How long will the bear market last?

Jesse quotes this comparison of the current bear market with three previous ones, mixing stats for the Dow and the S&P 500:

But taking similar periods for the Dow only, adjusting for CPI inflation, and adding the long period from 1966 to 1982, we get this:

I'd suggest we should look at when the recent bubble really burst - end 1999, then desperately disguised by monetary inflation from 2002/03 onwards; if that's right, we have maybe another 6 years to go through.

The shapes of these two lines do sort of rhyme, don't they? And if so, looking at where the end of the red line is, maybe a bear market rally is now due, like the c. '75 - '76 mini-recovery.

End point in real terms this time, my guess, is the equivalent of 4,000 points today. However, there are features unique to the present situation, especially the size of debts, the loss of much of the West's manufacturing base, and the interconnectedness of modern world markets and economies.

Crime and punishment

Congressman Michael E. Capuano does his job today, flaying the banks (htp: Jesse). I tried to email congratulations to him, but I haven't got a Massachusetts zip code.

And Karl Denninger also:

If the law enforcement agencies in this nation do not start prosecuting the fraudsters in our banking and investment industry that caused this economic collapse (and "token prosecutions" like Madoff will not cut it), and our lawmakers (and President) do not stand up darn soon and call for this prosecutorial action in public there is a very real risk that a repeat of those sordid affairs will soon arrive...
This much is clear to me - high-dollar white-collar crimes, certainly those with an impact greater in aggregate than we currently value a single human life (which various estimates put somewhere between $5 and $50 million each) are deserving of punishment equivalent to murder, meaning either (depending on state law) life imprisonment without possibility of parole or a sentence of death.
We need to put this change into the law as a deterrent against such acts in the future.

They're coming round to my point of view, as expressed e.g. here.

Restoration, not revolt

"What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing," says Lord Darlington in Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan. That perfectly describes the man who doesn't understand inflation.

Inflation is The Mogambo Guru's bete noire, and he gives us another comedy riff on that today. His principal cure for it is gold, the stock in trade of another ranter, Jim Willie, who sees the price of the yellow metal breaking out in various currencies (it's soared in sterling, for example).

Both men habitually connect gold, the US Constitution and the decayed professional morals of the politico-judicial elite, and try to stimulate the people to restore the old, good order. In short, they are prophets, and there's plenty more out there at this time.

For it is a sign of societal stress that ranters, dreamers and revolutionaries begin to drag out their soap boxes and declaim to passers-by. We had it in the Old Testament, the English Civil War, the American Revolutionary War and most other times that the world was turned upside down.

If buttercups buzzed after the bee
If boats were on land, churches on sea
If ponies rode men and grass ate the cows
And cats should be chased to holes by the mouse
If the mammas sold their babies to the gypsies for half a crown
Summer were spring and the t’other way round
Then all the world would be upside down

There is a difference between civil war, and the revolt of colonies from their distant parent. Having said that, the crisis is now cracking the cement between the States and the Federal Government, as we see in New Hampshire and elsewhere. America, remember history and avoid secessionary talk.

The results of revolution are rarely pretty. Norman Cohn's famous book , about the horrifying aftermath of prophet episodes in the Middle Ages, shows that once the mix is brought to the boil, it becomes very volatile. The outcome is often not what the prophet expected; and always, the people suffer. Rather than overthrow our rulers, it would be far better (if possible) to make them see the danger to us all of continuing their course, and have them turn back.

But can they see it? Do they know the difference between price and value? Will they permit the theft of real wealth by inflation? Or is it, worse still, their intention?

The best we can hope for, is that our leaders are not cynics, and so do not need correction from dangerous idealists.

IN- vs. DE- and an upcoming opportunity

Jesse echoes my hunch: deflation now, inflation soon-ish, with high interest rates for a bit. At that latter point, get your annuity and /or bonds, and benefits as rates subside. A guess, but it's comforting to see wise owls coming to the same conclusion.

You now have our investment gameplan for what is likely to be the rest of Jesse's life.

No, no "Jesse"; live long and prosper.

Not Chicken Little: the sky could really be near falling

Jesse is not an air-filled doomster, yet here he has become really sombre. Pound heading for parity with the Euro, major banks insolvent, action ineffectual, hush-hush all around so the common people don't realize the gravity of the situation. It's rumour, but rumour that Jesse, clearly an experienced financial man, finds plausible.

Like I said, you've had your warning. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

A turning point in the market?

Jesse has been doing some scrying, and perceives that a sudden market move is imminent.

"What's the McClellan Oscillator?" My understanding of this site's explanation is that movements in the share prices of a few large companies, heavily weighted in a stock market index, can mask what is going on in the market generally. And when those large companies quieten down, investors may notice an opposite trend has been developing, and they'll pile in after it.

For example, if shares in major banks have been crashing, but other companies have been rising, the market as a whole may drift down, but then...

Signs and portents, signs and portents.

Inflation and gold

(1) Times of Malta (htp Jesse)

Gold is a currency and Phillip Manduca is proving this once and over again.

He seems to have gambled his entire professional reputation on gold, reaching the $2,000 threshold by the end of 2010.

He is well worth listening to. His words are illuminated by a previous outstandingly successful record.

The high gold price seems, for the time being, to have reached a plateau, but Manduca of Titan Investments sees a price of gold at $1,000 a troy ounce as a distinct possibility in the near future. He said so a few days ago.

China is now moving part of its massive dollar reserves from the dollar into the euro and gold.

Madoff can be said to have harmed Wall Street, but he has certainly helped the prospects of a booming gold price. The money the Fed is pumping into the economy is proving insufficient to reignite it.

(2) Article from the Economic Times on our options (htp: Jesse, again). It thinks there are three: writeoffs/bankruptcies, increase GDP, inflation. The first is politically unacceptable, the second cannot be achieved by monetary means alone, so it's to be the third:

The stage is set for a long period of slow growth as debts are worked down and a rise in inflation in the medium term.

Hi yo, Silver

Jesse surveys measures of monetary growth in the USA. He concludes that inflation is likely to drag the dollar down and shares upwards (N.B. in the 70s, they didn't rise as fast as inflation); as to commodities: "silver may be one of the first commodities to break out because the government maintains no significant physical inventory of it as it does for gold and oil."

UPDATE (re silver): Tim "Mess that Greeenspan Made" Iacono thinks so, too.

ABC of inflation

Jesse lists postwar currency rots - not all of them in teeny-tiny banana republics. Argentina, Brazil, China - and loads of others.

Debt forgiveness, inflation and welching

Thus Jesse, discussing Michael Hodges' visionary "Grandfather Economic Report" and US indebtedness:

In a simple handwave estimate, one might say that the debt will have to be discounted by at least half. That includes inflation and selective defaults...

... something has got to give. The givers will most likely be all holders of US financial assets, responsible middle class savers, and a disproportionate share of foreign holders of US debt.

While the debtors hold the means of payment in dollars and the power to decide who gets paid, where do you think the most likely impact will be felt?

I give below the US Treasury's data on foreign holdings of their government securities as at October 2008, but I also reinterpret it in the light of each country's GDP, to show relative potential impact (please click on image to enlarge).

Mind you, even a complete repudiation would only take care of $3 trillion. Funny how not so long ago, $1 trillion seemed a high-end estimate of the damage, and now it's something like seven times that. And that still leaves a long haul to get to Hodges' $53 tn - equivalent to, what, one year's global GDP?

Why banks?

Banks require re-capitalisation. The capital is required to cover losses. Capital is also needed for assets returning onto their balance sheet (as the vehicles of the “shadow banking system” are unwound). This capital is required to restore bank balance sheets. Additional capital will be needed to support future growth. Availability of capital, high cost of new capital and dilution of earnings will impinge upon future performance.

Satyajit Das (htp: Jesse)

Nope. Banks need destroying, as does all this bank-created debt. The mistake is to try to keep things as they are. How did we come to buy houses "on tick", then cars, and now our clothes and groceries? Why is there any lending for consumption, seeing how it only means reduced future consumption? Why should banks be kept going, requiring a significant proportion of our earnings, so that wages have to be high for us to live on what's left, making us uncompetitive with the developing world?

I am reminded of the pitiless response of the Comte d'Argenson to the satirist, Desfontaines:

Desfontaines: I must live.
D'Argenson : I do not see the necessity.

The lesser of two weevils

In an apocalyptic - but carefully-reasoned - post, Karl Denninger says that when the deficit expansion stops, US government spending will have to be cut by 50 - 60%, unless there is to be a "general default" on debts.

I have no idea what a general default would look like, but in a closely-interwoven and distant-from-nature modern industrial society I can only fear it might prove utterly destructive. So we're back to contemplating the lesser, but still vast disaster.

I also have no idea how much worse it might be in the UK.

Someone else please read this unberobed OT prophet and tell me where he's wrong.

PS

Jesse:

While the Obama Administration cannot take a 'weak dollar' policy it is the only practical way to correct the imbalances brought about by the last 20 years of systemic manipulation. It is either that, or the selective default on sovereign debt, most likely through conflict, a hot or cold war.

Two cheers for deflation

A pattern is emerging.

Jörg Guido Hülsmann, on the Mises site, says deflation does not ruin the economy as a whole, but destroys the parasites who exploit the potential of fiat money. Parasites like (alleged) Ponzi-style fraudster Madoff and his clients, who deserve what they've now got, Mish judges.

Jesse says that "financial capitalism" seeks to use the money system to develop a dictatorial New World Order, and will be defeated when the dollar fails as the world's reserve currency.

Brad Setser wonders whether the dollar has reached its zenith; which implies that it may begin heading for its nadir.

Desperately holding back the inevitable is the US Federal Reserve, says Jim from San Marcos, who (although the Fed is refusing FOI requests) suspects that its $2 trillion in emergency loans is equally divided between support for banks, credit cards and the stockmarket. (I wondered what was being used as the robust cloth on the Dow's trampoline, and covert official support may be the answer.)

As I argued yesterday, the straightest path would be to destroy fraudulent, oppressive debt and those who introduced it into the system. For so many families, the bank is the fattest kid at their kitchen table, and nobody knows who invited him.

For a long time, I've been recasting financial issues as issues of power and freedom. If Jesse is correct, we are reaching a turning point in the battle. I hope we may soon say, as Churchill said of El Alamein, "A bright gleam has caught the helmets of our soldiers and warmed and cheered all our hearts." It would be worth the blood, toil, tears and sweat.

History repeats itself - because it's getting old

Jesse extrapolates the Dow and sees it heading for 2,000 points:


As my select and distinguished readers now know, I'm an optimist (by the standards of unfolding reality), and I say, not so. I say, maybe 4,000 - 5,000, adjusted for CPI.

The comparison I'd urge is not with 1929-32 (stockmarket deflation exacerbated by monetary strictness), but (in inflation-adjusted terms) from January 1966 to July 1982: stockmarket deflation prolonged and partially disguised by monetary inflation; I said so here and here, last month. I maintain that the bear market began in 2000 and the symptoms were masked by the terrible extra debts taken on over the last 8 years. Karl Denninger showed us yesterday that these debts account for all the US GDP growth since the New Millennium, plus $9 trillion.

The debate about inflation and deflation continues, though from a British perspective we've seen practically the whole of the rest of the world become one-third more expensive in sterling terms, in only five months. However, Einstein's theory of relativity rejects the notion of any absolute standpoint, and we shall see next year which other currencies mimic sterling's vertiginous fall.

In these shifting times, it becomes very hard to discern real value; but however hard to measure, it exists nevertheless. There is a real bill to pay for our excesses, and I think 2008 will be seen in retrospect as the year that the global balance of power underwent a sudden tectonic shift, from West to East. Yes, the East will suffer for a while, too, but it has long been acquiring the means of production and developing its local markets, and will emerge from the crisis ahead of us.

And there will also - must also - be an intergenerational shift of power, within our Western societies. As globalization continues and real income and real house prices decline, existing debt (set in fixed terms) will become proportionately greater, until the weight is too great to bear; and the worst of it falls on the people who are also struggling to raise families and save something, however inadequate, for their old age. They cannot be crucified in this way. How can savers be taxed at 20% and workers at (effectively, on margin, including National Insurance) 40%? Real wealth must flow from one to the other, just to maintain civilization. I think either savings must be taxed more (perhaps the removal of tax exemption for some savings products will be the start), or inflation must come, though I don't know how long the play will go on before the denouement.

We did have another option, and I was only half-joking: cancel mortgage debts on a massive scale (bankrupting the banks and the bankers, and serve them right). Then, with our productive populace relatively unencumbered, it would be possible to let Western wages and prices fall to much nearer Eastern levels, and we could begin to compete.

I prefer Alexander's handling of the Gordian knot, to Gordon Brown's. For me, debt forgiveness is the way; but that's too radical, it seems. Instead, inflation will have to diminish the real value of debt, but jerkily, as the debt-holders periodically jack up interest rates in a fighting retreat. All to hide from reality. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

Bookends: deflation and inflation

On one side, the redoubtable Mish scorns those who think inflation is a clear and present danger:

...Those who think inflation is about prices alone were busy shorting treasuries, and looking the wrong direction for over a year. Only after the stock market fell 50% and gasoline prices crashed did the media start picking up on "deflation". Only those who knew what a destruction in credit would do to jobs, to lending, to retail sales, to the stock market, to corporate bond yields and to treasury yields got it right...

Those who stick to a monetary definition of inflation pointing at M3, MZM, base money supply, or even Money AMS, are selecting a definition that makes absolutely no practical sense. Worse yet they do it screaming about bond-bubbles at yields of 5% or higher, all because they refuse to see or admit the destruction of credit is happening far faster than the Fed is printing...

The trick now is to figure out how long deflation will last, not whether we are in it. Humpty Dumpty is of no use, he cannot even see where we are.

On the other end, Jesse recalls Moscow in 1997, before the currency popped:

...They were desperate times, and you could see that there was a climactic crisis coming. It is easy to talk about this sort of thing, a thousand to one devaluation of your home currency, but harder to understand the impact. Imagine that you have $500,000 in savings for your retirement. Now imagine that within two years it is effectively reduced to $5,000 or less, and you will understand how disconcerting a currency crisis can be.

If you don't think a financial panic is possible here in the US, just take a look at the negative returns on short term T bills, and you will get a taste of the leading edge.

One of the best descriptions of the Weimar experience I have ever read was by Adam Fergusson titled "When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Collapse." It is notoriously difficult to obtain, but it does the best job in describing how a currency collapse can come on like a lightning strike, although in retrospect everyone could have seen it coming. Denial is a strong narcotic. People believe in their institutions and ignore history until they are staring on the edge of the abyss.

What went wrong? A post-match analysis of the Credit Crunch

Jesse quotes Joseph Stiglitz, and summarises five key moments:

1. Reagan's nomination of Alan Greenspan to replace Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman

2. The Repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Cult of Self-Regulation

3. Bush Tax Cuts for Upper Income Individuals, Corporations, and Speculation

4. Failure to Address Rampant Accounting Fraud Driven by Excessive and Flawed Compensation Models

5. Providing Enormous Bailouts to the Banks without Engaging Systemic Reform for the Underlying Causes of the Failure

Barefoot businesses

Many years ago, China pioneered the idea of "barefoot doctors": cheap physicians with a bagful of the most commonly prescribed medicines, providing a low-cost service to the many. This blog thinks the days of glitzy steel-and chrome offices and hot and cold running secretaries are numbered; the model of the future is the pavement stall and the home garage.

(htp: Jesse)

Here we go

Jesse interprets the Federal Reserve's request to issue its own debt, as a preparation for selective default on public debt issued by the Treasury.

Now then, cheat China (pop. 1.3 billion, army personnel 2.3 million)- or the UK (pop. 61 million, army personnel 100,000)? Tough call...

The free market and redistribution of wealth

Jesse argues the free market case: interventions just make things worse; real wages in Western economies must decline; international currencies must float freely.

Okay, if we also have some other system of supporting our workers through the change, instead of import tariffs and other protectionist measures. You can't drop masses of people from a great height and expect society to remain stable.

A lot of our present arrangements - health, education, welfare - seem to me to be a fairly inefficient way of transferring wealth from the upper strata to the lower, less the cost and inconvenience of all the system servicers in between.

Why don't we get honest and open about the need for wealth redistribution, balanced with the need to encourage enterprise? Could we get rid of weaselly taxes and insidious benefit traps? All we need is some way of levelling the playing field between groups of workers in very different parts of the world, in such a way as not to force the game to be abandoned by either side. Can anyone propose a system of financial support - could some form of the Citizens' Basic Income be made to work?

Default is mine

"Jesse" comments on Ecuador's attempt to repudiate "illegal" foreign debt. But perhaps larger countries may soon say, "What's sauce for the goose..." And then?