Hoisington Investment Management: Quarterly Review and Outlook, Second Quarter 2014

By John Mauldin

This week’s Outside the Box is from an old friend to regular readers. It’s time for our Quarterly Review & Outlook from Lacy Hunt of Hoisington Investment Management, who leads off this month with a helpful explanation of the relationship between the U.S. GDP growth rate and 30 year treasury yields. That’s an important relationship, because long term interest rates above nominal GDP growth (as they are now) tend to retard economic activity and vice versa.

The author adds that the average four quarter growth rate of real GDP during the present recovery is 1.8%, well below the 4.2% average in all of the previous post war expansions; and despite six years of federal deficits totaling $6.27 trillion and another $3.63 trillion in quantitative easing by the Fed, the growth rate of the economy continues to erode.

So what gives? We’re simply too indebted, says Lacy; and too much of the debt is nonproductive. (Total U.S. public and private debt rose to 349.3% of GDP in the first quarter, up from 343.7% in the third quarter of 2013.) And as Hyman Minsky and Charles Kindleberger showed us, higher levels of debt slow economic growth when the debt is unbalanced toward the type of borrowing that doesn’t create an income stream sufficient to repay principal and interest.

And it’s not just the US. Lacy notes that the world’s largest economies have a higher total debt to GDP ratio today than at the onset of the Great Recession in 2008, and foreign households are living farther above their means than they were six years ago.

Simply put, the developed (and much of the developing) world is fast approaching the end of a 60-year-long debt supercycle, as I (hope I) conclusively demonstrated in Endgame and reaffirmed in Code Red.
Hoisington Investment Management Company (www.Hoisingtonmgt.com) is a registered investment advisor specializing in fixed income portfolios for large institutional clients. Located in Austin, Texas, the firm has over $5 billion under management and is the sub adviser of the Wasatch-Hoisington U.S. Treasury Fund (WHOSX).

Some readers may have noticed that there was no Thoughts from the Frontline in their inboxes this weekend. As has happened only once or twice in the last 14 years, I found myself in an intellectual cul-de-sac, and there was not enough time to back out. Knowing that I was going to be involved in a fascinating conference over the weekend, I had planned to do a rather simple analysis of a new book on how GDP is constructed. But as I got deeper into thinking about the topic and doing more research, I remembered something I read 20 years ago about the misleading nature of GDP, and I realized that a simple analysis just wouldn’t cut it.

Rather than write something that would’ve been inadequate and unsatisfying, I decided to just put it off till next week. Your time and attention are quite valuable, and I try not to waste them. But there will be no excuses this weekend.

The conference I attended was organized by Great Point Partners, a hedge fund and private equity firm focusing on medical and biotechnology. I really had not seen the program until I arrived and did not realize what a powerful lineup of industry leaders would be presenting on some of the latest technologies and research. The opportunity was too good to pass up, as it is so rare that any of us get to sit down with people who are responsible for the science we all read about.

I had breakfast with a small group of 11 readers/investors one morning and learned a lot by asking them what their favorite investing passion was. Although everyone had concerns, they all had areas in which they were quite bullish. I find that everywhere I go. It was interesting, in that they all expected me to be far more negative about things than I am. I guess when you write about macroeconomics as much as I do, and there’s as much wrong with it as there is, you kind of end up being labeled as a Gloomy Gus. I am actually quite optimistic about the long-term future of humanity, but I’ll admit there will be a few bumps along the way. Given how many bumps there have already been, just in my own lifetime, and given that we seem to have gotten through them, I can’t help but be optimistic that we’ll get through the next round.

It was a fascinating weekend, made all the more so by my very gracious hosts, Jeff Jay and David Kroin, Managing Directors of Great Point. They and their staff made sure I could enjoy my time on Nantucket Island. It was my first visit to the area, and I hope it won’t be the last.

Last night I had dinner with Art Cashin, Barry Ritholtz, Jack Rivkin, and Dan Greenhaus. It was a raucous, intellectually enlivening evening, and our conversation ranged from macroeconomics to our favorite new technologies. Jack Rivkin is involved with Idealab, and one of his favorites is that he sees the eventual end of Amazon as 3-D printing becomes more available. Given how Bezos has adapted over the years, I’m not so sure. Jack and Barry will join me in Maine in a few weeks, where we will again join the debate about bull and bear markets.

Now let’s go to Lacy and think about the intersection of velocity and money supply and what it says about future growth potential. I have two full days of meetings with my partners and others here in New York before I return to Dallas, and then I get to stay home for a few weeks. There are lots of new plans in the works. And lots of reading to do between meetings. Have a great week!

Your hoping to be able to stay optimistic analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Boxsubscribers@mauldineconomics.com

---

Hoisington Investment Management – Quarterly Review and Outlook, Second Quarter 2014

Treasury Bonds Undervalued

Thirty year treasury bonds appear to be undervalued based on the tepid growth rate of the U.S. economy. The past four quarters have recorded a nominal “top line” GDP expansion of only 2.9%, while the bond yield remains close to 3.4%. Knut Wicksell (1851-1926) noted that the natural rate of interest, a level that does not tend to slow or accelerate economic activity, should approximate the growth rate of nominal GDP. Interest rates higher than the top line growth rate of the economy, which is the case today, would mean that resources from the income stream of the economy would be required to pay for the higher rate of interest, thus slowing the economy. Wicksell preferred to use, not a risk free rate of interest such as thirty year treasury bonds, but a business rate of interest such as BAA corporates.



As chart one attests, interest rates below nominal GDP growth helps to accelerate economic activity and vice versa. Currently the higher interest rates are retarding economic growth, suggesting the next move in interest rates is lower.

To put the 2.9% change in nominal GDP over the past four quarters in perspective, it is below the entry point of any post-war recession. Even adjusting for inflation the average four-quarter growth rate in real GDP for this recovery is 1.8%, well below the 4.2% average in all of the previous post war expansions.

Fisher's Equation of Exchange

 

Slow nominal growth is not surprising to those who recall the American economist Irving Fisher’s (1867-1947) equation of exchange that was formulated in 1911. Fisher stated that nominal GDP is equal to money (M) times its turnover or velocity (V), i.e., GDP=M*V. Twelve months ago money (M) was expanding about 7%, and velocity (V) was declining at about a 4% annual rate. If you assume that those trends would remain in place then nominal GDP should have expanded at about 3% over the ensuing twelve months, which is exactly what occurred. Projecting further into 2014, the evidence of a continual lackluster expansion is clear. At the end of June money was expanding at slightly above a 6% annual rate, while velocity has been declining around 3%. Thus, Fisher’s formula suggests that another twelve months of a 3% nominal growth rate is more likely than not. With inflation widely expected to rise in the 1.5% to 2.0% range, arithmetic suggests that real GDP in 2014 will expand between 1.0% and 1.5% versus the average output level of 2013. This rate of expansion will translate into a year over year growth rate of around 1% by the fourth quarter of 2014. This is akin to pre-recessionary conditions.

An Alternative View of Debt

 

The perplexing fact is that the growth rate of the economy continues to erode despite six years of cumulative deficits totaling $6.27 trillion and the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy which added net $3.63 trillion of treasury and agency securities to their portfolio. Many would assume that such stimulus would be associated with a booming economic environment, not a slowing one.

Readers of our letters are familiar with our long-standing assessment that the cause of slower growth is the overly indebted economy with too much non productive debt. Rather than repairing its balance sheet by reducing debt, the U.S. economy is starting to increase its leverage. Total debt rose to 349.3% of GDP in the first quarter, up from 343.7% in the third quarter of 2013.

It is possible to cast an increase in debt in positive terms since it suggests that banks and other financial intermediaries are now confident and are lowering credit standards for automobiles, home equity, credit cards and other types of loans. Indeed, the economy gets a temporary boost when participants become more indebted. This conclusion was the essence of the pioneering work by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914) and Irving Fisher which stated that debt is an increase in current spending (economic expansion) followed by a decline in future spending (economic contraction).

In concert with this view, but pinpointing the negative aspect of debt, contemporary economic research has corroborated the views of Hyman Minsky (1919-1996) and Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003) that debt slows economic growth at higher levels when it is skewed toward the type of borrowing that will not create an income stream sufficient to repay principal and interest.

Scholarly studies using very sophisticated analytical procedures conducted in the U.S. and abroad document the deleterious effects of high debt ratios. However, the use of a balance sheet measure can be criticized in two ways. First, income plays a secondary role, and second, debt ratios are not an integral part of Keynesian economic theory.

We address these two objections by connecting the personal saving rate (PSR) which is at the core of Keynesian economic analysis, and the private debt to GDP ratio that emerges from non-Keynesian approaches. Our research indicates that both the “Non Keynesian” private debt to GDP ratios, as well as the “Keynesian” PSR, yield equivalent analytical conclusions.

The Personal Saving Rate (PSR) and the Private Debt Linkage

 

The PSR and the private debt to GDP ratio should be negatively correlated over time. When the PSR rises, consumer income exceeds outlays and taxes. This means that the consumer has the funds to either acquire assets or pay down debt, thus closely linking the balance sheet and income statement. When the PSR (income statement measure) rises, savings (balance sheet measure) increases unless debt (also a balance sheet measure) declines, thus the gap between the Keynesian income statement focus and the non-Keynesian debt ratio focus is bridged.



The PSR and private debt to GDP ratio are, indeed, negatively correlated (Chart 2). The correlation should not, however, be perfect since the corporate sector is included in the private debt to GDP ratio while the PSR measures just the household sector. We used the total private sector debt ratio because the household data was not available in the years leading up to the Great Depression.

The most important conceptual point concerning the divergence of these two series relates to the matter of the forgiveness of debt by the financial sector, which will lower the private debt to GDP ratio but will not raise the PSR. The private debt to GDP ratio fell sharply from the end of the recession in mid-2009 until the fourth quarter of 2013, temporarily converging with a decline in the saving rate. As such, much of the perceived improvement in the consumer sector’s financial condition occurred from the efforts of others. The private debt to GDP ratio in the first quarter of 2014 stood at 275.4%, a drop of 52.5 percentage points below the peak during the recession. The PSR in the latest month was only 1.7 percentage points higher than in the worst month of the recession. Importantly, both measures now point in the direction of higher leverage, with the PSR showing a more significant deterioration. From the recession high of 8.1%, the PSR dropped to 4.8% in April 2014.

Historical Record

 

The most recently available PSR is at low levels relative to the past 114 years and well below the long-term historical average of 8.5% (Chart 3). The PSR averaged 9.4% during the first year of all 22 recessions from 1900 to the present. However this latest reading of 4.8% is about the same as in the first year of the Great Depression and slightly below the 5% reading in the first year of the Great Recession.



In Dr. Martha Olney’s (University of California, Berkeley and author of Buy Now, Pay Later) terminology, when the PSR falls households are buying now but will need to pay later. Contrarily, if the PSR rises households are improving their future purchasing power. A review of the historical record leads to two additional empirical conclusions. First, the trend in the PSR matters. A decline in the PSR when it has been falling for a prolonged period of time is more significant than a decline after it has risen. Second, the significance of any quarterly or annual PSR should be judged in terms of its long term average.

For example, multi-year declines occurred as the economy approached both the Great Recession of 2008 and the Great Depression of 1929. In 1925 the PSR was 9.2%, but by 1929 it had declined by almost half to 4.7%. The PSR offered an equal, and possibly even better, signal as to the excesses of the 1920s than did the private debt to GDP ratio. Both the level of PSR and the trend of its direction are significant meaningful inputs.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) correctly argued that the severity of the Great Depression was due to under-consumption or over saving. What Keynes failed to note was that the under consumption of the 1930s was due to over spending in the second half of the 1920s. In other words, once circumstances have allowed the under saving event to occur, the net result will be a long period of economic under performance.
Keynes, along with his most famous American supporter, Alvin Hansen (1887-1975), argued that the U.S. economy would face something he termed “an under-employment equilibrium.” They believed the U.S. economy would return to the Great Depression after World War II ended unless the federal government ran large budget deficits to offset weakness in consumer spending. The PSR averaged 23% from 1942 through 1946, and the excessive indebtedness of the 1920s was reversed. Consumers had accumulated savings and were in a position to fuel the post WWII boom. The economy enjoyed great prosperity even though the budget deficit was virtually eliminated. The concerns about the under employment equilibrium were entirely wrong. In Keynes’ defense, the PSR statistics cited above were not known at the time but have been painstakingly created by archival scholars since then.

Implications for 2014-2015

 

In previous letters we have shown that the largest economies in the world have a higher total debt to GDP today than at the time of the Great Recession in 2008. PSRs also indicate that foreign households are living further above their means than six years ago. According to the OECD, Japan’s PSR for 2014 will be 0.6%, virtually unchanged from 2008. The OECD figure is likely to turn out to be very optimistic as the full effects of the April 2014 VAT increase takes effect, and a negative PSR for the year should not be ruled out. In addition, Japan’s PSR is considerably below that of the U.S. The Eurozone PSR as a whole is estimated at 7.9%, down 1.5 percentage points from 2008. Thus, in aggregate, the U.S., Japan and Europe are all trying to solve an under-saving problem by creating more under-saving. History indicates this is not a viable path to recovery. [reference: Atif Mian and Amir Sufi,. House of Debt, University of Chicago Press 2014]
Japan confirms the experience in the United States because their PSR has declined from over 20% in the financial meltdown year of 1989 to today’s near zero level. Japan, unlike the U.S. in the 1940s, has moved further away from financial stability. Despite numerous monetary and fiscal policy maneuvers that were described as extremely powerful, the end result was that they have not been successful.

U.S. Yields Versus Global Bond Yields

 

Table one compares ten-year and thirty year government bond yields in the U.S. and ten major foreign economies. Higher U.S. government bond yields reflect that domestic economic growth has been considerably better than in Europe and Japan, which in turn, mirrors that the U.S. is less indebted. However, the U.S. is now taking on more leverage, indicating that our growth prospects are likely to follow the path of Europe and Japan.



With U.S. rates higher than those of major foreign markets, investors are provided with an additional reason to look favorably on increased investments in the long end of the U.S. treasury market. Additionally, with nominal growth slowing in response to low saving and higher debt we expect that over the next several years U.S. thirty year bond yields could decline into the range of 1.7% to 2.3%, which is where the thirty year yields in the Japanese and German economies, respectively, currently stand.

Van R. Hoisington
Lacy H. Hunt, Ph.D.
Like Outside the Box?
 
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.
It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

Important Disclosures

The article Outside the Box: Hoisington Investment Management: Quarterly Review and Outlook, Second Quarter 2014 was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Great new video, #3 of Bill Poulos's "Portfolio Prophet" trading lab series is now ONLINE!


-->

Why the Market Should Pay More Attention to Sports and Poker

Did your coach ever tell you not to signal before you made a move, or do you know why it’s so important to have a good poker face if you’re trying to bluff? It’s because it’s pretty hard to trick a person that can see what you’re going to do next. What does this have to do with trading the markets for consistent profit?


The market signals before just about every move it makes.


So, why doesn’t this make the market incredibly easy to predict? It’s because most traders don’t know the market’s “tell.” That’s why you learn to watch your opponent’s position in sports, or to watch your opponent’s pulse and face in poker. If you don’t know that a nervous twitch means your neighbor is trying to bluff you with his pair of twos, then how do you know he doesn’t have the cards? On the other hand, if you know his “tell”, you can anticipate his bluff even if the rest of the table thinks he’s got a strong hand. Doc Severson spent a lot of time (and a lot more money) looking for those signs in the market, but as James Bond remarks in Casino Royale, “It was worth it to discover his tell.”


Learn the Market’s Tell
 

After years of study and testing (he was an engineer, after all), Doc Severson found a way to see the market “signal” before it makes a move. He used it to position himself before the 2013 S&P rally, and he is seeing the market signal another big move now. He’s already preparing his positions for this move, and he wants to show you how to anticipate them as well.


How to Predict the Next Big Move for Yourself (Free Video)

 

World Money Analyst: Europe....Cliff Ahead?

By Dirk Steinhoff
When Kevin Brekke, managing editor [of World Money Analyst], contacted me last week, I knew it was time again to survey the investment landscape. This month, I will focus on Europe and its decoupled financial and real economy markets.

Globally, the last two years were marked by booming stock exchanges of developed markets, disappointing bond markets, and devastation across the precious metals markets.

Since June 2012, the EURO STOXX 50 Index, Europe’s leading blue chip index for the Eurozone, has advanced by approximately 50% and outperformed even the S&P 500 and the MSCI World indices.

Over the last six months, European stock exchanges have seen a surprising change of leadership: The major stock market indices of the “weaker” countries, like Portugal, Spain, and Italy, have outperformed those considered stronger, like Germany. One of the top performers was a country that was and still remains in “bankruptcy” mode: Greece.

The question at this point is: Can these outstanding European stock market performances continue?

In our search for an answer, let’s start with a closer look at the economic conditions within the European Union (EU), where approximately 2/3 of total “exports” (internal and external) of the EU-28 are traded. And then let’s have a look at the economic setting of some major trading partners, such as the US and BRIC countries, which account for roughly 17% and 21%, respectively, of the external exports of the EU-28.
Although the EURO STOXX 50 Index has soared since June 2012, certain key measures of the underlying real economies paint a different picture.

To start, the GDP of the EU-28 is not really growing. In 2012, it contracted by 0.4% and grew by the smallest fraction of 0.1% in 2013. The GDP growth numbers for the countries in the euro area are even worse: -0.7% in 2012 and -0.4% in 2013. Whereas Germany’s GDP was up in 2013 by 0.5%, economic growth was down in Spain, Italy, and Greece by -1.2%, -1.8%, and -3.6%, respectively.

Real GDP Growth Rates 2002-2012
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
EU	1.3	1.5	2.6	2.2	3.4	3.2	0.4	-4.5	2.0	1.6	-0.4
Germany	0.0	-0.4	1.2	0.7	3.7	3.3	1.1	-5.1	4.0	3.3	0.7
Spain	2.7	3.1	3.3	3.6	4.1	3.5	0.9	-3.8	-0.2	0.1	-1.6
France	0.9	0.9	2.5	1.8	2.5	2.3	-0.1	-3.1	1.7	2.0	0.0
Italy	0.5	0.0	1.7	0.9	2.2	1.7	-1.2	-5.5	1.7	0.5	-2.5
Portugal	0.8	-0.9	1.6	0.8	1.4	2.4	0.0	-2.9	1.9	-1.3	-3.2

The EU unemployment rate stood at 10.2% at the beginning of 2012 and stands at 12.1% today. That the European Union is anything but a homogenous body that moves in unison can be seen in the following chart:

Where Germany has a current unemployment rate of 5.2% and a youth (under 25) unemployment rate of 7.5%, the numbers for other countries are worrisome: Current unemployment in Spain is 26.7%, and 12.7% in Italy, with youth unemployment in Spain at an incredible 57.7%, and 41.6% in Italy. And don’t forget Greece, which is mired in a historically unparalleled economic depression where unemployment is 28% and youth unemployment is a shocking 61.4%. Keep in mind that all of these numbers are those officially released by bureaucratic agencies. The real numbers, as we know, would likely be even worse.

Recent EU industrial production numbers have shown some slight improvement. Nevertheless, industrial production has only managed to recover to its 2004 level, and remains way below its 2007 heights (see next graph).

Source: Eurostat

So let’s see: a shrinking GDP, high and rising unemployment, and stagnant production significantly below 2007 levels. Those are not the rosy ingredients of a booming economy (as indicated by the stock exchanges) but of one that is struggling.

Europe is not in growth mode.

This verdict is further supported by the export numbers for trade between EU countries, known as internal trade. In 2001, internal trade accounted for 67.9% of EU exports. Today, this share is down to 62.7%. In an attempt to compensate for sluggish European growth, EU companies had to develop other export markets, such as the US or the emerging markets.

Will these markets help rescue European companies?

Time to Taper Expectations

With regards to the U.S., two important developments are worth mentioning. The first key development, which will have severe consequences for the global economy, was brought to my attention by my friend Felix Zulauf, an internationally well-known investor and regular member of the Barron’s Roundtable for more than 20 years. Running ever-increasing deficits in its trade and current accounts for almost 30 years, the US thus provided an enormous amount of stimulus for foreign exporters. Since 2006, however, the US trade deficit has shrunk, with deteriorating trade data for many nations as a consequence.

The second key development is that the newly appointed head of the US Federal Reserve system, Janet Yellen, seems determined to continue the taper of its bond buying program. This fundamental shift in monetary policy could be questioned if the economic numbers for the US begin to show significant weakness. But in the meantime, the reduction of economic stimulus in the US should lead to a reduced appetite for European export goods.

The emerging markets had been seen, not too long ago, as the investment opportunity and alternative to the fiscal and debt crisis-stricken countries of the developed world. Today, on a nearly daily basis, you hear bad news about the situation and developments in the emerging countries: swaying stock markets, plunging currencies, company bankruptcies, corruption scandals, and even riots.

The emerging markets are dealing with the unintended consequences of the Quantitative Easing (including liquidity easing and credit easing) programs in the West. The increased liquidity spilled over into the emerging markets in the hunt for yield. This flow of capital into the emerging markets lowered capital costs, inflated asset prices like stocks and real estate, and boosted commodity prices. All that, and more, sparked the emerging markets boom.

Now, this process has reversed. The natural conclusion to exaggerated credit-driven growth, the tapering of QE programs, the shrinking US trade deficit, and lower commodity prices has been an outflow of capital from emerging markets, triggering lower asset prices and exchange rates. The attempt of some countries to defend their currencies by raising interest rates will only exert further pressure on their economies.

With weaker emerging market economies and currencies, there will be no big added demand for European exports. Revenues and profits for EU companies (measured in euros) will fall.

When Trends Collide

So, over the last two years we had opposing trends—booming European stock markets and weak underlying real economies. This conflicting mix was mainly fostered by easy money that drove down interest rates to historic low levels. Plowing money into stocks, despite the poor fundamentals, was the only solution for most investors.

At their current elevated levels European stock markets appear vulnerable, and it seems reasonable to doubt that we will see a continuation of booming stock markets. Of course, such a decoupling can continue for some time, but the longer it continues, the closer we will get to a correction of this anomaly. Either the real economy catches up to meet runaway stock prices, or stock prices come down to meet the poor economic reality. Or some combination of the two.

Because of the economic facts that I discussed above, in my view, we may be seeing just the beginning of a stronger correction in stock prices.

Dirk Steinhoff is chief investment officer of portfolio management (international clients) at the BFI Capital Group. Prior to joining BFI in 2007, Mr Steinhoff acted as an independent asset manager for over 15 years. He successfully founded and built two companies in the realm of infrastructure and real estate management. Mr Steinhoff holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in civil engineering and business administration, magna cum laude, from the University of Technology in Berlin, Germany. 

---

Want to read more World Money Analyst articles like this? Subscribe to World Money Analyst today and learn how to look abroad for truly diverse opportunities that insulate you from domestic risk.

The article World Money Analyst: Europe: Cliff Ahead? was originally published at Mauldin Economics

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Listening to the Canary

By Terry Coxon, Senior Economist

During World War II, the British Royal Air Force (RAF) undertook a plan of misdirection to allow a squadron of bombers to approach an exceptionally valuable target in Europe undetected. The target was so heavily guarded that destroying it would require more than the usual degree of surprise.


Although the RAF was equipped to jam the electronic detection of aircraft along the route to the target (a primitive forebear of radar was then in use), they feared that the jamming itself would alert the defending forces. Their solution was to “train” the defending German personnel to believe something that wasn't true. The RAF had a great advantage in undertaking the training: The intended trainees were operating equipment that was novel and far from reliable; and those operators were trying to interpret signals without the help of direct observation, such as actually seeing what they were charged with detecting.

At sunrise on the first day, the RAF broadcast a jamming signal for just a fraction of minute. On the second day, it broadcast a jamming signal for a bit longer than a minute, also around sunrise. On each successive day, it sent the signal for a somewhat longer and longer time, but always starting just before sunrise.

The training continued for nearly three months, and the German radar personnel interpreted the signals their equipment gave them in just the way the British intended. They concluded that their equipment operates poorly in the atmospheric conditions present at sunrise and that the problem grows as the season progresses. That mistaken inference allowed an RAF squadron to fly unnoticed far enough into Europe to destroy the target.

People will get used to almost anything if it goes on for long enough. And the getting-used-to-it process doesn't take long at all if it's something that people don't understand well and that they can't experience directly. They hear about Quantitative Easing and money printing and government deficits, but they never see those things happening in plain view, unlike a car wreck or burnt toast, and they never feel it happening to themselves.

QE has become just a story, and it's been going on for so long that it has no scare value left. That's why so few investors notice that the present situation of the U.S. economy and world investment markets is beyond unusual. The situation is weird, and dangerously so. But we've all gotten used to it.

Here are the four main points of weirdness:

1. The Federal Reserve is still fleeing the ghost of the dot-com bubble. It was so worried that the collapse of the dot-com bubble (beginning in March 2000) would damage the economy that it stepped hard on the monetary accelerator. The growth rate of the M1 money supply jumped from near 0% to near 10%. This had the hoped for result of making the recession that began the following year brief and mild.

2. A nice result, if that had been all. But there was more. Injecting a big dose of money to inoculate the economy against recession set off a bubble in the housing market. Starting in 2003, the Fed began gradually lowering the growth rate of the money supply to cool the rise in housing prices. That, too, produced the intended result; in 2006, housing prices began drifting lower.
   
   But again, there was a further consequence—the financial collapse that began in 2008. This time, the Federal Reserve stomped on the monetary accelerator with both feet, and the growth of the money supply hit a year-over-year rate of 21%. It's still growing rapidly, at an annual rate of 9%.

3. The nonstop expansion of the money supply since 2008 has kept money market interest close to zero. Rates on longer-term debt aren't zero but are extraordinarily low. The ten-year Treasury bond currently yields just 2.7%; that's up from a low of 1.7%.
   
   The flow of new money has been irrigating all financial markets. In the U.S., stocks and bonds tremble at each hint the Fed is going to turn the faucet down just a little. And it's not just US markets that are affected. When credit in the US is ultra cheap, billions are borrowed here and invested elsewhere, all around the world, which pushes up investment prices almost everywhere.

4. US federal debt management is living on borrowed time. The deficit for 2013 was only $600 billion, down from trillion dollar plus levels of recent years. But this less terrible than before figure was achieved only by the grace of extraordinarily low interest rates, which limit the cost of servicing existing government debt. Should interest rates rise, less than terrible will seem like happy times.

Almost no one imagines that the current situation can continue indefinitely. But is there a way for it to end nicely? For most investors, the expectation (or perhaps just the hope) that things can gracefully return to normal rests on confidence that the people in charge, especially the Federal Reserve governors, are really, really smart and know what they're doing. The best minds are on the job.

If the best minds were in charge of designing a bridge, I would expect the bridge to hold up well even in a storm. If the best minds were in charge of designing an airplane, I would expect it to fly reliably. But if the best minds were in charge of something no one really knows how to do, I would be ready for a failure, albeit a failure with superb academic credentials.

Despite all the mathematics that has been spray-painted on it, economics isn't a modern science. It's a primitive science still weighted with cherished beliefs and unproven dogma. It's in about the same stage of development today that medicine was in the 17th century, when the best minds of science were arguing whether the blood circulates through the body or just sits in the veins. Today economists argue whether newly created cash will circulate through the economy or just sit in the hands of the recipients.

Let's look at the puzzle the best minds now face.

If the Federal Reserve were simply to continue on with the money printing that began in 2008, the economy would continue its slow recovery, with unemployment drifting lower and lower. Then the accumulated increase in the money supply would start pushing up the rate of price inflation, and it would push hard. Only a sharp and prolonged slowdown in monetary growth would rein in price inflation. But that would be reflected in much higher interest rates, which would push the federal deficit back above the trillion dollar mark and also push the economy back into recession.

So the Fed is trying something else. They’ve begun the so called taper, which is a slowing of the growth of the money supply. Their hope is that if they go about it with sufficient precision and delicacy, they can head off catastrophic price inflation without undoing the recovery. What is their chance of success?

My unhappy answer is "very low." The reason is that they aren't dealing with a linear system. It's not like trying to squeeze just the right amount of lemon juice into your iced tea. With that task, even if you don't get a perfect result, being a drop or two off the ideal won't produce a bad result. Tinkering with the money supply, on the other hand, is more like disarming a bomb—and going about it according to the current theory as to whether it's the blue wire or the red wire that needs to be cut means a small failure isn’t possible.

Adjusting the growth of the money supply sets off multiple reactions, some of which can come back to bite. Suppose, for example, that the taper proceeds with such a light touch that the U.S. economy doesn't tank. But that won't be the end of the story. Stock and bond markets in most countries have been living on the Fed's money printing. The touch that's light enough for the U.S. markets might pull the props out from under foreign markets—which would have consequences for foreign economies that would feed back into the U.S. through investment losses by U.S. investors, loan defaults against U.S. lenders, and damage to U.S. export markets. With that feedback, even the light touch could turn out not to have been light enough.

To see what the consequences of economic mismanagement can be, and how stealthily disaster can creep up on you, watch the 30 minute documentary, Meltdown America. Witness the harrowing tales of three ordinary people who lived through a crisis, and how their experiences warn of the turmoil that could soon reach the US. Click here to watch it now.

The article Listening to the Canary was originally published at Casey Research

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Learn to Trust Your Own Financial Judgment

By Dennis Miller

Keep this goal in mind as you read on: solid income and growth with minimal risk and no catastrophic losses. Just tuck it in the back of your head.


Subscriber Brian A. wrote sharing a common concern:

"I subscribe to your newsletter for the purpose of diversifying my portfolio as well as taking more responsibility for my investment future. … I look at the soaring S&P and Dow and wonder if both are appreciating from strong fundamentals, or from the Fed's easy money policy. … I listen to my broker who spouts out information of a resurgence of manufacturing coming back to US soil and (says) equities are the place to be for the near future. The other side spouts banks are insolvent, businesses are closing, (and) if it wasn't for the Fed propping things up we would be in a recession. Some say we are in a recession. I would like to see you devote an article on the subject of the 'don't worry be happy' crowd verses the 'doom and gloom' crowd."

Well, Brian, ask and ye shall receive. My recommendation, as always, is to look at the data, decide for yourself which camp you fall in—if either—and invest accordingly.

Folks who think things are turning around generally point to statistics published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). These numbers—the unemployment and inflation rates and the Consumer Price Index in particular—are used by the Federal Reserve to make or change policy. Those decisions affect the economy and the stock market.

If you swallow these numbers, you can point to a trend line going up. You may not think "happy days are here again," but you could make a case that we are headed in the right direction.

In contrast, the "gloom and doom" crowd point to data from statisticians like John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics, who make a good case against the accuracy of official government data. Williams' alternatives to the CPI, official inflation rate, and unemployment rate paint a much different picture.

Unemployment offers an easy example. When a person stops looking for work, the CBO no longer considers him unemployed. I guess that means if everyone just stopped looking, the unemployment problem would be solved.

Many in the gloom-and-doom crowd distrust the government and believe its statistics are produced for the benefit of politicians.

The gap between these two camps is wide. We recently published a special report called Bond Basics, offering safe ways to find yield in the current economy. Shortly after releasing our report, I attended a workshop with one of the top bond experts at a major brokerage firm. As I listened to his excellent presentation, I realized we agreed on many points: interest rates seem to be going up, the value of laddering and diversification, etc. We also agreed that investors (not traders) should buy bonds for one purpose: safe retirement income.

This speaker, however, recommended that baby boomers and retirees buying individual bonds only buy investment grade bonds and ladder them over an eight year period. Each year some would mature, and retirees would then replace them with other eight-year bonds. In a rising rate environment, retirees would eventually catch up he claimed. This expert mentioned inflation only once, remarking that it is "under control" and should remain low.

I went to the company's website and discovered that five year AAA bonds were paying 1.92%, and ten year bonds were paying 3.41%.

Then I went to Shadow Government Statistics. The official inflation rate as indicated by the CPI is hovering around 1.8%. However, using the same method used for calculating the CPI in 1990 (the government has changed the formula many times), the current rate comes to approximately 5.5%.
Now, it only makes sense to invest in long-term, high-quality bonds if you truly believe the government's CPI statistics. If, however, you that suspect inflation isn't quite so under control—even if you don't believe it's 5.5%—why would you invest in an eight-year bond that's virtually certain to lose to inflation?

The same logic applies to unemployment numbers. The official number is around 6.7% and coming down. Alternative calculations show a double digit unemployment rate that is rising. Should you invest heavily in stocks now? It depends again on whom you believe.

How should this affect your approach? If you hold the majority of your nest egg in cash or low-yield investments, you are losing ground to inflation. On the other hand, going all in the market if you are uncertain that the economy is improving could be equally disastrous.

A word of caution: do not let fear of getting it wrong immobilize you! It can be a very costly mistake. Keep learning and researching until you find investments you are comfortable with.

Let's look at the best- and worst-case scenarios with long term bonds. If you follow the advice of a bond salesman, you'll buy long-term corporate bonds. Ten year, AAA rated bonds currently yield around 3.41%. Assuming the bond trader is correct and inflation is not an issue, the best you could earn is 3.41%. Is that enough to get excited about when you factor in taxes and the risk of inflation?

In a recent article, I shared an example of a hypothetical investor who bought a $100,000, five-year, 6% CD on January 1, 1977. If he'd been in the 25% tax bracket, his account balance after interest would have been $124,600 at the end of five years. That's a 25.9% reduction in buying power because of high inflation during that five year period.

In that light, 3.41% does not look quite so appealing. Yes, inflation was particularly high during the Carter era, so apply a bit of common sense to the example. Nevertheless, what has caused inflation in the past? In general terms, governments spending money they don't have and printing money to make up the difference. Argentina is a timely example of this folly.

These concerns are why our research team and I paired up to produce Bond Basics. We think there are better risk and reward opportunities than long-term bonds available in today's market.

Investing in stocks is a different story. We cannot keep up with inflation and provide enough income to supplement retirement needs with bonds alone (unless you have a huge portfolio and are willing to buy higher-risk bonds). That's why our team picks stocks with surgical precision. We run them through our Five Point Balancing Test, recommend strict position limits, diversify across many sectors, and use appropriate stop losses.

Our premium publication is named Miller's Money Forever for good reason. We want to help you grow your nest egg in the safest possible manner under any market conditions. Neither the happy days nor the doomsday crowd can predict the future, so we prepare for all possibilities.

You've likely heard the refrain, "Inflation or deflation? Yes." It's a favorite of our friend John Mauldin. With that, baby boomers and retirees are forced to become kitchen-table economists and to sift through statistics that may or may not be accurate.

I haven't been shy about my opinion: I don't think the economy is improving, so retirees need to risk more than they would like in the market. That's why our Bulletproof Income strategy prepares for all market possibilities as safely as possible.

Whom should you believe? Well, is the person speaking trying to sell you something? Stockbrokers trying to garner your business tend to be optimistic about the economy. If someone is trying to sell gold or foreign currency investments, they are likely to cite a history of rising inflation and explain how their product can protect you. It doesn't mean either is wrong. And yes, the same point applies to the humble authors of investment newsletters.

At Miller's Money we share the reasoning behind every recommendation we make. We want our subscribers to know as much as we do about every pick—pros and cons. If you agree with our reasoning, act on our advice. If not, or if you have additional questions, ask us or sit tight for another pick. Never invest in something you don't understand or are uncomfortable with no matter who recommends it.

The bottom line is you have to read, learn, do your own research, and make your own judgments. Listen to all sides of any argument, and then do what you think is best.

What could be more important to baby boomers and retirees than protecting their money? Take the time necessary to teach yourself. In time you will become more comfortable trusting your own judgment. If you were savvy enough to make money, you are savvy enough to learn how to invest and protect it. Give yourself credit where it's due.


Sign up for a risk free trial of Miller’s Money Forever

The article Learn to Trust Your Own Financial Judgment was originally published at Millers Money.

Sign up for one of our Free Trading Webinars....Just Click Here!

Weekly Futures Recap With Mike Seery

The U.S dollar sold off slightly this week finishing at 79.70 hitting a 12 week low looking to retest the contract lows which were hit 4 months ago around 79.40 as I’m recommending a short position in the U.S Dollar Index placing my stop above the 10 day high which currently stands at 80.60 risking around $800 per contract as the trend now has turned bearish in my opinion. The commodity markets certainly like the fact that the U.S dollar is headed lower as well as the bond market rallying sending interest rates to new recent lows as it reminds me of 2006 all over again when stocks and commodities moved higher as the U.S equity market hit all time highs in the S&P 500.

Remember when you trade you want to try to keep it simple and this trade is extremely simple by recommending selling one futures contract and continuing to place your stop at the 10 day low as I do think contract lows will be breached next week as the Euro currency finished up over 100 points in the last 2 days to close above 1.3870 also hitting new recent highs with 1.40 next resistance point.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Get our Gold, Crude Oil & Index ETF Trading Analysis Newsletter

The bond market finished lower for the 3rd straight trading session on Friday especially the five-year notes finishing down 12 ticks to close at 119 – 06 in the June contract having one of its weakest 3 days in over 2 months as the unemployment number came in at 175,000 which was construed as extremely bullish the economy sending bond yields higher. I have been advising a short position in the five year note for several months and I still believe if you’re a longer term investor and not necessarily a trader who gets in and out these are terrific selling opportunities as next month’s unemployment number in my opinion will improve and I think this is just an up day that you should be taking advantage of to get short.

The five year note is trading below its 20 & 100 day moving average hitting a 5 week low on Friday with large volume and if you’ve followed me on any of my previous blogs I generally place my stop at the 10 day high or low as an exit strategy, but as I stated earlier I am a long term investor on the five year note as I think rates are moving higher over the course of time and this is a trade you might stay in for 2 years but take advantage of historically low rates because eventually the Federal Government will stop there bond purchases it’s just a matter of when. If you have any questions on how to structure a portfolio to getting short the bond market while taking advantage of historically low rates feel free to contact me anytime will be more than happy to help.
TREND: LOWER
CHART STRUCTURE: AWFUL

Subscribe to our Free Market Technical Analysis and Commentary

Coffee Futures in the May contract are trading above their 20 day moving average and are trading 8000 points higher than their 100 day moving average that’s how far prices have come in the last 6 weeks as the drought in central Brazil continues its stranglehold on coffee growing regions pushing prices sharply higher currently trading at 198 in the May contract and I’ve been recommending a long position in coffee and if you’re still in this market I would place my stop below the 10 day low which is currently 170 as the chart structure is starting to improve & if you been reading my previous blogs I received a very interesting email last week from one of the largest coffee producers in Brazil and he was stating that there crop was absolutely devastated and there could be long term ramifications into next year as well and he also showed me many pictures of coffee trees and they were decimated too so I continue to remain bullish this market, however this market is extremely volatile at the current time so look at some July bull call option spreads as my next level is up to 2.50/2.75 as a possible target.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: IMPROVING

20 Survival Skills for the Successful Trader

Sugar futures in the May contract sold off 31 points this Friday afternoon in New York but still finished higher by about 40 points for the trading week continuing its bullish trend as the drought in central Brazil is pushing up prices in recent weeks and I continue to recommend a bullish position in sugar while placing your stop loss at the 10 day low which currently stands at 17.00 which is about 100 points away or $1,100 per contract. This is the 3rd consecutive week that sugar has traded higher and has turned from a bear market into a bull market with the next major resistance around 19/1950 which was hit last October and I do believe prices could go back up to those levels as the commodity markets in general have turned higher as the CRB index its trading at its highest level since October 2012 as many commodities are at all time highs. Anything grown in Brazil at this time due to the drought seems to be moving higher so I remain bullish the entire soft commodity complex just make sure that you do have an exit strategy in case prices turn around. Sugar futures are still trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average telling you that the trend currently is higher.
TREND: HIGHER
CHART STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Advanced Crude Oil Study – The 15 Minute Range

Corn futures in the December contract which is the new crop which will be harvested this fall was down $.05 at 4.84 but rallied about $.13 for the trading week closing on a disappointing note in Chicago and I’ve been recommending a bullish position in corn for quite some time while placing my stop at the 10 day low which currently stands at 4.60 risking around $.24 from today’s level or $1,200 per contract as traders are awaiting Mondays USDA crop report. The chart structure in corn is outstanding at this time and that is why am recommending this trade as prices are trading above their 20 and 100 day moving average continuing the bullish trend as Spring is right around the corner here in Chicago as there is still large amounts of snow in the fields but we are starting to warm up this week with 40/50° days and this should be an extremely volatile year in corn as prices will have tremendous fluctuations due to weather conditions.

The whisper number for Monday’s crop report is around 92 million acres as last year was 97 million acres planted so the crop probably will not be a record this year as we harvested nearly 14 billion last year but this will be a long growing season but at the current time. I’m recommending buying on weakness making sure that you have some type of exit strategy as I think commodities as a whole are going higher.
TREND: HIGHER CHART
STRUCTURE: EXCELLENT

Click here to get more of Mike's commodity calls for this week!

What are Business Development Companies?

By Andrey Dashkov

Business Development Companies (BDCs) are publicly traded private debt and equity funds. I know that description isn’t terribly sexy, but keep reading and you’ll find there’s a lot to be excited about.


BDCs provide financing to firms too small to seek traditional bank financing or to do an IPO, but at the same time are too advanced to interest the earliest-stage venture capitalist. These companies are often near or at profitability and just need extra cash to reach the next milestone. Filling this void, BDCs provide funds to target companies in exchange for interest payments and/or an equity stake.

BDCs earn their living by lending at interest rates higher than those at which they borrow. Conceptually, they act like banks or bond funds, but with access to yields unlike any you’ll see from a traditional bond fund. The interest rate spread—meaning the difference between their capital costs and interest they charge their clients—is a major component of their business.

Oftentimes, a BDC will increase its dividend when market interest rates have not changed. Like a bank, the more loans it has in force, the more it profits. Increasing its dividend payout will generally have a very positive effect on its share price.

Unlike banks or many other traditional financial institutions, however, BDCs are structured to pay out more than 90% of their net profits to the shareholders. In return, BDCs don’t pay any income tax. In essence, their profits flow through to the owners. Many investors like to own BDCs in an IRA to create tax deferred or tax free income. The opportunity to use them for tax planning purposes, access to diversified early stage financing, and the impressive dividend yields they deliver make them a perfect fit for the Bulletproof Income strategy we employ at Miller's Money Forever.

The Clients

 

As a business model, BDCs emerged in response to a particular need: early-stage companies needed funding but couldn’t do it publicly due to their small size. At the same time, these companies didn’t match the investment criteria of so-called angel investors or venture capital providers. Enter the Business Development Company.

BDC teams, through expertise and connections, select the most promising companies in their fields and provide funds in return for a debt or equity stake, expecting gains from a potential acquisition scenario and a flow of interest payments in the meantime. The ability to selectively lend money to the right startup companies is paramount. It makes little difference how much interest they charge if the client defaults on the loan.

With limited financing options, BDCs’ clients may incur strict terms regarding their debt arrangements. The debt often comes with a high interest rate, has senior level status, and is often accompanied by deal sweeteners like warrants which add to the upside potential for those with a stake in the borrowing company.

In return for these stringent terms, the borrower can use the funds to:

•  Increase its cash reserve for added security;

•  Accelerate product development;

•  Hire staff and purchase licenses necessary to advance R&D, etc.

•  Invest in property, plant, and equipment to produce its product and bring it to market.

Turning to a BDC for funds allows a company to finance its development and minimize dilution of equity investors while reaching key value adding milestones in the process.

What’s in It for Investors?

 

In addition to the unique opportunity to access early-stage financing, we like BDCs for their dividend policy and high yield. The Investment Act of 1940 requires vehicles such as BDCs to pay out a minimum of 90% of their earnings. In practice, they tend to pay out more than that, plus their short term capital gains.

This often results in a high yield. Yields of 7-12% are common, which makes this vehicle unique in today’s low yield environment. The risk is minimized by diversification—like a good bond fund, they spread their assets over many sectors. This rational approach and the resulting income make the right BDC(s) a great addition to our Bulletproof Income strategy.

BDCs and the Bulletproof Income Strategy

 

In short, BDCs serve our strategy by:

• Providing inflation protection in the form of high yields and dividend growth;

• Limiting our exposure to interest rate risk, thereby adding a level of security (some BDCs borrow funds at variable rates, but not the ones we like);

• Maintaining low leverage, which BDCs are legally required to do;

• Distributing the vast majority of their income to shareholders, thereby creating an immediate link between the company’s operating success and the shareholders’ wellbeing… in other words, to keep their shareholders happy, BDCs have to perform well.

How Should You Pick a BDC?

 

Not every BDC out there qualifies as a sound investment. Here’s a list of qualities that make a BDC attractive.

• Dividend distributions come from earnings. This may sound like common sense, but it’s worth reiterating. A successful BDC should generate enough quarterly income to pay off its dividend obligations. If it doesn’t, it will have to go to the market for funds and either issue equity or borrow, or deplete cash reserves it would otherwise use to fund future investments. An equity issuance would result in share dilution; debt would increase leverage with no imminent potential to generate gains; and a lower cash reserve is no good either. We prefer stocks that balance their commitments to the shareholders with a long term growth strategy.

• The dividends are growing. This is another characteristic of a solid income pick, BDC or otherwise. Ideally, the dividend growth would outpace inflation, in addition to the yield itself being higher than the official CPI numbers. This growth can come from increasing the interest rate spread and also having more loans on the books.

• Yields should be realistic. We’d be cautious about a BDC that pays more than 12% of its income in dividends. Remember, gains come from the interest it receives from the borrowers. Higher interest indicates higher risk debt on a BDC’s balance sheet, which should be monitored regularly.

• Fixed-rate liabilities are preferred. We need our BDC to be able to cover its obligations if interest rates rise. Fixed rates are more predictable than floating rates; we like the more conservative approach.

• Their betas should be (way) below 1. We don’t want our investment to move together with the broad market or be too interest-rate sensitive. Keeping our betas as low as possible provides additional opportunities to reduce risk, which is a critical part of our strategy.

• They are diversified across many sectors. A BDC that has 100 tech companies in its portfolio is not as well diversified as a one with 50 firms scattered across a dozen sectors, including aerospace, defense, packaging, pharmaceuticals, and others. Review a company’s SEC filings to see how many baskets its eggs are in.

Wrap up......

 

Right now, BDCs look very interesting to income-seeking investors. They provide excellent yields, diversification opportunities, and access to early-stage companies that previously only institutions enjoyed. They also fit in with Miller Money Forever's Bulletproof Income strategy, the purpose of which is to provide seniors and savers with real returns, while offering maximum safety and diversification.

Catching a peek our Bulletproof portfolio is risk-free if you try today. Access it now by subscribing to Miller's Money Forever, with a 90-day money-back guarantee. If you don't like it, simply return the subscription within those first three months and we'll refund your payment, no questions asked. And the knowledge you gain in those months will be yours to keep forever.


Posted courtesy of our trading partners at Casey Research

The Monster That Is Europe

By: John Mauldin

This week, Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen of the Front National (FN) of France held a press conference in The Hague to announce that they will be cooperating in the elections for the European Parliament next spring and hope to form a new eurosceptic bloc. Their aim, as Mr. Wilders put it, is to "fight this monster called Europe," while Ms. Le Pen spoke of a system that "has enslaved our various peoples." They want to end the common currency, remove the authority of Brussels over national budgets, and undo the project of integration driven with so much idealism by two generations of European politicians. (My thought about Marine Le Pen after looking at her policies is that if Marine Le Pen is the answer for France, they are asking the wrong question.)

For now, Le Pen and Wilders are in a decided, if growing, minority (think Beppe Grillo, who got 25% in Italy in the last election). But as the graphic below suggests, the stitching that is holding the Frankenstein of Europe together seems to be getting a little frayed. And my new worry is that the real monster, one likely to pop many more of the tenuous stitches that hold things together, could be lurking in German banks. This week's letter explores a problem as "hidden" as subprime was back in 2006. Not as big, to be sure, but it might not need to be big to tug too hard the frayed threads that hold Europe together. (Note: this week's letter will print out longer than usual due to the large number of graphs and pictures.)



But first and quickly, we have finalized the dates for next year's Strategic Investment Conference. Mark your calendar for May 13-16. We are adding half a day so we can bring you a few more must-hear speakers. In addition to our always killer lineup of investment and economics thought leaders, I want to add some technology and politics. The significant difference about this conference is that there are no "B list" speakers. Everyone is a headliner. No one pays to get to speak or promote their deal. When we started the conference 11 years ago, my one rule was that we would invite speakers that I wanted to hear and create a conference that I would want to go to.

With my co-hosts Altegris Investments, we have done that and more. Attendees typically rate this conference as the best they attend. This year we have moved to San Diego, where we can have more space. We will still keep it small enough so that you can meet the speakers, as well as a room full of extremely interesting fellow attendees. You can sign up now and book your rooms by going to http://www.altegris.com/sic. Don't procrastinate. Mark down the dates and plan your time accordingly.

The Complacency of Consensus

"But where are you out of consensus?" came the question. I had just spent a few minutes outlining my view of the world to a group of serious money managers here in Geneva, highlighting some of the risks and opportunities I see. The gentleman's question made me realize that for the short-term, at least, I am all too sanguine for my personal taste. I have never thought of myself as one of those consensus guys. But when you consider that Japan is continuing down its path to starting a global currency war, with a currency that will drop at least in half from where it is now (plunging Japan into Abe-geddon); that China is launching its most serious economic overhaul in 20-30 years; that the US is still careening toward its day of reckoning with entitlement spending while dealing with the fall-out from taper tantrums in emerging markets; and that Europe is steering a course straight into deflation – the lot leaving us with Disaster A, Disaster B, or Disaster C as the consensus choice; then yes, I suppose I am a consensus guy, of sorts. But those are all worries that will come to a head later next year or the year after, not in the next few months or weeks, which is where most traders live. The trader who quizzed me wanted to know what was going to affect his book this week!

We seem to occupy a world where we are all somewhat uncomfortable. The problems are all so apparent; but somehow we are compelled to take risks anyway, hoping that the risks we take are properly managed or that we can exit at the propitious moment. The game seems to be moving along, absent another major shock to the system. It's not quite party like it's 2006, because the level of complacency is nowhere near the same; but we do seem headed down the same risk path, even though it scares us. Which means that it might take somewhat less than a subprime debacle and banking shock to trigger a crisis, since no one wants to be exposed when the next crisis happens. The majority of market players appear to believe that another crisis might materialize, but in the meantime you have to dance while the music is playing. Fifty Shades of Chuck Prince.

So, as investors and money managers, we must be on shock alert. Where will the next one come from? By definition, a shock is a surprise to the markets, something that few people recognize until it becomes too big to ignore. Ben Bernanke achieved a degree of infamy for saying that the subprime crisis would be contained, even as some of us were shouting that losses would be in the hundreds of billions (what optimists we were!). And then came the shock that created the biggest global economic crisis since the Great Depression.
But an almost desperate reach for yield and shouldering of risk are clearly in evidence. Junk bond issuance is over 2.5 times what it was in 2006 and twice as high as a percentage of total corporate bond issuance. Leveraged loans are back to all-time highs, even as credit spreads continue to fall (see graph).



Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are close to all-time highs after almost disappearing in 2009. And subprime auto-asset-backed paper is projected to set a new record in 2014. Party on, Garth!
But if you ask the participants in those very markets, and I do, if there is any sign that the reach for yield is easing, the answer is generally "Not yet." After 2008, everyone remains nervous; but when the analysis is done, enough buyers conclude that the future will be somewhat like the recent past. Although no one I talk to believes that in 2014 we will see another year in the stock market like the current one, still, the consensus outlook is rather sanguine. But I talk to more bulls than you might think. Last night in Geneva David Zervos was arguing (till rather late in the night, for me at least) his familiar spoos and blues with me (long S&P 500, long eurodollar). He is ready to double down on QE. Our hosts bought an excellent if outrageously expensive dinner (for the record, there is no other kind of meal in Geneva – can you believe $12 Diet Cokes?), and it was only polite to listen. And the trade has been right.

But for how long? Central banks are still going to be easy. But markets can be characterized as fully valued, at best, especially since there have been more earnings warnings this last quarter than at any time in the recent past. While the conditions are not quite the same as in 2006-07, we are getting a little frothy. So is it 2005, so that we can enjoy the ride into late 2006 and then look for an exit strategy? I would argue that the markets actually need a "shock" of some kind. And in addition to the "consensus-view" shocks mentioned above, I see one especially big, nasty lion lurking in the grass. In the form of German banks.

The Sick (German) Banks of Europe

Quick: I say "German banks," and what's the first thing that comes to your mind? The Bundesbank? Staid, no-nonsense central banking? The Bundesbank is all about maintaining the price of money – forget QE. Deutschebank? Big, German – must be stable and low-risk. The fact that southern Europeans are opening accounts left and right in DB must mean that DB is lower-risk than the local wild guys. Except that they have the largest derivatives portfolio, at $70 trillion (but don't worry because it all nets out, sort of, and of course there is no counter-party risk!), and they are the most highly leveraged bank in Europe (at 60:1 in the last tests – not a misprint), which might give you pause. Although their CEO argues that their leverage doesn't matter. And keeps a straight face. Just saying…

If something happens to DB, they are, in all likelihood, Too Big To Save, even for Germany. But Deutschebank is not my focus here today. It is their much smaller brethren, Too small to be called siblings, actually. More like first cousins twice removed. But there are a lot of them, and they all piled into some very interesting and, as it turns out, very questionable trades. And the story begins with the American consumer.
This Christmas, we will all engage, as will much of the world, in an orgy of gift giving. (I helpfully offer a few ideas of my own at the end of the letter.) The iPads and Xbox Ones and GI Joes with the Kung-Fu Grip (gratuitous esoteric movie reference) will be flying off the shelves. But the one thing that ties all those gifts together is The Box, the humble container unit, the TEU, which allows the world to transport all those items ever more cheaply. That story is resoundingly told in a book that Bill Gates featured in his Best Reads for 2013, simply entitled The Box.

You can read a great review here. It turns out that the shipping container was created in the '50s by a force-of-nature entrepreneur who fought governments and regulators (who typically tried to protect unions rather than help consumers) to bring the idea to market. It finally took off when the military decided it was the best way to ship material to the troops in Vietnam. It is one of those things that make sense and would have happened anyway, but as often happens, military spending drove the ramp-up.

The container was not without controversy. Longshoreman unions fought it aggressively, as containers meant fewer high-paying jobs. But The Box also meant far cheaper transportation of goods, and so it helped boost international trade. Now it is hard to imagine a world without containers. And even though the container business started in the US, there is not one US firm in the top 18 container shipping companies. The business is dominated by European and Asian firms.

And container ships were profitable. Oh my, fortunes were built. And they were so successful that a few German bankers looked at the easy money made by US bankers securitizing and packaging mortgages and decided they could do the same with ship financing. I know it is hard to believe, but the German government decided to create pass-through tax vehicles that gave serious tax preference to high-tax-rate investors for all sorts of things, including movies (such cinematic monuments as Terminator 3, I Robot, and the forgettable Stallone flick Get Carter were financed with German "tax shelters"); but my research has so far unearthed nothing to equal the German passion for financing ships. Seriously, would any US government entity give tax breaks to a favored industry? Would a Canadian or Australian or [insert your favorite country here] government? Such things are done by many governements, of course. Here we may apply Mauldin's Rule (stolen from someone else, I am sure): Any seriously out-of-whack financial transaction requires government involvement (generally in the form of some market-distorting law).

Cargo ships, especially container ships, were serious cash machines for long-term money. Buy the ship with some leverage, put it to work, and watch the cash roll in. The Greeks were especially good at this, but the Germans and Scandinavians caught on quick. The Germans went everyone one better and allowed small high-net-worth investors to put their money into funds that financed these ships. At one point, I am told, German banks might have been financing 50% of the world's cargo ships. (They control at least 40% of the world's container ship market today.) Anyone familiar with limited partnerships in the US in the late '70s and early '80s knows how this story ends for the investors.

I came across this story from the inside, as a business partner of mine is in the shipping business; but he owns and operates a special type of ship: massive tugboats that move ocean drilling-rig platforms, and those are still in healthy demand. But his original financing many years ago was from Germany.

It turns out that if a little leverage makes a deal look good, then a lot makes it look even better. In 2007, ships were financed at 75% leverage (on average). It looks like 2008 vintages were financed in the 90% range! (Data is from a presentation I was sent, done by Dr. Klaus Stoltenberg of NordLB.)

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best-selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – Please Click Here.

Get our "Gold and Crude Oil Trade Ideas"

Fundamentals Rendered Irrelevant by Fed Actions: Probability Based Option Trading

The fundamental backdrop behind the ramp higher in equity prices in 2013 is far from inspiring. However, fundamentals do not matter when the Federal Reserve is flooding U.S. financial markets with an ocean of freshly printed fiat dollars.

As we approach the holiday season, retail stores are usually in a position of strength. However, this year holiday sales are expected to be lower than the previous year based on analysts commentary and surveys that have been completed. This holiday season analysts are not expecting strong sales growth. However, in light of all of this U.S. stocks continue to move higher.

Earnings growth, sales growth, or strong management are irrelevant in determining price action in today’s stock market. In fact, the entire business cycle has been replaced with the quantitative easing and a Federal Reserve that is inflating two massive bubbles simultaneously.

Through artificially low interest rates largely resulting from bond buying, the Federal Reserve has created a bubble in Treasury bonds. In addition to the Treasury bubble, we are seeing wild price action in equity markets as hot money flows seek a higher return. Usually fundamentals such as earnings, earnings estimates, and profitability drive stock prices.

However, as can be here the U.S. stock market is being driven by something totally different......Read "Fundamentals Rendered Irrelevant by Fed Actions: Probability Based Option Trading"



Get our "Options Trading Test Drive Today!

Three urgent steps to take right now as interest rates begin to explode higher

FIRST, other than for trading purposes, exit all sovereign bond holdings. There is the possibility of one more drop in interest rates, but the long term reality is that bond prices are going to fall.

SECOND, exit the most vulnerable interest sensitive stocks. See our list below of 25 STOCKS TO DUMP RIGHT NOW.

THIRD, beef up your income portfolio with these three rock solid companies my research analysts have found that thrive on rising interest rates."

Just click here to read John Mauldins, Chairman of Mauldin Economics, entire article "Three urgent steps to take right now as interest rates begin to explode higher"



What makes THIS different? In this 7 minute video, John Carter shows his REAL account and trades