MERCATO LIBERO

PER IL FOLLETTO O ALCUNI ATTENTI LETTORI E' UNA LETTURA VECCHIA (Mouldin l'ha scritta settimana scorsa), ma vale la pena leggerla se la lingua inglese non è un ostacolo.

Mercato Libero concorda con la Tesi di Mauldin anche se non parla di svalutazione del dollaro e del dollaro ...che renderebbe lo scenario più inquietante ancora.

Lo scenario è alquanto inquietante e, ci dice che i mercati prima o poi scoppieranno. Ovvero, altra prova che oggi siamo al MERCATO DEL PESCE E NON A UN MERCATO SANO.

Mauldin aveva definito Muddle Though Economy una economia americana anemica con tassi di crescita dell'1% -2% e una alta disoccupazione. Nel 2007 il nostro economista aveva avvisato che la recessione sarebbe stata violenta ma che l'america sarebbe finita in questo pantano di basa crescita (muddle economy)


Tuttavia le PAZZE decisioni della FED e del governo americano hanno obbligato Mauldin a cambiare il suo modello e in questo articolo ci spiega perchè la MUddle Though in realtà potrebbe essere defunta (RIP significa REST IN PEACE, OVVERO RIPOSA IN PACE, E SI USA SULLE TOMBE DEI MORTI)

Muddle Through, R.I.P.?

I defined a Muddle Through Economy in the past as one of slow growth (in the area of 1-2%) and a slack employment environment, such as we had in 2002 and the early part of 2003. In early 2007, I suggested we would return at some point to such an environment at the end of the recession I was predicting.

I am not surprised about the response of the Fed to the current recession and credit crisis, whether it's the large monetization of debt or the low interest rates. Assuming they more or less remove the monetary easing in a reasonable manner, there is nothing that would make me think we do not eventually recover, albeit at a very slow Muddle Through pace, with a jobless recovery that lasts for several years. It will not be pleasant, but we'll survive.


QUI MAULDIN CI DICE CHE NON AVREBBE MAI PENSATO CHE IL GOVERNO DEGLI STATI UNITI AVREBBE CREATO NA TALE MASSA DI DEBITO

However, gentle reader, never in my wildest dreams did I think we could be looking at government deficits of $1.5 trillion dollars and actually budgeting future deficits of over $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. And there is real reason to think that under current plans, $1 trillion deficits are optimistic. Look at the graph above from the Heritage Foundation. They suggest that current policy would bring us closer to a $2 trillion deficit by 2019.


And that assumes nominal growth that is north of 3% and unemployment dropping back below 5% in reasonably short order. If you make less optimistic assumptions, the number can become much larger rather quickly. Where do we find that much money to finance that large a deficit? We will look at what might be the answer, but first we need to look at a basic concept in economics.

PARTE DA UN'EQUAZIONE SEMPLICE CHE SI STUDIA IN RAGIONERIA:

IL PIL E' UGUALE A : CONSUMI + INVESTIMENTI + SPESE DEL GOVERNO + ESPORTAZIONI - IMPORTAZIONI

Savings Equal Investments

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is defined as Consumption (C) plus Investment (I) plus Government Spending (G) plus [Exports (E) minus Imports (I)] or:

GDP = C + I + G + (E-I)

Il risparmio di una nazione (national saving) E' UGUALE A PIL meno CONSUMI E SPESA DEL GOVERNO.

QUINDI SI DEDUCE CHE GLI INVESTIMENTI SONO UGUALI A RISPARMIO + ESPORTAZIONI(NETTE)
Se non ci sono esportazioni (nette) il denaro (dollari) deve ritornare negli STATI UNITI dall'estero per finanziare gli investimenti.

You can calculate national savings as GDP minus consumption and government spending. That means that investment equals savings plus net exports. If there are no net exports, then money must come back into the US from outside the country to finance investments, along with savings.

L'EQUAZIONE QUA SOPRA E' UNA REALTA' INCONFUTABILE.

NON E' DISCUTIBILE (E' COME DIRE CHE 2+2= 4)

This equation is known as an identity. An identity is an equality that remains true regardless of the values of any variables that appear within it. That means it is not a guess or an approximation. It is simple reality.

Thus, if there is a government deficit, there must be savings by both consumers and businesses, plus capital flows from outside the country, to offset that deficit in order for there to be any money left over for investments.

In the short run, an increase in government spending can offset a decline in consumption (a recession), but absent savings a government deficit crowds out investment in the long run. There must be savings in order for there to be investment. And without investment, you do not get job growth or economic growth.

Japanese Disease

ORA MAULDIN PARLA DEL DEFICIT AMERICANO

Some readers wrote this week telling me I am far too worried about a rising government deficit. Right now we are at roughly 42% of debt to GDP. In 1989, at the start of the lost decades, Japan had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 51%. Now it is at 178%, and the world has not come to an end for them. In fact, they are running massive government deficits today and plan to do so for a long time. Why, I am asked, can't we be like Japan? And my answer is that it is possible, but the cost that Japan has paid has been high.

In 1989, private Japanese debt (businesses and consumers) was at a debt-to-GDP ratio of 212%. Now it is at 110%. And the total of both government and private debt is roughly the same (within 5%) of where it was 20 years ago. Along with running large trade surpluses, private debt has been exchanged for government debt. Savings have fallen from the mid-teens to about 2% today, as the country is rapidly aging and now using its savings to live on. And how much has all that government spending helped the country? Before I answer that, read these paragraphs from Hoisington Asset Management's latest letter (last week's Outside the Box):

"The federal government's promise to extricate the U.S. economy from this recession involves more spending (increasing public debt) and more subsidies for consumers, such as car rebates and home buying incentives (more private debt). In other words, more debt is supposed to solve the problem of over-indebtedness. The truth is that this policy merely indentures its citizens further without providing any income for repayment of debt. In previous letters we have discussed the fact that the government spending multiplier is zero (read Professor Robert Barro's book, Macroeconomics - a Modern Approach, p. 370).

"This means there is no long term income benefit from stimulus programs. According to the latest academic research, the most recent $800 billion stimulus plan will boost economic activity in the short run, but will surely depress economic activity over time. The government problem is complicated by the fact that the tax multiplier is 3, meaning that a 1% change in taxes will change GDP by about 3% over time. More recent research (Barro & Redlick, September 2009, "NBER Working Paper 15369") suggests that a 1% cut in the marginal tax rate would raise GDP in the ensuing year by 0.6%. With the deficit rising due to a zero spending multiplier, the tendency will be to try to raise taxes to pay for this higher level of expenditures, which will further depress aggregate spending and output."

For all intents and purposes, Japan has had no growth for almost two decades. Their nominal GDP is where it was 17 years ago, and the number of employed people is at 20-years-ago levels. An aging population has masked their unemployment problems, as older citizens retire. Their savings went to government debt. Taxes were raised numerous times. Since government deficit spending has no long-term multiplier effect, growth has been nonexistent. (By the way, that research about multiplier effects has also been done by Christina Romer, the chairman of the current President's Council of Economic Advisors, and further explored by European economists. There is general agreement on these facts.)

In 1998, the US had a total debt- (government plus private) to-GDP ratio of 260%. Today it is 373%. We have added over $15 trillion in debt, yet total employment today is roughly where it was 9 years ago. But the current economic leadership wants to solve the problem of too much debt with even more debt. I am sympathetic with the idea that in the short run the government should step in and the Fed should print (within limits) money to keep us from deflation. But the equation we spent time on earlier suggests that if we continue to run massive deficits, we run the risk of catching Japanese disease - a decade-long (or longer) period of slow growth and high unemployment, especially since our population is growing and our Boomers are going back to work (and surveys suggest they intend to work longer).

Large government deficits choke off the very investment that we need to create jobs. In the name of doing good, the unintended consequence is to make it more difficult for small businesses to start up and create jobs. And we all know that small business is the engine for job creation.

The way out of the current morass is to create jobs and increase productivity. But if the government runs deficits of $1.5 trillion, that means whatever savings (corporate and consumer) we have will not go into the investments we need, but into government debt.

INTERESSANTE E' L' ANALISI CHE COMPIE SU : CHI COMPRA IL DEBITO AMERICANO?

Who Will Buy the Debt?

Now, let's go back to the problem of who will buy the debt. How can we find $1.5 trillion each and every year? Some of it will come from foreign central banks, as we continue to run a trade deficit. Once those dollars leave our shores, they do not disappear. They can only go back into a dollar-denominated investment. Up to now, that has typically been US government debt. If China decides to use its dollars to buy commodities or other assets, whoever sells them the assets now has the dollars and must decide what to do with them. So give or take a few billion, about $400 billion will come back to the US from our trade deficit next year. That still leaves $1.1 trillion.

MAULDIN SOSTIENE CHE I COMPRATORI DEL DEBITO AMERICANO SONO LE BANCHE AMERICANE STESSE.

Upon reflection, and cutting to the chase, I think that the buyers of the debt could be US banks for quite some time. The next graph shows commercial and industrial loans at US banks falling precipitously. Banks have (correctly) tightened lending standards, but that means that small and medium-sized businesses, which account for over 85% of all jobs, have been cut off from the life blood of growth. Is it any wonder they are cutting jobs at a prodigious rate?



The next graph shows bank credit (of all types), going back to 1974. Notice that even during recessions (gray shaded areas) bank lending either grows or at the most goes flat. But now we are experiencing something new: bank lending is falling. Notice the sharp increase in lending in 2008 as corporations decided to draw down their banks' lines of credit, afraid that the banks might cut back. And with good reason, as banks did exactly that.

SUPPONETE CHE LE BANCHE GUADAGNINO IL 2% COMPRANDO OBBLIGAZIONI DEL TESORO AMERICANO E CHE USINO UNA LEVA DI 10. OVVERO OGNI DOLLARO SI INDEBITANO (CON SE STESSE) PER 10 DOLLARI (E NON PAGANO INTERESSI ALTI, SOLO LO 0,5%) OTTENGONO SENZA RISCHIO UN RITORNO DEL 15%...

So where do banks put their cash and reserves they are not lending? At the Fed and in Treasury debt. If you can leverage capital at ten to one (as banks can) and if you get 2% (for longer-term debt) and if you only have costs of, say, 50 basis points (or 0.5%), you can make a return on equity of 15% with no risk.

MAULDIN SOSTIENE CHE QUESTO PROCESSO E' IN CORSO

And that is what we are seeing. Banks are taking the money the Fed is printing and the government is giving them and putting it back at the Fed. Bank reserves at the Fed are exploding. And they are likely to continue to do so, since bank balance sheets are still deteriorating, especially at smaller and regional banks exposed to commercial real estate loans. Banks own 45% of commercial real estate loans, compared to only 21% of single-family loans. Banks (in general) are going to have to raise capital and reduce their loan portfolios in order to keep within the guidelines for adequate reserve capital. Small wonder that my friend Chris Whalen (one of the real experts on banks) thinks we will see over 400 banks fail in this cycle.


MAULDIN POI TERRORIZZA I LETTORI ANNUNCIANDO IL PROSSIMO VERO PROBLEMA: I PRESTITI PER L'IMMOBILIARE COMMERCIALE...
POTENZIALI GIGANTESCHE PERDITE SI AGGIRANO NEI MEANDRI DELLE BANCHE

One quick chart to further highlight the problem that banks are facing. I have been writing for several years that commercial real estate loans will be the next shoe to drop. Moody's calculates that commercial real estate prices have dropped 30%. Over a trillion dollars in commercial real estate loans are coming due in the next few years. Banks are going to continue to reduce their loan portfolios in order to deal with the massive write-offs they are going to have to make. And my bet is they put those reserves they are not lending into government debt.

MAULDIN SOSTIENE CHE RICADREMO IN RECESSIONE NEL 2011 SE NON PRIMA...

Given that the current Congress is hell bent on massively raising taxes in 2011, we are likely to dip back into recession by then, if not before. Remember, taxes have a multiplier effect of three. That means tax cuts increase GDP (over time) by three times their amount. But tax increases reduce GDP by three times the increase. That will make deficits worse, and unemployment will again start to rise from already high levels. Twenty states have already raised sales taxes, and more are raising other taxes. It is a vicious spiral.

The New Muddle Through Economy

This is not a prescription for a return to normal growth. We are headed for a New Normal that is less than what the market currently believes. Unless the deficit comes under control at some point, we face the real prospect of catching Japanese Disease and suffering yet another lost decade. Can we Muddle Through? We have no choice but to do so. But it will not be fun. It will not be long-term 2% growth and employment going back to 6% any time soon. Can we reverse the course? With a different attitude and leadership in Congress, maybe we can. But it won't happen next year, and it's unlikely in 2011.

I am afraid we will have to put my old friend Muddle Through, as I previously defined him, back in his box for a while. But wait, if my friend at PIMCO, Mohammed El-Erian, can tell us we are going to a "New Normal," then I can decide that we are going to a "New Muddle Through Economy." Just not one as benign as I used to think.

In the end, that is what we will do. We will figure out how to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. That is what free markets and entrepreneurs do. Things will sort out, but not before we have what could be an even more difficult crisis, which will force us to make hard choices.


MAULDIN SOSTIENE CHE IL MONDO CHE CONOSCIAMO NON FINIRA'..MA CHE UN'ALTRA GRANDE CRISI E' IN ARRIVO E CHE IMPORRA' SCELTE DIFFICILI.

MA MAULDIN SOSTIENE ANCHE CHE QUESTA CRISI NON ACCADRA' NELL'IMMEDIATO, BENSI' ENTRO I PROSSIMI 18 MESI AL MASSIMO.

I MERCATI POTREBBERO CROLLARE DI UN ALTRO 40%...

As an aside, I am not expecting that we will see the crisis I am thinking of any time soon. We can move along with positive GDP for some time. I am thinking of the longer term, 1-3 years out. We will become complacent. I will get letters telling me I am too pessimistic. Just as I did in late 2006 when I said we would be in a recession by late 2007. But I firmly believe we will see a double-dip recession within another 18 months (at the most). Stock markets drop on average about 40% in a recession. Adjust your portfolios accordingly.

MAULDIN: UN'ALTRA CRISI E' IN ARRIVO - ATTENTI AL TUNNEL