The Big Debate
I wouldn't be a very good correspondent if I didn't at least mention the much-anticipated vice-presidential debate last night.
Despite my skeptical comments about Sarah Palin last week, I assumed she would do well in the debate. And, speaking strictly as an observer of the art of debate, she did. Whoever coached her did a masterful job, as she gets full marks as a student of same, starting out in fine form with the well-delivered line "May I call you Joe?" (He should have answered, "Sure, if I can call you Sarah?", punctuated with a smile and a wink.)
But was there actually anything important to be gained from the experience of watching the two candidates swap half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies? Maybe...
1. Biden is a card-carrying socialist. Now, I don't mean that as an insult, per se, but rather as what seems to me a statement of fact. The body of his comments and clear vitriol against "free markets," capitalists, loose regulations... coupled with his constant drumming for more regulation, tax increases, and a multitude of perfect-world programs, confirmed his view that the fate of the world and everything in it is best coddled, coerced, and otherwise shepherded along by Big Brother. Listen, we live under majority rule. If the majority really want the fingers of the government in every pie, and if you believe the polls, they do... then who am I to argue?
2. Palin is a true believer. A mind that is trained from youth to unquestioned acceptance of the fantastical (an apt description, I believe, of those raised under the circumstance of extreme religiosity) is a mind trained to believe just about anything. It came across loud and clear that Governor Palin is a true believer, as is her running mate. If our unfortunate current president labors under one psychological challenge more than any other, it is his certainty. And once certain, he lets nothing and no one stand in the way. I fear that the same would be in store, should McPalin get elected. While I continue to favor the economic policies of the McCain/Palin team, the thought of this pair of mavericks, by gosh, unleashed on the world is enough to send me looking for a thick slab of cement to hide behind.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, where are you when we need you most? They certainly won't be on the ballot come November 3.
World on the Edge
There has been much commentary about the current financial fiasco being an "American" problem, usually followed by the tossing of a few bricks at the greedy capitalists. While there is no question that Wall Street's ever-creative financial engineers did a smack-up job of investment alchemy, turning pigs' ears into (exploding) silk purses, that doesn't let the rest of the world off the hook for loading up on the stuff by the container load before taking the time to actually understand what they were buying, or the risks involved.
The phrase caveat emptor is more than just two high-sounding words. One assumes that by the time one achieves a certain elevated station with a major banking institution, whether in New York or Dublin, one understands concepts such as due diligence and risk/reward ratios. As hard as it is to believe, many of the foreign banks are even more leveraged up than the much-maligned U.S. banks.
In an article earlier this week, Marc Faber quoted at length from a study by the Centre for European Policy Studies in which the author, one Daniel Gross, points out that Germany's Deutsche Bank has a leverage ratio of 50:1 and is in debt to the tune of two trillion euros, an amount equal to about 80% of the GDP of Germany. And Barclays, with a leverage ratio of 60, has liabilities of 1.3 trillion pounds, an amount equal to the GDP of the UK.
This week Fortis Bank (leverage ratio 33, liabilities equal to 3X the GDP of its home country of Belgium) was nationalized.
And the German government had to cobble together a bank bailout amounting to 35 billion euros, the largest ever in that country.
As discussed in the September 1 edition of The Casey Report, there's an increasing chance that the European Union will not be able to withstand the storm now breaking over it. On that topic, I highly recommend reading the following Oct 2 article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph. You can read it by clicking here.
In Faber's article, he also points to another closely watched index related to the global economic situation, the Baltic Dry Index, which tracks the price of shipping. That is used to gauge the level of global trade (a rising index indicates robust demand for cargo shipping and thus economic growth). Well, the index looks like the trajectory of Wily E. Coyote falling off a cliff.
Clearly, the slowdown is global and spreading. The truth of that can be seen in falling commodity prices. At this point, we are advocating staying clear of most commodities, other than gold and selective energy stocks. The former because of its increasing importance as money, and the latter because supply pressure and geopolitics put a floor under the energy sector somewhere near here (more on that momentarily).
No question, the trading herd is now rigging for a serious global downturn. In time, as the inflation that is being baked into the cake every day now makes itself known, the commodities sector, as a whole, will regain its upward momentum... but for now, outside of gold and energy, the best bet is the safe bet of standing aside.
As the commodities move into a position of being extremely oversold, which seems ever more likely, a spectacular contrarian opportunity will be created. But that opportunity is still a ways out.
More on the Global Situation
This week, the Irish government announced they are going to stand behind 100% of bank deposits in that nation. This set off a inflow of money as depositors in other European countries sought the safe harbor offered by that unprecedented guarantee. Reacting quickly, the Greek government, under some added pressure thanks to bank runs in two major cities, followed suit. If you believe observers of the European banking scene, this is only the beginning.
"The whole of Europe will have to do same thing, otherwise Europe will have a split banking system," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas. British banks are already facing a haemorrhage of deposits to Irish banks that now enjoy the AAA sovereign rating of the Irish state.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the current bailout legislation includes a provision that raises FDIC coverage to $250,000. Enough, we expect, to keep the boobus from lining up at the doors of the nation's banks, empty gym bags at hand.
Problem solved? Well, not quite. To quote from Bud Conrad's dissection of the latest developments in the crisis and its implications in the October 1 edition of The Casey Report...
Almost imminently, we expect to see the broader banking system coming under serious pressure, the result being that hundreds of commercial banks could be declared insolvent and require bailing out by the FDIC. Just this morning, yet another major U.S. bank, Wachovia, failed. The banking crisis is far from over.
That's a further problem, because the FDIC has just $40 billion in reserve to provide coverage on $4.3 trillion of deposits. That's a penny for each dollar. To put things in clearer perspective, consider that the failure of IndyMac Bank alone wiped $8.9 billion off the FDIC's reserve. Clearly, the cost of bailing out the depositors of hundreds of failed banks will quickly deplete remaining FDIC reserves.
Bringing the matter full circle, the reserves of the FDIC are invested in (drum roll, please...) U.S. Treasuries! So the FDIC will have to sell off Treasuries to obtain the money to refund depositors. That adds to the demand for credit, at a time when credit is scarce. And what happens if, say, 10% of the $4.3 trillion deposits needed to be covered, a distinct possibility given the scope of the crisis? Simple math shows that the government would have to find another $430 billion to bail out the FDIC. While there may be some debate around the current bailout of the big banks that sank themselves with toxic waste, there will be no debate when it comes to bailing out depositors.
Meanwhile, back in Europe, the powers-that-be are thrashing about trying to figure out how to actually manage the widening banking crisis there – this week, a plan for a $400 billion fund was raised and shot down – given that there is no central monetary authority with the power to actually create the funds in the same way the U.S. Treasury can.
Does that mean the U.S. is better prepared to deal with the crisis and will come out of the tailspin sooner?
If I had to vote, I'd vote yes... because as challenged as the U.S. is just now, the U.S. is not burdened with the sort of employee-for-life regulations that cling on to the backs of companies in so many other countries. In the case of Europe, the overburden of EU regulations makes things even worse. While those regulations might feel good to the populace in good times, they are going to become crushing as things grow worse.
China? As I have mentioned on many occasions, the leadership of that country is in a do-or-die (literally) situation when it comes to maintaining strong growth in their economy. Events don't allow time just now to cogitate on how that important country will deal with the slowdown or what effect growing unrest might have on the willingness of its citizenry to own renminbi versus, say, gold. (At least until it's banned, again.) This is an analysis we'll try to turn to in the near future.
Finally, on the topic of global affairs, subscriber and correspondent Steve Hanke, who is also a Forbes columnist, emailed yesterday that, as of last Friday, annualized inflation in Zimbabwe reached 531 billion percent.
So, things could always be worse.
[Ed. Note: Any of our Zimbabwean subscribers care to provide an example of how you go about doing your daily business with 531 billion percent inflation, we'd love to hear about it – and share it with the readers of this weekly missive. Send along your thoughts to
avid@caseyresearch.com">david@caseyresearch.com.]
An Interesting Perspective on European Energy
Yesterday, Marin Katusa, the relentless head of our Energy Division and managing editor of Casey Energy Opportunities sent across the following data points. I found them pretty eye-opening and thought you might, too.
Russia literally has a stranglehold on European gas. Below is a list of the percentage of the gas European countries get from Russia's Gazprom monopoly:
Slovakia, Finland and Macedonia 100%
Bulgaria 96%
Serbia 87%
Greece 82%
Czech Republic 79%
Austria 74%
Turkey and Slovenia 64%
Hungary 54%
While those are some of the biggest-percentage buyers of Russian gas, even if you expand the analysis to all the countries in Europe, the total is still over 25%. Now, check this out...
MOSCOW, Oct 1 (Reuters) - Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom said on Wednesday its export gas price for Europe has reached an all-time high of over $500 per 1,000 cubic metres.
"As of today we can say that the price growth dynamic has surpassed Gazprom's expectations, and the price for the gas supplied by Gazprom to Europe exceeded $500 in October," Gazprom's statement quoted chief executive Alexei Miller as saying.
Putin is a genius.
We are continuing to look for ways to play this situation.
[Ed. Note: If you are interested in the long-term potential of rising energy prices, give Casey Energy Opportunities a 3-month, risk-free trial run. Learn more here.]
Blarney Barney
Over the last little while, I have had to grit my teeth while listening to the politicians pointing fingers at the free market for the mess we find ourselves in.
A few items I came across on that topic pertaining to the views of House Finance Chairperson Barney Frank: "The private sector got us into this mess," Frank said, "the government has to get us out of it. We do want to do it carefully."
And this from an article on Frank's views from the top of the year.
To explain the mortgage crisis that became a global credit crisis, US Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) started by putting the blame on the party politics of Ronald Reagan. Instead of borrowers, brokers, financial markets, or even the Federal Reserve Bank, the current chair of the House Committee on Financial Services went back twenty years to the former president's philosophy of government.
"Reagan's central idea," said Frank, "was ‘Government is not the answer to our problems—government is the problem.' His philosophy is why we're here today."
To which I answer by reprinting something I wrote in the September 21, 2007 edition of this column...
Economics 101 for Politicians
Earlier this week, I heard an interview with Barney Frank, a politician of some duration and standing in the U.S. Congress, on the topic of changing the FHA home loan program to be softer on lenders in this time of tightening purse strings. For those of you unfamiliar with the FHA, it stands for Federal Housing Administration. It's a holdover from the New Deal legislation passed after the Great Depression, and it's unique in that it has managed heretofore to avoid being sucked into the subprime quagmire, largely by virtue of actually maintaining something akin to responsible lending practices.
What struck me most about Barney's many strident comments – and struck me sufficiently hard that I found myself muttering aloud in the privacy of my vehicle, much in the same way that a vagabond pushing a shopping cart full of cardboard might do in public – was when he dipped into the topic of the rates being charged by the FHA to poor-credit borrowers looking for a loan.
I must paraphrase here, because I don't want to listen to the man's voice again, but his understanding of the ways of the world are summed up in words almost exactly like these.
"The FHA is too conservative in its lending, it is charging higher rates than available from private institutions. My GAWD, man, that's just wrong! We are the government!!!" he fumed and sputtered.
When challenged by the interviewer that perhaps individuals with poor credit histories should be required to pay a touch more in the way of an interest rate, he pontificated, begrudgingly, along the following theme.
"Okay, so if someone with poor credit takes a loan and the FHA does charge them more, and they then make their payments on time for three years, we should give them a refund on the excess rates they were charged for being a poor credit risk in the first place. After all, after three years, they would have shown themselves to be good credit risks, so why shouldn't they get a refund?"
It was at that point I unleashed my howl and started the aforementioned muttering.
If a person with his hands on the reins of power is so ignorant on the very basics of how lending (should) work, then any proposed "fixes" are doomed from the get-go. While I probably don't need to point out the flaw in Mister Barney's logic, I will, just because his ignorance needs exposing to as many of his voting public as possible, starting with you.
The reason the FHA has stayed out of trouble is because (a) they have been more restrictive on whom they lend to, and (b) they apply a higher rate to those with marginal credit histories. By applying a high rate for past crimes against creditors to a broader portfolio of poor credit risks, they assure themselves the extra revenue to cover the inevitable losses.
If an individual with a spotty track record of showing up at the repayment window decides to stick to the straight and narrow, then good for them... they will be rewarded with positive notations in their personal credit history. However, as the odds are 100% that a certain percentage of the borrowers will revert to their former practices and spend the mortgage money on beer, the extra interest charged to the whole will be needed to help cover those losses. To refund the bad-credit-gone-good folks, the difference would leave only the exposure to the bad, assuring a smoldering hole in the FHA's balance sheet.
As much as we are loathe to snap a rigid hand to the brow in the direction of any government agency, we will at least give a nod to the FHA for avoiding the current credit mess. We will simultaneously give Frank and his meddling ilk a dismissive wave. "We are the government!" indeed.
The essence of what you actually are, Mr. Frank, is an ignorant tick sucking off the life blood of taxpayers.
That, approximately, is what I muttered aloud to myself in the privacy of my car. Can a shopping cart be far away?