Anyone want to puchase debt at an artificially low interest rate from a party that's highly unlikely to be able to pay you back? Anyone?Friday, July 31, 2009
Weak Treasury Sales...Bond Vigilantes Rolling Into Town?
Anyone want to puchase debt at an artificially low interest rate from a party that's highly unlikely to be able to pay you back? Anyone?Thursday, July 30, 2009
Why Green Shoots Are Just Compost in The Greater Depression
| |||
All Green Across the Screen Today...The Rally Lives On
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Huge Oil Inventories Just Reported
This morning, the US Department of Energy reported, well, HUGE inventories in oil. Oil's decline hastened on the news.Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Detailed Review of Foreign Investment in US (Hint: It's Crashing)
Many of those in the deflation camp largely, or entirely, ignore the potential role these foreign holders may play in the drama now unfolding. But in fact, foreigners have, over the last decade, been by far the single most important source of buying for U.S. Treasuries.
Given the Treasury’s need to flog on the order of $3 trillion worth of its unbacked paper this year just to keep the government’s doors open – and that is a four- or fivefold increase over 2008 – the foreign buyers not only have to show up for the Treasury auctions, they have to show up in droves.
In mid-July, the Associated Press reported that “Foreign demand for long-term U.S. financial assets dropped by the largest amount in four months in May, as Japan and Russia trimmed their holdings of Treasury securities . . . foreigners actually sold $19.8 billion more long-term U.S. securities than they purchased in May. That compared with net purchases of $11.5 billion in April.”
Below you see the big picture of all cross-border flows in May as published by the U.S. Treasury. It shows both foreign investment in the U.S. and U.S. investment abroad. It includes Treasuries, agencies, corporate bonds, equities, and short-term instruments like T-bills. Foreigners bought a lot of T-bills when the credit crisis became acute.

This should be a serious situation with a big drop in foreign investible funds for meeting U.S. borrowing needs. The borrowing by households and business has dropped close to zero, decreasing demand, while government borrowing has jumped but is still smaller than the private borrowing drop. The Fed has added some lending.
A look at just the longer-term Securities (not T-bills) is even more convincing of the slowing of lending by foreigners:
And here is the breakdown of foreign investment into the U.S. Foreigners only continued to buy Treasuries, shunning new investment and selling off agencies in the riskier real estate market.

It’s not for nothing that the Goldman Sachs Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner is hotfooting it around the world lately, last week to Saudi Arabia and the UAE… last month to China.
The purpose of his trip, Geithner told reporters in Paris, he was doing this tour ”to make sure we keep working with governments around the world to continue to provide enough support to lift this global economy back to a sustained pattern of growth."
But the fact remains that the foreign holders of U.S. dollars have it within their ability – either deliberately or inadvertently as the result of a panic setting in – to literally destroy the U.S. currency.
The latest report shows Russia and longtime monetary ally Japan edging toward the door. China and the oil-exporting nations continue to convert an increasingly moderate amount of their trade surplus into Treasury bills – but not on a nearly large enough scale to meet the inflated (and inflating) borrowing needs of the utterly bankrupt U.S. government. And how long will they continue to show up, when an increasing number of other foreign buyers start selling their Treasuries? No one likes to be the last one to leave a party, especially when the bananas flambĂ© has tipped over on the floor and the curtains are on fire.
Put simply, the only thing now standing between the U.S. dollar holding its own and an almost overnight debasement (and history has shown us that when things go wrong with a currency, they can go wrong very quickly) is the willingness of foreigners to play nice. This was never a threat that the Japanese had to deal with during the worst of their recent dark days, but it’s a very real risk here and now in the United States.
That that risk sits on top of the monetary inflation that has been the steady response of the U.S. government so far – and will continue to be its response as the economy further erodes – is not something to be sniffed at.
On July 17, Bloomberg reported that “China’s finance ministry failed to meet its debt-sale target for a third time in two weeks at a 182-day bill sale, according to traders at Galaxy Securities Co. and China Citic Bank in Beijing. The ministry had tried to sell 20 billion yuan of bills and only sold 18.51 billion yuan, traders said. The average yield for the bills sold was 1.6011 percent, they said.”
Here’s our take on this news item: The problem from the Chinese government's point of view is that they were not able to borrow as much money as they wanted, in the light that they are now spending at a very fast clip with a big stimulus program to keep their own economy (bubble?) growing. So how can they fund the spending? They can sell off the stash of foreign-currency-denominated holdings they are sitting on. That could mean Treasuries dumped on the world market.
There are other alternatives, like getting the People's Bank of China to print up some new money for the government, which would inflate the renminbi (RMB) and decrease its international price and attractiveness. They might like to let the RMB fall to encourage exports and keep relative worker pay low on the world competitive scene. But they are also trying to make the RMB a world currency by itself, so they don't want it to look weak and at risk.
Our guess is that they are selling Treasuries and not telling.
[Ed. Note: In latest news this week, Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said China “will use its foreign exchange reserves to support and accelerate overseas expansions and acquisitions by Chinese companies.” Jiabao called it China’s “going out” strategy. Going out (with a bang), though, may be a better description of what the U.S. will ultimately do.]
This is what The Casey Report, Casey Research’s flagship publication, does: spotting budding trends in the economy and the markets, and then devising ways to profit from them. A strategy that – as thousands of happy subscribers can vouch for – is paying off... and paying off big. Right now, one of our favorite plays, and surest bets, on the economic quagmire we’re in is an investment that is almost guaranteed to be a winner. Let Casey Chief Economist Bud Conrad tell you all about it in his free report. Click here to learn more.
Press Your Luck or Pass? An 80's Game Show and the Bear Market Rally
Aaaaaaaaand stop!
Taxes on Stripper Poles? Say it Ain't So!
Dollar, Yen, Australian Dollar Rally Today - Where to Next?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Jim Rogers: I Would Not Be Buying Chinese Shares Right Now
Rogers is investing in commodities in lieu of equities as a way to play the China story.
Here's a video of his interview on Bloomberg (click the Video tab to view)
Great comments from Jim, as always - he's fired up!
More recent insights from Rogers:
Exclusive Interview With Leading Blogger MarketFolly
We have a special treat for readers today...we were fortunate recently to conduct an interview with Jay from MarketFolly.com, one of the very top blogs on finance and investing. Jay places a special focus on what the gurus are buying, especially the who's who of hedge fund managers.CBM: I’d love to hear a little about your evolution as an investor…what led you to develop this outlook on the investment world?
CBM: OK very cool. That’s a perfect lead-in to MarketFolly, your blog…what inspired you to start it?
CBM: When you started blogging, did you ever imagine you’d develop such a large following? Your readership is huge!
CBM: That's amazing - good for you. So now tell us a little about how you gear MarketFolly towards your readers. Especially as it pertains to your personal research and investment philosophy.
Are you bullish or bearish on the US dollar?
How to Get Started Trading the Markets - The Right Way
July 27, 2009
By Jeffrey Kennedy
The following is an excerpt from Jeffrey Kennedy’s Trader’s Classroom Collection. Now through August 10, Elliott Wave International is offering a special 45-page Best Of Trader’s Classroom eBook, free.
Methodology. The first phase is that all-too-familiar quest for the Holy Grail – a trading system that never fails. After spending thousands of dollars on books, seminars and trading systems, the aspiring trader eventually realizes that no such system exists.
Money Management. So, after getting frustrated with wasting time and money, the up-and-coming trader begins to understand the need for money management, risking only a small percentage of a portfolio on a given trade versus too large a bet.
Psychology. The third phase is realizing how important psychology is – not only personal psychology but also the psychology of crowds.
But it would be better to go through these phases in the opposite direction. I actually read of this idea in a magazine a few months ago but, for the life of me, can’t find the article. Even so, with a measly 15 years of experience under my belt and an expensive Ph.D. from S.H.K. University (i.e., School of Hard Knocks), I wholeheartedly agree. Aspiring traders should begin their journey at phase three and work backward.
I believe the first step in becoming a consistently successful trader is to understand how psychology plays out in your own make-up and in the way the crowd reacts to changes in the markets. The reason for this is that a trader must realize that once he or she makes a trade, logic no longer applies. This is because the emotions of fear and greed take precedence – fear of losing money and greed for more money.
Once the aspiring trader understands this psychology, it’s easier to understand why it’s important to have a defined investment methodology and, more importantly, the discipline to follow it. New traders must realize that once they join a crowd, they lose their individuality. Worse yet, crowd psychology impairs their judgment, because crowds are wrong more often than not, typically selling at market bottoms and buying at market tops.
Moving onto phase two, after the aspiring trader understands a bit of psychology, he or she can focus on money management. Money management is an important subject and deserves much more than just a few sentences. Even so, there are two issues that I believe are critical to grasp: (1) risk in terms of individual trades and (2) risk as a percentage of account size.
When sizing up a trading opportunity, the rule-of-thumb I go by is 3:1. That is, if my risk on a given trading opportunity is $500, then the profit objective for that trade should equal $1,500, or more. With regard to risk as a percentage of account size, I’m more than comfortable utilizing the same guidelines that many professional money managers use – 1%-3% of the account per position. If your trading account is $100,000, then you should risk no more than $3,000 on a single position. Following this guideline not only helps to contain losses if one’s trade decision is incorrect, but it also insures longevity. It’s one thing to have a winning quarter; the real trick is to have a winning quarter next year and the year after.
When aspiring traders grasp the importance of psychology and money management, they should then move to phase three – determining their methodology, a defined and unwavering way of examining price action. I principally use the Wave Principle as my methodology. However, wave analysis certainly isn’t the only way to view price action. One can choose candlestick charts, Dow Theory, cycles, etc. My best advice in this realm is that whatever you choose to use, it should be simple. In fact, it should be simple enough to put on the back of a business card, because, like an appliance, the fewer parts it has, the less likely it is to break down.
For more trading lessons from Jeffrey Kennedy, visit Elliott Wave International to download the Best of Trader’s Classroom eBook. It’s free until August 10.
Jeffrey Kennedy is the Chief Commodity Analyst at Elliott Wave International (EWI). With more than 15 years of experience as a technical analyst, he writes and edits Futures Junctures, EWI's premier commodity forecasting service.
Health Care Reform - What a Joke!
Hyperinflation? Not in Airline Tickets
Why "Paper Trading" Is Worthless
What's the best way to get your feet wet trading/investing?Paper trading doesn't get you any "live fire" training on overcoming your emotions. It's like trying to learn how to hit a baseball by swinging an imaginary bat. So what's the new trader to do?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Doug Casey Rips the Supreme Court - Says They "Don't Matter"
![]() | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
| About Casey | Forward this email | www.CaseyResearch.com | |||||||||
Marc Faber Says China's Growing at 2-3%, Not 8%
Bud Conrad Likes the Short Play on Interest Rates
Saturday, July 25, 2009
How the Chinese Gov't Goosed Intel's Results - This Week in Commodities!

Friday, July 24, 2009
What's the Deal With Natural Gas - Is It Cheap, or Not?
By David Galland, Casey Research
At the height of its late 2005 rally, natural gas in the U.S. was selling for just over $16/MMBtu, 350% higher than today’s price of $3.56. The oil/gas ratio, now over 18, is an all-time high… suggesting that natural gas is dirt cheap. So, it’s a buy, right?
In a phrase, not exactly.
According to a recent report by Natural Gas Intelligence, U.S. natural gas available for production “has jumped 58% in the past four years, driven by improved drilling techniques and the discovery of huge shale fields in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Pennsylvania, according to a report issued Thursday by the nonprofit Potential Gas Committee (PGC).”
According to the report, the increase in gas discoveries and production improvements means that North America shouldn’t have to be concerned about gas supplies for up to 100 years!
Dr. Marc Bustin provided an overview of the situation in the May edition of Casey Energy Opportunities.
The numbers currently kicked around are that something around 2,000 trillion cubic feet of gas are technically recoverable in the United States. At current production rates, this supply would last about 90 years.
Some analysts are predicting that even if the U.S. economy recovers in the next year, the amount of gas discovered to date in gas shales will severely dampen any increase in gas price for some time. According to a new study by energy consulting firm CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), new technologies for unconventional gas fields are being applied so successfully that supply is essentially no longer a driver in either production or price in the North American gas market – whatever the market wants, North American gas fields can supply. CERA reports that natural gas production in the Lower 48 states has risen a startling 14% from 2007 to 2008, for example.

Given the increase in production and the small slide in demand, the price of natural gas has fallen to around $3.50-$4.00 per MMBtu (down from $13 per MMBtu last summer). At these prices, many gas prospects are uneconomic, and thus there has been a marked decline in the number of wells being drilled. Rig activity (how many rigs are operating) is down about 50% in North America.
But here is where an interesting feedback mechanism kicks in. One of the characteristics of unconventional shale gas wells, and to a lesser extent natural gas wells in general, is that the production rate declines through time. Most shale wells’ production rates decline 60 to 90% in the first year. If you were a gas company trying to survive amidst today's low prices, the rate of return on your capital investment would also be painfully low for a significant amount of gas if this were your initial year of production.
Another complementary fact is that over 50% of natural gas consumed in the United States today is from wells drilled less than three years ago, and 25-30% of the gas produced today comes from wells drilled last year (Figure 2).
Hence it follows that if there are 50% fewer wells drilled this year (from the drop in rig activity), new production will decline about 35-40% by the end of the year, so there will be gas shortages. Those will in turn lead to higher North American prices, which in turn should lead to additional drilling.

Everything else being equal (which it's not, this being the real, not the mathematical world), gas prices and drilling will see-saw until an equilibrium is reached. In detail, of course, things are more complicated, but it is pretty clear that gas prices will have to rise within the year, and the big losers will remain the more expensive plays that require higher gas prices to be economic.
Where will the gas price end up in the short term? A poll of analysts by Reuters suggests $6 MMBtu in 2010 (Daily Oil Bulletin, May 4, 2009), but I don’t think I would bet on a gas price based on a vote by analysts. At the same time, it's an interesting coincidence (or not – coincidence, that is) that many prospects become economic at around the $6 MMBtu range. Among them are the Haynesville and Marcellus shales – and it's no large leap from there to see their tremendous gas production potential acting as a buffer to gas prices going much higher in the near term.
Marin Katusa, who heads the Casey Research energy team, answers the question by, correctly, cataloging the opportunities according to geography.
In North America:
- Geothermal -- the most interesting of the alternative energy sources, by a wide margin.
- Nuclear.
- Oil.
In Europe:
- Unconventional gas has, by far, the most upside.
- Unconventional oil.
- Small hydro (such as run of river).
In Africa:
First and foremost, you want to avoid infrastructure plays (pipelines, refineries, etc). Then you want to look for areas with huge oil potential, which have been held off the market by concerns over political risk. I like what Lukas Lundin is doing in Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, hunting for “elephants” with the idea of eventually selling the discoveries off to the Chinese.
In Asia:
- Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)
- Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
Lessons to Learn
There are a couple of useful lessons to be derived by investors looking to tap into the virtually unlimited opportunities in energy.
First, just because something is “cheap” doesn’t mean it can’t stay cheap, regardless of historical ratios -- if there has been a fundamental shift in the supply/demand equation. Which is very much the case with North American natural gas.
Secondly, geological and transport considerations make much of the energy complex a “local” market.
For example, while North America enjoys an abundance of natural gas, Europe is forced to rely on the heavy-handed Russians for the bulk of supplies. As you read this, there are companies looking to break the Russian grip by applying the same unconventional gas technologies that have so successfully built gas supplies in the U.S. -- technologies that are only just now being applied in Europe. Early investors could reap huge profits.
In short, the real opportunities are not found by simply “investing in energy” but rather by taking the time to understand the structural differences within the energy complex and cherry picking the special situations that invariably exist in a sector this large.
David Galland is the managing director of Casey Research, LLC., a private research firm providing independent analysis and investment recommendations to individual and institutional investors in North America and over 100 other countries around the globe. To learn more about the monthly Casey Energy Opportunities advisory, including a special three-month, fully guaranteed trial subscription, click here now.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
5 Easy Ways to Invest in Sugar...and Other Agricultural Commodities
One of the commonly asked questions on our recent reader survey (appreciate you checking it out here if you haven't already) was:- PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund (DBA) - Consists of roughly equal parts corn, soybeans, wheat, and sugar. Not something I'd buy and hold for 10 years, but something you can trade in/out of fairly safely. I'd consider buying the breakouts, and setting a trailing stop.
- Jim Rogers Agricultural Index (RICIA) - Despite the fact that this is supposed to track the Rogers Index itself, it scares me a bit, because I've never understood who was behind it. I've also seen RJA mentioned, which may be worth a look, but I can't vouch for it personally. Instead, I would recommend...
- Direct investment in the Rogers index via Uhlmann Price Securities - The official fund. They do have a minimum investment level, I'm not sure what it is right now. If you want to buy and hold a basket of commodities/agriculture for the next 5-10 years, this is probably the best way to do it, and it's hard to see how you could go wrong.
- Potash (POT) - Can include many of the other fertilizer guys here as well. Analogy here is that you're buying the guys that make the "picks and shovels" for the coming agriculture boom. Don Coxe likes this method of playing the ag boom. Requires some stock picking, unless you just pick up an index of these guys...which would be...
- Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF (MOO) - An index of the picks and shovels guys.
- Livestock Index (COW) - Bonus pick! This one is simple...it's just lean hogs and live cattle futures. The play on agricultures is that cattle and hogs eat grains - a lot of grains - so rising input prices should eventually result in rising meat prices. This is one you probably also want to buy on a breakout, and have a trailing stop.
Why Trade Deficits Don't Matter, and Other Knocks to Common Wisdom
- Trade deficits - they don't really matter any more
- Prosperity in the US is actually increasing, despite what mainstream reports say
- Socialism vs. Capitalism - the US and Europe are more closely aligned than commonly believed, even before the crisis
Your Stimulus Dollars at Work...An Airport for Nobody
Breakdown of World Supply and Demand for Gold

How Is Gold Going to Fare This Year?
Gold started the summer doldrums looking strong and has retreated since, but what are its prospects for the rest of the year and beyond? That will largely be determined by the interplay between supply and demand; let’s take a look at the supply side.
Reports of dwindling supply are accurate in some areas; however, the story is not that simple. Unlike most metals that are consumed in industrial use, most of the gold ever mined is still around. Gold is forever. Thus newly mined, refined, and fabricated gold is not all that’s entering the marketplace; there are multiple ways of meeting demand. Here’s a look at each.
Breaking Rocks
Imagine that you could turn back the calendar to late 1848, as word was beginning to spread about the gold discovery at John Sutter’s sawmill on the South Fork of the American River in Coloma, California. Would you have loved gold enough to be one of the 49ers who responded to its siren song?
Those were heady times. The Golden State – though it wouldn’t officially receive its apt nickname until 1968 – had a seemingly endless supply of yellow metal, much of it just lying in remote creek beds, waiting to be scooped up. The French Ravine in Sierra County yielded single nuggets of 426 oz. in 1851 and 532 oz. in 1855. By 1869, the record was a monstrous 1,893-ounce specimen from the Monumental Mine in the Sierra City district.
The days of fabulous discoveries are not entirely gone. As recently as 1980, Kevin Hillier, a lucky Aussie following beeps from a metal detector, dug up a nugget that tipped the scales at 876 troy ounces. And in Ruby, Alaska, in 1998, bulldozer operator Barry Clay was stunned to see a 294-ounce nugget roll off the dirt pile ahead of his blade.
Modern commercial producers, though, aren’t looking for fist-sized nuggets, or even the fingernail-sized flakes that many 49ers hoped to find at the bottoms of their pans. Today, a major gold strike might grade out at 5 grams per ton of rock, and economical recovery is routinely done at significantly lower levels.
The easy-to-get stuff is largely gone. With demand rising, miners are struggling to produce ever more gold from ever-lower grades of ore. And they’re falling behind.
The CPM Group’s 2009 Gold Yearbook, one of the bibles of the industry, notes that world gold production peaked in 2001, after increases in 14 of the 15 prior years (despite a vicious bear market). Production increased only fractionally in 2001, to 82.1 million ounces, and has declined in five of the seven years since. And substantially so, with 2008 production coming in at only 74.6 million ounces, a more than 9% drop.
There are a number of simple reasons for the production decline. The older, more productive mines are playing out; newer mines tend to be lower grade; fresh mega-discoveries have become rare; cost of extraction has soared; environmental regulations are more stringent; and greedy governments demand a growing slice of the revenue pie.
South Africa has been particularly hard hit. After ruling the roost for nearly a century, it dropped to second place in production, behind China, in 2007; and into third, behind the U.S., last year. South African output topped out in 1970, at 32 million ounces, and has since fallen off more than 75%. Some miners now must burrow two miles underground to bring up something usable, and the country appears about played out.
Though the U.S. does hold the #2 spot, at 7.6 million ounces in 2008, it too has experienced a long slide. From the 1998 peak of 11.9 million ounces, it’s fallen every year but one, for a 36% overall decline.
There are some bright spots. Russia, still mostly unexploited, continues slowly but steadily ramping up production, delivering 5.9 million ounces to market in 2008. And China’s industry is growing by leaps and bounds. It captured world leadership in 2007 and cemented that position last year, with production of just over 9 million ounces.
In addition, there are some very large, well-defined deposits waiting to come on line. Kinross/Barrick’s Cerro Casale project in Chile, with 23 million ounces of gold reserves, is scheduled for a 2012 commencement; Barrick’s Pueblo Viejo in the Dominican Republic (20.4 million ounces) is slated for 2011; Newmont’s Boddington Expansion (13 million ounces) is targeted for the third quarter of this year.
But other elephant-sized discoveries are problem-laden. NovaGold/Barrick’s Donlin Creek project in Alaska (30 million ounces) is so remote it may never be economical; Barrick’s Pascua Lama on the Chile/Argentina border (18 million ounces) has been beset by anti-mining NGOs; and Las Cristinas in Venezuela (16.9 million ounces) probably will be developed only if Hugo Chavez is in the mood.
Considering the present state of the industry and the limited opportunities for developing new mines, we think it likely that gold production will fail to meet consumption for years to come. Either the price must rise to mute demand, or the shortfall must be made up from elsewhere.
The Gnomes of Zurich (and Beijing, and…)
For the past two decades, central banks have been dishoarding their gold at a pretty decent clip and have been a major source of the metal hitting the market.
Before 1999, each central bank was free to sell whatever amount it cared to. But in that year, the 15 largest European central banks (excepting only Britain) adopted a Central Bank Gold Agreement (CBGA). Although not a signatory, the U.S. sponsored the CBGA – allegedly to promote stability in the gold market – and adheres to it on an informal basis.
Under the five-year terms of the agreement, participating central banks are limited to selling an aggregate total of 500 metric tons (or 16.1 million ounces, if you think retail) of gold in any given year. The current CBGA period expires this September, but the agreement is widely expected to be renewed.
Since 2005, the trend has been notably down, with a particularly steep drop-off from 2007 to 2008. Among CBGA banks, 2007 sales were right at the limit, 15.9 million ounces, but that plunged nearly two-thirds, to 5.8 million ounces, in ’08. And the CPM Group estimates that 2009 will see another CBGA sales decline, to about 5 million ounces.
Central banks not only show increasing reluctance to part with their gold, some are now net buyers. Russia led the way in this department, adding nearly 2 million ounces to its holdings in 2008.
Then there is China. That country has made a lot of noise lately about its waning confidence in the long-term value of its forex holdings, primarily U.S. dollars, and has been aggressively trading them for tangible assets. Many analysts believed that the buying spree would likely include gold, but no one could say for sure. China’s internal financial affairs are rather less than transparent to outsiders.
However, the conjecture is now confirmed. In April, the People’s Bank of China stunned the markets by announcing that over the past six years, it had been quietly adding 14.6 million ounces to its reserves.
China’s announcement had little immediate effect. But considering China’s elevated position in the world economic pecking order, other governments are sure to take notice and follow its example.
How Much for the SOB’s Wedding Ring?
The supply source that’s taken the biggest leap forward in recent times is the recycling business. So-called “scrap gold” includes rings from failed marriages, earrings with missing mates, out-of-fashion bling – and anything else that’s been gathering dust in the jewelry box. Old electronics, too. A ton of discarded cell phones will yield 150 grams of gold, 30 times what a miner gets from an average ton of ore.
People are hip to the rising gold price, and they’re parting with their unwanted baubles en masse. It’s big business. TV ads soliciting scrap abound, including one during the Super Bowl; Internet recyclers have proliferated; and in some suburban neighborhoods, gold has replaced Tupperware as the focal point for social gatherings.
The flood of scrap has hardly been insignificant. CPM reports that it rose an estimated 18.9% in 2008, to 38.5 million ounces, following a 23.3% jump in ’07. Scrap sellers are bringing to market more than half as much gold as all the world’s miners.
The CPM Group does predict that the trend in scrap will start slowing, but still forecasts a rise of perhaps 5% this year, to 40.5 million ounces.
CPM gives two reasons for the projected slowdown. First, so much has already been melted down that sellers may be reaching the point where they will want to hang on to whatever’s left. And second, refineries are running at capacity and have little further capability for turning earrings into ingots.
As long as the price of gold remains high and economic distress continues, people who are hurting will keep swapping metal for dollars. And tons of scrap, melted down and released back to consumers, definitely serve as a drag on the gold price.
How much scrap will be recycled in the next few years is unknown, and so the effect on the market remains to be seen. The safest assumption is that this year will be much like the last, with gold’s ascent comparably retarded -- meaning, not much.
Conclusion
While the market will be well supplied with new gold in 2009, whether it will exceed or lag consumption is the $64,000 question. Both jewelry and industrial consumption are on the wane, leaving investment demand as the driver. It is heavy and getting heavier, as more and more people come to believe in the wisdom of having some physical metal in their possession. Or at least investing in a paper proxy such as the SPDR Gold Trust, which in a few short years has risen from nothing to the sixth largest gold owner in the world.
Gold is increasingly viewed by investors as what it’s been throughout history: a safe-haven asset whose value can be counted on in hard times. Thus we recommend to our subscribers to keep one-third of their portfolio in physical gold. But the real money is made in gold-related investments, such as royalty companies and medium to large gold producers with millions of ounces under their belt. Our current favorite is such a slam-dunk winner that we call it “48 Karat Gold.” Click here to read our report.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
When Will Debt Deflation Turn Into Hyperinflation?
We know that, right now, we are most likely in a period of "debt deflation." Wages are falling. Prices also appear to be falling - though this is open for debate, as there are smart people who believe prices are steady or even rising. For example, Marc Faber recently said he's surprised that prices are not falling faster during this downturn, which may be an ominous sign for inflation.The answer, said Mr. Parenteau, is found in credit and wages. No matter how inflationary the government may be, true hyperinflation can’t be had until the consumer has access to excessive credit and his wages rise as the value of money falls. In the current environment, where credit is tight and wages are falling, rapid inflation would only be possible if there were a true crisis of confidence in the dollar. If that were to happen, he assured us, it’d be pretty obvious.
Local retailers are offering big discounts, too. Last weekend, I saw three retailers advertising liquidation sales with entire store discounts of at least 50%.
Even Internet retailers are using heavy discounts. I bought some bicycle equipment online last week. I got a 40% discount on the retail price... then another 20% discount as part of a Fourth of July sale.
The Federal Reserve may be inflating our currency, but when it comes to the prices of the goods and services I use, I only see deflation.
Cheap credit is the cause. Credit's been too cheap – on and off – for the last three decades. Cheap credit caused savers to spend more than normal and entrepreneurs and businesses to borrow and build more than normal. It led to overinvestment in production and service capacity.
Last year, we reached the peak of the credit and price boom... and now prices are falling. We're in what economists call a "debt deflation."
Monday, July 20, 2009
Gold Stocks Weakening...Ominous Sign for Bullion?

Great Marc Faber Video Interview (Says No Way Around US Inflation)
- Doesn't see any way out of inflation in the US...even if deflation hits, the Fed will monetize more and more debt
- Though thinks we could have temporary bouts of deflation
- Can't see how the US will solve its debt problem
- Thinks the Chinese should dump US Treasuries while they still can
- The economy will be down in the dumps for a long time
Marc Faber is one of the sharpest investors in the world, and is author of the excellent book: Tomorrow's Gold: Asia's age of discovery.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Trading With the Wave Principle - Free Video
|
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Centrally Planned Entrepreneurship, More Anecdotal Deflation


Thursday, July 16, 2009
$20 Oil Just Around the Corner? Energy Expert Predicts It
Crude oil expert Philip Verleger, who correctly predicted oil would hit $100 back in 2007, is now forecasting $20...this year!Doug Casey on How to Stash Gold Bullion

Doug Casey on Nuts & Bolts: Handling Bullion
(Interview by Louis James, International Speculator)L: Doug, we get a lot of questions about how to handle significant amounts of bullion. So let's talk about physical gold, and what to do with the stuff. First off, do you really think that people should put as much as one-third of their asset portfolios into physical gold?
Doug: Yes, I do, and at considerable risk of repeating myself, I'll tell you why:
First and foremost, precious metals bullion is the only financial asset class you can own that is not simultaneously someone else's liability. When you own an ounce of gold, you own an ounce of gold. It's not just a piece of paper that conveys a right to it from parties that may or may not even exist if and when you want to turn their liability into an actual, unencumbered asset in your pocket.
With today's markets suffering from volatility and disruptions of truly historic proportions, that sort of solidity is worth a lot - as you can see from gold's continuing strength. The dollar is in huge trouble and is on its way to reaching its intrinsic value, which is very bullish for gold.
Second, gold is natural money. It's uniquely well suited for use as money. Aristotle explained why, over 2,000 years ago, but in brief, it's because it's convenient, consistent, durable, divisible, and has intrinsic value (or, in Austrian economic terms, it has high intersubjective value).
So, if things get really bad and push comes to shove, you'll always find someone willing to take your gold in exchange for things you need. Come hell or high water - actually, especially in cases of unleashed hell and high water - your bullion will still be an acceptable form of payment... long after people stop bothering to pick up paper money blowing along the cracked streets of dying cities.
Third, gold offers excellent speculative upside at this time, precisely because the markets are so turbulent, with relatively little downside risk - again for the same reason; the fear factor will keep gold prices strong for the foreseeable future and could drive them to the moon with little notice. That's not a ride you want to miss.
L: What about people for whom one-third of their portfolio constitutes a substantial sum - much more than you can stuff under a mattress? Do you use Perth Mint Certificates?
Doug: You're right. Carrying a significant amount of value in gold coins is bulky - and forget about silver, which gets extremely bulky for larger dollar amounts. That's an important consideration given how critical it is to diversify your assets internationally, so you're not totally controlled by your own government.
It's still legal to carry gold coins across borders. Gold isn't currently considered a "monetary instrument," so you can still arguably carry, say, 100 Krugerrands (worth about $100,000) across a border legally, even though you're supposed to declare "monetary instruments" in excess of $10,000 in most places these days. But a large amount of gold could get you referred to a TSA supervisor, and I'd rather see a dentist who doesn't believe in anesthesia than that. The rules and their interpretation are quite Kafkaesque. Although I promise that none of the TSA's 50,000 employees will have ever heard of Kafka.
Vehicles like the Perth Mint Certificate are excellent choices for securing larger amounts of gold. They basically boil down to outsourcing your storage and security needs to a highly respected and secure vault, and in the case of PMCs, they are backed by the government of Western Australia. You own the gold, not just a paper or electronic promise representing gold, and can take delivery via FedEx any time you want. And the certificates are transferable, so there's some liquidity to owning gold in this way, without having to take delivery. (Click here for more information on the PMC programs' with our friend's at Kitco or Asset Strategies.)
But that's for after you've set yourself up with all the physical gold you want in your possession. Because as good as PMCs are, it's still only a piece of paper you have in your actual physical possession. It's only one step removed from physical gold, but a step removed, just the same.
If you are worth many millions, it's obviously problematic to go around with several million in gold bullion on you, but you should have at least a few hundred thousand dollars of gold in your personal possession. The rest can be held in things like PMCs or GoldMoney.com, another good alternative. GoldMoney.com stores your gold in London and Zurich and allows you to transfer it electronically, which is quite convenient. I've known Jim Turk, who runs it, for many years and have a great deal of confidence in him. The last alternative is a safe deposit box in a foreign country.
Be careful with that, however. I was just in Switzerland last week, and they have gone from simply discouraging Americans to unilaterally closing accounts held by Americans (unless you also live in Switzerland and are a resident of the country). They're sending checks to last known addresses, so you can't have a dormant account anymore, like in the old days. And it's even worse; if you're an American with a safe deposit box in Switzerland, watch out, because they are closing those as well. If they can't find you, some of the banks are opening the boxes and removing the contents. They set the stuff aside somewhere, not in a safe deposit box anymore.
L: What - they just dump the stuff in a cardboard box and shove it into a corner of the basement until you come and get it?
Doug: Well, not cardboard, but it's serious. You can't have a safe
deposit box in Switzerland anymore, certainly not with a major bank
(though there are private companies in Switzerland that still offer
the service). And it'll happen in other countries too
L: Switzerland isn't even Switzerland anymore.
Doug: I know. Switzerland was an idea, and like America, it doesn't exist anymore.
L: So, are safe deposit boxes anywhere safe any longer? The long arm of the law is long indeed when it comes to the U.S. IRS.
Doug: That's right. These agencies can do pretty much anything they want, and it's become very problematical. You could establish a safe deposit box in Russia, and they wouldn't be likely to cooperate with the U.S. tax authorities, but you'd be at risk from their own bureaucrats with guns. I'd forget about Europe - wouldn't trust any of those governments.
Of the remaining possibilities, I favor Uruguay. Hong Kong might not be bad, since the Chinese aren't going to roll over for U.S. officials, and Thailand has always been very neutral. Panama is a reasonable possibility. Canada is a possibility. With the exception of Canada, these places have the advantage of not getting a lot of American traffic, so it's less likely that U.S. authorities will bother with the time and expense it takes to bully a foreign power into submission. Switzerland was well known and frequently used as a financial shelter, and that's why it became the focus of so much arm-twisting by various tax authorities.
L: What about skipping the safe deposit boxes then, and going private? Would it make sense to leave smaller caches in various countries with people you trust?
Doug: Yes, it would, but you have to watch out for the mistake W.C. Fields made, of opening a new bank account in every new town he went to. After a while, he had hundreds of bank accounts and forgot where they all were. You don't want all your eggs in one basket - but you also don't want so many baskets you can't watch them all.
You've got to be thoughtful and innovative. The governments are changing the rules, and you have to think of ways to keep ahead in the game. Think for yourself and be independent.
And this doesn't just apply to Americans. The U.S. government is the big problem in the world today, but there are certainly other problems. The French and the Germans, for example, are pressuring the Swiss in the same way that Americans are.
L: Anything people should think of stashing, besides gold?
Doug: Well, they keep raising the taxes on cigarettes - a pack now costs $10 in some places in the U.S, that's 50 cents per individual cigarette. If you're American and are going to be storing things, you probably can't go wrong building a stash of cigarettes. Even if you don't smoke - or perhaps especially if you don't smoke - every time you return to the U.S., you should buy the maximum amount of duty-free cigarettes allowed and store them.
The other thing Americans should do is buy a lot of shotgun shells, 9mm, .45, .223, and .308 ammo. Even if you don't shoot, you can set those aside and store them too, because they're going to be taxed and regulated to the nth degree. And properly stored, they keep for a very long time.
In fact, anything regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- one of the most corrupt, dangerous, and useless of all federal bureaucracies -- is likely to go up considerably in both price and value. It's perverse that the U.S. has a bureaucracy to regulate the three things you need for a hunting trip or a good party. Maybe their next trick will be to convert the DEA into the Bureau of Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n' Roll.
L: I used to write about the wisdom of stashing the "3 Gs": gold, guns, and generators. All three are useful in and of themselves and have high resale values.
Doug: Yes, exactly. I hate to sound like an alarmist, but I really do think things are going to get scary - and if they don't, you can still sell these commodities in the future.
L: What about diamonds?
Doug: I wouldn't do diamonds. That's a really specialist market, and diamonds have long seemed to me to be subject to artificial pricing. There are at least two separate technologies now that create totally flawless, real diamonds. They are indistinguishable from natural diamonds, except that they don't have any flaws. But people will figure out how to introduce some flaws into those too, so I think the diamond market is in for a collapse at some time in the future. I could go on - let's just say that for many reasons, diamonds are the one gemstone I wouldn't touch.
L: Besides, they are less liquid. Relatively few individuals are trained to evaluate the color, clarity, cut, etc. of diamonds, whereas it's easy to identify a gold Eagle and know how much it's worth.
Doug: That's right. And they are not divisible -I just wouldn't touch them at all.
L: Okay. Is there anything else you would put in your safe deposit box today? Cash?
Doug: I wouldn't put any significant amount of currency in one; that's a guaranteed depreciating asset. I used to collect stamps, but no longer. I have no opinion on them as investment vehicles, but I came to realize that they are all relics of government monopolies, and I just didn't want them anymore.
Rare coins are tricky too, though I've always enjoyed collecting ancient Greek and Roman coins, which are actually a form of genuine artwork. But I've never seen the fascination with collecting slugs turned out by the U.S. Mint.
In general, I focus on gold bullion coins.
L: Okay, Doug, thanks for another interesting conversation.
Doug: You're very welcome - I hope this helps some of our readers protect their wealth in the tumultuous times ahead. That's a primary focus of our new Casey Gold & Resource Report, and, of course, of the International Speculator, both of which I highly recommend for more information on the subjects we've covered.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
Dear Subscribers, we have discontinued use of the Questions for Casey link in Conversations with Casey. The intent for the link was not to offer personal investment advice or for Q & A in general, but rather to gather suggested topics, either timeless or topical to the day, for discussion in Conversations With Casey. We apologize for any misunderstandings.
| Forward today's conversation with Doug to a friend | |
About Casey | Forward this email | www.CaseyResearch.com
© 2009 Casey Research.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
How to Profit From Boneheaded Cap and Tax (errr, Trade) Regulations

By Doug Hornig, Editor, Casey Research
It’s possible that no concept in history has ever come so far, so fast, and with so little substance behind it, as “global warming.” Or, to be precise, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – the kind caused by us puny humans rather than by that fireball that keeps the planet habitable.
We’re extraordinarily lucky. If present thinking is correct, the first single-celled living organisms may have appeared as much as 3½ billion years ago, and it would appear that once life arrived, it never went away. That’s a very long time for conditions to have remained favorable enough to keep the chain from breaking.
As the eons unspooled, Earth’s climate varied, sometimes wildly. It has been much hotter than it is today, and much colder. (One current theory holds that the average surface temperature has regularly oscillated between 120° and -50°F.) Nearly all of the changes have been due to variations, some of them cyclical, in the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the planet. Through it all, life endured, because of the existence of carbon.
Now, rather suddenly, carbon is the designated boogey man. Individually and collectively, we are told, we must work on reducing our “carbon footprint,” or else something awful is going to happen. The headlines are terrifying: we’ll have hellacious droughts, monster hurricanes, and entire cities disappearing beneath the waves.
Well, perhaps. In a climatic feedback system as complex as Earth’s, anything is possible. More likely, though, is that we’ll see none of the above. Or at least not because of anything humans do or fail to do.
The simple (yes, inconvenient) truth is that scientists don’t even know whether the planet is warming at all, let alone if AGW has any role in causing it. The data are inconclusive at best. Most of those dire predictions you’ve read are based upon computer modeling, and anyone who watches the nightly weather forecast knows how infallible that tends to be.
Yet the truth has not prevented the AGW theory from being presented to the public as fact. Its proponents have so captured the media that Al Gore’s Nobel Prize is a huge story, while the Manhattan Declaration of 2008 gets nary a mention in the press. The latter, endorsed by hundreds of prominent citizens, including two hundred climate scientists, concluded that “current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.”
Sadly, that misallocation is about to get a whole lot bigger. If the Obama administration has its way – and it is expected to, since there’s no meaningful opposition – carbon caps will soon be coming to every American town.
If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of a carbon cap, it’s simple. It’s a tax. The president wants to reduce per-capita U.S. carbon emissions to 14% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by 2050. And he’s promoting this as a good idea by suggesting that it will pour $646 billion into federal coffers between 2012 and 2019, through government auctions of the rights to emit greenhouse gases. Those rights would be sold to energy companies, manufacturers, utilities, or anyone else who “pollutes” the air with carbon dioxide. And they could be traded.
Leave aside the question of whether reducing human carbon emissions is truly a valid goal; and whether we need another huge tax; and whether the government will do anything constructive with an infusion of our money, to the tune of nearly two-thirds of a trillion dollars. Instead, just consider the consequences.
The cost of everything will go up, as the affected businesses compensate for their lost revenue. If carbon credits are auctioned at the lower end of the projected range (between $13 and $20 a ton), estimates are that the average price of gasoline will jump by 12 cents a gallon and the average electricity bill by 7%.
Worse, though, is that the pain will be unevenly distributed. As the Detroit News editorialized, the cap-and-trade plan “is a giant dagger aimed at the nation’s heartland -- particularly Michigan. It is a multi-billion-dollar tax hike on everything that Michigan does.”
That is, it penalizes states and regions with large manufacturing bases and coal dependence for electricity, and rewards places with larger populations but light industry and cleaner power plants. As Michael Morris, CEO of coal-heavy American Electric Power, put it: “It is a clear transfer of the middle part of the country’s wealth to the two coasts.” Small wonder that politicians from California and New England are such enthusiastic supporters.
For what to expect here, we can look to Europe, where cap-and-trade is firmly established. While it has worked, in the sense of lowering carbon emissions (though not by as much as anticipated), its effects have been stifling. For example, the Washington Post cited “the Dutch silicon carbide maker that calls itself the greenest such plant in the world, but now can't afford to run full-time; the French cement workers who fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before – even as their utility companies earn record profits.”
This is what’s coming to your town, if Congress capitulates to the White House. The bill that will bring us cap-and-trade recently squeaked through the House with just a single vote to spare. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where opposition is stiff. Modifications surely will be made. But with Al Franken having cemented the Democratic super-majority, it’s a lock to pass in some form or other.
Ever-savvy, the market isn’t waiting. Although no cap is yet in place, carbon credits have already arrived. There’s even a place to trade them, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), founded in 2003. And companies are busily buying and selling in anticipation.
How does it work? CCX’s website explains: “CCX emitting Members make a voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet annual GHG [greenhouse gas] emission reduction targets. Those who reduce below the targets have surplus allowances to sell or bank; those who emit above the targets comply by purchasing CCX Carbon Financial Instrument® (CFI®) contracts.”
In other words, some outfits are stocking up on purchased credits, against the day when they’ll be required by law. Others are speculating that the value of those credits will go up once the federal cap is in place. And some are making a lot of money simply by selling carbon reductions they’ve already made.
Among the players are expected names from the heavy industry and utilities sectors: DuPont, Ford, Reliant, American Electric Power, Potash Corp., Waste Management, and so on. But it’s a very long list, and on it are tech companies like IBM and Intel; retailers like Safeway; Miami-Dade County, Florida and Sacramento County, California; the University of Idaho and half a dozen other schools; even the Embassy of Denmark.
There’s no secret key to why so many want a piece of this action. It’s going to be a very, very big business. If European standards are applied to the U.S., we’re talking about a quarter-trillion dollars of credit trading a year.
Investors – if they’re well heeled enough and willing to assume a lot of risk -- can participate directly in carbon credit trading. Or they can buy stock in the parent of CCX, which is publicly traded in London.
But there are other ways to profit from this unstoppable force.
For example, by investing in select junior exploration companies focused on alternative energies, oil, or uranium. But in these volatile times, it is vital to not only invest in the right companies but to use the right investment strategies. Like the 20-60-20 rule or the Casey Free Ride Formula described in our new, FREE special report Profiting in a New Era. Applying these tactics can make the difference between losing your shirt or winning big -- click here to learn more.
Uh Oh - Leading Indicator Baltic Dry Index Turns Down
I have no idea what's going on with the markets right now. Just when things look most ominous, they fire up again this week big time...isn't that the way markets always work!Subprime Disaster Passes the Torch to Option ARM
Stratfor: US Will Lead Global Economic Recovery
Monday, July 13, 2009
US Consumers on Pace to Pay Down Debt in...138 Years?
US households are paying back their debts at a glacial pace reports the Federal Reserve. Sunday, July 12, 2009
Return on Capital? How About Return OF Capital!
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Outlook for Crude Oil From a Top Industry Exec
Last night I had the opportunity to sit down with PG, who is the head of a small refinery based in Texas. We talked about the economy, and most specifically, crude oil - where the price may be heading, and supply/demand considerations.Thursday, July 09, 2009
Obama to Hold Performance Review With Every American Worker
Obama To Hold Job Performance Review With Every American Worker
How Long Do Bear Markets Typically Last?
We've been discussing market and societal cycles in great detail recently, as we try to uncover clues as to how this current mess is going to continue to unfold. History may not always repeat, but to quote Mark Twain, it certainly rhymes.A 20-Year Bear Market?
By David Galland, Casey Research
In November of 1997, my partner and co-editor of The Casey Report, Doug Casey, wrote an article titled “Foundations of Crisis,” which leaned heavily on the research of Neil Howe and the late William Strauss.
Howe and Strauss have written many books on how generations determine the course of history and how they will shape America’s future. Their forecasts on a wide variety of indicators have turned out to be amazingly accurate. They were among the first to predict (back in the late 1980s) the rise of Boomer-driven culture wars and the simultaneous rise of Gen-X-driven free agency and distrust of government. And they were completely alone back then in predicting, for the post-X “Millennial Generation” (a label they coined), a decline in youth crime and risk taking and an increase in youth civic engagement that would first become apparent around the year 2000. Guess what? For the last ten years, everyone has been noticing exactly these trends among teens and 20somethings.
The Stamp Acts catalyzed the American Revolution, the election of Lincoln catalyzed the Civil War, the Crash of ‘29 catalyzed the Depression/WW II era. What might precipitate the elements now floating in solution? The answer is practically any random event that's sufficiently traumatic. Any of the theses of current disaster/action novels and movies will do nicely. Perhaps the accidental or intentional release of a super plague vector. The crashing of an airliner into the Capitol during a joint session. An all-out assault on the IRS computers by an armed group – or perhaps the computers just melting down due to the Year 2000 Problem. Perhaps a financial disaster that cascades into the Greater Depression. In any of these, or a hundred other scenarios, the federal government would almost certainly act precipitously and with a heavy hand, which would bring on a whole other set of consequences.
There's no way of telling where the Crisis will lead, or how it will end. That's going to depend not only on exactly who's in control, but what they do, who they're up against, and a hundred other variables we can't even anticipate.
Many bullish readers won’t be thrilled to hear Howe’s latest findings about the future, but given his predictive track record, dismissing them out of hand could be a costly mistake.
The summary outlook, according to Howe, is that we are in the very early stages of a 20-year period of economic and institutional upheaval – an era denominated by a crisis during which we’ll likely witness the tearing down and reconstruction of many aspects of society as we know it.
As individuals, understanding Howe’s views and taking some reasonable precautions makes a lot of sense. As investors, those views also have the potential to make us a lot of money.
Following is my high-level recap of my long conversation with Neil Howe, along with some general thoughts on the investment implications of a 20-year bear market.
Remember the Sixties?
If you’re old enough -- or possess even a rudimentary sense of history -- think back to the 1950s, with roller-skating waitresses, crew cuts, and nuclear families of the sort represented by the iconic Leave it to Beaver. Fathers worked, while many mothers stayed home. Life had a certain predictable quality and, as far as anyone knew, would continue along the same lines for time immemorial.
But then something happened… the 1960s. Literally no one saw it coming. It was as if someone had flipped a switch that electrified America and, quickly, the world. Most everything changed, and a society accustomed to conformity was blown away with a fierce individualism expressed with long hair, sex, drugs, and rock and roll, topped off with civil disobedience and bloody riots in the streets.
What happened?
According to Neil Howe, in the mid-1960s, generational change pushed society around a dramatic corner as idealistic, individualistic young Baby Boomers (born 1943 to 1960) rebelled against the midlife leadership of their G.I. Generation parents (born 1901 to 1924).
These periods of transitions are part of a larger cyclical pattern made up of four distinct eras, or “Turnings,” each lasting approximately 20 years. It can be helpful to think of the four turnings as you might think of the four seasons, repeating predictably in their own natural rhythm. A full cycle of turnings takes place over a period of about 80 to 90 years -- roughly the span of a long human life. A new turning begins as a new youth generation comes of age, bringing a new social ethic that compensates for the excesses of the midlife generation then in power.
While we don't have the space here to go into the full details of Howe’s research, it’s important to the topic at hand that we quickly recap the Four Turnings.
The most recent Third Turning began in the mid-‘80s with Morning in America, and continued through the ‘90s. Previous periods of Unraveling in American history were also decades of cynicism and bad manners. Think of the 1920s, the 1850s, the 1760s. And history teaches us that the Third Turnings inevitably end in Fourth Turnings.
In sum, Howe’s research has shown that, with remarkable predictability, history is not a straight line extending toward a better and brighter (or increasingly awful) future, but rather a repeating cycle of the four distinct social eras. These four turnings have recurred with remarkable consistency throughout Anglo-American history, as Neil Howe outlines at length in Generations and The Fourth Turning. It is therefore no accident that America has experienced great cataclysms or “Crises” about every 80 years. Travel back eighty years from Pearl Harbor Day, and you land in the middle of the Civil War. Eighty years before that takes you to the Revolutionary War. If the rhythms of history hold, America is now poised to enter another Fourth Turning.
Bad News, Potentially Good News
You don't need me to tell you that the United States and in fact the world are now facing a plethora of intractable problems. The world's former powerhouse economy, the U.S., is now the world's largest debtor nation – and by a wide margin. The nation has trillions in unpayable liabilities coming due on Social Security and Medicare, to name just two of many broken government programs weighing on the country. And our much vaunted democracy is increasingly dysfunctional – rotten to the core, truth be known – thanks largely to entrenched special interests and a voting public clamoring for their own piece of the pie, while trying to hand the bill off to somebody else.
Meanwhile, the economy – despite rigorous jawboning by the government and its many friends in the large banking institutions -- is in serious trouble, with the housing market buffeted by tsunami-like waves of defaults, foreclosures, overvaluations, historic levels of personal debt, and tight credit that has left the U.S. government as the sole lender in many markets.
Bernanke and his ilk may see green shoots, but what they're really seeing is the deep, green sea rising up once again to bury the economy.
That's the bad news.
The potentially good news, if you credit Howe’s research, is that the Crisis we’re now entering will change pretty much everything. While this change will entail a great deal of pain and a reduced standard of living for a large number of people, by the time the Crisis subsides, society will have pretty much remade itself in ways that no one can predict at this point.
Put another way, today's intractable problems will be solved... one way or another.
What's Next
When discussing what's likely to follow next, Neil Howe turns to his generational profiles and points out that the rising societal power today belongs to the generation he calls the Millennials, individuals born between 1982 and 2004. They are a “Hero” generation, just like the G.I. Generation that coped so well with the turmoil of the Great Depression and World War II -- the last Fourth Turning. Coddled as children, the G.I.s were ultimately called upon to help society through a dark and dangerous period and rose to the occasion. Again, quoting Howe on the Millennials…
“These are today's young people, who are just beginning to be well known to most Americans. They fill K-12 schools, colleges, graduate schools, and have recently begun entering the workplace. We associate them with dramatic improvements in youth behaviors, which are often underreported by the media. Since Millennials have come along, we’ve seen huge declines in violent crime, teen pregnancy, and the most damaging forms of drug abuse, as well as higher rates of community service and volunteering. This is a generation that reminds us in many respects of the young G.I.s nearly a century ago, back when they were the first boy scouts and girl scouts between 1910 and 1920.
Unlike the Baby Boomers, who are largely individualistic and anti-establishment, the Millennials are good team players. We hear a lot these days about working together for a common cause, volunteerism, and the need for stronger government institutions, largely because these are the new priorities of the Millennial Generation.
As you may recall, out of the devastation of World War II, a spate of transnational political and economic institutions were born, including the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. By the time the current Fourth Turning is over, expect more of the same -- but probably even bigger and more ambitious.
What Does This Mean to You?
Most importantly, if Howe is right, this crisis is far from over. In fact, when I asked him where we are today on a scale from 1 to 10 -- with 10 representing as bad as the crisis will get -- he replied that we are at either 2 or 3. In other words, the worst is very much yet to come. And, per above, he expects this period of turmoil to take 20 years to play out. Thus, if nothing else, you may want to continue approaching matters of personal finance cautiously.
Secondly, if you're the type of individual that tends to get steamed up by larger and more intrusive government programs, you may want to take a few deep breaths and resolve yourself to the fact that this phenomenon is likely to get far worse before we see a return to celebration of individual rights. (And the cycle shows that we will see such a return -- about 40 to 50 years from now, when the next Second Turning comes around.)
If it is any consolation, the Millennial Generation places a great deal of weight on teamwork and the notion of doing things "smart." That doesn't mean, of course, that the various programs that are kicked off in an attempt to fix the many problems now confronting society will in fact turn out to be technically smart. But they will almost certainly be better thought out than some of the numbskull initiatives we've seen over the last 20 years.
You can also take some comfort in the fact that Millennials are builders, not destroyers. By contrast, the individualistic Boomers that dominate today’s aging political class are world-class dissenters, radio talk show aficionados always ready to scrap it out for their beliefs. Millennials want to skip the philosophical debate and get straight to fixing things.
Other insights about Fourth Turning periods gained from my conversation with Neil Howe…
- Government grows powerful, and sweeping new legislation is enacted. The old 1990s rule was: just compete and stay off the state’s radar screen. The new 2010s rule will be: better have a presence in Washington so you’re not dealt out of the “new” new deal. One political party tends to dominate. The Democrats under FDR during the last Fourth Turning offer a good example. While Neil Howe doesn't think it will necessarily be the Democrats this time around, they are certainly in the pole position at this point.
- While public history speeds up, personal life slows down. Families will spend more time together, like in the old Frank Capra movies. Ever more households will be multi-generational, a trend now spurred by Boomers with large, empty McMansions and Millennials without jobs. There will be a blanding of the pop culture, with the entertainment of the young (put Miley Cyrus or “High School Musical” on fast forward) increasingly regarded as tamer than the entertainment of the old.
- Innovation tends to stagnate, while a few new technologies will be chosen to be adopted on a large scale. We will see the equivalent of canals or railroads or interstates being built across America. To borrow from Carlotta Perez’ four-stage description of technological revolutions, we are moving from the “innovation” to the “implementation” stage.
- New laws and regulations will do less to referee a free market and more to pursue one or another national priority. They will increasingly favor the large producer over the retail buyer, investment over consumption, planning over risk, debt over equity. Businesses will hustle to reposition themselves. Anti-trust will weaken.
- The authority and obligations of community will strengthen at all levels, from local to national and possibly beyond (if our alliances prove durable). Personal reputation and membership will matter more. A “new localism” will reshape town and urban planning. A global slide toward national or regional protectionism will loom as a real danger.
- It is too early to tell whether the crisis will ultimately be inflationary or deflationary, though we at Casey Research come down on the side of inflation for the simple reason that the government possesses the means to inflate. Due to the gold standard, that was not the case early in the Great Depression.
- In the past, Fourth Turning periods have always resulted in the nation redefining who we are in some essential way. That was certainly the case during the American Revolution, when we transitioned from a British colony into a collection of independent states -- and the Civil War, when those states were hammered into a single nation. And, again, after World War II, when the U.S. went from being a relatively isolated nation to a global empire. A wild card, for instance a terrorist nuke going off in a city anywhere on the planet, could similarly take the country, and the world, into unforeseeable new directions.
- Baby Boomers will continue to be respected for their cultural achievements (it’s not a fluke of history that Boomer music and other entertainments are still wildly popular among the young), but will be increasingly ignored in the political debate. The term “senior citizen,” already in decline, will disappear entirely. And if push comes to shove, Boomer’s financial interests – including Social Security – will be subjugated “for the greater good.”
- There will be a growing push to rebuild the middle class. The wealthy and the impoverished alike will both come under pressure thanks to new pro-middle class initiatives. If you are a high-income earner, it’s a certainty your taxes are going up, and likely by a lot. If you want to make a fortune, don’t pursue the niche or the “long tail.” Invent the next big brand that will appeal to Everyman.
Making the trend your friend is more important than ever, if your assets are to make it through the Fourth Turning intact. The Casey Report discovers and analyzes budding economic trends and turns them into hands-on, actionable recommendations for its subscribers. Read the latest report from Casey Chief Economist Bud Conrad about our favorite investment of 2009… a play on an all but inevitable economic development. Click here to read more.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
US National Debt Clock - A Must See Link
Richard Russell on the Disappearing Dividends
Nice scoop by the Daily Crux - Richard Russell's comments about current dividend levels...or lack thereof!Five Important (Contrarian?) Real Estate Trends

2. Real estate market updates are now being made on internet video! Watch our new version of real estate TV at: Ditto
3. Buyers should do whatever they can to buy a home in the next few months. Watch four powerful reasons to buy a home now rather than wait at our website.
4. California Association of REALTORS(r) now offers a buyer's protection plan that can offer buyers worried about their jobs peace of mind. Read the details about this great first-time homebuyer program.
5. Home buyers are doing their own home searches, driving by the properties then having their brokers show them only the ones they like. This latest trend saves everyone time and money, especially when the better buys are going fast. To assist you further we'll even set up our computers so that you'll be one of the first to know about hot new listings. Call us at the number below to sign up for a free targeted home search.
Looks Like Another Wave of DE-flation...Here's What To Do

July 8, 2009
This article is part of a syndicated series about deflation from market analyst Robert Prechter, the world’s foremost expert on and proponent of the deflationary scenario. For more on deflation and how you can survive it, download Prechter’s FREE 60-page Deflation Survival eBook, part of Prechter’s NEW Deflation Survival Guide.
The following article was adapted from Robert Prechter’s NEW Deflation Survival eBook, a free 60-page compilation of Prechter’s most important teachings and warnings about deflation.
By Robert Prechter, CMT
1) Should you invest in real estate?
Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: The worst thing about real estate is its lack of liquidity during a bear market. At least in the stock market, when your stock is down 60 percent and you realize you’ve made a horrendous mistake, you can call your broker and get out (unless you’re a mutual fund, insurance company or other institution with millions of shares, in which case, you’re stuck). With real estate, you can’t pick up the phone and sell. You need to find a buyer for your house in order to sell it. In a depression, buyers just go away. Mom and Pop move in with the kids, or the kids move in with Mom and Pop. People start living in their offices or moving their offices into their living quarters. Businesses close down. In time, there is a massive glut of real estate.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 16
2) Should you prepare for a change in politics?
Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: At some point during a financial crisis, money flows typically become a political issue. You should keep a sharp eye on political trends in your home country. In severe economic times, governments have been known to ban foreign investment, demand capital repatriation, outlaw money transfers abroad, close banks, freeze bank accounts, restrict or seize private pensions, raise taxes, fix prices and impose currency exchange values. They have been known to use force to change the course of who gets hurt and who is spared, which means that the prudent are punished and the thriftless are rewarded, reversing the result from what it would be according to who deserves to be spared or get hurt. In extreme cases, such as when authoritarians assume power, they simply appropriate or take de facto control of your property.
You cannot anticipate every possible law, regulation or political event that will be implemented to thwart your attempt at safety, liquidity and solvency. This is why you must plan ahead and pay attention. As you do, think about these issues so that when political forces troll for victims, you are legally outside the scope of the dragnet.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 27
3) Should you invest in commercial bonds?
Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: If there is one bit of conventional wisdom that we hear repeatedly with respect to investing for a deflationary depression, it is that long-term bonds are the best possible investment. This assertion is wrong. Any bond issued by a borrower who cannot pay goes to zero in a depression. In the Great Depression, bonds of many companies, municipalities and foreign governments were crushed. They became wallpaper as their issuers went bankrupt and defaulted. Bonds of suspect issuers also went way down, at least for a time. Understand that in a crash, no one knows its depth, and almost everyone becomes afraid. That makes investors sell bonds of any issuers that they fear could default. Even when people trust the bonds they own, they are sometimes forced to sell them to raise cash to live on. For this reason, even the safest bonds can go down, at least temporarily, as AAA bonds did in 1931 and 1932.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 15
4) Should you take precautions if you run a business?
Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: Avoid long-term employment contracts with employees. Try to locate in a state with “at-will” employment laws. Red tape and legal impediments to firing could bankrupt your company in a financial crunch, thus putting everyone in your company out of work.
If you run a business that normally carries a large business inventory (such as an auto or boat dealership), try to reduce it. If your business requires certain manufactured specialty items that may be hard to obtain in a depression, stock up.
If you are an employer, start making plans for what you will do if the company’s cash flow declines and you have to cut expenditures. Would it be best to fire certain people? Would it be better to adjust all salaries downward an equal percentage so that you can keep everyone employed?
Finally, plan how you will take advantage of the next major bottom in the economy. Positioning your company properly at that time could ensure success for decades to come.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 30
5) Should you invest in collectibles?
Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: Collecting for investment purposes is almost always foolish. Never buy anything marketed as a collectible. The chances of losing money when collectibility is priced into an item are huge. Usually, collecting trends are fads. They might be short-run or long-run fads, but they eventually dissolve.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 17
6) Should you do anything with respect to your employment?
Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: If you have no special reason to believe that the company you work for will prosper so much in a contracting economy that its stock will rise in a bear market, then cash out any stock or stock options that your company has issued to you (or that you bought on your own).
If your remuneration is tied to the same company’s fortunes in the form of stock or stock options, try to convert it to a liquid income stream. Make sure you get paid actual money for your labor.
If you have a choice of employment, try to think about which job will best weather the coming financial and economic storm. Then go get it.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 31
7) Should you speculate in stocks?
Short Answer: NO
Long Answer: Perhaps the number one precaution to take at the start of a deflationary crash is to make sure that your investment capital is not invested “long” in stocks, stock mutual funds, stock index futures, stock options or any other equity-based investment or speculation. That advice alone should be worth the time you [spend to read Conquer the Crash].
In 2000 and 2001, countless Internet stocks fell from $50 or $100 a share to near zero in a matter of months. In 2001, Enron went from $85 to pennies a share in less than a year. These are the early casualties of debt, leverage and incautious speculation.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 20
8) Should you call in loans and pay off your debt?
Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: Have you lent money to friends, relatives or co-workers? The odds of collecting any of these debts are usually slim to none, but if you can prod your personal debtors into paying you back before they get further strapped for cash, it will not only help you but it will also give you some additional wherewithal to help those very same people if they become destitute later.
If at all possible, remain or become debt-free. Being debt-free means that you are freer, period. You don’t have to sweat credit card payments. You don’t have to sweat home or auto repossession or loss of your business. You don’t have to work 6 percent more, or 10 percent more, or 18 percent more just to stay even.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 29
9) Should you invest in commodities, such as crude oil?
Short Answer: Mostly NO
Long Answer: Pay particular attention to what happened in 1929-1932, the three years of intense deflation in which the stock market crashed. As you can see, commodities crashed, too.
You can get rich being short commodity futures in a deflationary crash. This is a player’s game, though, and I am not about to urge a typical investor to follow that course. If you are a seasoned commodity trader, avoid the long side and use rallies to sell short. Make sure that your broker keeps your liquid funds in T-bills or an equally safe medium.
There can be exceptions to the broad trend. A commodity can rise against the trend on a war, a war scare, a shortage or a disruption of transport. Oil is an example of a commodity with that type of risk. This commodity should have nowhere to go but down during a depression.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 21
10) Should you invest in cash?
Short Answer: YES
Long Answer: For those among the public who have recently become concerned that being fully invested in one stock or stock fund is not risk-free, the analysts’ battle cry is “diversification.” They recommend having your assets spread out in numerous different stocks, numerous different stock funds and/or numerous different (foreign) stock markets. Advocates of junk bonds likewise counsel prospective investors that having lots of different issues will reduce risk.
This “strategy” is bogus. Why invest in anything unless you have a strong opinion about where it’s going and a game plan for when to get out? Diversification is gospel today because investment assets of so many kinds have gone up for so long, but the future is another matter. Owning an array of investments is financial suicide during deflation. They all go down, and the logistics of getting out of them can be a nightmare. There can be weird exceptions to this rule, such as gold in the early 1930s when the government fixed the price, or perhaps some commodity that is crucial in a war, but otherwise, all assets go down in price during deflation except one: cash.
– Conquer the Crash, Chapter 18
……….
For more on deflation, download Prechter’s FREE 60-page Deflation Survival eBook or browse various deflation topics like those below at www.elliottwave.com/deflation.
- What happens during deflation?
- Why is deflation bad?
- Effects of deflation
- Deflationary spiral
- And much more in Prechter’s FREE Deflation Survival Guide.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Get Real! Brazil's Debt Rating Passes California
Who would have predicted the day when California would be paying it's bills with IOU's, while Brazil is stockpiling it's reserves?But don't hold them. The historical record of broke governments issuing IOUs doesn't offer much promise. The "reward" of 3.75% interest versus the risk simply isn't worth it.
Why 650 is a Generous Fair Estimate for the S&P 500
"Did I Say Billion? I Meant Trillion" (in Deficits...But Who's Counting)
More Government Meddling in the Commodity Markets
Monday, July 06, 2009
Something Cooking in the Lumber Market?

"Over the last 30 days," he wrote, "there have been significant increases in the lumber and plywood markets."
Pine 2x10s have increased 22% in the last 30 days.
Treated pine 2x6s have increased 29%.
Pine 2x6 borates are up 31%.
Spruce 2x4s are up 37%.
Spruce 2x6s are up 44%.
15/32 Oriented Strand boards are up 7%.
15/32 Plywood is up 12%.
It looks like there's something stirring in the lumber market. It could be a local aberration in Orlando... or it could be something bigger. I'm not sure, and neither is Don.
Let's keep an eye on the Chicago futures price to see if it confirms Don's view. In the meantime, I'll hunt for more clues from lumberyards in other parts of the country...
Last Call on the Pound Sterling Rally?
Crude Oil Hits Five-Week Low...Time For Another Nose Dive?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
BBQ, Beer, and Contrarian Investment Indicators


Thursday, July 02, 2009
Marc Faber: You Don't Want to be in Cash
- Believes the March 6 stock market lows were major lows for awhile
- If the S&P drops towards 800, we'll see new stimulus plans and loose money...and if it drops towards 700, we'll see even more...thus the lows are likely to hold
- The economic recovery will be very disappointing
- You don't want to be in cash or bonds, due to inflationary concerns
- Gold is attractive as a hedge against inflation
- Thinks the dollar and bonds could rally in the near term, but longer term, he's looking for a weak US dollar and strength in commodity prices
3 Techical Indicators for Gold...That Don't Look Good
Stocks for the Long Run? Stop Smoking Those Green Shoots!
My dad, regular blog reader and link contributor, just sent me a classic "stocks for the long run" article, published over on Fidelity.com. This piece is a real gem - with the author genuflecting at the feet of the chief stock cheerleader himself, Mr. Jeremy Siegel, author of Stocks for the Long Run. We've even got some recent quotes and insights from Siegel in the article!- #1 - Opening red flag... The article is published on Fidelity.com. Expecting impartial stock advice on Fidelity.com is like expecting a libertarian slant on Recovery.gov. Or bearish commodity news on CommodityBullMarket.com :)
- #2 - Wow, really?... Making predictions about short-term market moves is extremely hazardous, as Siegel well knows. Like me, he failed to predict the collapse in the financial system last September and its impact on the markets. "I didn't see the balance sheets of these banks and investment banks," Siegel says. "I didn't realize they held so many subprime mortgages."
- Dear reader - please, if you're going to buy a "stock for the long run" - take a look at the balance sheet. If you can't figure out what's on the balance sheet...you may want to hold off on buying the stock.
- #3 - Swami predicts... -At any rate, Siegel thinks the economy has probably turned up already: "We're going to have a faster recovery in the second half of the year than most people think. The upward slope on the V will not be as steep as usual, but we're not going to have an L-shaped economy, either."
- From the guy who was blindsided by the subprime meltdown...a contrarian indicator?
- #4 - Easy short candidate... He's also bullish on high-yield "junk" bonds, even though they have rallied strongly this year after tumbling in 2008.
- Nothing like jumping into a rally in the 8th inning! Buy high, sell higher!
- #5 - Stock jocks rejoice... "Tell me what investment will do better than stocks today," Siegel says. "Real estate is in the doghouse. Commodities aren't cheap. Bonds, except for junk bonds, are overpriced. Treasury bonds are ridiculously overpriced."
- I can't wait for his next book 15-years from now entitled: Farmland for the Long Run
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Dennis Gartman on Gold, Nat Gas, Currencies, and More!
- Gold: Someone or something is leaning on gold at $980-$1000 and I’ll let that seller be sated before I venture back to the long side. So will I sell gold short? No.
- Natural gas: The best way to play natural gas is not to play at all.
- Stocks to own: I want to own the movers and makers of “stuff.” Grains; water; base metals… that sort of thing
Low Acreage Propels Cotton "Limit Up"
The smallest acreage for cotton in 26 years has propelled the fluffy material "limit up" for the day, in what amounted to almost a delayed reaction from traders, as cotton was initially down yesterday when the report came out. Likely due to the weakness shown by the other grains.A "New Look" Government Motors? HAHAHAHA
By Olivier Garret, CEO, Casey Research
A friend of mine mentioned to me that he was surprised that “bankrupt GM” was spending some serious advertising dollars to try to lure customers to its website.
My comment to him: It makes sense, if it is done properly!
Yes, it is often necessary for a distressed company to communicate with its customers (advertise) and assure them that the future is brighter. That said, GM appears to have it all wrong once again.
What brought GM to where it is today is a lack of focus on what mattered to its customers – while it was losing market share to competitors that built higher-quality cars at competitive prices and strived to anticipate what customers needed. GM tried to remake its image several times over the past 20 years… without ever changing.
You might remember the slogan “An American Revolution.” The fact is, GM was led by insiders and bureaucrats. They climbed to the helm of the corporate ladder, not because they were good leaders but because they were effective at corporate politics and financial management. While GM employs scores of very competent and dedicated mid-level managers and union workers, they never got a clear signal or a commitment from the top that the company’s culture had to change in order to survive. People then did what they do best: they tried to protect the status quo and retain their perks. It worked for many years.
Unfortunately, the world of manufacturing has changed, and the strategies that made GM the world leader between the ‘40s and ‘60s have not worked since then. The company has needed a complete makeover for decades, and yet it has failed to embrace real change.
In this respect, bankruptcy could be an incredible opportunity for General Motors to get a fresh start and leave the chains of its legacy behind once and for all. It would be able to focus on building a successful company around its best assets (many great people, some good products, and physical assets). If the company could commit to doing much more than just a financial reorganization, it would have a bright future ahead.
So I looked for visible signs of change at the “New GM,” its first post-bankruptcy communication with its customers.
But let me first summarize the key elements of a “crisis” communication campaign. To be successful, it needs to be:
- Reassuring. Show that the company is in control of its destiny.
- Focused on the customer. What is the company doing for them (more exciting cars, more reliability, financing programs, excellence in service)? The message needs to be credible and – in the case of GM – should demonstrate how the new GM is different from the old one:
- Truthful. Unless the company is committed to meaningful changes, why bother? Customers will be disappointed by the message if they find out that the reality does not match expectations built by the campaign. This will lead to failure, as customers don’t forgive disingenuousness.
- Vibrant and exciting. Why should a customer come back to GM? While “vibe” won’t be successful by itself, it is an essential differentiation tool to keep people interested in the rebirth of an American icon.
After I let the ads entice me to visit the new GM website, I landed on a page titled “Our Mission.”
Here are my impressions: The page I landed on was cold and boring, almost amateurish. Also, I did not get their “mission.” There was a bold statement saying, “Reinventing the company,” yet they talked about a new battery lab, the SAAB spin-off, and the Penske purchase of Saturn. No sign of excitement, passion, or true change. Note to GM: Talking about yourself does not engage your customers.
Alright, maybe I didn’t land on the page where GM meant for me to go first. So I checked the “Our Company” page… with the same sinking feeling.
Couldn’t GM marketers find a better picture of Fritz Henderson or a more engaging subject matter to tell me what they are going to do for me, their potential customer? By the way, Mr. Henderson has been with GM since 1984. Is he the guy that will change the culture of the company? Can he really make GM a leading carmaker after being part of the management team that took it on a downward spiral for a quarter of a century?
Oh wait! I can see that GM just appointed a new chairman: Edward Whitacre. He must be the inspiring new leader. Interestingly enough, Mr. Whitacre is a retired chairman of AT&T. He spent 43 years in the telecom industry; he hardly looks like a man whose life’s passion is cars.
A quick googling of Mr. Whitacre’s background tells me that he brings with him a real passion for technology (he didn’t even have a computer in his office at AT&T), the Boy Scouts of America (he was their national president from 1998 to 2000), and M&As (the highlights of his career in telecom). Not exactly the profile I had in mind for GM’s leadership at this point… oh well.
Further down on the page is an article on the GM/Segway joint venture. Clearly the new PUMA must be the answer to GM’s customers most pressing needs. To me, though, it looks like a rolling coffin that will at best serve a small niche of yuppies, or airport security staff, or municipal police force. Hardly what GM needs for a makeover.

The next article tells me that the era of combustion engine vehicles is just about over. (If that’s true, why should I buy a car now?) But rest assured, even though the “New GM” may not have what I need today, it is working on tomorrow’s vehicles.
Well, if I remember correctly, GM’s competitors were the ones that produced the first commercially successful hybrids, while GM was promoting monstrous, gas-guzzling Hummers. Why should I trust that these guys now have a“feel” for the market? Do they truly understand where the future lies for this industry?
Maybe it is because President Obama stated that the American car industry will lead the green revolution and bring us the solution to the U.S. energy dependency problems. If I were Mr. Henderson and my job security were contingent on serving the wishes of my largest shareholder instead of the needs of my “potential” customers, my best strategy would be to pursue an all-electric vision. All I really needed anyway would be another five years before I could get full pension benefits guaranteed by the U.S. taxpayer.
My conclusion: Unfortunately, the first piece of communication from the “New GM” is all but reassuring; it fails all the tests for a successful crisis management campaign, leaving the visitor anything but excited about the struggling company. It leads me to believe that the “New GM” may have to file again shortly after emerging from its current “pre-packaged” bankruptcy. Alas, by that time, there will be a lot more job losses, and the brand will probably never recover.
I have been convinced for years that bankruptcy could save our domestic auto industry. However, I never had in mind a politically driven process like this – Washington technocrats and union leaders getting together and concocting this kind of an ill-conceived “solution.”
What I envisioned was a much more standard process where all the stakeholders put their claims in front of a restructuring team and a bankruptcy court. Then they collectively try to find the best compromise to move forward. They generally end up accepting significant losses but will vote in support of a plan that highlights a clear path to recovery and hope for future upside. In the absence of such a plan, they will push for liquidation and try to preserve the few assets they still have.
In some cases, the company cannot “remake” itself. Liquidation may then turn out to be the best thing that can happen. New owners pick up the pieces for ten cents on the dollar, and with a low-cost investment, they can start a truly new company focused on well-defined opportunities/customer needs. These new companies could again become icons of American entrepreneurship.
In either case, the American taxpayer would not be on the hook for tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, and the “New GM(s)” might have a chance to survive and thrive. Of course, this is not what is happening here. So, speaking with the legendary Mogambo Guru… second note to GM: You’re all freakin’ doomed.
All things considered, GM will most certainly not save the U.S. economy… or even be a part of it in the long run. And if you want to preserve and even multiply your assets, we wouldn’t recommend investing in GM – or any “blue-chip stock” – at this time. Instead, take a look at our Chief Economist Bud Conrad’s favorite investment of 2009… a play that is almost guaranteed to pay off handsomely this year. Click here to learn more.

















