Safety first

Dan Denning comments on the recent rush for cash and safe bonds in The Daily Reckoning Australia today. He also repeats Marc Faber's point about an "earnings bubble" that skews p/e ratios:

Be careful about using low P/E ratios as a buying indicator. We read in this morning's paper that the average P/E on the ASX 200 is the lowest its been in 12 months. That doesn't automatically mean stocks are "good value." In fact, in the past, low P/E ratios have been a sign of the market top. Why?

At the height of an economic cycle, corporate earnings are high. When earnings rise faster than share prices, the P/E ratio will look low, flashing a "buy" signal. But this may be just the time that earnings themselves have peaked. That's definitely not the time to buy a stock.

And even commodity shares have to be chosen with care, when you factor-in rising costs.

Following the markets today

As I hoped and more than half expected, the major Western markets are recovering from some of their fright. The FTSE has passed 6,000 again and at the time of writing, the Dow is back above 13,000. Those chest pains will eventually be laughed off as a bout of indigestion, and it'll be back to the fags and booze after a while.

The subprime mess was well-telegraphed, if ignored by many, and although we still don't know the full cost, it seems that yet again, the central banks are willing to pump money into the system, rather than reform it. Marc Faber's view that the crisis should be allowed to burn through and eliminate some of the players, is too gritty for the banking establishment.

My take on this is that it's an opportunity for those still in the market to quietly come out without panicking everybody else. The rise of the dollar and the temporary sharp falls in precious metals, are reminders that in a crisis, cash is king; though given Ben Bernanke's statement about dropping dollars from helicopters, maybe king for a day.

Marc Faber update

.............................................. Real growth: farmland

A most interesting and informative interview with Marc Faber on Bloomberg TV, last Friday. He thinks we've seen, not a correction, but the start of a bear market. In his opinion, the central banks intervention is inappropriate and will cause inflation. He thinks they "should let the crisis burn through the system, and eliminate some players". The Dow should correct by 20 - 30%; and as hedge funds "de-leverage", i.e. reduce their borrowings, the prices of most assets will drop.

In answer to the defence that p/e ratios are still good (i.e. the share price divided by the dividends, one way to test whether shares are over-valued), he says that at the peak of a market, there is a bubble. In 1999 it was a share price bubble, but now there is a bubble in earnings, and we will see "earnings disappointments" in the near future. So the p/e ratio is misleading and shares are not reasonably valued.

He points out that around the time of Dow peaks in July and August, we were also seeing several hundred shares hitting yearly lows, so underneath the surface a recession has already begun. The Dow has held up because of certain areas, such as oil stocks; but in present conditions, he thinks it will be "very difficult for the market to make new highs". Faber says that realism will return when we see a fall in popular stocks such as Research In Motion, Apple and Google.

The fundamentals of emerging markets are sound, and he foresees their economies de-coupling from the fortunes of the USA; but currently their stockmarkets are also over-valued and may correct when deleveraging causes money to flow back out of them.

As to the dollar, he thinks that if the Fed resists the temptation to cut interest rates, the dollar could strengthen against emerging market currencies. Against the Euro and the yen, he's not so sure. "I think against gold, all currencies will depreciate over time".

In relation to property, he says depressed areas like Detroit probably can't fall much further, unlike Miami and Southern California. Asian property looks promising - he mentions cities like Manila, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. And relative to financial assets, farmland is depressed.

Accused of bearishness, Faber counters that to be bearish about assets is to be bullish about cash, which he has made plain for several months now. He even thinks that US Treasury notes and good-quality commercial bonds are a good investment.

I'm amazed how much valuable information this generous man gives away for nothing.

..................................................... Modern Manila

Gold - or cash?

Brady Willett in Safe Haven (yesterday) warns us off some "bright ideas" for preserving wealth in a market drop. He notes that gold is a hedge when everyone wants out of cash, and that's been quite some time.

I guess his position is close to that of Marc Faber, who said recently that all asset classes are inflated and on the whole, he'd prefer to stand on the platform rather than get on any of the waiting trains.

Bank of England investment in US Treasuries; gold

Let's combine the recent mystery about Britain's massive investment in US Treasury securities, with the worldwide asset bubble.

This is Doug Casey speaking to the Agora Financial "Rim of Fire" conference in Vancouver this week, on YouTube (thanks to "Daniel" for alerting me to it).

His view on American bonds? "A triple threat". Why?: (1) interest rates are very low and are going to become very high; (2) credit risk: he says he would not wish to be a lender now, with so much debt everywhere -he refers to a possible "financial credit collapse"; (3) currency risk - he says dollars say "IOU nothing", and compares them to the Argentinian peso 10 years ago.

So, why has the UK invested an extra $112 billion in US-dollar-denominated Treasury bonds, between June '06 and May '07? To dramatise this figure somewhat, let's look at the Forbes list of the richest people in America (Sep 2006): the top 5 billionaires are worth $155 bn between them. Britain is now into America for $167.6 bn. The increase in the last year alone is more than the net worth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined. I wonder (rhetorically) whether they would bet their entire fortunes on US Treasuries?

We already know what Casey thinks about cash held in dollars, and he regards stocks and property as overvalued, too.

So what does he favour? Gold. "It's not just going through the roof, it's going to the moon". He's been a gold bull for the last 7 years. He picks mining stocks, but warns that they are very volatile, even more than Internet stocks. But there are other ways to own gold.

Meanwhile, is there anyone here in the UK who is willing to grill the supposedly independent Bank of England (it wasn't the British Treasury, after all, it seems) about the rationale for its vast punt on "triple risk" US bonds?

Let's finish with Bill Bonner's keynote speech at the same conference, on the difference between the real boom of the Far East and the Ludwig von Mises "crack-up boom" of our inflationary economies:

Cash still king?

British investment portfolio manager Tim Price gives his reasons for favouring cash in the present economic circumstances. The post is a few weeks old, but echoes similar intimations from Marc Faber. Price has also reviewed Michael Panzner favourably.

Planning for the crash

The Contrarian Investor's Journal reveals Part 3 of its thoughts on the crash-to-come, and addresses the dilemma of whether we are to prepare for inflation, or deflation.

I think I agree with the writer's analysis that it may play out as follows:

1. The current inflation will continue until some big scare or crisis starts the run
2. Then there will be deflation, but governments will try to get out of it by printing even more money
3. Printing more money won't work, because people will have lost faith in the currency, so (if you follow the link provided by the writer) we will eventually get to a surge in the price of gold

But we don't know when stage 1 will end, and holding cash may reduce your wealth relative to other assets. So where do you invest?

Buying gold now may mean a long wait before the market comes round to your point of view (if it ever does) and as some (e.g. Peter Schiff) have pointed out, even if you're right, you may find the government forces you to give up your gold, as it did before.

Houses are overpriced, but rather than a general sell-off of real estate I could imagine a long period of house price stagnation, with people staying put if possible. You haven't lost money till you've sold, or the bank has forced you to sell. If you really have nerve, you might sell, live in a tent and buy a bargain when (if!) the housing market tanks - but would your partner agree? Christopher Fildes was suggesting (in the Spectator magazine) moving into a hotel, some years ago - but look at what's happened to London house prices since then.

Some businesses continue even during a depression, if they provide essential services. It's interesting that Warren Buffett and George Soros have both bought into railways recently.

I can't call the play - personally, I am looking to reduce debt and trim personal expenditure, increase cash savings, and otherwise invest with a weather eye on the macroeconomic situation.

Mark Skousen warns of market turmoil

I have just received an email from Investment U, featuring an article by Mark Skousen, who says that he recently attended a pre-book launch talk by Alan Greenspan. The Federal Reserve's ex-Chairman's memoir "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" is due out in September.

Reportedly, Greenspan spoke of the scary periods in 1987 and 2001, and his surprise at the resilience of the US economy. Skousen notes two important points from the talk: Greenspan's enthusiasm for the future of the European Union under its more conservative economic leadership, and surprise at the low global interest rates that have helped to drive up the markets. Skousen suggests that interest rates may be on the rise, and the recently increased yield on the 10-year US Treasury bond seems to bear the same interpretation.

For investors, Skousen suggests using stop-loss triggers on share holdings (in a real emergency, will they work as intended?), gold and silver coin to pay your way if the worst comes, and a large amount of cash. Definitely a bear, and with a reputation for prescience: if you look at his website, you'll see that Skousen advised his readers to get out of stocks 6 weeks before the crash of October 1987 - "one of the few advisors to anticipate the crash".

I have to say that I expected it too, but I wasn't an adviser at the time; and I also anticipated the Far East slide of 1997 and the falls post-2000. Not because I'm a genius, nor on account of insider whispers: being naturally wary, I looked and listened for warnings from experts. And so, if I may suggest, should you.

Is the bear view becoming more generally accepted?

Friday's CNBC echoes familiar themes: Leburn of Weiss Capital Management tips high-dividend stocks in financially strong companies (as per Peter Schiff's book); David Tice favours cash (see Marc Faber recently), maybe with precious metals to protect against the dollar's decline; the stockmarket looks volatile (maybe kept up for a time by inflation).

When gold may not be safe

Marc Faber has commented recently that there are bubbles everywhere, including commodities. Although gold has intrinsic worth, its price is still going to be affected by the laws of supply and demand. It has risen very quickly over the past couple of years, but if you believe those experts who tell us that our inflation has been fuelled by credit, then if and when a "credit crunch" comes, the scramble to disinvest in order to pay creditors and get ready cash may well mean a temporary drop in the gold price, too.

I think gold bugs are looking to the longer future, when governments desperate to get out of a slump may choose to print currency and so devalue it against precious metals, which they can't multiply at will. Meanwhile, if you follow Dr Faber, you may consider waiting with your cash at the station instead of boarding any of the asset trains, as he puts it.

Marc Faber: cash may be king

Please read this thoughtful essay by the modest Marc Faber yesterday. He looks at the zooming valuations of the Zimbabwe stockmarket and explains that it's because local investors' money has nowhere else to go if it doesn't want to lose value. He says the rest of us have a similar problem.

Currently, Faber is cautiously bearish about most types of asset:

...it will become increasingly important for investors not only to decide which asset-class train they want to board, but also, and even more importantly, whether they want to board ANY of the asset trains.

...a peculiar feature of the bull market in asset prices since 2002 has been that all asset prices around the world have appreciated in concert, as a result of highly expansionary monetary policies, which has led to excessive credit growth and a credit bubble of historic proportions. Therefore, if my theory of slower credit growth in the future holds, it is conceivable that, for a while at least, all asset markets (with the exception of bonds and cash) could come under pressure, albeit with different intensities.

In fact, asset markets would come under pressure, even if credit growth continued at the present rate and didn't accelerate. In this instance, investors would be better off not boarding any investment train at all and, instead, staying at the station loaded up with cash. (However, they would still have to decide what kind of cash to hold.) U.S. dollars might not be the very best choice.