Stimulus, Growth and Recovery: The Debate Continues

There is growing intelligent dissent to the administration’s stimulus policy.  Critics argue that recent growth is the result of market principles.  Edward P. Lazear wrote Monday in the WSJ, that he forecasted a return to growth without stimulus spending.  He goes on to argue, along with others, that  housing programs have had questionable results.  Lazear said that Uncle Sam is fibbing about job growth as well, reporting job retention as if it where job creation.  John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute agrees.  The administration has an incentive to report positive unemployment numbers- the most popular, but also misunderstood indicator.

Unemployment is only part of the overall picture.  Other improving indicators reported this week tell us that the economy is turning around-but for whom? It depends on how you define growth.  A technical definition says that growth is positive GDP.  That means little to most people.  Real growth, theoretically, is an improvement in living standards for the entire country.  That’s why Main Street understands the unemployment rate.  Accordingly, the media use it as the sole judge for growth.  The problem is, as Lazear mentioned,  job growth is the final component of recovery- behind financial stability and GDP growth.  Unemployment lags years behind an actual recovery.   If unemployment is a lagging indicator, Lazear cannot empirically link failed stimulus policy to persistent unemployment.  He says that the administration is ignoring job losses while inflating job creation numbers.  Isn’t he doing the same thing by ignoring market stabilization and GDP growth? 

BEA Released GDP Data This Week 

According to the BEA, GDP is up for a number of reasons.  Look closely at the report.  Exports rose 14 percent over last quarter and consumer spending rose 3.4 percent.  Market Watch reported that positive numbers where in part due to stimulus spending, but as I argued in the past, these gains are only temporary.  The purpose of the stimulus is to stabilize the economy so that private markets can function again.  There is no wider conspiracy.  The government will roll back stimulus as soon as it sees the return of private investment.  There is evidence of this already: government spending actually slowed by 3.5 percent.

Not all the news was good.  Personal income fell and prices rose.  Hopefully this is a temporary trend based on slight price increases and high unemployment.  However, as long as export growth remains positive, I see no need to fear 70s style stagflation.  

Savings and Long-Term Growth

According to the old Solow Model, a country’s savings rate is positively related to long-term growth.  Today, personal savings is around five percent, that’s up from around one percent just four years ago.  This bodes well for long-term growth in the US.  And now is a great time to invest.  As private investment (including people’s savings) replaces public spending in the next few years, markets will rebound.  Private investment will power an upswing in the business cycle, spark growth and reduce unemployment. The sooner the government rolls back stimulus, the better.  In the mean time, citizens can take advantage of great opportunities in real estate and other deflated markets.  This transfer of savings from a stock to a flow will jump-start the economy in way no stimulus could.  It would take tens of trillions of dollars in government spending to match the power of private investors.

Thomas J. Powell

The Strenuous Life of the American Dollar

A weak dollar wrestles inflation.

              With the enormous amount of government spending, some level of U.S. inflation is inevitable; but how high that level might get is debatable. With the global economy crawling out of the Great Recession, inflation-flavored fears now fill news broadcasts. As a result, gold and oil prices have climbed as inflation-conscious investors have poured their money into commodities due to fears of a devaluing dollar.

              Inflation concerns have been on economists’ minds since the Fed started passing drastic measures to combat our country’s troubled economy. Now, as the worst of the storm appears to be behind us, the concerns about the repercussions of our government’s monetary actions are under the microscope. The Fed’s commitment to keep the interest rate near zero for the next year has fueled speculation that other central banks will raise interest rates first—which would make other currencies more attractive than the dollar. Australia’s decision last week to raise interest rates already hurt the dollar and suggested that resource-based economies might recover quicker, and be more attractive to investors, than the United States.

              With credit streams far from unthawed, raising the Fed funds rate in the States at this point could be detrimental. A mainstay in economic reports is the number of challenges the government will soon face with unwinding all the different programs that are currently held up by economic stimulus money. The concern that the Fed will not be able to appropriately remove its massive monetary stimulus has many experts expecting high levels of inflation as the economy continues to recover. However, labor market slack and weak wage growth could be enough to keep inflation at bay.

              A weak dollar does have its upside. In the short term, by making American exports cheaper, a weak dollar can be good for our economy and useful in closing our trade deficit. However, in the long term, if the dollar stays weak, foreign investors will lose interest in putting money into U.S. Treasury securities without the promise of high interest rates. A significant, long-term drop in foreign-investor capital can make it much more expensive for Americans to borrow—something that can only hurt economic growth.

 

The V-Shaped Climb

 

              As manufacturing gains its footing, the stock market strengthens, housing inventories fall and retail spending returns; our economy will continue traveling up the V. However, government provides the stability in many market rebounds.  Once government funds are pulled back, the likelihood of dropping back into a recession could increase.

              Until spending is once again a consumer behavior, instead of a government one, the underlying economic problems will remain—threatening to pull us into another deep recession. In order for consumers to spend again, they are going to need to be convinced that their hours will not be cut, their jobs will not be lost and their wages will not be dropped. Of course, before they can be convinced of any of this, the unemployed will have to be reintroduced into the workforce.

              We will continue wrestling with high unemployment numbers until business owners are confident that their products and services are once again in demand. Currently, businesses are getting by with nearly-depleted inventories. But, as consumer demand rises, business owners will beef up inventories; which will produce the need for more employees in the manufacturing industry. Business owners are scraping by with the bare-minimum number of employees. Larger inventories require new employees to sell, stock, ship and manage the products.

              So, as consumer demand slowly returns, so too will new jobs. As we crawl out of this recession, a number of positive signs fuel consumer demand. As home prices continue to rise, homeowners will no longer be underwater and their confidence will get a boost. As the stock market continues to climb, so too will investors’ confidence. Major markets are all interrelated. Signs of growth in one market have the ability to positively impact another. The process is slow and filled with pockets of discomfort, but the climb has begun and the journey is forecasted to be slow and steady. Being patient and taking the right steps now will help our economy avoid falling down the second trap in the dreaded W-shaped recovery.

 

Protecting Your Wimpy Dollar, Not Fearing it

 

              Fearing inflation is a reactive investor’s behavior. This group of investors waits until something drastic happens in the marketplace that demands they respond. Active investors prefer to take more proactive measures to prepare for unappealing market conditions, such as inflation. Wise investors salt the slugs of inflation long before they have the chance to take over their gardens and devalue their investments.

              First, let us be clear that our country still may be on track to side step a nasty bout of hyper-inflation; which could cause a gallon of milk to cost a truckload of fifties. Our policy makers have to make the right decisions as we trudge through this recovery. To recognize the silver lining, an economy needs to have ultra-low unemployment levels and rising wages to effectively foster a period of hyper-inflation—both of which we are lacking at the moment. Unemployment is flirting with the 10-percent mark and real average hourly wages fell from December, when they were at their recent high point, to August at a seasonally-adjusted 1.5 percent.

              Some may consider worries about inflation to be premature, but there are countless signs suggesting that the dollar will continue to considerably weaken over the next couple of years. The most concerning: Our government has borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars in efforts to hold up our banking system and this has added to our country’s already-enormous debt responsibilities. Having far too much money and too few goods is the root cause of inflation. Therefore, the biggest worry is that our government will continue to print money to pay for its extraordinary debt. Even if some experts are arguing that inflation concerns are premature, there are proactive actions an investor can take to protect his or her investments.

              Some assets rise in value during times of inflation and having a dose of them in your investment portfolio can do wonders for its performance. The following are widely-considered to be the best performers: 

• Real estate: Traditionally, investors have used real estate as a hedge against the spontaneous performance of portfolios that are overloaded with stocks and bonds. Real-estate assets can also act as a hedge against inflation. Plus, today’s affordable prices and availability have real estate looking extremely appealing as an investment opportunity.
• Commodities: Inflation causes the price of materials to rise. So, why not hold interest in the materials themselves? Investing in commodities through exchange-traded funds can help small investors avoid the many drawbacks that come with investing in commodities (like deciding where to store 1,000 barrels of oil).
• Gold: With our currency no longer anchored to gold, it can lose value—and often does. The magic with gold is that it often moves opposite the value of the U.S. dollar.
• TIPS: Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities are similar to other Treasury securities in that they are long-term IOUs that pay a fixed rate of interest until they mature. But, with TIPS, the government adjusts the payments up or down each month according to inflation levels.  

All My Best, 

Thomas J. Powell  

The discussion of investment strategies in this article should not be considered an offer to buy or sell any investment. As always, consult an investment professional to assist you in meeting your investment goals.  

---

 

 

 

 

Explaining Derivatives to Michael Moore

            Documentarian Michael Moore’s latest project, Capitalism: A Love Story aimed at highlighting a number of flaws concerning the economic system upon which our country is built. In his film, Moore infiltrates Wall Street and Washington D.C. to “explore the root causes of the global economic meltdown.” In one scene, he attempts to make a citizens arrest of the AIG board of directors. In another, he drives an armored car to Merrill Lynch and attempts, kind of, to collect $10 billion on behalf of the American people. While searching for answers in high-profile places, Moore asks financial professionals to explain complex terms, such as derivatives. In an attempt to provide this answer for Mr. Moore, I thought I would revisit a scenario I created last year. The following is a fictional example. It never happened, except for in my head.

            There is and always has been stiff competition between Las Vegas casinos. Located miles from the strip, Sin and Tonic Casino relies on clever ideas from their owner, Dale, to increase profits. In the summer of 2005, Dale decided to unveil a ‘Play Now, Pay Later’ program to his loyal customers. Dale’s customers, most of whom rarely left the casino because they had no home or job to maintain, were allowed to gamble and drink while management kept tabs on how much money they were each blowing through.

            The customers told all of their friends down by the river about Sin and Tonic’s new program and soon the casino was always filled to record numbers for the property.

            Dale decided to lower the payouts on all of his table games and slot machines and also increase the price of alcoholic beverages. But, because his customers were not required to pay right away, no one seemed to complain. Dale’s sales blew through the roof and caught the attention of local banks. One bank referred to Dale’s customers’ debts as “valuable” and offered to increase Dale’s borrowing limit.

            With Dale’s customers’ debts as collateral, the bank turned the debts into securities known as Sin-a-Bonds. Soon, the Sin-a-Bonds were being traded on security markets nationwide. Investors across the country, and soon across the entire world, never knew the AAA-rated Sin-a-Bonds were, in reality, the debts of homeless gambling addicts.

            Leading brokerage firms were selling loads of Sin-a-Bonds and their prices continued to escalate at a surprising rate. Everything was fine until pesky risk managers started poking around and demanding the gamblers to start making payments on their debts. On a busy Saturday night at Sin and Tonic, Dale informed his customers that payments needed to start being made that Monday. The remainder of Saturday night and all day Sunday, Sin and Tonic was filled to capacity.
            On Monday morning Dale and his employees were witness to the first day without customers in the casino’s history. Not one of the customers came in to make payments on their debts and the ones that stumbled around drunk in the parking lot claimed they “hadn’t got no money.” Dale told the bank he could not pay back any of the money they lent him and he quickly decided to claim bankruptcy.

            Sin-a-bonds dropped to near-worthless levels and investors lost their money. Plus, the bank that issued the Sin-a-Bonds saw its capital depleted and they were consequently unable to offer any more loans. The bank laid off all of its employees and closed.

            Dale was unable to pay any of his bills and all the companies that granted him payment extensions had to take massive losses, as Dale was their largest customer. The carpet cleaning service was forced to downsize, the vending companies were left with handfuls of damaged machines that no one else was interested in and alcohol suppliers were left with large inventories that could not possibly be consumed without Dale’s heavy-drinking clientele.

            The brokerage firms that sold the Sin-a-Bonds were in heavy distress. Eventually, the government stepped in to save them by creating a bailout package that was funded by taxpayers from states where gambling is prohibited.

            Dale retired from the casino business and is now rumored to be heavily involved in politics.

 

Absolute Returns Absolutely

            An increasing number of investment firms looking to capitalize on the fears of their investors have started offering “absolute return” funds that boast the ability to always produce returns. Investment advisors are pushing mutual funds that are designed to produce positive returns no matter how badly the stock market is performing. The idea has been around for decades, but now major financial companies such as Goldman Sachs, Dreyfus and Putnam have all launched similar absolute-return funds.  In response to the growing group of clients who want to be able to rely on their portfolio’s positive performance, investment firms have started heavily marketing absolute-return funds. But, are these funds worth all the hype?

            Similar to hedge funds, absolute-return funds focus on making money in all market conditions. By taking long positions in stocks and balancing them with short positions of similar value and in similar assets, absolute-return funds aim to produce returns slightly higher than Treasury bills.  In a dropping market, gains on the short positions are meant to offset losses on the long positions. In a rising market, the long positions are supposed to outperform the shorts; therefore producing modest returns for passive investors. If the sheer makeup of an absolute-return fund is not producing, fund managers also attempt to achieve their target by employing a number of different strategies. For instance, short-selling can help offset market falls and derivatives can shield from undesired volatility.  

            Generally, the techniques used by absolute-return fund managers to stabilize your portfolio’s ride are the sort of diversification practices you can do yourself, without having to pay hefty annual fees. In a recent Reno Gazette Journal article, Registered Investment Adviser Robert Barone recommended the following three steps in order to achieve consistent positive returns:

            First, reduce the allocation to equities in your portfolio to the 30-to-40 percent range. Remember to hold equity positions in companies with sound business practices and low levels of debt.

            Second, increase the allocation to fixed income to the 40-to-50 percent range, but keep the maturities relatively short (no more than three or four years to maturity).

            Third, because of weak dollar policies, increase the normal allocation to commodities to the 10-to-20 percent range.

            The discussion of investment strategies in this article should not be considered an offer to buy or sell any investment. As always, consult an investment professional to assist you in meeting your investment goals.

 

A Broken CIT Will Trip up Small Businesses

            On October 1^st CIT announced the launch of a plan which will aim to enhance its capital and improve its liquidity. According to the official press release, the restructuring plan is designed to “ensure continued financing support for small business and middle market clients.” After being denied financial support from the Treasury in July, CIT was forced to create a restructuring plan in order to attempt to sidestep bankruptcy court. But, because of concerns with CIT’s financial stability, the FDIC has forbidden the company from increasing its deposits, which severely limits the restructuring tools in its belt.

            The target of the restructuring plan is to slice CIT’s $31 billion dollar debt load down to about $25 billion. But, some experts have argued that the amount is not nearly enough to persuade the FDIC to again allow CIT to accept deposits. CIT is offering voluntary exchange offers for certain unsecured notes. Current holders of an “existing debt security would receive a pro rata portion of each of five series of newly issued secured notes, with maturities ranging from four to eight years, and/or shares of newly issued voting preferred stock.”

            The future success of CIT relies on a significant increase in capital. The restrictions imposed by regulators and the troubling credit freeze have created enormous obstacles for CIT. Financial companies, like CIT, without direct access to Federal Reserve emergency loans rely on funding from short-term debt markets. But, with these markets already shriveled, the possibility of finding new debt buyers has all but disappeared.

            With CIT operating in more than 50 countries, it is peculiar that the government did not deem CIT “too big too fail,” as it has a number of other institutions. The last company of this size that was denied a bailout was Lehman Brothers and its resulting bankruptcy filing tore the financial market to ribbons.

            For over a century CIT has been a huge player in providing loans to small and medium-sized businesses. The company has more than one million corporate borrowers; including popular businesses such as Dunkin’ Donuts and Dillards. If (or when) CIT collapses, the biggest problem will be the scores of small businesses that will find it even more difficult to find capital to fuel their ventures. As constantly noted, small businesses are crucial to our recovery. The credit freeze has already built a wall between businesses and available capital. The crumbling of CIT will only exacerbate the problem and highlight the importance of private capital in the marketplace. Without capital, our financial system cannot begin to encourage economic growth, and without growth a recovery is out of reach.

All My Best,

Thomas J. Powell

 

 

 

---

 

The Recession is Very Likely Over? Don’t Bet on it!

As I posted yesterday, Bernanke was quoted as saying the current recession is most likely over. Cheers may have been heard around the dinner table and throughout the board rooms and trading rooms around the country.

But wait, not so fast. Understand what it means when Bernanke says the Recession is most likely over. What he is telling all of us is that the FALL is most likely over. Take for example the stock market. At its highest point, the market reached 14164; 6547 has been its low. Today we are sitting at 9791 as I write this post, which is just under a 50% gain from its low point. This is one of the numbers that has everyone cheering, correct?

Remember, at 9791 we are STILL nearly 50% UNDER the high of the market from the low point. This means we have a long way to go before getting back to EVEN. We can applaud our progress and slap ourselves on the back, but true growth is most likely going to be a slow climb back up the mountain.

I saw numbers that show a 2.7% gain in retail sales for August, along with applause for the largest growth in three years. Are you sitting out there like I am wondering how foolish the government thinks we are, knowing those numbers are almost certainly the result of the Cash for Clunkers program? I am very curious to see the “miraculous” September numbers, as I shockingly think they may go back to a flatline position without the assistance of $3 Billion in government aid.

As much as I am crossing my fingers that this Recession is in the record books and we can stick a fork in it, I wouldn’t bet on it. Especially for those of us in small business, the entrepreneurs and the foundation of our country’s work environment. Until capital is made available again in the market, business will continue to suffer, unemployment will continue to stalk us, and no true recovery will be made. That you can bet on.

I look forward to hearing your feedback.

All my best,

Thomas J Powell

Too Big to Fail? Here We Go Again…

Today marks the one year anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, one of the worst financial disasters of our time, as it nearly brought down the international financial system. Yesterday I was reading an article about how the big banks are showing signs of life with their actions and things are starting to move, signalling a possible economic recovery. This makes me wonder about the adage of being “too big to fail.” What is the right decision in this situation?

It appears to me that after the latest cycle, quite possibly and hopefully the worst we will see in our lifetimes, people are hoping that this time things will be different. That once we actually do reach a point of recovery, we won’t make the same mistakes that were recently experienced. This cycle has been painful; it has been gut-wrenching; it has been a lesson I surely don’t want to repeat, as I get it and don’t need to learn it again.

I am very nervous about this thought process. As the saying goes, history repeats itself, and that did not become a quote we all use without good reason. For generations, for decades, for centuries, the animal in human nature causes us to make the same decisions and choose the same paths as before.

Some of our largest banks, which the government determined were too big to fail, received billions in taxpayer TARP funds. Our money kept these institutions afloat and I understand the reasoning behind keeping their doors open, especially using the Lehman example. I am dismayed, however, at the actions of these institutions. By receiving government funds, they are able to continually take on high degrees of risk, knowing there is a safety net underneath them. Prudent due diligence has gone by the wayside with the knowledge of someone is there to catch them. I liken this to the casino industry. If you could borrow $1 Million dollars and gamble it, knowing you would get it back if you lost it PLUS knowing you would get to keep any winnings you made, why wouldn’t you do it? This is exactly the system we have allowed to be established.

And, what about the outrageous salaries and bonus payments we still continue to hear about? I am all for the entrepreneur earning as much as he or she can based on value and return to society, but I am not about taking from you and me, putting a chokehold on getting capital back into circulation while cutting off small business, and then handsomely rewarding the big bank players in the process.

The veritas, the truth, as I see it, is that nothing has really changed, that we are repeating ourselves and that we will all pay the price of the failure to learn what could be a valuable and useful lesson. As we continue through this cycle, which I believe still has more pain to come, I hope for and have faith in the success of the small business, for the will of the entrepreneur, and for the recovery of our great land.

Too big to fail? Ok, I’ll give the government that. But what about keeping the backbone of American capitalism healthy? I’m not saying the answer is in government bailouts for small business, as anyone who knows me knows I believe in complete personal responsibility. I’m only asking for the same access to capital for small business so that it can keep its doors open, giving it time to make the changes and adjustments necessary for its own success. In short, allowing business to help itself.

I have thoughts on how I believe this can be done without the banks, allowing history to repeat itself in the manner I believe will lead to our recovery. I will write more in the coming days, but in short I believe in private capital + private enterprise = economic recovery.

I look forward to sharing more of my thoughts and receiving your feedback.

All my best,

Thomas J Powell