A Bluffer's Guide, Part Zero

The new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has a reputation for being fearsomely intellectual. In a speech back in 1994 he referred to "post neo-classical endogenous growth theory", a shut-'em-up phrase if ever there was one.

Except with Members of Parliament, who are no strangers to bull, many of them having buffed up their chatter muscles at Oxford and Cambridge. Michael Heseltine (Pembroke College, Oxford), then President of the Board of Trade for the Conservative government, suspected Brown (Edinburgh) had gotten this showy material from his economic adviser, Ed Balls, and drawled, "It's not Brown, it's balls."

For in most cases, you can say it more simply. Or if you prefer, you can go ahead and hit people over the head with it, but be prepared to clarify if challenged.

So I've looked for relatively simple explanations of EGT (shall we who are now in the know agree to use this outsider-excluding acronym?). Here's what I've got so far:

Endogenous growth theory - from Investopedia

And here's something else worth reading, by Gladys We. It is a few pages long, but it explains it well enough so I can understand it - I think.

Politically, it seems EGT can be used as an argument against free trade and intellectual property rights. For the latter, see page 5, point 5; okay to steal someone's ideas, refine them and then copyright them. I'm sure there's Far Eastern firms that'd be fans of this policy; something to advocate amiably over the pre-prandial sherry in the Senior Common Room - until you put it into practice by plagiarizing the Master's work.

UPDATE (Saturday morning):

It's now called "new growth theory". EGT is so last evening.

October 1987 revisited

I'm trying to work out whether making an historical analogy with 20 years ago is valid.

Let's have a look at what has happened to prices. Cliff D'Arcy in The Motley Fool (22 May 2007) does a very informative comparison between houses and the FTSE 100. He reminds us that although the FTSE-100 dropped dramatically on "Black Monday" (19 October 1987), it ended about 2% higher over the year as a whole. If we take his figures for 1987 to 2006, house prices increased 287%, and the FTSE 263%. This would suggest that house prices and stock prices have increased about equally (though houses cost money to run, whereas shares pay dividends).

Are British people over-borrowed? This Bank of England research document from September 2004 says not, in relation to house prices. Yes, debt-to-income has gone up, but interest rates are now low. And despite its name, the latest survey from UK site HousePriceCrash indicates a general belief that house prices will continue to rise in the months ahead. (But recent first-time buyers will be more vulnerable, having little equity and probably a high income multiple for their loan.)

I find the monetarist arguments intuitively persuasive, but I'm puzzled by the disparity between prices and monetary inflation. Using the UK's M4 stats, over the 78 quarters from Dec 1987 to March 2007, the average annualized increase in the money supply is about 10.48%. Compounding that figure, we get about 7 times more borrowed money in the system today than in 1987. Yet houses and shares are only 3-4 times higher.

What does seem clear is that we have borrowed more in relation to income, and this makes it even more important not to lose your job, or be hit by high interest rates. It's worrying when you have to depend on things carrying on as they are, indefinitely.

2007 = 1987?

Greg Silberman in Safe Haven yesterday uses the chartist approach to suggest an analogy with the lead-up to the 1987 crash.

I don't know. Over the late '86/early '87 period I watched my little investment soar and began to wonder how everybody could get rich at the same time. I heard reports that people were borrowing against their houses to trade, and schoolboys were making money on the market. I don't read quite that degree of crazy optimism and greed today.

Maybe the difference is reflected in the degree of monetary inflation. In the UK, the 3 years leading up to October 1987 showed an average annualized increase in M4 of 18.59%, compared with an average 12.07% annualized over the 12 quarters to March 2007. And over here at least, people are much more leery of investments and pensions than they were then.

But there's loads more debt now. It could be that a drop happens, not because of a change in investor confidence, but on account of running short of spending cash.

Cycles and charts

For the analytical, here's an essay on Kress Cycles in Safe Haven.

This, together with Kondratieff cycles and other patterns used by market chart-interpreters, has one flaw to my not-quite-so-mathematical mind: predicting human behaviour involves feedback loops. If I secretly write down what I think you're going to do tomorrow, I could be right every time; but if I reveal my thoughts to you, that changes the situation. It's a sort of Heisenberg uncertainty principle: to observe is to be involved, and therefore part of the nexus of causes.

Having said that, human behaviour does have patterns, and I believe some have theorised that the growth of our brains is in response to the competition to predict the other person's behaviour better than he can predict yours.

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.

Is the credit system cracking up?

Bob Hoye, in Prudent Bear (yesterday), discusses "the Unholy Trinity of central banking, derivatives and artificial rating of credit". He sees these as systemic risks - I'll say more about that when I come to Richard Bookstaber's interview on Financial Sense last Saturday.

Should US Treasury bonds be downgraded?

iTulip's President, Eric Janszen (Wednesday) goes over the now-familiar arguments for a coming period of US recession/inflation, caused by the trade, budget and fiscal deficits.

He also links to Paul Farrell's article in Marketwatch (Monday), which questions America's creditworthiness as a result of having to finance the war in Iraq. Maybe we're going around the same track as with Vietnam, which burned up money (I remember a contemporary American cartoon of a steam engine with dollars being shovelled into the firebox).

Has the UK tied one of its little boats to the anchor chain of the Titanic? I calculate its loan to Uncle Sam's Treasury to be worth $2,757.65 per capita (British heads), or £1,345.99.

My wife and I could have a nice little holiday on that, which would be more fun, or a day at the races, which might get us a better return.

Desperately holding down gold

Jim Willie of the Hat Trick Letter thinks that bank selloffs of gold are to make dodgy bonds look better than they are. If the mortgage bonds unravel, there's a lot of fast talking to be done by banks and brokers.

More on US housing woes

An informative piece in Dr Housing Bubble on the various factors that are turning the housing market upside down.

If I read the first graph rightly, there's a peak in the numbers of temporarily-fixed US mortgages that are due to come back onto the current variable rate in November this year, which suggests we may have a difficult autumn ahead. Further cutbacks in discretionary spending, presumably.

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:

Futurology

Continuing the argument about sovereign wealth funds, what might this portend for US Treasury securities?

If foreign governments pull the rug out, there could be a run on the dollar on a scale that the US government wouldn't dare correct with proportionately high interest rates, seeing how indebted everyone is. The doomsters are probably right that it could happen, which is why everybody will make sure it doesn't.

And such a fall wouldn't be in the interest of creditor nations who still value the trade surpluses they enjoy with Uncle Sam. Many Chinese light manufacturing industries are working on narrow margins and don't want to see their profits disappear through foreign exchange movements (though their State is sufficiently powerful and ruthless to go that way if it wants to). I suspect that China will continue to develop towards heavier industries and gradually allow the trainer-stitching work to go to even poorer countries like Vietnam. Meanwhile, it's in no hurry to kill the US cow while she's still giving milk.

So here's my bet:

1. For domestic political reasons, the US will not do what is needed to get the economy back on the level. It will continue to borrow but, fearful of its vulnerability to potentially unfriendly foreigners, lean on its friends for more finance.
2. The US Treasury securities held by China will remain much the same, or even gradually increase in dollar terms, but "ally nations" will increase their holdings proportionately faster. There's not much an emotionally or politically vulnerable British PM won't do for a pat on the back at G8 summits, Bilderberg tie-looseners etc. Goodness knows how much of our future has been sacrificed to the last one's ego.
3. Creditor nations will increase their sovereign wealth funds, favouring investments that are involved in the supply lines from their manufacturing concerns to our end purchasers. Marxism has moved on: you have to have control of the means of production, but even more so of the means of distribution.
4. They will also invest in the lines leading towards their industries: energy, industrial metals and infrastructure. I also guess China will explore healthcare, energy-efficiency, food-oriented genetic research and environmental protection. And water. And foreign farmland (Bill Bonner and Marc Faber are really smart). City planning in all its aspects could become really important.
5. If these countries were private investors, we'd be seeing their portfolios alter their balance between bonds and equities, in the direction of higher risk, higher returns. And like good long-term investors, they will get richer. Maybe eventually, as James Kynge says, demographics and healthcare will eat into this wealth, but it's not going to benefit the West much either way.
6. In the US and the UK, our collective concern will be how to handle the social disruption in our own societies; our concern as individuals will be how to save and invest while we still can, and how to set up our own children in relative security.

Place your bets

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed yesterday at 13,785.07. Where will it go? Please see the survey on the right.

Here's an idea: the doomsters may be correct in their analysis, but wrong in their prognosis. If sovereign wealth funds continue to grow, we may see a new type of massive institutional investor, one that has no plans to retire or die. So ownership of American, British and other Western countries' businesses will shift to the East.

Initially, this will seem to make little difference, except that the markets may become better-supported against falls and may trend upwards, long-term (in currency terms; I'm not so sure about inflation-adjusted terms). But the dividends on foreign-owned shares will not accrue to the host countries, and so the US and UK will bleed from two wounds: trade deficits and accelerating loss of investment income.

If small businesses are eaten by big businesses, and big businesses have been taken over by sovereign wealth funds of other nations, the result for us may be not only economic impoverishment, but a form of slavery, since we will have lost control of our means of production. All we will have left is our labour, and in world terms, you and I are grossly overpaid. There is an developing Eastern middle class that can and will do everything better, faster, harder and cheaper than you. Many of them speak better English than the English.

Look at the businesses these sovereign wealth funds are going for. China: $3 bn for a 9.9% stake in giant US hedge fund Blackstone in May this year, and now (with Singapore) 10% of Barclays Bank (UK); Qatar: Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain). These investments involve commercial property, finance and retail distribution. I've recently relayed James Kynge's statement that Chinese manufacturing only gets them 15% of the end price; now they're after the other 85%. I shouldn't be surprised if we start to see acquisitions in marketing and advertising firms, too.

What to do? I think:

• Work hard and earn as much as you can, while you can.
• Look after your health. Better not to get sick in the first place, than hope for "healthcare" to put Humpty Dumpty back together.
• Live simply and well within your means. Do you need a car? One that size?
• Pay off debts as fast as possible.
• Save and invest.

And if you have time and don't mind potential official surveillance and bullying, give your politicans earache about their incompetence, which is on a scale that to some might seem almost treacherous.

They are the masters now - or will be soon

The BBC Ten o' Clock News last night featured an article about China's purchase of a share in Barclays Bank. I have posted a video of part of Chris Mayer's speech at Vancouver (see below), where he discusses "sovereign wealth funds".

China, India and Japan have enormous surpluses of money from their trade. They have bought US Treasury securities (bonds, i.e. loans to the US), but this is a thing governments do to park money that they might need back in year or two, when the trading balance has altered. Since the US/UK (etc) trade deficits are long-running, these eastern countries can now start thinking like young private investors, in which case equities become attractive - offering income from dividends AND the potential for capital growth.

These countries are turning our debt into their ownership, like an old Punch cartoon where a plumber took his customer's house in payment for his work.

This issue is big.

Prohibition: Uncle Sam beat Eliot Ness

Don Boudreaux, of Cafe Hayek fame (see blogroll), writes that Prohibition ended, not because of popular demand, but because the US government was running short of tax money in the Depression.

It's an interesting theory. I have long thought that the UK government is more hooked on cigarettes than the smokers. If they really wanted to ban smoking, they'd start by cutting the tax, so as to wean themselves off financial dependence. But how would they replace the lost revenue?

Familar themes, and a sales pitch (not mine!)

This is NOT a recommendation, but you may be interested in the general trend of thinking it reveals: The Daily Reckoning features a sales spiel for a newsletter from Tim Price, which passes on pessimistic comment on the near future of the markets, and indicates four areas for investment:

"Portfolio insurance"
Infrastructure (e.g. roads, railways)
Gold
Oil

We are seeing these themes crop up again and again among the contrarians. Though I'm not quite sure what is meant by the first - unless it's futures and options, which make me nervous.

Chris Mayer at Vancouver, on China

"Daniel" has responded to an earlier post re rail revival, to say that Chris Mayer's speech at the Agora Financial symposium in Vancouver has now been put on YouTube. Here it is, with my thanks to Daniel:

Plunge Protection Team trying to keep precious metals low

An extraordinary (to me) comment by Michael Misunas, responding to Michael Panzner's post in Seeking Alpha today - do read it. He says that the US Government's "Plunge Protection Team" has not only punted huge sums into derivatives to support the stockmarket each time it falls significantly, but has recently been rigging the market against gold and silver.

Assuming that you can't buck the market forever, it looks like an opportunity to buy precious metals.

More on US Treasury bonds

Another concise overview by David Galland in today's Daily Reckoning Australia. Part of it goes like this:

Make no mistake, we are in uncharted water; it is unprecedented that the claims represented by the fiat currency of one government - that of the U.S. - have been accumulated in such massive quantities for the reserves of other governments. And we're not just talking China but virtually the world. And the world is getting nervous.

To quote Thai Finance Minister Chalongphob Sussangkarn in his recent address to the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Kyoto:

"Should the financial markets lose confidence in the U.S. dollar, huge capital outflows from the U.S. could lead to a rapid depreciation of the U.S. dollar, and thus dramatic appreciation of other currencies."

This is why I am theorising that the UK's massively increased support for US Treasuries may be an emergency measure by the British Government. Though it has been pointed out to me that this money may have also come from hedge funds and conventional funds - the Treasury stats don't say that the purchases are official.

Another country that has significantly increased its US bond holdings is Brazil (145% up, from $33.3 bn to $81.6 bn). Maybe that's to do with its increasing oil exports. According to the US government's Energy Information Administration, Brazilian production is projected to rise long-term.

Coming back to the Treasury bond stats: of those who previously held at least 1% of total foreign-held US Treasury debt, the top five reductions are:

Caribbean Banking Centres
Mexico
Korea
France
Switzerland

The top three in this list account for almost $50 bn of the total $72 bn that foreigners withdrew. I thought the conspiracy theorists believed Caribbean Banking Centres were part of the US government's secret plan for supporting the dollar? Perhaps somebody would kindly pay for me to go on a "fact-finding mission" to the Caribbean. Please.

UK, US Treasury securities, and blogs (continued)

Well, I've got some sort of response from Iain Dale's commentators, starting with an ad hominem accusation of being emotionally needy (scared, more like!).

Here's my main argument, however inexpertly expressed:

Over the last 12 months, 10 countries have reduced their loans to the US by a combined total of $72 billion; we've increased our commitment by $112 billion, moving us from 10th place to 3rd place in the list of America's creditors. And our own finances aren't that good, either.

America is in hock to foreigners to the tune of 2.18 trillion dollars and rising. Effectively, they're running up a very big credit card bill to maintain domestic living standards. The US Comptroller General has very recently commented that this indebtedness could be used against the US by unfriendly foreign powers.

Our greatly increased support for America's finances is at the cost of some risk to ourselves, because if the borrowing spree continues unabated, we may find we get repaid in dollars that are worth far less than they are today. Can we afford to keep bailing out a spendthrift?

The borrowing is a powerful economic stimulus to China which, despite its relative poverty, is the second biggest creditor to the US. By sending the money back to America in the form of loans (purchase of US Treasury bonds), they avoid having their own currency appreciate. So their wage rates remain fantastically low and they continue to take business and jobs from the West - us included. Think of the transfer of the Swan Hunter shipyard to south India, or the purchase of Rover by China (don't tell me they're desperate to create long-term employment in Birmingham, when the average per capita wage in China is less than £1,000 per year). We're seeing a shift from higher-paid industrial work to lower-paid service jobs - perhaps the economic profile and geographical distribution of the readership of this blog means that it isn't obvious to them. China and others are hoovering up world resources in the dash to industrialise, right down to our iron manhole covers. James Kynge's "China shakes the world" is easy to read and very enlightening about what's going on.

Japan, America's greatest creditor, also buys US bonds to keep excess money out of its own system, so its interest rates are low, so the yen stays low and protects its well-established export markets. Also, a lot of money powering the world's stockmarkets is cheap money borrowed from Japan and invested elsewhere - the so-called "carry trade". All right if it goes on forever - but it can't. You cannot live for the rest of your life on borrowed money.

If currencies were responsibly managed, the trade deficit would cause the US to start to run short of cash, US wages would go down and exports back up, and trade would eventually (if painfully) come back into balance. But the Americans - and others, including ourselves again - respond by increasing the money supply (mostly through bank lending - up another 13% this year on both sides the Atlantic), which leads to price inflation, hence the rise in house prices and the stock markets. But borrowed money has to be repaid someday and then the tide will go out - but this time, we'll be left without much industrial capacity.

There's a fear that to prevent a 3os-style Depression, governments will print money even faster, but this leads to hyperinflation and eventually no one wants the currency at all (cf. Germany in 1923). So we could well have both a slump and high inflation. It may sound dull and technical, but then money is boring - until you haven't got any.

An American Congressional committee recently grilled the chairman of the Federal Reserve (like our Bank of England) and at least one Congressman admitted he realized he didn't understand inflation; the only one who seemed to was Ron Paul, who said that if we can make a living by printing money, we should all quit our jobs and do that. Most of Ron Paul's own investments are in gold and silver; the world's richest investor, Warren Buffett, has been sitting on many billions of dollars of cash for a long time and has recently disclosed that he's hedged by buying into a foreign currency, to protect against financial loss from a falling dollar.

If the value of the dollar (and possibly the pound) starts to collapse through overproduction, we really will notice - it's not just going to be bargain fares to Disneyworld. Americans - rich, expert ones, who manage big funds - are sounding the warnings loudly, clearly and angrily.

The collapse hasn't happened yet, partly because the dollar is the world's standard trading currency. This is changing; already, Iran is demanding payment from Japan in yen, not US dollars. When more countries start to impose similar conditions, the demand for the dollar will drop significantly, and so will its exchange value. China is beginning to de-link from the dollar, in favour of a wider basket of currencies; meanwhile, it's widened the range within which its currency (the renminbi, or Chinese yuan) can move against the dollar. They're not in hurry to appreciate their money, for reasons of international industrial market share; but that's the way the pressure is building.

Although our economy is much smaller than America's, we have (to some extent) similar problems ourselves. Yet here we are, lending money to our bigger cousin. I don't think we can sub him indefinitely, and I don't think we have begun to address the question of our own economic future. Without that, there'll be lots more hoodies to hug.

Michael Panzner relays the alarm

Michael Panzner's latest post discusses a warning from David M. Walker, the nation's chief accountant, about America's vulnerability to potentially unfriendly foreign creditors. This confirms me in my feeling that the recent purchases by the UK of US Treasury securities is extremely significant (see recent posts on Bearwatch).

I have attempted to elicit interest in various quarters, including Iain Dale's influential political blog ("Tuesday open thread", 24 July) but so far I seem to be speaking to the profoundly deaf. Today I submitted the following comment to Iain's Diary, but without much hope of a response - as I have said in an email to Michael Panzner today, the Brits add apathy to financial ignorance:

Okay, one last Cassandra-like call and then I'll admit defeat:

Does it really not matter to your sophisticated political readership that the UK (presumably the Treasury under Gordon Brown) has recently purchased an absolutely massive amount of American Treasury securities, most of it in the last nine months, which quite probably will lose us many billions of pounds through currency depreciation? We have gone in one wild leap from 10th largest holder of American debt, to third place.

The potential downside from this crazy investment (I think it has already lost the equivalent of the first year's interest) worry me less than the implication, which is that the US is using its "special relationship" with the UK to defer (for a short time) the end-stage of a US debt-fuelled global inflationary spiral, with the prospect of a deep economic depression and possibly a wealth-destroying hyperinflation. The problems this would give us make the current floods seem a minor inconvenience.

Or is it that everybody here knows already, and is merely filling the time in the rattling tumbrils with political chit-chat and mutual insult? Is it aristocratic insouciance, or financial ignorance? Surely not the latter, when Americans are discussing their economic problems so openly and extensively.