Tag: Economic Crisis

  • VIDEO: President’s first prime time press conference

    VIDEO: President’s first prime time press conference

    Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:38:22 -0500

    From: info@barackobama.com

    Last night, President Obama gave his first-ever prime time press conference to call for immediate action on his economic recovery plan.

    Today, the Senate voted to pass the President’s plan. But there’s another round of voting in both houses of Congress before the president can sign it into law.

    Make sure that your voice is heard in this process.

    Watch the video and share your economic crisis story. If you’ve already shared your story, talk to a friend, neighbor, or family member and record their story.

    Thank you,

    Mitch

    Mitch Stewart
    Director
    Organizing for America

  • USA: 15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009

    USA: 15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009

    Rick Newman
    Friday February 6, 2009, 11:53 am EST

    With consumers shutting their wallets and corporate revenues plunging, the business landscape may start to resemble a graveyard in 2009. Household names like Circuit City and Linens ‘n Things have already perished. And chances are, those bankruptcies were just an early warning sign of a much broader epidemic.

    Moody’s Investors Service, for instance, predicts that the default rate on corporate bonds – which foretells bankruptcies – will be three times higher in 2009 than in 2008, and 15 times higher than in 2007. That could equate to 25 significant bankruptcies per month.

    We examined ratings from Moody’s and data from other sources to develop a short list of potential victims that ought to be familiar to most consumers. Many of these firms are in industries directly hit by the slowdown in consumer spending, such as retail, automotive, housing and entertainment.

    But there are other common threads. Most of these firms have limited cash for a rainy day, and a lot of debt, with large interest payments due over the next year. In ordinary times, it might not be so hard to refinance loans, or get new ones, to help keep the cash flowing. But in an acute credit crunch it’s a different story, and at companies where sales are down and going lower, skittish lenders may refuse to grant any more credit. It’s a terrible time to be cash-poor.

    [See how Wall Street continues to doom itself.]

    That’s why Moody’s assigns most of these firms its lowest rating for short-term liquidity. And all the firms on this list have long-term debt that Moody’s rates Caa or lower, which means the borrower is considered at least a “very high” credit risk.

    Once a company defaults on its debt, or fails to make a payment, the next step is usually a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Some firms continue to operate while in Chapter 11, retaining many of their employees. Those firms often shed debt, restructure, and emerge from bankruptcy as healthier companies.

    But it takes fresh financing to do that, and with money scarce, more bankrupt firms than usual are likely to liquidate – like Circuit City. That’s why corporate failures are likely to be a major drag on the economy in 2009: In a liquidation, the entire workforce often gets axed, with little or no severance. That will only add to unemployment, which could hit 9 or even 10 percent by the end of the year.

    [Want to land a plum job without paying taxes? Here’s how.]

    It’s possible that none of the firms on this list will liquidate, or even declare Chapter 11. Some may come up with unexpected revenue or creative financing that helps avert bankruptcy, while others could be purchased in whole or in part by creditors or other investors. But one way or another, the following 15 firms will probably look a lot different a year from now than they do today:

    Rite Aid. (Ticker symbol: RAD; about 100,000 employees; 1-year stock-price decline: 92%). This drugstore chain tried to boost its performance by acquiring competitors Brooks and Eckerd in 2007. But there have been some nasty side effects, like a huge debt load that makes it the most leveraged drugstore chain in the U.S., according to Zacks Equity Research. That big retail investment came just as megadiscounter Wal-Mart was starting to sell prescription drugs, and consumers were starting to cut bank on spending. Management has twice lowered its outlook for 2009. Prognosis: Mounting losses, with no turnaround in sight.

    Claire’s Stores. (Privately owned; about 18,000 employees.) Leon Black’s once-renowned private-equity firm, the Apollo Group, paid $3.1 billion for this trendy teen-focused accessory store in 2007, when buyout funds were bulging. But cash flow has been negative for much of the past year and analysts believe Claire’s is close to defaulting on its debt. A horrible retail outlook for 2009 offers no relief, suggesting Claire’s could follow Linens ‘n Things – another Apollo purchase – and declare Chapter 11, possibly shuttering all of its 3,000-plus stores.

    [See 5 pieces missing from Obama’s stimulus plan.]

    Chrysler. (Privately owned; about 55,000 employees). It’s never a good sign when management insists the company is not going out of business, which is what CEO Bob Nardelli has been doing lately. Of the three Detroit automakers, Chrysler is the most endangered, with a product portfolio that’s overreliant on gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs and almost totally devoid of compelling small cars. A recent deal with Fiat seems dubious, since the Italian automaker doesn’t have to pony up any money, and Chrysler desperately needs cash. The company is quickly burning through $4 billion in government bailout money, and with car sales down 40 percent from recent peaks, Chrysler may be the weakling that can’t cut it in tough times.

    Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group. (DTG; about 7,000 employees; stock down 95%). This car-rental company is a small player compared to Enterprise, Hertz, and Avis Budget. It’s also more reliant on leisure travelers, and therefore more susceptible to a downturn as consumers cut spending. Dollar Thrifty is also closely tied to Chrysler, which supplies 80 percent of its fleet. Moody’s predicts that if Chrysler declares Chapter 11, Dollar Thrifty would suffer deeply as well.

    Realogy Corp. (Privately owned; about 13,000 employees). It’s the biggest real-estate brokerage firm in the country, but that’s a bad thing when there are double-digit declines in both sales and prices, as there were in 2009. Realogy, which includes the Coldwell Banker, ERA, and Sotheby’s franchises, also carries a high debt load, dating to its purchase by the Apollo Group in 2007 – the very moment when the housing market was starting to invert from a soaring ride into a sickening nosedive. Realogy has been trying to refinance much of its debt, prompting lawsuits. One deal was denied by a judge in December, reducing the firm’s already tight wiggle room.

    [See why “Wall Street talent” is an oxymoron.]

    Station Casinos. (Privately owned, about 14,000 employees). Las Vegas has already been creamed by a biblical real-estate bust, and now it may face the loss of its home-grown gambling joints, too. Station – which runs 15 casinos off the strip that cater to locals – recently failed to make a key interest payment, which is often one of the last steps before a Chapter 11 filing. For once, the house seems likely to lose.

    Loehmann’s Capital Corp. (Privately owned; about 1,500 employees). This clothing chain has the right formula for lean times, offering women’s clothing at discount prices. But the consumer pullback is hitting just about every retailer, and Loehmann’s has a lot less cash to ride out a drought than competitors like Nordstrom Rack and TJ Maxx. If Loehmann’s doesn’t get additional financing in 2009 – a dicey proposition, given skyrocketing unemployment and plunging spending – the chain could run out of cash.

    Sbarro. (Privately owned; about 5,500 employees). It’s not the pizza that’s the problem. Many of this chain’s 1,100 storefronts are in malls, which is a double whammy: Traffic is down, since consumers have put away their wallets. Sbarro can’t really boost revenue by adding a breakfast or late-night menu, like other chains have done. And competitors like Domino’s and Pizza Hut have less debt and stronger cash flow, which could intensify pressure on Sbarro as key debt payments come due in 2009.

    Six Flags. (SIX; about 30,000 employees; stock down 84%). This theme-park operator has been losing money for several years, and selling off properties to try to pay down debt and get back into the black. But the ride may end prematurely. Moody’s expects cash flow to be negative in 2009, and if consumers aren’t spending during the peak summer season, that could imperil the company’s ability to pay debts coming due later this year and in 2010.

    Blockbuster. (BBI; about 60,000 employees; stock down 57%). The video-rental chain has burned cash while trying to figure out how to maximize fees without alienating customers. Its operating income has started to improve just as consumers are cutting back, even on movies. Video stores in general are under pressure as they compete with cable and Internet operators offering the same titles. A key test of Blockbuster’s viability will come when two credit lines expire in August. One possible outcome, according to Valueline, is that investors take the company private and then go public again when market conditions are better.

    Krispy Kreme. (KKD; about 4,000 employees; stock down 50%). The donuts might be good, but Krispy Kreme overestimated Americans’ appetite – and that’s saying something. This chain overexpanded during the donut heyday of the 1990s – taking on a lot of debt – and now requires high volumes to meet expenses and interest payments. The company has cut costs and closed underperforming stores, but still hasn’t earned an operating profit in three years. And now that consumers are cutting back on everything, such improvements may fail to offset top-line declines, leading Krispy Kreme to seek some kind of relief from lenders over the next year.

    Landry’s Restaurants. (LNY; about 17,000 employees; stock down 66%). This restaurant chain, which operates Chart House, Rainforest Café, and other eateries, needs $400 million in new financing to finalize a buyout deal dating to last June. If lenders come through, the company should have enough cash to ride out the recession. But at least two banks have already balked, leading to downgrades of the company’s debt and the prospect of a cash-flow crunch.

    Sirius Satellite Radio. (SIRI – parent company; about 1,000 employees; stock down 96%). The music rocks, but satellite radio has yet to be profitable, and huge contracts for performers like Howard Stern are looking unsustainable. Sirius is one of two satellite-radio services owned by parent company Sirius XM, which was formed when Sirius and XM merged last year. So far, the merger hasn’t generated the savings needed to make the company profitable, and Moody’s thinks there’s a “high likelihood” that Sirius will fail to repay or refinance its debt in 2009. One outcome could be a takeover, at distressed prices, by other firms active in the satellite business.

    Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings. (TRMP; about 9,500 employees; stock down 94%). The casino company made famous by The Donald has received several extensions on interest payments, while it tries to sell at least one of its Atlantic City properties and pay down a stack of debt. But with casino buyers scarce, competition circling, and gamblers nursing their losses from the recession, Trump Entertainment may face long odds of skirting bankruptcy.

    BearingPoint. (BGPT; about 16,000 employees; stock down 21%). This Virginia-based consulting firm, spun out of KPMG in 2001, is struggling to solve its own operating problems. The firm has consistently lost money, revenue has been falling, and management stopped issuing earnings guidance in 2008. Stable government contracts generate about 30 percent of the firm’s business, but the firm may sell other divisions to help pay off debt. With a key interest payment due in April, management needs to hustle – or devise its own exit strategy.

    – With Carol Hook, Danielle Burton and Stephanie Salmon

  • The credit crunch according to Soros

    The credit crunch according to Soros

    The credit crunch according to Soros

    By Chrystia Freeland

    Published: January 30 2009 11:38 | Last updated: January 30 2009 11:38

    On Friday, August 17 2007, 21 of Wall Street’s most influential investors met for lunch at George Soros’s Southampton estate on the eastern end of Long Island. The first tremors of what would become the global credit crunch had rippled out a week or so earlier, when the French bank BNP Paribas froze withdrawals from three of its funds, and in response, central bankers made a huge injection of liquidity into the money markets in an effort to keep the world’s banks lending to one another.

    Although it was a sultry summer Friday, as the group dined on striped bass, fruit salad and cookies, the tone was serious and rather formal. Soros’s guests included Julian Robertson, founder of the Tiger Management hedge fund; Donald Marron, the former chief executive of PaineWebber and now boss of Lightyear Capital; James Chanos, president of Kynikos Associates, a hedge fund that specialised in shorting stocks; and Byron Wien, chief investment strategist at Pequot Capital and the convener of the annual gathering – known to its participants as the Benchmark Lunch.

    The discussion focused on a single question: was a recession looming? We all know the answer today, but the consensus that overcast afternoon was different. In a memo written after the lunch, Wien, a longtime friend of Soros’s, wrote: “The conclusion was that we were probably in an economic slowdown and a correction in the market, but we were not about to begin a recession or a bear market.” Only two men dissented. One of those was Soros, who finished the meal convinced that the global financial crisis he had been predicting – prematurely – for years had finally begun.

    His conclusion had immediate consequences. Six years earlier, following the departure of Stan Druckenmiller from Quantum Funds, Soros’s hedge fund, Soros converted the operation into a “less aggressively managed vehicle” and renamed it an “endowment fund”, which farmed most of its money out to external managers. Now Soros realised he had to get back into the game. “I did not want to see my accumulated wealth be severely impaired,” he said, during a two-hour conversation this winter in the conference room of his midtown Manhattan offices. “So I came back and set up a macro-account within which I counterbalanced what I thought was the exposure of the firm.”

    Soros complained that his years of less active involvement at Quantum meant he didn’t have the kind of “detailed knowledge of particular companies I used to have, so I’m not in a position to pick stocks”. Moreover, “even many of the macro instruments that have been recently invented were unfamiliar to me”. Even so, Quantum achieved a 32 per cent return in 2007, making the then 77-year-old the second-highest paid hedge fund manager in the world, according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine. He ended 2008, a year that saw global destruction of wealth on the most colossal scale since the second world war, with two out of three hedge funds losing money, up almost 10 per cent.

    Soros’s main goal was to preserve his fortune. But, as has been the case throughout his career, his timing and financial acumen enhanced his credibility as a thinker, and never more so than in 2008. In May and June, after more than two decades of writing, he hit bestseller lists in the US and in the UK with his ninth book, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets. In October, he received an invitation to testify before Congress about the financial crisis. In November, Barack Obama, whom he had long backed for the presidency, defeated John McCain.

    “In the twilight of his life, he’s achieved the recognition he has always wanted,” Wien said. “Everything is going for him. He’s healthy, his candidate won, his business is on a solid footing.”

    . . .

    Many comparisons have been drawn between 2008 and earlier periods of turmoil, but the historical moment with most personal resonance for Soros is not one of the conventional choices. The parallel he sees is with 1944, when, as a 13-year-old Jewish boy in Nazi-occupied Budapest, he eluded the Holocaust.

    Soros credits his beloved father, Tivadar, with teaching him how to respond to “far from equilibrium situations”. Captured by the Russians in the first world war, Tivadar was imprisoned in Siberia. He engineered his own escape and return home through a Russia convulsed by the Bolshevik revolution. That sojourn stripped him of his youthful ambition and left him wanting “nothing more from life than to enjoy it”. Yet on March 19 1944, the day the Germans occupied Hungary, the 50-year-old sprang into action, rescuing his immediate family and many others by arranging false identities for them.

    Before the invasion, George was still enough of a child, his father thought, to need a bit of parental coddling. Yet the teenager who spent the war living apart from his parents under a false name found the danger exhilarating. “It was high adventure,” Soros wrote, “like living through Raiders of the Lost Ark.” And as the latest financial crisis gathered momentum, he admitted to the same thrill. “I think the same thing applies again. I feel the same kind of stimulation as I felt then,” he told me.

    Part of the stimulation is intellectual. Soros’s experiences in 1944 laid the groundwork for the conceptual framework he would spend the rest of his life elaborating and which, he believes, has found its validation in the events of 2008. His core idea is “reflexivity”, which he defines as a “two-way feedback loop, between the participants’ views and the actual state of affairs. People base their decisions not on the actual situation that confronts them, but on their perception or interpretation of the situation. Their decisions make an impact on the situation and changes in the situation are liable to change their perceptions.”

    It is, at its root, a case for frequent re-examination of one’s assumptions about the world and for a readiness to spot and exploit moments of cataclysmic change – those times when our perceptions of events and events themselves are likely to interact most fiercely. It is also at odds with the rational expectations economic school, which has been the prevailing orthodoxy in recent decades. That approach assumed that economic players – from people buying homes to bankers buying subprime mortgages for their portfolios – were rational actors making, in aggregate, the best choices for themselves and that free markets were effective mechanisms for balancing supply and demand, setting prices correctly and tending towards equilibrium.

    The rational expectations theory has taken a beating over the past 18 months: its intellectual nadir was probably October 23 2008, when Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, admitted to Congress that there was “a flaw in the model”. Soros argues that the “market fundamentalism” of Greenspan and his ilk, especially their assumption that “financial markets are self-correcting”, was an important cause of the current crisis. It befuddled policy-makers and was the intellectual basis for the “various synthetic instruments and valuation models” which contributed mightily to the crash.

    By contrast, Soros sees the current crisis as a real-life illustration of reflexivity. Markets did not reflect an objective “truth”. Rather, the beliefs of market participants – that house prices would always rise, that an arcane financial instrument based on a subprime mortgage really could merit a triple-A rating – created a new reality. Ultimately, that “super-bubble” was unsustainable, hence the credit crunch of 2007 and the recession and financial crisis of 2008 and beyond.

    As an investor and as a thinker, Soros has always thrived in times of upheaval. But he has also remained something of an outsider. He recalls how he “discovered loneliness” when he arrived to study at the London School of Economics in 1947. Later on, as he worked his way up from being a journeyman arbitrage trader in London and then New York, to running one of the world’s most successful hedge funds, Soros remained, in the words of one private equity acquaintance, a bit of “an oddball”, both on Wall Street and in the academic world. He is frequently described as “charming”, yet few see the fit, tanned, twice-divorced billionaire as an emotional confidant. “If I had an idea about India-Pakistan, I would talk to him about it,” Wien said. “If I were having a problem in my marriage, I don’t think I would go and talk to George about it.”

    Strobe Talbott, now the president of the Brookings Institute and a former deputy secretary of state, said: “He likes to think of himself as an outsider who can come in from time to time, including to the Oval Office, where I took him on a couple of occasions. But simply hobnobbing with the powerful isn’t important.”

    That lack of clubbiness, and the associated trait of iconoclasm, may explain why, for all his worldly success, Soros has had a rather mixed public reputation. His speculative plays, which have often targeted currencies, have earned him the wrath of political leaders around the world. The ambitious, global reach of his richly funded Open Society foundation has prompted some critics to accuse him of suffering from a Messiah complex. He was so effectively demonised by the US right earlier this decade that he kept fairly quiet about his support of Obama, lest the association hurt his candidate. Probably most painfully, his forays into economics and philosophy often have met with considerable scepticism, especially from academia.

    The one time and place where he instantly became a highly regarded insider was in the former Soviet Union and its satellites, at the moment the Berlin Wall came down. More completely and more swiftly than any other foreigner, Soros grasped and embraced the systemic transformation that was unfolding, and was rewarded with influence and respect. The question for Soros today is whether, as the west undergoes its own once-in-a-century systemic shock, this arch-outsider will finally find himself in the mainstream in the society which has been his main home for more than half a century.

    . . .

    Soros’s most famous – or infamous – speculative play as an investor was his bet against sterling in 1992, a wager which won him more than $1bn and earned him the epithet from the British press of “the man who broke the Bank of England”. That bet also turns out to be a perfect illustration of the specific talent which his past and present fund managers agree has been central to his investing success.

    Soros’s best-known investment was not, in actual fact, his own idea. According to both Soros and Druckenmiller, who was managing Quantum at the time, it was Druckenmiller who came up with the plan to short the pound. But when Druckenmiller went through his rationale with Soros, in one of their twice- or thrice-daily conversations, Soros told his protégé to be bolder: “I said, ‘Go for the jugular!’.” Druckenmiller duly raised their stake – Quantum and several related funds wagered nearly $10bn, according to interviews Soros gave afterwards – and Soros earned both a fortune and an international reputation.

    Druckenmiller, who spent 12 years at Quantum, says that conversation exemplifies Soros’s singular financial gift: “He’s extremely good at using the balance sheet – probably the best ever. He is able to use leverage when he likes it, but he is also able to walk away. He has no emotional attachment to a position. I think that is an unusual characteristic in our industry.”

    Chanos agrees: “One thing that I’ve both wrestled with and admired, that [Soros] conquered many years ago, is the ability to go from long to short, the ability to turn on a dime when confronted with the evidence. Emotionally, that is really hard.”

    Soros denies any great degree of emotional self-control. “That’s not true, that’s not true,” he told me, shaking his head and smiling. “I am very emotional. I am as moody as the market, so I’m basically a manic depressive personality.” (His market-linked moodiness extends to psychosomatic ailments, especially backaches, which he treats as valuable investment tips.)

    Instead, Soros attributes his effectiveness as an investor to his philosophical views about the contingent nature of human knowledge: “I think that my conceptual framework, which basically emphasises the importance of misconceptions, makes me extremely critical of my own decisions … I know that I am bound to be wrong, and therefore am more likely to correct my own mistakes.”

    Soros’s radar for revolution is the second key to his investing style. He looks for “game-changing moments, not incremental ones”, according to Sebastian Mallaby, the Washington Post columnist and author who is writing a history of hedge funds. As examples, Mallaby cites Quantum’s shorting of the pound and Soros’s 1985 “Plaza Accord” bet that the dollar would fall against the yen – his two most famous currency trades – as well as a lesser-known 1973 bet that, as a consequence of the Arab-Israeli war, defence stocks would soar. “It’s not that reflexivity tells you what to do, but it tells you to be on the look-out for turn-around situations,” Mallaby said. “It’s an attitude of mind.”

    Some Soros-watchers intimate that his vast network of international contacts might be an important source of his market prescience. But it was in the one part of the world where Soros really did have an inside track – the former Soviet bloc – that he made his most disastrous deal. In Russia, as in much of the former Soviet Union, he was intensely engaged with the country’s political and economic transformation. In June 1997, as the Kremlin struggled to pay overdue wages, Soros extended a bridge loan to the Russian government, acting as a one-man International Monetary Fund.

    He came to believe in Russia’s commitment to reforms, and to see himself as an insider – two convictions that were his financial undoing. He invested $980m with a consortium of oligarchs who acquired a 25 per cent stake in Svyazinvest, the national telecoms company, deciding to participate because “I thought that this is the transition from robber capitalism to legitimate capitalism”. But instead, the Svyazinvest privatisation turned out to be the moment when the oligarchs redirected their energies from fleecing the state to fleecing one another. Soros, as an outsider, was an obvious casualty. “Never have I been screwed so much since Russia. For them, they get a satisfaction out of doing it.

    “It was the biggest mistake of my investment career. I was deceived by my own hope.” In his most recent book he dismisses Russia with a single sentence, further diminished by parenthesis: “(I don’t discuss Russia, because I don’t want to invest there.)”

    . . .

    On a chilly Monday night in December, Soros took the hour-long drive from Manhattan to the Bruce Museum in Greenwich, Connecticut. He was due to speak at a benefit for the Scholar Rescue Fund, a programme he has partly financed and which, since 2002, has provided safe havens for 266 persecuted academics from 40 countries. After his talk (on the global financial crisis, of course), Soros filed out of the auditorium chatting with Stanley Bergman, a founding partner of the law firm that had sponsored the evening.

    “You like the game?” Soros asked his host with a smile.

    “Yes,” the white-haired Bergman replied.

    Then, in a flash of the competitive spirit that makes Soros an avid skier and player of tennis and chess, Soros asked: “And how old are you?”

    “75.”

    “I’m 78,” Soros replied. “But what’s the use of good health if it doesn’t buy you money?” The vigorous septuagenarians flashed each other a complicit smile.

    According to Wien, Soros likes the game, too: “George loves to be able to show from time to time that he can do it.” But while he loves to play, he is disdainful of a life lived purely to accumulate more chips. His epiphany came in 1981, when he had to scramble to raise money to pay for an investment in bonds. “I thought I would have a heart attack,” he told me. “And then I realised that to die just for the sake of getting rich, I would be a loser.”

    For Soros, the solution was philanthropy. “To do something really that would make a significant difference to the world, that would be worth dying for,” he said. “The Foundation enabled me to get out of myself and to somehow be concerned with other people than myself.” Soros’s fortune has given his causes enormous firepower: according to Aryeh Neier, the human rights activist who has been running the Open Society Foundation since 1993, its budget was $550m in 2008 and will increase to $600m this year. By his own calculation, Soros has donated a total of more than $5bn to his causes, primarily directing his giving through his foundation.

    “No philanthropist in the second half of the 20th century has done better in deploying resources strategically to change the world,” Larry Summers, the newly appointed head of Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, told me in a conversation early last autumn. Talbott compares Soros’s impact to that of a sovereign nation. In the 1990s, says Talbott, “when I got word that George Soros wanted to talk, I would drop everything and treat him pretty much like a visiting head of state. He was literally putting more money into some of the former colonies of the former Soviet empire than the US government, so that merited treating him as someone with a very high impact.”

    Soros’s philanthropic lieutenants report an approach remarkably similar to the investing style observed by his fund managers: he knows how to make big, original bets, and he isn’t afraid to cut his losses when a project isn’t working out. Anders Aslund, an economist who has studied Russia and Ukraine and who has worked with Soros on various projects, believes his philanthropic style “is very much formed by the money markets, which are always changing. He assumes any idea he has now will be wrong in a few years. He is always asking himself, when he has a wonderful project going, ‘When should I stop this project?’.”

    Soros’s war chest, and his determination to deploy it beyond the usual blue-chip charities of hospitals, universities, museums or even poverty in Africa, had long made him an occasionally controversial figure outside the US. He was among the western culprits accused by the Kremlin of inciting Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution; his foundation’s offices have been raided in Russia and he was forced to close them down in authoritarian Uzbekistan.

    America, it turns out, can also be sensitive to plutocrats using their wealth to address socially contentious subjects. In recent years, his foundation became more active in the US, taking on issues including drug policy. His engagement became more intense during the George W. Bush presidency, when Soros decided that the open society he had worked to foster in repressive regimes abroad was imperilled in his adopted home.

    Some admired his chutzpah. The famously independent-minded Paul Volcker, who was appointed to lead the Fed by Jimmy Carter and reappointed by Ronald Reagan, said: “The drug thing is a perfect example that he doesn’t adopt a conventional view. I think drug policy needs a new look and he’s been one of the people who say that.”

    Soros’s money has been crucial in enabling him to voice maverick views: “That’s what led me to oppose Bush very publicly, because I was in a position that I could afford to do it,” he said. But he also believes his fortune and the automatic credibility it gives him in America has drawn the fire of conservative pundits such as Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and extremist pamphleteer Lyndon LaRouche. “Given the excessive esteem in which people who make money are held in America, I had to be demonised,” he said.

    Their attacks worked. So much so that last year, as the Obama bandwagon gained speed and American financiers, along with much of the rest of the country, clamoured to jump on, his earliest heavyweight Wall Street backer kept a low profile. “Obama seeks to be a unifier,” Soros said. “And I have been a divisive figure because I’ve been demonised by the right. I thought my vocal support for him would not necessarily benefit him.”

    . . .

    At around 1.00am on November 5 2008, Soros sat on a peach-coloured sofa in his elegant Fifth Avenue apartment, with Queen Noor of Jordan to his left and Steve Clemons, of the New America think-tank, perched on the edge of a chair to his right. Around them milled a crowd of eclectic and jubilant guests, many still teary-eyed from Obama’s Grant Park victory speech, which had been broadcast on four flat-screen television sets in the apartment. Like most Soros soirées, the gathering included more artists and statesmen than Masters of the Universe: Michèle Pierre-Louis, the prime minister of Haiti and former head of her country’s Soros foundation; former World Bank chief James Wolfensohn; Volcker; and twentysomething Kwasi Asare, a hip-hop music promoter, were among the visitors.

    Soros drank an espresso and, a few minutes later, a final champagne toast with the last of his guests. Alexander, his 23-year-old son, perched on the arm of his chair and ruffled his father’s hair in farewell. Everyone else took that as a signal to depart, too. Soros was in a mellow, triumphant mood that night – and with good reason. He had spotted Obama early on. His ubiquitous political consigliere, Michael Vachon, still has among his papers a rumpled itinerary from a trip he and Soros took to Chicago in February 2004. In the upper right-hand corner of the page, Vachon had scrawled, “Barack guy”. The Senate candidate had been keen to meet Soros and called the pair repeatedly during their visit. But it was a packed schedule and Soros could only offer a 7.30am breakfast slot at the Four Seasons.

    Soros left that meal “very impressed”, a view that was confirmed when he read Obama’s autobiography and deemed him “a real person of substance”. A few months later, on June 7, Soros hosted a packed fundraiser for Obama’s Senate campaign at his upper east side home. Soros and his family contributed roughly $80,000, then the legal maximum.

    Obama was impressing a lot of people at that time. But once it became clear that Hillary Clinton would be in the presidential race, nearly all of the established New York Democrats, particularly the older Wall Street crowd, lined up behind their local Senator and her machine, driven by a combination of loyalty and calculation. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, now the head of the IMF and then a possible French presidential candidate, said Soros told him in 2006 he was supporting “this young guy, Barack Obama. He was the first one to tell me this and he was right.” On January 16 2007, the day Obama formed a presidential exploratory committee, Soros contributed to his campaign and officially offered his backing. Before doing so, Soros called Hillary Clinton to let her know. “I look forward to your support in the general election,” she told him.

    His decision to back Obama was consistent with his life-long affinity for moments of radical change. “I felt that America had gone so far off base that there was a need for discontinuity,” he said. As in the markets, Soros’s political bet on systemic transformation – his support for Obama, but also his early opposition to the war in Iraq and the “war on terror” – has come good.

    For Soros, one happy consequence of now being in tune with the zeitgeist is that he is being taken seriously as a thinker on American public policy issues, particularly to do with the financial crisis. When he, along with the other four highest-earning hedge fund managers, testified before Congress in November, he was treated with respect and even deference – not the prevailing attitude towards billionaire financiers at the moment. Before Soros had even taken his coat off, he was greeted in the corridors by Democratic New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. “Give him a nice office,” she told a staffer who was looking for a place where Soros could wait before his testimony. “He creates a lot of jobs in my district and supports a lot of good people.” After the hearing, a lawmaker and a staffer both approached Soros and asked him to autograph their copies of his book.

    . . .

    Being listened to on Capitol Hill, and by global policymakers more generally, is important to Soros. But what matters to him most of all – more than money, more than the political and social accomplishments of his foundation – is leaving an enduring intellectual legacy. He describes reflexivity as “my main interest”. Even as Soros met with increasing financial and public success through his fund and his foundation, he was deeply frustrated by his failure to be accepted as a serious thinker. He titled one chapter in his latest book “Autobiography of a Failed Philosopher”, and once delivered a lecture at the University of Vienna called “A Failed Philosopher Tries Again”. As a young man, he wanted to become an academic, but “my grades were not good enough”.

    He writes that his first book, The Alchemy of Finance, was “dismissed by many critics as the self-indulgence of a successful speculator”. That reaction still prevails in some circles. Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, devotes half a chapter to Soros in his latest book, characterising him as “perhaps the most famous speculator of all times”. He also raises an eyebrow at Soros’s intellectual “ambitions”, tartly observing that he “would like the world to take his philosophical pronouncements as seriously as it takes his financial acumen”.

    Another barrier to academic respectability is Soros’s self-confessed “phobia” of formal mathematics: “I understand mathematical concepts but I’m afraid of mathematical symbols, because you can easily get lost in them.” That fear proved no impediment to success in the quantitative world of finance, but it has hurt Soros’s street cred in economics departments. “Among academics, he suffers from the additional liability of not expressing it in the language of mathematics that has become fashionable,” Joe Stiglitz, another Nobel prize-winning economist, said. But Stiglitz believes his friend’s writing has become more current, partly thanks to the financial crisis: “By those economists interested in ideas, I think his work is taken seriously as an idea that informs their thinking.”

    In the view of Larry Summers: “Reflexivity as an idea is right and important and closely related to various streams of existing thought in the social sciences. But no one has deployed a philosophical concept as effectively as George has, first to make money and then to change the world.”

    Paul Volcker delivered a similar verdict: “I think he has a valid insight which is not always expressed as clearly by him as I might like.” Overall, he said, Soros is “an imaginative and provocative thinker … he’s got some brilliant ideas about how markets function or dysfunction.”

    This is as close to mainstream intellectual acceptance as Soros has come in his two decades of writing and more than five decades since he gave up on academia. It feels like a breakthrough. When I asked him if he would still describe himself as a failed philosopher, he said no: “I think that I am actually succeeding as a philosopher.” For him, that is “obviously” the most important human accomplishment.

    “I think it has to do with the human condition,” he said. “The fact that we are mortal and we would like to be immortal. The closest thing you can come to that is by creating something that lives beyond you. Wealth could be one of those things, but evidence shows that it doesn’t survive too many generations. However, if you can have an artistic or philosophical or scientific creation that withstands the test of time, then you have come as close to it as possible.”

    Chrystia Freeland is the FT’s US managing editor

    Click here to read an extract from George Soros’s e-book update to The New Paradigm for Financial Markets – The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means

  • Obama becomes president -DOW’s Industrial Average fell 14 percent – the biggest decline ever since 1933

    Obama becomes president -DOW’s Industrial Average fell 14 percent – the biggest decline ever since 1933

    Worst Dow Drop Since Election Meant Rally in ’33 (Update1)

    Email | Print | A A A

    By Jeff KearnsBloomberg.com: Worldwide

    blocked::https://bba.bloomberg.net/ Bloomberg Anywhere blocked::https://software.bloomberg.com/bb/service Bloomberg Professional blocked::http://about.bloomberg.com/ About Bloomberg

    Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) — The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 14 percent between Barack Obama’s election and Inauguration Day, the biggest decline ever. The second-biggest drop gave way to a 75 percent rally in 1933.

    The CHART OF THE DAY compares the Dow’s retreat since Nov. 4 with the 13 percent slide between Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election and his inauguration on March 4, 1933. The red line goes on to show the Dow’s surge during FDR’s first 100 days. No other new president since the beginning of the last century produced gains or losses of 10 percent or more in the analogous periods.

    “Obama is realizing the historic parallels,” said Richard Sylla, an economic and financial historian at New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business in New York. “The situation isn’t quite as serious as the 1930s but it’s serious enough that I expect Obama to take a page from FDR’s book to restore some of the confidence that’s been shattered.”

    Obama becomes president today during the most severe economic crisis since Roosevelt was sworn in 76 years ago. Like his fellow Democrat, Obama plans to create jobs and boost the economy by investing in roads, bridges and public buildings and increasing oversight of the securities industry.

    Stock exchanges closed for more than a week when FDR declared a bank holiday and enacted reform days after becoming president. The Dow jumped 15 percent on the day markets re- opened.

    The Dow average declined 187.25 points, or 2.2 percent, to 8,093.97 as of 1:12 p.m. in New York.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Kearns in New York at jkearns3@bloomberg.net.

    Last Updated: January 20, 2009 07:09 EST

  • The Endgame by John Mauldin

    The Endgame by John Mauldin

    Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter

    The Endgame

    by John Mauldin
    January 17, 2009

    In this issue:
    The Endgame
    Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted
    Aye, Captain, I’m Giving Her All I’ve Got!
    Problem #1: Deflation
    Problem #2: Pushing on a String
    The Muddle Through Middle
    Conversations With John

    Deflation? Stimulus? Deleveraging? Recession? A soft depression? A return to a bull market? With all that is going on, how does it all end up? When we get to where we are going, where will we be? In chess, the endgame refers to the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board. The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick exchange of a few pairs of pieces. The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. And in the current economic endgame, your strategy needs to consist of more than hope for a renewed bull market.

    Rather than looking at just one year, in this week’s letter we take the really long view and ask what the end result or endgame will look like. There are three possible scenarios (and multiple combinations) that I can think of, we will explore each. Any of them could happen, so we will need to look at some signposts to get an idea of what is actually going to occur. I can make the following prediction that will be absolutely correct: Whatever scenario I lay out here, events and time will change what actually happens. But this will give you an insight into my longer-term biases, and that should be useful. As I tell my kids, put on your thinking caps.

    There are a few housekeeping topics I need to cover, but I will do it at the end of the letter. I just did two interviews with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget at Yahoo Tech Ticker, and will provide the links. I also want to talk about the upcoming Strategic Investment Conference, April 2-4 in La Jolla, which is going to sell out. And make sure you get around to subscribing to my new information service, called Conversations with John Mauldin. I will be posting the first conversation very soon, and you don’t want to miss it! So, stay with me and let’s jump right into this week’s letter.

    Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted

    First, I have to address some more government data that can be misleading. We were told Thursday that initial unemployment claims were “only” 524,000. The talking heads immediately said that was proof the economy is simply bad, not falling off a cliff. Again, like last week, that seasonally adjusted number masks the real number, which was 952,151. That is not a typo. There were almost 1 million newly unemployed last week! That is up over 400,000 from the same week in 2008, while the seasonally adjusted number was up only 200,000. Last week the real number was 726,000, so this is a material rise of over 225,000, yet the seasonally adjusted number suggests a rise of only 57,000 from last week.

    The continuing claims data leaped over 500,000 to (again, not a typo!) 5,832,746. The length of time people are staying unemployed is also rising rapidly. We are up almost 1.5 million new continuing claims in just the last five weeks. That is a stunning rise of over 30% in unemployment claims in just over a month. The data is truly ugly, but it is what it is.

    When you are in periods where there are deep outliers to the data because of very real turning points in the economy (such as we are going through now), the seasonally adjusted numbers can mask the real underlying trends, both up and down.

    Aye, Captain, I’m Giving Her All I’ve Got!

    Let me repeat a point I made last week, which is important and necessary for us to grasp if we are to understand where we are headed.

    We are in completely uncharted territory in terms of the economic landscape. Like the USS Enterprise in Star Trek, we are boldly going where no man has gone before. But the captains of our fleet are Keynesians to their core (and they don’t have any Vulcan advisors). They don’t have any historical maps to guide us back to a functioning economy; they only have theory. The North Star they are guiding us by, for good or ill, is John Maynard Keynes, with a slight nod to Milton Friedman.

    It is not a question of whether or not there will be massive stimulus. The question is simply how much and for how long. And my wager, as outlined below, is that it will be far larger than anyone would want to admit today. Think of Scotty, aboard the Enterprise, when Captain Kirk demands more power, “But Captain, I’m giving her all she can take. She’s ready to explode!” (But he always finds a little bit more.)

    Let’s set the scene for where we are today. The US likely just experienced a 4th quarter with GDP down over 4%. Some estimates suggest 5%. For all of 2009 we are likely going to be down at least 1-2%, which will make this the longest recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is headed to at least 9%. Consumer spending will be off by at least 3% this year and again in 2010, as consumers start to find virtue in savings, which should rise in the US to 6% within a few years. Housing prices are going to drop another 10-15%, taking homes back to a level where they may be more affordable.

    Corporate earnings are going to be dismal for at least the first two quarters, with forward estimates being lowered again and again. (For a thorough analysis of earnings, look at the January 2, 2009 issue in the archives.) Global trade is falling rapidly, and it is likely that we will see a global recession this year, which will result in further negative feedback on US, European, and Japanese exports.

    On a more positive note, oil is below $40, which is more of a stimulus to consumers than anything anticipated by the incoming Obama administration (at least as far as consumers go). With short-term rates at zero, adjustable-rate mortgages are actually not the problem anticipated a year ago, and many homeowners are rushing to refinance their homes at lower rates. Large banks have indicated a willingness to actually cut the principle and interest on troubled mortgages, which might lower the number of defaults.

    Conversely, the number of defaults is high and rising — throughout the developed world. It is likely to be 2011 before the housing market finds a real bottom and housing construction can begin to rise.

    The credit markets are still in disarray. While there are some signs that the frozen markets are thawing, the Fed and the US Treasury are having to provide more bailout capital to large US banks. Citigroup is breaking up. Bank of America needs massive amounts of capital to digest Merrill. The hole that is AIG just keeps getting deeper. It is going to take several years for the credit markets to function at anything close to normal, as we simply vaporized a whole credit industry worldwide. To think it will take anything less is simply naive. And in the meantime, the various central banks of the world, along with their governments, are going to step in to fill the need for credit.

    Obama has signaled that he needs the remaining $350 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program money as soon as possible, although his delegated Treasury Secretary, who will run the program, may be in some trouble, as he failed to pay taxes on his income from his stint at the IMF.

    (This is not an “Oops, I forgot!” The IMF does not withhold income taxes from its employees. However, he was given a memo about the taxes he owed. And he did pay them for two years when he was audited and caught. He clearly knew the nature of the taxes due the two prior years, yet did not come clean on those years. Dumb move for someone on a fast-track career and who clearly has an impressive intellect. He has got to be kicking himself. Since the Treasury Secretary is in charge of the IRS, this is not good for Obama. Someone on his team should have vetted this more thoroughly. I do think Geithner is otherwise as qualified as anyone else on the short list, but this is a very large cloud hanging over him.)

    The auto industry is reeling. Without a lot more government funds, it is unlikely that GM or Chrysler will survive without going through bankruptcy. The industry needs to shed about 20% of capacity. No amount of government funding will change that reality. Beyond autos, industry after industry is on the ropes.

    I could go on and on, but you get the picture that is facing the Obama administration and the entire rest of the developed world.

    So, how do we get out of this mess? As noted above, the captains of our collective ships are Keynesians. They are going to provide as much stimulus as needed.

    Problem #1: Deflation

    We got the Consumer Price Index numbers today, and they tell a tale of deflation. On an annualized basis, the CPI for the last three months was a negative -12.7%! Even core CPI, which is without food and energy, was a minus 0.3%. The CPI for 2008 was just 0.1% for the whole year. This was the smallest calendar-year increase since 1954, and it’s down from 4.1% for 2007. (To see the whole release and data, you can go to www.bls.gov.)

    I outlined the problem of deflation last week in my 2009 Forecast so I will not go into detail, except to note that central bankers are going to fight tooth and nail any tendency for deflation to catch hold in the economic mind of the country. It is simply part of their DNA.

    Obama wants an extra $825 billion in his stimulus package, in addition to the $350 billion in TARP monies. The Fed has started to buy mortgage assets, and that could be $500 billion or more. That is in addition to some $300 billion plus and growing in commercial paper, in addition to bank assets, etc.

    Let me predict right here that this is merely the first installment. The problems described above are very large. It is one thing to make credit cheap and yet another to make consumers either want to borrow more, or be able to convince a lender that borrowers can repay their debts. On the one hand, the government is providing capital to banks and hoping they will lend it, and on the other hand the regulators are telling them to reduce lending and increase their capital. Their commercial mortgages on a mark-to-market basis are imploding. Consumer credit risk is high and rising. What’s a bank to do?

    Let’s add it up. In the US, we have seen massive wealth destruction on personal balance sheets. At the end of the third quarter the losses totalled $5.6 trillion, between housing and stocks. They could be over $10 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter. (Source: Hoisington) The losses will almost certainly top $12 trillion by the middle of the year as housing continues to deteriorate. Pick any country in the developed world or much of the developing world, and it’s the same picture: wealth destruction.

    We have seen at least a trillion dollars of capital on financial companies’ balance sheets disappear; and given the recent spate of bailouts, it is likely to get worse.

    As I have been pounding the table about, a credit crisis and imploding balance sheets, a housing crisis, and a massive earnings shortfall that yields a relentless stock market drop are all independently deflationary. The combined forces are massively so. To think that a mere trillion or so dollars in stimulus will be enough to reflate the US and the world economies is simply not realistic.

    Let me offer a simplistic definition of what I mean by reflation: it’s when the velocity of money stops falling for at least two quarters and the economy emerges from outright recession.

    And much of the proposed stimulus is not really stimulus. Temporary tax cuts, as much as I like them, that are not targeted at getting small businesses recharged (which is where the real growth in jobs will come from) will likely be saved, much in the way that the last stimulus package did little real good for the economy, and simply put us another $177 billion in debt that our kids will have to pay. Helping keep people in their homes when they are already over their heads in debt is not really stimulus, however noble it sounds. Over 50% of mortgages that are reduced and rewritten are delinquent again within 6 months. That does not bode well for future efforts. Better to let the home go at some price to someone who can afford it. Tough love, but realistic.

    Giving money to states to allow them to continue to spend beyond their budgets is not stimulus. And why should Texas pay for a profligate California? We have our own problems. The Robin Hood approach to stimulus programs is nonproductive and only encourages bad budgeting habits.

    What will work? Infrastructure development, although that takes time, and some real thought should be given as to which projects are undertaken, rather than allocating according to which Senator has the most seniority. Spending on defense equipment, which must all have US content (which will be distasteful to the left), is real stimulus. Upgrading technology in a number of areas qualifies, although past experience suggests governments are not good at spending new tech money wisely.

    Spending on green technologies? Creating a million new jobs in clean tech? Get real. How do we go from less than a 100,000 real clean-tech jobs to 1,000,000 in five years, let alone one? And three million new jobs? Really? From where? What government program could do this? In what universe? It makes for nice feel-good talk, but has no bearing on reality.

    Don’t get me wrong. In the midst of the late 1970s malaise, when the gloom was as thick as it is today, the correct answer to the question, “Where will all the new jobs come from?” was “I don’t know, but they will.” And it is still the correct answer. The US free market system is still the most dynamic economy in the world, and I truly believe that we will see new industries spring up, which will be a jobs dynamo. But that will take time. It is not a short-term solution, and by short-term I mean 1-2 years.

    My bet is that in the third quarter, when earnings reports come out and are terrible, unemployment is over 8% and pushing 9%, and there is no evidence of a recovery, that we will see more stimulus from both the Fed and Congress. Count on it.

    The Fed and the Keynesian captains of our economic ship are “all in.” If the current plans do not reflate the economy, they are not going to say, “Well, that is too bad. We did what we could. Now we just have to go ahead and let the US economy catch Japanese disease.” Not a chance. They will up the ante.

    And they will keep trying to “jump start” the economy until it works. Obama told us to expect trillion-dollar deficits for years to come. Give him this: he is being candid and honest.

    The Fed, and I think other central banks, are going to step in and be the buyers of last resort for a whole host of debts, both corporate and consumer. There are those who worry about creating inflation, because they actually do have to print money to buy these debts. While I would prefer a world where a central bank does not intervene in the markets, the time to fix the problem of excess leverage was a decade ago. Allowing banks to go to 30:1 leverage based on “value at risk” models and other financial wizardry that clearly neither the banks nor the regulators understood, was simply bad policy, and we are paying for it. As Woody Brock so wisely notes, 30:1 leverage is not three times more risky than 10:1 leverage, it is 25 times more risky. (Trust me, or at least Woody, on the math.) As an aside, many European banks were even more highly leveraged.

    The End Game

    The US (and indeed soon the whole world) is in a deep recession. The US is going to try and combat that recession with stimulus on a scale never before tried. It is a grand experiment. On the one hand is the theory that you can allocate stimulus and keep the velocity of money from falling. On the other hand is the theory that once the deleveraging process starts, there is not much you can do about it: it is going to work its way through the economy. We are about to find out which theory is correct.

    So, let’s look at three possible outcomes, with the best outcome first. The basic optimistic assumption is that, while this recession is deep and the worst in the post-WWII era, it is still just a recession. Free-market economies eventually recover. Recessions do their work of reducing excess capacity, and the businesses which survive enjoy increased market share and potential for profits to rise. And corporations do indeed have on balance stronger than usual balance sheets going into this recession, except for most financial corporations. Another exception is businesses that were bought by private equity firms with large leverage. Many of those will have to be restructured. And those that have too much leverage or were too aggressive with expansion programs? They will go the way of all overleveraged flesh.

    Besides, the optimistic scenario holds, the massive amount of stimulus being applied to the US economy is on a scale never seen. It will work, just as an easy monetary policy has always worked. (Except in the ’70s, but we won’t make that mistake again! We learned our lesson, yes we did! Volker can stay in retirement.)

    This scenario assumes that the psyche of US consumers has not actually been seared all that much, and that they will return to their spending habits as soon as they are able. It also assumes this is a normal business-cycle recession. There really is no endgame. It is business as usual. There has been no fundamental altering of the US dynamic. Banks will start lending again, businesses and consumers will start borrowing, and things get back to normal. Deflation is just some bugaboo that a weird coterie of economists and investment writers harp on to scare the children into behaving more rationally. It can’t really happen here. And besides, the Fed can print enough money to make deflation go away. The real worry will be if they overshoot and inflation comes roaring back.

    Problem # 2: Pushing on a String

    The economy clearly let leverage run to an irrational level. You’ve seen the graphs. US debt to GDP is now over 300% and has risen precipitously in the last ten and especially the last five years. Leverage and debt fueled the growth of the economy, but debt growth hit a wall and now the deleveraging process is the painful result. This brings us to the worst-case scenario: that all the efforts of the Fed will go for naught and that we are in a liquidity trap.

    A liquidity trap is a situation in monetary economics in which a country’s nominal interest rate has been lowered nearly or equal to zero to avoid a recession, but the liquidity in the market created by these low interest rates does not stimulate the economy. In these situations, borrowers prefer to keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts rather than making long-term investments. This makes a recession even more severe, and can contribute to deflation. (Wikipedia)

    And there is no question, at least in my mind, that the economy, if left to its own devices, would fall into a soft deflationary depression, which would take years to climb out of. The contention of those who believe that we are headed for such a state of affairs is that no matter what the Fed does, excesses on the part of consumers and unrestrained government deficit spending is going to create a Perfect Storm. First of deflation and then, because the Fed is going to try to re-inflate the economy by printing money, we will see a resurgence in inflation and a collapse or, at the very least, a serious drop in the value of the dollar. Further, to expect foreign governments to continue to buy depreciating dollars and allow the dollar to continue to be the world’s reserve currency is not realistic. And of course, there are those who think we will eventually see hyperinflation as the Fed is forced to monetize the national deficits, with gold going to $3,000 (or higher!). And Obama, with his talk of trillion-dollar deficits for an extended period, certainly adds fuel to that fire.

    If, and it is a big but possible if, the Fed is indeed pushing on a string, then we are likely to see 15% unemployment, yet another lost decade for the stock market, and a real calamity in the pension, endowment, and insurance worlds, which are planning on 8% long-term portfolio returns to meet their obligations. And while I think it is a possibility we must be mindful of, it is not the most likely scenario.

    The Muddle Through Middle

    Now, we come to the third scenario and — no surprise to long-time readers — the one I think is most likely. I think that after we climb out of recession, we Muddle Through for an extended period of time. Follow my reasoning, and remember that I am often wrong but seldom in doubt! And please allow me some room to speculate. I can guarantee that I have some (or most) of the particulars wrong. But I think I have the general direction we are heading in.

    We are in a serious recession. We have to allow time for both the housing market and the credit markets to heal. This will take at least two years. I think we have permanently seared the psyche of the American consumer. Consumer spending is likely to drop at least 6-7% over the next two years, and maybe more. The combination of all three bubbles (consumer spending, credit, and housing), which were made possible by increasing leverage and poor lending standards, is by definition deflationary. (I know, I keep repeating, but most readers do not really get the rather disturbing implications.)

    The US government in general and the Fed in particular will react to the problem. Most of the government stimulus, other than that used to reliquefy the banking system, build useful infrastructure, and encourage small business to expand, will be wasted or have little short-term effect. The Fed (and central banks around the world), on the other hand, do have the potential to succeed with a “shock and awe” type of stimulus program.

    The problem is the Velocity of Money. (You can see this explained in my December 5, 2008 letter.) There is just no way of knowing when the Fed programs will really create some traction. Anyone who shows you a model that says such and such an amount of stimulus is needed is from the government, trying to tell you that this time we really do know what we’re doing. Any such models are based on assumptions about things we have no way of knowing.

    The Fed (and the US government) are going to continue to run deficits and print money until the economy begins to reflate. That is one thing I truly believe. Will it be a total of $2 trillion? Three? Four? More? I don’t know. How large will the Fed balance sheet be in a few years? I don’t know. And neither does anyone else. There are just too many damn variables.

    But I do believe that at some point there will be some inflationary traction. And combined with an economy resetting itself at some new level of consumer spending, and with a basically resilient US free-market system, a recovery will begin.

    But here’s the problem. Let’s assume, and we can, that we find this new set point for the US economy (see the “Economic Blue Screen of Death“). And that the economy begins to grow, but the Fed has injected a lot of liquidity. Now some of that liquidity is “self-liquidating.” By that I mean, commercial paper is typically 90 days. The Fed simply has to begin to wind down its commercial paper investments, and it takes away some of the liquidity it created. Those mortgages they bought? Each month, as payments are made, a little liquidity is taken back from the economy.

    And if inflation is an issue, they can begin to withdraw that liquidity or raise rates. Of course, that will serve to slow the economy down, but better a slower Muddle Through Economy than a return to the high stagflation of the ’70s.

    That gets us to 2011-12. The economy is growing, albeit slower than anyone would like, but government deficits are still in the trillion-dollar range, as Obama and the Democratic Congress have increased the entitlement programs, locking in big deficits for a long time. High deficits put the dollar under pressure. The demand from voters is to get the deficit under control. However, the Social Security surpluses are beginning to dwindle. And just like in the early ’80s, we have a Social Security crisis. Some combination of higher taxes, reduced benefits for wealthier Americans, later retirement ages, and a different methodology of indexing for inflation will be the order of the day.

    But Social Security is the relatively easy problem. Medicare benefits will be at nose-bleed levels and will swamp the ability of the government to fund it and other government programs. Democrats will never allow the programs to be cut back. And getting the 60-plus Republican senators needed for such cuts is just not likely to happen by 2012-2014.

    The problem will be dealt with by cuts in some government programs, but mostly by tax hikes on the “rich” and increased contributions by participants. Since many of the rich are the very small business people who we need to create jobs, this is going to be very anti-growth, extending the Muddle Through Economy for yet another few years. And if taxes are raised too much in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts go away, then we could see a relapse back into a recession.

    Such an environment of higher taxes and slow growth is not good for corporate earnings. Earnings in the recent years have been at all-time high levels as a percentage of GDP. Earnings as such are mean reverting, and thus are unlikely to rise back to previous levels in terms of percentage of GDP. (Of course, in nominal terms they should rise.) This is going to put a constraint on stock market growth.

    Pension plans, endowments, insurance companies, and individual investors who are counting on 8% long-term compound returns from their stock portfolios are as likely to be disappointed in the next five years as they were in the last ten. The environment I am describing is one of compressing price to earnings ratios, much like the period from 1974 to 1982.

    This environment is going to force the creation of new investment programs and products based on income generation. And that is one of the forces that will bring about a real recovery in the middle of the next decade. Investment capital will be made available to businesses that can generate low double-digit or high single-digit returns, as well as new technologies with the promise to deliver new paths to profits.

    The second major force will be the arrival of new waves of technological change. We will see a biotech revolution beyond our current comprehension. It has the real potential for solving a great deal of the Medicare entitlement program problems. For instance, it is likely we will have a real cure for Alzheimer’s within five years. Since that is as much as 7% of US medical costs, that can create a real cost reduction. The same for heart disease, obesity, cancer, and a host of other medical conditions that will start to be dealt with by a new generation of therapies. That is going to create a new, very real bull market in biotech.

    I expect to see a new generation of wireless broadband that powers whole new industries. And it will not just be green tech, but entirely new forms of energy generation that drive the cost of energy down and, combined with other new technologies, make electric cars practical. And along about the end of the decade, the nanotech world begins to really get into gear.

    And just as the tightly wound, low P/E ratios of the early ’80s gave way to a spring-loaded major bull market as new technologies became the driver for a whole new set of public companies, we could (and should!) see a repeat of that performance. There is a new bull market in our future.

    The problem is getting from where we are today to that next dawn. The definition of insanity is to keep repeating what you have done in the past and expect a different result. We are in a long-term secular bear market. P/E ratios are going to decline over time to low double digits. Hoping that stocks somehow rebound to new highs and that the economy is going to go back to what we saw in 1982-1999 or 2003-2006 is not a strategy. You need to be proactive and take charge of your portfolio, looking for absolute-return types of investments for the next 4-5 years. Simply using a traditional 60-40 split of stocks and bonds is not going to get you to retirement nirvana. It will lead to retirement hell.

    Conversations With John

    As we announced a few weeks ago, I am starting a new subscription-only service. While this letter will always be free, we are going to create a way for you to “listen in” on my conversations with some of my friends, many of whom you will recognize and some who you will want to know after you hear our conversations. Basically, I will call one or two friends each month, and just as we do at dinner or at meetings, we will talk about the issues of the day, with back and forth, give and take, and friendly debate. I think you will find it very enlightening and thought-provoking and a real contribution to your education as an investor. You can still subscribe now, before the actual launch of the service (in a week or so), at the holiday rate of 50% off. I will be having the first conversation next week, and it will include a spirited debate about the topics in this letter. Then, at some point in February, when Nouriel Roubini and I can match our schedules and continents, we will have a conversation you can listen in on as well. This is going to be a very fun project, and you won’t want to miss one chat.

    You will be able to listen online, download to your iPod, or read a transcript. To learn more, just click on , click the Subscribe button, and type in the code “JM33” to get your 50% discount. And read about the bonuses we will offer as well!

    To see my interviews on Yahoo with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget, go to:

    • John Mauldin’s 2009 Outlook: Deflation, Recession, New Market Lows
    • Trillions More: Govt. Will Keep Spending Until Economy Reflates, Mauldin Says

    Along with my partners Altegris Investments, I will be co-hosting our 6th annual Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla, California, April 2-4. I have invited some of the top economic minds in the country to come and address us, giving us their views on what seems to be a continuing crisis. It will be a mix of economic theory and practical investment advice. Already committed to speak are Martin Barnes, Woody Brock, Dennis Gartman, Louis Gave, George Friedman (of Stratfor), and Paul McCulley. I anticipate adding another stellar name or two. This is as strong a lineup as we have ever had, and on par with any conference I know of anywhere.

    Due to securities regulations, attendance is limited to qualified high-net-worth investors and/or institutional investors. Early registrants will get a discount. Last year we had to close registration, and I anticipate we will run out of room again, so I would not procrastinate. Simply click on the link below, give us your name and email, and you will be sent a form next week to register.

    I should note that most attendees say this conference is the best investment conference they have ever been to. One of the benefits is being with several hundred very nice people in a relaxed setting. We do it up right.

    For whatever reason, this letter has kept me up very late. At 4 AM (!), it is time to hit the send button. For those of you who can actually take a three-day weekend, enjoy it! Alas, Tiffani has me working on a tight schedule as our book deadline looms, although I will slip away tomorrow evening to watch the Mavericks. And hit the gym of course.

    Have a great week! And seriously, there are lots of opportunities in the world today. Just open your mind to some “out of the box” possibilities.

    Your enjoying the ride analyst,

    John Mauldin
    John@FrontLineThoughts.com

    Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

    Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Pro-Hedge Funds; EFG Capital International Corp; and Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print as long as the following is included:

    John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore

  • THE SERIOUS PAIN STARTS IN 2009

    THE SERIOUS PAIN STARTS IN 2009

    wellington letter

    November 24, 2008 Volume 31: No. 25
    THE SERIOUS PAIN STARTS IN 2009
    MORE CRISES, MORE BAILOUTS

    Late News:
    Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Sunday that the Congress will be working with the President-Elect to add another $700 billion to the original $700 billion to “stimulate” the economy. Of course, it’s not so much the size but how it will be spent that’s important.
    At the same time, Nancy Pelosi said that Congress may give the automakers $75 billion, instead of the $25 billion they asked for. Yes, the politicians have blinked. They don’t have the courage to get the pain behind us. They will do everything they can over the next 10-15 years, prolonging the economic pain just as in the 1930’s. As politicians, they really have no choice. To do otherwise means they would take the blame and not be re-elected. And that means the end of their cushy job, private planes, limousines, etc. That’s unacceptable.
    So, the taxpayers, who will struggle to get by, will get the bill. And because of their ignorance of basic economics, the taxpayers will thank the politicians for their “bold” actions.
    Russian bombers arrive in Venezuela. Furthermore, Russia and Venezuela will carry out naval exercises very close to the U.S. This is in response to the U.S. installing missile bases in Eastern Europe, surrounding Russia. Washington says these missiles are to protect central Europe from attacks from Iran. Russian isn’t buying the story. Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev spoke
    ==============================

    1
    Bert Dohmen’s
    Wellington LetterTM

    with President Bush at last week’s APEC meeting in Peru, and repeated Russia’s demand that the missile bases be closed. That’s what we really need now, another “Cold War.”
    The stock of Citigroup has been trading just like Bear Stearns, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and others just before they either went bankrupt or were taken over. Last week the CEO of Citi said that, “The company is financially sound.” This is the same statement each of the CEO’s of the other companies made just a week before their demise. It’s a bright red warning signal.
    Therefore, Citi needed a bailout this weekend. And they got it. Another weekend, another bailout. Citigroup will get a $306 billion governmental guarantee for 90% of the losses of for its underwater derivative portfolio. It will also get $20 billion from the taxpayers, etc. etc. If you have their credit cards, will you get a break on the interest rate? I doubt it. This is a huge guarantee for one firm. It’s now obvious that Bernanke is everything but the kitchen sink at the threatening deflationary collapse. And we can’t blame him. The situation is extremely precarious. To do nothing would be dumb.
    The credit card firms have a great window on consumers sales. Master card today reports a huge drop in sales, one of the biggest ever seen. Women and men clothing down 20%. Big ticket electronics down 22%. Large price cuts everywhere. Drops of this size were last seen in the Great Depression.
    THE STOCK MARKET
    Another bounce, but no bottom
    From Election Day to Nov. 19, 11 trading days, the DJI fell 16.9%, the S&P 500 19.8% and the NASDAQ Composite 22.8%. The optimists think that every little bounce in the stock market is the end of the bear market. They are fooling themselves. It’s a matter of hope over experience.
    One of the most widely heard phrases this year in the markets is, “stock market bottom.” If you Google “stock market bottom in 2008” you get 2,910,000 results. Yes, all the pundits have been telling investors since the beginning of the year that it was a stock market bottom. Yet, the world’s stock markets have lost over $16 TRILLION this year. So much for “free” advice.
    After last Friday’s 498-point rally we are hearing the phrase again. And many investors will fall for that fairy tale. Hope is eternal.
    The rally on Friday was predictable. In our SMARTE TRADER service of the prior day, we advised closing out short and bearish positions the next morning as the DJI would drop to

    3
    “approach the 7200-7400 area.” We didn’t think it would hit that area, only “approach” it. That’s usually what happens on the first approach. Then you get a rally. Often that is followed by another decline that breaks the prior low. We had big profits and wanted to cash them in because SMARTE TRADER is a trading service.
    But will this be a long-term bottom as so many alleged analysts tell you in the media? Think about it. The S&P 500 already broke through the bear market low of 2000-2002, which was a horrific bear market. That in itself is extremely bearish. That suggests that conditions will get worse than at the bottom in 2002, the depth of a deep technology crash. All the stock that was bought between the low of 2002 and now, that’s 6 years of buying, is now being held at a loss. And much of that stock becomes supply to be potentially sold on any rally in the stock.
    Take a premier company, Intel. The company is an industry leader, has billions of dollars of cash, and is unlikely to go out of business. But the stock just broke its bear market low of 2002.
    The bulls look at the “cheap” valuations in the stock market, the high dividend yields on some stocks, etc. But those numbers are all history. Look at the Citigroup: the dividend has plunged more than 95% the last two months. The best way to see if the financial situation is worsening or improving is to watch credit spreads, T-bill yields, the spread between the yields on junk bonds and T-bonds, etc. The manipulated Dow Jones Indices won’t tell you.
    The yields on Treasury securities, especially short-term T-bills, tell you about stress. When yields are pushed to record lows, as they are now, then you know that money from around the world is fleeing to the safest haven, namely U.S. Treasuries. The yield on 30-year T-bills is now near zero. The two-year T-note yield is below 1%. It’s just like the 17-year deflationary experience in Japan. The flood of money going into Treasuries is pushing the dollar upward. There is another place to look when you think stress is being relieved.
    The yield on junk bonds also tells a lot about stress. Currently the yield has soared over 20% on the speculative-grade corporate bonds, surpassing the 20% mark for the first time in at least two decades, according to the Merrill Lynch & Co.’s U.S. High Yield Master II index.
    Junk bonds have lost more than $187 billion in market value since August. That’s just three months ago. I remember seeing a number of analysts in the media recommending them because of the high yields. I shuddered each time I heard it. Now the losses are soaring.
    One of the foremost junk bond experts is Martin Fridson, CEO of money management firm Fridson Investment Advisors. I had the pleasure of meeting him two years ago. He was quoted by Bloomberg: “Prices are in a virtual freefall.” That’s stress!
    Because of stress in the credit markets, we are in a “liquidation bear market” for stocks,

    4
    something seen only rarely. That means that stocks are being sold regardless of value. The only motivation is to raise cash. For short sellers, that’s the best environment. While 99% of investors are using “hope” as their excuse for holding onto stocks, the smart traders, as subscribers to our trading services, are literally making fortunes selling short and buying the bear ETFs.
    But short selling goes against human nature. What is the question you hear posed to guests on financial TV about 50 times every day? “What stocks would you buy now?” Do you ever hear someone say, “What stocks would you sell short now?” Of course not. They don’t want to take the chance of losing any advertisers. So how many bears do you see interviewed on financial TV? Very few. Once in a while they invite a “token” bear, but they are usually the ones who were bearish during the entire bull market of the preceding five years and, therefore, have no credibility. Where is the warning label on the screen that says, “This advice may be ruinous to your investment portfolio”?
    Since Sept. 15, only 10 stocks on the S&P 500 index are higher. That means 490 stocks of the index are down. Remember this summer when the financial TV analysts were still debating whether or not it was a bear market? Yet almost every guest gave advice on what to buy. Imagine trying to catch the 10 out of 500 stocks that will go up! No one has the guts to say “sell.”
    We are in a global financial crisis, but very few believe that it will last long. However, look at the evidence. Billionaires around the world are getting huge margin calls. That’s when financial institutions holding the stock for collateral against loans ask for more money as collateral. In Germany, VEM Vermoegensverwaltung GmbH, the investment unit of the billionaire Merckle family, said it has two weeks to secure bank financing after wrong-way bets on Volkswagen AG shares and the plunging value of HeidelbergCement AG led to a “liquidity shortage”?
    In the U.S., Sheldon Adelson of Las Vegas Sands was worth $32 billion a year ago, and soon may be very poor. Kirk Kirkorian of MGM has lost billions, and even Warren Buffett may be down more than $25 billion. Imagine, a $375 subscription to our WELLINGTON LETTER could have saved these gentlemen from those misfortunes. You, our valued subscribers, have done much better than these people with all their overpaid advisors.
    Such wealth destruction doesn’t happen because it’s just “a little bear market.” This is a crisis of monumental proportions. Big bank stocks have lost $125 BILLION of market value in the last two weeks, according to Charlie Gasparino of CNBC. Imagine, Bank of America (BAC) losing 22% on one day last week. I believe that BAC and Citi will have to be bailed out by the government buying at least $50 billion of preferred stock in each. They have hundreds of billions in mortgages that can’t be sold, and which are defaulting at an accelerating rate.
    I believe that soon we will see bankruptcies in the brokerage business. The first one may be E-trade. Years ago, they threatened to sue us for patent infringement because the name of one of

    5
    our services was “Smart Etrader.” We thought that was a far reach, but the CEO was inflexible. So we changed the name by just moving the “e.” Their former CEO was a jerk, whose pals on the board had given him over $60 million in compensation in one year. That’s $5 million per month, or $30,000 per hour. Then he was ousted.
    We are seeing major companies, many of which survived every financial panic of the last 100 years, including a 10-year Great Depression, like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, GM, etc. going out of business. And we are just in the first year of this episode. Even the survivability of the world’s formerly premier companies, such as Citigroup, GE, Ford, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, is being questioned.
    Until now, we have only seen about one year of financial crisis, and it’s already the worst one the world has ever seen. But this is the easy part. It really hasn’t much affected the average person. In fact, many of my friends, who are smart, educated, business leaders, etc., are still in denial in spite of all the weekly crises in the financial system. The attitude is “they will fix it,” “Wall Street is smart and will get out of this,” etc. I just have to shake my head. Wall Street basically doesn’t exist anymore, except for the asphalt, and they assume everything will turn out fine.
    THE NEXT PHASE: Economic Crisis
    Now comes the tough part, economic crisis. This is where the real pain starts. In January, there will be an avalanche of corporate bankruptcies. Retailers will still try to capture the Christmas season although they don’t have the credit lines to stock up for Christmas. Therefore, they will deplete inventories. After that, they will have no cash or credit to restock and to pay the bills.
    The unemployment rate will skyrocket. Businesses will close, and office buildings will empty out. Positive cash flow will quickly turn negative. Owners of the large office buildings, who financed the purchases with short-term loans over the past several years, will not be able to refinance, and the buildings will go into foreclosure.
    Shopping centers will see vacancies soar, and the signs “Closed for Remodeling” will go up in the shopping centers. The REITs specializing in commercial real estate will plunge even further. Banks will have even less incentive to lend as their bad loan portfolios will get much thicker and their write-downs will accelerate. That means all the infusions of capital from the Fed and the Treasury will be used to meet capital reserve requirements, not to make loans.
    World trade is already coming to a halt, for two reasons. First, there’s the LOC (Letter of Credit) problem, which we wrote about several months ago. Manufacturers won’t accept them because they don’t have faith in the companies issuing them. Thus the importers have to send cash overseas, say to China, and trust the seller that the goods will be shipped. If they are not, the only
    Bert Dohmen’s
    Wellington LetterTM
    remedy is to sue in a Chinese court. Good luck! And thus trade stops. Second, consumers have hit the wall. As they start losing jobs, consumer spending will plummet.
    Factories in less-developed countries will close by the thousands, and these countries will see a huge outflow of foreign investment money. The term FDI (foreign direct investment) will change to FIO (foreign investment outflows). Their currencies will crash, they will boost interest rates to double-digits in ill-fated efforts to support the currencies and recessions will turn into depression.
    When the U.S. unemployment rate hits 10%, the new President will invoke “executive orders” to fix the economy. The natural target will be to tax the “wealthy.” That will be defined as anyone with over $75,000 of income. Labor unions will become very powerful again, which will destroy all opportunity for large firms to fix themselves. Thousands of new taxes and regulations will discourage new formations and entrepreneurs will find retirement more attractive.
    Just six months ago, they were talking about the cost of the financial crisis eventually being $280 billion. We said it would be $1-2 TRILLION. Then they kept increasing it. About two months ago, we wrote that it would be $5 TRILLION and eventually perhaps $10 TRILLION. Those projections seemed insane. But the bailout cost is already over $2 TRILLION, and with the new proposal, will soon be at $3 TRILLION. And we are still only in the first year of the crisis.
    The foregoing is the unembellished forecast. I wanted to give it to you early, instead of making it the typical year-end forecast. This gives you more time to prepare. And please don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is “too extreme.” In fact, I believe it’s on the optimistic side, as the credit implosion means that any company dependent on getting loans or credit will face extreme stress.
    The biotech area is a good example. One expert said: “For the first time in the history of the biotech industry, you’re going to see unprecedented levels of bankruptcies and dissolutions.” The problem is the unavailability of financing. And the merger route, via larger pharma firms, is also closed, as these firms can’t get credit for acquisitions either.
    THE CHARTIST’S VIEW
    Charts tell the story much better than a thousand words. Going through the charts of several hundred indices, of markets and sectors, the only charts where Friday’s close (after the big rally) was higher than the prior day’s high was the gold related sector. That makes the rally for everything else pretty insignificant, technically speaking. And furthermore, we didn’t see any “weekly” reversals, where the close on Friday was above the close of the prior Friday. Without a

    6

    weekly reversal, you can’t have a meaningful bottom. Therefore, this looks like a relief rally. The holiday week is perfect for that.
    Let’s look at the charts. The NASDAQ COMPOSITE (monthly) long-term chart clearly shows
    that the index did not even retrace 50% of the 2000-2002 decline during the bull market that
    followed. That’s a poor rally. It never got close to the high of 2000 again. This is important. It was my view during the recent bull market that it was merely a cyclical bull market inside of a much longer-term secular bear market. In other words, it was only a rally and the important top was made in 2000. Our work shows that such bear markets last at least 17 years. So if we count 2000 as the beginning, the earliest we can expect a solid bottom is 2017. Of course, there will be rallies in between, even profitable ones for bulls, but they will not lead to new, long-term highs.
    NASDAQ COMPOSITE (monthly)
    The long-term chart of the DOW JONES TRANSPORTS (monthly) shows the beautiful 1-2-3-point top (next page). As longtime subscribers know, we sell at point three. This is where the indicator below has made the second lower low while the index has made a new high. A good downside target is the 2003 low. That should come early next year.

    DOW JONES TRANSPORTS (monthly)
    The DJ US UTILITIES (weekly) shows a classic “head and should top” that’s always bearish. We identified that in August. Look at the plunge after the pattern was completed. But Wall Street touts say technical analysis doesn’t work. Let them continue to believe that. The 2002 low was reached, and is major support for now. That suggests that a temporary bottoming phase is ahead.
    DJ US UTILITIES (weekly)

    The DJ US HEALTHCARE (daily) is one of the sectors recommended by just about every analyst in the media as a “defensive” sector. Well, a 33% decline in 10 weeks is not “defensive.” It’s vastly over-owned. Amazingly, the indicator below is once again negative.
    DJ US HEALTHCARE (daily)
    The DJ US OIL & GAS (daily) is now back at the October low. This chart still looks bearish. The probability is high that there will be another break to the downside.
    DJ US OIL & GAS (daily)

    The chart of GOLD (weekly) shows more than a shorter-term chart. Gold is very erratic. Short- term moves often have no follow-through. Our view has been that the deleveraging and dumping of any assets for which there was a market had also been putting pressure on gold. Therefore, an easing of the pressure will be seen in the credit market first. Then you will see it in the dollar, which will decline. And that will confirm a new up move in gold. The rally on Friday was a breakout above a three-week congestion area. This is positive, but it’s only one day. On any pullback, the breakout level must hold. We will watch signals closely. A very good buying opportunity for gold may have emerged.
    GOLD (weekly)
    The chart of the DJ US GOLD MINING STOCKS (daily) shows a double bottom and a bullish divergence with the indicator below (next page). Now it just has to break out and close above the early November high to
    DJ US GOLD MINING STOCKS (daily)
    And finally, we have the DOLLAR INDEX (daily), which is a composite of about 13 currencies against the dollar (next page). Note the beautiful rise. But also note that the chart now forms a “rising wedge.” As longtime subscribers know, a rising wedge usually ends in the chart breaking sharply to the downside as the
    DOLLAR INDEX (daily)
    CONCLUSION
    Our downside target for the Dow Jones Industrials Index (DJI) was the 7200-7400 area. In our SMARTE TRADER service last Thursday we advised closing out all short and bearish positions on a decline the next morning as the DJI “approached” the 7400 area. Well, the low was 7449. That’s close enough. However, often the rally starts just shy of such a target. Then the chart declines again and the prior low is penetrated. That often forms a better bottom. In other words, we could be close to a temporary bottom and a bear market rally.
    Last time we wrote about gold: A decisive close above $767 would negate the potentially negative formation. On the downside, a move below $714 would be bearish.
    Well, we now got the close above $767, which negates the negative formation.
    We also wrote: The stock market is now giving us new strong sell signals. We need one-two days to confirm that. But it looks like the major indices will drop back to the October lows, and that implies those lows will eventually be broken and the market will go to new lows.
    If that occurs we would have the next downside target of the 7200-7400 area on the DJI.

    As we know now, that’s exactly what has happened. Of course, the low was just 49 points shy of our target area. In fact, our area may still be reached. We know that there are people who think we should have known the exact price of the, but we really don’t have a crystal ball.
    We also wrote: The only markets rising in that eventuality are the Japanese yen, the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury bonds.
    As you know, U.S. T-bonds had an astonishing rally, as did the yen.
    WHAT TO DO
    Last time we recommend that “if the DJI closes below 8130, we would buy some of the ETF’s that are designed to rise in price as the index declines. Here are some to choose from:
    PROSHARES SHORT QQQ (PSQ)
    PROSHARES SHORT MIDCAP-400 (MYY)
    PROSHARES SHORT MSCI EMERGING MARKETS (EUM)
    We made phenomenal profits in these bearish ETF’s on Friday when the DJI got top 7449, close to our downside target area of 7200-7400. Anyone who didn’t close these out will probably get another chance to do so. And that’s what we recommend if Friday’s low is approached again. (You have to decide what “approach” means to you.)
    WORLD TRADE AT A STANDSTILL
    Several months ago we addressed the topic of trade. We had learned from our sources that goods for the holidays were not being shipped by the manufacturers because of the credit squeeze and lack of confidence in the banks. When a retail chain in the U.S. buys goods from China or other places, it gets an “irrevocable letter of credit (LOC). The LOC is issued by a bank, guaranteeing the manufacturer payment for the goods when they are shipped.
    The problem now is that the manufacturers don’t trust the banks that issue the LOC. Therefore, they are not shipping. Around the world, ships are standing idle at the ports with nothing to load. As we wrote this summer, at Christmas time the shelves will be empty. But it won’t matter very much, because there won’t be many customers anyway.
    A photo of the port of Hong Kong shows a long, long line of freighters. They can’t load cargo because shippers have problems with LOC’s, and other reasons for not shipping. The Baltic Freight index has now collapsed by over 90% since the peak in May. Remember when we showed the chart at that time? It had just made a new, all-time high. We said that would be a

    “false upside breakout,” leading to a collapse of 80%. Well, even that outrageously pessimistic forecast was too optimistic. The index crashed from over 11,000 to 800.
    BALTIC FREIGHT INDEX
    If goods are not being shipped, it’s obvious that there will be terrific shortages on the store shelves next year. Stocking up on necessary staples will be a good idea, especially if they are imported.
    Deflation is growing like an out-of-control cancer. The consumer price index dropped 1.0% on a seasonally adjusted basis compared to the previous month, the largest drop since February 1947. That’s 61 years ago!
    The LEI (index of leading U.S. economic indicators) fell in October for the third time in four months as stocks and consumer confidence plunged, signaling a deepening recession.
    A survey of purchasing managers (ISM) showed today that the manufacturing and service sectors contracted in November at the fastest pace since data were first compiled a decade ago.
    Large department stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue, are having 70%-off sales on everything. The word is that they must raise cash quickly. Obviously, with such discounts they lose money on every item sold. I predict that January will go down in history as a record month for corporate bankruptcy filings.

    15
    But some companies are too big to fail. GM, Citigroup and Bank of America are three of those. Here are the next big sources of troubles in the financial markets:
    COLLATERAL LOAN OBLIGATIONS (CLO’S): These are participations in pools of loans backed by credit card receivables, car loans, installment bank loans, etc.
    And then we have the CMBS (commercial mortgage backed securities) where commercial buildings are the collateral. The spread between AAA-rated CMBS’s and Treasuries have doubled in the past weeks, indicating growing concerns about the state of the commercial real estate market.
    THE CAUSE OF U.S. DOLLAR STRENGTH
    What ever happened to all the predictions of the dollar plunging into the abyss, that no one would want it, that it was a great short sale? Well, for new subscribers, and we have a lot, let me point out that our view since this summer has been that it would be one of the strongest currencies, only to be outperformed by the Japanese yen.
    Well, last week a well-known economist said that now the U.S. dollar is once again a desirable currency, and is undoubtedly “the reserve currency of the world.” Well, that’s news, but unfortunately it is too late to help all the short sellers who have lost fortunes. They listened to their economists.
    One of the greatest economic fictions is that high interest rates cause a strong currency. Apparently economics majors at universities are brainwashed to believe it, because they all say it. Actually, the reverse is closer to reality. The strength of the yen once again confirms what I have preached for the last 30 years, namely that raising interest rates to support a currency is the ultimate folly. For example, the interest rate on the yen is near zero and it’s the strongest currency. The overnight interest rate on the Icelandic krona is 20% and the currency has plunged by 50%. And in the U.S., the Fed funds rate is 1%, the 90-day T-bill is at 0.03% and the dollar is soaring. Moral of the story: Beware of what everyone accepts as the truth, especially when it comes from economists.
    So what’s ahead for the dollar? An easing in the credit market crisis will cause a sharp decline in the dollar.
    THE SPREADING GLOBAL RECESSION
    One huge problem worldwide now is that banks are not lending. They can’t. It’s that simple.

    16
    Of course, if banks don’t make loans, they can’t get more income. But they can’t make new loans because they are close to their capital reserve requirements and have to leave some room for future write-offs of bad assets. In other words, they are in a death spiral. This is why Citigroup is firing another 52,000 people. That’s 88,000 in one year. The only way for them to stay alive is by cutting expenses. It’s like a wolf caught in a trap that bites off its leg to get free. It hurts.
    The never-ending cycle of asset write-downs and mounting loan defaults is preventing all the Fed’s monetary injections from spurring new lending. One banking expert believes that U.S. banks will require $350 billion. That can’t be raised in the private markets, so the government will have to step in.
    During the Great Depression the value of outstanding bank loans fell by almost half between 1928 and 1935. I expect nothing less this time around.
    The Consumer Price Index in the U.S. plunged last month by a hefty 1% compared to the previous month. It was the largest drop in 61 years.
    Yes, global DEFLATION, not INFLATION, is the problem. And that’s much worse than inflation. Just a few months ago the Fed was still worried about inflation. Here is another reason why we should not have 12 economists at the Fed trying to “steer” the economy. At critical times they never know where the economy is or where it is going.
    Europe is now officially in recession. The 15-nation Euro zone has now entered into the first recession since it adopted a single currency about a decade ago. In the 3rd quarter, GDP declined 0.2% compared to the previous quarter. This followed an equal decline in the second quarter.
    My contacts in China and other emerging countries report similar plunges in economic activity. The “virtuous” cycle during the boom, where growth in one area produced growth in another area, is now working in reverse. Contract availability has collapsed worldwide. My Theory of Liquidity, which I first proposed in 1977, says that when availability of money (credit) expands, the economies have to expand, and when it contracts, the economies must contract. There is just no way around that connection. And if the credit contraction is severe, the economic contraction is just as severe. Well, we are having the greatest credit crisis since 1931. Even the largest and best firms, such as GE, can’t get money from the regular channels.
    While this is happening, the guests on financial TV continue to advise you to go bargain hunting in stocks, as they will be much higher in five years. Amazing! They never saw this crisis coming, but now they are experts in “knowing” where stocks will be in five years? Well, in five years, these guys will be driving taxis. Do you think they’ll give you your money back?
    Apparently there is an endless supply of “analysts” who are ready and willing to make fools of themselves in the media. You don’t see many bears. They are not allowed, with a few exceptions.

    17
    THE EMERGING MARKETS: A GROWING MESS
    We have discussed the Iceland financial crisis in the past. Well, instead of being resolved, it’s intensifying. The IMF agreed to lend Iceland $2 billion about three weeks ago. But that came with conditions that haven’t been fulfilled. The IMF wants Iceland to first get twice that amount from other sources. There is no way it can get that.
    The central bank of Sweden would give around $620 million after the IMF approves the amount discussed. Other countries such as Holland and Britain are not willing to help until the deposits of its own citizens in one of Iceland’s nationalized banks are returned. In fact, the IMF will not go ahead on the loan until that issue is resolved.
    In the meantime, Iceland is teetering on the edge of a hyper-inflationary depression. Goods can’t be imported because the credit mechanism no longer exists. The banking system is gone. You need Letters of Credit in which the seller has confidence to buy goods from abroad. Icelanders are moving out of the country in droves.
    This is only one country. Now imagine the other countries that are in trouble having to jump through the same IMF hoops. It’s a long-term mess, which historically has preceded a depression.
    THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC CONTRACTION
    The U.S. auto industry is not the only one to be in trouble. In Europe the large carmakers are also asking their governments for help. In Germany and Britain alone there are 1.6 million jobs connected to the auto sector. In the U.S. they say it may be as many as 2 million.
    Governments can’t risk throwing that many people out of work. They can’t make the reasonable argument that in due time these people will lose their jobs anyway, and they can’t let it happen because the government refused to help.
    Car sales in Europe plunged 15% in October. You can bet that “October” will go down into the annals of history as the month that the global recessions got very serious.
    According to the Wall Street Journal, Renault and Peugeot-Citroen are slashing production by 25% and 30%, respectively, in the fourth quarter, equivalent to about 370,000 vehicles. Even before this, “excess capacity” was estimated to be around 2.2 million cars in Europe.
    Only massive job cuts can restore the sector even to the modest levels of profit many of the region’s manufacturers enjoyed in 2007. European carmakers and auto suppliers would have to shed 26% of their work force, Goldman Sachs estimates. That’s politically unpalatable for politicians in Germany, France and the U.K.

    18
    The European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet has finally seen the light. He said the bank may cut interest rates again in December amid signs Europe’s recession is deepening.
    Just 6-8 weeks ago, Trichet wanted to raise interest rates. This is another piece of evidence proving that central bankers should have no authority to set interest rates. They are always far behind market forces and therefore create even greater damage.
    THE STATES HAVE HIT A FINANCIAL BRICK WALL
    Another big bailout requirement over the next two years will be individual states and cities. They just can’t raise money through the traditional channels. Therefore, how can they meet the payrolls, take care of normal services such as street cleaning, garbage pickup, road repairs, police, etc.?
    The federal government will be the only possible source of funds. But it also means that the muni-bond market will be decimated. I have had that conversation with friends over the past year, but they all think they are getting a great deal with the tax-free income. My warnings have fallen on deaf ears for the most part. It’s total denial. They all quote the low default rates over the past 20 years, not recognizing that the current environment is not that of the last 20 years, but that of the years 1930-31.
    And as these local governments run out of money, they will increase every tax in sight. Just follow the examples of California over the next 5 years. That will be your road map. Current proposals are for a 5% surcharge on the income tax (currently 9%), and a 1.5% hike in the sales tax.
    A good way to invest on that trend is the stock of U-Haul. There will be a long line of people leaving the state.
    California employers already have to battle with 72,385 regulations according to CNBC, and the number is growing every day. That’s not a great incentive for companies to stay there.
    FEEDING AT THE TROUGH: Everyone wants a piece of the TARP. This was supposed to be a bailout for the banks. Now everyone is standing in line. The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is promoting Spanish-speaking asset managers for a piece of TARP. The boat dealers are also asking. Who are the winners? As always, the lobbyists. These guys should sell shares in their companies. It would cause a stock market boom.
    Chinese sovereign wealth funds are also in line for the TARP. Can you believe it?

    19
    Rewarding failure creates more failures. Rewarding success creates more success.
    THE MIDDLE EAST FINANCIAL IMPLOSION
    There is an old saying, “What goes up, must come down.” Yes, that’s certainly true in the global stock markets, real estate and the economy. But analysts in the media are still bullish on the oil-rich Middle East. They have no idea what they are talking about.
    Last year, we predicted that Dubai would become the greatest real estate disaster in the history of mankind. Now we have the evidence that the implosion of the Middle East bubble is well underway. And as we have been writing for 18 months, once a bubble bursts, it cannot be re-inflated.
    In the seven days ending Nov. 15, the Dubai stock index had the biggest decline ever, plunging 32% in basically one week. Qatar’s dropped 25%. The borrowing needs of Dubai real estate developers are now skyrocketing. It’s expensive to build the world’s tallest building, more than half a mile high. Hubris is always expensive.
    But the international credit markets have finally realized what we warned over 12 months ago, namely that Dubai is destined to become a fiasco. Now Dubai is trying to borrow from its neighbors, such as Abu Dhabi. But Abu Dhabi has similar uneconomic real estate ventures under construction. If you listen closely, you can almost hear these economies coming to a screeching halt as oil drops below $50.
    So far this year, the Dubai stock index is down a hefty 67%, Qatar’s is down 42%, and Oman’s 35%. The Dubai stock index is now trading at 4.7 times earning. I wouldn’t touch it with a 10-foot pole.
    The perennial “bargain hunters” on Wall Street will find great bargains over there. Imagine how cheap the empty 40-story office buildings will be. Of course, it will cost a fortune to run the air conditioning during the 125-degree daytime heat, but you’ll have “pride of ownership.”
    Dubai Islamic mortgage lender Amlak told Reuters it had suspended new mortgage loans as Dubai’s real estate sector shows further signs of stress. Dubai-based Elysian Real Estate sent out a text message this week to some 40,000 mobile phones, advertising distressed property sales.
    This is only the beginning. The Tower of Babel (Burj Babil) was the last huge monument to hubris in the Middle East. Now, over 2600 years later, Dubai will be the monument to hubris gone wild. Currently, they are building the world’s largest building, the Burj Dubai. How appropriate!
    Bert Dohmen’s
    Wellington LetterTM
    Interestingly, there are many other “hubris” projects underway in the world, all trying to be the tallest building in the world. Most are in Asia. One is in Saudi Arabia. And they all will meet the same fate as Dubai.
    In an article in the UAE-based Gulfnews, the head of the giant Dubai real estate firm denied that it was having difficulties. He also said the company is not for sale. I don’t think he has to worry about anyone wanting to buy that white elephant.
    With regard to DP World’s debts, Bin Sulayem said they were not government debts, but bank loans. “At Dubai World, we have no problem paying off our loans and have refinanced to improve previous loan conditions,” he added. The foreign investments of DP World have not been affected by the current global financial crisis, Bin Sulayem said.
    That’s an amazing statement. What planet are they investing on? Apparently they don’t have regulations about disseminating misleading information.
    Bin Sulayem said he expected the crisis to recede and the credit market to improve in early 2009. His optimism is misplaced. Dubai World is one of 29 companies listed on the Dubai Stock exchange. The exchange index has plunged over 67% this year, and 32% in a recent week.
    More Middle East Problems: Kuwait’s Gulf Bank announced a 375-million-dinar ($1.4 billion) emergency rights issue and a boardroom sweep following the revelation it had lost a similar amount through losing currency trades. They were probably shorting the U.S. dollar.
    The hike is the biggest emergency recapitalization move to date in the Gulf. The resignation of the company’s entire board is very unusual.
    POTPOURRI
    THE NEW ADMINISTRATION Normally, we don’t involve ourselves much with politics. But it’s really important for investors to watch closely where the new administration is heading. The new rulers of our once great nation are now being revealed.
    Some commentators have suggested that the President-Elect is a “centrist.” I have a different view. So, we must watch the appointees.

    21
    He’s back! Yes, we were happy when we he was gone. But Tom Daschle, former Senator from South Dakota, will become Health and Human Services secretary. He will head up the effort to revamp the U.S. health-care system. I sure wouldn’t touch a company related to the health care industry with a 10-foot pole now. Philosophically Daschle appears to be to the left of Karl Marx.
    Also, for Attorney General we have Eric Holder from the Clinton administration. Same signals!
    In fact, there are lots of retreads from the Clinton administration. Is this “the change we can believe in”? The most stunning appointment may be the new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. If it happens, it would be a sorry state of affairs. Political strategist Dick Morris writes:
    Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past. Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.
    For me, that’s enough. We now know where the country is heading for the next eight years.
    AT LAST: SOME ACTION ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS
    AIG is a fiasco. They sold over $560 billion of risky derivatives, called CDS (credit default swaps), which guaranteed bonds of many corporations against default. This “insurance” was not just sold to those holding such bonds, but also became a huge vehicle for speculators. Finally, as bond prices plummet because of risk of defaults, the swaps soared in value, which caused AIG to get “margin calls,” i.e., they had to put up more collateral. When the speculators wanted to take profits, AIG had trouble coming up with the cash. So now the taxpayer is paying the speculators.
    Remember, just two months ago, the government bailed AIG out with an $85 billion infusion in return for just less than 79% of the common stock. We wrote at the time that this amount would get much bigger. Well, currently it has quietly risen to around $160 billion. Eventually it will hit $250 billion, in our view.
    But amazingly, after the bailout the company was still planning to hold its extravagant “retreats” and affairs at five-star resorts, with $20,000 health club bills, etc. And the executives that caused this mess are either retired and celebrating on their yachts, or employed and still expecting their huge severance checks.
    Well, it seems that the Attorney General of NY put a stop to that on Oct. 22. Here is what www.investmentnews.com wrote:

    22
    The missive is the latest dispatch from the attorney general, who last week sent a letter to AIG’s board demanding that the company cease covering “extravagant” expenditures and recover unreasonable payments, or face legal action.
    Mr. Sullivan’s (CEO) contract calls for some $19 million in payments, plus other benefits, according to the letter.
    The company has also agreed that no money will be distributed from the $600 million deferred-compensation and bonus pools in its financial-products subsidiary, the unit that Mr. Cuomo said was “largely responsible for AIG’s collapse.”
    He also said that he thinks that Joseph Cassano, the former head of the financial products unit, has a share of $69 million of the funds in that subsidiary. Five other top executives have a combined share of the funds totaling $93 million.
    “It is my position that until the taxpayers are repaid with interest the more than $120 billion that has been used in the rescue financing of AIG, no funds should be paid out of these pools to any executives,” Mr. Cuomo wrote in his letter.
    Good for Cuomo. It’s nice to see that at least one person considers the interests of the taxpayers.
    WHO’S THE SUCKER?
    With trillions of dollars being dispensed, who are the suckers who will pay for all this? Of course, you and I. And small business owners who work 6-7 days per week will be hit even harder with tax increases if the President-elect carries out his promises.
    In Washington they are talking about appointing an “auto czar” to be in charge of the bailing out the Big Three automakers. Incredible! Earlier this year, Washington was talking about an Energy Czar. This summer, they wanted a “Bailout Czar.” You see, the guys in Washington love Russia, at least those impressive Russian titles.
    The CEO’s of the major automakers went to Washington begging for another $25 billion, although just last month they already got another $25 billion. Seeing those three, you could understand why their firms are going under. Heads of the major automakers were in front of the House committee urging the government to give them another handout of $25 billion, without any plan how the money will be used.
    Obviously, that’s the same way they have been mismanaging their firms. What a tap dance they did! They implied that profitability is in sight. The fact is that they have incredible legacy costs.

    23
    The average Detroit worker gets about 60% more than his counterpart working in the southern states for the Japanese.
    As Congressman Gary Ackerman from NY pointed out, these CEO’s flew into Washington on private jets, with tin cup in hand. Couldn’t they have at least “jet-pooled”?
    I have a great friend who is one of the most successful businessmen in Canada, and a member of the Forbes 400 list of billionaires. I remember in the 1980 recession, he sold his jet, and was traveling coach, just to set an example to the presidents of his many companies.
    Everyone knows the reasons for the legacy problems of these firms, so we won’t repeat them.
    Bankruptcy is a wonderful solution. Going bankrupt doesn’t mean they have to close up. People will still go to work there. And maybe a change in management can find permanent solutions without a handout. Bottom line: Do a pre-packed bankruptcy and don’t burden the taxpayer even more.
    My impression of these CEO’s was that they don’t have a clue as to what to do. If these were their own companies, and their own livelihood were at risk, they’d be sweating. But the alternative for them is beautiful, golden parachutes with multi-million-dollar payouts. A business owner gets his best ideas when his back is to the wall. These people don’t have the benefit of that. Their escape routes go through five-star hotels, vacation homes in Aspen, yachts and private planes, hopefully not at the expense of the taxpayer.
    Senator Bob Corker (R, TN) asked some very penetrating questions about the labor contracts with the union. And the head of the union said he didn’t know. Bull! Workers who are laid off get 95% of their prior pay. And that’s what you and I will pay for. He also asked the CEO’s, “If we give you the $25 billion, do you promise you will not come back asking for more?” Waggoner of GM answered, “If you guarantee that the economy won’t get worse.” Now they are asking the taxpayers for guarantees on the economy. What arrogance!
    They explained the “hardship” of retirees whose health benefits were already cut by 50% through an agreement with the union. But that won’t go into effect till 2010. They let slip out that 40% of the retirees are under the age of 65. I am sure many of our subscribers are older, are still working, and now they may have to pay the retirement and health benefits of 50-year-olds.
    Bottom line: The carmakers should go into a prepackaged bankruptcy. They can keep operating just as all the bankrupt airlines have done for years. They couldn’t make profits during the greatest boom in history. They will just keep coming back for more every month if they get this handout.

    I am sure that some of our subscribers are asking, “Where is my bailout loan?” Well, you are on the other side of the fence: You’re going to get the bill instead of a loan. And if you don’t pay that in form of taxes, they’ll put you in prison.
    Taxpayers are getting very angry. And they don’t even know all the facts that would intensify their anger. Next year there will be more bailouts to get angry about. But how many people actually write their representatives? Very few.
    Greetings,
    Bert Dohmen
    Bert Dohmen’s Wellington Letter, P.O. Box 49-2433, Los Angeles, CA 90049
    Phone: (310) 476-6933 Fax (310) 440-2919 Website: www.dohmencapital.com E-mail: client@dohmencapital.com
    25