Selasa, 07 Februari 2012

A decade of pain lies ahead

The process of working off debt, or deleveraging, “is proving to be long and painful”, says a report by the McKinsey Global Institute. That’s just as historical experience suggested it would be. Two years ago, McKinsey studied 32 post-1930s examples of deleveraging following financial crises. It found that it took the average country six or seven years to lower its total (public and private) debt-to-GDP ratio by 25%.
Today, McKinsey finds that the world economy has made little progress. In seven of the world’s ten biggest economies, the overall debt pile (in other words, adding corporate debt, household debt and government debt together) has risen since the crisis. That’s largely due to rising government borrowing, which reflects stimulus spending both during and after the crash. In Britain, total debt is now 507% of GDP. Only in America, South Korea and Australia has total debt fallen.
In America, financial-sector debt has fallen back to levels last seen in 2000, before the credit bubble inflated. Household debt is down to 87% of GDP, and has fallen by 15% relative to disposable income. At the current rate, US household debt would return to sustainable levels (defined as the pre-bubble long-term growth rate of debt to income) in two years.
In Britain, the picture is less encouraging. Government borrowing has risen sharplyand non-bank financial companies have issued more debt too. Household debt has only fallen marginally as a proportion of GDP and has risen in absolute terms.
Total public and private debt as % of GDP - various 
countries
British banks have also been generous in “granting forbearance to troubled borrowers”, says McKinsey. Up to 12% of home loans are in a forbearance process, according to the Bank of England. In the US, by contrast, defaults on mortgages and consumer debt account for two-thirds of household debt reduction. “It is a crude way to deleverage, but at least it brings matters swiftly to a head,” says Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Daily Telegraph. In Britain, the process is being strung out.
“At the recent pace of debt reduction, we calculate that the ratio of UK household debt to disposable income would not return to its pre-bubble trend for up to a decade,” says McKinsey. Years of deleveraging still lie ahead for most developed economies, and the debt load will continue to hamper growth and equity markets.

Degenerate capitalism

Yesterday, investors digested the big news from Wednesday... the Fed’s announcement that it would continue handing out money, asking nothing in return, for the next three years.
Stocks went down. Oil stayed under $100. The yield on the ten-year note fell under 2%. And gold just kept going up.
The New York Times reported:
 
The Fed said that it now planned to keep short-term interest rates near zero until late 2014, continuing the transformation of a policy that began as shock therapy in the winter of 2008 into a six-year campaign to increase spending by rewarding borrowers and punishing savers.
“What did we learn today? Things are bad, and they’re not improving at the rate that they want them to improve,” said Kevin Logan, chief United States economist at HSBC. “That’s what they concluded — ‘We’ve eased policy a lot, but we haven’t eased it enough.’ ”
The new forecast showed that the Fed expects to hit its inflation target over the next three years, but to fall well short of its goals for unemployment. The Fed projected that unemployment would drop no lower than 8.2 percent this year, just slightly below the current rate of 8.5 percent, and no lower than 7.4 percent by the end of next year. By the end of 2014, the Fed still expects that at least 6.7 percent of people actively interested in working would not be able to find jobs.
How do you like that, dear reader? The Fed has goals for unemployment and inflation. Targets. And it moves its policies around in order to achieve its goals.
Of course, it doesn’t necessarily hit its goals. Still, we’re supposed to believe that by trying to hit them it somehow encourages them in the right direction. 
Most people believe they are successful. Which makes us wonder. Maybe the Fed should set goals for other things? Weight-loss goals, for example.
The idea is that by changing interest rate and banking policies the Fed actually influences inflation and employment. So, there’s a logic to thinking that the Fed should set targets and try to hit them. Trouble is, if it could really change things for the better, why does it put up with an 8.5% unemployment rate now – four years after the subprime crisis began? Why doesn’t it exercise its magic to bring the rate down?
Well, we all know the answer. It can’t. Once you’ve taken interest rates down to zero... and announced that you’ll leave them there for the next three years, what more can you do? Drop money from helicopters? Right! 
But no point in getting ahead of ourselves. Right now, interest rate policy doesn’t work. Because the money supply is expanded by retail and commercial bank lending, not central bank lending. The Fed lends money to the money-centre banks. They’re happy to take the Fed’s money.
But that doesn’t mean they will multiply it out by risking it in the economy.
So, for the moment, they might as well set a fat goal, too.

The best way to hedge against war with Iran

Most investors think Europe is the biggest threat to their money right now.
But they’re wrong. The threat posed by Iran’s race for nuclear weapons is greater.
Yes, the situation in Iran is nothing new. Iran has wanted nuclear weapons for a long time. And the rest of the world doesn’t want that to happen.
But it looks like we’re approaching a crunch point. And that’s why you need to act to protect your wealth now.
 

The threat posed by Iran

Iran’s nuclear programme has been a niggling worry for the rest of the world for years now. The country says it just wants to be able to use nuclear power as an energy source. But given its massive oil reserves, no one believes that.
The trouble is that some scientists believe that Iran may now be little more than one month away from getting enough uranium for a nuclear warhead.
Israel in particular, as an obvious target, is very worried about this prospect. Few countries in the world would be viewed as potentially unhinged enough to actually make use of a nuclear weapon, but there are just enough doubts about Iran’s leadership to keep the world on its toes if they were to acquire one.
While both the US and the European Union have announced wide-ranging energy and financial sanctions, China continues to buy large amounts of oil from Iran and invest in its energy industry.
As a result, the pressure on Tel Aviv and Washington DC to take more direct action will only increase. And although we’ve heard this sort of sabre-rattling before, the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist earlier this month is a sign that Israel’s patience is at breaking point.

MoneyWeek Roundup: Steer clear of Facebook

● There have been some big economic headlines out this week. Like yesterday’s US non-farm payrolls report, which showed more jobs being created – and shorter dole queues – than expected.
But while that’s important for stock markets, the biggest piece of investor frenzy was caused by talk about one company’s trading debut. Again in the States, Facebook said it would list it's shares this year.
There’s no doubt it will be a big success, says John Stepek in Thursday’s Money Morning. But “I still won’t be buying in”.
There are lots of reasons why a Facebook IPO will succeed. Google and Apple have proved that “big flashy tech stocks” can deliver for investors. Facebook is a big name, so it attracts a lot of interest. “The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s website almost crashed yesterday as it was overwhelmed by traffic. This listing has been a long time coming, and lots of people want to get in on it.”
Even the fact that founder Mark Zuckerberg and his close allies will retain control of the company with almost 60% of shares isn’t necessarily a bad thing, says John.
After all, “this is what you get with visionary technology companies. Google has the same sort of structure. And I’d rather buy stock in a company led by a highly committed, heavily invested founder who cares about his creation, than one that’s been hijacked by employees who only care about their next pay packet (yes, I’m talking about the banking sector)”.
● So why won’t John buy in? “Because investing is not about taking monumental punts on companies which you only vaguely understand. It’s about forming a clear understanding of the risks and rewards involved in buying a company, then deciding whether there is enough potential reward to make taking the risk worthwhile.” And for John, Facebook doesn’t fit those criteria.
Facebook is already looking very expensive. Private stakes have already swapped hands among the Silicone Valley investment fraternity and that’s pushed up the price. For Facebook to match Google’s post-IPO returns it would have to become the world’s first $700bn company.
“If you buy Facebook for the long run, you’re betting on its ability to make an awful lot more money than it already does, in order to justify its valuation. Given that there are a lot of well-established tech stocks that already make plenty of money, and sport a much lower valuation – such as Microsoft (US: MSFT), or even Apple (US: AAPL) – I don’t see that the risk / reward balance here is attractive.”
Indeed, my colleague Phil Oakley thinks Apple looks far more inviting for investors: Forget Amazon – buy Apple shares instead.

What’s government for?

Yesterday, Europe was back in the news. Whenever Europe is in the headlines, the headlines are bad. And the ideas behind the headlines are absurd. In fact, it is amazing how many crackpot ideas the press can throw at you in a single day.
The immediate problems in Europe were two-fold:
First, it looked like Portugal was going the way of Greece. It would soon need another bail-out, said the papers.
Second, the Greeks themselves were still having trouble settling up with their creditors – despite years of negotiation, bail-outs, rescue plans, and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. 
 
Bloomberg was on the story yesterday afternoon:

… a stalemate between European policy makers and Greek bondholders over debt relief increased concern that the European credit crisis will spread.
… finance ministers balked at putting up more public money for Greece, calling on holders of its debt to provide more relief. The International Monetary Fund cut its global economic forecast as Europe slips into recession and growth cools in China and India.

“The Greek debt impasse is weighing on the market,” said John Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund that focuses on energy. “The IMF warning this morning dampened any economic optimism.”

At the heart of the market’s nervousness was what Bloomberg calls “demand fears”. As near as we can figure, ‘demand fear’ is the worry that there aren’t enough people who want things and have the money to pay for them. 
Why not be satisfied with the demand as it is? Why not accept the decisions of willing and able consumers as to how much stuff they need and how much they can afford to buy? Why is it important that they buy more than they need with more than they have?
Because it could lead to another Great Depression, says Christine Lagarde.
No kidding. That’s what the head of the IMF told Germany’s Council on Foreign Relations. The Washington Post:
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde warned of a “1930s moment” for the world economy if Europe does not solve its financial problems and said Germany must contribute more money to rescue efforts if a disaster is to be avoided.
Without such funds, Lagarde said, “we could easily slide into a 1930s moment.  A moment, ultimately, leading to a downward spiral that could engulf the entire world.”
She said the 17 euro-zone countries also must move quickly to integrate their economies as deeply as they integrated their monetary systems with the creation of the common currency. Failure to act, she said, could precipitate a crisis comparable to the Great Depression.
And here’s one of our favourite economists, Larry Summers, writing in the Financial Times. Mr Summers is concerned by a lack of confidence and “uncertainty about future growth prospects,” which he thinks are the causes of the demand shortage.

Gold: The best money

Dow down slightly yesterday. The FTSE was flat. Oil falling further below $100. And gold still going up.
What is most interesting is the movement in the price of gold. It seems to be heading up again – almost no matter what else is happening.
So, let’s look at what might be going on.

If investors sensed a recovery, they would expect banks to lend more freely, people to shop more freely and prices to rise.
This would raise consumer prices; the price of gold should go up.
But if the market sees growth and inflation ahead, why is oil slipping? And why is the Baltic Dry Index – which measures shipping prices – at a 25-year low? And how come last month’s US employment figures were disappointing? And why aren’t stock market prices going up?
Most important, if the economy is really recovering, why is the ten-year note yielding only 1.82%? And what about the long bond? Shouldn’t it be trading at a yield higher than 3%?
And how come house prices fell over the last year, and the last month?
And how come incomes are falling?
Or, to look at it from the opposite point of view, how is it possible for a real recovery to take root in the hard, barren soil of falling house prices and slipping consumer earnings?
But if the economy is not improving, then there should be no increase in inflation and no pressure on the price of gold, right?
Maybe investors don’t anticipate a recovery at all. Maybe they’re buying gold because they see the economy getting worse, not better. We associate a rise in the price of gold with inflation. But gold is much more versatile than we think. It protects your wealth when paper money loses its value. It also protects your wealth when paper money gains in value. It protects you when you are right and when you are wrong.
How so?
During the Great Depression, for example, the price of gold rose against dollars even though the prices of food, clothing and other consumer items, as well as the prices of investment assets were falling in dollar terms. Why? Because money gains value – relative to things – in a depression. Gold is money. It is the best money. It is the only money that has stood the test of time.
Besides, there is more going on. In a financial crisis or a depression, investors begin to doubt that their counterparties will make good. Banks fail. Investors go broke. You own a mortgage, and then you discover that the homeowner has left town and the house has lost half its value. You own a note, and then you discover than the payer is bankrupt; your note is worthless. You own shares in a company; and then the company goes out of business.
When you are in a de-leveraging phase, you discover that many of the assets of the previous credit bubble are not assets at all. And while you’re waiting to find out, the best thing to have in your safe is gold.
As uncertainty rises; so does the price of gold.
The price of gold also rises when the return on other assets declines. At 1.82%, the real return on a 10-year T-note is negative. Consumer prices are rising faster. So, the reward for lending to the government is less than zero.
Normally, holding gold costs you money. You give up the return you could get from ‘risk free’ investments (Treasury debt). Now, you give up the risk from reward-free investments.
Gold goes nowhere. It produces no yield. It pays no dividends. It makes no profits. You can’t live in it. You can’t drive it. You can’t hang it on your wall and admire it.
But when the return on Treasury debt is negative, what do you give up by owning gold? You give up a loss!
You also give up the risk of a much bigger loss. The Fed is bound and determined to bring up the inflation rate. Ben Bernanke has suggested that he might set the inflation target higher than 2%. He has announced that he will keep the Fed’s key lending rate near zero for the next three years. He has hinted that he is ready to print more money – QEIII – if conditions warrant.
Holding gold protects you from Bernanke’s success. For if he succeeds in raising the rate of inflation, gold will surely soar. And there is substantial risk – bordering on certainty – that he will be no better at creating moderately more inflation than he has been at creating moderately more GDP growth.
It is quite possible that he will overshoot.
Normally, inflation is a feature of the banking system. The system takes the Fed’s monetary grubstake and parlays it into the nation’s money supply. Banks magnify the money supply by lending... and thereby create more demand, which raises prices. They do this by making loans to people who then spend the money.
This sort of inflation is controllable, by raising interest rates and tightening banking credit rules. But there’s another form of inflation. The kind that starts with an 'h'.
Hyperinflation happens when the banking system breaks down. People lose faith in the money itself and the people who control it. Foreign dollar holders may worry that the Fed is printing too much money. It may even be good economic news that causes them distress; they may anticipate higher inflation rates, and a sell-off of the dollar, which would lower the value of their dollar reserves. They may figure that they are better off diversifying into yuan or gold.
Then, when other investors and householders see the dollar falling... they get panicky too. Pretty soon, people are digging around in drawers, bank accounts and mattresses looking for dollars – just so they can get rid of them.
That is when dollars hit the hyperinflationary fan. Our old friend Michael Checkan tells what it was like in Argentina in the late ‘80s:
“Imagine a $2.00 gallon of milk spiking to $775.40 within a year – like in Argentina, 1988.”


  • How to buy gold TAX FREE
  • The single best gold fund you can buy today and the little-known way you can get a DISCOUNT when you buy in
  • Stunning opportunities in gold stocks!




    And more thoughts

    • The Financial Times has continued its series on ‘Capitalism in Crisis’ much longer than we expected. Longer than seems decent, actually. The crisis will be over before the series ends.
    Each of the Davos-list celebrities to write on the subject basically ‘talks his own book’. The politicians tell us that they can fix what is wrong with capitalism. The regulators want more regulations; do-gooders urge us to rely more on good works. The economists have their economic solutions. The entrepreneurs put their faith in can-do hustlers.
    Bill Clinton used to be a sharp politician. Now, judging from his comments in the FT, he has moved rapidly from becoming an elder statesman to the kind of senility that affects aging world improvers. Try to figure out what this means:
    “Governments, businesses and extra-governmental organizations [can] work together to share expertise and implement lasting solutions. ...
    “What we need is innovation, imagination and commitment. The most effective global citizens will be those who succeed in merging their business and philanthropic missions to build a future of shared prosperity and shared responsibility.
    Those are words that could have been written by a dull-witted robot, or Thomas Friedman.
    The words were empty; at least they were not stupid. But there were plenty of stupid words, too, in the series. A representative of Occupy London wrote to say that Friedrich Hayek had “helped us to find capitalism’s flaws”. Hayek pointed out that the widely distributed knowledge of a market economy was much better for making decisions than the centralised information and planning of a state-directed system. But the Occupy writer missed the point completely. He quoted Hayek and then went on to suggest the very sort of meddles that Hayek warned against.
    Some writers seemed to have nothing to say whatever. Others seemed to have nothing to say about capitalism; it was as if they had not thought about it. And some, we couldn’t figure out what they were talking about.
    All in all, the series has been a big letdown. Capitalism has no real friends and no clear defenders, not at the FT.
    We will have to do the job ourselves. Look for our ‘Capitalists’ Manifesto’ next week.

Commannd Economy

In a Command Economy or Planned Economy, the central or state government regulate various factors of production. In fact, the government is the final authority to take decisions regarding production, utilization of the finished industrial products and the allocation of the revenues earned from their distribution.

The government-certified planners come second in the hierarchy. They distribute the works among the labor class, who actually undergo the toiling part of the entire process. China and former USSR and are perhaps two of the best instances of Command Economy. Though many countries now-a-days are switching off from Planned Economy to Market or Mixed Economy, yet nations like North Korea and Cuba are some countries where Planned Economy still exists in full form.

In case of a Command Economy, both state-owned and private enterprises receive guidance and directives from the government regarding production capacity, volume, modes of production and course of their actions. Planned economic system is broadly segregated into two groups – Centralized and Decentralized. The centralized or centrally Planned Economy, as prevalent in former Soviet Union, is a more familiar concept between the two. The decentralized Command Economy, on the other hand, is more theoretical in nature with little or no application in the actual economic spheres.

Characteristic features of Command Economy:

  • By nature, a Command Economy is more stable, guaranteeing constant exploitation of the existing resources. It is least affected by financial downturns and inflations.

  • In a carefully planned Command Economic system, both surplus production and unemployment rates remain at a reasonable level

  • The steady nature of Planned Economy encourages investments in long-standing project-related infrastructures without any possibility of financial recessions.

  • Command Economy is just opposite to the concept of Market Economy, with respect to the basic money-making approaches. While Market Economy tends to multiply the wealth of a nation through the gradual process of evolution, Command Economic system prefers deliberate planning of the entire money-making process for better results. In fact, such sincere economic planning in the long run proves beneficial to improve the economic conditions of a country.

  • Command Economy emphasizes more on collective benefits, rather than the requirements of a single individual. Under such circumstances, rewards, wages and other monetary benefits like bonus are distributed on the basis of the joint rendering of services. This is how Planned Economy actually eradicates the profit-making at individual levels.