• Home ::
• Fundamental ::
• Analysis Reports

• Send
• Print
• Add To
• Rss

Economic Commentary

This report has been deactivated

A Call to Action

Tue, Oct 13 2009, 07:21 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Dear Friends,

Through my weekly commentaries, I have always tried to share my honest insight into the behavior of markets and recommend strategies to help people preserve their wealth. As investors, many readers have benefited from my advice; but as Americans, they are frustrated that they have to look abroad for decent returns because Washington continues making a mess of things at home. I am too.

As you may know, I have decided to run for U.S. Senate from my home state of Connecticut. Although I’m certainly interested in representing the interests of my home state, I also believe that the outcome of this race will affect the entire country. Though there were many important developments in world markets this week, please allow me this time to speak to you about my candidacy and your role in it:

Make no mistake about it, winning a U.S. senate seat will not be easy. First, I need to get through a highly contested Republican primary featuring some very well-funded and high-profile opponents. Then, I need to defeat a five-term incumbent Democrat who chairs the Senate Banking Committee. Though Chris Dodd is unpopular now, he has a lot of powerful friends, including President Obama, and he certainly knows how to use incumbency to his advantage.

However, these are unique times, and politics-as-usual may no longer secure the re-election of a skilled politician. Though Dodd will try to turn my lack of political experience into a liability, it is much more likely to be an asset in the current climate. Conversely, Dodd’s lack of private sector experience raises questions about his ability lead this country out of an economic crisis, especially one that he and his buddies in Washington created.

I have made a good life as a private citizen, but as the father to a seven-year-old boy, I can no longer sit on the sidelines while career politicians destroy my heritage and my son’s future.
This is a pivotal time in American history, with the very character of our civilization hanging in the balance. We need to make sure the weight shifts back toward freedom. With your help, I will do everything in my power to ensure such an outcome. 

However – I cannot stress this enough – I need your help. If everyone reading this letter gets involved, I am confident we can win. There are several ways you can help, but two in particular stand out. 

First and foremost, you can make a donation to my campaign at www.schiffforsenate.com. All donations will make a difference. As this will be an expensive race, requiring as much as twenty million dollars to win, the larger the donation, the more it will help. 

The maximum allowed donation is $2,400 per person in the primary and another $2,400 in the general election. However, both donations may be made upfront, so $4,800 is the most one person can donate today (married couples can donate a maximum of $9,600). If I do not advance to the general election, the second $2,400 would be refunded. However, since the primary is just a few months before the general election, it helps to raise money for both right now. 

I realize that this is a lot of money to donate in a recession, but large contributions from supporters like you are necessary for me to win this election. Undoubtedly, checks of such size qualify as a large sacrifice. But this is one election where your contribution can truly make an impact.

Think about it: can you imagine the political waves that would result from my arrival in the U.S. Senate? Unlike other newly arrived Senators, I would have no interest in playing ball in exchange for cozy committee assignments or re-election funding. I would arrive with one mission: telling the truth in the halls of power, with a mandate the Beltway insiders could not ignore.

If I can win this Senate seat, it means no incumbent will be safe. Those who do not follow my lead risk losing to others who do. I'm not saying that my election will single-handedly change the direction of the country, but it will certainly set the process in motion.

To accomplish this, we have to act. I am willing to lead the charge, but I need an army of support behind me. This is our moment – to put upbeat headlines back on the newspapers, to leave our children with opportunities instead of debt, and to restore our country’s best traditions by discarding the policies that shattered them.

Of course, to raise an army, I need plenty of volunteers. I will work tirelessly over the next year to spread our message, but my real strength will be the thousands of dedicated supporters who make this campaign their own. My plan is to utilize this asset in a way that promises to shock my opponents and potentially revolutionize modern political campaigning. So even if you cannot donate much money, your time will be just as valuable. And even if you can’t travel to Connecticut, we can still use your help.

To donate either time or money, just go to my web site at www.schiffforsenate.com. There you can either make a contribution, sign up to be a volunteer, or both. 

If you prefer to donate by check, please mail your contribution, made payable to “Schiff for Senate,” directly to my campaign at: Schiff for Senate, P.O. Box 1134, Weston, CT 06883. 

Thank you for your time and for sharing this message with your friends and relatives. I’ll see you on the campaign trail.

Published on  Tue, Oct 13 2009, 07:21 GMT

Dead Cat Bounce

Thu, Jul 9 2009, 07:24 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

In economics, as in many other “soft sciences,” facts are often overshadowed by theories. The dominant economic theory currently in vogue is that the massive government stimuli orchestrated by the Bush and Obama administrations would produce an economic recovery by the end of this year.

Thus, it is no surprise that media cheerleaders have seized on the recent steep, but thinly traded, rally to find the facts that appear to fit the theory. From where do these talking heads draw this conclusion?

In recent months, we have allowed for the probability that a bear market rally, driven by seemingly low price-earnings multiples, would take hold for the first half of 2009. Months ago, I had stated that the rally would reasonably last into the summer and that the Dow could reach 10,000 before the next major downturn begins.

In the depths of the stock market crash of 2008/9, buying opportunities certainly arose. By March 2009, stock markets appeared to have been oversold. Certainly price-earnings multiples on many stocks had been compressed to generational lows. Ignoring the fact that these low multiples were underpinned by pre-recession earnings data, investors declared a bottom.

However, as is the tendency with sudden declines, bargain hunters entered the market too aggressively. On relatively thin trading levels, this led to a steep rise in stock prices which, in turn, drew in investors who feared being left behind. A steep bear market rally was in place.
This mirrored the pattern of the Great Depression, when the initial crash was followed by a 68 percent rally in 1930. But after that rally had fizzled, stocks then declined by an astounding 86 percent over the two subsequent years.

While we urged caution in this rally by highlighting, among other indicators, a 38 percent decline in corporate earnings, speculative traders made enormous profits as stock markets rose by over 40 percent. But as dismal economic statistics continue to rain on everyone's parade, the cheers are beginning to subside. Last week, the unemployment figures were released and the Dow slid by some 223 points.

Now, even speculative traders are preparing for a drop. The new-found concern is due to three basic indicators:

First, the U.S. dollar, linchpin of all American (and most global) transactions, is appearing increasingly weak. 10-year Treasury yields, as low as 2.1 percent post-crash, and continuing to stay below 4 percent, indicate a persistent bubble in “safe” U.S. bonds and cash.
Certainly, the fiscal situation of the United States government doesn't warrant the confidence placed in its debt. The U.S. will soon have to choose between outright default and hyperinflation. The BRIC countries are already preparing themselves for the latter eventuality by seeking alternatives to the dollar.

Second, there has been a realization that the low multiples of March 2009 were largely illusory.
With corporate earnings falling faster than share prices, price-earnings ratios are still high and historically expensive for an economy in an official recession.

Third, employment figures have been so bleak that the financial spin-doctors have been suggesting a “jobless recovery”! Reading between the lines, that means even the most deluded forecasters cannot find an argument for hiring to resume.

Despite the enormous stimulus packages, there are now roughly 15 million Americans unemployed, the highest total for some 26 years. Worse still, the official figures do not include the long-term unemployed or those who have been forced to accept part-time employment. If these “unofficial” unemployed figures were included, the total would be nearer to 20 percent than the official 9.6 percent. Furthermore, annualized figures show Americans earning less for each hour worked.

There can be little wonder that consumers are hoarding cash, increasing their savings and not buying on Main Street. American consumers are in a state of financial shock. The U.S. economy is heading deeper into severe recession, even depression.

The facts are universally bearish for the American stock markets. As for the pundits' sentiments, you can measure their value by how much you personally pay for CNBC (very little) versus your cost if they're wrong (very much). Now, there's a statistic!

Published on  Thu, Jul 9 2009, 07:24 GMT

Buying On Spec

Thu, Jul 2 2009, 07:16 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Through its rhetoric and actions, the Obama Administration has made it clear that no matter the current or future costs, the federal government will not allow a collapse of the banking system. The resulting aura of certitude has, in turn, encouraged investors to roll the dice one more time. Some of these investors are likely trying to make good prior investment losses through speculative trading in U.S. equities. The surety of the government guarantee has sadly allowed them to overlook the fact that U.S. corporate earnings continue to fall.

So, as is the case with all government guarantees, the risks our economy faces are now disproportionate to the opportunities. Haven't we been down this road before?

The operative question remains whether the government can reward the current round of investment by averting an economic depression. If not, what is the justification for investing in U.S. equities or high-yielding corporate bonds?

Given that the majority of government spending is on corporate bailouts and social programs, rather than infrastructure improvement, I would argue that the odds of recovery are long.

Economists broadly agree that greater economic bang for the buck is achieved through infrastructure spending. It is surmised that for every $10 billion spent on infrastructure, some 35,000 real, wealth-creating jobs are created. Therefore, a government spending $1 trillion should create some 3.5 million new jobs.

When President Eisenhower, the last big spender on infrastructure, left office in 1961, infrastructure amounted to some 12 percent of federal spending. The ensuing generations have neglected such spending in favor of wealth transfers and efforts to control social development. Today, only some 2.5 percent of the federal budget goes towards infrastructure.

Mainly as a result of pre-Vietnam spending, 21st century America has a huge inheritance of bridges, roads, dams, river levees, and water and sewerage systems. Most of them were built between 1930 and 1960. Some are even older. Of those built in the 1930's and 1940's, many were made with inferior materials and are now in chronic need of repair or replacement. The estimate of total urgently needed infrastructure investment to bring these aging assets up to snuff is some $1 trillion, or 3.5 million jobs.

However, the Administration continues to pursue a socialist-style dogma of investing massively in entitlement programs, such as health ($1.6 trillion), education ($0.7 trillion), and so-called “clean” energy ($1.3 trillion). While these investments will create employment, the jobs will be wealth-consuming.

Meanwhile, America's main economic challengers, China and India, plan to increase their allocation of government spending on infrastructure from their present 9 percent levels. This means that wealth-creating jobs will be created in those countries, making their national finances, workers and economies even more competitive with America and increasingly likely to precede America out of recession.

In addition, the vast increase in the issuance of U.S. Treasury debt is raising further serious, not to say embarrassing, questions as to America's credit rating, its ability to continue borrowing on such a massive scale, and the value of its dollar. It is also crowding out viable American corporations from access to debt finance, putting a further break on the job creation and consumer demand that is vital for economic recovery.

A cruelly efficient free-market answer to these issues could cause tremendous acute trauma to the average American, which makes proposals of this type political non-starters. The alternative is measures like the recent move to give the Federal Reserve power to force American banks to lend to less-than-credit-worthy borrowers. But this path is on par with selling one's soul to the devil: you may solve your current crisis, but the future consequences are disproportionately severe.

In light of these alternatives, investors in the U.S. stock or high-yield bond markets are not making prudent, long-term investments, but rather short-term, speculative bets.

If the heavy infrastructure spending by China and India lift the world economy out of the threatening depression, “green shoots” are most likely to sprout in the BRIC economies and those of their raw material suppliers. Those looking to recoup the devastating losses of 2008 would be far better served placing bets there.

Published on  Thu, Jul 2 2009, 07:16 GMT

Double Whammy

Mon, Jun 29 2009, 07:17 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Misguided government policies have already dealt vicious body blows to our economy, but that hasn't stopped politicians this week from launching two new kicks to the groin: a national health insurance plan and a carbon emissions regulation system called “cap and trade.” Even if these plans could achieve their desired ends, which is highly unlikely, I would have hoped Washington would refrain from throwing more monkey wrenches into the economy until it shows some signs of resurgence. The last thing we need right now is to further encumber our economy with higher taxes and additional regulations.

The meteoric rise in health care costs, which has become an unending nightmare for U.S. businesses and consumers, is not an accident. This painful condition has arisen from excess government involvement in the system, tax provisions that encourage the over-utilization of health insurance, and government support of an out-of-control malpractice industry. Rather than allowing more bad policy to drive health care costs further upward, we should be looking at ways to allow market forces to reign them back in.

If left alone, the free market drives quality up and costs down. Government programs produce the opposite result. Despite the president's claim that a federal plan will bring costs down, there is no historical precedent for such faith.

Simply providing more widespread health insurance, as the Obama plan offers, is not a solution. In fact, it will aggravate the problem. Since consumers no longer pay for routine medical expenses out of pocket, comprehensive health insurance creates a moral hazard for both patients and doctors. To maximize the value of the health insurance “benefit,” most workers opt for low deductibles and co-pays. Therefore, doctors learn that their patients are not concerned with the cost of care, and so they are free to bill insurance companies at the maximum allowable rates.

Given our current tax code, the simplest way to bring down medical costs would be to fully tax health care benefits as wages and simultaneously increase the personal deduction by an amount significant enough to neutralize the effect of the tax increase. This would do two things. First, the uninsured would get a huge pay increase, enabling them to buy reasonably priced catastrophic policies. Second, those currently insured could opt out of expensive employer-provided plans, trading premiums for extra wages, then buy a more economical plan. The savings would go right into their pockets.

The bottom line is that aggregate medical costs will never come down unless services are rationed more wisely. Rather than being used as a pre-payment plan for routine care, insurance should only cover unpredictable, catastrophic costs.

As a comparison, homeowners often carry fire insurance, but seldom maintenance insurance. You buy fire insurance to guard against a catastrophic loss, which is a low probability but high cost event. As a result, fire insurance is relatively affordable, since premiums paid by all those homeowners whose houses do not burn down more than pay for the losses on those few whose houses do.

On the other hand, no one carries home maintenance insurance to pay for a clogged drain or broken garage door. If insurance paid for the plumber visit every time a toilet overflowed, we would now have a plumbing crisis, and Congress would be looking to reign in runaway plumbing bills with “national plumbing insurance.”

In his press conference, President Obama claimed that government insurance would not drive private providers out of business. This is absurd. As the government provider will not have to produce a profit or accurately account for its contingent liabilities, it will provide insurance on an actuarially unsound basis. With taxpayer subsidies, the government provider can run losses indefinitely. If private insurers did this, they would either be shut down or go bankrupt. Therefore, the cost of government provided health insurance will not be confined to the premiums paid, but will include the taxpayers' bill to continually bail out the government provider.

When Medicare was first proposed back in 1966, it cost $3 billion per year, and the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion, and the 2009 estimate is a staggering $408 billion! So much for government estimates on health care.

As if this were not bad enough, today the House votes on “cap and trade” legislation. Disguised as an environmental bill, this proposal would merely be another gigantic tax. The lion's share of the new revenue is already committed to politically connected special interests that will reap windfalls at everyone else's expense. To make matters worse, the bill before Congress amounts to a blank slate, with the EPA empowered to draft the details in any manner they see fit. If Congress is going to shoot the economy in the knee, they should at least be required to pull the trigger themselves.

“Cap and trade” will do nothing to reduce pollution, yet it will drive up production costs throughout the economy – rendering us even less globally competitive that we are today. In addition to the huge cost of paying the tax, its enforcement involves the creation of an entire new bureaucracy, the costs of which will be borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices.

Years of reckless borrowing and spending have left us in a gigantic hole. Getting out of it requires that we make the most effective use of all available resources. We need labor and capital to operate as efficiently as possible so we can save and produce our way back to prosperity. Unfortunately, national health insurance and “cap and trade” are two steps in the wrong direction. Rather than getting us out of this hole, they will merely cave in the walls around us.

Published on  Mon, Jun 29 2009, 07:17 GMT

Not Green Shoots − Just Falling Leaves

Thu, Jun 25 2009, 07:33 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

While corporate earnings fell by some 38 percent in the first quarter, a dismal performance by just about anyone's reckoning, Wall Street took heart that the results were not as bad as the consensus estimates had predicted. Straws were frantically grasped. Buoyed by the resulting talk of “green shoots” and the hope of a relatively quick economic recovery, the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged nearly 40% from its lows.

Since the crisis began, Wall Street cheerleaders and politicians have seized on every scrap of data to support the notion that a recovery is imminent. When such a mentality takes hold, just as happened in the dot-com bubble and the real estate bubbles, the importance of actual earnings diminishes greatly.

Now, three months into our apparent recovery, corporations have continued to issue somber sales outlooks, and insiders are heavy net sellers. When second quarter corporate earnings are announced in July, they will confirm that an economic recovery was likely a Wall Street pipe dream. Not surprisingly, springtime optimism is fading and markets are falling back.

Already major official bodies, not renowned for their integrity in offering politically depressing news, are gradually releasing uncomfortable economic news. On June 22nd, the World Bank announced that global GDP would fall from its previous forecast of negative 1.7 percent to negative 2.9 percent, a drop of 70%.

On the same day, the White House belatedly announced that it expects the official unemployment rate will reach 10 percent. Including all the unemployed and unwilling part-time workers, this translates into an unofficial rate of some 20 percent. The unemployment rate at the height of the 1930's depression was around 30 percent, just 50 percent higher than today.

Ivory tower economists have always believed that consumption is the key for economic growth. With roughly 72 percent of U.S. GDP derived from consumption, they argue that recovery will only come about from increased consumer spending. Since unemployment and plummeting home and stock prices are hurting consumers, the economists' solutions look to government to pick up the slack. With this wayward hypothesis, the federal government has set about bailing out businesses and directing money toward consumers in the form of “stimulus.”

To some extent, this injection of trillions of dollars into the economy temporarily contained the financial panic, leading some observers to declare, “Mission Accomplished.” However, the question remains as to whether we are experiencing a true bull market or merely a bear market rally. To justify the case of a bull market, it is necessary to buy into the consumer demand hypothesis. I, on the other hand, believe that the disproportionate level of consumer spending was only a symptom of an underlying disease.

The real problem was and is a long record of monetary and fiscal recklessness by the federal government. This has allowed the natural economic equilibrium to destabilize, and for consumption to become the dominant sector of our economy. This kind of maladjustment is almost never seen as a problem, while it lasts. If given the choice, most people would prefer to solely consume and not produce. But as we all learn when we get our first credit cards, the fun stops when the bill comes.

So, while the government's measures have contained acute financial panic in the stock market, consumers remain in a state of shock and are deleveraging fast. This is an expected result of people reacting reasonably to a darkening economic landscape. To the economists, however, it will be seen as justification for another, bigger “rescue plan.” But the more the government intervenes, the more asset prices are held artificially high, the longer it will ultimately take for the needed restructuring to happen. The result will be a longer recession, and perhaps a depression.

We feel that, fed on political and Wall Street hype, the current U.S. bear market rally could last into July or August. It could even result in a Dow of 10,000 before reality dawns and pulls it back down. I currently expect the secular bear market to continue for another three years, most likely with a series of bear market rallies and endless talk of “green shoots.”

Despite the market noise, realists will focus on the growing evidence of depression in America and expect U.S. markets to decline in real terms until perhaps 2012. In the meantime, they may be reminded not of Wall Street's “green shoots” but of the words of Johnny Mercer's song which ran, “... And soon I'll hear old winter's song. But I'll miss you most of all, my darling, when autumn leaves start to fall...”

Published on  Thu, Jun 25 2009, 07:33 GMT

Back in the U.S.S.A.

Mon, Jun 22 2009, 07:19 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Harry Browne, the former Libertarian Party candidate for president, used to say: “the government is great at breaking your leg, handing you acrutch, and saying ‘You see, without me you couldn't walk.'” That maximis clearly illustrated by the financial industry regulatory reforms proposed this week by the Obama Administration.

In seeking to undo the damage inflicted over the past decade by misguided government policies, the new regulatory regime would ensure that the problems underlying our financial system will only get worse. As was the case with the deeply flawed Sarbanes-Oxley legislation of 2002, or the misguided provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, such as the torturous anti-money laundering requirements, the move will further burden the financial services industry with unnecessary regulation that will drive up costs, lower quality, and shelter the biggest and least innovative companies. Ultimately, the structure will put the entireU.S. financial industry at a global competitive disadvantage.

The underlying problem is that the excessive risk taking which brought about the crisis was not market-driven, but a direct consequence of government interference with risk-inhibiting market forces. Rather than learning from its mistakes and allowing market forces to once again control risks and efficiently all ocate resources, the government is merely repeating its mistakes on a grander scale – thereby sowing the seeds for an even greater crisis in the future.

As is typical of government attempts to control economic outcomes, Obama's plans focuses on the symptoms of the disease and not the cause. The American financial system imploded for two reasons: cheap money and moral hazard – both of which were supplied by the government. Under the proposed new regulatory structures, these toxic ingredients will be combined in ever-increasing quantities.

The proposals most notably involve extra regulatory oversight of financial entities that the government deems “too big to fail.” This implies that it is desirable to have such entities in the first place, and that the government will continue to back those large organizations that fall under its protection. These “too big to fail” firms will enjoy acompetitive advantage over smaller firms in attracting capital, as lenders will perceive zero risk in extending them credit. This will cause these firms to grow even larger, producing even greater systemicrisks and larger losses when the next round of bailouts arrives. Meanwhile, smaller firms which seek to expand, and which propose no systemic risks, will face greater challenges as higher capital costsrender them less competitive.

If the government did not provide these bailouts or guarantees, then the market itself would ensure organizations did not grow beyond their ability to attract capital. It is only when market discipline is overcome by government guarantees that systemic risks arise.

Obama proposes to entrust the critical job of “systemic risk regulator” to the Federal Reserve, the very organization that has proven most adeptat creating systemic risk. This is like making Keith Richards the head of the DEA.

Given the Federal Reserve's disastrous monetary policy over the past decade,any attempt to expand the Fed's role should be vigorously opposed. Through decades of short-sighted interest rate decisions, the Fed has proven time and again that it is only able to close the barn door after the entire herd has escaped. If setting interest rates had been left to the free market, none of the excesses we have seen in the credit market would have been remotely possible.

The perverse result will be that our government and the Fed gain more poweras a direct result of their own incompetence. Such was also the case with Freddie and Fannie, which should have been allowed to fail, but were nationalized instead, leaving them in a position to do even more damage. The new round of regulations ignores them completely. Along those lines, ratings agencies such as Standard and Poor's and Moody's that completely missed the mark were also spared. Perhaps this special treatment is a way of ensuring that Treasury debt maintains its bogusAAA rating.

Unfortunately, despite their intent, my guess is that the new regulations will most severely impact smaller firms, like my own, that never engaged in reckless behavior. This will further reward those “too big to fail” firms, whose economies of scale and cozy relationships with regulator sleave them better positioned than their smaller rivals to absorb the costs of the added red tape.

With the transition now fully under way, I propose we end the pretense andrename our country: “The United Socialist States of America.” In fact,given all the czars already in Washington, we might as well go with the Russian theme completely: appoint a Politburo, move into dilapidate dhousing blocks, and parade our missiles in the streets. On the brightside, there's always the borscht.

Published on  Mon, Jun 22 2009, 07:19 GMT

Flying kites

Thu, Jun 18 2009, 07:36 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) conspicuously gathered in Moscow for their first-ever economic summit. Although these countries are divided by culture and geography, they are united by healthy economic growth and their concern about unprecedented levels of U.S. debt and the safety of their respective reserves. There can be no doubt that these emerging economic powers are trying to chart an economic path that will free them from dependence on the American financial system. And there is ample evidence that the first coordinated steps are being taken.

Although their combined GDP represents only fifteen percent of the global economy, these four countries together hold some 40 percent of the world's currency reserves, more than half of which is denominated in dollars. As they begin to openly question the continued role the U.S. dollar as the world's official ‘reserve,' attention should be paid.

The recent murmurs coming from Moscow were the second public expression of growing dollar concern in less than six months. Only this past April, at the G-20 meetings in London, China suggested that the U.S. dollar be replaced by a gold-backed currency, administered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). China tactfully allowed its motion to die under a general G-20 display of unity and goodwill. Likewise, at the G-8 meetings in Italy this past weekend, the Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, said, “the U.S. dollar's role as the world's main reserve currency is unlikely to change in the near future.”

‘Flying kites' is a well-proven political technique for gaining gradual acceptance of a new idea. In April, it was China alone who raised the first official prospect of replacing the U.S. dollar as the world's ‘reserve' currency. Now, China has been joined by its fellow BRIC members. Both times, the idea was raised and then tactfully dropped. But each time it served to erode confidence in the dollar's role. It is likely that the next time the matter is aired publicly, some OPEC members will also add their names.

It appears, therefore, that although support is continually ebbing, the U.S. dollar will avoid a direct attack from creditor states, at least for now. But investors should be aware of what led the mighty American dollar to be questioned in the first place.

When President Bush entered office, the published U.S. Treasury debt was a massive $5 trillion. He and Greenspan added a further $5 trillion by financing the biggest asset boom in history.

Since then, President Obama has launched a massive socialist-style program of bailouts, quasi-nationalizations, and stimulus measures orientated towards even more entitlements — at a projected additional borrowing cost of around $2 trillion. At the same time, $2.5 trillion of Treasury debt has to be refinanced this year, meaning the government will have to borrow a total of $4.5 trillion in 2009 (even on the most optimistic assumptions). Despite this, the Fed had, until recently, been successful in persuading the Treasury market that all was under control, such that government bond yields held at surprisingly low rates.

Now, however, there is increasing concern as to how the massive projected budget deficits are to be financed without a steep increase in interest rates and a resulting fall in current bond prices. Indeed, last Monday, in an attempt to quell the negative sentiment, a top IMF official publicly professed that the recent spike in longer-dated U.S. Treasury yields was not a sign of inappropriate monetary policy.

In reality, there is increasing investor concern about potential depreciation of the U.S. dollar, which may require the defensive action of sharply increased interest rates.

The Chinese and Japanese together hold almost $2 trillion of U.S Treasury obligations, or almost one-sixth of the total outstanding Treasury debt. As the largest single holder, the Chinese are particularly concerned. Indeed they have called for “special guarantees.” The great, unspoken risk is that China may slow or even halt its regular purchases of Treasuries, causing great damage to U.S. interest rates. Worse still, China may wish to lower its risk exposure both to U.S. inflation and to a forced increase in U.S. interest rates by switching long bonds for short-dated bills. At worst, China could become a net seller of U.S. Treasuries, putting great pressure on the U.S. dollar and American interest rates.

Little wonder that U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner visited China recently to calm nerves.
We may never know what “special guarantees” Geithner promised in order to prevent the Chinese from taking ‘unhelpful' or even drastic actions. Whatever they were, it is unlikely they will keep China quiet for long, especially as the dollar's value degrades.

The U.S. dollar is clearly coasting on its legacy. The Obama Administration's actions have eroded confidence to the point that the rapidly developing BRIC membership has risked its own substantial stake in dollar investments to publicly call for an alternative. These comments are the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes, we can bet that creditor states are preparing for flight.
Though the dollar's slide has been stayed by pronouncements of confidence from Russia, Japan, China, and others, there will come a time when the pain is too great and the outcome too certain. Private investors who haven't already left the collapsing dollar ballroom may be crushed when the big players stampede for the door.

Published on  Thu, Jun 18 2009, 07:36 GMT

Property Rights Take a Hit

Mon, Jun 15 2009, 06:52 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

"Crony capitalism" is a term often applied to foreign nations where government interference circumvents market forces. The practice is widely associated with tin-pot dictators and second-rate economies. In such a system, support for the ruling regime is the best and only path to economic success. Who you know supersedes what you know, and favoritism trumps the rule of law. Unfortunately, this week's events demonstrate that the phrase now more aptly describes our own country.

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from Chrysler's secured creditors based on the government's argument that the needs of other stakeholders outweighed those of a few creditors. In this case, the Administration concluded the interests of the United Auto Workers outweighed the interests of the Indiana teachers and firemen whose pension fund sued to block the restructuring. Given the enormous financial support that the UAW poured into the Obama campaign, such partiality is hardly surprising.

When making their investment in Chrysler just a few months ago, the Indiana pension fund agreed to commit capital because of the specific assurances received from the company. In allowing this sham bankruptcy to be crammed through the courts, we have shredded the vital principal of the rule of law, and have become a nation of men, rather than one of laws.

The risk that legal contracts can now be arbitrarily set aside will make investors think twice before committing capital to distressed corporations. Oftentimes enforcing contracts imposes hardships. That's precisely why we have contracts.

Without absolute faith that deals will be honored, it will be extremely difficult for U.S. companies to borrow money. This will be particularly true for those companies already struggling with too much debt. Without the ability to issue secured debt, how will such companies access the necessary capital to turn around? If secured creditors cannot count on the courts to enforce their claims, they will not put their capital at risk. What good is being a secured creditor if courts can allow the assets securing your claim to be sold for the benefit of others?

Another problem with the government imposing losses on secured Chrysler creditors is that in its bailouts of financial companies (like Citigroup and AIG), the government took steps to specifically pay back creditors, even when those creditors should have been wiped out. This inconsistency and lack of equal protection further undermines faith in our economy.

The message here is clear: loan money to financial entities with friends in Washington and no matter how risky the loan, taxpayers will bail you out if it goes bad. However, loan money to a unionized manufacturer, even if prudently secured by real assets, and you have as much chance of getting your money back as finding Jimmy Hoffa's body.

As if this wasn't bad enough, testimony on Thursday from former Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis revealed a concerted effort on the part of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to pressure Lewis into hiding relevant financial information regarding Merrill Lynch losses from B of A shareholders. Recently released e-mails make it clear that the government threatened to remove corporate leaders if they failed to go through with the merger and keep quiet about the losses.

Again, the justification for the interference seemed to be the "greater economic good" the merger would serve. The right of B of A shareholders to be informed that their company was about to buy a financial black hole was clearly considered to be an acceptable sacrifice.

More importantly, the fact that two of the highest-ranking government officials can conspire to violate both securities laws and private property rights is abhorrent to everything America supposedly stands for. If they get away with it, which I believe they will, the precedent and the message will be chilling.

As a broker who specializes in foreign investments, I am always wary of political risk. I must consider how the threat of arbitrary government action could undermine the value of my investments. However, recent events show that political risk is now greater here than abroad, and U.S. assets, which have historically traded at premium valuations based on faith in our legal system, will soon trade at discounts to reflect this new threat. The fear of having contracts abrogated or property rights violated when doing so serves some contrived greater good will substantially raise our cost of capital and further reduce our competitiveness.

Published on  Mon, Jun 15 2009, 06:52 GMT

The Charm Offensive

Mon, Jun 8 2009, 15:47 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, Team Obama took their dog and pony show on the road. Treasury Secretary Geithner went to China, Fed Chairman Bernanke to Capitol Hill, and the President himself began a Mideast tour in Saudi Arabia. This full-court press is not coincidental, and comes just as the federal government has begun unloading trillions of dollars in new Treasury obligations. The coordinated charm offensive is meant to assure the world-at-large that the United States can repay these obligations without destroying the dollar.

Given the renewed weakness in the dollar and the recent expressions of concern from China, our largest creditor, about the safety of its current holdings, this is no easy sell. Not only must our leaders convince holders of our debt not to sell what they already own, but to back up the truck and buy a whole lot more. The hope is that a dream team consisting of a charismatic politician, a skilled Wall Street banker with longstanding ties to China, and a respected Fed Chairman, can close the deal. However, no matter how slick the sales pitch, no amount of lipstick can dress up this pig.

The most obvious fear the trio must address is that oversized deficits will persist indefinitely. Reading from a carefully scripted rebuttal book, all three proclaim that as soon as the stimulus revives our economy, the government will take all necessary steps to reign in the deficits that result. Bernanke's testimony showcases this rhetorical shift. The Fed Chairman claimed that catastrophe has been averted and that the recession is nearly over. As a result, he advised Congress to now focus on debt management. How he expects them to do that was left unexamined.

Setting aside the fact that the recession is far from over and that the stimulus will actually weaken the economy in the long run, Bernanke's words were less a practical guide to Congress than a bromide for our foreign creditors. Meanwhile, Obama carefully peppers his speeches with calls for Americans to live within their means, to save more and spend less, to produce more and consume less. But nothing in the government's current fiscal or monetary policy will encourage such behavior. In fact, the objective of economic stimulus is to prevent such changes from taking place!

The laughter of Chinese students that greeted Secretary Geithner at Peking University shows how ridiculous this spiel sounds overseas. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the current Administration are deafening. Multi-trillion dollar deficits, bailouts, nationalizations, quantitative easing, and grandiose plans for government-provided healthcare, education, and alternative energy, render all their claims of future prudence meaningless. If our leaders will not make tough choices now, why should anyone believe they will do so later when those choices will be even harder to make?

Of course, it's not just major holders, like China and Saudi Arabia, that need to be convinced. Since the largest holders are already in so deep, they have the greatest short-term incentive to play ball. While throwing good money after bad is certainly a lousy investment strategy, it is politically expedient as it delays the need to officially acknowledge losses. The spin is designed to keep all the smaller, more nimble holders from dumping their Treasuries. The major holders can publicly pledge their commitment to Treasuries, while they privately planning their exit strategies, as long as they feel that the smaller holders won't spook the market by front-running their trades.

However, once the psychology turns, there is no way to stop the rush for the exits. Remember how quickly the secondary market for subprime mortgages collapsed? One day, investors were lining up to buy; the next day, the stuff couldn't be given away. Make no mistake about it, we are issuing subprime paper and no amount of political spin can alter that reality. Bogus credit ratings aside, I think the world already knows this and it's just a matter of time before someone admits it.

In the meantime, by continuing to lend, our creditors merely supply us the shovels to dig ourselves into an even deeper economic hole. Their credit enables our government to grow when it needs to shrink, finances bailouts of companies that should be allowed to fail, and enables a nation that should be saving and producing to continue borrowing and spending. As a result, the more money the world loans us, the less capable we are of paying it back. I really wish the world would stop doing us favors, as neither party can afford the consequences.

For an timely example, just look at California. With an unmanageable $20 billion deficit, California recently asked Washington for a bailout. With none immediately forthcoming, California was forced to make real and needed budget cuts. The hard choices, which will benefit California in the long run, would not have been made if federal funds had been committed. We all should be so lucky.

Published on  Mon, Jun 8 2009, 15:47 GMT

There Goes The Country

Wed, Jun 3 2009, 07:33 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Yesterday, after a painfully long death spiral, General Motors finally filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Oftentimes, bankruptcy portends rebirth. Unfortunately, the politically-inspired GM plan holds no such possibilities. Under the current deal, the restructuring of GM will cost taxpayers some $100 billion (after the hidden costs of interest and refinancing are included). Even then, it is highly unlikely that GM will ever be competitive or that its debts will ever be repaid. Far worse, the massive government bailout will delay rather than encourage broader economic recovery. And yet, U.S. stock markets rose on the GM announcement as if it were good news.

General Motors is but a microcosm of what most ails the U.S. economy. For decades, GM rested on its laurels. Its management yielded to innumerable, exorbitant trade union demands, passing the costs on to consumers in the form of lower quality products. The result was that higher quality foreign cars, eventually also produced domestically by American workers, severely eroded GM's once dominant market position. The company's autonomy was effectively extinguished by the growing debt needed to finance this downward spiral. Investors, believing that GM was "too big to fail," continued to accept the company's high-risk paper.

In short, GM was brought to its knees by the abuse of trade union power and management's unwillingness to fight back.

Contrary to general belief, GM is not a huge employer. It directly employs only some 60,000 workers. This is less than one tenth of one percent of the number of Americans presently unemployed. However, its trade union pension fund is being given billions of dollars of citizens' money and a major stake in the restructured company. Favoring GM workers over the millions of America's unemployed is grossly inequitable. The reason, however, is found in the murky world of politics.

The United Auto Workers (UAW), GM's primary union, was a major supporter of President Obama's election campaign. Predictably, this Administration has moved aggressively to subsidize them. Obama has taken the position that GM workers are an 'elite' and entitled to privileges not afforded to other workers. If GM were any other company entering bankruptcy, many workers would have lost their jobs, pensions and health coverage. Not so under the protective blanket of Daddy Government.

In its fight for grotesque entitlements for this small, but heavily Democratic, subset of the workforce, the Administration has run roughshod over those who financed the American auto industry, even labeling some as "unpatriotic" for failing to surrender their contract rights as bondholders. The notion that these stakeholders should "cooperate" to reach an "equitable" solution ignores the free-market cooperation that led to the original, contractual agreements. If I agree to give you half of my steak in return for half of your mashed potatoes when I finish my entrée, and when I go to collect you have eaten 9/10 of your mashed potatoes, can you plead poverty? You ate the potatoes!

Aside from these considerations, the sheer logic of the deal is faulty. Has Obama ever heard of opportunity costs?

Having pursued a path to commercial failure for many decades, it is clear that GM's management and workforce are moribund. However, the government has decided to pump massive amounts of citizens' money into this flaccid firm, without the practical ability to change its operations. Remember, the unions put Mr. Obama in office, and this project is meant to reward them. Will he have the courage to do what a profit-seeking management couldn't, by cutting the fat from this company? Obama now claims that a new "private sector" management team will be installed to make decisions independent of political control. This is farcical.

Economists believe that for each $1 billion spent on infrastructure projects, 35,000 wealth-generating jobs are created in the broader economy. The Administration is set on spending a minimum of $60 billion, and more likely $100 billion, to protect 60,000 workers at GM. Spent on much needed infrastructure, these same monies would create between 2.1 and 3.5 million real private sector jobs.

Furthermore, the money spent on GM represents a direct penalty against those foreign auto companies that manufacture domestically, who are fighting desperately for a piece of a decreasing market. American workers at these plants must surely feel unfairly discriminated against. Perhaps these competitors' ownership is overseas; but, while GM was shipping its manufacturing to Canada and Mexico, these firms were expanding their operations right here in America.

The federal bailout of GM exemplifies the grossly negative impact that government intervention has on the economy. As this type of behavior becomes ever more accepted and popular (barring a major change in voter sentiment), the prospects for the U.S. dollar and American stock markets is grim. Yet, American investors are bullish on the bad news.
They are reading corrupt bankruptcy proceedings and profligate spending as a sign of effective governance. This highlights how desperately most investors, indeed most Americans, are clinging to the red herrings of "hope" and "change."

As goes GM, so goes the country.

Published on  Wed, Jun 3 2009, 07:33 GMT

Obama Should Tell California to Drop Dead

Mon, Jun 1 2009, 09:24 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

During the height of New York City's financial crisis in the 1970's, President Gerald Ford had the good sense to turn down Mayor Abe Beame's request for a federal bailout. The refusal prompted the famous New York Post headline, "Ford to City: Drop Dead." More than 30 years later, as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger makes a similar plea to Washington, I hope President Obama will show similar restraint. Unfortunately, given Obama's recent string of unwise economic decisions, it's hard to imagine that his judgment will suddenly improve.

A federal bailout would spare California from having to make spending cuts needed to bring its budget into balance. The matter has become urgent since California voters rejected several tax-hiking ballot initiatives. Rather than taking the vote as a signal to dramatically curtail spending, the state turned to the feds. If they get a free pass, the politicians can avoid fixing any of their past mistakes or preparing California for the future.

California, like many states, expended its bureaucracy as the nation's bubble economy inflated. When condos flipped like hamburgers and homeowners flush with equity spent like lottery winners, extra tax revenue flooded into Sacramento. However, instead of saving the money for a rainy day or paying off prior debts, the state government simply ballooned its spending. Now that the bubble has burst, and revenues are severely depleted, it is time for California to reconsider its excesses.

Governor Schwarzenegger's claim that a federal guarantee is not a bailout is ludicrous. No one in the private sector will lend California any money because the state can't pay it back. Just like AIG and GM, it needs federal help to stay solvent. And although the Federal balance sheet is in far worse shape than California's, there is one crucial difference: Washington has a printing press, and Sacramento does not. With the ability to pay off debts with newly created funds, a federal default is not a concern.

However, if Obama comes to the rescue, none of the needed cuts will be made. Instead, California will continue to operate its bloated bureaucracy and will be in constant need of more bailouts. In other words, if Schwarzenegger gets his bailout, look for him to utter his famous line - "I'll be back."

But it's not just Schwarzenegger who will be back, but governors from all the other states as well. After all, if the Federal government bails out California, by what right can they deny similar aid to other states? The bailout will send a clear message that states do not need to cut spending.

Similar to the reckless behavior that resulted from federally guaranteed mortgages, federal guarantees on state debt will counteract the market's attempt to force states to act responsibly. As the market accurately prices-in the heightened risk of default, California faces staggering increases in its borrowing cost. Under normal circumstances, this pressure would force the state to act prudently now to diminish the risk of a future default. However, by allowing California to evade the "bond market vigilantes," the stage will be set for much bigger losses.

The moral hazards created by state bailouts are tremendous. With federal guarantees given to profligate states, those states that had shown greater fiscal responsibility will face higher interest rates - as their bonds lack a federal guarantee. This creates the perverse incentive for all states to act irresponsibly.

Just as government-guaranteed mortgages lead the market to make overly risky home loans, federally guaranteed state obligations will set the stage for yet another crisis.

Federal backing of California bonds would effectively turn them into Treasury bonds, with the added appeal of being exempt from California state income tax. Therefore, the Treasury will be at a competitive disadvantage when it looks to issue its own debt to Californians. If it then has to guarantee the bonds of all the other 50 states, why would any Americans buy Treasuries when they can get identical credit quality on better terms from the states? The only real buyers left would be foreigners, who are already queasy about the Treasuries they own.

The need to make good on state and federal obligations will further depress the appeal of all U.S. dollar-denominated debt. As a result, as real buyers flee the market, the Fed will have to run its printing presses even faster to pick up the slack. This will set into motion a self-perpetuating spiral of money printing and Treasury sales with a predictable result: hyperinflation.

In the meantime, by redirecting credit to California that otherwise would have gone to more credit-worthy borrowers, the government will worsen the credit crunch for the rest of the country. Since there is only a finite supply of credit, money borrowed by California will no longer be available to other borrowers. The effect is a less efficient allocation of capital that further undermines national productivity.

The only rational policy choice for Obama is to send Schwarzenegger packing. If he does, California will have no choice but to cut spending or default on its bonds. My guess is that, with their backs to the wall, the California legislature will choose the former. However, even if they default, at least the losses will be borne by those who freely assumed the risks. With a bailout, the losses will be shouldered by those who were not even parties to the transactions. If we go this route, we can all say "hasta la vista, baby" to our prosperity.

Published on  Mon, Jun 1 2009, 09:24 GMT

False Confidence

Thu, May 28 2009, 07:13 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy," said Winston Churchill. Although it inevitably lowers living standards, socialism feels good - at least at the outset - as "free money" flows in great abundance. Keep this in mind as we examine the "good news" about consumer confidence.

Last week, it was reported that consumer confidence has seen an unexpected lift. In response, the sluggish stock market saw a manic 196-point rally.

This mania overrode losses from the week's other big news: Great Britain was put on negative credit watch by Standard & Poor's; the U.S. markets tanked on expectations of a similar downgrade domestically; and, Case-Shiller reported an unrelenting slide in home prices. In other words, the economic decline continues.

So, why are consumers so confident? They are being deceived by "free money" into believing in the power of socialism.

Since the start of the crisis, the Fed has held interest rates to an artificially low level, greatly helping borrowers who can obtain credit. Also, the Administration has made it clear that it will not allow a major bank failure, even if accounting rules have to be changed to give the appearance of solvency. Including guarantees, the entitlement-based stimulus packages have sprayed trillions of dollars into the economy, with minimal oversight.

None of these policies aid recovery, nor do they allow resources to be allocated more efficiently. Instead, they prolong economic dislocation, increase the influence of the federal government, and drag America deeper into debt.

It is true that the financial collapse that threatened does appear to have been averted by "officially" hiding and avoiding the problem of toxic assets. But the lesson from Japan, which did the same, is that avoidance is no cure and will only allow the wounds to fester.

In other words, the government is forcing the bone to heal before it's been reset, so that even if we're happy to be limping now, it will be that much harder to ever correct our gait down the road.

Most of the evidence shows, with the damage done to debtor countries like America, world trade is shrinking at an alarming pace. Socialists may argue that any further economic decline will simply be met by additional government spending. But this raises a novel and alarming question: how much more can the Administration spend? Or, more critically, how much more can it borrow?

We are in an age of massive deleveraging. Cash is scarce and becoming more scarce by the day. The recession is worldwide, and even creditor nations like China are spending their reserves on internal economic stimulus. In aggregate, major debtor governments have spending plans of some $5 trillion in the near term. From where will such a substantial sum come in a world long of paper debts but suddenly short of cash?

If the U.S. Treasury fails to find buyers for its massive calendar of debt, the Fed will have to raise interest rates. This will hit all borrowings, including mortgages. It will be likely to drive consumer spending down, bankruptcies up, and unemployment to depression-era levels.

Already, with the securitization markets dead and some $3.5 trillion of underwater commercial real estate loans, America's economy looks set to take another hammer blow - a blow that might be too big for Daddy Government to handle.

Consumers may be confident that something is "being done" to solve the economic crisis, but either do not understand or have misplaced faith in what the corrective policies amount to - socialism. It may feel good now, but it is neither wise nor sustainable.

All indicators are still negative, and the government's actions have merely covered over that weakness. Indeed, it appears that the Administration is driving us deeper into recession. It is likely that, when reality dawns, the rush from the U.S. dollars, stocks, and bonds will be truly devastating.

So, ignore the vagaries of consumer confidence polling and stick to the enduring laws of economics. Production leads to stocked shelves, but looting leaves them bare.

Published on  Thu, May 28 2009, 07:13 GMT

Housing's Big Picture Isn't Pretty

Fri, May 22 2009, 15:08 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

While economists and real estate investors "celebrate" the slight deceleration in the pace of home price declines in the recent data, a quick look at home price trajectories over the past 100 and 50 years reveals little to cheer about and much to be feared.

More significant than small month-to-month changes is the flow of home price patterns over decades. In his book Irrational Exuberance, Robert Shiller determined that in the 100 years between 1900 and 2000, home prices in the U.S. increased by an average of about 3.4% per year. These figures have not been adjusted for inflation. If they had, home prices would have outpaced inflation by only the slimmest of margins.

This 100-year period includes the Great Depression, when home prices sank significantly, and it also involves decades in which our current home mortgage infrastructure simply did not exist. The second half of the century, with its baby boom, heightened inflation, suburban expansion and institutionalized mortgage apparatus, was much kinder to home prices. Even so, in the 50 boom years between 1950 and 2000, home prices increased an average of 4.4% per year. Even this pace barely beat inflation.

By all accounts, the home price boom that began in late 1997 (when the high of the previous 1989 peak was finally eclipsed) and topped out in June 2006 was extraordinary. The Case-Shiller 10-City Index, an amalgam of the home price trends in 10 of the largest U.S. cities, gained on average 19.4% per year during that time. The movements had very little to do with market fundamentals and everything to do with distortive government policies, a national mania for real estate wealth and a torrent of temporarily easy credit.

If we assume that the bubble was artificial, we can instead imagine that home prices should have followed the more typical path during that time. When you do these extrapolations, a very sobering picture emerges.

Published on  Fri, May 22 2009, 15:08 GMT

The Sleepwalkers Rally

Thu, May 21 2009, 07:48 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Although well off their all-time highs, American stocks are now marginally up for the current year. In the past two months, the markets have recovered over 30 percent from last year's lows. But something just does not add up. In the first quarter of 2009, average U.S. corporate earnings were down over 30 percent. There is once again a serious disconnect between stock prices and economic reality. Perhaps these sleepwalking investors think that the 50 percent sell-off in 2008 was overdone and great bargains are now available. To believe this is to misunderstand the economic hurricane of last October, and the gaping holes in America's hull that it exposed.

In the last quarter of 2008, investors faced a meltdown of the banking system. World governments injected trillions of dollars into their economies and changed accounting rules to ensure that a systemic banking failure was averted. Though the system has stabilized, investors seem to forget that none of the fundamental problems have been solved. We may have survived the initial heart attack, but the system remains wrought with clots.

The epicenter of the global financial system is still found on Wall Street. Despite that immense responsibility, the American economy is failing to restructure and seems to be indulging its traditional vices of over-borrowing and over-spending. Wherever the private sector attempts to correct its behavior, a bloated federal government overrides its efforts.

By diverting trillions of borrowed citizens' dollars into keeping alive vegetative corporations such as AIG, Chrysler, Citi, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and GM, the Administration is crowding out new, enterprising companies from access to vital labor and capital resources. Enshrining inefficiency in this manner bodes poorly for the U.S. corporate sector's future capacity to increase profitability. America needs fundamental restructuring in order to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Meanwhile, profitability in those countries that do the hard work of restructuring can be expected to rise disproportionately as the world economy revives.

In the meantime, U.S. banks will face an avalanche of loan defaults and derivative failures.
Clearly, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval bestowed on many banks through the much-hyped "stress tests" were a politically cynical, confidence-boosting whitewash. Even so, most banks were deemed undercapitalized! This dark thought perhaps explains the Treasury's apparent unwillingness to accept early TARP repayments.

When U.S. corporate earnings fail to keep pace with the blistering ascent of stock prices, look for investors to reconsider their strategy. As they had in the second half of 2008, many investors will once again seek safety above all. But the safe havens of 2008, the U.S. dollar and U.S. government debt, are much more problematic in 2009. Alternatives will be found.

Despite severe downward recessionary forces, the apparent passing of a threatened financial meltdown and worldwide central bank manipulation, the price of gold continues to hold up.
Clearly, many investors, including hedge funds, corporations, and even some governments, are taking refuge in history's oldest guardian of wealth.

Most notably, China, the world's largest gold producer, has recently double its central bank's gold reserve. China also floated a preliminary idea at the recent G-20 meetings to replace the U.S. dollar with a gold-linked international reserve currency. This idea may soon catch on among creditor nations who value real money but also want the flexibility to undervalue their paper currency for the benefit of exporters.

It appears that the world is moving quietly but steadily back to the future. The U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency because, at the time, it was "as good as gold." Through political sleight of hand, the gold backing was withdrawn, leaving the world floating - and now sinking - along with the dollar. This new standard, if implemented, will help rebalance current accounts, re-opening the path to growth for those economies that restructure. Riding on its sense of entitlement, the U.S. is not likely to be one of those economies. Instead, the world's largest debtor nation will suddenly confront the true weight of its obligations and be forced to significantly lower its standard of living.

As a result, the return of gold as a international reserve should not leave investors optimistic about a U.S. stock recovery. Those that are sleepwalking into this rally will have a rude awakening when they realize that the dollar has brought down the ship. Their more prudent neighbors will have already departed for the bedrock of real wealth: a healthy reserve of gold.

Published on  Thu, May 21 2009, 07:48 GMT

Who, Me? Yes You!

Mon, May 18 2009, 07:30 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

When, during the invasion of Iraq, the United States Government issued its famous deck of playing cards with the 52 arch villains of the Iraqi police state, Saddam Hussein's face adorned the Ace of Spades. If the Obama Administration wanted to engage in a similar public relations campaign for the real estate crisis, the top card should be reserved for Alan Greenspan.

Yet in a speech this Tuesday before the National Association of Realtors, Sir Alan “the-bubble-blower” claimed that his low interest rate policies in the early and middle years of this decade had no effect on mortgage rates or real estate prices. As a result, he claims no responsibility for the subprime mortgage crisis. But even current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who shared interest rate policy responsibility as governor of the New York Fed during the Greenspan regime, recently admitted that overly accommodative policy helped inflate the bubble. So what does Greenspan know that everyone else doesn't?

His primary defense is that mortgage rates were a function of long-term interest rates which were simply not responding to the movement in short term rates, which he did control. While it is true that the flow of capital from foreign creditors with excess dollars did keep long rates low despite rising short rates, this “conundrum” was not the leading factor in the housing bubble. Although rates on thirty-year fixed rate mortgages are based on long-term bonds, by 2005 such loans had become an endangered species. The housing bubble was all about adjustable-rate mortgages with 1-7 year teaser rates primarily based on the Fed funds rate.

The rock bottom teaser rates, permitted by the 1% Fed funds rate, were the primary reason that many home buyers were able to qualify for mortgages they couldn't otherwise afford, and in turn, to bid up home prices to bubble levels. By pushing down the cost of short-term money, the Fed enabled homebuyers to make big bets on rising real estate prices. Without the Fed's help, few borrowers would have “qualified” for these risky mortgages and real estate prices never would have been bid up so high.

Greenspan expresses exasperation now, as he did then, that his careful nudging of interest rates higher by quarter point increments did not translate into corresponding increases in long-term rates. Unfortunately, according to Greenspan, the markets would not cooperate with his wise guidance, and to his dismay, mortgage rates fell despite his best efforts. As they say in Texas, this dog will just not hunt. If the “measured pace” of his quarter point hikes were too slow to produce the desired effect, why didn't Greenspan jack up the pressure? With interest rates far below the official inflation rate for many years during the bubble, he certainly had plenty of room to maneuver. The claim that he was unhappy results of his rate hikes, despite his having done nothing to adjust that policy, is ridiculous.

In addition to his colossal errors on interest rate policy there were many other ways Greenspan blew air into the real estate bubble. One example was what the market called the “Greenspan put.” By creating the perception in word and deed (since proven accurate) that the Fed would backstop any major market or economic declines, lenders became more comfortable making risky loans. In an often quoted 2004 speech, Greenspan went so far as to actively encourage the use of adjustable-rate mortgages and praised home equity extractions for their role in contributing to economic growth. In fact, rather than criticizing homeowners for treating their houses like ATM machines, he often praised the innovative ways in which such homeowners were “managing” their personal balance sheets. Greenspan was as much a proponent of leverage for homeowners on Main Street as he was for bankers on Wall Street.

The bottom line is that Greenspan fathered the housing bubble and now he refuses to acknowledge kinship of his wayward child. His denial of responsibility is an act of stunning bravado, and is a testament to his ability to turn even the simplest of situations into an impenetrable tangle of theories and statistics. The private sector jokers who now hold top dishonors in our pack of economic villains are easily trumped by the Maestro. The fact that Greenspan still has any credibility shows just how little understanding the general public, including Wall Street and the media, actually have about this crisis.

Published on  Mon, May 18 2009, 07:30 GMT

Socialism Coming Back To Haunt U.S.

Wed, May 13 2009, 09:21 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

America is more than a country; it is the ideal of liberty. In economic terms, liberty translates into the entrepreneurial spirit of hard work, risk taking and self-reliance. And this spirit has made America rich beyond compare.

Unfortunately, over the past four decades, much has been undone. Under the guise of a new, “social” justice, political leaders have turned our native ethics upside down. Profit-taking is now seen as gouging; success is greed; businessmen are predators. This creeping socialist transformation of our culture has finally broken the back of the American economy.

The definitive fork in the road occurred in August 1971, when President Nixon ended the U.S. dollar's link to gold. The move allowed the U.S. government to issue money without the restraint imposed by gold-backed currency. For most countries, this would have unleashed a wave of monetary inflation and, consequently, skyrocketing prices. But, since the dollar remained the world's reserve currency, foreign central banks were compelled to subsidize U.S. expenditure, and our inflation was exported overseas.

With global funding secured, Congress offered increasingly generous entitlements to an increasingly dependent population. This has resulted in the decay of America's productive sectors and a massive depletion of accumulated wealth. Now, socialist America subsists on the whims of the capitalist powers of the East. American consumption is dependent on loans from nations who just 40 years ago were economic afterthoughts.

Rather than dissipating their wealth through spending and borrowing, these economies have undertaken the difficult work of wealth creation. Though nominally Communist, China has become an intensely pragmatic state. While Americans have grown complacent about their liberty, China has quietly, but with determination, expanded economic liberty: courts are becoming more efficient, land reform has introduced private ownership, and obstacles to entrepreneurship are decreasing.

Many countries, such as China and Japan, which export massively to the United States, resist converting their U.S. dollar surpluses into domestic currencies. They fear that, in doing so, they will force up their own currency relative to the U.S. dollar, making their exports less competitive. Therefore, they invest the bulk of their surpluses in “secure” U.S. Treasury bonds, satisfying America's appetite for imports and entitlements.

But this logic is economically flawed. Through their actions, Asian governments are transferring their citizens' wealth to the United States. When a Chinese business exports to the U.S., the dollars earned are exchanged in a Chinese bank for local currency. Those dollars are then recycled by the Chinese Central Bank to buy U.S. Treasuries. America then creates more dollars (inflation) so that it can redeem those outstanding Treasuries. This mechanism props up the dollar and holds down the RMB. As a result, the Chinese are poorer and America richer.
Unfortunately, many Asian governments are still too collectivist to cease robbing their citizens. If they would do so tomorrow, America would feel the full effects of years of federal profligacy at once.

What happens when half a century of socialism catches up with the “shining city on a hill”? Start with America losing its Triple-A credit rating, then the dollar free-falling, then interest rates rising into double-digits as a last-ditch effort to restore faith, which may lead to civil unrest — and certainly widespread misery.

Already the credibility of the U.S. dollar is being questioned by producer states. Any loss of its privileged “reserve” status would result in rapid diversification out of the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasuries. In short order, the inflation gingerly spread around the world by the U.S. government would come back home to roost.

The outlook for the U.S. economy appears increasingly bleak. The final window for self-imposed reform has been forsaken, as both Democrats and Republicans have chosen to magnify the mistakes of the past. Huge investment losses experienced by investors worldwide may have forever tarnished the luster of U.S. stocks. Meanwhile, the threat of inflation and bank failure has discouraged domestic savings. Americans looking to preserve their wealth are turning to precious metals, commodities, and foreign shares denominated in the currencies of surplus countries.

Even in its most successful incarnations, socialism is a drag on a successful market economy. The U.S. has been able to have socialist entitlements within a relatively free-market only because the costs were borne by foreigners. But as the global economy strains under increasing weight, look for those funders to begin tending their own gardens.

This U.S. economy is now a runaway train, and anyone who has the courage to look out the window will likely want off. Short of the imposition of U.S. exchange controls (as during the last depression), American investment funds will flow toward countries that fuel their economies with America's depleted resource: liberty.

Published on  Wed, May 13 2009, 09:21 GMT

Don't Be Fooled by Inflation

Mon, May 11 2009, 08:56 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Strike up the band, boys, happy days are here again! Recently released short-term economic data, including unemployment claims, non-farm payrolls, home sales, and business spending, which had been so unambiguously horrific in February and March, are now just garden-variety awful. With the Wicked Witch of Depression now apparently crushed under the house of Obamanomics, the Munchkins of Wall Street have sounded the all clear, pushing the Dow Jones up 25% from its lows. But the premature conclusion of their Lollipop Guild economists, that the crash of 2008/2009 is now a fading memory, is just as delusional as their failure to see it coming in the first place.

Once again, the facts do not support the euphoria. Over the past few months, the government has literally blasted the economy with trillions of new dollars conjured from the ether. The fact that this "stimulus" has blown some air back into our deflating consumer-based bubble economy, and given a boost to an oversold stock market, is hardly evidence that the problems have been solved. It is simply an illusion, and not a very good one at that. By throwing money at the problem, all the government is creating is inflation. Although this can often look like growth, it is no more capable of creating wealth than a hall of mirrors is capable of creating people.

We are currently suffering from an overdose of past stimulus. A larger dose now will only worsen the condition. The Greenspan/Bush stimulus of 2001 prevented a much needed recession and bought us seven years of artificial growth. The multi-trillion dollar tab for that episode of federally-engineered economic bullet-dodging came due in 2008. The 2001 stimulus had kicked off a debt-fueled consumption binge that resulted in economic weakness, not strength. So now, even though the recent stimulus administered a much larger dose, we will likely experience a much smaller bounce. One can only speculate as to how much time this stimulus will buy and what it will cost when the bill arrives.

My guess is that, at most, the Bernanke/Obama stimulus will buy two years before the hangover sets in. However, since this dose is so massive, the comedown will be equally horrific. My fear is that when the drug wears off, we will reach for that monetary syringe one last time. At that point, the dosage may be lethal, and the economy will die of hyperinflation.

As always, the bulls fail to understand that investors can lose wealth even as nominal stock prices rise. As a corollary, the bearish case is not discredited by rising stock prices. While there are some bears that mistakenly cling to the idea that deflation will cause the dollar to rise, those of us in the inflation camp understand that the opposite will occur.

In the meantime, stocks are not rising because the long-term fundamentals of our economy are improving. If anything, the rise in global stock prices is due to investors realizing that cash is even riskier then stocks. The massive inflation that is the source of the stimulus is essentially punishment for those holding cash. To preserve purchasing power, investors must seek alternative stores of value, such as common stock.

It is important to point out that despite an impressive rally, U.S. stocks have substantially underperformed foreign stocks. In the past two months, while the Dow Jones has risen 30%, the Hang Seng and the German DAX have risen by over 50% in U.S. dollars. Commodity prices are also rising, with oil hitting a five-month high. And gold is shining as well, with the HUI index of gold stocks up 30% during the past two months, and 2/3 of those gains occurring in the past month. If this rally really were about improving economic fundamentals, gold stocks would not be among the leaders. Further, during those two months, the U.S. dollar index fell by 7%, with commodity-sensitive currencies such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars surging 20%.

To me, the relative strength of foreign stocks and currencies indicates that perhaps the global economy is not as impaired as many have feared. It has been my view all along that after the initial shock wears off, the world will be better off - once it no longer subsidizes the American economy. The shrinking U.S. current account deficit is evidence of this trend in action. Renewed strength in foreign stocks and weakness in the dollar may indicate that not only is the world decoupling from the U.S., but benefitting as a result.

So let the Munchkins dance for now. But remember, the Witch is not dead, only temporarily stunned by an avalanche of fake money.

Published on  Mon, May 11 2009, 08:56 GMT

China stirs a pof of gold

Fri, May 8 2009, 07:35 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, based on indicators of improving Chinese manufacturing activity, commodity and stock markets surged in the Pacific Rim. It appears that China's recession-fighting policies are being judged successful. The 41 percent rally in Chinese stocks in 2009 from the 2008 lows dwarfs the single digit rallies in the U.S. and Europe. With Western economies still sluggish, eyes are turning eastward for solutions to the global economic riddle. As such, recent hints at the direction of Chinese monetary policy should be closely regarded.

At the recent G-20 London meetings, China called for a new international monetary order with a gold link. This was followed by the sudden disclosure that China had used part of its huge gold output to boost its own reserves by some 600 metric tons, a 75% increase in total holdings since 2003. In his first hundred days in office, President Obama's administration has injected nearly $40 billion each day into U.S. economy. Given the inflationary impact that such a torrent of new cash will spark, it is logical that the Chinese hedge their $1 trillion dollar position with a more reliable store of value.

International money continues to flood towards the Chinese economic sphere, leaving the ‘old' industrial economies of America and Europe out in the cold. The cause is quite simple: the economies of America and China are mirror images of each other. The China-centric countries are producer-dominated and America is consumer-dominated. Over time, this dichotomy is producing massive shifts in global wealth.

For a century, American Administrations have relied on the inflationary powers of paper money to finance consumer growth. The fact that the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency enabled this scheme to persist for longer than would have been tolerated otherwise. The Bush-Obama “stimulus and bailout” agenda is the same practice on overdrive. While driving the country further into debt, it also ensures that it will be progressively less competitive in the global economy.

China, on the other hand, is the world's largest producer and one of the top three exporters, piling up vast current account surpluses, especially in U.S. dollars. In order not to boost its currency to levels that would make its exports less competitive, China maintained its U.S. dollar surpluses in dollars, investing the bulk, almost $1 trillion, of them in U.S. Treasuries. This acted as “vendor financing” for its exports to America. The technique is similar to television commercials that promise “make no payments for 4 years”, except in this case the deal is pushing 40 years.

To combat the global recession, China spent some $700 billion on a stimulus package, primarily focused on infrastructure. As such spending adds more value to the economy than government make-work programs, it now appears that China's stimulus package is having positive results.

Increased economic activity in China will benefit American companies with China-sourced sales. But the majority of the American economy remains oriented toward the American consumer, and his ever-increasing ability to take on debt. This is obviously not sustainable.

The outlook for America is for hyper-stagflation, or continued economic recession accompanied by rapidly rising prices. This calls into question the continued role of the U.S dollar as the world's reserve. Surplus nations, particularly China, are voicing their growing concern. They are exploring other, less volatile arrangements. They may be considering a return to the bulwark of monetary stability: gold.

Now the world's largest gold producer, China would benefit tremendously from a shift away from the U.S. dollar and toward gold. She is clearly interested in world leadership, but would never dream of challenging the U.S. militarily. However, in the 21st Century, the weight of economics renders martial might largely irrelevant. Still, she can't afford to act irresponsibly.

There are a few considerations that should temper her ambitions. Even with the 600 metric ton increase over the past five years, China's gold holdings amount to only 1.6 percent of its total monetary reserves. Also, at 1,050 metric tons total, China's holdings are still dwarfed by the 8,132 metric tons held by the United States.

Nevertheless, the Chinese call for a new, gold-linked reserve currency, combined with the near doubling of their own gold reserves, points to a major strategic trend that can be expected to spread to other surplus nations. The biggest winners, personal or governmental, will trade their dollars for gold before there's a rush for the door.

Private investors can ride the wave created by China's strategic shift by continuing to add to their gold positions.

Published on  Fri, May 8 2009, 07:35 GMT

Stress Tests are Not Stressful Enough

Thu, Apr 30 2009, 07:15 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Last week, when the U.S. Treasury unveiled the basics of their lender "stress tests", the Fed concluded that "most U.S. banking organizations currently have capital levels well in excess of the amounts required to be well capitalized." Simultaneously, they also claimed that the banks needed more capital. Apparently the Fed has little understanding of irony.

Why would our central bankers conclude that "well capitalized" banks need "more capital?" Quite possibly, they believe, as I do, that the rosy economic assumptions that form the basis of the "stress tests" may be far too optimistic. I believe that neither the Fed nor the Treasury have any will to paint a clear picture of our financial turmoil. But that won't stop them from operating under those assumptions.

A brief examination of the stress test assumptions shows why the Fed should be hedging their bets.

First, the level of stress in the tests was set unrealistically low. Their absolute worst case assumption was for a GDP contraction of only 3.3 percent in 2009. This comes as first quarter 2009 GDP shrank at 6.1 percent. And the economy is still slowing. To post a contraction of just 3.3 percent for the year would likely involve an immediate reversal in the rate of contraction and outright expansion by the fourth quarter.

The stress test also assumes a worst case scenario unemployment rate of 8.9 percent in 2009.
This is also wildly optimistic when unemployment is already at 8.7 percent and rising at some 20,000 each day. Worse still, if calculated on a pre-Clinton basis, to include all those unable to find anything but part-time employment, the current unemployment rate is a staggering 19.2 percent, or just 0.8 percent from official depression levels! It appears that the U.S. is fast slipping from recession into depression, rendering the stress tests almost meaningless other than as a public morale boosting exercise.

Second, the conclusion that "most" of the banks are well capitalized, as the Fed claims, also strains the bonds of credibility. The nineteen banks tested have total assets of $11.5 trillion.
Technically, sixteen of these banks already are insolvent. If any two fail, they will exhaust the current FDIC bank deposit insurance fund. Only three of the banks, accounting for just 6 percent of the group's assets, could survive even the most liberal worst case scenario assumed by the Treasury. Meanwhile, the five largest and most vulnerable banks, with about $8 trillion in assets, account for some 70 percent of the group's total assets.

Some observers point to the relative security of the smaller regional banks, which did not engage as heavily in leveraged investments. However, the FDIC list of troubled banks has risen in the past three months from 1,568 banks with about $2.3 trillion in assets to 1,816 banks with some $4.4 trillion in assets. The risk has almost doubled, seemingly overnight!

Finally, by suspending the needed discipline of mark-to-market accounting, the profits of many banks have been massaged deceptively upwards. For example, a 'real' loss of more than $2 billion at Citibank was 'fudged' into a published profit of $1.6 billion.

The observers at the Fed and Treasury, as well as the most sophisticated investors around the world, are neither ignorant nor ill-informed. Despite their stress tests, they must be aware of the possibility of massive bank failures and terrifying aftershocks. This belief may have been a factor in a rumor, circulated after the stress tests were announced, that defensive maneuvers to avoid a run on the dollar, including the elimination of hedged short sales against the dollar, would soon be announced. If such a rule were to be put forward it would rightly be seen as a precursor to internationally coordinated foreign exchange controls, that would abruptly bring an end to the benefits of free trade.

Meanwhile, China has used its huge domestic gold production to double its gold reserves. Such clear concern over the viability of paper currency may encourage other central banks and even corporations to follow suit, making physical gold even harder to obtain. Gold therefore, is likely to experience renewed buying pressure as panic buying overcomes the downward 'commodity' selling pressure of depression.

Published on  Thu, Apr 30 2009, 07:15 GMT

Here They Come To Save The Day

Mon, Apr 27 2009, 09:22 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

With much fanfare this week, Congress and the Administration began a series of actions designed to protect over-leveraged consumers from the high fees imposed by credit card lenders. As with most other initiatives devised by government, this policy will create a host of unintended consequences that will undermine the benefit the program hopes to create.

Anyone who carries a credit card knows that billing practices have become much more aggressive, punitive, and seemingly arbitrary over recent years. Sadly, these fees have become one of the only means the companies can use to compensate for the increasing defaults on their unsecured loans.

By mandating that the credit card companies lower their fees, the government will severely hinder their tenuous profitability. In order to avoid bankruptcy, the companies will have to deny credit to marginal borrowers, which would reverse the "easy access" policies that have defined the industry over the last generation. The resulting contraction in consumer credit will run contrary to current Administration efforts to keep Americans spending. The horns of this dilemma are completely missed in Washington.

In better times, when companies could make money from interest charged on a high-performing loan book, companies could perhaps compete on better customer service and transparency.
Unfortunately, desperate times have called for desperate measures. And rather than seek to break their reliance on credit through harsh reductions in spending, many Americans have waded into the snake pit despite the costs.

Among other things, Congress objects to credit card issuers raising interest rates and cutting back on lines of credit for those borrowers deemed at heightened risk of default. One practice, called "universal default", in which card issuers take into account a cardholder's total liabilities, not just what is owed on a single card, has drawn particular Congressional fire. In this system, delinquency on one account will often affect rates charged on all accounts, even those where the borrower is still current.

Also under scrutiny is the very concept of lenders raising rates on existing balances to reflect heightened risks, despite the fact that their ability to do so is spelled out in advance. The concept is similar to adjustable rate mortgages, where borrowers initially get lower rates but face the possibility of higher rates should circumstances change. Without the ability to raise rates, lenders will have no choice but to charge much higher rates from the start.

The bottom line is that credit card lending is a very risky business. The debts are unsecured and the probability of default is high, meaning big losses should borrowers choose not to pay. In addition, should a borrower file for bankruptcy, credit card debt is often the first to be discharged. Given the risks, interest rates need to be very high to keep lenders in business.

One way to keep a lid on rates for those who do pay is for lenders to weed out those most likely to default. This can be accomplished through higher rates. Not only does this discourage riskier borrowers from taking on more debt, but it gives lenders a bigger cushion to absorb losses. However, by interfering with card issuers' attempts to better price risk and limit losses, the government will reduce credit availability.

The securitization process, infamously associated with mortgage debt, has also been utilized extensively with credit card debt and has greatly spurred the growth of consumer credit. As a result of securitization, lenders were able to immediately offload their loans to Wall Street, which repackaged and sold them to investors around the world. In this way, credit card issuers became more concerned with loan volume and less concerned with loan risk. However, now that huge losses in credit card-backed bonds have reduced investor demand (despite recent multi-billion dollar Fed purchases), card issuers need to hold loans on their own books. Greater prudence is resulting.

Ironically, this is the one potential silver lining to this cloud. By making credit card lending even riskier, this bill will actually make it harder for consumers to get credit. Since excess consumer credit is part of the problem, restricting that credit is part of the solution. However, while I approve of the ends, it is certainly not justified by the means.

It would be preferable to simply allow markets to function. Higher losses among credit card lenders and higher rates for credit card users would greatly diminish both the availability and desirability of consumer credit. Fear of losses and the absence of a secondary market to unload risk would force lenders to more judiciously extend credit. Simultaneously, higher rates would reduce the appeal of credit card debt, causing fewer Americans to partake.

These mechanisms would begin the painful process of weaning the nation from its addiction to credit. Ironically, this is what President Obama has said is necessary.

Of course, there is also a good chance that this silver lining will prove a mirage. When the banks attempt to restrict credit as a result of their business concerns, the government will most likely funnel more taxpayer "bailout" money to banks to entice them to keep lending. In typical government fashion, rather than letting market forces work, our government will force bad decisions on companies and then subsidize resulting losses. Isn't this starting to sound familiar?

Published on  Mon, Apr 27 2009, 09:22 GMT

Too Big To Survive

Thu, Apr 23 2009, 07:57 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

On April 20th, Bank of America announced a first quarter surge in earnings to $4.2 billion. At first blush, it looked like the kind of news that would ignite a stock market rally.
Instead, the Dow closed down 289 points. Could it be that, despite the apparent good news, investors don't trust the banks or the economy?

In recent months, the Administration has poured billions of dollars into those banks that it has deemed "too big to fail". B of A alone received some $45 billion. Perhaps now it is time to examine whether the liabilities of these same banks make them, conversely, too big to survive.

Importantly, B of A's sale of China Construction Bank, a much-prized future earner, resulted in a one-time-only earnings contribution of $1.9 billion, or 45 percent of their just posted quarterly profit figure.

In addition, $2.2 billion in gains were contributed by certain mark-to-market bank "adjustments" to Merrill Lynch's structured notes. These gains appear to be the result of recent changes in the accounting rules that now allow banks to "officially" inflate the value of toxic assets and thereby erase billions of dollars of paper losses.

In short, the so-called surge in the earnings of Bank of America had little to do with real, repeatable earnings, and much to do with sales of promising assets and accounting gimmickry.

To be fair, in announcing the earnings surge, B of A CEO Ken Lewis admitted that his company continued to face, "extremely difficult challenges primarily from deteriorating credit quality driven by weakness in the economy and growing unemployment." Although it glossed over the poor quality of his bank's recent earning increase, it was a partial admission of problems ahead for the whole banking industry. It sparked a renewed awareness that the banks face some lasting problems.

American investors are becoming increasingly aware of internal flaws in our economy.
Ignoring Administration and Wall Street entreaties to continue spending, consumers are deleveraging and saving cash. There is evidence that Americans are staying at home more, especially for eating and entertainment, and are undertaking more do-it-yourself repairs. Airlines, movie theaters, and restaurants are all experiencing reduced turnover. After a year of bad economic news, Americans are less susceptible to rosy financial reporting from discredited banks.

Already, U.S. unemployment stands officially at 8.7 percent. However, if it is calculated by the pre-Clinton method to include those who have been unemployed for longer than one year, those who have been forced to accept part-time employment, and those who have given up seeking re-employment, the figure stands at 19.2 percent, or just 0.8 percent below Great Depression levels!

The outlook for both corporate and individual loan defaults is appalling. Already, mortgage defaults are exploding. They now extend to the commercial sector and into the retail prime and jumbo mortgage markets.

Many can now clearly see that the outlook for both corporate and individual loan defaults is appalling. Already, mortgage defaults are exploding. They now extend to the commercial sector and into the retail prime and jumbo mortgage markets. The greatly undercapitalized banks face huge increases in loan defaults in almost every sector, which will deplete future earnings and further threaten capital solvency.

But all this is dwarfed by the exposure of the major money center banks to the vast $418 trillion American share of the derivatives markets and, in particular, to the risks posed by counterparty defaults in so-called Credit Default Swaps. These are massive in relation to the banks' capital reserves.

For example, the combined capital of just five of the top 14 largest American banks would be overexposed to derivative default risk by between 200 and 1,000 times. Up to now, this shocking figure was largely concealed or deliberately ignored by politicians and Wall Street analysts, who were naturally frightened by what they saw.

Despite this financial minefield, the stock prices of financials have rallied strongly.
Perversely, many seemingly high risk companies like Citigroup have seen their shares climb by over 100 percent from their lows, while those with little debt have underperformed by some 50 percent.

One reason for this strange market behavior may be the perception that the money center banks are "too big to fail" and will be bailed out by taxpayers. In reality, however big the banks, even with government guarantees, the problems they face appear too big to survive.

Published on  Thu, Apr 23 2009, 07:57 GMT

North Atlantic Alliance

Tue, Apr 21 2009, 09:06 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Two weeks ago, Daniel Hannan, the Member of the European Parliament from South East England, made headlines the world over with a blistering indictment of the policies of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. For his reliance on deficit spending and monetary expansion to fight financial collapse, Hannan labeled Brown as the "devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government." Mr. Hannan cited the Governor of the Bank of England, who blew the whistle on the U.K.'s deep financial troubles, as evidence that even members of the Westminster regime are beginning to doubt the wisdom of a perpetually growing government funded by a perpetually growing deficit.

Hannan's rebuke has thus far racked up 2.2 million Youtube hits since its debut, as citizens everywhere recognize parallels with their own governments' policies. Now, Mr. Hannan speaks directly to the American audience via an article on the website of Peter Schiff's brokerage firm, Euro Pacific Capital. In the spirit of skepticism that made him famous, Mr. Hannan bravely raises and answers that taboo question, "What's the alternative to spending more?"

Published on  Tue, Apr 21 2009, 09:06 GMT

Partners in Crime

Thu, Apr 16 2009, 07:29 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Rightly, the students of Austrian Economics have laid the blame for the current economic crisis squarely on the doorstep of the Keynesian policies of governments and central banks. However, in this case, there are other culprits involved, most notably the former titans of financial services. During this decade, major international money center banks from Wall Street to London and even to Zurich displayed unimaginable greed, reckless risk taking and gross negligence.
Depositors, borrowers and shareholders should be questioning whether any major financial institution will ever again be worthy of their trust.

The original sin of our current downfall can be traced back to the mid-20th century when politicians broke the fundamental financial disciplines guaranteed by gold-linked currencies. More recently, politicians "encouraged" banks into "social lending" for low-income housing, which led to the sub-prime problem. Also it was politicians, like Bush-Greenspan, who injected vast amounts of liquidity into the world economy, creating the largest asset boom in history.

However, the banks compounded these errors with their gleeful irresponsibility. They lobbied Congress to abolish the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was designed to prevent a re-run of the financial fiasco of the Great Depression. The consolidation enabled by the repeal of Glass-Steagall created banking behemoths that had the political protection of being "too big to fail".

Driven by greed, many banks financed their increasingly large long-term property loans with short-term funds. Unsatisfied even with those high returns, they heavily invested in so-called real estate "securities", to which risk was never properly assigned. To make even further gains, banks became "players" in the vast, virtual and unregulated derivatives market.

Conscious that their actions might be questioned by prudent observers, the banks then hid many of their reckless investments. Building on the "advancements " pioneered by Enron at the beginning of the decade, many banks made liberal use of "off-balance sheet" entities to hide losses and exaggerate profits. Some used "off-shore" entities to further conceal their handiwork.

Meanwhile, banks began squeezing their retail clients with new charges for every conceivable service that was previously offered free in return for the use of depositors' funds. Furthermore, as staffs became overloaded, administrative errors became commonplace.

When the sub-prime bubble burst, the banks were less-than-honest in showing the "true and fair" condition of their accounts. Like all insiders, they knew the "game" and became distrustful of fellow banks. Inter-bank credit collapsed, heralding a credit crisis that threatened to throw both national and international economies into depression.

Forced to ultimately accept write-downs of assets, some banks began to show serious losses on current account. As the truth leaked out, the prospect emerged of a run on the banks and a catastrophic failure of the international financial markets. Governments around the world consulted in near panic. To salvage the banks and financial system, taxpayers were forced to inject cash into the banks to avoid an immediate economic meltdown.

That is all history. But has the corruption, greed, and malfeasance which pervaded the banks gone away? It does not appear so.

Saved from bankruptcy by taxpayer funding, certain major banks continued paying dividends to shareholders and massive bonuses to executives. Some maintained huge expenditures on corporate jets and executive "sales" outings. In the face of mounting public outrage, these policies reflected little change in behavior or contriteness for bringing the American and world economies to their knees.

American banks already have foreclosed on a vast number of homes. But, they have allegedly have withheld large numbers of houses from sale, lest a low price force them to write down their remaining property loans still further. Similarly, banks hold vast amounts of "toxic" mortgage-backed securities on their books that they refuse to sell given the low prices the debt would fetch on the open market. This so-called "shadow inventory" still overhangs the property market. It distorts property values to the upside and clouds the viability of many banks.

Instead of facing the music that they so consistently avoided in the past, banks prevailed upon the authorities to rescind the so-called "mark to market" obligation for mortgage-backed securities. This rule change allows the irresponsibility to continue.

Until the banks come clean, show their true numbers, and take honest recovery action, it is unlikely that trust will be restored in the property and credit markets. If we are to begin the journey toward a robust economy, establishing trust between all market participants must be the first step.

Published on  Thu, Apr 16 2009, 07:29 GMT

Be Careful What You Wish For

Fri, Apr 10 2009, 07:35 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Apart from the obvious financial distress that the current economic crisis has inflicted on most Americans, perhaps one of the more irksome byproducts of the meltdown has been the inescapability of clueless economic blather. It's bad enough when so-called economists serve up the same Keynesian nonsense that has led us down the current cul-de-sac in the first place. At least those people have some incidental knowledge, however deeply flawed, of basic economic concepts. It's far worse when political pundits, whose understanding of economics typically comes from Treasury Department talking points, hold forth as if they really know what is going on.

Last weekend I happened to watch the McLaughlin Group, a mainstay of Sunday morning political programs, which included a discussion that typified the lack of economic common sense that is so pervasive in our country. The program's anchor John McLaughlin, undoubtedly an expert in political maneuvering and Washington horse-trading, offered viewers his assessment of the global economic landscape. McLaughlin identified China, Germany, and Japan as being prime offenders in the global economic meltdown. Their “offense” was that they ran persistent trade surpluses, had savings rates that were “far too high” and consumption rates that were “far too low”.
McLaughlin identified these sins as responsible for the global economic imbalances. He urged the governments of those countries to adopt policies that would encourage their consumers to borrow and spend more. Exactly which school of economic thought informed his assessment is not entirely clear.

In the first place, if the creditor nations of the world actually follow Mr. McLaughlin's advice and become borrowers themselves, from just where does Mr. McLaughlin believe the money will come? These countries already lend to America. Does he think that they also have enough leftover to lend to themselves? Does he believe that America, which is tens of trillions of dollars in debt, has enough excess savings to lend? Perhaps he's eyeing the Martians' accumulated savings? The point is: the entire world cannot borrow at the same time. Someone has to do the lending. The only reason Americans are able to borrow so much is that those “offending nations” are loaning us the money.

Mr. McLaughlin apparently believes that if those countries simply adopted policies to encourage more consumption, America would then be able to export more products. Just what American-made products does he expect the Chinese to buy? If China did spend more, which they ultimately will, they would simply buy more of their own products that they currently ship to us. After all, if Americans are not buying American-made products, why would the Chinese? In most cases, it's not that consumers do not want to buy American products it's just that there are so few American-made products that are competitive in the global marketplace.

One guest on the panel did try to correct Mr. McLaughlin by suggesting that Americans needed to save more and spend less, but he was quickly shot down. Why should we spend less, McLaughlin snapped, when they could shoulder some of the burden by spending more? The inference here is that we are doing our part by lugging home shopping carts full of consumer goods, while they are getting off easy by spending their days in muggy factories making the goods!

What he fails to understand is that nothing can be bought that is not first produced. We cannot all just decide to spend our troubles away. It is only because the “offending nations” are producing surplus goods (meaning more goods than they are themselves consuming) that those goods are available to Americans. In McLaughlin's America, and indeed Obama's, we would all be standing around empty shelves with wheelbarrows full of worthless cash.

If the creditor countries are indeed the offenders, it is only in the sense that they have enabled us to live beyond our means and have facilitated the growth of our phony economy. However if they do as Mr. McLaughlin suggests, the immediate impact on the American economy will be much different than what he expects: the dollar will collapse, both consumer prices and interest rates will rise sharply, and the current recession will deepen. Rather than holding us back, foreign creditors have actually been propping us up. As for Mr. McLaughlin, he should stick to his strong suit: the dissection of political posturing. To presume a level of economic understanding by listening to self-interested politicians and academics is to invite catastrophe.

Published on  Fri, Apr 10 2009, 07:35 GMT

What Really Happened in London

Thu, Apr 9 2009, 07:42 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Last week's gathering in London of the leaders of the 20 foremost economic countries in the world had been billed as the most important global financial meeting in more than 60 years. The stage had been set for hotly contested economic policies to be hashed out with the intensity of a Cold War arms negotiation. However, for most observers, the results of the G-20 failed to live up to the billing. Other than a masterful display of haute couture by the new American first lady, there are few results that anyone can really call significant.

But for those with a keen eye for the subtleties of diplomacy-speak and an understanding of the true dangers that face the global economy, the G-20 communiqué had much to say; none of it promising. For those hoping that the participants would move to restore sound money, allow the global financial system to undergo a badly needed deleveraging, and seek to restructure the American economy in a way that is sustainable, the communiqué was a complete disappointment

From the outset, the public pronouncements of some important participants led observers to believe that the G-20 meetings would prove acrimonious and strained, with rare public splits emerging over macro-economic policy. But as the meeting got down to brass tacks, the participants seemed to emphasize photo ops with big smiles and confidence-building comments. It looked like a great success for host Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who claimed the emergence of a “new world order”.

But was the reality behind all the smiles, thumbs up and hugs? Today, the world stands at a crucial crossroads in deciding how to deal with a severe debt-based recession that threatens a world depression.
It therefore appears somewhat strange that the G-20 packed so much goodwill and agreement into such a short space of time.

In the build up to the G-20 meetings, much publicity was given to a major split between the German-led European Union (EU) and the United States and United Kingdom, or “Anglo Saxons” as French President Nicholas Sarkozy calls them. The leaders of the EU disagree fundamentally with the logic of seeking to solve a chronic debt problem with the application of yet more debt. Indeed, the current President of the EU publicly described the U.S. Administration's stimulus-and-bailout policy as “the road to hell”! Though the leaders surely discussed these issues at length, the final communiqué actively sought to conceal any sign of discord.

Another key issue that was papered over was the call led by China for the introduction of a new world ‘reserve' currency to replace the depreciated U.S. dollar. However, clause 19 of the G-20 communiqué did authorize the IMF to create $250 billion of new ‘magic' money by way of Special Drawing Rights (SDR's). This opens the way to a new world currency and more international inflation. Meanwhile, the door was left open for the “Anglo Saxons” to continue to force their taxpayers and all holders of their currencies to finance the profligate spending of their governments.

On the subject of maintaining free trade, many ‘non-committal commitments' were given, leaving the field open for continued protective trade barriers and competitive currency devaluations, which will likely both deepen and lengthen any depression. Economists have long credited the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 with initiating a global wave of protectionism which doomed any hope for a quick recovery from the Great Depression. Given the far greater interdependence of today's world economy, the consequences of a modern trade war would be even more devastating. Scaling back the advantages of global specialization would drastically lower living standards around the world, particularly in the Unites States.

With that threat looming, the Obama Administration appears still to be persuaded to keep the walking dead (Citi, GM and AIG etc) on citizen-financed life support. Yet, there was no rebuke from G-20 leaders, many of whom lead countries that had formerly been pilloried by the U.S. for economic nationalism. Why not hold the U.S. to its own standard? What should make the Obama Administration's bailouts so offensive to foreign leaders is that their own citizens will be asked to pay for it! It's one thing for France to subsidize Airbus to put Boeing at a disadvantage; it's quite another thing for America to subsidize Boeing with France's money. In this respect, the meeting's lack of open conflict was surprising.

With no rancor anywhere on display, the U.S. stock market rallied in the mistaken belief that a more healthy “new world order” had been established. Smiles are nice, and hugs are grand, but fundamentals pay the bills for investors. The G-20 meeting showed no evidence of reform. If anything, it showed that the trends which we have been following are only going to intensify.

Published on  Thu, Apr 9 2009, 07:42 GMT

Let's Play Pretend!

Mon, Apr 6 2009, 08:53 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

When elementary school kids want to escape the confines of their circumstances they pretend to be pirates, princesses, and Jedi knights. Now, with the relaxation of "mark to market" valuation rules announced yesterday by the accounting trade's self-regulatory body, our bankrupt financial institutions can escape their own reality by pretending to be solvent. The unraveling of our fairytale economy over the last few months has not yet convinced us that the time has come to put away childish things. The applause that greeted the news yesterday on Wall Street is a clear sign that we still have some growing up to do.

The imaginative conceit that lies behind the accounting change is that the toxic assets polluting bank balance sheets are not really toxic at all. They are in fact highly valuable assets that for some irrational reason no one wants to buy.

Using the "mark to market" accounting method, mortgage-backed securities were valued relative to the latest prices fetched by the sale of similar assets on the open market. Currently, those bonds are being sold at deep discounts to their original value. By "marking" their unsold bonds down to those prices, the insolvency of our financial institutions had been laid bare. The new accounting changes will allow the nervous owners to assign more "appropriate" (i.e. higher) values. Problem solved.

It is important to note that the Financial Accounting Standards Board made their rule modifications only after intense pressure had been applied by Washington and Wall Street. In their heart of hearts, I can't imagine that there are too many bean counters happy with the outcome.

The banks and the government have argued that the assets should be valued based solely on current cash flow. Most mortgages, after all, are not delinquent. Therefore, a few bad apples should not spoil the whole cart, and those that are not yet delinquent should be valued at par. This method assumes we have no ability to look into the future and make assumptions about what is likely to happen, which is presumably what the market is already doing by valuing the assets lower than the banks wish.

All kinds of bonds (corporate, government and municipal, etc.) that are not in default frequently trade at discounts. In fact, the reason that agencies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's rate bonds is to assess the probability of default. The higher that probability, the lower the value placed on the bonds, regardless of their current cash flow.

For example, GM bonds that mature 10 years from now currently trade for only 8 to 10 cents on the dollar, despite the fact that GM is current on all interest payments. The 90% discount reflects investor awareness that GM will likely default long before the bonds mature. By the new logic, financial institutions with GM bonds on their balance sheets should be able to ignore the market and value these bonds at par.

Some argue that the comparison is invalid because GM's bonds are liquid while mortgage-backed securities are not. However, if sellers of GM bonds were holding out for 70 or 80 cents on the dollar, those bonds would be illiquid too. The reason GM bonds are trading is that sellers are realistic.

The same should apply to bonds backed by mortgages. To assume that a 30-year, $500,000 mortgage on a house that has declined in value to $300,000 has a high probability of remaining current to maturity is ridiculous. The borrower could lose his job, his ARM might reset higher, or he may simply tire of paying an expensive mortgage for a house that is unlikely to be sold at a profit. Any bond investor with half a brain will factor in these probabilities and look for deep discounts. The only way to accurately assess a real present value is to let the market discover the price.

Despite the pleas from bankers and politicians, mortgages are not plagued by a lack of liquidity but a lack of value. If sellers would be more negotiable, there would be plenty of liquidity. Who knows, at the right price I might even buy a few. The problem is that putting a market price on these assets would render most financial institutions insolvent, which is precisely why they do not want to let that happen.

Simply pretending that all these mortgages will be repaid does not solve the underlying problems. It may keep some banks alive longer, but when they ultimately do fail, the losses will be that much greater. In the meantime, solvent institutions are deprived of capital as more funds are funneled into insolvent "too big to fail" institutions - hiding their toxic assets behind rosy assumptions and phony marks.

Going from the sublime to the completely ridiculous, in a speech at the just-concluded G20 summit in London, President Obama urged Americans not to let their fears crimp their spending. It would be unwise, he argued, for Americans to let the fear of job loss, lack of savings, unpaid bills, credit card debt or student loans deter them from making major purchases. According to the president, "we must spend now as an investment for the future." So in this land of imagination (where subprime mortgages are valued at par), instead of saving for the future, we must spend for the future.

I guess Ben Franklin had it wrong too - apparently a penny spent is a penny earned.

Published on  Mon, Apr 6 2009, 08:53 GMT

Deciyokubg Set To Increase

Thu, Apr 2 2009, 08:13 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, the leaders and finance ministers of the 20 most economically important nations, or G-20, will convene in London to develop coordinated policies that they hope will prevent a worldwide depression. The leaders will also consider greater transnational regulatory oversight of the financial industry and the future of the U.S. dollar as the world's 'reserve' currency. By any reckoning, this meeting will be the most important international economic conference since Bretton Woods in 1944, or the Great Powers economic meeting in Rome in 1922.

All the leaders are now acknowledging what was formerly in dispute: that the world is facing a severe recession. But as is evident by the pre-meeting media blitz, the London G-20 will reveal a split of the group into two opposing camps.

On one hand we have the Americans and the British who have been calling most loudly for a 'team' approach, in which all nations 'pull together' in support for spending-based remedies. To some extent we are indeed all in it together. The shock currently felt by the American consumer is has translated into massive losses for exporting countries around the world. But this does not mean that all favor massive government spending along the lines envisioned by Pennsylvania Avenue and Downing Street.

In fact, many of these countries are leading the other side of the debate. The Europeans, led by Germany with its inbred fear of hyperinflation, have balked at the Anglo super-stimulus approach. The continental powers all maintain socialized medical care, comprehensive social security and unemployment benefits. They can therefore afford to accept high levels of unemployment before they face riots and insurrection in the street. The United States has no such cushion.

The German view is that recession is the natural cure for excessive inflation and growth. They see that the world economy is overleveraged, based on the reckless injection of cheap dollars under Bush-Greenspan. They believe that their economies will not return to health unless deleveraging is allowed to take place. These leaders understand that deleveraging will create massive unemployment, but they are prepared to accept it in order to allow their economies to restructure in a competitive manner. In short, they will accept short-term pain for long-term gain.

The Anglo-Saxons, led by America and socialist Britain, believe that the solution is to spend their way out of recession. Even Lord Keynes would balk at their non-solution of sending good money after bad in such an overleveraged environment. The Anglo-Saxons know they are falling off a cliff, but they are trying to break the fall with additional capital borrowed from the other developed and developing economies. One must assume all this is being done to help political leaders survive the next election cycle, because the long-term consequences will be an even larger crisis -- and even the collapse of the dollar.

If the German-led Europeans are joined by the Chinese and Australians, the opposition to a global spending binge will be impossible to overcome. A fundamental split will then develop in the recovery and restructuring rates of the world's economies. The forces of decoupling will be reinforced, and the Anglo-Saxon economies will exit from the center stage of the global economic order.

Such an outcome would also raise to a crescendo the current calls for a gold-linked global reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar. If that were to occur, exchange controls would surely be imposed to stop a panic run out of the Anglo-Saxon currencies.

Investors should watch the G-20 meeting with very great care and look behind the inevitable, bland 'groupthink' final communiqué of superficial cooperation. While this class of grade-A economies looks harmonious, the Anglo-Saxons are most afraid of the impending D's: deleveraging and decoupling.

Published on  Thu, Apr 2 2009, 08:13 GMT

The Fault Lines Emerge

Mon, Mar 30 2009, 07:59 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

For a few fleeting, horrifying moments this past week the fault lines that underlie the global economic crisis erupted into plain view. With deft and quick effort leaders in Washington, Europe and Asia papered over the fissures and fears largely subsided. But the shock of plain truths which resulted in violent currency movements are the latest reminder that the 21st century economic order will bear little resemblance to the world we now know.

The tremors began in Beijing, where a essay from the governor of the People's Bank of China seemed to favor the creation of an IMF currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve. In Europe, the rotating president of the European Union, outgoing Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, characterized America's plan to combat the widening global recession as the "road to hell." At same time, British Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan made headlines the world over with his stinging rebuke of the inflationary and debt-focused policies of the current UK government.

As a result of these clearly voiced frustrations, the U.S. dollar suffered a drubbing. However, Treasury secretary Geithner and his ministerial counterparts in Berlin, Paris and London did their best to convince everyone that the world is pulling together as one to combat the economic crisis. The charm offensive was effective in restoring calm.

Given the size and scope of the remedies that the Obama Administration is cajoling the world to adopt, it is likely that the unease will grow until many countries emerge in open revolt to America's plans.

President Obama and the majority of our leadership on both sides of the aisle are confident that the right mix of monetary and fiscal policy can restart the spending party that defined America for a generation. And as the bleary-eyed revelers wisely reach for a cup of black coffee or stumble into a rehab center, Obama is pouring grain alcohol into the punch bowl hoping to lure the walking zombies back onto the dance floor. Europe and Asia fully understand that Obama will ask them to lend the booze.

Washington is telling us that our problems result from a lack of consumer spending. Therefore, the solution is for government spending to pick up the slack. However, if Americans are too broke to spend, then how can our government spend for us? The only money they have is taken from us through taxation. To postpone immediate tax hikes (adding interest for good measure), Washington plans to borrow more from abroad. However, if our foreign creditors refuse to pony up, much of the money will simply be printed instead.

Printing money is merely taxation in another form. Rather than robbing citizens of their money, government robs their money of its purchasing power. Many people assume that if government provides the funds we can spend our way back to prosperity. However, it's not money we lack but production. If the government simply prints money and doles it out, we will not be able to buy more stuff; we will simply pay higher prices. The only way to buy more is to produce more. It is production that creates purchasing power, not the printing press!

Our current predicament resulted in part from our efforts to maintain consumer spending at unsustainable levels, primarily by the reckless extension of consumer credit. Pushing up consumer credit to levels not supported by market realities required government subsidies and guarantees.
In addition, Wall Street pitched in with securitization and credit default swaps, which created a false sense of confidence among our creditors that high risk consumer loans could actually be repaid. However, now that all those gimmicks have blown up, the entire farce has been exposed. There is simply no way to sustain an economy based on consumer credit.

The Administration argues that more debt will restore growth which will then allow the repayment of borrowed money. First, our government has never, and will never, repay anything. Second, the assumption that additional borrowing and spending will restore growth is flawed. In fact, more consumer debt and government spending will undermine our economy and restrain growth.

To solve our problems we must first come to terms with their source. That is what the voices from abroad are telling us. We borrowed and spent ourselves to the brink of bankruptcy, and now we must save and produce ourselves back to prosperity.

Of course, this simple solution is rejected by Keynesian economists who insist that we must keep spending. The "paradox of thrift," as they call it, holds that if we stop spending the recession will worsen. While this is true, it is hardly a paradox. As they say in the fitness game, "no pain, no gain." No one said this was going to be easy, but the only way to rebuild a viable economy is to let the phony one collapse. If we follow the Keynesians, the fault lines will continue to widen until our wealth, our lifestyle, our very ability to prosper is swallowed up. The calls from abroad will only get louder until we face this ugly truth.

Published on  Mon, Mar 30 2009, 07:59 GMT

Building On A Weak Foundation

Thu, Mar 26 2009, 08:17 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

With a series of coordinated pronouncements and media events, the Obama Administration has recently been trying to send a signal to investors. But the message received may not have been the one intended. Reading between the lines, the Administration is indicating the financial crisis has become so overwhelming to them that there is no alternative but to throw infinite amounts of taxpayer money at it until, they hope, it passes. But what if the very measures meant to hold the dike until the storm passes are actually undermining whatever protection we have left?

Economists generally agree that, in the long term, hyperinflation does more damage to an economy than severe recession. However, recession has always made a far more potent political impact. After all, it may be difficult to notice the monthly debasement of your paycheck (inflation), but it is abundantly clear when the check suddenly stops coming (recession). Knowing this, the Administration has chosen the path of inflation.

At present, with the American economy in severe contraction, the forces of recession far outweigh those of inflation. This gives the Administration vital breathing space to flood the economy with more money without stoking acute inflationary fears. If these fears were to become realized, interest rates would rise, pushing up the cost of the government's massive deficits and foiling the Fed's efforts to keep mortgage rates low. At the moment, the government still can raise massive amounts of cheap money (to be repaid by future generations) and take aggressive spending action against recession. However, serious questions remain about the efficacy of the program.

Much of government's spending will be deployed on wealth-consuming entitlement programs rather than on wealth-creating infrastructure projects. Therefore, the American economy will become even more imbalanced towards the consumer than it was going into the recession.

In addition to contravening economic laws, the recent string of massive government financial bailouts, economic stimuli and widely distributed guarantees all threaten the long-term credit rating of the U.S. government, the value of Treasury securities, and ultimately, the value of the U.S. dollar.

Although currently hidden by the forces of recession, latent inflation eventually will emerge.
When it does, the value of the U.S. dollar will be reduced significantly. It will also put strong upward pressure on American interest rates. This, in turn, will be reflected in rising mortgage rates. Given the greatly increased size of Treasury debt, any rise in interest rates will increase the financing costs of the U.S. Treasury. In addition, the vast size of U.S. government borrowings will affect the Triple-A credit rating of the United States. If this should be cut, the costs of U.S Treasury borrowings will be increased further.

All of this should be of great concern not just to American taxpayers but also to all holders of U.S. dollars, even overseas. Already, American citizens are investing heavily in physical gold as a hedge against dollar devaluation. It was not surprising to learn that China wants to replace the U.S. dollar as the world's ‘reserve' currency. On March 24, 2009, The Financial Times reported that China, as the main holder of U.S. dollars, is concerned about the inflationary impact if America continues to print more dollars. If America continues to spend beyond its means and to borrow on a profligate basis, the call for a new global ‘reserve' currency will be supported increasingly by nations other than China.

It is clear that many foreign governments now share the fears of individual Americans about the long-term value of the U.S. dollar. Any erosion of its ‘reserve' status would damage the dollar severely, serving to magnify the present threats. The Obama Administration is building a dike higher by taking soil from its base. When the overwhelming waters of depression break the dam, it will collapse all the faster because of this lack of foresight.

Published on  Thu, Mar 26 2009, 08:17 GMT

A test of wills

Thu, Mar 19 2009, 10:31 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Last weekend, Ben Bernanke took an unprecedented gamble for a sitting Fed Chairman: he granted a long-form interview to 60 Minutes, America's most watched news program. There can be no doubt that the interview came about as the result of a coordinated strategy between the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve. But was the decision to offer the public a rare look at the inner workings of the central bank an act of resolution or desperation?

In the interview, Bernanke stressed the importance of political will to end the current crisis. No doubt Bernanke himself hoped that his candor alone would serve as a representation of that will. But talk is cheap. We all agree that reform must be undertaken, but to what end? Nothing in his discussion with 60 Minutes gave any indication that Bernanke was ready, or willing, to grapple with the real problems that underlie our economy.

While the need to "cut wasteful government spending" has become a mantra of every political campaign for the last four decades, Washington has embarked on the largest expansion of government in our history. If Bernanke were hinting at a generational change that would reverse this sad record, now would indeed be the time to sell it to America. But what if all he meant to do was sell the same 'change' that Mr. Obama served to us during the campaign? This "change" has revealed itself to be no more the same failed policies of the prior administration - only more aggressive and more dangerous. For example, Obama's latest stimulus package had some 8,000 earmarks-the very pork that Obama vowed in his campaign to stop. Breaking this system of unlimited spending would indeed require political will of epic proportions, but Mr. Bernanke has not addressed this issue in the slightest.

For decades, massive Government spending was not financed through fiscally sound means such taxes or government reserves but merely by the issuance of debt. In 2000, the published U.S. Treasury debt was a staggering $5 trillion. Today, it is approaching three times that number. If non-public debts and IOU's are included, the national debt amounts to some $55 trillion!

In recent months alone, hundreds of billions of dollars of have been allocated by Congress for a short-term "rescue" of the financial system. This all must be to set the stage for deeper reforms, right? Wrong. Instead, massive amounts were spent to bail out counterparties of AIG, such as Goldman Sachs, at par, rather than allowing them to pay for their recklessness. As if that were not enough, it is now emerging that tens of billions of the taxpayer funds were used to give bonuses to the very bandits who gambled away much of America's financial future.

So far, the Government has given no indication that it will claw back these ill-gotten gains. On the contrary, the Administration has hidden behind a strict legal interpretation of the bonus agreements. Only this past Monday, under great grassroots pressure, did the Administration announce that they would even begin to resist the $165 million in AIG bonuses. This is how much political will it takes to resist AIG, in which the government has a controlling interest. How much would it take to achieve fundamental reform?

Did Ben Bernanke even have reform on his mind when he spoke, or was he hinting at something far more sinister? Perhaps he simply meant that the political class will need the fortitude to steamroll these policies over the American people despite the people sounding alarms about the price tag.

The Fed Chairman has access to prime information from many quarters and often well in advance of publication. Indeed, some information he receives is likely never published. Furthermore, Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Crash. As such, Bernanke must be well aware of the true threat that the current severe recession is morphing rapidly into a worldwide depression, possibly worse that 1929-1934. As such, it could threaten the vital international supply chains of major U.S corporate giants. What kind of political will could overcome their short-term pressures to serve the general good? Obviously, the kind of will the Fed Chairman cannot muster.

The American public is now in a mood of mounting anger. They know this so-called stimulus amounts to generational robbery. So yes, political will is essential, not to convince the people they are wrong, but to acknowledge that they're right.

Published on  Thu, Mar 19 2009, 10:31 GMT

Credit Card Cancer

Mon, Mar 16 2009, 10:50 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, with his pronouncement that "credit is the lifeblood of a healthy economy," President Obama reiterated what has been one of his most common themes in diagnosing our economic problem. The president has relied on this bedrock belief to propose policies that place the restoration of credit as the highest priority. However, despite his seemingly earnest intentions, the president and his economic advisors have misdiagnosed the ailment. Savings, not credit, is the lifeblood of a healthy economy. When not used properly credit can be like a cancer that sickens an otherwise healthy economy.

What everyone seems to have forgotten at this point is that credit does not come from thin air. Even in a system in which bank reserves are leveraged many times, someone has to put savings in a bank for the bank to turn around and make a loan. As a result, the bedrock is the savings, which allows for the credit to flow. Credit extended without adequate savings inevitably leads an economy into disaster.

The primary mechanism that has injected credit where it does not belong is the massive credit card industry that has developed in the United States over the last generation. The ease with which these cards may be obtained and the degree to which Americans now rely on them for routine purchases has created a culture of credit that simply has no precedent in a healthy economy. Until this culture has been reformed, America's fight to restore economic vitality will be a lost cause.

However, this week a much discussed opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by top banking analyst Meredith Whitney, indicated that many Americans besides the president are still looking toward credit as the means of economic salvation. In her piece, Ms. Whitney writes,

"...Undeniably, consumers look at their unused credit balances as a "what if" reserve. "What if" my kid needs braces? "What if" my dog gets sick? "What if" I lose one of my jobs? This unused credit portion has grown to be relied on as a source of liquidity and a liquidity management tool for many U.S. consumers. If credit is taken away from what otherwise is an able borrower, that borrower's financial position weakens considerably. With two-thirds of the U.S. economy dependent upon consumer spending, we should tread carefully and act collectively."

In order to keep the economy functioning, Ms. Whitney asks the credit card providers and the federal government to keep credit lines open, so that millions of Americans can keep on spending. However, while such actions would certainly keep our phony economy propped up a while longer, it would further weaken the very foundation upon which a real economy will eventually have to be rebuilt.

Without a doubt, Americans, and all other people for that matter, benefit from having access to "rainy day money." But Americans should be saving for a rainy day, not adopting the attitude that if it rains I'll whip out my credit card. If Americans need to pay for a suddenly ill dog, to straighten their kid's teeth, or to pull them through a period of unemployment, they should save some of their present earnings.

But saving money requires a reduction in spending, and that is something that modern economists, within and without the Administration, cannot abide. A drop in spending will create a sharper contraction in our economy - which is now comprised of 70% consumer spending. But this is no reason to discourage the process. The option to go into debt in the event of an emergency is no substitute for building personal savings for such events. Not only does such a strategy jeopardize the solvency of individuals or families when they are at their most vulnerable, but it deprives society of badly needed savings.

Currently, with so many financially strapped Americans looking to draw on their credit lines, the fallacy of this 'savings substitute' is easily revealed. With lenders' capital depleted, and falling home prices, and rising unemployment putting borrowers at greater risk of default, credit is naturally harder to come by. Had only a small percentage of borrowers needed to access their credit card "rainy day funds" there would have been no credit crisis. But with a deluge drenching so many at once, there was simply not enough credit umbrellas to go around. Had Americans actually been saving money instead, everyone would have his own umbrella and would not now be looking to borrow someone else's.

Most importantly, as savers bank their earnings into "rainy day funds," in addition to earning interest, those savings are available to businesses to make capital investments, produce goods and services, and provide employment. Without access to those savings, such investments cannot be made, and society is worse off as a result.

Published on  Mon, Mar 16 2009, 10:50 GMT

Reports of Profits While Banks Fail

Thu, Mar 12 2009, 10:04 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week Citigroup shocked Wall Street by announcing that the company would be profitable in the current quarter. At the same time, the Obama Administration indicated that it would be unlikely to nationalize American banks, preferring to provide low cost funding to encourage the private sector to buy distressed assets from the banks. The two developments sparked a vigorous rally in financial stocks, which had been drifting downward for weeks, caught in what appeared to be an unending death spiral. But have the good times really returned?

On the surface at least, there are some promising points. Based on current income, and an upward trending yield curve (that will allow banks to borrow at nearly no cost from the Fed and lend to borrowers at a good profit) the banks should generate strong cash flow. But that is hardly the full story.

Write-downs in the value of toxic assets already held on bank's balance sheets will continue to explode like ticking time bombs. These debts may be too large to be overcome by a positive cash flow fueled by cheap access to short-term funding. If banks were simultaneously forced to write down assets, they could be rendered insolvent from a capital balance sheet point of view. This is the underlying problem that America and the much of the world face with their banks: banks can be trading with positive cash flow but from a technically insolvent capital position – which is illegal.

Some argue that toxic assets make up only a very small part of the total assets of the banking system. That may be so, but the real issue is the enormous size of the toxic assets in relation to both the capital of the banks and the funding ability of the government.

According to the Bank of International Settlements, the world's total of derivatives investments, including the poorly understood credit default swap (CDS) market reached some $700 trillion at its height, or more than 20 times the world's total annual production! The American portion was about $419 trillion, or some 40 times America's annual production.

The essential problem is that these inherently risky securities were used as collateral for loans. The fall in their value resulted in massive deleveraging. Of course, not all derivatives are yet flawed, or toxic. So, it can be assumed that, in the absence of a total financial collapse, only a limited number will default.

However, if a conservative assumption were made that only some two percent of derivatives fail, it would still amount to some $14 trillion. The American share would be about $8 trillion, or almost one year of GDP once that figure declines to a sustainable level. The estimated total capitalization of all U.S. banks is some $1.6 trillion. But, this amounts to only 20 percent of the potential American liability.

So far, American citizens have been forced to provide financial institutions with nearly $2 trillion in additional bailouts. This brings the total of current U.S. banking capital to some $3.6 trillion, still less than half of the potential problem, leaving a massive $4.4 trillion shortfall. In light of this, even noted bearish economist Nouriel Roubini's estimate of a $3.6 trillion shortfall appears to be too optimistic.

Of course, not all American banks are in trouble. There are a number of local and regional banks whose managements did not participate in gambling away America's financial future. Nevertheless, investors should ask themselves some hard questions. What if the government is forced to face the fact that the U.S. banking system, as a whole, is already fundamentally insolvent? What if the Administration is therefore forced, despite its expressed disinclination, to nationalize the problem banks?

Most importantly, while the good banks are being separated from the bad in the FDIC's ‘coral', will all American banks be forced to close? Worse still, after the forthcoming G-20 meetings, will all international banks be closed on a temporary basis, on a long bank holiday, as happened in the Great Crash? If so, what would happen to consumer confidence and the price of gold?

Citigroup says that it is profitable. At the same time, most banks are in dire straits. Until Citigroup is able to put its capital where its mouth is, investors in U.S. financials should remain cautious.

Published on  Thu, Mar 12 2009, 10:04 GMT

Rush to Judgment

Mon, Mar 9 2009, 10:54 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Talk show host and conservative icon Rush Limbaugh recently ignited a firestorm of criticism for expressing his desire that Barack Obama should fail. Democrats, and even some Republicans, suggested that he had put aside his patriotism to wish for an economic collapse that would result in political advantage for conservatives. However, if you believe as I, and apparently Rush, that Obama's plans will prevent recovery, then wishing that they fail to become actual policy is the right thing to do. The problem is that since Mr. Limbaugh has a history of partisanship, and since he did not forcefully criticize the Bush Administration for similar (if slightly more modest) plans, many cannot see past the messenger to recognize the truth in the message.

I am certain that if Obama and the Pelosi/Reed Congress succeed in fully implementing their agenda, there is no chance the U.S economy will recover its position as world's leading economy. Instead, America will start down the road that has condemned so many nations to economic mediocrity. By continuing and magnifying the Bush stimulus and bail-out policies, the economic rebalancing that is so vital to a sustainable recovery cannot occur.

Limbaugh merely said what members of the loyal opposition would say if they were true to their supposed philosophy. But since so many Republicans supported the Bush bailouts and stimulus packages, it would be too blatantly hypocritical to reverse course now. In truth, for all his talk of change Obama has merely continued and expanded the failed policies of Bush.

The one aspect of Obama's agenda that has galvanized Republican criticism is higher taxes on the rich. While I also abhor tax increases, the spending increases supported by both parties are far more damaging to the economy. In fact, I actually support Obama's decision to eliminate the “carried interest” tax advantages that had so unequally benefitted hedge fund managers. If I had my way the income tax would be abolished completely, but as long as we have one it is not fair for hedge fund managers to pay lower marginal taxes than the guys who shine their thousand dollar shoes.

The arguments that higher tax rates will discourage hard work and initiative are true across the entire income spectrum. It makes no sense politically to single out the mega-wealthy for special treatment. The sad truth is that Republicans are spending their dwindling political capital on a non-issue. Most hedge funds relied on leveraged borrowing to produce oversized returns. Now that the debt markets are essentially closed, there is not much “carried interest” income left to tax.

The bigger issue is that few Republicans are making any serious effort to oppose the staggering deficits that will guarantee huge future tax increases and runaway inflation for everyone, rich and poor. By simply clinging to tax cuts as their single economic miracle cure, Republicans risk further marginalization.

The president claims that his constituency is Main Street, not Wall Street. But for all the scorn heaped on the “fat cats,” we must remember that it took two to tango. Sure, Wall Street loaned out too much money, but it was Main Street that borrowed it. Average Americans used the windfall for the biggest shopping binge in world history. As a result our entire economy has been transformed from one based on savings and production to one based on borrowing and consumption.

Now that this false paradigm has been exposed, the transition back to economic viability will be painful. Jobs must be lost in the service sector so that labor can be reallocated towards goods production. Asset prices, for both stocks and real estate, must decline to levels appropriate for current circumstances. In addition, the dollar's exchange rate must fall to reflect our weakened competitive position. However, by postponing these adjustments we merely assure an even more painful transition in the future, especially for the average Americans whose interests our new president claims to champion. But by then Obama will have his coveted second term. Rush is right on this one: Obama's agenda must fail now, lest we wander too long down the road to destitution.

Published on  Mon, Mar 9 2009, 10:54 GMT

The best of times, the worst of times for U.S. Dollar

Thu, Mar 5 2009, 14:25 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

When President Obama took over the reins of government just six weeks ago, he stood at a historic crossroads. His decision on which route to take will make a profound impact on the future of the American economy and its currency. He could have persuaded a frightened Congress to initiate a structural change that would transform the U.S. economy from its dependence on debt-fueled personal consumption back to a path of productive growth. Instead, he took the easy route: attempting to delay the pain with stimulus and inflation, rewarding his benefactors without truly addressing our structural deficits. Disappointing for a man who campaigned on ‘hope' and ‘change.'

Obama could have remained true to his electoral promises to halt taxpayer abuse and to focus spending on infrastructure. This would have created some 35,000 new, wealth-creating jobs for each $1 billion spent. It also would have left the private sector to deleverage, allowing the desperately needed economic restructuring to take place in a productive, free-market manner. Instead, he bowed to a socialist Congress by boosting entitlements, the very programs which, over the past four decades, have depleted America's wealth and encumbered future generations with some $60,000,000,000,000 of debt.

Rather than ‘hope' and ‘change,' Obama has chosen to expand existing programs, casting a cloud over our children and grandchildren. His program is as old as Marx: ramp up government spending on and control over health and education to increase the federal government's share of GDP, in this case by two-thirds to some 34 percent. This will continue the serious erosion of American wealth, and with it the U.S. dollar.

In his budget last week, President Obama chose to raise taxes on individuals and businesses. In the face of a worldwide recession that is fast sliding into a depression and even towards an economic catastrophe, it was a surprising decision. It will likely serve only to deepen and prolong the economic decline. Despite the destructive tax hikes, the budget still forecast the largest deficit in world history.

For the foreseeable future, deficits will be measured in trillions, not billions. To put these vast sums into perspective, consider just one billion, or one thousandth of a trillion. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, humankind was in the Stone Age. But in just the past eight hours and twenty minutes, even before Obama's budget clicks in, the Government has spent $1 billion!

Investors will understandably conclude that Obama's budget will put a near-mortal wound in the U.S. dollar and be tempted to sell or even short the greenback. Beware, as things are not that simple! While Obama's budget has halted healthy economic restructuring and placed the U.S. dollar under long-term threat, several important short-term factors will postpone the inevitable.

First, it is vitally important to realize that the present recession is not restricted to the United States. It is worldwide. Asset prices are dropping around the globe and cash is already a king. As fear spreads, investors are running for safety in the world's most widely held currency, the U.S. dollar. As a result, the dollar is rallying.

Second, the vast asset boom, from which the world is deleveraging, was based on a vast oversupply of cheap U.S. dollars. Investors borrowed low interest-cost dollars, converted them into their domestic currencies (driving down the dollar), and invested in local assets. Deleveraging is causing the dollar ‘carry trade' to unwind, driving the dollar upwards.

Third, many investors, including major corporations and central banks, have diversified their currency holdings into the Euro. The world recession is hitting Europe extremely hard, particularly the large international exporters such as Germany, and the newly capitalist countries of the former Soviet Union. The plight of Eastern Europe has widened political cracks within the European Union to the point where there is now a serious risk that the euro and even the European Union could fail. David Charter of The Times writes, “...The lack of EU leadership and direction...threatens to wrench apart both the euro and the EU itself.”

If the Euro appears under serious threat, there could be a massive financial panic and a stampede into U.S. dollars, driving it to unexpected highs. This is likely to add temporarily to a recessionary fall in the dollar price of gold. In light of this unfolding evidence, it is becoming increasingly risky to sell short the U.S. dollar. In the long-term however, President Obama appears to have set the seal on a dollar collapse.

Trying to time this changeover from dollar strength to depletion will be extremely difficult in these confusing times.

Published on  Thu, Mar 5 2009, 14:25 GMT

Obama Puts the Economic Cart before the Horse

Mon, Mar 2 2009, 12:58 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

In his first televised speech before Congress, President Obama asserted that prosperity will return once the government restores the flow of credit in the economy. It may come as a surprise to him, but an economy cannot run on consumer loans. Furthermore, credit stopped flowing in the U.S. for a very good reason: there was no more savings left to loan. Government efforts to simply make credit available, without rebuilding productive capacity or increasing savings, are doomed to destroy what's left of our economy.

The central tenets of Obamanomics appear to be that access to credit will enable people to borrow money to buy stuff, the spending will spur production and employment, and thus the economy will grow. It's a neat and simple picture, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with how an economy works. The President does not understand that consumption is made possible by production and that credit is made possible by savings. The size and complexity of modern economies has obscured these simple concepts, but reducing the picture to a small scale can help clear away the fog.

Suppose there is a very small barter-based economy consisting of only three individuals, a butcher, a baker, and a candlestick maker. If the candlestick maker wants bread or steak, he makes candles and trades. The candlestick maker always wants food, but his demand can only be satisfied if he makes candles, without which he goes hungry. The mere fact that he desires bread and steak is meaningless.

Enter the magic wand of credit, which many now assume can take the place of production. Suppose the butcher has managed to produce an excess amount of steak and has more than he needs on a daily basis. Knowing this, the candlestick maker asks to borrow a steak from the butcher to trade to the baker for bread. For this transaction to take place the butcher must first have produced steaks which he did not consume (savings). He then loans his savings to the candlestick maker, who issues the butcher a note promising to repay his debt in candlesticks.

In this instance, it was the butcher's production of steak that enabled the candlestick maker to buy bread, which also had to be produced. The fact that the candlestick maker had access to credit did not increase demand or bolster the economy. In fact, by using credit to buy instead of candles, the economy now has fewer candles, and the butcher now has fewer steaks with which to buy bread himself. What has happened is that through savings, the butcher has loaned his purchasing power, created by his production, to the candlestick maker, who used it to buy bread.

Similarly, the candlestick maker could have offered “IOU candlesticks” directly to the baker. Again, the transaction could only be successful if the baker actually baked bread that he did not consume himself and was therefore able to loan his savings to the candlestick maker. Since he loaned his bread to the candlestick maker, he no longer has that bread himself to trade for steak.

The existence of credit in no way increases aggregate consumption within this community, it merely temporarily alters the way consumption is distributed. The only way for aggregate consumption to increase is for the production of candlesticks, steak, and bread to increase.

One way credit could be used to grow this economy would be for the candlestick maker to borrow bread and steak for sustenance while he improves the productive capacity of his candlestick-making equipment. If successful, he could repay his loans with interest out of his increased production, and all would benefit from greater productivity. In this case the under-consumption of the butcher and baker led to the accumulation of savings, which were then loaned to the candlestick maker to finance capital investments. Had the butcher and baker consumed all their production, no savings would have been accumulated, and no credit would have been available to the candlestick maker, depriving society of the increased productivity that would have followed.

On the other hand, had the candlestick maker merely borrowed bread and steak to sustain himself while taking a vacation from candlestick making, society would gain nothing, and there would be a good chance the candlestick maker would default on the loan. In this case, the extension of consumer credit squanders savings which are now no longer available to finance other capital investments.

What would happen if a natural disaster destroyed all the equipment used to make candlesticks, bread and steak? Confronted with dangerous shortages of food and lighting, Barack Obama would offer to stimulate the economy by handing out pieces of paper called money and guaranteeing loans to whomever wants to consume. What good would the money do? Would these pieces of paper or loans make goods magically appear?

The mere introduction of paper money into this economy only increases the ability of the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker to bid up prices (measured in money, not trade goods) once goods are actually produced again. The only way to restore actual prosperity is to repair the destroyed equipment and start producing again.

The sad truth is that the productive capacity of the American economy is now largely in tatters. Our industrial economy has been replaced by a reliance on health care, financial services and government spending. Introducing freer flowing credit and more printed money into such a system will do nothing except spark inflation. We need to get back to the basics of production. It won't be easy, but it will work.

President Obama would have us believe that we can all spend the day relaxing in a tub while his printing press does all the work for us. The problem comes when you get out of the tub to go to dinner and the only thing on your plate is an IOU for steak.

Published on  Mon, Mar 2 2009, 12:58 GMT

Sickness may be cure for U.S. economy

Thu, Feb 26 2009, 08:50 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Everyone has been guilty, at one time or another, of ignoring a cold. Though you knew you were sick, you may have kept working hard, playing hard, and staying out late. Not until you were bed-ridden did you start drinking orange juice and taking your health seriously. The U.S. economy appears to be following a similar trajectory. We have consistently ignored serious symptoms to the point where our economy is nearly a terminal case.

After ignoring and downplaying the inflating credit bubble for much of his first two years in office, this week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke emphasized, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, that no economic recovery would occur unless the financial system was restored. He was quite correct in his belated diagnosis. His prescriptions, on the other hand, are much more dubious.

As the evidence gathers, it looks as if Bernanke and his new colleagues in the Obama Administration are becoming increasingly desperate. The current recession is deepening at an alarming rate. In fact, it now appears to be diving fast towards the depression that we have long forecast. To prevent necessary deleveraging, the policymakers are improvising on a grand scale.

But, just as happened in the Great Depression, the confusion and experimentation in Washington has sapped businesses of the confidence necessary for a sustainable recovery. Rhetorical posturing by Senators and Cabinet members has replaced earnings reports and economic indicators as market moving events. This is no way for a recovery to begin.

It is widely recognized that the basic cause of today's financial and economic crisis was pressure by politicians to 'encourage' banks to make oversized loans to under-qualified homebuyers. This policy was just one small part of a creeping socialist agenda over the last few decades. Now that the crisis is full-blown, the statist tendencies of the Federal government have come into full flower. As Mr. Obama's chief of staff has noted, the crisis will not go unexploited by those who wish to expand the role of government.

Although the initial reaction to the government bailouts was relief, the financial markets are beginning to question the wisdom of trying to cure a credit problem with the injection of yet more credit. Whether one believes that the 'stimulus' is too much or too little, no one can doubt that the result so far has been failure. And although the spending is small in relation to the problem, it is enormous relative to the national budget.

So, if it doesn't succeed, which I'm sure it won't, the Government will surely feel justified in upping the ante still further. In fact, left-wing think tanks and Nobel Prize-winning economists are currently laying the intellectual track work for such a move. In the end, the American people will be left with severe stagflation.

Though our future looks bleak, I do have reason to hope. Americans are industrious and able to learn from our mistakes. When the depression sets in, economic reality may then deliver the final verdict on socialism and lead to a long overdue restructuring of the American economy. A restored 'producer' economy would return America to the path of prosperity.

In short, after decades of creeping growth, Washington socialism is about to fall flat on its face. I say good riddance to the plague that progressively stifled American enterprise, and has now caused such acute pain to my countrymen.

As perverse as it might sound, this sickness may lead to the cure. Our economy must rid itself of parasitic ideology, broadcast from Washington for as long as anyone can remember. It may take a brush with our economic death-bed to show us the way to a healthier future.

Published on  Thu, Feb 26 2009, 08:50 GMT

Predatory Legislators

Mon, Feb 23 2009, 09:21 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

With millions of homeowners now struggling to repay money they clearly never should have borrowed, our leaders have been righteously wagging fingers at predatory lenders who allegedly enticed innocent borrowers, and the country, into a financial snake pit. While the mortgage industry clearly deserves a good share of the blame, unindicted co-conspirators abound. The ringleaders are still at-large and are, in fact, busy hatching a plan to dwarf the earlier mistakes.

Contrary to the message bouncing off the marble walls of the Capitol, most borrowers in the inflating housing bubble clearly understood the terms of their loans. Most knew that they could not afford their mortgage payments once their teaser rates expired, but enthusiastically jumped into the debt pool anyway believing that guaranteed real estate appreciation, or a quick and profitable sale, would keep them afloat.

Although both lenders and borrowers were acting in their own perceived self-interest, what can we say of our economic policymakers who are expected to protect the good of all? Their actions encouraged the whole sad circus. Were it not for the excessively low interest rates provided by the Fed, the lax lending standards and moral hazards supplied by Congress courtesy of Freddie, Fannie, and the FHA, and the many real estate subsidies built into the tax code, none of these predatory loans would have been possible.

Had lenders exercised better judgment and had borrowers avoided overly burdensome debt loads, both parties would clearly be in better financial positions today. Instead, as borrowers were demanding the credit to fuel their dreams of instant real estate riches, lenders were being ordered to accommodate them.

In past generations, homebuyers were required to save for down payments and postpone their purchases until they could actually afford conventional 30-year fixed mortgages. But in recent years, as home ownership became a matter of public policy, the government accused lenders of discrimination and urged lower standards and easier terms. With government guarantees in place, the mortgage industry was happy to both expand their revenues and promote a better society.

But by denying credit, even if it requires borrowers to forgo something they clearly want, lenders not only provide a valuable service to borrowers, but to society. Given the mess in which we now find ourselves, due to the bad loans made during the real estate bubble, this lesson should have been well learned. Unfortunately it hasn't, as the same dynamic is now playing out on a much larger scale.

Faced with a prospect of downgrading its lifestyle, the U.S. government is instead borrowing trillions of dollars to artificially inflate our deflating bubble economy. The money is being used to both expand the size of government and finance additional consumer spending. Given our financial position, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

Our global creditors are now making the same mistakes made by subprime mortgage lenders. They are loaning us money that we will never be able to repay. In the process, they are enabling the largest expansion in the size of our government since the New Deal and crippling an economy already suffering from excess consumption.

Although it may sound harsh, it would be far better for all involved if our foreign friends simply cut us off. Since their loans are merely fueling the growth of our government and artificially pumping up consumer spending, their savings will not only be lost but their sacrifice will severely exacerbate our problems as well.

Just as homebuyers did earlier in this decade, the U.S. government will borrow as much money as the world is foolish enough to lend, and it will use those funds to smother the life out of our economy. At this point government is growing like a cancer, feeding mainly off the funds it borrows from abroad. In the process, it is placing a horrific debt burden on its people, committing them to either a lifetime of crippling interest payments or run-away inflation.

There is nothing inherently wrong with foreign lending. If funding were directed toward private business to enable capital investments, the loans would not only benefit lenders, but they would benefit our nation as well. The funds would fortify our industrial base and provide the necessary foundation upon which to rebuild a viable economy.

If foreigners were to cut us off, there would be some immediate pain, but tough love is exactly what we need right now. Forcing Americans to live within their means, particularly the U.S. government, will be just as beneficial to the long-term health of our economy as similar restraint would have been had it been exercised by mortgage lenders. It's too bad so few of us seem capable of making this connection, or learning anything from the mistakes of the past – even when the ink in the history books has barely dried.

Published on  Mon, Feb 23 2009, 09:21 GMT

Gold Climbs as Economic Catastrophe Looms

Thu, Feb 19 2009, 10:05 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Last week, when Congress passed its $787 billion stimulus package, the size of the plan caused many observers to forget the water that has already passed under the bridge. Fewer still are wondering what havoc will erupt when all this liquidity eventually washes ashore.

The latest spending, signed into law yesterday by President Obama, came on top of $300 billion committed to Citigroup, $700 billion for TARP 1, $300 billion for the FHA, $200 billion for TAF and some $300 billion for Fannie and Freddy. Just over the last six months, which excludes the initial Bush stimulus and several massive, unfunded Federal guarantees, nearly $5 trillion has been committed by the government to the financial industry. Rational observers cannot be faulted for concluding, despite Administration claims to the contrary, that the government is merely throwing money at the problem.

Although the rhetoric has managed to convince many observers of the possibility of success, the gold market appears to clearly understand the implications of this unprecedented spending.

The feeling that the government has no idea how to proceed has created palpable panic. In response, pragmatic investors are seeking the ultimate store of wealth. In 2009, as has occurred countless times throughout history, that store will be stocked with gold. Thus, whether the Federal government's interventions will succeed or fail will be anticipated by the price of gold. Right now, the market is screaming failure.

Prior to the latest round of Federal spending, the Federal government had committed $4 trillion to postpone bank collapses and to lay the groundwork for subsequent restructuring. But has any of this activity actually rescued the banking system? In light of the evidence of deepening recession, is it likely that the additional $787 billion in the latest stimulus will instill enough confidence to restore economic growth? If not, what damage will it do to the eventual recovery?

Congressional rescue packages rarely work. Nevertheless, Congress is turning up the heat with previously unimaginable increases of government debt to fund stimulus and rescue packages. Senator McCain rightly describes the scheme as "generational theft". Each package of debt will encumber many future generations, halt restructuring and also threaten latent hyperinflation.

While Congress claims that the seriously over-leveraged economy is in desperate need of restructuring, it appears blind to the fact that deleveraging will encourage such restructuring. Instead, Congressional leaders actively seek to increase leverage and add debt. They warn of fire, while pouring petrol on the flames.

The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the rapidly increasing scale of the problem. Just today, the release of the latest minutes of the Federal Reserve confirmed that even that bastion of eternal optimism is sobering. The American economy, which shrank by 3.8 percent in the last quarter of 2008, is forecast to decline by some 5.5 percent in the first quarter of this year. In some pockets, the unemployment rate is already in double figures. Despite massive Government spending on rescue and stimulus, the American consumer clearly is becoming increasingly nervous, and the credit markets show few signs of recovery.

With bad news only getting worse, investment markets are turning into quagmires. The Dow Jones Average is testing new lows, and the commodities markets show few signs of life. In such times, the price of gold should fall along with the prices of other assets and commodities. But, the reverse has occurred. In the past two months, gold has staged a remarkable rally. This is despite the activity of price-depressants such as official gold sales by the IMF and official 'approval' for massive naked short positions to be opened by new 'bullion' banks.

Not only have gold spot prices risen in the face of such selling pressure, but the price of physical gold is now some $20 to $40 per ounce above spot. This would indicate that investors are now so nervous that they are insisting on taking physical delivery.

Make no mistake, the economy will not turn around soon. When the recovery fails to materialize, look for governments around the world, and especially in the U.S., to send another massive wave of liquidity downriver. When it does, the value of nearly everything, except for gold , will diminish. Don't be intimidated by the recent spike in gold. Buy now while you still can.

Published on  Thu, Feb 19 2009, 10:05 GMT

Obama's Opening Salvo

Mon, Feb 16 2009, 09:21 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

There is nearly universal agreement that the opening salvo of the Obama Administration's campaign to restore health to the financial system, delivered this week by new Treasury Secretary Geithner, fell with a loud and ugly thud. The most common criticism is that the announcement was short on detail. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the new Administration intends to push spending back up to pre-crash levels and to fill the entire credit void that has disappeared into the black hole of the American financial system. Whether or not the prior levels of spending and lending were justified by market conditions then, or now, appears to be largely unexamined.

In the worldview of Geithner and like-minded economists, credit, rather than savings, is the central figure in the economic equation. Therefore, he sees anything that eases the process of lending to be an effective economic policy. With such a view in mind, the centerpiece of Geithner's plan is the commitment of up to $1 trillion to revive the collapsed market for securitized debt. In the lead up to the Crash of 2008 securitization, more than anything else, permitted Americans to borrow more than they had ever borrowed before.

Developed primarily over the last 10 years, securitization permitted loans of all shapes and sizes to be packaged into investment-ready securities. The system worked, fueling unprecedented levels of lending in the home, auto, student, and credit card sectors. But in the last few years as the collateral underpinning these securities has collapsed in value, the trillions of dollars of securitized debt now in circulation has become the toxic sludge at the bottom of our financial pit. Geithner is making the false assumption that cleaning up and rebuilding the securitization market is a prerequisite for a healthy economy.

Our nation's short history with wide securitization has simply shown that the process can lead to massive mispricing of assets and risk. By artificially rebuilding the securitization market, and committing taxpayer funds as collateral, the U.S. economy will be pushed farther and farther out on a leveraged limb, until no amount of market medicine can prevent a total economic collapse.

In truth, the only vital function provided by securitization was that it offered foreign savers a pathway to lend directly to American consumers, and Wall Street executives a new asset class to over-leverage for massive profits. Our economy must dispense with these gimmicks if it hopes to pursue a meaningful recovery.

After more than a decade of unsustainable borrowing and spending, the private sector is currently attempting to restore balance through reduced consumer and mortgage credit, greater savings, and lower asset prices. With its trillions of dollars of credit injections and stimulus programs, the government hopes to allay this process by force-feeding Americans a diet of more borrowing. They feel that a restored securitization market will help. It won't. It will just grease the skids for a quicker collapse.

Credit, whether securitized or not, cannot be created out of thin air. It only comes into existence though savings, which must be preceded by under-consumption. Since savings are scarce, any government guarantees toward consumer credit merely crowd out credit that might otherwise have been available to business. During the previous decade too much credit was extended to consumers and not enough to producers (securitization focused almost exclusively on consumer debt). The market is trying to correct this misallocation, but government policy is standing in the way. When consumers borrow and spend, society gains nothing. When producers borrow and invest, our capital stock is improved, and we all benefit from the increased productivity.

Consumers default on credit much more frequently than businesses. This is because businesses typically use loans to expand, and then have greater cash flow to repay the debt. In contrast, consumers typically borrow to consume and in the process do not improve their ability to repay. As a result, one would expect consumer credit to be harder and more expensive to obtain. But that is currently not the case. Government guarantees have altered the playing field, so that now consumers are still being offered credit while businesses are being shown the door. By shifting credit away from producers, fewer goods and services will be produced for consumers to buy and fewer employment opportunities provided for them to earn money with which to buy the goods.

To restore prosperity, credit (derived from savings rather than a printing press) must flow to producers. Greater liquidity for business will lead to legitimate job creation, increased production, and rising living standards. By further encumbering the economy with burdensome regulation, and by transferring business decisions to vote-seeking politicians who will bail out the irresponsible, reward failure and punish success, the government will create a society destined for misery.

In an interview following his announcement, Geithner stated that government should replace the demand lost by the private sector. However, those with even a marginal grasp of economics know that demand is unlimited. It is the ability to spend that is not. While Americans still want all the things they wanted years ago, they have made the rational choice that they can no longer afford to buy at the same levels they once did. Using a printing press to replace this lost 'demand' will simply cause consumer prices to rise. Printed money does not create new purchasing power, but merely redistributes it from savers to borrowers. And since the plan will severely undermine the real productive capacity of our economy, there will not be much purchasing power left to redistribute!

Published on  Mon, Feb 16 2009, 09:21 GMT

Pelosi Stimulus casts shadow over obama, america, world

Wed, Feb 11 2009, 09:54 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

In a sign that may reveal much about the current deal-making environment in Washington, House speaker Nancy Pelosi has outmaneuvered the Obama Administration in the design of the massive $827 billion so-called Economic Stimulus Package. With the collusion of three moderate Republican Senators - Collins, Snowe and Specter - Pelosi may succeed in steering President Obama into supporting a package with which he may secretly disagree.

Despite the Presidential rhetoric of change, the Pelosi plan is Washington at its most habitual. Her version is a massive, pork-laden monster. Tilted heavily towards consumption, only 10 percent of the bill is allocated toward the infrastructure spending that the President talked about so frequently during the campaign. President Obama initially favored a middle-way. It was to be based on massive public spending, but specifically on infrastructure.

Far from restoring the economy to health, the 'pork-barrel' Pelosi plan will likely force the U.S. economy into the catastrophe of acute stagflation and decline, with grave long-term repercussions at home and abroad.

It is clear that we are now headed into an abnormally severe recession, and we may be face-to-face with Second Great Depression. Tell-tale symptoms of Depression include competitive currency devaluations and protective trade measures. Of even greater concern is the historic fact that trade wars too often lead to hot wars. The times of peace and unprecedented prosperity that we have enjoyed for decades are now under threat.

With the stakes this high, Pelosi should have restrained her urge to flex political muscle.

Most economists agree that America has enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, based primarily on excessive U.S. dollar liquidity and unmanageable levels of debt. Thus, any healthy correction would necessarily involve serious deleveraging and a severe recession. After a lot of pain, the economy would rebuild with healthier fundamentals. Infrastructure improvement would aid, but not cause, the eventual recovery.

Recession is the natural cure for the politically inspired profligacy that America has enjoyed for almost 40 years. Unfortunately, the side effects of this medicine, namely the rapid reallocation of labor resources and deflationary damage to debtors, are still unpalatable to pandering politicians.

The Washington regime, particularly members of the Democrat persuasion, leans towards a socialist solution of avoiding recession at any cost. After all, the bills are paid by others, such as taxpayers and holders of U.S. dollars. This results in an increasing amount of other peoples' money being spent on 'public' works that would in other times carry the label 'pork barrel.'

Washington is choosing to pursue the policy of continued and ever-increasing false prosperity, financed eventually by hyper-taxation, hyper-debt and hyper-inflation accompanied by a gradually eroded standard of living. The jobs created by the Bill are by and large non-productive, and will divert resources from the private sector and rob consumers of their power to make free choices in the marketplace.

America's infrastructure is in great need of restoration. By some estimates, for every $1 billion spent on infrastructure, some 35,000 real, wealth-creating jobs are born in the private sphere. For 'just' $100 billion, 3.5 million jobs would result. Furthermore, this middle-way of Obama's likely would have commanded much greater bi-partisan support than the lonely Republican trio which attached their names to Pelosi's bill.

Unfortunately for American and international investors, Speaker Pelosi pressured the President into the worst of all plans. It will likely bring on a economic catastrophe, characterized by depression followed by hyper-stagflation and civil unrest. Pelosi's power-play may buy her political status, but the entire world will pay the price.

Published on  Wed, Feb 11 2009, 09:54 GMT

This is Just the Beginning

Mon, Feb 9 2009, 09:23 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

The intense scrutiny recently paid to my investment strategy in the immediate wake of the financial crisis of the last six months has unfortunately obscured the central element of my larger economic forecast. The standard line has been that although I was able to predict the crash, in the form of the housing collapse and the credit crunch, my expected fallout of a weaker dollar and global decoupling has been proven false. However, this assumes that the crash has fully played out. In reality, all we have heard thus far is the overture.

In 2008, the bubble economy that I had meticulously described years ago finally hit the pin that I knew was out there. The corporate losses, frozen credit markets and plunging home prices were the opening salvo in the unfolding economic crisis. However, the vast majority of air has yet to leak out of the bubble. As it does, the U.S. economic crisis will kick into a much higher gear. I have positioned my clients to withstand the full fury of the gale, and when it finally comes, the question "was Peter Schiff right?" will finally be answered.

Thus far, our economy has actually been spared the worst due to the temporary strength in the dollar and the recent desirability of our Government's debt. These movements derailed the short-term performance of many of my investment recommendations (though clearly not to the extent alleged by my critics) and threw a life-line to the downing U.S. economy. The demand for U.S. Treasuries has led to one of the sharpest dollar rallies on record, which has helped bring about just as pronounced a decline in commodity prices. As a result, although consumer income has fallen, so too have prices and interest rates.

The stronger dollar gives the Federal Government plenty of cover to a pursue a policy of rampant monetary inflation in order to re-inflate the collapsing bubble. Even though the Federal Reserve has thrown trillions of new dollars into circulation, those dollars have actually gained purchasing power - contrary to economic law. This, along with inventory liquidations and going-out-of-business sales, has kept a lid on consumer prices. The continued, although misguided, appeal of U.S. debt has also made it possible for the government to garner cheap financing for its equally misguided and massive bails-outs and stimulus packages.

In addition to cushioning the blow for us, the dollar rally has exacerbated the pain abroad. As money has rushed to our aid it has created a global credit crunch. The rest of the world is not only dealing with losses on toxic U.S. credit instruments but is also shouldering the burden of financing our new borrowing as well. As foreign currencies have fallen, foreign consumers have not received as large a windfall as Americans have from falling commodity prices.

In effect, Americans have been using these life-lines to pull the rest of the world into the stormy seas. However, there are signs that those holding the lines are about to cast them adrift. The dollar rally has run out of steam, gold has clearly broken out, and commodity prices are moving back up. 2009 is already the worst year ever for US. Treasury bonds and foreign stock markets are once again outperforming ours.

This week President Obama claimed that failure to pass his economic stimulus bill will have catastrophic consequences for the U.S economy. The reality is the catastrophe will be far greater with his plan then without it. If the trends of January and early February of 2009 continue, the rug will be completely pulled out from beneath the U.S. economy, and the full cost of the President's "economic depressant package" will be apparent to all.

If foreign capital does not continue to pour into Treasuries, interest rates and consumer prices in the U.S. will soar. At that point, we will finally be confronted with the real crises that I have long predicted. When the day of reckoning arrives our policy response will be critical. If we continue on the course our new President has mapped out, the catastrophe will far exceed the scope of any he hoped to avoid.

Published on  Mon, Feb 9 2009, 09:23 GMT

The Road to Bank Nationalization

Fri, Feb 6 2009, 11:03 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, seven major corporations announced major layoffs, adding 72,000 to the unemployed. At the same time, lending by the big banks fell. With falling demand for loans, it is little wonder that President Obama described the national economic situation as "worsening day by day." Clearly, we are heading into a deepening and severe recession that is spreading worldwide.

As the reckless speculation of the major money center banks became clear in the second half of 2008, there was resistance to rescue efforts. However, the perceived wisdom was that these banks were too large to fail. Congress approved the $700 billion TARP to rescue them and the financial system. Now, there is growing demand by politicians for the banks to lend, in the face of falling loan demand. Clearly, a Democrat Congress is intent upon using Wall Street to dispense taxpayer funds to Main Street. This is socialism and strikes at the very heart of the 'American Way' of free enterprise.

Three major questions arise. Firstly, can the banking system be used to dispense cash to un-creditworthy citizens? Secondly, should the free-market banking system be used for political purposes? Thirdly, can the American government afford to bailout the collapsing economy and banking system simultaneously?

Acknowledging Tim Geithner's vow to employ "credit action on a dramatic scale", there is little doubt that the new Treasury Secretary thinks the banking system not only can, but will, be used to push taxpayer funds into the Main Street economy. If so, would this not necessitate nationalization?

The original TARP was designed to 'rescue' the banking system by relieving it of depreciating toxic assets. Subsequently, the TARP was used to inject capital into the main money center banks. So far, despite its enormous size, the TARP appears to have failed.

Contrary to political hopes, the banks are seen too have used the TARP selfishly (but rationally) to bolster their own capital and pay their own executives, whilst making fewer loans.

There is now an increasing specter of a massive bank failure, despite the TARP. As a result, there is growing pressure to nationalize the banks, as is being done in Europe. So far, Americans have resisted this option, but with Bank of America now trading below $5.00 per share, the temptation is growing.

In a recession, falling loan demand and deteriorating credit worthiness result in fewer loans worth making. There is mounting pressure, especially from Democrats, for banks to make 'social' or imprudent loans. Such actions are practicable only if the banks are nationalized.

Most Americans are firm believers in freedom and its economic progeny, the free enterprise system. But, under the cover of entitlement programs, increasingly large numbers of Americans are dependent, directly or indirectly, upon the Government.

In short, socialism is already alive in America, but is being extended, via the banking system, to become the dominant political force.

Citi and Bank of America, two of the three most important money market banks are technically insolvent. Yet, each has received $45 billion in TARP funds.

These two banks have total exposure of some $78 trillion to derivatives. Most importantly, they have almost $6 trillion of exposure to highly toxic Credit Default Swaps. Even JP Morgan has more than $9 trillion of exposure to these assets.

The Government TARP and stimulus packages now add up to some $3 trillion. Already, they have caused political consternation and pose serious challenges to America's credit rating and ability to extend further its towering debts, without crowding out viable corporate borrowing. What will happen when all of the private bank liabilities get thrown on top?

The money center banks render the TARP and, indeed, the total financing ability of the U.S. Government almost insignificant. In short, they have become too big to bail out.

It appears that America and the world are staring into the face of financial collapse, depression and eventual hyperinflation. Little wonder that, despite the growing evidence of recession, gold is rising in price.

Published on  Fri, Feb 6 2009, 11:03 GMT

A Response to My Critics

Fri, Jan 30 2009, 09:47 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

My popularity on television and the internet has led a very small money manager to use his popular financial blog to promote his fledgling business by attacking the recent poor performance of my long-term investment strategy. The post is causing quite a stir and compels me to provide some badly needed context.

To achieve his ends, this individual has distorted much of what I have been saying and writing, and has twisted the facts to support his own preconceived conclusion. In essence, his piece is nothing more than an overt advertisement (and a highly deceptive one at that) to use my popularity to advance his career. In so doing he has given my critics, particularly some who have been embarrassed by their roles in the "Peter Schiff was Right" video, their moments of retribution. In addition, some members of the press who have never been among my greatest fans are seizing the opportunity to discredit me as well.

The crux of the blogger's arguments are that my beliefs in "decoupling, hyperinflation, and that the dollar is going to zero" have been completely discredited by the events of 2008, and that the resulting investment losses suffered by my clients last year confirms the fatal flaws in my approach.

In addition to mischaracterizing many of my beliefs, he also is confusing short-term market fluctuations with long-term economic trends.

First of all, the hyper inflation issue is a straw man at best. While I often talk about the possibility of hyper inflation, I have always said that it would be a worse-case scenario that would play out over many years. The fact that it did not appear in the first year of the economic crash (2008) does not invalidate my position. I have always maintained that this worst-case scenario will likely be avoided by what will ultimately be a dramatic shift in policy once our leaders come to their senses. However, until then the dollar will likely lose a substantial portion of its value.

Second, I never said that the dollar would go to zero, either in 2008 or any year thereafter. I have said that in the event of hyper inflation the dollar's value would approach zero. My actual forecast in my book "Crash Proof" was that the Dollar Index would fall to 40 (currently about 85), with a realistic worst case scenario, assuming very high but not hyper inflation, of 20 or lower.

Third, the blogger points out that because the decoupling theory (foreign economies improving while the U.S. falters) that I wrote about in "Crash Proof" has yet to occur, that the theory itself was ridiculous. In my book I wrote that this process would not occur overnight, that initially our creditors would come to our aid, and in so doing our problems would become manifest abroad. I wrote that it would take time for the world to realize that what had been decoupled from the economic train was not the engine but the caboose. In fact, that is precisely the way it is playing out.

Chapter Ten of "Crash Proof" is specifically focused on the need to keep funds liquid to take advantage of the buying opportunity that would initially develop once our stock market began its collapse. I specifically mentioned that when U.S. stocks began to fall, we could expect sympathetic declines overseas. While I did not know the precise timing of those events, I advised readers to prepare.

I did not expect the huge dollar rally of 2008. But to discredit my long-term view of the dollar based on an eight month move is absurd. So while I believed that a weak dollar would cushion the temporary decline I expected in foreign stocks, a strong dollar ended up exacerbating it. In the meantime, I believed that the high dividends these stocks were paying would make it easier to ride out any correction. The problem was that the dollar fell so far leading up to the crisis (in 2005-2007) that by the time the crisis finally erupted the dollar was poised for a bounce.

Central to the argument that my investment thesis is wrong is the belief that the crisis is over or that the recent trends will continue until it is. But the crisis is just beginning and the movements thus far in the dollar, commodities, and foreign stocks, are mere head fakes. Once the speculators have been flushed from the markets, the underlying long-term trends I have been following should return in earnest.

To illustrate the flaws in my investment strategy the blogger has posted a client's statement that shows a loss in excess of 60%. In addition, he claims to know of other Euro Pacific clients who have experienced similar losses. The inference of course is that most, or all, of my clients must have suffered similar losses, and the existence of such losses proves that I am wrong. In fact, some have gone a step further, claiming that such losses prove that I am a fraud.

First let's deal with the one client's account. I have been following several key investment themes for the past ten years. The basis for my strategy is that recent U.S. prosperity has been false, and that the consequences of the bursting of our bubble economy would ultimately play out in a substantial decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, higher commodity prices, the re-monetization of gold, and foreign equities substantially outperforming U.S. markets. From an investment perspective, those themes played out extremely well in the eight years from 2000-2007. Recently we have seen a sharp, and I believe temporary, reversal of these trends. Those that came late to the party (at least based on where we are today) now have to ride out a particularly difficult correction.

For example, the account in question belongs to the son of a long-standing Euro Pacific client, who is still adding funds to his accounts. Without specially commenting on the performance of the father's account, it must have been compelling enough to finally persuade the son to come on board himself in early 2008. However, as is often the case, by the time he came on board, foreign stocks and commodities were about to sell off, and the dollar was about to begin its unexpected rally. Following such a sharp correction, the son now regrets his decision and must blame me for my part in helping him make it.

Perhaps as a stockbroker I should have persuaded the son to wait for a correction. However, while this clearly would have been the right call with the full benefit of hind-sight, it was certainly not as clear given the information I had at the time. However, I never held myself out to be a market timer. My advice was always geared to long-term investors. Given the thousands of clients that I have, and the large number who joined near the recent dollar peak and market tops, it's no wonder that a few have contacted this blogger to complain; especially since he has actively sought them out. Of course, the fact that the overwhelming majority of my clients are not complaining, to him or anyone else for that matter, says a lot more about what is really going on.

To the extent that the long-term trends I have been following continue, I am confident that even those whose short-term timing was bad will still do well in time. This is especially true if they take advantage of this pull back by adding to their accounts, either with new funds or by re-investing their dividends. However, to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive.

Since I have been advising investors to follow these trends for ten years, I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions as to how long-term followers of my strategy have fared. However, for those who only recently adopted my approach in 2007 or 2008, the road has been a lot bumpier than they or I thought it would be when they climbed on board. Yet if these long-term trends re-emerge, though the journey may be different than planned, the ultimate destination will remain the same.

The blogger in question implies that all of my clients are down by levels similar to the account he cites. He has asked me to refute his allegations by providing broader performance figures for more clients. But, since Euro Pacific Capital is a brokerage firm and not a Registered Investment Advisor, I am prohibited by regulators from providing any details on the investment performance achieved by my clients. The blogger in question makes his challenge knowing full well that I am legally prevented from accepting it. He then uses my failure to refute his false claim as validating its accuracy.

In addition, to look only at the performance of foreign stocks, while ignoring other aspects of my investment strategy only tells part of the story. What about gold, foreign bonds, short positions in financials, home builders and subprime mortgages (or merely avoiding long exposure to those sectors), or other investments people have made, either at Euro Pacific or elsewhere based on my insights? What about dividends earned, or gains realized on closed positions?

Mainstream economists, journalists, and investment professionals have never liked my message and have never resisted the temptation to shoot the messenger. When my investment strategies were performing well, I got little credit for it. Instead, all the attention was focused on the apparent failure of my dire economic predictions to materialize. Now that the economy is collapsing along the lines that I correctly forecast, criticism is being focused on the recent poor performance of my investment strategy (a fact that I have never tried to hide). Of course by the time my investment strategy is once again in step with my economic forecasts, an event that I believe will occur sooner than most people think, it will likely be too late for most people to do adopt it.

My critics have often referred to me as a stopped clock. I believe that the accusation is best leveled at the accusers. Having been wrong for so long, they are now enjoying their brief moment in the sun. They should enjoy it while it lasts. For now, they are creating fodder for some future "Peter Schiff was Right" piece where those who now criticize my investment performance will look just as foolish as those who once criticized my economic forecasts.

Published on  Fri, Jan 30 2009, 09:47 GMT

The World Won't Buy Unlimited U.S. Debt

Mon, Jan 26 2009, 09:44 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Barack Obama has spoken often of sacrifice. And as recently as a week ago, he said that to stave off the deepening recession Americans should be prepared to face "trillion dollar deficits for years to come."

But apart from a stirring call for volunteerism in his inaugural address, the only specific sacrifices the president has outlined thus far include lower taxes, millions of federally funded jobs, expanded corporate bailouts, and direct stimulus checks to consumers. Could this be described as sacrificial?

What he might have said was that the nations funding the majority of America's public debt -- most notably the Chinese, Japanese and the Saudis -- need to be prepared to sacrifice. They have to fund America's annual trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future. These creditor nations, who already own trillions of dollars of U.S. government debt, are the only entities capable of underwriting the spending that Mr. Obama envisions and that U.S. citizens demand.

These nations, in other words, must never use the money to buy other assets or fund domestic spending initiatives for their own people. When the old Treasury bills mature, they can do nothing with the money except buy new ones. To do otherwise would implode the market for U.S. Treasurys (sending U.S. interest rates much higher) and start a run on the dollar. (If foreign central banks become net sellers of Treasurys, the demand for dollars needed to buy them would plummet.)

In sum, our creditors must give up all hope of accessing the principal, and may be compensated only by the paltry 2%-3% yield our bonds currently deliver.

As absurd as this may appear on the surface, it seems inconceivable to President Obama, or any respected economist for that matter, that our creditors may decline to sign on. Their confidence is derived from the fact that the arrangement has gone on for some time, and that our creditors would be unwilling to face the economic turbulence that would result from an interruption of the status quo.

But just because the game has lasted thus far does not mean that they will continue playing it indefinitely. Thanks to projected huge deficits, the U.S. government is severely raising the stakes. At the same time, the global economic contraction will make larger Treasury purchases by foreign central banks both economically and politically more difficult.

The root problem is not that America may have difficulty borrowing enough from abroad to maintain our GDP, but that our economy was too large in the first place. America's GDP is composed of more than 70% consumer spending. For many years, much of that spending has been a function of voracious consumer borrowing through home equity extractions (averaging more than $850 billion annually in 2005 and 2006, according to the Federal Reserve) and rapid expansion of credit card and other consumer debt. Now that credit is scarce, it is inevitable that GDP will fall.

Neither the left nor the right of the American political spectrum has shown any willingness to tolerate such a contraction. Recently, for example, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman estimated that a 6.8% contraction in GDP will result in $2.1 trillion in "lost output," which the government should redeem through fiscal stimulation. In his view, the $775 billion announced in Mr. Obama's plan is two-thirds too small.

Although Mr. Krugman may not get all that he wishes, it is clear that Mr. Obama's opening bid will likely move north considerably before any legislation is passed. It is also clear from the political chatter that the policies most favored will be those that encourage rapid consumer spending, not lasting or sustainable economic change. So when the effects of this stimulus dissipate, the same unbalanced economy will remain -- only now with a far higher debt load.

If any other country were to face these conditions, unpalatable measures such as severe government austerity or currency devaluation would be the only options. But with our currency's reserve status, we have much more attractive alternatives. We are planning to spend as much as we like, for as long as we like, and we will let the rest of the world pick up the tab.

Currently, U.S. citizens comprise less than 5% of world population, but account for more than 25% of global GDP. Given our debts and weakening economy, this disproportionate advantage should narrow. Yet the U.S. is asking much poorer foreign nations to maintain the status quo, and incredibly, they are complying. At least for now.

You can't blame the Obama administration for choosing to go down this path. If these other nations are giving, it becomes very easy to take. However, given his supposedly post-ideological pragmatic gifts, one would hope that Mr. Obama can see that, just like all other bubbles in world history, the U.S. debt bubble will end badly. Taking on more debt to maintain spending is neither sacrificial nor beneficial.

Published on  Mon, Jan 26 2009, 09:44 GMT

Smaller stimulus leaves room for restructuring

Thu, Jan 22 2009, 10:04 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

As all recovery hopes are now pinned on the efficacy of Washington's next stimulus package, President Obama has opened the bidding at $825 billion. Most Republicans see this number as too big, and many Democrats see it as too small. If the question is one purely of impact, then under these circumstances, the Democrats are probably correct.

Measured against the erosion of some $20 trillion from American household wealth in just two years and the waste of some $3 trillion (including long tail medical liabilities) on a fruitless war in Iraq, populists and democrats will label Obama's planed expenditure as relatively small. They will argue that to affect a noticeable change in America's $14 trillion economy, a much larger stimulus is needed. However, this would be the sort of change that would paralyze the economy for years, perhaps decades.

From my perspective, the size of Obama's proposed stimulus may be just large enough to prevent widespread dissatisfaction with government inaction but small enough to leave room for a great opportunity — the genuine restructuring of the American economy.

For the past 30 years, an increasingly socialist U.S. Congress has drastically overspent in its errant attempt to 'help' everyone. In so doing, it has depleted the wealth of a hugely productive economy by consistently encouraging citizens to consume more than they produce. Today, America's standard of living is financed largely by depreciation of the U.S. dollar, high taxation and by massive borrowing, from citizens, foreigners and from future generations.

The natural cure for such over consumption is a cutback in consumer spending, or a recession. But recessions, by nature, involve high unemployment. They are socially painful and therefore carry a distinct political cost if leaders cannot quickly bring recovery. Politicians fear recessions and are loath to accept them as a natural cure of excessive spending. They are tempted therefore to keep exorbitant consumerism alive, by a progressive and unsustainable combination of taxation, inflation, currency depreciation and borrowing. What is happening today is a classic example of this unfortunate political/economic dynamic.

The tragedy is that this reaction prevents necessary restructuring and sustains failed systems. While claiming the converse, the vast sums spent by government have actually prevented the vital but painful restructuring of the American economy.

Some argue that Obama's proposed stimulus package is not only too small, but also too late. Ironically, this may be a benefit. If it does come too late, it will prevent American politicians from 'saving' individual industries and companies that have no hope of sustainability. By force of circumstance, it will allow a recession to do the hard and unpleasant job of restructuring the American economy.

In short, the political or financial inability of Congress to fund a larger stimulus package could be a major blessing in disguise. It may not help the current office holders, but it could benefit greatly America's economy, its citizens and non-U.S. citizens who trade with America.

If President Obama sticks to his expressed intent to spend on 'real' job creating enterprises, there will be less and less money available for Congress to spend on 'rescuing' defunct industries, companies and jobs. All this presages a possible major restructuring and turn-around in America's economic fortunes. At long last, it's possible to see such events unfolding. However, it will only be possible by a firm stance with no deviations.

This may mean that Obama's policies may more likely be supported more by Republicans than by those in his own Party.

In order to survive against a Democrat dominated Congress, President Obama must be able to speak over the heads of Congress directly to the American people in order to inspire them to accept the short-term pain of recession in return for the long-term gain of economic revival and the return to America of genuine wealth creation. For those listening, there was a whiff of support for capitalism in his inauguration speech. Let's hope his words were not merely fig leaves.

Therefore, as strange as it may seem, a stimulus package which is both too late and too small, may be just the blessing that America needs to restructure its economy and return to the generation of long-term wealth creation.

Published on  Thu, Jan 22 2009, 10:04 GMT

Credit Where Credit is Due

Mon, Jan 19 2009, 11:06 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

This week, in a speech before the London School of Economics, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke offered a perverse economic theory in his quest to gather support for never-ending Wall Street bailouts; "This disparate treatment, unappealing as it is, appears unavoidable. Our economic system is critically dependent on the free flow of credit, and the consequences for the broader economy of financial instability are thus powerful and quickly felt." In other words, credit is the lifeblood of our economy, and the continued operation of credit providers is an issue of national security.

In truth, not all economies run on credit. But over the last decade, the United States became a bubble economy that needed unlimited credit to keep from collapsing. In a legitimate economy, it is not credit that fuels spending and investment, but simply income and savings. It's too bad our Fed chairman does not understand the difference.

That American families now routinely rely on credit to make every-day purchases is a habit that needs to be broken and not encouraged. What we need in America is more restraint and less indulgence. For example, Americans in the current economy should not go into debt to buy new cars. Given the level of debt that weighs down the typical family, Americans should defer such purchases until they have paid down existing debt, or replenished their savings to the point where they can afford to pay cash. Until that time, Americans should continue driving their old cars. In the meantime, the untapped savings could be made available to local businesses that would use it to finance badly needed capital investments.

But such a drastic reversal in financial culture represents the kind of change that no one in the outgoing or incoming Administrations appears willing to consider. By providing perpetual support to lenders who have bankrupted themselves through bad loans, the government merely guarantees that bad economic behavior will continue.

Credit is indeed vital to an economy, but it does not constitute an economy within itself. The important thing to remember is that credit is scarce, and is limited by the stock of savings. Savings loaned to one individual is not available to be loaned to another until it is repaid. If it is never repaid, the savings are lost. Loans to consumers not only crowd out more productive loans that might have been made to business, but they have a far greater likelihood of ending in default. In addition, while business loans increase our capital stock and lead to greater productivity, loans made to consumers are merely spent, and do not create conditions that will make repayment easier. When businesses borrow to fund capital investments, the extra cash flows that result are used to repay the loans. When individuals borrow to spend, loans can only be repaid out of reduced future consumption.

One of the reasons we are in such dire straits is that consumers have already borrowed and spent too much. Many did so based on the false belief that ever-appreciating real estate would ultimately provide the means to repay their debts and finance their lifestyles. Now that reality has finally set in, why should the spending spree continue? The fact that a GDP comprised of 70 percent of consumption is currently contracting should not surprise anyone. In fact, such a contraction is long overdue and the government should not do anything to interfere.

In trying to perpetuate the illusion, the government wants to revive the spending spree that has led us to this disaster. But how can such actions possibly help? How will more debt improve the economy? Wouldn't our circumstances be vastly improved if we paid off some of our debts and replenished our savings? Wouldn't we be in better shape if instead of buying more stuff we concentrated on producing it?

The unpleasant reality is that years of bad monetary and fiscal policy have over encumbered our economy with debt and undermined our industrial capacity. The sooner we can begin to repair the damages, the sooner we can right the ship. If instead we merely administer more of the same, the ship will sink in a sea of inflation.

Published on  Mon, Jan 19 2009, 11:06 GMT

Price gap portends gold price boom

Thu, Jan 15 2009, 09:16 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Most consider the New York market 'spot' price for an accurate indication of the true price. However, investors now buying buy physical or 'fabricated' gold, are paying a premium of between $20 and $30 per ounce. When these gaps existed in the past, major increases in the price of gold were imminent.

For much of the 20th Century, gold continuously defied global government efforts to restrain its price. The premium currently in place may be evidence of the latest round of such policies.

In 1934, President Roosevelt devalued the U.S. dollar by some 75 percent by raising the official price of gold from $20 to $35 an ounce. This opened the door to the first great wave of inflation of the 20th Century. Following World War II, national governments, particularly the American Treasury, held the vast bulk of the free world's gold. The official $35 price was maintained, almost by official dictate.

However, in the 1960's, a 'free' market gradually developed that traded gold at a premium to the official $35 price. In response, the London Gold Pool, a central bankers' gentlemen's agreement led by the Bank of England and the New York Fed, was established to hold the so-called 'free' market price of gold "to more appropriate levels" … to "avoid unnecessary and disturbing fluctuations in price" which could erode "public confidence in the existing international monetary structure." The agreement lasted until 1968. Thereafter, the price of gold was set solely by the free market.

As the inflationary financing of the Vietnam War began to filter into the international economy, private investors and nations with trade surpluses began to buy gold to protect their wealth. The 'free' market price began to soar above $35 an ounce. Far from reducing the demand for gold, as many esteemed Keynesian economists had predicted, this free market price increased the demand for gold.

Surplus nations demanded gold from the American Treasury at the official price. Experiencing a serious run on the national official gold reserves, President Nixon broke the U.S. dollar gold exchange link in August 1971. It unleashed a wave of competitive international currency devaluations and the second great inflation of the 20th Century. Subsequently, the U.S. dollar was devalued further, by some 20 percent, as gold officially was revalued to $42 an ounce.

However, led by America, the central banks then made a determined attempt, through the IMF, to "demonetize" gold. Central banks agreed not to fix their exchange rates against gold and agreed 'voluntarily' to the removal of their obligation to conduct transactions between themselves at the official price.

In addition, the IMF was persuaded to 'distribute' some 153 million ounces of gold into the market and to minor nations. This had the perverse effect of greatly increasing the interest in owning gold.

An even stronger 'free' market began to operate alongside the official price. As inflation continued to clime, so did gold. In the early 1980's the free market price reached $850 an ounce, while the official price remained at $42 an ounce.

In 1999, the Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA), also known as the Washington Gold Agreement, led to the coordinated sales of central bank gold via the IMF. Clearly designed to depress the free market price, it is widely believed that the IMF sales were timed to magnify volatility in the free market price in order to destroy gold's perceived worth as a 'store of value'. The CBGA was renewed on September 27, 2004, for a further five years.

More recently, market dealers have become increasingly aware of a covert official 'blessing' for large naked short positions opened by major 'bullion' banks. These bets are designed to force down the free market price of gold.

In the mainstream investment community, gold has been consistently scorned as an investment. Many respected analysts have even suggested that gold's allure is wholly based on perception and that the metal lacks intrinsic value. And yet, in terms of U.S. dollars, gold returned about 5.8 percent in 2008, following a 31.4 percent return in 2007. Thus far in the 21st Century, gold has delivered an average annual return of some 16.3 percent.

Despite the powerful attempts of governments to eradicate gold's role in monetary affairs, the free market price has risen continuously. Today, although the possibility of global depression act as a head wind, the existence of an "above market" premium for fabricated gold, may foretell a major threat to the credibility of paper currencies, a major U.S. dollar devaluation and a consequent strong rise in the price of gold in the months ahead.

Published on  Thu, Jan 15 2009, 09:16 GMT

The Fed's Bubble Trouble

Mon, Jan 12 2009, 09:44 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

A few weeks ago when the Fed announced a strategy designed to bring down long-term interest and home mortgage rates through unlimited Treasury bond purchases, government debt staged a spectacular rally. To the unschooled market observer, the spike may be difficult to understand. After all, why would the value of Treasury bonds rise while their underlying credit quality is deteriorating faster than Bernie Madoff's social schedule? The move is actually a perfect illustration of the tried and true Wall Street strategy of "buy the rumor and sell the fact".

If it is well known that Fed will be a big purchaser of Treasuries, those buying now will be positioned to unload their holdings when the buying spree begins. If the Fed pays higher prices in the future, traders can earn riskless speculative profits. If the traders lever up their positions, as many are likely doing, even small profits can turn unto huge windfalls.

The downside of course, is that all of the demand for Treasuries is artificial. Treasuries are now in the hands of speculators looking to sell, not investors looking to hold. These players are analogous to the mid-decade condo-flippers who flocked to new developments for quick profits. They did not intend to occupy their properties, but rather flip them to future buyers. Once these properties came back on the market, condo prices collapsed, as developers were forced to compete for new sales with their former customers.

This is precisely what will happen with Treasuries. Just as the U.S. government issues mountains of new debt to finance the multi-trillion annual deficits planned by the Obama Administration, speculative holders of existing debt will be offering their bonds for sale as well. In order to prevent a complete collapse in the bond prices the Fed will be forced to significantly increase its buying.

However, since the only way the Fed can buy bonds is by printing money, the more bonds they buy the more inflation they will create. As inflation diminishes the investment value of low-yielding Treasuries, such a scenario will kick off a downward spiral. But the more active the Fed becomes in their quest to prop up bond prices, the bigger the incentive to hit the Fed's bid. The result will be that all Treasuries sold will be purchased by the Fed. But with the resulting frenzy in the Treasury market, and with inflation kicking into high gear, we can expect that demand for other debt classes that the Fed is not backstopping, such as corporate, municipal and agency debt, to fall through the floor, pushing up interest rates across the board.

In order to "save" the economy from these high rates the Fed will then have to expand its purchases to include all forms of debt. If that happens, run-away inflation will quickly turn into hyper-inflation, and our currency will be worthless and our economy left in ruins.

To avoid this nightmare scenario, the Fed should pull out of the bond market before it's too late and let prices fall to where real buyers, those willing to hold to maturity, re-enter the market. Given how high inflation will likely be by the time this happens, my guess is that long-term Treasury yields will have to rise well into the double digits to clear the market.

The grim reality of course is that when the real estate bubble burst the Government was able to "bail-out" private parties. However, when the bond market bubble bursts, it will be the U.S. Government itself that will be in need of the mother of all bailouts. If U.S. taxpayers or foreign creditors are unwilling or unable to pony up, and if the nightmare hyper-inflation scenario is to be avoided, default will be the only option. If misery really does love company, Bernie Madoff's clients might finally find some comfort.

Published on  Mon, Jan 12 2009, 09:44 GMT

Government Panic Could Herald Dollar Panic

Thu, Jan 8 2009, 09:28 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

One of the few things more troubling for an economy than government intervention is government intervention driven by panic. Time and again, history has shown that when governments rush to engineer solutions to pressing problems, unintended difficulties arise.

In the current crisis, there is growing evidence that Washington is in a state of increasing panic. Despite its massive cash injections, market manipulations and 'rescue' plans, the recession is clearly deepening and spreading. With little to show thus far, politicians don't know if they should redouble past efforts, break ground on new initiatives, or both. However all agree, unfortunately, that the consequences of doing too little far outweigh the consequences of doing too much.

Although there are many parallels between the current crisis and the Crash of 1929, one key difference is the global profile of the U.S. dollar. In 1929, the dollar was on the rise, and would soon eclipse the British Pound Sterling as the world's 'reserve' currency. Furthermore, the American economy was fundamentally so strong that in 1934 America was the only major nation able to maintain a currency tied to gold.

Ever since, the U.S. dollar's privileged 'reserve' status has been a principal factor in America's continued prosperity. The dollar's unassailable position has enabled successive American governments to disguise the vast depletion of America's wealth and to successfully increase U.S. Treasury debt to where the published debt now accounts for some 100 percent of GDP. The total of U.S. Government debt, including IOU's and unfunded programs, now stands at a staggering $50 trillion, or five times GDP! If the dollar were just another currency, this never would have been possible.

In today's crisis however, the dollar is likely making its last star turn as the leading man in the global financial drama. Other stronger, less burdened currencies are waiting in the wings for the old gent to take his final bows.

The dollar's demise is being catalyzed by the neglect of the Federal Government. Instead of enacting policies that would restructure the U.S. economy, and restore productive, non-inflationary wealth creation, Congress is simply financing the old crumbling edifice.

Faced with the growing realization that America is not doing the work necessary to right its economic ship, it will not be long before America's primary creditors begin to seriously question the nation's ability to service, let alone repay, its debts.

There is now the prospect (inconceivable until recently), that America could lose its prestigious 'triple-A' credit rating. In today's risk adverse market, this could cost the Treasury one percent in interest on long bonds. Each additional percentage point of interest would cost America some $10 billion a year on each trillion dollars of new debt, or some $300 billion over the life of a 30-year bond.

Many of the foreign governments who hold huge amounts of U.S. dollar Treasury debt, such as China and Japan, have announced plans to spend money on their own ailing economies. Should these foreign central banks divert to domestic initiatives some of the funds used to buy U.S. Treasuries, serious upward pressure on U.S. interest rates will result. Should they actually sell parts or all of their holdings they will likely put serious downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Last week, a Chinese official claimed the U.S. dollar should be phased out as the world's 'reserve' currency.

In the short term, as dollar 'carry-trades' continue to be unwound and questions of political will and falling interest rates haunt the Euro and some other currencies, the U.S. dollar may be the recipient of some upward appreciation. But with the American Government appearing increasingly to be in panic mode, a run on the U.S. dollar could develop rapidly into cascading devaluation. Even if no such panic run materializes the long-term outlook for the U.S. dollar is one of high risk and low return. This beckons major upward pressure on precious metals.

Published on  Thu, Jan 8 2009, 09:28 GMT

Bonds in 2009: A Tough Call

Mon, Jan 5 2009, 11:51 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

The second half of 2008 will be remembered as the era in which justifiably panicked investors fled the global equity markets and flooded into the bond markets, particularly the U.S. Treasury market. As I write this, the migration largely continues.

For those investors and market observers who put a high premium on rationality it seems perverse that so many are accepting the historically low returns offered in the U.S. Treasury market, particularly in the short end, where yields are near zero. At some intra-day prices, yields have even turned negative.

While somewhat bereft of investment merit, I am not surprised by the strong upward moves of U.S. Treasuries, which was by far the best performing asset class of 2008. For better or worse, the majority of investors still consider Treasuries as the ultimate safe haven, and it is therefore understandable that they would rally in times of uncertainty. But now, I urge some caution.

Ian Fleming's hero, 007, used to introduce himself with the signature phrase, "Bond—James Bond." It struck caution into many of his opponents. Today, at the outset of 2009, the term 'bonds', especially junk bonds, should strike apprehension into the hearts of most conservative investors.

In the initial stages of a recession, it is wise to run to cash, or Treasuries. Emboldened by the healthy returns in Treasuries in 2008, and confidence that government stimuli will provide solvency to the private sector, some investors may be tempted to 'play' the corporate and even junk bond markets as the Fed lowers its key interest rates.

However, as recessions mature, things change subtly. Demand for riskier junk bonds will remain suppressed by the lingering of demand for long-dated Treasuries, which may even increase for two main reasons.

First, there is greater risk that many corporate bond issuers, especially of junk bonds, will collapse and default on their bonds. These growing fears force increasing funds into Treasuries, driving prices ever higher and yields lower.

Second, as historically low yields continue to decline on short-dated Treasuries, many investors who have become focused on current yield rather than on total return, are tempted to move into long dated Treasuries.

In mid-December, the Fed lowered its key rates, putting downward pressure on the U.S. dollar and raising the specter of high inflation. However, sensing the possible sale of long-dated Treasuries, Fed chairman Bernanke took the unusual step of assuring investors that the Fed was likely to buy large amounts of long-dated Treasuries. This caused renewed investor faith in long Treasuries. With Treasury demand thus stimulated, I do not expect a near term rally in corporate debt instruments.

The longer view however is much different. As Fed Chairman Bernanke beckons investors towards long-dated Treasuries, the danger on the rocks is being consistently ignored.

And although these bonds may indeed remain strong for now, it is likely that the revered U.S. Treasury market is becoming the next asset bubble ripe for explosion. Such a dramatic development could be caused by a number of fundamental reasons.

First, as the recession deepens, it will become apparent to all that the Fed has no will to fight inflation. Worse still, it will likely be seen that the U.S. Administration is diverting its vast resources away from restructuring and infrastructure spending towards the potentially inflationary, socialist-style prevention of restructuring through the subsidization of clinically dead companies, like the U.S. auto industry.

Second, the Government can be expected to issue vast amounts of additional long-term debt. Third, foreign central banks will be forced to spend internally on their own domestic stimulus packages. These major investors, especially China, will buy progressively less U.S. Treasuries and may even become major net sellers, driving prices down.

Finally, if America loses its prestigious triple-A credit rating, the prices of its Treasury bonds will plummet.

With the safe haven of U.S. Treasuries threatened, investors may increasingly turn to the refuge of the sovereign debt of hard currency nations, gold and even to the top rated companies in economies like China, where the government has massive amounts of cash to spend on competitive restructuring and infrastructure.

In short, risky U.S. debt instruments will have no fundamental drivers in 2009. U.S. government debt has a brighter short term future but in the end may be just as dangerous.

Published on  Mon, Jan 5 2009, 11:51 GMT

There's No Pain−Free Cure for Recession

Mon, Jan 5 2009, 11:24 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

As recession fears cause the nation to embrace greater state control of the economy and unimaginable federal deficits, one searches in vain for debate worthy of the moment. Where there should be an historic clash of ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous queasiness that we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the rug.

With faith in the free markets now taking a back seat to fear and expediency, nearly the entire political spectrum agrees that the federal government must spend whatever amount is necessary to stabilize the housing market, bail out financial firms, liquefy the credit markets, create jobs and make the recession as shallow and brief as possible. The few who maintain free-market views have been largely marginalized.

Taking the theories of economist John Maynard Keynes as gospel, our most highly respected contemporary economists imagine a complex world in which economics at the personal, corporate and municipal levels are governed by laws far different from those in effect at the national level.

Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking revenues instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten their belts, pay down debt and live within their means. But it is axiomatic in Keynesianism that national governments can create and sustain economic activity by injecting printed money into the financial system. In their view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal and World War II, the Depression would never have ended.

On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a vague sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created out of nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are planning on a national level.

I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy, pain-free solutions. They are the economic equivalent of miracle weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without sacrifice.

As a follower of the Austrian School of economics I believe that market forces apply equally to people and nations. The problems we face collectively are no different from those we face individually. Belt tightening is required by all, including government.

Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government doesn't have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don't go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won't lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value those already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.

Similarly, any jobs or other economic activity created by public-sector expansion merely comes at the expense of jobs lost in the private sector. And if the government chooses to save inefficient jobs in select private industries, more efficient jobs will be lost in others. As more factors of production come under government control, the more inefficient our entire economy becomes. Inefficiency lowers productivity, stifles competitiveness and lowers living standards.

If we look at government market interventions through this pragmatic lens, what can we expect from the coming avalanche of federal activism?

By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the value of all that Americans have saved and acquired. For now the inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and significantly higher inflation.

The good news is that economics is not all that complicated. The bad news is that our economy is broken and there is nothing the government can do to fix it. However, the free market does have a cure: it's called a recession, and it's not fun, easy or quick. But if we put our faith in the power of government to make the pain go away, we will live with the consequences for generations.

Published on  Mon, Jan 5 2009, 11:24 GMT

2009−Likely Vintage Year for gold

Mon, Dec 22 2008, 09:27 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

The Federal Reserve estimates that in the past year losses in real estate, stocks and mortgages have sucked out some $7.2 trillion of wealth from the U.S. economy. Some are now putting the figure at $20 trillion. A massive recession is starting and will likely spread throughout much of the world. These forces have exerted their classic strong downward pressure on the price of gold.

In addition, the $700 billion TARP fund to salvage the American financial system, and large amounts spent by other governments to protect their own banks, has greatly reduced the fear of a financial breakdown. As a result, the financial panic insurance value of gold was largely eroded, adding further downward price pressure.

2008 was a volatile year for gold. Prices have gyrated quite violently between the $700's and $1,000, or by some 25 to 30 percent. This volatility alone acts as a depressing influence on gold prices as it discourages the belief that gold is a credible investment.

The world's major governments long have sought to eradicate gold as a monetary measure in order to remove the last vestiges of monetary discipline and to clear the field for massive government over-spending and inflation.

In 1968, the London Gold Poll was abolished. In 1978, America forced a further move, via the IMF, to write gold out of the international money supply. In August 1971, President Nixon broke the U.S. dollar-gold exchange link.

In September 1999, the United States, while being careful to keep its own gold stocks intact, led other major nations, in the first of two so-called 'Central Bank Gold Agreements' to flood the gold market with sales of gold.

In 1999, the central banks held some 33,000 tonnes, or one quarter of all mined gold. The effect of government gold sales was potentially very bearish for gold.

Gold market observers, who have studied the pattern of IMF gold sales, allege that the sales are timed to cause the maximum volatility in the price of gold, to discourage investment.

More recently, there are allegations that the Government has allowed certain institutions to engage in massive naked short selling of gold and silver. This has caused distortions in the gold price that do not reflect genuine market pressures. In short, they amount to market manipulation.

A fair conclusion is that gold is cheap and that its present price does not truly reflect market conditions.

On December 16th, the Fed announced, as we have long forecast, a further cut in interest rates to between zero and 0.25 percent. It also announced 'unlimited' support to buy assets from beleaguered institutions.

The amount of debt and new money injected into the economy should progressively raise inflation alarm bells. The fire of future inflation is being stoked alarmingly, but the recessive forces of deleveraging are concealing it temporarily.

The Fed looks desperate. This could lead to feelings of panic and upward pressure on the gold price.

Investors should also especially be concerned as to who will repay these massive debts. The conventional answer of politicians is "taxpayers". But this is a serious understatement. Any depreciation of the U.S. dollar means that every American citizen and every single holder of U.S. dollars throughout the world will suffer from monetary loss and a severely reduced standard of living.

In 1934, facing a depression President Roosevelt first confiscated gold from every American. Then, he unilaterally devalued the U.S. dollar by 75 percent against gold.

At a stroke, FDR wiped out 75 percent of the dollar denominated debt of the U.S. Treasury.

As both President-Elect Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke are students of FDR, we face the real possibility of a massive devaluation of the U.S. dollar against gold in 2009.

Published on  Mon, Dec 22 2008, 09:27 GMT

A Nightmare Before Christmas

Mon, Dec 15 2008, 10:06 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Like many pragmatic economists I have always warned that rapid expansions of government debt would result in inflation and higher interest rates. The explanation was always simple: rising supply of government debt inflates the money supply and weakens the government's ability to service its debt through legitimate means.

But in recent months, government has flooded the market with hundreds of new Treasury obligations and telegraphed its intention to increase the deluge even more. In response, both bond prices and the dollar have risen. This benign reaction has led many to the happy conclusion that the doom and gloomers are wrong and that bailouts and economic "stimuli" can be financed with deficit spending without any adverse consequences on interest rates or consumer prices. Recent action in the foreign exchange markets suggests these hopes will prove illusory. The renewed strength in gold, together with the long over do rupture of the correlation between the movements of foreign currencies and U.S. equities, is further evidence that recent market dynamics are changing.

When the financial crisis of 2008 kicked into high gear in September, the U.S. dollar began to rally furiously. While America's economic ship was sinking from stem to stern, its currency was becoming the must have asset for public and private investors around the world. The dollar benefitted from the positive flows that result from massive global deleveraging. Treasuries got an added boost from a reflexive flight to "safety." As a result, politicians were able to fill out their Christmas wish lists with complete confidence that Santa would deliver. However, as these dollar-positive forces appear to be giving way, the Grinch is about make an unwanted appearance.

Last weekend Barack Obama announced his intention to implement a New Deal-style stimulus and public works program. What he somehow forgot to mention is that the United States is wholly dependent on the willingness of foreign creditors to supply the funds. But a weakening dollar makes continued foreign purchase of U.S. Treasuries a much more difficult decision.

Once the dollar begins to collapse beneath the weight of all this new deficit spending, accumulation of contingency liabilities, and the socialization of our economy, commodity prices and interest rates will head skyward. In addition, once all the going out of business sales at U.S. retailers are over, and excess inventories have been reduced, watch for big price increases at the consumer level as well.

Once the government runs out of foreign and private sector bidders for new treasuries, the Federal Reserve will be the only buyer, and the hyper-inflation cat will be completely out of the bag. Sensing this, the Fed has recently indicated a desire to begin issuing its own bonds. However, since dollars are already recorded as liabilities on the Fed's balance sheet (dollars are in actuality Federal Reserve Notes) the Fed already issues debt. The difference now is that they are proposing to issue interest bearing debt. Perhaps the Fed feels this will make holding its notes more appealing. However, since the interest will be paid in more of its own script, I do not believe this con will work.

In the end, rather than filling our stockings with Christmas goodies, our foreign creditors will likely substitute lumps of coal. Of course given how high coal prices will ultimately rise as a result of all this inflation, in Christmas Future perhaps our stockings will be stuffed with nothing but our own worthless currency. It might night burn as well as coal, but at least we will have plenty of it.

Published on  Mon, Dec 15 2008, 10:06 GMT

Congress Votes for Misemployment

Thu, Dec 11 2008, 17:34 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Today, Congress signaled its intention to use $15 billion in public money to bail out the "Big Three" automakers with a so-called "bridging" loan. You would think that after becoming a major issue during the presidential campaign, politicians would have become wary of "bridges to nowhere."

GM, Chrysler and Ford are all operating at losses. They have failed business models. Sadly, they do not employ people in a profit-making enterprise. Rather, they "misemploy" people to manufacture losses, and have been doing so for decades.

The "Big Three" represent all that is bad in American industry. They may be past the point where even radical surgery can help. However, like an organ donor, many of the resources now poorly utilized by these companies could offer tremendous value to more vibrant manufacturers.

For years, the Big Three have rolled over in the face of trade union threats. On a per car basis, these companies today endure costs that are on average $600 higher than those faced by foreign competitors for cars that they manufacture in the United States. How is it possible for any bailout to counter this acute competitive disadvantage?

GM already owes debts of some $42 billion and Ford some $32 billion. How is it that an injection of a mere $15 billion of public money will succeed? It won't. The Big Three are a financial "Black Hole."

If that were not so, why is it that Cerberus, the private equity company that owns Chrysler, will not put in another penny? These financial and business "wizards" clearly see that the Big Three cannot survive without massive and long-term public subsidies. Clearly, they also see a "Black Hole."

Despite its promotion as a "bridging loan", the Congressional plan is a bail-out, pure and simple. It will likely be the first of a series of continuing subsidies to privileged, misemployed workers whose sense of entitlement and blindness to the changing economic conditions around the world has broken their companies. Having bled their parent companies to death, the UAW now wants to bleed the American public.

The problems with the Big Three are emblematic of very serious challenges that confront America. But the crisis also is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Restructuring the American economy is long overdue and is now urgent. It will be painful and difficult. It will require leadership of an extraordinary quality. It will also require political conditions that will allow for stringency. Finally, it will require money: bucket loads of it.

At long last, the recession we have been long predicting is being officially recognized. The public is becoming aware of the magnitude of the crisis, and I feel that they are psychologically prepared for tough remedies. Given the mandate for change that propelled Barack Obama into office, President-elect's impressive rhetorical abilities, the public could be inspired to accept the necessary pain that would accompany a meaningful restructuring of the American economy.

The polls indicate that the American public clearly opposes any public bail out. The public has it right. Why should other workers, including employees of other profitable American auto plants, fighting for their jobs, approve of the public financing of their privileged competitors?

If allowed to unfold along lines dictated by the marketplace, the current recession will unwind the excesses of the past. The entire auto industry will suffer, but it will die if all the attention is showered on the terminal cases rather than setting the conditions for the healthy companies to produce automobiles profitably.

To prop up our failures is to succumb to the politics of Socialism, which has proved countless times to be the politics of economic decay. Why would an American Congress agree to essentially nationalize the Big Three in face of opposition from the majority of Americans? The answer is fear.

It is clear that Congress is scared stiff of the pain required to achieve the restructuring that is vital to the regeneration of American wealth and power. Unabashed, it appears likely to pour massive amounts of dollars into the failed sectors of the U.S. economy. They are not choosing to create new employment, but to continue misemployment.

Should President-Elect Obama fail to use his great skills and his considerable grass roots support to inject some backbone into Congress, all holders of U.S. dollars and U.S. equities should beware. They stand to be robbed by Congress.

Published on  Thu, Dec 11 2008, 17:34 GMT

Low Rates, Big Problems

Mon, Dec 8 2008, 09:09 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Government and mainstream economists have erroneously concluded that the key to reversing the financial free fall can be found in stopping the plunge in home prices. (I would offer the corollary that the key to reducing injuries in auto accidents is to suspend the laws of inertia). But to accomplish the improbable task of re-inflating the housing bubble, the government appears ready to announce a coordinated plan to push down mortgage rates to just 4.5%. Of course, this is precisely the wrong solution to the housing crisis, but when it comes to bad ideas our government has been remarkably consistent.

The plan would require the newly created Federal agencies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower rates to 4.5%, and then require the Fed to directly buy the loans after they were made. The idea is that by lowering mortgage rates, current homeowners will be able to afford to make their payments, and new buyers will be more likely to qualify for larger loans, provided of course they do not have to come up with a burdensome down payment. If 4.5% is not enough to convince reluctant borrowers then look for the mandated rate to drop further. Perhaps there may come a time where the interest flows to the borrower instead of the lender. Anything to get Americans borrowing again.

But artificially suppressing mortgage rates will encourage risk taking and debt assumption at a time when consumers and lenders should be acting prudently. By setting rates below market levels, and buying mortgages that no private funder would want to touch, the government is creating a mortgage entitlement. Given the size of the home mortgage market, the program could eventually become one of the largest entitlement program on the federal books.

The most obvious problem is that the Government has no money. All it has is a printing press. So the more money it provides for cheap mortgages, the higher the inflation tax will be for all Americans. Higher inflation will cause the difference between where rates should be and where the government sets them to grow wider, and the entitlement to become more costly to provide.

Assuming $5 billion in mortgages are refinanced at 4.5% in an environment where the unsubsidized rate would have been 10%. The annual cost to the government in such a scenario would be $275 billion. But the subsidy will have to be provided in perpetuity, as the minute it is removed, mortgage rates would surge and housing prices would plummet. Of course, the mere existence of the subsidy will continue to create demand for mortgage credit, which the government will be forced to provide by printing even more money. This would set into place a self perpetuating spiral of rising inflation and mortgage demand, with practically 100% of mortgage money being provided by the government. Ultimately the whole scheme would collapse, as run-away inflation would completely destroy what would be left of our shattered economy.

Some argue that since the government can now borrow for 30 years at 3%, issuing mortgages at 4.5% is a winning trade. There are three problems with this analysis. First, just because money is cheap does not mean we should borrow it-you think we would have at least learned that by now! Second, this analysis does not factor in default related losses. Finally, there is no way the government would be able to borrow that much money at the long end of the rate curve without driving interest rates much higher. The only reason long-term rates are so low now is that the government is concentrating its borrowing on the short end of the curve. So to pull of the trade, the government will have to finance it with treasury bills. If we turn the government into a massively leveraged hedge fund that cycles a multi-trillion dollar carry trade of short-term debt used to finance long term mortgages, then I think we already know how that movie ends.

In the final analysis the market must be allowed to function. If real estate prices are too high they must be allowed to fall, regardless of the consequences. Lower prices are the market's solution to housing affordability. Government attempts to artificially prop up prices will have much more dire economic consequences then letting them fall. Until we figure this out, there will be no escape from the economic death spiral the government is setting in motion.

Published on  Mon, Dec 8 2008, 09:09 GMT

An Historic Challenge for New Leadership

Fri, Dec 5 2008, 08:19 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

At long last it is official. Even the government's own statisticians now admit that we are in a recession. They have even concluded that it began in late 2007. How wonderfully candid of them!

To fight the downturn that it can no longer deny, the government has budgeted some $3 trillion to spend the economy out of recession. However, there is increasing evidence that the recession is deepening, just as we have forecast over the past year or so. It is now rumored that a further $8 trillion (some $25,000 dollars for every American man, woman and child) is being considered. Many people are worried and are beginning to wonder where it will all end.

But, as the saying goes, even the darkest cloud has a silver lining. Provided the incoming Obama Administration makes the right decisions, great opportunities lie ahead. The situation we face is terrible. Indeed, we believe that a full-blown depression in looming. Some may ask for the source of this pessimism given the relatively benign forecasts favored by most economists.

The answer lies in the range of our economic perspective. Perhaps arrogantly believing that the sophisticated modern economy lacks historical precedent, most economists and analysts look back only as far as World War II. Somehow it is assumed that 99% of recorded history offers no lessons for the modern world. This is naïve.

If we adopt a far longer-term perspective, we can find some parallels to the Bush-Greenspan bubble that we now see unwinding: the bursting of the South Seas bubble in 1720, and the Stock Market Crash of 1929. Both events led to unprecedented losses and took years to recover from. We believe that history will record 2008 as the year in which a decade long boom, which began with the tech boom of the late 1990's and continued with the real estate boom of the middle years of this decade, was finally pricked.

All three crashes were based, essentially, on massive, irrational, speculation. But the potential depression that will follow the most recent crash will face two problems not seen by the first two: massive leverage and institutional corruption.

Today, vast numbers of consumers are highly leveraged with credit card debt, auto loans, student loans, overdrafts and mortgage debt. In normal times, such levels would have been considered grossly imprudent. But the past 10 years have been anything but normal. Given that many of these consumers have scant ability to service the loans they have taken, the debt has been characterized as the "toxic waste" of the financial industry.

The banking system carefully hid most of this "toxic waste" within derivative structures and an abuse of off-balance sheet accounting to a degree that amounts to the greatest financial fraud in history.

The fraud was directly caused and tolerated by policy makers. In an effort to avoid healthy recessions and to perpetuate the good times, the Administration, under Bush and Greenspan, pumped trillions of unearned dollars into the world economy, laying the foundation for the unprecedented real estate and consumption booms of the 2000's.

In order to postpone and disguise the inevitable pain of America earning less than it was spending, Bush and Greenspan quietly depreciated the currency and borrowed massively.

Although the risks were systematically dismissed for years by the Government, banks and corporations, the horrors that result from the 'deleveraging' from such massive speculation, debt, leverage and fraud, are now dawning with ferocious intensity.

On the bright side, things may be so bad by January 20, 2009, and people so scared, that they will be prepared to accept policies, delivered by an outstanding level of oratory by President Obama, that they would have been totally unaccepted only months before.

We know that he has the skill. But if he also has the vision and the nerve, Obama may even be able to convince America to accept the excruciating pain necessary to restructure our economy and restore our national wealth. This must involve boosting production at the expense of excessive consumption.

It is a long shot, but at least it is a possibility that could end in a resurgence of American prosperity and power. Should Obama fail to seize this painful but historic chance, the markets will be left to deliver the inevitable pain. The credit rating on American debt will be cut and the U.S. dollar and markets will plummet, delivering a blow to the standard of living of most Americans that will threaten insurrection.

Published on  Fri, Dec 5 2008, 08:19 GMT

Bailout−a−Go−Go

Tue, Dec 2 2008, 10:21 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Keeping track of the ever mutating bailout debate is becoming increasingly difficult. With the Federal money spigots now thrown wide open, and with no one of influence advising restraint, the only debate is where to direct the torrent. During the past week, the talk began with Detroit and Citigroup, but by Friday had shifted to a massive "stimulus package" to bail out consumers. The early buzz includes some very large figures. But first, a bit of a recap:

On Monday, the $300 billion Citigroup bailout took center stage. Once again Henry Paulson decided to throw taxpayer funds into a bottomless Wall Street money pit. Shockingly the Citigroup plan did not seem to demand any serious curtailment of lavish salaries and bonuses. Paulson's shameless largesse to his Wall Street friends has elevated financial industry bonuses to entitlement status.

"Remember Lehman" now seems to be the rallying cry to justify any and all financial bailouts. But Lehman's demise is in no way responsible for our current problems, and the decision to let them fail is the only bright spot in otherwise consistent record of policy mistakes. We bailed out Bear Sterns and AIG, and what did that get us?

The Citi bailout greatly increases the chances for a similarly misguided auto industry bailout. After all, if taxpayers ensure multi-million dollar bonuses for Citi executives, how can they refuse similar help for eight-figure auto executives and $70 per hour unionized auto workers?

It was inevitable that the size of these bailouts would up the ante for an economic stimulus package aimed at consumers. Not missing a beat, Barack Obama announced a $700 billion dollar fast-tracked package that will likely exceed $1 trillion before passage. (Trillions are the new billions.) The plan must be sending shivers down the spines of our foreign creditors who are expected to foot the bill. Add this cost to the hundreds of billions of prior stimulus and bailout packages, and the cost to our creditors is quickly heading into the multi-trillion dollar range. It can't be long before they cry uncle and repeat the words of prizefighter Roberto Doran "No Mas."

With so many familiar faces on his new economic team, Obama signaled his intention to "hit the ground running." With the possible exception of Paul Volcker, all of his top appointees share the view of the Bush administration that the root causes of our economic problems lie in the reluctance of banks and other financial institutions to lend. As a result, we can expect a virtual continuance of current policy.

It is no surprise therefore that both Democrats and Republicans offered healthy "huzzahs" to Henry Paulson's latest bazooka: $200 billion to purchase securities backed by auto, student, and credit card loans. It is hoped that with this transference of risk to taxpayers, lending institutions won't be so cautious, and the credit-fueled American economy can thrive anew. This is unalloyed insanity that can only lead to total ruin.

Paulson stated clearly that he would like the Fed to print as much money as it takes to revive the economy. Unfortunately the only industry likely to be revived by such policies is printing itself. But even this will not help the United States as the majority of our printing equipment is imported from Switzerland.

But what if the root of our financial problem is that American consumers have already taken on too much debt? By trying to force feed even more credit down the throats of already overly indebted Americans, Paulson's plan will only weaken the economy further.

Building on the groundwork laid by Paulson, the massive stimuli that will likely be pushed through by Obama and an overly eager Democratic Congress will further impede any real recovery. By swallowing up all available capital, spending to create government jobs will destroy far more private sector jobs. Rather than expanding government and increasing the national debt, policy makers should be thinking about doing the opposite.

The brutal truth that no one in Washington dares acknowledge is that our systemic economic problems can only be solved by a reduction in consumer borrowing and an increase in savings. We must repair our national balance sheet and a painful recession is the only path to achieve this. By interfering with the market's attempts to bring this necessary change about, all the proposals currently coming from Washington or bubbling up from think tanks and Nobel prize-winning economists, will only exacerbate the imbalances and lay the foundation for even greater losses and a larger crisis.

A short-run reduction in GDP is a sacrifice we must be willing to accept. If we swallow this medicine now, in the long run we will have a sustainable rise in GDP as higher savings leads to increased capital investment, greater productivity, and eventually a lasting increase in consumption.

Published on  Tue, Dec 2 2008, 10:21 GMT

The Truth About Bailouts

Mon, Nov 24 2008, 10:17 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

As the Federal bailout bonanza prepares to spread beyond the mortgage and financial sectors to fill Detroit's depleted coffers, few economic or policy analysts have spared a thought for the destitution of the U.S. government itself. Put simply, our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bailout a lemonade stand let alone a bloated and failing industry that is losing tens of billions of dollars per month. Washington can only offer funds that it has borrowed from abroad or printed. Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.

The argument that energizes the pro-Detroit camp is that the government should extend the same courtesy to the rank and file auto workers that it lavished upon the fat cats of Wall Street. While two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the fact remains that the Wall Street firms are still floundering despite the bailouts. What's worse, the money spent was either printed or borrowed from abroad. Both options are destructive to America.

When it comes to bailouts, the real discussions are not centered in Washington but rather in Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh. With no money of our own, our ability to bailout our own citizens is completely dependent on the world's willingness to foot the bill. While I am sure that Bush and Paulson are doing their best to convince the world that open ended financing of the United States is in the global interest, my guess is that, unlike Congress, our foreign creditors will see through the self-serving nature of our plea.

Like any bailout, our foreign creditors should consider the moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior, and the old investment adage of not throwing good money after bad. By continuing to "lend" us money, the world is merely delaying the necessary rebalancing of our upside down economy. By continuing to subsidize our reckless and outsized consumption, the world merely delays the inevitable re-balancing and exacerbates the underlying problem at the root of the current global financial crisis.

If Washington bails out General Motors, the funds will never be recovered. GM will simply burn through the bailout money and then be back for more. Talk of designing a new fleet of "green" cars that will pave the way to profitability by spurring a new buying spree is simply delusional. Given the staggering "legacy" costs of health care and pensions for millions of current and former workers, Detroit cannot produce cars profitably. Unless these costs are seriously brought down, and there is very little chance that they will be, Detroit will remain a bottomless money pit.

Similarly any money that the world lends to America to finance more consumption will never be repaid. We will simply blow through it, and be back, hat in hand, begging for more. As we painfully learned in the housing bust, lending people money that they cannot pay back makes no sense. This applies equally to foreign central banks lending to America as it does to commercial banks lending to homeowners.

So for the same reasons that Washington should not bail out General Motors, the world should not bailout America. Like GM, our economy is in desperate need of a restructuring. Spending must be replaced with savings, and consumption with production. The service sector must shrink and manufacturing must expand to fill the void. The dollar must fall, wages in America must be brought down to a competitive level, and hopefully government spending and burdensome regulation can be reduced.

This transformation will not be fun, but it is necessary. Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover. By accepting a lower standard of living today, we will eventually be rewarded with a higher one tomorrow.

Published on  Mon, Nov 24 2008, 10:17 GMT

China Plays a Better Long Term Hand

Thu, Nov 20 2008, 10:28 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

As Peter Schiff and I have long warned, America's reliance on borrowing and consumption to fuel economic activity would result in the wholesale destruction of national wealth. Until recently, the dissipation was largely invisible to most consumers. However, the ongoing plunge in real estate and equity prices and newly released statistics concerning retail sales, consumer confidence and employment have now made it plain to most Americans that their own wealth has been seriously, and perhaps permanently, degraded. In response, they are now hoarding cash and reevaluating their spending habits.

The immediate result is that the large retailers, such as Circuit City, Best Buy and Mervyn's, have gone under completely or have closed a significant percentage of their locations. Indeed, on November 17th, Moody's warned of an epidemic of corporate bankruptcies. America is facing a severe recession that, if wrongly handled, will likely lead to a depression as bad, if not worse than those of the South Sea Bubble (1720) or the Great Depression of the early 1930's.

Such a depression will affect most of the developed world. But countries will not suffer equally. In a depression, wealth vanishes. Therefore, wealth accumulation will be even more acutely divided between those nations that are, like America, net consumers and those who, like China, are producers. The contrast will become increasingly stark and will likely be reflected in the value of equities within the two economies.

For instance, contrast the recent economic stimulus packages of the two countries.

In America, President Bush's first stimulus package amounted to some $172 billion. However, it was geared 87 percent to consumers and only some 13 percent to producers. This was in keeping with the fact that consumption accounts for 72 percent of the American economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Production. In contrast, China's stimulus package is to be some $600 billion, roughly four times larger than the equivalent program in the United States. However, the American economy is five times the size of that of China, so in relative terms the Chinese package is the equivalent of some $3 trillion. In other words, to stimulate its economy China is spending some 17.4 times more than America, on a relative basis.

Furthermore the Chinese spending package is far more likely to have counter recessionary benefits than the American stimulus programs. Whereas the American package was geared to consumers, the Chinese package is geared to productive infrastructure projects that will add to the long term competitiveness of its economy. In China, real wages will filter down to consumers in the form of real wealth, as China's economy gears itself up to become an increasingly effective challenger to American superpower status.

Whereas the Bush Administration has spent only some $22 billion on economic production, it spent some $150 billion on consumers and a staggering $2.8 trillion to bail out the financial industry. The strategic emphasis of the Administration's spending of taxpayers' funds is clear for all to see. If you lend money we will support you, if you make things, you are on your own.

In America, the government both encouraged and allowed the financial system to engage in highly leveraged lending. In addition, the financial industry was permitted to hide the risk by using 'off-balance-sheet' accounting and fictitious capital asset classification. A classic example of the latter was the classification of a tax credit as 'capital' by Fannie Mae. This allowed Fannie Mae to leverage its mortgage investments by some one hundred times its 'true' capital, while disclosing only some fifty times in its accounts.

China allowed no such deceptive 'financial engineering'. It has therefore not had to spend on salvaging its banking system.

In the meantime, both the American and Chinese stock markets have suffered falls of some 50 percent. But given the far wiser policy initiatives of their government, Chinese equities appear to offer much better growth prospects than their American counterparts.

Published on  Thu, Nov 20 2008, 10:28 GMT

The Humpty Dumpty Economy

Mon, Nov 17 2008, 10:42 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Before the current economic crisis became apparent to all, the most popular fable used to describe America's uncanny economic resiliency was the story of Goldilocks. It was argued that our economy was skipping down a sunny path of moderate growth, low inflation and rising asset prices. However, a much better parable for our economy over the last decade would have been the story of Humpty Dumpty: a bloated, fragile shell perched on the top of a dangerously high stone wall. This week, all the government's horses and all of its men scrambled to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Here is a look at some of this week's highlights:

The Mother of all Moral Hazards

No doubt prodded by the administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced a new attempt to stop the fall in home prices and foreclosures through a loan modification program that would cap mortgage payments so that a homeowner's total housing expenses would not exceed 38% of household income for home owners who are 90 days delinquent.

In a classic case of unintended consequences, the plan will encourage a massive new round of delinquencies and household income reduction as homeowners will jump through hoops to qualify for the program and maximize their benefit. Those who could conceivably economize to meet their existing obligations will now have a strong reason to forego such sacrifices. Those who are not 90 days past due will intentionally become so. In many cases, dual income families may decide to eliminate one job altogether as reduced mortgage payments combined with lower child care and other work related expenses will likely exceed the after-tax value of the lost paycheck.

Unfortunately, the last thing our economy needs is falling household incomes and even more bad debt. But that is precisely what this plan will give us.

To Bail or Not to Bail

With the Big Three auto makers now in a plainly visible death spiral, the automotive bailout debate is kicking into overdrive. The disagreement hinges on whether a bailout is necessary to support an important industry or whether the unprofitable dinosaurs of the past should be allowed to fail as America focuses on an information-age, service sector, and alternative energy future.

As usual, both sides have it wrong. The government should let the Big Three fail not because we no longer need an auto industry, but because we desperately do. What we do not need is the bloated, inefficient auto industry that we have today. By allowing the Big Three to fail, their capacity will be turned over to new owners who will be able to acquire the means of production at fire sale prices and hire workers at globally competitive wages. The result will be a more efficient auto industry making cars that people around the world actually want to buy at prices they can afford. Such auto makers could conceivably be profitable and could become the cornerstone of a manufacturing renaissance in the United States. In contrast, Ford, Chrysler and GM are never ending money pits that threaten to swallow a good deal of our economy.

We Shopped and Dropped

This week, the bankruptcy filing by Circuit City and a profit warning from Best Buy, served as proof positive that America's national shopping spree is over. As I have long said, the business model of importing cheap goods for Americans to buy with credit cards was unsustainable. We were told to "Shop till we dropped," and we did.

Americans two primary sources of spending money, home equity extractions and unlimited credit card availability, have been shut down. With only dwindling paychecks to rely on, Americans are justifiably economizing. As a result, many more retailers will file for bankruptcy over the next few years, and those that remain solvent will only do so by drastically cutting their capacity.

In a desperate move to arrest this necessary process, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced his intention to use part of the $700 billion TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program) funds to re-liquefy consumer lending.

Paulson observed that "illiquidity is raising the cost and reducing the availability of car loans, student loans, and credit cards", "creating a heavy burden on the American people" and reducing jobs. While all of this is true, this is precisely what needs to happen. Americans need to reduce their spending on all of these things, and market forces are in the process of bringing that change about. By encouraging even more borrowing, Paulson's plan will aggravate the crisis.

Along those lines, our nation's various bank regulators issued a joint press release this week that "encouraged" banks to make more loans and to reduce their lending standards if need be. Since lax lending standards are one of the primary reasons that those banks "needed" to be bailed out in the first place, it is lunacy to now encourage them throw good money after bad. More risky lending (and currently nearly all lending is risky) interferes with the market's attempts to rebalance our economy along the lines that Paulson himself admits is necessary, and sows the seeds for even bigger bailouts in the future when this new crop of loans go bad.

Bait and switch

Reminiscent of his Bazooka maneuver, quick draw Paulson reversed course quickly with his decision to not use any TARP funds to buy the assets that the plan was specifically funded to procure. Instead, he will simply dole out the loot to his buddies on Wall Street and use it for whatever seemingly worthy initiative strikes his fancy.

Although Congress loves to grandstand about oversight, it has thus far shown no courage to interfere, or even question, the change in strategy. Paulson claims that he is simply rolling with the punches. The truth however, is that the original plan was flawed from inception, as I clearly pointed out in a string of commentaries following his proposal. How could the Treasury Department, with all its funding and PhD's, not make similar predictions? Paulson is either a liar or completely incompetent. My guess is he is both.

It is mindboggling to consider that all of these developments took place in just one week. As the remnants of America's shattered economy continue to ooze out over the pavement, look for even more bizarre, draconian, unworkable, and downright dangerous policies to emerge from Washington.

Published on  Mon, Nov 17 2008, 10:42 GMT

China gets it right, but hurts America

Thu, Nov 13 2008, 09:18 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

The announcement of a massive stimulus package of almost $600 billion shows that China means business not just in reviving, but also in rejuvenating its economy.

As both America and China confront the prospect of a global depression, both countries have chosen to fend off potential unrest with liberal government spending. But the Chinese move is bolder and more likely to succeed.

The most remarkable aspect of the Chinese stimulus plan is its enormous size. Despite the massive publicity surrounding its formidable growth rate, the Chinese economy is still 'only' one-fifth the size of America's. Relative to its economy, China's stimulus package would be the equivalent of a $3 trillion package in America.

The Bush-Greenspan asset booms were so extreme, and the resulting deleveraging so massive, that government actions in multiples of trillions of dollars are needed to make any meaningful impact in slowing the asset bust.

Based on this yardstick we can see that the differences in the Chinese and American approaches could not be more dramatic. The divergence bodes ill for the future.

The impact equivalent of China's package of $3 trillion is 17.4 times that of America's $172 billion. Of course, this does not include the $700 billion Bush TARP that was agreed to by Congress last month. But then, China did not have a financial system which needed a massive taxpayer bailout.

Although some Chinese investors may have been taken in by smart Wall Street salesmen peddling mortgage backed securities, the scale of these investments does not present systemic risk to China's financial markets.

China has announced that the lion's share of its stimulus spending will focus on modernizing the infrastructure of its country in preparation for challenging America as a super power in just a few more years.

In contrast, the focus of the Bush Administration plan is to boost consumer spending. America's decaying infrastructure has been virtually ignored. This will render America's economy ever less competitive in an increasingly competitive world.

Even the follow-up packages in America are likely to throw increasing amounts of taxpayer money at highly leveraged banks and failed corporations, like General Motors.

When the world recovers from the looming depression, China will emerge greatly strengthened and as a far more serious challenger for super power status.

Since the ancient times of Babylon, super power status also has been reflected in any 'uber' nation's currency. While China's economy is dominated by roaring manufacturing and infrastructure development, America's economy is comprised of 72 percent by consumers. In reality, America is consuming more than it produces and is eroding its national wealth at an alarming rate.

In contrast, emerging nations like Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRIC nations) are producing far more than they consume and are creating real wealth in the process. It follows that BRIC corporations and even their currencies should be attractive long-term investments, relative to those of the United States.

On November 15th, the G-20 leaders meet in Washington to discuss threats faced by the world economy. Today, there is decreasing faith in paper currency. The G-20 leaders must address this crucial problem. It may well be that they seize this opportunity to establish an international currency, under the auspices of the IMF, but linked to Gold.

Should they fail, a resurgent China can be expected to veto any subsequent attempts in an effort to replace the U.S. dollar with its own as the world's key 'anchor' or reserve currency. Such a change in reserve status will confer on China a number of competitive advantages previously reserved for America.

Unlike America, China is unlikely to borrow to finance its stimulus package. Indeed, it is likely to spend its own national earnings rather than continue to invest in U.S. Treasuries.

Worse still, China might even begin to sell part of its massive holdings of some $1 Trillion of U.S. Treasuries. This will put upward pressure on U.S. interest rates, tending to drive a recession into a depression.

However it is financed, China's stimulus package is decidedly bad news for America.

Published on  Thu, Nov 13 2008, 09:18 GMT

Obama to the rescue?

Tue, Nov 11 2008, 08:41 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Having received 62.5 million votes, Barack Obama has earned a spectacular personal victory and a clear mandate to bring some form of change to the United States. Obama's decisive and masterly election campaign, where he first had to outmaneuver the formidable Clinton machine, may bode well for his ability to implement a government response of unprecedented magnitude. Time will tell if this is a blessing or a curse.

In the short term, markets may likely rally on the grounds that election uncertainty is over and that Obama and a Democratic Congress may institute massive infrastructure spending along the lines of Roosevelt's New Deal. The larger question for investors will be whether Government spending will make any difference to long term performance, or whether the markets are already locked into a downward spiral that no amount of pump priming can counteract?

There is increasing evidence that the severe recession or depression that we have long forecast is now becoming reality. One has only to look inside local shopping malls to see the physical effect of a visible loss of consumer confidence. Once confidence is lost, it is exponentially more difficult to regain.

To avoid a deep recession, as the government now hopes to do, massive intervention would have been required – months ago. But, in the absence of extraordinary political cooperation with the sitting President, we can assume no significant changes in policy until Obama takes office in late January. When new programs do come, the big question will be size.

The outgoing Bush Administration, which is responsible for creating the vast asset booms, has thus far provided only $172 billion in a stimulus package and some $700 billion in authorized asset purchases, mainly to bailout Wall Street. Historically, these are large numbers, but today they are dwarfed by losses already suffered by real estate and stock investors.

Losses incurred on the $14 trillion U.S. mortgage market will be significant, and we can expect government initiatives to try to replace these vanished assets. Of course, not all of these mortgages will go bad. But with rising corporate and individual bankruptcies and increasing unemployment, an increasingly large number will default.

Almost $5 trillion of these mortgages were 'sliced and diced' into the now notorious mortgage-backed securities. Despite their 'toxic waste' content, these so-called 'securities' were sold to conservative investors, including U.S.-based pension funds, the solvency of which will be a major issue for the Obama Administration.

But the losses don't end with the mortgage market. As we had forecast, state governments and corporate America, including insurance, credit cards and auto companies, have arrived in Washington, hat in hand, asking for taxpayer money. Looming rapidly into sight is the more than $20 trillion of private sector corporate and consumer debt. As is reflected in widening credit spreads and the threatened bankruptcy of national business icons such as GM and Ford, this debt is also being called increasingly into question.

How many trillions of dollars of Government spending will be necessary to make whole the institutions and individuals swamped by this tide of credit defaults? Is the government prepared to float multi-trillion dollar annual deficits? Apparently so. If such sums are palatable to our creditors, then perhaps the worst can be avoided.

Regardless of government action, we feel that the recession will be both severe and long lasting. The resulting fall in corporate earnings will be reflected in future stock prices. In light of this, we urge investors to be wary of claims that U.S. stocks are cheap.

It is worth remembering that prior to the stock market crash of October of 1929, the Dow had peaked 381 earlier that same year. It was not until some three years later, when severe recession and then depression took hold, that the Dow reached its low of just 42, a fall of some 90 percent from its 1929 highs.

In a historical context, the Dow's recent fall from 14,164 to some 8,200 (a decline of just over 40%) does not necessarily indicate that stocks are cheap. Today, a 90% fall would bring the Dow down to a level of 1,416!

Published on  Tue, Nov 11 2008, 08:41 GMT

The Reagan Counterrevolution

Mon, Nov 10 2008, 10:14 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

In 1980, when the U.S. economy was last in serious trouble, Ronald Reagan offered the correct diagnoses that government was the problem and not the solution. His message resonated with voters, propelling him into the White House to implement an agenda of lowering marginal tax rates, reducing government spending and business regulations, restoring sound money, abolishing entire government departments, and basically allowing free market vibrancy to unshackle an economy burdened by big government. Though in practice much of the Reagan revolution never materialized, at least in theory his basic premise was sound.

In contrast, the country has now hitched its wagon to the views of Barack Obama. We don't know much about what he truly believes about economics, but the little that we do know is not encouraging. Obama has repeatedly heaped the blame for the current crisis on the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the greed of the wealthy. For him, the free market is the problem and government is the solution.

The President-elect has promised to cage the destructive forces of capitalism, impose more regulation, raise marginal tax rates, increase government spending, and restore prosperity by redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those considered to be more deserving. Like most of his generation, Obama believes that economic growth results from consumer spending, primarily from the middle class. Any policy that keeps the consumers headed to the mall will be promoted.

Unfortunately, while Reagan had a hard time getting his full agenda through Congress, Obama will likely be much more successful. The effort to concentrate more power in Washington will be far more appealing to Congress then Reagan's idea of restoring it to the people.

This sharp contrast in philosophy should not be taken lightly. Reagan looked to unleash the pent-up free market forces that had been smothered by a generation of Great Society reforms and uninterrupted Democratic control of Congress. Today, the public is looking for the Obama Administration to create the growth that the free market has apparently destroyed. The hope that our economy will grow as a result of government spending and micro-management is the most seminal shift in political philosophy since the New Deal.

Despite the absence of Reagan's promised spending cuts, the economy generally did well during his presidency (The growth would have been more genuine if the cuts had been delivered). However, Obama's policies will immediately make the current situation worse and the nation will suffer severely as a result. Rather than a sharp recession at the beginning of his term followed by a significant expansion, the recession that Obama inherits will be far worse when his first term ends.

What nearly all politicians, on both sides of the aisle, fail to understand is that the current contraction and credit crunch is necessary to restore order to an economy that is horribly out of balance. Years of misguided fiscal and monetary policy and market-distorting regulations have resulted in reckless borrowing and spending on Main Street, pervasive gambling on Wall Street, and rampant fraud and corruption at every intersection. America's borrow and spend economy, and the bloated service sector that evolved around it, must be allowed to topple, so that a more sustainable economy grounded in savings and production can rise in its place. Any government efforts to delay the adjustment and spare us the pain will backfire, turning this recession into an inflationary depression.

Of broader concern however is the sharp turn in ideology, and what it means for the future of our nation. If this is a permanent shift, then America will lose any resemblance to the economic titan of the 20th Century. Our standard of living will decline sharply, our economy will be ravaged by inflation, tens of millions will be unemployed, more individual liberties will be surrendered, and rugged individualism will be supplanted by the nanny state. In short, Latin America may extend north to the Canadian border.

However, if this shift proves temporary and Obama's reign either ends in one term or if he can summon the intelligence and courage to reverse course once the situation deteriorates, then perhaps one day there will be light at the end of a very long tunnel.

While all of us can certainly hope for the best, prudence suggests that we had better prepare for the worst. Not only does that mean divesting our portfolios of U.S. dollar denominated investments but preparing for the possibility of emigration. With economic conditions at home becoming increasingly intolerable, the call of freer economies and greater prosperity abroad may be too tempting to resist.

Published on  Mon, Nov 10 2008, 10:14 GMT

Reality Dawning...for gold

Mon, Nov 3 2008, 10:45 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Despite the fact that the governments of the G-7 nations have injected some $3.5 trillion into their financial systems to prevent a meltdown of the world's financial system, stock markets are still reeling. With some stocks down by over 60 percent, many investors already have been through a disastrous erosion of wealth. The declines have not occurred in just a few days as they did in 1929. Rather, Government interventions, regulatory changes and bailouts have drawn out the fall in prices over a long enough time period to make it feel like a slow water torture.

Nonetheless, the reality is that there has been a dramatic fall in the price of stocks, precipitated by a massive sub-prime induced deleveraging and the opening salvos of a credit crunch that will likely be with us for some time. After years of misplaced optimism, market participants are now coming to grips with some rather unpleasant recessionary prospects. So, despite government rescue measures around the world, markets continue to sputter.

Worse still, as America is perceived as the engine of the fading economic order, the looming recession appears increasingly to be both worldwide and potentially severe. Indeed, it looks likely that, if badly handled, the recession could easily slip into a depression, based on a far more highly leveraged base than in the 1930's.

Therefore, the sad conclusion of the current stock market crash is that it appears to be anticipating an economic crash, just as bad as that of the 1930's.

For a moment at least, attention is focused increasingly on economic recession and diverted from the risk of financial panic. Temporarily, this is reducing the upward pressure on the price of gold. At the same time, recessionary influences are pressing the gold price down, like other more conventional commodities. Therefore, gold continues to trend downwards, possibly even towards $600 a fine once.

In addition, as the risk of recession appears to gaining international perspective, the strength of certain non-U.S. dollar currencies, including the Euro are eroding and driving the U.S. dollar upwards. This, in turn, is bringing yet further downward pressure on the U.S. dollar price of gold.

Regardless of which candidate the United States selects, the next President will face the prospect of severe recession and be forced to "spend, spend, spend" in an effort to avoid an international depression. In the meantime, a second tsunami of credit card, auto, personal and business loan defaults is heading for the banking industry.

Investors are sensing the approaching storm. On January 12, 2009, General Motors Automobile Credit Corporation (GMAC) is due to redeem $1 billion worth of bond issues. Just three months from redemption, these GMAC bonds are trading at a massive discount from par. In today's climate, three months can feel like an eternity. It is a finite measure of only a small part of the financial storm ahead.

In the third weekend of November, leaders of the G-20 nations will assemble in Washington for urgent economic talks. There may even be calls for a new Breton Woods to discuss a revised world monetary order. Key will be China's role. It is likely that a major debasement of all currencies will be undertaken to rescue the global economy and with it, the world's politicians. As this proposal gathers momentum, gold is likely to explode in price.

However, with the possible exception of countries like Switzerland, politicians the world over are likely to create international rules designed to preclude the holders of gold from making "windfall profits."

Therefore, holders of gold should renew their efforts to ensure their holdings of gold are as isolated as possible from the long, greedy arm of the law.

Published on  Mon, Nov 3 2008, 10:45 GMT

Upping the Stimulus Dosage

Mon, Oct 27 2008, 11:01 GMT
by Peter D. Schiff

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Insanity is often defined as repeating the same action while expecting a different result. Recent Congressional activity to push through this year's second economic "stimulus" package certainly indicates that many of our political leaders may have special needs.

Responding to the $150 billion stimulus that was passed at the beginning of the year, I made the following observation in my February 15th commentary Upping the Inflation Dosage : "The failure of the stimulus plan to cure the economy will cause the Government, and the Wall Street brain trust, to conclude that it was simply too small. Their next solution will be to administer an even stronger dose."

It's interesting to recall that at the time, just 9 months ago, the $150 billion package caused much hand wringing, especially from Republicans still clinging to notions of Federal restraint. This was before an avalanche of more than $2 trillion in new spending initiatives -- before Bear Stearns, wide open discount windows, AIG, Fannie/Freddie, Federal Mortgage Auctions, Detroit loan guarantees, and preferred shares in the banks. In retrospect, the $150 billion stimulus seems quaint. It is not surprising that the latest package is expected to be twice as large. When this one fizzles, look for "Stimulus III" to be even larger.

The problem with our Government's version of economic stimuli is that it encourages the very activity that brought our economy to the brink of financial ruin in the first place. Quite plainly, the goal of all these plans is to give consumers more money to spend. However, excess consumer spending is part of the problem, not part of the solution. After a decade long spending orgy, market forces are finally trying to restrict consumer spending and dampen credit. But the stimulus looks to provide a new source of funds after savings, income, and credit have been exhausted. Our imbalanced economy is in desperate need of retrenchment, but stimulus plans will effectively hold the firemen at bay while throwing gasoline on the flames.

Politicians may say that the plan is not all about consumer spending, but is designed to fund investment. But investments conceived and executed by governments, and guided by political considerations rather than profit, often yield poor returns. The clumsy hand of the state is no substitute for the invisible hand of the free market. In addition, public sector "investment" often soaks up much of the capital which otherwise would have been available for more efficient private sector uses.

If the government were sitting on a pile of foreign reserves, then at least a stimulus plan could make some economic sense. But of course, that's not where the money comes from. To finance their largesse, the government either borrows more money from abroad, or gets it from the Fed, which simply creates it out of thin air. Either way, we undermine our economy with additional debt or inflation.

Unfortunately, the one stimulus we do need will not be supplied. To fix our current economic mess we need to diminish the activity that undermined our economy and encourage the behavior that will restore balance. Instead of encouraging Americans to go deeper into debt to buy more foreign products that we cannot afford, Americans should be encouraged to save their money, and produce more goods for export.

Fortunately, no government policy is needed to achieve this. Market forces would produce such incentives on their own. Higher interest rates and tighter credit world force people to borrow less, while simultaneously rewarding those who saved. A falling dollar that would eventually result from a recession would diminish our capacity to import while helping to restore our global competitiveness (provided it was accompanied by lower regulations and taxes) in manufacturing. Of course a lower dollar is not a good thing, but unfortunately it is the necessary consequence of our past profligacy.

Market based solutions would not be painless, which is precisely why our leaders resist them. However, as the saying goes, "no pain no gain". If we ever expect to make any legitimate progress, a higher pain threshold must be accepted.

If our elected officials really were concerned about easing the burden on consumers, they would be looking for way to reduce government spending. If government was less expensive, taxes could be lowered across the board. The only way for American citizens to spend more is for their government to spend less. Unfortunately, our government and the leading private economists believe that everyone can spend more without any serious consequences on the downside. It's a comforting idea, but it's a lie. The truth may not be pretty, but it's the only path towards a sustainable recovery.

Published on  Mon, Oct 27 2008, 11:01 GMT

A Missed Oportunity

Thu, Oct 23 2008, 09:21 GMT
by John Browne

Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.

Most Americans have come to accept the simple truth that we have eroded our national wealth by consuming far more than we produce. With this understanding taking hold, and with the severity of the financial crisis spreading, government has an opportunity to radically change course to put the nation on a different economic path. But rather than making a meaningful turn, all our politicians are willing to do is put their foot on the accelerator.

We have been told repeatedly by our leaders that consumer spending is the life force of our economy. With our industrial base all but gone, personal consumption now accounts for 72 percent of GDP. As a result, politicians simply won't allow American consumers to consider a belated bout of economic prudence.

The collapse of the real estate casino embarrassed Government and angered Americans greatly. But the crisis does create a significant political base upon which our Government could engineer a real cure for America's economic and financial ills. It is a great opportunity. So far, it has been ignored.

On the grounds that it was in America's vital interests to unfreeze the credit markets, the administration terrified Congress into authorizing a total of some $1 trillion to 'fix' or restore the system--the old flawed system! Without waiting to see if their plan has even a chance of success, the parade of self congratulations has already begun.

Together with other major G-7 nations, the U.S. Federal Reserve has led the charge to underwrite, or nationalize, the banks, with taxpayer funds. So far, the total amounts to some $3.5 trillion. Doubtless there will be much more to come.

So, the banks have been rescued, for a time at least. But what of the American economy: has that been rescued as well? The answer is a resounding 'No'!

While trillions of dollars are being spent on keeping the current, deeply flawed, banking system functioning (and their profligate executives well compensated), nothing is being done or even discussed, that will restore a sustainable balance to the American economy. Their only solutions have been economic stimulus packages that look to prop up spending with hundreds of billions of printing press dollars. Economists concede that eventually Americans will need to cut back, spend less, and save more. However, they argue that such measures are best delayed until we have printed our way back to economic health. It sounds absurd, because it is.

Americans inherently realize what is wrong, and they would likely support tougher measures to put America back on track. They want corrective action and are looking for real change. But our leaders are terrified, particularly of the truth. While they criticize business leaders for opaque accounting, Congress and the Administration lead the way in smoke and mirrors. The suspicion that the government does not tell the truth about the economy has become widely accepted.

For instance, most observers acknowledge that the public debt of the U.S. Treasury has risen from $5.2 trillion to a staggering $10 trillion in the past year. This is some 71 percent of our annual domestic production. But this is only part of the story. The national balance sheet is more notable for what it does not mention. The total U.S. Treasury debt, including private IOU's to Medicare and Social Security, is a nightmarish $50 trillion, or some 3.6 times our national earnings as measured by GDP!

Another area of potential 'eyewash' is the growing realization that many government statistics are 'cooked'. For instance, when household bills were rising at a rate of some 20 percent in early 2008, the government was reporting an official inflation rate of some 3 percent?

To restore our economy to a healthy balance will require a massive political initiative. But a skilled leader with the truth in his pocket and the political wind at his back has a chance, perhaps, of pushing through the severe and painful reforms needed. Short of this, the rake's progress will continue, with the U.S. dollar pursuing its long-term decline.

Published on  Thu, Oct 23 2008, 09:21 GMT