The turning point may be 2016 - 2020

The above chart from here (htp: Global Perspectives) is another of those attempts to perceive underlying order in the apparently random movement of the market and the economy. I've tried the same myself and suggested that the period from 2000 on may be like 1966 - 1982 (the last top and bottom of the market when adjusted for inflation). The interesting thing about the above picture is that the c. 16-year cycle appears to work over a much longer time - starting with the later part of the nineteenth century.

The cycle is not very regular - it varies from about 12 - 20 years - but tend to support my feeling that the real bottom this time may lie in the next 5 - 10 years.

Another quibble is that while some aspects may have a circular form, there are also linear developments that could change everything. One such is China's awakening from its centuries-long economic slumber, with the result that the world's financial centre of gravity is shifting from West to East; another, related to the first, is the unprecedented growth of debt in Western economies. A third is the development of computer technology and lightspeed communications, so that knowledge and expertise that took centuries to acquire can be transferred rapidly to developing economies. What we have lost through folly, we may not be able to regain through hard work.

This is why some commentators have switched their attention to the social, political and military implications of a permanent power shift - from democracies to authoritarian governments of one kind or another. Michael Panzner has tried to follow up the success of his Financial Armageddon with just such a conspectus, but events in the next decades will be determined by even more complex and subtle factors than the ones that led to the crashing end of the twentieth century's money system.

It would be a neat finish to observe that the Titanic had a casino and that the latter didn't have any effect on the iceberg - but (perhaps fortunately for haters of the glib), the ship didn't have a gambling joint. Though there was multimillionaire John Jacob Astor and his cronies, playing high stakes card games in the smoking room.

In short, for those who are focused on the money, I still believe worse is to come than has happened already. Others should remember it's not all about money.

Paging Lord Tebbit...

I like Norman Tebbit; he is his own man. And he has the courtesy to respond to commenters on his blog, however deranged they may be. Perhaps he will respond to the following, which I have submitted to this post of his:

Are Conservatives really conservative, in the sense of wishing to preserve the country? A message I have been trying to get out for some time, is that the financial bust that has scarcely begun, has its roots in excessive growth of the money supply not only under Labour but also under Conservative administrations.

Regrettably, The Bank of England’s website gives figures for M4 only as far back as 1963, but comparing annual changes in M4 with GDP, it’s clear that that banks have run riot for most of the last 47 years. Far more has been lent into the economy than could be justified by growth in economic activity, and the result has been a debt-fuelled ballooning of asset valuations.

From 1979 to 1990, GDP grew annually by an average of 8% or so, but M4 by 19% p.a., a difference of 11% p.a. compound. The New Labour years have seen something like 10% M4 growth and 5% GDP growth p.a., in other words a discrepancy of only half that experienced during the boom years of the 1980s.

Perhaps one could argue ignorance as a plea in mitigation by both political parties; after all, only some 12 professional economists out of an estimated 20,000 worldwide predicted the credit crunch (because debt does not feature highly in classical economic theory) – though I was relaying warnings from mid-2007 onwards, via my blog. But surely ignorance can be no excuse now.

What, then, do the Conservatives propose to do to deal with a banking system that has brought us to the verge of final national destruction?

Housing - plenty of room to drop

Charles Hugh Smith points out that in some areas, property values have already dropped by over 70% from their heady 2006 peak.

Bringing down the Temple of Dagon

I listend to Radio 4's Any Questions? last Saturday and a question about bankers' bonuses reared its lovely head. And then the pundits fell down, one after another.

I can't answer the conundrum about the sound of one hand clapping, but I sure heard the sound of punches being pulled. Perhaps some of the speakers have banker friends; perhaps some are hoping not to alienate the Masters of the Universe in the weary stagger up to a General Election. But here's what I'd like to have said, and it proceeds from a simple question:

Did the bankers know the likely consequences of their actions?

If they didn't, they are incompetent and instead of dithering about the threat of the RBS' board to resign, the government should sack them and all like them. Doctors who are that bad at their jobs would be sued and/or worse.

If they did, they should be jailed. In my view, Max Keiser is not exaggerating when he calls them terrorists. They have wrought destruction on our economies and though the human cost may be hard to assess accurately, it is and will continue to be terrible.

So, why isn't it happening? A number of reasons occur to me:

1. It is convenient for politicians to have a few people earn (sorry, be given, legally steal) vast sums of money. The lucky recipients of this largesse can be taxed at 40% (or even 50% as under today's draft Budget proposals) and still have more than they can possibly eat, drink, wear or stick up their noses. "Tax doesn't have to be taxing", as that wretched radio advert chirrups.

2. Clapped-out politicians may one day be looking for a well-overpaid sinecure, like T--- B----. Best not to be too hard on your potential future employer.

3. Embarrassingly, the roots of the credit crunch are not (not merely) in socialist profligacy, but date back to the early 1980s. It was a so-called Conservative government, supposedly a convert to monetarism, that opened the floodgates of credit and tsunamied the economic "boom". Not a genuine boom, and now a very real bust. Criticising the present hapless bunch too sharply would beg a loud, sustained argument of "tu quoque" ("thou also didst so").

4. Just as an addict is partly responsible for the sins of the dealer, the consumer is implicated in the phoney house price rises and the spending spree. But I say that the Devil has the lowest place in Hell, because his knowledge was greater.

5. Nevertheless, if push came to shove, the bankers could point out that effectively, they were acting as the agents of a government determined to win re-election.

Very well, then. Let us have our punishment - we shall, anyway, and the next generation after us. But they must have theirs - the bankers, the politicians and the Fourth Estate that got too close and too cosy for too long.

Go for it.

Could Dubai be the trigger?

Warren Pollock points out that the real danger lies, not in Dubai possibly deciding to default on its sovereign debt, but in the credit default swaps surrounding the debt, which may magnify the problem by 10 - 100+ times. If some of these huge side bets are wild ones not adequately backed by the gamester's capital, off we go - and off Pollock goes, for his well-earned beer.

Incidentally, he gives a lovely description of a quantitative analyst: a schizophrenic with an IQ of 160 who belongs in a rubber room, but since he's working for a financial firm and "no-one understands him, what he's doing must be right". Only a brighter quant could spot his colleague's errors. Quis custodiet, eh?

Don't know why, but this made me smile:

If you're feeling a little down today, and looking for something to be thankful for, be thankful you have not lent money to Dubai. Unless, of course, you have lent money to Dubai.

The eye of the storm

"It's moving towards you..."

As in "Alien", no-one knows where it's going to come from, but there's a bad feeling around:

1. ... it's easy to see that a financial crisis is brewing. Somewhere, something is going to blow sky high...

2. I see more bubble trouble on the way. Risk assets are being bid up all over the world as investors look for higher yields.

3. "Why is liquidity going into the financial sector? It's because the real economy is dying [and] everyone is fleeing into the stocks and bonds because they're liquid at the moment..."

4. In November 2008, Chinese banks said they would no longer play by our rules. Top tier banks (Bank of China and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China) reneged on derivatives contracts. [....] This should have been headline news in every financial newspaper, but it wasn’t.

Ironically, it is Marc Faber who takes the comparatively positive viewpoint:

5. If you look at the next 10 to 20 years in the West, I don’t see how the lifestyle of the average person will improve meaningfully. On the other hand, if you look at a country like Vietnam, they have a GDP per capita annually of $800 which may go to $3,000 over the next 15-20 years.

A modest proposal

Nine elderly ladies, one of them 106 years old, are to be moved out of their care home in Wolverhampton, even though there's plenty of evidence to suggest that such a traumatic event is likely to reduce their remaining life expectancy.

Why not go the whole hog, and draft in foreign vets to put down the old?

PS: Read my topical short story online, on this subject.

UPDATES (12 October): an angel arrives.
(13 October): the Council - for no good disclosed reason - says no to Trevor Beattie's charitable offer.

UK public debt worse than USA

It's reported in the Press that UK national debt will reach c. £1 trillion by the end of the year, and when the Office of National Statistics adds-in the cost of bank bailouts to Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland, the total should be £2.5 trillion. This will make our position worse than that of the United States, as shown in the graph below.

Welcoming the disaster

Two (among others) good links from Credit Writedowns:

"On April 17, 2007, famed short-seller Jim Chanos and other hedge fund managers met under tight security at the World Bank in Washington for the G-8 meeting. Chanos and Paul Singer briefed prominent policy officials about the growing financial instability. They gave irrefutable evidence that a catastrophe was building. They told officials that banks that were about to sink the global economy. They called for decisive action.

And they were ignored.

Gordon Brown was there..."

- New Deal 2.0

My comment: there's always a nice conspiratorial frisson when you think you can show They Knew All Along. Except there will have been other voices (like the 10 - 15,000 American economists who didn't foresee the credit crunch). And self-delusion. I don't think this nails the guilty parties.

Expect a major house-cleaning, a second American Revolution. We predicted the "Great Depression 2" around 2012. Well, we doubt taxpayers will passively sit one more time, like in the 1930s, in 2000, and the past few years. Next time voters will take a page from the history books about past revolutions in the American Colonies, France and Russia. A perfect storm will erupt in a massive global credit meltdown, bringing down Wall Street and the clandestine $670 trillion shadow central banking system.

- Paul Farrell

My comment: The appeal of revolution is to juvenile minds drunk on testosterone and misled by ignorant optimism. This is why the Communists have focussed on the young. I am reminded of how Rupert Brooke welcomed the onset of WWI:

Now, God be thanked Who has matched us with His hour,
And caught our youth, and wakened us from sleeping,
With hand made sure, clear eye, and sharpened power,
To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping,
Glad from a world grown old and cold and weary,
Leave the sick hearts that honour could not move,
And half-men, and their dirty songs and dreary,
And all the little emptiness of love!

I don't think he would have agreed with his younger self by the end of the Great War. After a disaster comes the greater disaster: Romanticism.

Marc Faber - total breakdown ahead

... in my view, the big crisis is ahead of us. It may come in 4 or 5 years' time, maybe only in 10 years' time, but the total breakdown of the system is ahead of us and it will devastate the global economy. (4:18 on)

You have to decide whom to believe. Including Steve Keen, it's said that only 12 professional economists worldwide foresaw the crunch, although there are 10 - 15,000 practising in the US alone. So the majority verdict is useless. To me, Faber has the ring of truth.

The good news, such as it is, is that we may have a few years to prepare.

As to perceived turning points, I looked at this last December:

Splat

A couple of days ago I said that US debt default would splat the US far worse than its trading partners; of course, I missed the point. The real danger is rejection of US debt and the US dollar by its foreign purchasers, and both Karl Denninger and Jesse see that as an outcome of the Japanese election result.

Debt, unemployment and escape routes

Interesting observation by Steve Keen: unemployment correlates closely with the amount that debt contributes to demand in the economy.

Let me try to reason out the consequences, however inexpertly.

So, as everyone scrambles to cut spending and get out of debt, unemployment will soar. Since there is a great deal of international trade, the hit will be felt internationally.

Then government finances will come properly unravelled, especially in countries that have generous social welfare provisions. Worldwide, sovereign states will look for anyone who has real money to lend.

This should result in higher interest rates, but that would make the cost of debt, and its sustainability, extremely difficult, both for states and for corporations (and the burden on the latter will tend to result in even more unemployment and more claimants on the government). A rise in rates would also hit holders of long-term government debt, which may be one of the reasons the Chinese have been swapping that for shorter-dated Treasuries. A collapse in bonds will affect the capital value of pensions and investments, oh dear.

Another way out is default on debt. But who will be hit by that? Not just foreigners, but our pensions and managed investment funds.

A third way, which given that we have history to learn from doesn't seem likely, is the true hyperinflation approach. Germany in 1923, Hungary, Argentina, Zimbabwe... do you really see this happening here?

Then there's the downgrading of debt, with corresponding falls in the traded value of the currency. We've seen some of that - what, 20% off the pound? - so maybe there's more to come from that direction. Except other countries may follow suit. In 1922, if you were a far-sighted German, I suppose you might have sold marks and bought dollars; what currency would you buy now?

Or there's "more of the same" again - talking up the economy and pumping in cash until you spend because you daren't leave it to rot in the savings account.

Which way will it go? Where will it all end?

Credit contraction is outpacing monetary stimulus

"... the Eurozone, the UK, Japan, and essentially every county on the planet is all attempting some sort of stimulus plan or other. This is bound to cause a major distortion at some point, as no country has anything remotely close to an exit strategy for this. What kind of distortion and when cannot be certain because we are indeed in uncharted territory, worldwide."

- Mish.

The more I read around, the more uncertain I become. All I have is my instinct, that things are out of control and we're being told fairy stories to lull us.

Mish's argument is that "The credit bubble that just popped exceeded that preceding the great depression, not just in the US but worldwide. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect the deflationary bust to be anything other than the biggest bust in history. Those looking for hyperinflation or even strong inflation in light of the above, are simply looking at the wrong model." If he's right, it's cash is king, for a long time to come.

... and the money trickles up

... Americans will thus pay for the TARP and low interest rate subsidies to their financial rulers with erosion in the purchasing power of the dollar. What we are experiencing is a massive redistribution of income from the American public to the financial sector.

- Paul Craig Roberts (htp: Jesse)

The ranks close

...the US has a finance and policy elite defined by college ties and related social connections, an elite with a strong sense that only people in their circle can really be trusted, and that their institutions must be saved at all cost at taxpayer expense if necessary.

- Robin Hanson

Interpreting US LTV problems

"Almost one-third of all U.S. households have no mortgage. If you adjust for that, the 70-80 percent debt-to-equity ratio suddenly becomes a major challenge because it means that the two-thirds who do have a mortgage already face a debt-to-equity ratio in excess of 100%. Even worse, once the mean reversion has run its course, two-thirds of US households will be facing a debt-to-equity ratio of 120-125% on average. U.S. CONSUMERS ARE EFFECTIVELY BROKE."

New Deal (htp: Credit Writedowns)

Has he got this right?

And how about us in Britain? Can anyone make sense of it for me?

Bubble 3

It's getting to the point where things go worryingly quiet. First we had a speculative and debt-fuelled stock market bubble; then ditto a housing bubble; and now that the US/UK governments have swallowed the grenades of debt instead of throwing them over the firing-step, a government finance bubble.

I started this blog two years ago, because I thought precious few people sniffed what was in the wind - though I've since discovered that there are quite a few, mostly in the US, who did. I don't know why the UK is so poor at this, unless it's to do with not being used to retaining much of our income. Or a hangover from aristo-landlord days, of pretending to be uninterested in money but always expecting it to be there when needed.

But where can I go from here? There's not much point in continuing to cry iceberg when the ship's side is ripped open. Both Karl Denninger and James Kunstler are saying today that the disaster is far from over, the difference between the two being that Denninger still believes in fixing it with due legal process and decisive action, whereas Kunstler has no such hope and almost looks forward to the final scene because it will usher in a postmodern bucolic age and restore human values. (Kunstler's latest echoes what I've said recently, about drawing some cash for just in case.)

I feel like the Chinese philosopher who dreamt he was a butterfly and when he woke, was not sure whether he wasn't a butterfly dreaming he was a Chinese philospher. The sun shines (beautifully today), I have my teaching to prepare for September, I am proceeding with my plan to revive my IFA business. And yet these projects seem insubstantial, a soapskin full of emptiness.

For now, I have to go on with the assumption that Denninger is right - that when it gets bad enough, tough action will be taken and we'll pull through. That's the horse I'm backing. For I don't believe the proto-Marxist fantasy that a better society will rise out of a collapse, especially not on an overcrowded island like the one where I live.

Off on my hols again next week; and when I get back, time to tackle real life.

Our Achilles heel?

The Contrarian Investor suggests that the next market destabilizing factor is the need for minor European nations to refinance.