February 19, 2010

Not So Risk-Free

Feb 11th 2010
From The Economist print edition

Which countries have the biggest problems?

MARKETS have suddenly woken up to the idea that not all government debt is risk-free. There is a long and not very honourable history of sovereign default, either explicitly or implicitly via inflation and currency depreciation.So which countries are in the biggest trouble? The ability of a government to honour its debt depends on a number of factors, in particular the size of the debt burden relative to GDP, the interest rate paid on that debt relative to the economy’s growth rate and the size of the government’s primary budget balance—the surplus, or deficit, before interest costs.

If the interest rate paid on public debt is higher than the economy’s growth rate, the stock of government debt will rise as a share of GDP unless governments run a primary budget surplus. The bigger the stock of debt, the bigger that surplus needs to be. This arithmetic suggests that countries with big primary deficits, big debt stocks and a big gap between interest rates and growth are most vulnerable.

This can be a self-fulfilling process. Investors will worry about governments’ ability to service their debt and will push up yields, making debt servicing even harder. The shorter the maturity of the debt, the quicker this problem will arise. And if the debt is denominated in a foreign currency or held largely by foreign creditors, then a debt crisis can be compounded by a currency crisis.

The table shows the main sources of vulnerability for a range of OECD countries. The first column shows each country’s primary deficit or surplus adjusted for the economic cycle. The second column shows the OECD’s forecast for each country’s net debt-to-GDP ratio in 2010. The third column measures the gap between bond yields on debt of average maturity for each country and the OECD’s forecasts for growth in 2010 and 2011. The bigger the negative number, the bigger the problem (although longer-dated debt tends to pay higher yields, so this measure may disadvantage countries which have less refinancing risk). The countries are ranked by adding together their relative league-table positions on these three measures, a rough gauge of the scale of their debt problems.

The fourth column adds another source of risk—the average time to maturity of outstanding government debt. Countries with shorter maturities are more likely to face refinancing problems than those with longer ones. Two big borrowers stand out on this measure: America, for its short debt maturities, and Britain, which can draw some comfort from the lengthy duration of its debt.

Countries that come out badly from the tables may not default, of course. Japan looks worrying on many measures, for example, but has long been able to fund itself by issuing government debt to domestic investors. America’s debt remains the sanctuary of choice when risk aversion rises. Some, like Ireland, have already taken tough decisions to get their finances under control. But as Greece and others are finding out, they will all face severe pressure from the markets to bring their deficits under control. And that may cause a political as well as a fiscal crisis.

http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15498265.

February 16, 2010

A Global House of Cards

Trend #7: Shift in the political economy of western states.

Type sovereign debt into any internet search toolbar and one will begin to uncover the next major global crisis. Countries are teetering on the edge of default after years of propping up failing capital markets,  failing companies, and funding expensive entitlement programs. These stimulus measures may have saved the world from financial ruin in 2008, and 2009, but governments are now out of ammunition, and the seriousness of default in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland is chillingly close.

The recent spat of global growth, especially in emerging markets, has come from the aid of government stimulus, coordinated quantitative easing by central banks and very low-interest rates. While the U.S has yet to worry about inflation, because of high unemployment and low production levels, their debt levels have exceeded 10 percent of GDP, with no end to the spending cycle in sight. To add, fear looms around the sensitivity of Iran and Israel. U.S economic sanctions on Iran and bullying by the Israelis have cast a web of concern in the commodities market. Raise the price of oil and the U.S could see stagflation or worse, a depression.

China is putting the brakes on their economy by forcing banks to raise reserve requirements to slow the growth of the money supply, and calm a housing bubble of their own. Inflation fears carry over into India and Brazil as well.

Europe on the other hand may be engaged in a full-blown debt crisis. Watching the fall of the Euro in the currency markets is a harrowing sign, all while countries scramble to buy dollars in a flight-to-quality move that is putting pressure on U.S export companies who want the value of the dollar to decline to make goods more attractive.

So what does all this mean? There is extreme fragility in the global market place. At the forefront of concern are consequences for such sovereign debt unease, and sensitivity in the Middle East region, all of which could tip us into an unnecessary World War.

January 11, 2010

The Leading Bond Investor of 2009, Warns of Inflation.

Trend #2. Inflation becomes a focus, interest rate policy to change in 2010.

Some economists and journal reporters will write that interest rate policy will change this year because our economy is growing again. Well, partly true. Inflation is a bad word, because nobody thinks yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a good idea. Inflation is a self fulfilling prophecy, once the flood gates are open, saving becomes a past time. Hugo Chavez’ bolivar devaluation is a case in point- Venezuelan’s have “buy now!!” fever.

Cloudy monetary policy keeps the public safe and allows them to continue watching the show, without fear of needing to rid their personal balance sheets of dollars because they are effectively worth less than a few years ago, and to keep prices from skyrocketing because of a run on Best-Buy.  The fact that the Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned to levels not seen since the great depression, and since our budget deficit has hit 12% of GDP,  rate hikes are inevitable. “Cloudy” monetary policy is the idea that “quantitative easing”, as the term is used by the Fed,  clouds the fact that it’s very actions are inflationary. We are simply spending now, excuse me, printing money now and asking questions later. When the printing press stops, that trip to the theater may cost you more than it’s worth.

Bill Gross:

“Explaining the current state of global fiscal affairs is often confusing – it’s much like Robert Palmer’s 1980s classic song where he laments that “She’s so fine, there’s no telling where the money went!” Where government spending has gone is not always clear, but one thing is certain: public debt is soaring and most of it has come from G7 countries intent on stimulating their respective economies. Over the past two years their sovereign debt has climbed by roughly 20% of respective GDPs, yet that is not the full story. Some of governments’ mystery money showed up in sovereign budgets funded by debt sold to investors, but more of it showed up on central bank balance sheets as a result of check writing that required no money at all. The latter was 2009’s global innovation known as “quantitative easing,” where central banks and fiscal agents bought Treasuries, Gilts, and Euroland corporate “covered” bonds approaching two trillion dollars. It was the least understood, most surreptitious government bailout of all, far exceeding the U.S. TARP in magnitude. In the process, as shown in Chart 1, the Fed and the Bank of England (BOE) alone expanded their balance sheets (bought and guaranteed bonds) up to depressionary 1930s levels of nearly 20% of GDP. Theoretically, this could go on for some time, but the check writing is ultimately inflationary and central bankers don’t like to get saddled with collateral such as 30-year mortgages that reduce their maneuverability and represent potential maturity mismatches if interest rates go up. So if something can’t keep going, it stops – to paraphrase Herbert Stein – and 2010 will likely witness an attempted exit by the Fed at the end of March, and perhaps even the BOE later in the year.”

Pimco January Outlook 2010

MT’s Trends Forecast for 2010

January 10, 2010

Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China

Trend #11 : The bubble phenomena continues. The bursting of the housing bubble in 2008, led by the sub-prime housing market in the U.S and Europe, devastated credit markets throughout the financially mature world.  Fast forward two years later and the burst may come from one emerging market…China. Thanks to massive government stimulus, and excessive lending by government-owned banks.
Governments world-wide have been propping up ailing economies with endless stimulus, like those of the U.S, U.K, Europe, and other coordinated central banks.  China too, basking in the glory of maintaining a growth rate despite the tumble of many in the developed world, is fueling that growth with massive stimulus and government support. Some argue that their run may be over, and their economy may come crashing to a halt, shaking investors and the like with a bursting bubble of their own.
For a complete list of trends see our Trends Forecast for 2010.
Published: January 7, 2010

SHANGHAI — James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Skip to next paragraph

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News

James Chanos made his hedge fund fortune predicting problems at companies and shorting their stock.

Now Mr. Chanos is betting against China, and is promoting his view that the China miracle has blinded investors to the risks in that economy.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc.

Read Full Article Here:

December 10, 2009

Do CEO Departures Predict Future Outlook?

Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an executive search firm, released figures recently stating that the number of CEO departures was declining versus the same time last year. In looking at the situation, it was not the number of chiefs exiting their posts that caught our attention, but the high-profile individuals themselves. Many of the biggest players in the crisis of the last two years are throwing in the towel. Could this be a harrowing sign of what’s to come in 2010?

There have been a number of high-profile CEO departures reported as of late. Some of the names have made national and international headlines. What these stories fail to do is acknowledge the challenging economic environment expected for next year as the reason for departure.

John Mack of Morgan Stanley, Ken Lewis of Bank of America, Fritz Henderson of GM, Al de Molina GMAC, Richard Kovacevich (Chairman-but still worth mentioning) of Wells Fargo Bank, AG Lafley of Proctor & Gamble, and several others are all stepping down at year-end, or have resigned in the last two months. (AG Lafley will stay on as CEO until February of next year.)

The biggest names in bailout are leaving, and it will be a tough climb for the next guy, come January. There are countless reports predicting corporate profits to be soft next year, and we think it’s evident these guys know what is coming.

Here is what John Challenger said about his recent report.

“We saw a record level of CEO departures in 2008, as companies turned toward executives who could help weather the economic storm. This year, the pace of planned job-cut announcements and CEO turnover have fallen, as organizations achieved some stability,” CEO John Challenger said.”

“Signs of recovery are beginning to emerge. As a turnaround gains momentum, there could be a surge in CEO changes as organizations change from a hold-the-line strategy to one focused more on risk-taking and expansion.”

Hardly…It’s wonderfully optimistic, and fitting to go on record saying how many more changes will come via growth. Let’s try this out.”There may be a rise in changes in CEO positions in the first and second quarter of 2010, because we are too optimistic about the reality of recovery, and we’re changing the way we do business. It’s back to basics.” That comment falls more in line with our view.

A 2010 CEO report conducted by NYSE magazine shows that the focus next year will be a return to profitability through efficient operation, and management orientation, rather than new product development or internal sales and distribution channels.

In answering the question. Which  internal factors will have the most impact on profitability in 2010? 81 percent of the CEOs surveyed said they hope to boost profit levels through greater operational efficiencies. 74 percent put the management team at the top of their list.

The 2010 NYSE CEO Report

December 4, 2009

A Thought…”If the Economy lost Jobs, why did the Unemployment Rate decline?”

A question that I’m sure has come up many times, but not fully explained is as follows. How is it possible for the unemployment rate to fall when the economy is losing jobs?

Calculated Risk posted a timely piece that I wish to share…

“In August, when it was reported that the July unemployment rate dipped slightly to 9.4% from 9.5% in June, I pointed out that the dip in unemployment was just monthly noise: Jobs and the Unemployment Rate

FAQ: How can the unemployment rate fall if the economy is losing net jobs, especially since the population is growing?

This data comes from two separate surveys. The unemployment Rate comes from the Current Population Survey (CPS: commonly called the household survey), a monthly survey of about 60,000 households.

The jobs number comes from Current Employment Statistics (CES: payroll survey), a sample of approximately 400,000 business establishments nationwide.

These are very different surveys: the CPS gives the total number of employed (and unemployed including the alternative measures), and the CES gives the total number of positions (excluding some categories like the self-employed, and a person working two jobs counts as two positions).

[T]he jobs and unemployment rate come from two different surveys and are different measurements (one for positions, the other for people). Some months the numbers may not seem to make sense (lost jobs and falling unemployment rate), but over time the numbers will work out.

Here are a couple of scatter graphs to illustrate this point …

The first graph shows the monthly change in net jobs (on the x-axis) as a percentage of the payroll employment, and the change in the unemployment rate on the y-axis.

The data is for the last 40 years: 1969 through July 2009.

Unemployment Net Jobs Monthly Click on graph for large image.

Although these surveys are different measures of employment – there is still a correlation – in general, the more payroll jobs added (further right on the x-axis), the more the unemployment rate declines (y-axis). And generally the more jobs lost, the more the unemployment rate increases.

But the graph sure is noisy on a monthly basis.

Look at the two red triangles – those are the data points for the last two months.

Notice that the increase in the October unemployment rate was much higher than expected based on the number of payroll jobs lost. And the opposite was true for November (the unemployment rate fell even though payroll employment declined slightly).

The second graph covers the same period but uses a two month rolling average:

Unemployment Net Jobs Two Month Now we see a much sharper correlation.

The red triangles are the for the last two data points, and the Sept-Oct point is above the curve, whereas the Oct-Nov point is on the curve. All this means is the jump in the unemployment rate in October was higher than expected, and the decline in November balanced it out.

This also suggests the economy needs to be adding about 0.13 percent of payroll employment per month to keep the unemployment rate from rising. That is about 170 thousand net jobs per month – this accounts for both population growth and an expected increase in the employment-population ratio.

Note that the trend line is a 3rd order polynomial (equation on graph). When the economy starts to add jobs, more people start looking for work – and the relationship between net jobs and the unemployment rate is not linear. (see next graph).

If we use a six month rolling average for the above graphs, R-squared rises to 0.8.

Employment Population Ratio This graph show the employment-population ratio; this is the ratio of employed Americans to the adult population.

Note: the graph doesn’t start at zero to better show the change.

This measure was flat in November at 58.5%, the lowest level since the early ’80s. However once the economy starts adding jobs, more people will be looking for work, and the employment-population ratio will start to increase. This means the stronger the economy, the more net jobs required each quarter to lower the unemployment rate by the same amount.

The bottom line is the decline in the unemployment rate this month was noise, and the unemployment rate will probably increase further. If the economy adds about 2 million payroll jobs next year, we’d expect the unemployment rate to still be at about 10% at the end of the year.”

November 19, 2009

“Global Imbalances…Political Economy of Recovery”

The title of this post comes from a CGS/IIGG working paper by Jeffry Friedan, professor of government, Harvard University. I found the timing of this work appropriate, and insightful. His writing outlines the delicate task of managing a State’s surplus or deficit after a crisis.

Global macroeconomic imbalances—massive borrowing by some countries and massive lending by others—drove the financial boom and bubble that eventually burst into the current crisis. These imbalances are now shrinking, creating a new risk—this time, a political one…

Global Imbalances, National Rebalancing, and the Political Economy of Recovery
A CGS/IIGG Working Paper.

October 30, 2009

Option ARMS- The California Report

NA-AR755_FirstF_20080805202818

Our first report on the coming tsunami in Option- ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) included the foreclosure numbers expected from over-all mortgage resets. The new numbers coming out of California are astonishing!

Yesterday the attorney general,  Edmund Brown Jr. of California submitted a letter to 10 major bank and lending institutions, who were responsible for the bulk of these loans in the state, calling for the disclosure of their plans to help troubled borrowers manage the drastic payment increases on their Option- ARM’s.

“California homeowners hold nearly 60% of the nation’s pay option ARMs originated between 2004 and 2008, the attorney general’s office said. Nationally, about 1m of these loans are schedule to reset in the next four years, creating higher payments for many loans on the brink of negative equity.

California accounted for more than 25% of the nation’s foreclosure activity in Q309, the attorney general’s office said, with 250,000 homes receiving foreclosure filings in the state. In addition, foreclosure activity increased nearly 20% from 2008 to 2009, and Brown said pay option ARMs could make that problem worse.”

source: HousingWire.com

October 22, 2009

Consumer Credit Still Shrinking

Chart Provided By St. Louis Fed

Chart Provided By St. Louis Fed

With the holidays just around the corner it seemed appropriate to check on the fabled consumer. Has there been a major shift in habits over the year? Some change has taken place. Most recent data shows that consumer credit contracted by $12 billion in August. This number was much better than the $19 billion posted in July, but none-the-less this is still very bad news for the economy.

Quite often we hear of the 70% contribution consumers make to the gross domestic product, and how that growth fuels the labor market. More than any other statistic, labor is the face of the economy, and for political reasons or otherwise the unemployment number affects everyone.  Much of our growth in the U.S was attributed to the excessive debt levels consumers have taken on over the last40 years. Debt levels nearly doubled every decade since the early 1970’s. (see next chart)

max credit chart

The consequences of being dangerously over-leveraged,as we are experiencing now, can lead to a domino effect of bankruptcy in many sectors. Some are arguing that “aggressive expansion of consumer credit was a root cause of the current financial crisis”, and thus some contraction is a good thing.

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, in his speech earlier this week on Asia and the financial crisis, made reference to the challenges of weening the world off the U.S consumer. Simply put, he suggested more consumer spending in Asia and more individual saving in America. (Speech)

If you are considering saving, notice that treasury yields are at an all-time low, and current interest rates in the U.S may suggest you do otherwise. Despite these remarks we are seeing an increase in the savings rate, but there is hardly incentive to do so with the Fed’s current monetary policy.

So sit tight. It’s earnings season, and the results are showing that many firms are seeing gains from the massive cost cutting measures they’ve taken over the past few quarters. Eventually inventory’s will need to be replenished, and workers will need to be rehired. Hopefully at a rate that is greater than expected.

October 2, 2009

Getting Over the “Consensus Estimate”

Being overly optimistic about recovery when dealing with cancer can work wonders…just ask Lance Armstrong. But what about when dealing with a sick economy? Underestimating does little to boost morale when the reality can be seen in the numbers.

Here is what we are saying. Time and time again the “consensus estimate” or group of economists surveyed to give projections on the latest economic indicator tend to undershoot, and therefore project a more positive picture than what we are actually seeing. It’s in the headlines everyday. “Unemployment rate rises higher than expected”…”Companies cut more jobs than forecast”…”Markets are surprised by the drop, worse than expected” and so on.

One of the consequences of over optimism is discouragement. It has broad reaching repercussions and discredits a lot of respectable people. One example, by looking at the unemployment numbers, one can see an increasing number of discouraged workers-those that take themselves out of the job search and give-up. There is hardly any evidence that these two things are correlated, but it’s an interesting idea. Imagine reading the daily newspaper, watching the financial reports and “hoping” that one of these economists or analysts will hit it right on the head. Only to find out the consensus estimate or forecast was off by a mile, eventually you will stop listening.

Hope has been over sold this year. Our advice is simple. Don’t get hung up on the projections or listen too closely to the pundits on your favorite news channel. Optimism sells advertising space on their programs. Take a step back and get a perspective of what the landscape looks like.

We, as an economy, are still in the ICU. We fell down hard last year and it may take awhile before we can walk again. Companies are still cutting costs, as seen in the unemployment rate reaching 9.8% today. The only bright spots are in government supported industries like housing and some consumer sectors. The GDP boost we received last quarter was primarily from cash-for-clunkers. The real test for GDP will be seen in the fourth quarter, and it’s expected to be low, but we will see.