Here's What Wall Street Bulls Were Saying In December 2007

Submitted by David Stockman of Contra Corner blog,

The attached Barron’s article appeared in December 2007 as an outlook for the year ahead, and Wall Street strategists were waxing bullish. Notwithstanding the advanced state of disarray in the housing and mortgage markets, soaring global oil prices and a domestic economic expansion cycle that was faltering and getting long in the tooth, Wall Street strategists were still hitting the “buy” key. In fact, the Great Recession had already started but they didn’t have a clue:

Against this troubling backdrop, it’s no wonder investors are worried that the bull market might end in 2008. But Wall Street’s top equity strategists are quick to dismiss such fears.

 

Indeed, with the S&P 500 at an all-time high of 1460, the dozen top Wall Street prognosticators surveyed by Barron’s anticipated still more index gains during 2008:

….. the dozen seers we’ve surveyed all have penciled in higher stock prices in 2008, although their estimated gains vary widely, from 3% to 18%. On average, the group sees the Standard & Poor’s 500 at 1,640 by the end of next year….

That 12% gain didn’t happen! The market ended 2008 in an altogether different place—–that is, about 45% lower at around 900. And is shown below it still wasn’t done, until the capitulation low was reached in early March 2009 at 675.

 

 

In truth, this Barron’s article needs no time stamp. Every one of the arguments being made today were trotted out in almost identical form then. Front and center was the usual canard that the market is cheap on a forward PE basis. For what was surely the 17th time in as many years, Goldman’s Abby Joseph Cohen claimed the market was trading at well below its long term multiple:

….the S&P 500 trades today at just 15.6 times average 2008 estimated earnings — well below the average P/E of 18.6 times earnings during periods when inflation was at similarly muted levels in the past 57 years, notes Goldman’s Cohen.

There were three big clouds in Cohen’s perennially bullish crystal ball.

First, inflation didn’t stay so benign. During the next year oil soared to $150 per barrel, bringing the CPI up by 2.9%.

Secondly, 2008 earnings did not come in at $100 per share per the Wall Street hockey-stick, but plunged to $55 on a so-called “ex-items” basis (excluding one time or non-recurring expenses which continuously seem to recur anyway). And actual 2008 earnings for the S&P 500 came in at just $15 on a honest GAAP basis as reported to the SEC under penalty of  criminal charges for deliberate misstatement.

But most importantly, Cohen’s 57 years of historical benchmarks were irrelevant. That’s because these historical cycles reflected a reasonably vibrant mechanism of “price discovery” based on traders assessing, weighing and perpetually re-calibrating the in-coming facts from the macro-economy and individual company performance. But by December 2007, price discovery had long ago been destroyed by the Greenspan era policy of financial repression, wealth effects and the Fed’s “put” under the market averages.

Like now, the short-interest had been driven out of the market and, as is evident from the chart above, the fast money crowd had been handsomely rewarded for buying the dips—-confident that the Fed had their backs. Indeed, the bullish case was overwhelming pinned to the expectation that the Fed and other central banks would not let the economy falter, and that a new round of interest rate cuts and other stimulus initiatives would keep the party going:

THE STREET’S BULLISH consensus is particularly impressive considering that all 12 strategists also take a dim view of the U.S. economy’s prospects and expect the Fed to keep cutting interest rates to spur spending.

 

….Although Wall Street was bitterly disappointed by the Fed’s decision Tuesday to cut interest rates by just a fourth of a percentage point instead of a half-point, more rate cuts could be on tap in 2008, both in the U.S. and Europe. In the meantime, the U.S. central bank took a bold step Wednesday to ease the global credit crunch by announcing plans to offer up to $40 billion in special loans to banks in coming days. Central banks in Europe and Canada are planning similar measures.

Meanwhile, the facts on the ground in the financial markets were getting worse by the day.

Stock buybacks and cash M&A deals were at peak historical levels, thereby adding further momentum to a market that was already trading upward on a one-way basis. Likewise, the junk bond market had exploded to new heights, as had issuance of other dodgy late cycle securities like “cov lite” term loans, pay-in-kind junk bonds and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), which amount to leveraged funds which issue debt against debt.

And this was to say nothing of Wall Street balance sheets which were bloated with giant inventories of sub-prime and other low grade mortgagees waiting to be sliced and diced into CDO’s, CDOs squared and other toxic exotica. All of this financed on the margin with “hot money”—that is, repo and unsecured wholesale credit.

Beyond this, the LBO financing market was totally out of control, sending a tsunami of cash into the stock market to buy out public companies at absurdly high double digit multiples of cash flow. In the Great Deformation, I tracked 30 mega-LBOs during this period which were taken out at a combined market value of about $500 billion, causing $375 billion of fresh cash to flow to stockholders. Like today, the latter was funded with massive new layers of junk bonds, PIK bonds, second lien loans and other bank credit.

Needless to say, the foundation underneath the market was rotten because honest price discovery was no longer operating. The momentum from vast inflows of underpriced debt and dip-buying by hedge funds betting on the Fed’s “put” caused the actual fundamentals to be largely ignored.  For instance, during late 2007 the reported LTM earnings per share for the S&P 500 was about $75. That means the actual PE multiple was 19.5X as the Barron’s year-end revelers talked up the market for the year ahead. It was sitting, therefore, at a dangerously high plateau even by historic standards.

When the market plunged by nearly 50% during t
he latter months of 2008 and early 2009, the speed and violence of the decline was striking evidence that monetary central planning has doubly destructive effects on the financial markets. In the first instance, it causes bubbles to inflate to exceedingly artificial and excessive levels owning to the inflow of cheap cash and momentum chasing bids from the Fed-following fast money. But in the process it also vaporizes the braking and checking mechanisms—such as short-sellers buying to harvest their gains—that allow markets to correct without collapsing.

A case in point is the Russell 2000, which had climbed a 5-year wall of worry from about 350 to 820 as of late 2007. But when the market broke hard after the Lehman event, nearly the entire 20%/year compound gain was ionized in just 15 violent trading days during the next several months. In short, by turning financial markets into gambling casinos, the central banks have sown the seeds of vast and recurring financial instability. Bubble tops get more and more exaggerated. Bubble collapses become increasingly swift, violent and overdone.

Needless to say, after six years of ZIRP, QE and generally far more extreme monetary expansion than occurred in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, every one of the bubble top symptoms described above and completely ignored by the Wall Street bulls cited in the timeless Barron’s piece posted below have reappeared. If anything, the carry trades, vast chains of asset re-hypothecation and momentum based speculation is far more extreme than last time around; and the broad market is  also once again precariously positioned at the tippy top of its historic trading range.

The honest LTM earnings of the S&P 500, for instance, are now about $100 per share, adjusted for a pension accounting change that did not exist in 2007.  So we are right at that very same 19.5X valuation that was posted at the top last time around. But this replay is occurring in a market that is far more precarious—that is, it is faced with interest rate normalization in the years ahead and that will cause earnings to fall. Also, it is a market that reflects profits rates on income and GDP that are off the charts historically, and are far more likely to regress to the mean than stay perched at their current nosebleed levels.

And most of all the business cycle today is already 60 months old, but unlike 2007 it is far weaker and less stable. Indeed, unlike the 2002-2007 credit-fueled recovery, this “peak debt” constrained expansion has not even recovered its previous cyclical high based on economic fundamentals like breadwinner jobs, real capital investment in plant and equipment and real household incomes.

So based on the stock chart below, now might be a good time to re-read the Barron’s piece from late 2007. Its real message, as it turned out, was “look-out below!”

 

By Kopin Tan at Barron’s, December 17, 2007

THE STOCK MARKET HAS JUST EXPERIENCED its most volatile year since the current bull market began. Corporate profits shrank in the third quarter for the first time since early 2002. Record oil prices, housing deflation, rising loan defaults and tighter credit conditions threaten to tip the U.S. economy into recession. And a few weeks ago, it looked as if 2007′s gains might disappear before the first strains of Auld Lang Syne.

 

Against this troubling backdrop, it’s no wonder investors are worried that the bull market might end in 2008. But Wall Street’s top equity strategists are quick to dismiss such fears.

 

Indeed, the dozen seers we’ve surveyed all have penciled in higher stock prices in 2008, although their estimated gains vary widely, from 3% to 18%. On average, the group sees the Standard & Poor’s 500 at 1,640 by the end of next year (editor’s note: actual was 45% lower at 903), or about 10% higher than the recent 1486 with global growth and a benevolent Federal Reserve serving as twin crutches for the aging bull.

 

THE STREET’S BULLISH consensus is particularly impressive considering that all 12 strategists also take a dim view of the U.S. economy’s prospects and expect the Fed to keep cutting interest rates to spur spending. Since September, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have lowered the benchmark federal-funds rate three times, to 4.25% from 5.25%, including Tuesday’s quarter-point reduction. Still, none of the leading strategists is forecasting a recession, although one Wall Street economist — Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley — last week predicted a “mild recession,” with no growth for a year.

 

“We expect the U.S. economy to show the strains of the deflating housing market and credit-market disruptions in early 2008,” says Goldman Sachs strategist Abby Joseph Cohen. But “recession likely will be avoided, due to strength in exports and capital spending by corporations and government.”

 

Credit Suisse equity strategist Jonathan Morton agrees. “Conditions for a hard economic landing — like slack in the labor market and weak balance sheets — are still largely absent,” he says……

IF THE CASE FOR U.S. STOCKS is built on global growth and lower interest rates, other factors, too, suggest that the market is heading higher. For one, Washington is determined to avert a financial disaster, particularly in an election year, and already has unveiled a plan to freeze mortgage-rate re-sets on some teaser loans to stem an expected wave of foreclosures among troubled borrowers.

 

Although Wall Street was bitterly disappointed by the Fed’s decision Tuesday to cut interest rates by just a fourth of a percentage point instead of a half-point, more rate cuts could be on tap in 2008, both in the U.S. and Europe. In the meantime, the U.S. central bank took a bold step Wednesday to ease the global credit crunch by announcing plans to offer up to $40 billion in special loans to banks in coming days. Central banks in Europe and Canada are planning similar measures.

 

Another potential plus for stocks: Investment funds controlled by foreign governments are likely to step up their hunt for attractive assets in the U.S., which still is the world’s largest economy. While buying power has been shifting from consumer countries like the U.S. to commodity producers, “some of that wealth is starting to get recycled back to the consumer countries,” says Morgan Stanley’s chief global equity strategist, Abhijit Chakrabortti. “It isn’t going just to traditional investments like Treasuries, but right to the capital-starved parts of the U.S. market that need it most.”

The latest example is Abu Dhabi’s $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup. Merrill Lynch expects so-called sovereign-wealth funds to double or triple their share of riskier global assets by 2010, nudging the tally to $8 trillion by 2011.

 

IN 2007, WORRIED INVESTORS LUNGED for the safety of bonds. Treasuries may hold less appeal next year, the Street’s leading strategists say. Many of those we surveyed see the yield on 10-year Treasuries, now near a three-year low of 4%, increasing in 2008, albeit at a genteel pace that won’t spook the ma
rket.

 

The strategists note, as well, that bull markets rarely end when the earnings yield on stocks — now around 6% — is higher than benchmark bond yields.

 

S&P 500 earnings are expected to climb 4%, to an average of $92 a share this year. The Street’s 2008 estimates range from a low of $85.65 to just over $100. Corporate profits are likely to decline in the early part of the year, but face easier comparisons with ’07 results in the second half.

 

While some fear this year’s peak profit margins will wane, Bear Stearns’ Jonathan Golub says “margins will prove sticky at a high level” after years of cost-cutting. A 35% decline in leverage (outside of the financial sector) in the past five to seven years has made for healthier balance sheets, and continued stock buybacks are likely to keep boosting earnings per share.

 

Then there’s the market’s modest valuation. As this year has proven, valuation alone is no reason to buy stocks; a low price/earnings multiple failed to lure buyers frightened by falling profits, surging oil prices and steadily worsening news from the housing and banking sectors. That said, the S&P 500 trades today at just 15.6 times average 2008 estimated earnings — well below the average P/E of 18.6 times earnings during periods when inflation was at similarly muted levels in the past 57 years, notes Goldman’s Cohen.

 

To many strategists, stocks now discount an economic slowdown. Ian Scott, Lehman Brothers’ London-based global equity strategist, says profits conceivably could fall as much as 45% if the U.S. slips into recession. But the stock market likely would fall no more than 10% to 15% from current levels even in this worst-case scenario. Citi’s Levkovich says prices already anticipate earnings growth that is 20% to 25% below the 20-year average. He calls stocks “screamingly cheap relative to bonds.”

 

……Merrill’s Bernstein was among those to forecast this year’s surge in stock-market volatility, and he continues to steer the firm’s clients toward high-quality bonds, defensive sectors in the U.S. and consumer-oriented sectors abroad — essentially a play on the rise of the overseas consumer. He also likes large-cap stocks in the U.S. and smaller stocks abroad, as well as dividends and cash for more risk-averse investors.

 

When Bernstein huddles with money managers these days, the No. 1 question he’s asked is: Are financials cheap? Apparently, he isn’t the only one, and some strategists expect bottom-fishing in financials to become a popular sport in 2008.

 

Its dangers are clear to see. The Financial Select Sector SPDR XLF -0.56% Select Sector SPDR-Financial (XLF), an exchange-traded fund that tracks the financial stocks in the S&P 500, has sunk 20% this year, to the bear-market depths. Financial-services-industry profits are expected to fall further as loan-loss provisions increase, and if home prices — and related mortgage securities — continue to slide. Tighter credit also threatens to choke off the private-equity and merger boom, and a skittish market has discouraged stock offerings, all of which means lesser fees for big brokerage firms.

 

Given the depth of the housing market’s decline, which is hard to calculate even at this point, bottom-fishers must be prepared to swim deeper and stay underwater longer. Chakrabortti expects financial-company earnings to fall 5% to 10% in 2008, a stark contrast with the Street’s consensus call for 16% profit growth. He thinks financials could pull back another 20% before “the downturn in this credit cycle is fully discounted.”

 

Thomas Lee begs to differ, however. “While the first half may look like death, second-half earnings will improve as the rate cuts take effect” and as easier comparisons take hold, says Lee, who became JPMorgan’s main U.S. strategist after Chakrabortti left for Morgan Stanley earlier this year. A year ago, when he was still at JPMorgan, Chakrabortti had advised investors to underweight financials — but Lee now expects the sector to “lead markets higher in 2008, even with the worst of the bad news on structured investment vehicles and write-offs still ahead.”

 

Rate cuts and a steepening yield curve will help. Also, the financial sector swiftly purges itself of bad businesses and excess capacity — one reason the sector has suffered consecutive bad years only once in the past four decades, and why a down year frequently is followed by double-digit gains the next year, Lee says. He thinks a consensus will emerge in 2008 that financial stocks present investors with the most appealing risk-reward profile.

 

WHAT ABOUT OTHER MARKET SECTORS? Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown’s Larry Adam likes technology’s global prospects as the world strides toward wireless transmission of voice, data and video. “All those buildings are being built in China, and the next step is to make them more efficient,” he says. The ongoing push to get the world wired spells technology demand.

 

In addition to benefiting from global growth, technology has no direct exposure to housing. But Bear Stearns’ Golub says that between 20% and 30% of technology spending is tied to the weakening financial sector, and he questions whether that has been considered fully by technology bulls.

 

Credit Suisse’s Jonathan Morton likes pharmaceutical stocks, despite worries about the political risks to industry profits. Among other things, he says, drug companies have plenty of “self-help potential” — that is, the ability to reduce their sales forces relatively easily, cut costs and take on debt. By levering their balance sheets to just half the level of the market norm, they could raise enough cash to buy back 10% of the sector’s shares.

 

Consumer-staples stocks have been a popular refuge in times of market turmoil, but this sector now holds limited appeal for Lehman’s Scott. “Valuations have gotten quite high, and pressures from high raw-material costs may not be as fully considered,” he notes.

 

Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR XLY  is down 15% from its July peak. But consumer-discretionary stocks rise and fall with oil prices and the Fed’s benchmark
interest rate. As both retreat next year, the sector will enjoy a “double boom,” ISI’s Trahan says.

 

“The consumer is not dead!” declares Citi’s Levkovich. While the decline in home sales and home values has been pernicious, household net worth increased some $18.5 trillion in the past five years, with just $4.4 trillion coming from real-estate gains. What’s more, the richest 20% of Americans drive 40% of the country’s consumer spending, and their outlays are less restrained by rising gasoline prices and higher mortgage rates.

 

Compared with the average American, the rich also have a smaller portion of their net worth tied up in homes — and more of it invested in the financial markets…..

 

Yet if Wall Street’s strategists are right about the market, the rich will get richer in 2008, along with most other equity investors. Chances are, the ride won’t be smooth and the direction won’t always be clear — but by now we’re used to that.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mVJf14 Tyler Durden

Here’s What Wall Street Bulls Were Saying In December 2007

Submitted by David Stockman of Contra Corner blog,

The attached Barron’s article appeared in December 2007 as an outlook for the year ahead, and Wall Street strategists were waxing bullish. Notwithstanding the advanced state of disarray in the housing and mortgage markets, soaring global oil prices and a domestic economic expansion cycle that was faltering and getting long in the tooth, Wall Street strategists were still hitting the “buy” key. In fact, the Great Recession had already started but they didn’t have a clue:

Against this troubling backdrop, it’s no wonder investors are worried that the bull market might end in 2008. But Wall Street’s top equity strategists are quick to dismiss such fears.

 

Indeed, with the S&P 500 at an all-time high of 1460, the dozen top Wall Street prognosticators surveyed by Barron’s anticipated still more index gains during 2008:

….. the dozen seers we’ve surveyed all have penciled in higher stock prices in 2008, although their estimated gains vary widely, from 3% to 18%. On average, the group sees the Standard & Poor’s 500 at 1,640 by the end of next year….

That 12% gain didn’t happen! The market ended 2008 in an altogether different place—–that is, about 45% lower at around 900. And is shown below it still wasn’t done, until the capitulation low was reached in early March 2009 at 675.

 

 

In truth, this Barron’s article needs no time stamp. Every one of the arguments being made today were trotted out in almost identical form then. Front and center was the usual canard that the market is cheap on a forward PE basis. For what was surely the 17th time in as many years, Goldman’s Abby Joseph Cohen claimed the market was trading at well below its long term multiple:

….the S&P 500 trades today at just 15.6 times average 2008 estimated earnings — well below the average P/E of 18.6 times earnings during periods when inflation was at similarly muted levels in the past 57 years, notes Goldman’s Cohen.

There were three big clouds in Cohen’s perennially bullish crystal ball.

First, inflation didn’t stay so benign. During the next year oil soared to $150 per barrel, bringing the CPI up by 2.9%.

Secondly, 2008 earnings did not come in at $100 per share per the Wall Street hockey-stick, but plunged to $55 on a so-called “ex-items” basis (excluding one time or non-recurring expenses which continuously seem to recur anyway). And actual 2008 earnings for the S&P 500 came in at just $15 on a honest GAAP basis as reported to the SEC under penalty of  criminal charges for deliberate misstatement.

But most importantly, Cohen’s 57 years of historical benchmarks were irrelevant. That’s because these historical cycles reflected a reasonably vibrant mechanism of “price discovery” based on traders assessing, weighing and perpetually re-calibrating the in-coming facts from the macro-economy and individual company performance. But by December 2007, price discovery had long ago been destroyed by the Greenspan era policy of financial repression, wealth effects and the Fed’s “put” under the market averages.

Like now, the short-interest had been driven out of the market and, as is evident from the chart above, the fast money crowd had been handsomely rewarded for buying the dips—-confident that the Fed had their backs. Indeed, the bullish case was overwhelming pinned to the expectation that the Fed and other central banks would not let the economy falter, and that a new round of interest rate cuts and other stimulus initiatives would keep the party going:

THE STREET’S BULLISH consensus is particularly impressive considering that all 12 strategists also take a dim view of the U.S. economy’s prospects and expect the Fed to keep cutting interest rates to spur spending.

 

….Although Wall Street was bitterly disappointed by the Fed’s decision Tuesday to cut interest rates by just a fourth of a percentage point instead of a half-point, more rate cuts could be on tap in 2008, both in the U.S. and Europe. In the meantime, the U.S. central bank took a bold step Wednesday to ease the global credit crunch by announcing plans to offer up to $40 billion in special loans to banks in coming days. Central banks in Europe and Canada are planning similar measures.

Meanwhile, the facts on the ground in the financial markets were getting worse by the day.

Stock buybacks and cash M&A deals were at peak historical levels, thereby adding further momentum to a market that was already trading upward on a one-way basis. Likewise, the junk bond market had exploded to new heights, as had issuance of other dodgy late cycle securities like “cov lite” term loans, pay-in-kind junk bonds and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs), which amount to leveraged funds which issue debt against debt.

And this was to say nothing of Wall Street balance sheets which were bloated with giant inventories of sub-prime and other low grade mortgagees waiting to be sliced and diced into CDO’s, CDOs squared and other toxic exotica. All of this financed on the margin with “hot money”—that is, repo and unsecured wholesale credit.

Beyond this, the LBO financing market was totally out of control, sending a tsunami of cash into the stock market to buy out public companies at absurdly high double digit multiples of cash flow. In the Great Deformation, I tracked 30 mega-LBOs during this period which were taken out at a combined market value of about $500 billion, causing $375 billion of fresh cash to flow to stockholders. Like today, the latter was funded with massive new layers of junk bonds, PIK bonds, second lien loans and other bank credit.

Needless to say, the foundation underneath the market was rotten because honest price discovery was no longer operating. The momentum from vast inflows of underpriced debt and dip-buying by hedge funds betting on the Fed’s “put” caused the actual fundamentals to be largely ignored.  For instance, during late 2007 the reported LTM earnings per share for the S&P 500 was about $75. That means the actual PE multiple was 19.5X as the Barron’s year-end revelers talked up the market for the year ahead. It was sitting, therefore, at a dangerously high plateau even by historic standards.

When the market plunged by nearly 50% during the latter months of 2008 and early 2009, the speed and violence of the decline was striking evidence that monetary central planning has doubly destructive effects on the financial markets. In the first instance, it causes bubbles to inflate to exceedingly artificial and excessive levels owning to the inflow of cheap cash and momentum chasing bids from the Fed-following fast money. But in the process it also vaporizes the braking and checking mechanisms—such as short-sellers buying to harvest their gains—that allow markets to correct without collapsing.

A case in point is the Russell 2000, which had climbed a 5-year wall of worry from about 350 to 820 as of late 2007. But when the market broke hard after the Lehman event, nearly the entire 20%/year compound gain was ionized in just 15 violent trading days during the next several months. In short, by turning financial markets into gambling casinos, the central banks have sown the seeds of vast and recurring financial instability. Bubble tops get more and more exaggerated. Bubble collapses become increasingly swift, violent and overdone.

Needless to say, after six years of ZIRP, QE and generally far more extreme monetary expansion than occurred in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, every one of the bubble top symptoms described above and completely ignored by the Wall Street bulls cited in the timeless Barron’s piece posted below have reappeared. If anything, the carry trades, vast chains of asset re-hypothecation and momentum based speculation is far more extreme than last time around; and the broad market is  also once again precariously positioned at the tippy top of its historic trading range.

The honest LTM earnings of the S&P 500, for instance, are now about $100 per share, adjusted for a pension accounting change that did not exist in 2007.  So we are right at that very same 19.5X valuation that was posted at the top last time around. But this replay is occurring in a market that is far more precarious—that is, it is faced with interest rate normalization in the years ahead and that will cause earnings to fall. Also, it is a market that reflects profits rates on income and GDP that are off the charts historically, and are far more likely to regress to the mean than stay perched at their current nosebleed levels.

And most of all the business cycle today is already 60 months old, but unlike 2007 it is far weaker and less stable. Indeed, unlike the 2002-2007 credit-fueled recovery, this “peak debt” constrained expansion has not even recovered its previous cyclical high based on economic fundamentals like breadwinner jobs, real capital investment in plant and equipment and real household incomes.

So based on the stock chart below, now might be a good time to re-read the Barron’s piece from late 2007. Its real message, as it turned out, was “look-out below!”

 

By Kopin Tan at Barron’s, December 17, 2007

THE STOCK MARKET HAS JUST EXPERIENCED its most volatile year since the current bull market began. Corporate profits shrank in the third quarter for the first time since early 2002. Record oil prices, housing deflation, rising loan defaults and tighter credit conditions threaten to tip the U.S. economy into recession. And a few weeks ago, it looked as if 2007′s gains might disappear before the first strains of Auld Lang Syne.

 

Against this troubling backdrop, it’s no wonder investors are worried that the bull market might end in 2008. But Wall Street’s top equity strategists are quick to dismiss such fears.

 

Indeed, the dozen seers we’ve surveyed all have penciled in higher stock prices in 2008, although their estimated gains vary widely, from 3% to 18%. On average, the group sees the Standard & Poor’s 500 at 1,640 by the end of next year (editor’s note: actual was 45% lower at 903), or about 10% higher than the recent 1486 with global growth and a benevolent Federal Reserve serving as twin crutches for the aging bull.

 

THE STREET’S BULLISH consensus is particularly impressive considering that all 12 strategists also take a dim view of the U.S. economy’s prospects and expect the Fed to keep cutting interest rates to spur spending. Since September, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues have lowered the benchmark federal-funds rate three times, to 4.25% from 5.25%, including Tuesday’s quarter-point reduction. Still, none of the leading strategists is forecasting a recession, although one Wall Street economist — Richard Berner of Morgan Stanley — last week predicted a “mild recession,” with no growth for a year.

 

“We expect the U.S. economy to show the strains of the deflating housing market and credit-market disruptions in early 2008,” says Goldman Sachs strategist Abby Joseph Cohen. But “recession likely will be avoided, due to strength in exports and capital spending by corporations and government.”

 

Credit Suisse equity strategist Jonathan Morton agrees. “Conditions for a hard economic landing — like slack in the labor market and weak balance sheets — are still largely absent,” he says……

IF THE CASE FOR U.S. STOCKS is built on global growth and lower interest rates, other factors, too, suggest that the market is heading higher. For one, Washington is determined to avert a financial disaster, particularly in an election year, and already has unveiled a plan to freeze mortgage-rate re-sets on some teaser loans to stem an expected wave of foreclosures among troubled borrowers.

 

Although Wall Street was bitterly disappointed by the Fed’s decision Tuesday to cut interest rates by just a fourth of a percentage point instead of a half-point, more rate cuts could be on tap in 2008, both in the U.S. and Europe. In the meantime, the U.S. central bank took a bold step Wednesday to ease the global credit crunch by announcing plans to offer up to $40 billion in special loans to banks in coming days. Central banks in Europe and Canada are planning similar measures.

 

Another potential plus for stocks: Investment funds controlled by foreign governments are likely to step up their hunt for attractive assets in the U.S., which still is the world’s largest economy. While buying power has been shifting from consumer countries like the U.S. to commodity producers, “some of that wealth is starting to get recycled back to the consumer countries,” says Morgan Stanley’s chief global equity strategist, Abhijit Chakrabortti. “It isn’t going just to traditional investments like Treasuries, but right to the capital-starved parts of the U.S. market that need it most.”

The latest example is Abu Dhabi’s $7.5 billion investment in Citigroup. Merrill Lynch expects so-called sovereign-wealth funds to double or triple their share of riskier global assets by 2010, nudging the tally to $8 trillion by 2011.

 

IN 2007, WORRIED INVESTORS LUNGED for the safety of bonds. Treasuries may hold less appeal next year, the Street’s leading strategists say. Many of those we surveyed see the yield on 10-year Treasuries, now near a three-year low of 4%, increasing in 2008, albeit at a genteel pace that won’t spook the market.

 

The strategists note, as well, that bull markets rarely end when the earnings yield on stocks — now around 6% — is higher than benchmark bond yields.

 

S&P 500 earnings are expected to climb 4%, to an average of $92 a share this year. The Street’s 2008 estimates range from a low of $85.65 to just over $100. Corporate profits are likely to decline in the early part of the year, but face easier comparisons with ’07 results in the second half.

 

While some fear this year’s peak profit margins will wane, Bear Stearns’ Jonathan Golub says “margins will prove sticky at a high level” after years of cost-cutting. A 35% decline in leverage (outside of the financial sector) in the past five to seven years has made for healthier balance sheets, and continued stock buybacks are likely to keep boosting earnings per share.

 

Then there’s the market’s modest valuation. As this year has proven, valuation alone is no reason to buy stocks; a low price/earnings multiple failed to lure buyers frightened by falling profits, surging oil prices and steadily worsening news from the housing and banking sectors. That said, the S&P 500 trades today at just 15.6 times average 2008 estimated earnings — well below the average P/E of 18.6 times earnings during periods when inflation was at similarly muted levels in the past 57 years, notes Goldman’s Cohen.

 

To many strategists, stocks now discount an economic slowdown. Ian Scott, Lehman Brothers’ London-based global equity strategist, says profits conceivably could fall as much as 45% if the U.S. slips into recession. But the stock market likely would fall no more than 10% to 15% from current levels even in this worst-case scenario. Citi’s Levkovich says prices already anticipate earnings growth that is 20% to 25% below the 20-year average. He calls stocks “screamingly cheap relative to bonds.”

 

……Merrill’s Bernstein was among those to forecast this year’s surge in stock-market volatility, and he continues to steer the firm’s clients toward high-quality bonds, defensive sectors in the U.S. and consumer-oriented sectors abroad — essentially a play on the rise of the overseas consumer. He also likes large-cap stocks in the U.S. and smaller stocks abroad, as well as dividends and cash for more risk-averse investors.

 

When Bernstein huddles with money managers these days, the No. 1 question he’s asked is: Are financials cheap? Apparently, he isn’t the only one, and some strategists expect bottom-fishing in financials to become a popular sport in 2008.

 

Its dangers are clear to see. The Financial Select Sector SPDR XLF -0.56% Select Sector SPDR-Financial (XLF), an exchange-traded fund that tracks the financial stocks in the S&P 500, has sunk 20% this year, to the bear-market depths. Financial-services-industry profits are expected to fall further as loan-loss provisions increase, and if home prices — and related mortgage securities — continue to slide. Tighter credit also threatens to choke off the private-equity and merger boom, and a skittish market has discouraged stock offerings, all of which means lesser fees for big brokerage firms.

 

Given the depth of the housing market’s decline, which is hard to calculate even at this point, bottom-fishers must be prepared to swim deeper and stay underwater longer. Chakrabortti expects financial-company earnings to fall 5% to 10% in 2008, a stark contrast with the Street’s consensus call for 16% profit growth. He thinks financials could pull back another 20% before “the downturn in this credit cycle is fully discounted.”

 

Thomas Lee begs to differ, however. “While the first half may look like death, second-half earnings will improve as the rate cuts take effect” and as easier comparisons take hold, says Lee, who became JPMorgan’s main U.S. strategist after Chakrabortti left for Morgan Stanley earlier this year. A year ago, when he was still at JPMorgan, Chakrabortti had advised investors to underweight financials — but Lee now expects the sector to “lead markets higher in 2008, even with the worst of the bad news on structured investment vehicles and write-offs still ahead.”

 

Rate cuts and a steepening yield curve will help. Also, the financial sector swiftly purges itself of bad businesses and excess capacity — one reason the sector has suffered consecutive bad years only once in the past four decades, and why a down year frequently is followed by double-digit gains the next year, Lee says. He thinks a consensus will emerge in 2008 that financial stocks present investors with the most appealing risk-reward profile.

 

WHAT ABOUT OTHER MARKET SECTORS? Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown’s Larry Adam likes technology’s global prospects as the world strides toward wireless transmission of voice, data and video. “All those buildings are being built in China, and the next step is to make them more efficient,” he says. The ongoing push to get the world wired spells technology demand.

 

In addition to benefiting from global growth, technology has no direct exposure to housing. But Bear Stearns’ Golub says that between 20% and 30% of technology spending is tied to the weakening financial sector, and he questions whether that has been considered fully by technology bulls.

 

Credit Suisse’s Jonathan Morton likes pharmaceutical stocks, despite worries about the political risks to industry profits. Among other things, he says, drug companies have plenty of “self-help potential” — that is, the ability to reduce their sales forces relatively easily, cut costs and take on debt. By levering their balance sheets to just half the level of the market norm, they could raise enough cash to buy back 10% of the sector’s shares.

 

Consumer-staples stocks have been a popular refuge in times of market turmoil, but this sector now holds limited appeal for Lehman’s Scott. “Valuations have gotten quite high, and pressures from high raw-material costs may not be as fully considered,” he notes.

 

Consumer Discretionary Select SPDR XLY  is down 15% from its July peak. But consumer-discretionary stocks rise and fall with oil prices and the Fed’s benchmark interest rate. As both retreat next year, the sector will enjoy a “double boom,” ISI’s Trahan says.

 

“The consumer is not dead!” declares Citi’s Levkovich. While the decline in home sales and home values has been pernicious, household net worth increased some $18.5 trillion in the past five years, with just $4.4 trillion coming from real-estate gains. What’s more, the richest 20% of Americans drive 40% of the country’s consumer spending, and their outlays are less restrained by rising gasoline prices and higher mortgage rates.

 

Compared with the average American, the rich also have a smaller portion of their net worth tied up in homes — and more of it invested in the financial markets…..

 

Yet if Wall Street’s strategists are right about the market, the rich will get richer in 2008, along with most other equity investors. Chances are, the ride won’t be smooth and the direction won’t always be clear — but by now we’re used to that.

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mVJf14 Tyler Durden

Asset Forfeiture – How Cops Continue to Steal Americans’ Hard Earned Cash with Zero Repercussions

Screen Shot 2014-07-28 at 12.59.05 PMAlmost exactly one year ago today, I published a post which went on to become extremely popular titled: Why You Should Never, Ever Drive Through Tenaha, Texas. If you failed to read it the first time around, I suggest you take look as it provides a good outline of just what is at stake when it comes to this destructive and abusive practice increasingly utilized by police departments across these United States with zero repercussions for the offending officers. In last years article I noted that:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1nOoQRE
via IFTTT

David Duchovny Has to Explain He’s Not Pro-Putin Just Because He Made a Russian Beer Commercial

sounds like a plan, comradeWe’re hardly approaching peak jingoism but
last week’s downing of a Malaysia Air flight over Ukraine has
brought out the inner nationalist in some people, with Russia
reprising its Soviet-era role of the anti-America enemy.  The
Russian government’s transparent attempts to shield pro-Russia
separatists from responsibility even as the evidence overwhelmingly
pointed to pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine as the missile
launchers certainly helped play into the idea that the Russian
government was going retro. We
may be
living in Mitt Romney’s America after all.

Nevertheless, as you may know, Russia is a country full of
people. Though its government is elected the people don’t agree
with everything their government does, just like people the world
over don’t.  The Russian government, like any government, is
an organization, one that’s separate from Russian culture and
society even if it tries to claim dominion over both.  It’s
important to remember things like that when the political class in
Russia and the U.S. both see demonizing the other’s country as a
useful way to gain support at home.  That way, things like
this don’t happen,
via TMZ
:

David Duchovny says his beer commercial musing about living
his life as a Russian does NYET mean he supports Russian politics
— especially the invasion of the Ukraine.

Duchovny’s statement to TMZ comes in the middle of a flurry of
criticism over his commercial for a Russian Siberian beer —
Siberian Crown. Duchovny wonders in the spot what his life would be
like if he was Russian … fantasizing about being a cosmonaut, a
ballerina, and other Russian stuff.

The actor tells TMZ, “I am proud of my Russian, Ukrainian,
Scottish and Polish heritage as I am proud of my American
heritage.”

Duchovny goes on, “But being proud of one’s ancestry is not a
political statement on any current government or public
policies.”

No shit. Love your country, hate your government, an old
American (and Russian) tradition.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nSTAiG
via IFTTT

Measuring How Much Poorly Thought Out Regulation Hurts The US Consumer?

Following on the footsteps of “BitLicense Part 1 – Can Poorly Thought Out Regulation Drive the US Economy Back into the Dark Ages?” by our CTO Matt Bogosian, I’d like to explore the real world effect of ill planned regulation vs the benefit of letting innovation prosper.

Matt compared the proposed “BitLicense” with a theoretical “PacketLicense” issued in 1994 which, if using the same proposed language as the proposed rules today, would have had the Internet landscape go from looking like this…

to this… 

What wasn’t covered in that entertaining and thought provoking intro was the actual cost of giving the banks – or any group – an effective monopoly over a business segment while technologies such as the Internet protocol or Bitcoin protocol race to make the world a more effecient place. Case in point, the Internet, unfettered and unencumbered by legislation that choked innovation has increased efficiencies and dropped the prices of practically every industry that it has even came near.

This is an excerpt from a Slashgear article in 2011:

Blockbuster went into bankruptcy after its expensive rentals and high late fees helped to drive the average consumer to kiosk rentals and streaming services. Blockbuster was for a long time the biggest rental chain in the country and had multiple stores in many areas. The company isn’t alone, the entire DVD market is seeing profits drop. Blockbuster was recently purchased by Dish Network and the rental store has now announced some changes to their in store rental policies.

Blockbuster is lowering prices to appeal to users that have been renting elsewhere. As of May 27, the price of “thousands” of in-store movie rentals dropped to 99 cents per day. The price on new releases was also reduced. The new price is $1.99 for the first day and then 99 cents per additional day. The price of just released films will be $2.99 for day one and then 99 cents daily after.

That’s right! Blockbuster DROPPED prices to 99 cents per day, per movie. How does that sound to you? Well, those companies that took advantage of the Internet protocol (and without the benefit of a PacketLicense, like was proposed by the NY DFS) are the cause of Blockbuster’s price drop.

Netflix

Netflix charges $7.99 per month for tens of thousands of movies, to be watched on demand and as often as you wish – streamed to your desktop or portable device. Now, let’s look at this from an analytical perspective. Without even bothering to adjust for inflation, Blockbuster (even after a dramatic price cut) is literally multiples more expensive that Netlfix. Why? The technological advances of the Internet protocol were allowed to be leveraged unfettered and superior business models simply displaced the inefficient, legacy business models. This would not have happened if Netflix had to have a PacketLicense, along with the draconian (at least to sparsely funded startups) measures that are proposed to go along with the BitLicenses. As a matter of fact, if the PacketLicense would have been in effect, Blockbuster would not have went out of business and it would not have faced competition from innovative companies such as Netflix. As an additional matter of fact, you would probably be paying $3.50 per movie rental, per day (as in before Blockbuster dropped its fees) as compared to $7.99 per month for all of the movies you can consume per month. We’re talking a 30x difference in price for avid movie watchers – and this doesn’t tell the whole story because real wages increased by a 1/3rd percent, making the Netflix price discounts even steeper in reality. In addition, you’d probably be renting these movies through a bank (the NYDFS Bitlicense excludes banks from the rigors that Bitcoin startups are held to)!

These rapid drops in pricing due to the Internet protocol affects more than just movie rentals. Look towards the ubiquitous smartphone industry. In 2011, An unsubsidized iPhone 4S cost anywhere between $649 and $849.

Today you can get better functionality in an LG D90 Android phone for $179. I can personally attest to this because I bought 3 of them for less than the cost of the bottom of the line iPhone from 2011 model year (which I purchased as well).

LG Optimus L90

The cheaper phone is faster, has a better screen, expandable memory and a vastly superior OS and incomparable battery life (at least as compared to the iPhone).

BUTTTTTT…… When you look towards the financial industry you find protection by clauses such as those proposed in the NY DFS proposed BitLicense. These proposed protections are actually coming at the cost of innovation, the same innovation that Netlfix and LG brought to their customers. As proposed, the NYS DFS proposes Bitcoin startups have:

  1. 100% reserves,
  2. inability to invest in the currency one does business in,
  3. fingerprinting requirements for ALL employees,
  4. bond requirements,
  5. KYC and AML requirements, etc. – among other things.

All of these requirements are waived for anyone with a banking license (Hmmmm!) but required by startups with a mere $100,000 in funding. So what does such protective regulation do for banks and the consumer in the face of Internet and now Bitcoin protocol technology driving down prices EVERYWHERE else?

Just Google it?

Seriously? Bank Fees Shoot Up Again – Business – Time

http://ift.tt/1xqlTGu 

Aug 20, 2012 – Not only is it harder to find a free checking account, but fee increases have made it more challenging for people — especially those in lower …

  • Bank Fees: Big Banks Charging Higher — and Weirder …

    http://ift.tt/1AqIEi1…

    Feb 20, 2013 – Sovereign Bank Increases Fees, Adds New Ones Boston Globe; UnionBank … the airline model, where everything — even a shorter hold time — has a price? … It will show up as a debit when it comes through your account.

  • Get ready for increased bank fees – CreditCards.com

    http://ift.tt/1fGq9uE

    Nov 15, 2013 – You may want to take a closer look at your bank’s fee schedule next year … are cautiously increasing the fees they charge on a variety of services in order to make … interest rates, since they now have to give 45 days’ notice ahead of time. … they used to get away with, such as high over-limit and late fees.

  • Fees for Banking Services 2013 Report…

    http://ift.tt/1xqlWlC

    Australian Bankers Association

    This resulted in a higher than usual increase in bank service fee revenue …. Over this time average growth rate in fees paid by large businesses has been 13.6% …

  • http://ift.tt/1xqlTGJ…

    The Wall Street Journal

    Already, banks have introduced new fees for wire transfers, certified checks and banking through tellers. Others have raised monthly maintenance charges on …

  • Banks Quietly Ramp Up Consumer Fees – NYTimes.com

    http://ift.tt/1xqlZhj

    The New York Times

    by Eric Dash – Nov 13, 2011 – Bank of America abandoned its $5 a month debit card usage fee in late … new charges or taking fees that have always existed andincreased them, … so over time you win more business and make more money,” said Todd …

     
    So, why and how do banks get away with charging higher fees to their customers and consumers when the rest of the world benefits from lower fees AND superior products due to Internet and Bitcoin protocol technology? I suggest you ask the banking regulators who, whether purposely or inadvertantly, protect the banking cartel’s oligarchy and effectively pass the cost of such on to you – the banking consumer. This costs EVERYBODY more – consumers, businesses, investors, speculators and savers. 
    Do you want to do something about it? Do you want to, as a banking customer or client, want to start spending less money rather than more just like those Netflix and smartphone and (fill in the blank, it’s just about the whole world, sans bank customers)?
    Well, now you can do somthing about it. Stop the BitLicense proposed legislation that simply furthes the forces that allow these price increases in the face of global price deflation.  I strongly urge you to  voice your own opinions to Superintendent Lassky, the man who has the authority to put a stop to this overpricing power (althought current actions are heading in the opposite direction) right now. 
     

     

     




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1nSQafM Reggie Middleton

The Truth About the Fed’s Relationship With Bubbles

Many commentators have previously argued that the Fed is too dumb or too inept to identify of categorize asset bubbles.

 

By focusing on the Fed’s mental acuity, these commentators are overlooking a key factor: the Fed WANTS to asset bubbles.

 

The reason for this?

 

Asset bubbles, at least according to the Fed’s models, will paper over the steady decline in quality of life that began in the US roughly 50 years ago.

 

This fact is staring everyone in the face, though few people make it explicit. Back in the 1950s, the average American family had one working parent and was able to get by just fine. Today, most families have two working parents, sometimes working more than two jobs and they’re still not able to live a stable life.

 

Indeed, a 2012 study by NYU Professor Edward Wolff found that the median net worth of American households was at a 43-YEAR LOW. The average American in the 21st century was in worse shape than his 1970s counterpart.

 

This process began to accelerate in the late ‘90s. Indeed, looking at real media household income, one can see clearly that things have generally been downhill for nearly 20 years now.

 

 

 

It is not coincidence that the Fed began blowing serial bubbles starting in the late ‘90s. The Fed is aware on some level that quality of life in the US has fallen. The Fed’s answer, rather than focus on items that it doesn’t understand (job growth, income growth, etc.) was to blow bubbles to paper over this decline.

 

This is why we’ve had bubble after bubble after bubble in the last 15 years. The Fed doesn’t have a clue how to create jobs or boost incomes. Why would it? Most of the Fed’s Presidents are academics with no real world business experience.

 

Instead, the Fed believes in the “wealth effect” or the theory that when housing prices or stock prices soar, people feel wealthier and so go out and spend more money. This theory is baloney. People spend based on their incomes, NOT the value of their homes or portfolios.

 

After all, both assets only convert into actual cash once the owner sells the asset. Anyone who goes out and spends more money because their home went up in value will only end up with credit card debt, which combined with their mortgage, puts an even greater strain on their financial resources.

 

The Fed wants asset bubbles because they hide the rot within the US economy. If the Fed didn’t raise stock or housing prices, people might actually start to wonder… “hey, why is my life getting more and more difficult despite the fact that I’m working all the time?”

 

The Fed wants bubbles. So we’re doomed to keep experiencing them and the subsequent crashes.

 

This concludes this article. If you’re looking for the means of protecting your portfolio from the coming collapse, you can pick up a FREE investment report titled Protect Your Portfolio at http://ift.tt/170oFLH.

 

This report outlines a number of strategies you can implement to prepare yourself and your loved ones from the coming market carnage.

 

Best Regards

 

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1xqlMLb Phoenix Capital Research

The Shocking Reason Putin Isn't Worried About The $50 Billion Yukos Ruling

Having $50 billion of assets under potential seizure is enough to make anyone whince. However, despite a quickly worded statement on the Yukos award, Vladimir Putin seems less than anxious to find a resolution. We think we know why, and it’s very concerning.

As The FT reports confirming our earlier comments:

The award is a landmark not just for its size – 20 times the previous record for an arbitration ruling. The tribunal also found definitively that Russia’s pursuit of Yukos and its independently-minded main shareholder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a decade ago was politically motivated.

 

 

Though Russia cannot appeal against the award, Moscow said it would pursue all legal avenues for trying to get it “set aside”.

 

Even if the ruling stands, shareholders face a tortuous battle trying to enforce it. If Moscow refuses to pay, they must pursue Russian sovereign commercial assets in the 150 countries that are party to the so-called 1958 New York Convention on enforcing arbitration awards.

But perhaps this explains why Putin is not coming out swinging, as The FT concludes,

One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine.

 

“There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”

Source: The FT




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AqIxTD Tyler Durden

The Shocking Reason Putin Isn’t Worried About The $50 Billion Yukos Ruling

Having $50 billion of assets under potential seizure is enough to make anyone whince. However, despite a quickly worded statement on the Yukos award, Vladimir Putin seems less than anxious to find a resolution. We think we know why, and it’s very concerning.

As The FT reports confirming our earlier comments:

The award is a landmark not just for its size – 20 times the previous record for an arbitration ruling. The tribunal also found definitively that Russia’s pursuit of Yukos and its independently-minded main shareholder, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a decade ago was politically motivated.

 

 

Though Russia cannot appeal against the award, Moscow said it would pursue all legal avenues for trying to get it “set aside”.

 

Even if the ruling stands, shareholders face a tortuous battle trying to enforce it. If Moscow refuses to pay, they must pursue Russian sovereign commercial assets in the 150 countries that are party to the so-called 1958 New York Convention on enforcing arbitration awards.

But perhaps this explains why Putin is not coming out swinging, as The FT concludes,

One person close to Mr Putin said the Yukos ruling was insignificant in light of the bigger geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine.

 

“There is a war coming in Europe,” he said. “Do you really think this matters?”

Source: The FT




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1AqIxTD Tyler Durden

It looks like Hong Kong may soon end its link with the US dollar. It’s about time.

hkd 100 hong kong dollars 2 It looks like Hong Kong may soon end its link with the US dollar. Its about time.

July 28, 2014
Kharkiv, Ukraine

It was a different world in 1983.

Michael Jackson invented the Moonwalk. Return of the Jedi opened in theaters across the world. IBM released its most advanced personal computer yet– the XT, with a standard 10 megabyte hard drive.

And after nearly a decade of eratic swings and collapses, the Hong Kong government pegged its currency (the Hong Kong dollar) to the US dollar at a rate of 7.80 HKD per USD.

This was a big move for Hong Kong. The Hong Kong dollar had originally been backed by silver until 1935 when, facing a shortage of precious metals, they pegged it to the British pound.

This made sense in 1935 as the British pound sterling was still (barely) the world’s top reserve currency.

But things changed. In 1972, Hong Kong broke from the pound and adopted a new peg to the US dollar.

This didn’t last either. After just two years, the US government’s rising debt and inflation forced Hong Kong to abandon the US dollar peg.

At that point Hong Kong was well-known and stable… so why bother pegging the currency at all? The HKD floated freely in the marketplace, just like any other currency.

It went well for them at first. But by the early 1980s, the Hong Kong dollar had become much weaker due to jitters over the island’s reunification with China.

Finally, in 1983, they re-established a peg with the US dollar. And at the time, this probably made a lot of sense.

In 1983, Fed Chairman Paul Volker had established tremendous international credibility, both for the US dollar as well as the Federal Reserve. And most of all, Hong Kong was in need of a strong anchor.

But 31 years later the world is entirely different.

Michael Jackson is no longer with us. The world has sat through three completely lame Star Wars prequel movies. Even the cheapest mobile phone has more storage capacity than the IBM XT.

And both the Fed’s and America’s credibility have waned.

Today Hong Kong is one of the world’s richest economies. When compared with the US, nearly every objective fundamental about Hong Kong’s economy is stronger.

Its fiscal balances are higher. The government runs a budget surplus. Government debt is a rounding error. It’s a night and day difference. There’s no reason why these two currencies should be linked.

Theoretically, Hong Kong’s currency should be much stronger than the peg allows. But its purchasing power is being artificially supressed.

This means that residents of Hong Kong pay more for products and services than they should, including basic staples like food (90% of which is imported).

But after three decades, things are starting to get interesting.

Just recently the Hong Kong dollar hit the upper limit of its allowable range– exactly 7.7500. And the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has had to spend billions of dollars to defend the peg.

The reasons are unclear, though it’s entirely possible that investors are attacking the peg, similar to what happened to the pound back in the 1990s. We could be in the early stages of such an assault.

Even if not, it’s time for a change.

These currency pegs are not set in stone; Hong Kong has changed its own peg several times. And the basic fundamentals which led them to the US dollar in 1983 have changed completely.

The US is no longer the undisputed superpower it once was. The US dollar is dragging them down. Hong Kong is easily strong enough to stand on its own.

Bottom line, there’s no longer any benefit in maintaining the peg. Yet the costs (inflation, asset bubbles) are too high. This will eventually right itself.

For the last several years, we’ve been recommending that our readers hold Hong Kong dollars– especially if you normally hold US dollars.

The currency is still pegged to a very narrow band, so the most it would fluctuate is 1.27%.

But if the Hong Kong government revalues the Hong Kong dollar, the gain could easily be 30% or more if they simply revalue to the level of the renminbi.

Given the limited downside risk, this is a very safe bet to make.

The best way to do it? Open a bank account in Asia.

from SOVEREIGN MAN http://ift.tt/1nOnHti
via IFTTT

Social Security Versus CBO – Who Do You Trust?

 

The 2014 Social Security report to Congress is finally out (Link). The report was released four-months later than permitted by law; this is the sixth year in a row that the Report has been late. The word 'sloppy' comes to mind; Treasury Secretary Lew gets a 'D' for timeliness.

I'm blow out by this year's report! It was just 13 days ago that the Congressional Budget Office released its numbers for SS (Link). There are very significant variances on key metrics for SS. The inescapable conclusion comparing the two reports is that either; (1) CBO is misrepresenting numbers with some kind of political agenda in mind, or (2) SS is sand bagging its numbers for reasons that have to be political as well.

There are few key metrics to consider. The first is the Immediate and Permanent (I&P) payroll tax increase necessary to 'fix' SS for the next 75 years. CBO says that the I&P is 4%, while SS claims it is only 2.88%. One might look at the two numbers and say, "What's the big dif?, the two #s are only 1.12% different!" Actually, the 1.12% comes to very big bucks. Over the 75 year period it comes to trillions of dollars. For 2015 the difference in the I&P calculation comes to $75B. That's a lot of Billions.

Another data point is the estimate for the year in which the SS Trust Funds become depleted. CBO has this date as 2030 while SS thinks it will be delayed until 2033. One could drive a truck through the different estimates.

A critical milestone for SS will be the year in which the SSTFs top-out and begin the rundown to zero. CBO has this happening in 2017, while SS says it will not happen until three years later in 2020. A three year difference in something that is only 2 1/2 year away? How could the models differ so widely?

 

It's my opinion that SS has warped its numbers. What SS has provided is:

 

Ho Hum, nothing has changed from last year. No needed to think about SS today, and certainly do not to make this an election issue. We wouldn't want Conservative folks to have something to talk about this fall.

 

CBO, on the other hand, is saying:

 

Red Alert! America's biggest single expense is a running amok. In less than 15 years there will be a crisis, and it will be very expensive to 'fix' it. For heaven's sake, please, let's have a dialog about this before it's too late!

 

 

sandbag-property-800x800

 




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1mVDUXk Bruce Krasting