The system is now out of control

Recently I seem to be an annexe for Karl Denninger's blog, but that's the way it is. Here he figures that public and private debt in the US are so massive that with an average 8% interest rate, debt servicing is now equivalent to 22.4% of GDP. He thinks the system must soon explode and those holding cash will be safest.

Denninger calls for a borrower's strike

It lifts your heart a little to read someone who still believes in his country and is unafraid to express moral indignation. Here Karl Denninger advocates getting a home safe for your hard-earned - something the Japanese went into in a big way when their deflation hit.

Speaking of Japan, the Nikkei shows that the stockmarket can disappoint for long periods:

Defying gravity

"...the equity markets are simply not acting in a rational manner given the underlying issues in the economy and credit markets"

So it's not just my perception. Read Karl "hold cash" Denninger's latest.

Cash is king

Robert McHugh confirms my feeling: sit it out, hold cash.

Bonds: up or down?

Where's safe for your money? It's like a minefield: we seem to be zig-zag running between financial explosions. Housing? Overpriced, full of bad debt. The stockmarket? Due to drop when earnings revert to the mean. The commodity market? Distorted by speculation and manipulation.

How about bonds? Clive Maund thinks US Treasuries are due for a pasting as yields rise to factor-in inflation; but Karl Denning is still firmly of the DE-flation persuasion and thinks a stockmarket fall may be our saviour:

The Bond Market no likey what's going on. The 10 is threatening to break out of a bullish (for rates) flag, which presages a potential 4.20% 10 year rate. This will instantaneously translate into higher mortgage and other "long money" rates, destroying what's left of the housing industry.

There is only one way to prevent this, and that's for the stock market to blow up so that people run like hell into bonds, pushing yields down!

He also gives his own theory as to why the Fed stopped reporting M3 money supply rates:

The moonbats claim that The Fed discontinued M3 because they're trying to hide something. In fact they discontinued M3 because it didn't tell you the truth; it was simply NOT capturing any of the "shadow" credit creation caused by all the fraud (and undercapitalized "insurance" which, in fact, is worth zero), but it sure is capturing the forcible repatriation into bank balance sheets when there is no other when it comes to access to capital for companies and governments.

So, two elephants are riding the bond seesaw: fear of inflation, and fear of losing one's capital. I hope the plank doesn't snap. Antal Fekete reckons the bond market can take all the money you can throw at it - but what goes up will come down.

Cash still doesn't seem like such a bad thing, to me.

Warren Buffett's misleading optimism

Jonathan Chevreau reports Warren Buffett's bullishness on the US economy, long-term; but the real gem in this piece is the extensive, but cogent and crunchy comment by Andrew Teasdale of The TAMRIS Consultancy, who analyses Buffett's real approach to equity valuations.

Teasdale points out that although interest rates hit 21% in 1982, there was less debt, higher disposable income and lower valuations: relative to disposable income, debt is a bigger burden today than it was 25 years ago. He summarises his position pithily:

It is also worthwhile remembering that not everyone holds a Buffet portfolio and not everyone has the luxury of a 220 year investment horizon. If I was a long term investor with no financial liabilities arising over the next 15 years equities would be my preferred asset class relative to cash and bonds, but I would be mindful of valuations in determining where I put my money.

Not all the bad debt has yet surfaced, and as Karl Denninger comments, even at this stage Citibank has recently been forced to borrow foreign money at 14%, and other banks at over 7%, in preference to the 3% Federal Funds rate, presumably to keep the scale of their insolvency in the dark.

Inflation is increasing, therefore money-lenders are going to want more income to compensate for risk and the erosion of the real value of their capital. For the yield to rise, the capital value of bonds has to fall.

So I read Teasdale's summary as implying that for now, it's cash rather than either bonds or equities.

Gold boom, gold bust

Brady Willett offers his predictions for 2008, including (at some stage) a major correction in the gold price, and Chinese equities.

I've reported expert comment before, about the vulnerability of gold to market manipulation and speculation. I think I'll keep on sitting out this dance.

Dead Cat Splat

Some expect the market to drop, but bounce quickly as in 2000. Vince Foster says not, since this boomlet has been credit-fuelled.

His view: housing is woeful, emerging markets look as though they may be topping-out, the Ted Spread is signalling insolvency fears, the 10-year bond rate augurs slowing growth; so cash is king.

Recession QED

In an educational (and mercifully profanity-free) essay, Karl Denninger builds up his case from first principles, explaining the processes of creating and destroying money. He expects house prices to fall back by 30 - 50% and notes that in a recession, equities typically lose 30%.

He says the media is not reporting the truth. I tend to agree: I now throw away the Sunday football and financial supplements at the same time. If you want to know what's really happening, he says, watch what is going on at the banks, the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs, all of whom are battening the hatches, while CNBS (also castigated by Jim Willie) plays a cheerful tune to the proles.

I've written before how in 1999, as a financial adviser, I sat through a presentation from a leading UK investment house about tech stocks, which were supposedly about to start a second and bigger boom. I suspected then, and even more so now, that they were looking for the fabled "bigger fool" to offload their more favoured clients' holdings. Denninger intimates the same:

Are these shows, newspapers, and others reporters on the financial markets, entertainers, or worse, puppets of those who know and who need someone – anyone – to unload their shares to before the markets take a huge plunge, lest they get stuck with them?

Then he gives his predictions - which are grim, but not apocalyptic. It's the fools who will get roasted, not everybody. (By the way, Denninger is another Kondratieff cycle follower.)

What to hold, in his opinion? Cash, definitely; anything else, check the soundness of the deposit-taker. If you want to gamble on hyperinflation, he thinks call options on the stockmarket index are likely to yield more than gains on gold, even if the gold bugs are right.

This is where I thought we were in 1999. Thanks to criminally reckless credit expansion in the interim, we're still there, only the results may be worse than I feared then.

Oh, and he thinks the dollar will recover to some extent, because the rest of the world is going to get it just as bad, and probably worse. (Interesting that the pound is now back under $2.)

Contradicting the contrarians

Cash is king for now, but later next year it'll be equities up, dollar up, bonds down, according to the round table on Safe Haven.

UPDATE

But Tim Wood expects the market to hit a low - "The straw that finally breaks the camel’s back may be closer than you think."

Some interesting correlations

Greg Silberman reveals the results of some interesting research:

1. Since 2003, if the dollar falls, all other asset classes rise; and conversely, if the dollar rises, the rest drops.

2. The "real" (adjusted for the price of gold) interest rate on 3-month Treasury bills predicts movements in the exchange rate of the dollar a year later.

Since the "real" interest rate has fallen sharply, he therefore expects a strengthening in other assets next year.

Modestly, Silberman adds, "Correlations are never perfect and tend to fail just when you need them most."

I think he's right there. To me, there seems to be a lot of jiggery-pokery in the gold market (speculators vs. central banks), and the predominance of "fiduciary money" (credit) in the economy means that we're measuring sizes with elastic bands.

In times of stress, the normal predictors don't hold, so currently I view all investments as speculative. My first priority is to reduce my vulnerability with respect to creditors, and my second is building cash to take advantage of emerging opportunities.

What is long-term investment?

Jeff Prestridge, in today's UK "Mail on Sunday" finance section, reports that the Personal Assets trust, controlling £188 million, has changed its weighting from 60% cash earlier this year to 100% cash now. He's sniffy about their performance over the last 5 years, contrasting them with the likes of Baillie Gifford.

Well, I'm not a respected Fleet Street money journalist, merely a no-account bearish personal financial adviser, but I'd suggest that in the exciting investment world of today, maybe a five-year period is not a good basis for comparing long-term results, or conditioning expectations for the future.

I had a client ask my opinion about investments a couple of years ago, because his bank had been showing him their fund's marvellous growth over a three-year period. I took time to explain to my client that over the five years to date (then), the graph (as for the FTSE 100) described a kind of bowl shape, and the period chosen by his bank just happened to draw a line from the bottom of the bowl to the lip.

I then showed him the five-year line in all its loveliness:

I think it's fair to say that these are not ordinary times. There has been a steady build-up of electrical charge, so to speak, over something like a decade (some would say, much longer), and there may well be some powerful bolts unleashed as a result. Where will the lightning will strike next: a steeple, an oak tree, a cap badge - who can tell?

Massive debt; changes in the balance of international trade; demographic weakening of future public finances; sneaky currency devaluation; wild financial speculation; wars and the rumours of wars; imprecisely known ecological limits to growth; declining energy resources; the desperation of the world's poor to join our fantastic lifestyle; our fear that we may lose the comfortable living we used to imagine was our birthright; the corruption, abuse and neglect of the young; the selfishness of their parents and the middle-aged; the increasing burden and growing neglect and abuse of the old.

In all this turmoil, making five-year investment performance comparisons has an air of unreality, like planning tomorrow's menu on a mortally-wounded ocean liner.

A moment of sanity

At times of crisis, unlicensed preachers and wild-eyed prophets roam the streets, gathering their crowds. But their rule never lasts.

My grandfather used to say, things are never as good as you hope or as bad as you fear. As I reported some while ago, members of the Chicago Stock Exchange in 1934 papered their club room with what they thought were now worthless stock certificates, but within five years were steaming them off the walls again.

The Thirties crash hit debtors, unwary investors (especially those trading with borrowed money) and insolvent banks. The lessons from this are easy to learn.

Unreal

Richard Daughty (the Mogambo Guru) refers to articles by Nouriel Roubini and Sharon Kayser, giving us debt -threat vistas of $1 trillion and $1,000 trillion respectively. Then he returns to Terry Pratchett's Discworld dwarves' favourite song ("Gold, gold, gold, gold...").

Two problems: one is, I can't visualise anything with many zeroes, so it's not real for me. More importantly, if there's a major meteor-strike financial bust (i.e. deflation), I'd have thought cash in hand is what everyone will want.

Unless a crazed government opts for hyperinflation. In which case, I'd rather have pallets of canned baked beans, boxes of ammunition and many brave, loyal friends. You can't eat gold.

But as with all truly terrible imaginings, the mind bounces off this like a tennis ball from a granite boulder, and we turn back to normal life with determined optimism.

Michael Panzner on Michael Panzner

Michael Panzner quotes USA Today quoting him, and I'll quote Michael too, since the advice seems sensible...

Predicting tough times ahead, Michael Panzner, author of Financial Armageddon, recommends that investors buy shares of companies that sell stuff that people need to buy no matter what's going on with the economy. Companies that sell soft drinks, tobacco, prescription drugs and toilet paper, for example.

Investors, he says, should play it safe, loading up on defensive stocks, socking away more cash and moving toward the safety of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds.

Golden bubble

A bubble shot through by a bullet - experiment described here

Here's a counter-blast to gold-bugs and fans of other metals:

In this long and dense presentation to the World Bank, delivered in April 2007 and revised/updated in July, Frank Veneroso says that commodities, including gold, nickel and copper, are already in a big bubble. He thinks an estimated $2 trillion in hedge funds, plus leveraging, is pumping the prices:

When it comes to metals, we see hedge fund speculation, hoarding and squeezing everywhere. Not only have some metals markets been driven far, far higher in this cycle compared to all past cycles; we see the same phenomenon across all metals. It is the combination of both the amplitude and breadth of the metals bubble that probably makes it the biggest speculation to the point of manipulation in the history of commodities. (Page 50)

Short runs costs have risen, but not long run costs. New sources are being exploited. And if recession hits, demand will drop:

... the historical pattern... for all commodities, suggests that, rather than seeing well above trend metals demand growth in the years to come as the consensus now projects, we are more likely to see outright declines in global demand for these metals as demand destruction takes hold. (Page 56)

For institutional investors, the "barren breed of metal" is unproductive compared to other assets:

... it is likely that the net nominal return to portfolios from investing in physical “stuff” has not been more than 1% per annum. By contrast, in a 3% inflation environment, bonds have yielded somewhere between 5% and 9% and equities have yielded somewhere between 8% and 11%. In effect, you gave up an immense amount of yield if you diversified out of bonds and stocks into commodities. You did gain by reducing overall portfolio volatility, but that gain was not large enough to offset the loss in yield. Diversifying with “stuff” did not enhance risk-adjusted returns. (Page 57)

So prices have been boosted by the futures market. And commodities as a market are small enough to be susceptible to "manipulation and collusion".

Readers of this blog will recall that Marc Faber recently said he saw bubbles everywhere, including commodities. Even if cash isn't king, it may be a pretender to the throne.

Michael Panzner agrees with Marc Faber

In Blogging Stocks, September 7:

We're in a rare moment in history where cash is king... My prediction is that the Standard & Poor's 500 could fall at least another 10% from here. I think the economy is weakening and the crisis in the credit markets will worsen from here... this is not the time for a buy-and-hold strategy. But if you must stay in stocks, look at more defensive sectors like food, beverage and healthcare... Gold...

Read the whole item - and see the video - here.

The outlook from Financial Sense

Some voices and topics from Financial Sense, 25 August:

inflation, deflation, gold, cash...

Jim Puplava: ...I've had Bob Prechter on this program and Bob is a deflationist and Bob believes that we get deflation first and then hyperinflation where I guess my views are we get hyperinflation and then what follows will be deflation. And that's the way it has unfolded with great debtor nations. And I think history will repeat itself here with the US. There is too much debt here and it has to be inflated away...

...I really believe that the full force of these storms aren't going to hit until somewhere between 2009 and 2010 when this really comes home to roost. And all of these debt problems, the problems that we have with energy today, availability, peak oil, the geopolitical problems in the Middle East – I do not expect the next decade to be a pleasant one, John. I wish I could say otherwise because as a father with three children, one to get married shortly and looking forward to grandchildren, you know, this is something that you don't like to think about...

credit bubble, credit crunch, commodities, East delinking from West...

Doug Noland: ...the economy is much more vulnerable than many believe because of the credit that was going to the upper end; and I think the upper end mortgage area is where we had the greatest excesses.

So I think when all is said and done, subprime losses are going to be small compared to the losses we see in jumbo and Alt-A, and especially, unfortunately out in California...

...there’s desperation out there to find buyers for mortgages... Washington generally doesn’t understand the risk of Fannie and Freddie [US government-sponsored entities - "GSEs" - that offer mortgages], so of course they would think it’s their role to step in and provide the liquidity.

But... their total exposure is over 4 trillion dollars now. And this is a huge problem, and I fully expect down the road these institutions to be nationalized. And I think the US taxpayer is going to pay a huge bill for this... To be honest, I don’t mind the GSEs if they want to play a role in affordable housing; if they wanted to try to rectify some of the problems at the lower end because of the lack of the availability of credit in subprime. But to think that the GSEs should start doing jumbo mortgages, to try to be the buyer of last resort for California mortgages, my God, it’s hard to believe that makes sense to anyone because that’s just a potential disaster. It’s also reminiscent of the S&L – the Savings and Loan problem that, you know, was a several billion dollar problem during the 80s that they allowed to grow to several hundred billion by the early 90s. And definitely, the tab of the GSEs is growing rapidly right now...

...even if the central banks add a trillion dollars of liquidity to help out this deleveraging we still have this issue of how are we going to generate the trillions of additional credit going forward to keep incomes levitated, to keep corporation earnings levitated, to keep asset prices levitated, to keep the global economy chugging along...

...The global economy may be something of a different story because we have credit bubbles all over the world. Like the Chinese bubble right now is pretty much oblivious to what’s going on in the US and in Europe. You can see a scenario where, you know, you have serious credit breakdown but let’s say Chinese demand keeps energy and resource prices higher than one would expect. So I’m going to be watching this very carefully because we’re going to see some very unusual dynamics as far as liquidity and inflation effects between different asset classes and different types of price levels throughout the economy.

On the nose?

Aubie Baltin in DollarDaze gives it out straight from the shoulder: a 50% drop in US real estate that will take 10 years to turn around; a 30-50% drop on the Dow; we should be positioned 50:50 cash and gold bullion.

This last chimes with others who say there's bubbles everywhere but can't predict whether the Federal Reserve will feel forced to hyperinflate the currency.

Is your money safe in the bank?

Mike Shedlock, in The Daily Reckoning Australia today, raises a point we should all consider - how far your cash deposits are protected by law. This is NOT an academic question - a hard-working and thrifty truck driver has recently lost over $300,000 of his life savings in the Metropolitan Savings Bank in Lawrenceville.

For British savers, here is the current position:

"Financial Services Compensation Scheme

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) was created and put into operation in December 2001. It was brought in to replace the Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme, Deposit Protection Scheme and several other schemes previously in place. The FSCS was introduced to protect customers of firms that go into liquidation or out of business.

The scheme is activated when an authorised firm goes out of business or the Financial Services Authority (FSA) considers that an authorised firm is unable or unlikely to be able to repay their customers.

Most customers are partially protected under this scheme and are entitled to the following amount of compensation:

100% of the first £2,000
90% of the next £33,000

The maximum amount of compensation each individual can receive is £31,700.

The compensation limit applies to individuals and covers the total amount of all their deposits held with that firm. Each individual in a joint account is eligible to receive compensation up to the maximum limit in respect of his or her share of the deposit. The FSCS assumes the account is equal and splits it 50:50 unless evidence shows otherwise.”

Source: http://www.moneysupermarket.com/savings/GuideToSavings.asp (accessed 17 Aug 07)

From this you can see that for your savings lodged with any one deposit taker, any excess over £35,000 for a single account holder, or £70,000 for joint (50:50) holders, is not protected.

Some may say, "It can't happen here", but it did in the Isle of Man in 1982, where the Savings & Investment Bank collapsed, losing £42 million of depositors' money. International bank BCCI collapsed in 1991 with debts of £10 billion, hitting 6,500 British depositors - and the legal case against the bank ultimately collapsed as well.

Savings schemes are not safe, either. About £41 million was lost in the Farepak Christmas hamper collapse last year.

The strategy is to know your rights, and to diversify. As Antonio says in The Merchant of Venice:

My ventures are not in one bottom [i.e. ship's keel] trusted,
Nor to one place; nor is my whole estate
Upon the fortune of this present year:
Therefore my merchandise makes me not sad.