where a democratic majority that does not pay taxes can, through its elected representatives, legally confiscate the wealth of a minority? Friederich Hayek gives the history in, The Constitution of Liberty.

“As is true of many similar measures, progressive taxation has assumed its present importance as a result of having been smuggled in under false pretences. When at the time of the French Revolution and again during the socialist agitation preceding the revolutions of 1848 it was frankly advocated as a means of redistributing incomes, it was decisively rejected. “One ought to execute the author and not the project,” was the liberal Turgot’s indignant response to some early proposals of this sort.

“When in the 1830’s they came to be more widely advocated, J.R. McCulloch expressed the chief objection in the often quoted statement: ‘The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property, you are at sea without a rudder or compass, and there is no amount of injustice and folly you may not commit.’”

“In 1848,” Hayek continues, “Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels frankly proposed ‘a heavy progressive or graduated income tax’ as one of the measures by which, after the first stage of the revolution, ‘the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state.’

And these measures they described as ‘means of despotic inroads on the right of property, and on the condition of bourgeois production…measures…which appear economically insufficient and untenable but which, in the course of the movement out strip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.’”

If Marx and Engels are to be taken at their word, progressive taxation was never about fairness. It was about putting production “in the hands of the State” and “revolutitionising the mode of production.” In the world of State-run capitalism, this is what we seem like we’re headed towards.

Now, we can take a step back and ask whether a State-run, union owned Chrysler makes a better car than the shareholder owned management-run Chrysler. It’s a fair enough question. We’d argue that government-built and designed cars are going to be about as appealing as a leather boot for breakfast. But that is not really the point.

The point is that the politicians are lying to you about the goal of progressive taxation. The goal is not to produce more “fairness” or “social justice.” It’s to place the State at the centre of economic production, so it can regulate and tax with impunity.

There is both a psychological and crassly economic motive to this movement to displace the free market with the State as the organiser of economic life. The smarty pants elitists in both political parties, with their ties to union and corporate money, really believe the world would be better off it was run be benevolent bureaucratic despots. Or maybe using coercive taxation to steal from the rich is simply envy-based class politics, a kind of populist theft conducted with the consent of a hi-jacked system for passing laws.

Once you go down this road of socking it to the rich instead of reducing spending, you get higher and higher rates of taxation that eventually shrink the economy. Britain adopted the income tax in 1910 and the U.S in 1913. At the time, the top tax rates on income were 8.25% and 7% respectively. Yet within 30 years, thanks to the Great Depression and the World Wars, those rates had risen to 97.5% and 91% respectively.

“Thus in the space of a single generation,” Hayek writes, “what nearly all the supporters of progressive taxation had for half a century asserted could not happen came to pass…All attempts to justify these rates on the basis of capacity to pay was, in consequence, soon abandoned and supporters reverted to the original, but long avoided, justification of the progression as means of brining about a more just distribution of income.”

How much a man should reasonably a pay to the State was no longer an economic question about his ‘ability to pay.’ It was revealed as the purely political decision it always was. Or as Hayek says, it’s “an attempt to impose on society a pattern of distribution determined by majority decision.”

That’s what we meant by the character of society. Do you want to live in a country where over 50% of a man’s income can be taken from him simply because the majority votes for it? In that kind of country you want to live in, where you have no real property rights and you don’t have equality before the law.

Upward income mobility is undermined in this kind of society. People don’t try to get rich because there’s no point in it if your gains are going to be confiscated. The net result of decades of progressive taxation is lower capital formulation, more consumption, less production, and ultimately a lower standard of living for everyone.

In that society, your only means of social and economic advancement is based on your personal connections and political patronage. Not surprisingly, in that society, politicians exercise enormous power. And decisions are not made by businesses that aim to offer consumers better products and services at lower prices; they are made by politicians who aim to cement their electoral position by favouring certain constituencies.

Progressive taxation has nothing to do with fairness, justice, or equality. It is unfair, unjust, an unequal. But hey, if that’s the kind of country you want to live in, or if you’re someone who’s getting the check instead of writing it, that might not seem like such a bad deal.

We’d just advise you to prepare for a lifetime of dependency on busybody politicians who become increasingly grasping, moralistic, and intrusive. If you’re a free man, you’d better pack your bags and look for some other luckier country.

This is not to glorify getting rich as the most important thing in this world (or any other world.) It isn’t. And there are much more important things in life. Whether you choose to pursue material gain is up to you.

And just as a government should not use the tax code to punish the rich, it ought to quit tinkering with it and providing so many deductions and rebates that allow anyone with a good accountant to avoid paying large income taxes. A much simpler taxation system based on consumption would be fairer for everyone and it would force the government to finally live within its means.

Of course that probably won’t happen. Ever. But it would be nice to think so. In the meantime, a society that discourages wealth creation and capital formation through so-called progressive taxation is eventually going to make itself a lot poorer and a lot less free.

Regards,
Dan Denning
Australian Daily Reckoning

May 15, 2009

Progressive Taxation, an Assault on Liberty was originally featured on Whiskey and Gunpowder