What Recovery? What Recession?
December 14,
2009
In early November the talking heads were breathlessly reporting
the economy “grew” by 3.5% in the third quarter...that the economy
was now recovering. The end of economic contraction also signaled
the end of the recession that began in the fourth quarter of 2007.
And they attributed much of this growth to the pick up in auto
sales. To read the full government report, go to
www.bea.gov.
The index of leading economic indicators, which has been positive
for seven months now, is also suggesting the economy is in recovery.
So, is it true? Are we on a sustainable growth path now? Does this
latest government release about the economy mean the worst is behind
us? Does the Index of Leading Economic Indicators tell us the same
thing?
Well, let’s look at the reports and see where the growth came from.
Maybe that will give us some answers.
To start, the 3rd quarter’s growth rate has since been revised
downward to 2.8%. And the following schedule shows the contribution
to growth from the various sources in our economy.
The contributions to growth were as follows:
|
Goods |
|
|
|
Autos |
|
0.8% |
|
Recreation vehicles |
0.4% |
|
All
other, net |
0.1% |
|
Total |
|
1.3% |
|
Non
Durables |
0.3% |
|
Services |
|
|
|
Healthcare |
0.3% |
|
All
other, net |
0.2% |
|
Total |
|
0.5% |
|
Government |
|
|
Defense |
0.5% |
|
All
other, net |
0.1% |
|
Total |
|
0.6% |
|
Investment |
|
|
Inventory restocking |
0.9% |
|
All
other, net |
0.0% |
|
Total |
|
0.9% |
|
Trade |
|
-0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
Change in
GDP |
2.8% |
I appreciate this data table is a little busy, but it is
important in order to understand the real nature of what some are
calling a recovery. You will note the single largest contribution to
the third quarter economic growth was inventory restocking. In my
mind, putting stuff back on empty shelves is not growth. It is
simply the reverse of the massive and aggressive destocking we saw
in the fourth quarter of 2008.
So, if we take out restocking, the growth rate slips to 1.9%. Let’s
also remove defense spending and healthcare, which are not growth
items. After all, supporting our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and
around the world should not be considered economic growth. And more
healthcare for an aging population should not be considered new
growth.
If we eliminate defense and healthcare, growth is now reduced down
to just 1.1%. But a major contributor to this remaining growth is
vehicle sales. Now let’s look a little deeper into this item.
Month to month auto sales are highly volatile and seasonal. So while
we did have the idiotic “Cash for Clunkers” government giveaway
program that kick started some sales in the third quarter, there are
two other factors that are more significant. Pent up demand has been
growing and the Cash for Clunkers was just the catalyst.
Pent up demand is from the increasing average age of cars on the
road, now over 9 years old. In addition, interest rates on car loans
are near half of what they were in early 2007. The average car now
has over 100,000 miles on it and interest rates on new car loans are
low. Underwriting standards, at 10% down payment, have not changed
over the past several years and average prices have not changed much
and are at just under $30,000.
Most of us are accustomed to seeing the total numbers of cars
purchased, illustrated by the following chart. But remember, many of
the cars we buy are imported and do not add to America’s economic
growth. This chart gives us a full picture of consumer’s car
purchases over the past decade.

As you can see, auto sales plateaued long ago at around 16 million a
year. As car buyers went on strike last fall, auto sales plunged to
less than 10 million a year, a sales level not seen since the early
eighties.
But pent up demand from aging vehicle fleet and low borrowing rates
will increase car demand from its current levels.
There is another factor that will give us insight into future auto
sales. There are now 1.2 vehicles for every licensed driver. This
means only 83% of the cars we buy are needed for transportation. The
remaining 17% are discretionary and are purchased to support our
lifestyles. So, anytime we are in a pinch and must cut back, like
recessions, we can easily cut back on cars purchased.
Clearly, that is what we saw last fall and during the first half of
2009. We can delay our car purchases, and have. Eliminating this
discretionary demand, car sales will stabilize at around 13 million
a year.
Now let’s look at the car sales that affect our economic growth. The
following chart shows the cars sold every month that were
manufactured in the United States.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce
The pink shaded areas of the chart are periods of recession. You
will note car sales have been in a steady decline over the past ten
years, recession or not. We did see a dramatic falloff earlier this
year, and sales have partially recovered in the third quarter.
However, this recovery is really very much part of the longer term
pattern and not unique to this recession.
The result of pent up demand and low borrowing costs means auto
sales will be higher than the low monthly sales of earlier this
year. I expect auto sales will resume their long established pattern
of seasonality and volatility.
Now, let’s go back to our “growth” story. As we have seen, the only
significant contributor to 3rd quarter growth was auto sales. And
many commentators attribute this to the government’s stimulus
program. This is nonsense.
Ageing, high mileage vehicles, and low interest rates are more
lasting and powerful influences on car sales that any government
giveaway can be. Offsetting these two positives elements is a
negative; discretionary car buying decisions equal to 17% of total
demand. Car purchases can easily be delayed or even canceled…at
least for a while.
Trade Imbalance=Oil
And before we all get too excited about this runaway
growth we need to remind ourselves of the negative influence on
growth from trade of a minus 0.8%. This is due primarily to our
import of oil. More growth will make this trade imbalance worse as
we import more oil to accommodate more economic activity.
The Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress
recently issued a report on America’s hydrocarbon reserves showing
the US to have the world’s largest reserves of fossil fuels, more
than even Russia. The report is titled “U.S Fossil Fuel Resources:
Terminology, Reporting, and Summary” and was released October 28,
2009. Go to www.opencrs.com to download this report.
We have the greatest endowment of fossil fuels of any country and we
are importing huge amounts of oil. This is the result of poor policy
and political and environmental pressures. Unfortunately not
exploiting our own resources reduces our economic growth and puts
continuing downward pressure on the dollar.
Leading Economic Indicators
The Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic
Indicators has been telling us since April that the economy is in
recovery. The index has been positive every month since then. But
let’s look a little closer at the components of this index. The big
contributors to the positive performance have been vendor
performance (restocking of shelves) and the stock and bond markets.
As I said before putting stuff back on the empty shelves should not
be viewed as sustainable growth.
The stock and bond markets have zoomed higher. The stock market is
up 62% since its low in March. Corporate bond prices have increased
as well, especially the high yield market up 56% since it low in
March. These price increases have come without the benefit of
increased earnings, stretching valuations to nose bleed levels.
Other components, such as consumer expectations (low and getting
lower), jobless claims (bad, but stabilizing), average workweek
(stable, at a 45 year low), and building permits (increasing from an
extremely low base and still unsustainably low) tell a very
different story. So it appears to me the index of leading economic
indicators is leading us astray, with the only indicator of growth
being an unjustified increase in capital market prices.
Some “growth” story, huh? Prudent investors should be extremely
careful in this environment.
What About Next Quarter?
I believe it is important to view this highly touted
“growth” story of the third quarter’s economic performance as a
singular event.
After all, where is this quarter’s and next quarter’s growth going
to come from…more war? More bandages and bedpans? More cars we don’t
really need? I don’t think so.
Long term sustainable economic growth comes from new business
formations that provide goods and services demanded by consumers.
These businesses hire more workers and expand because their products
are sold at a profit. The drive for self interest by each of us
insures this will happen….UNLESS our government obstructs and
frustrates this natural growth phenomenon with high taxes and
burdensome and costly regulations.
And that is where we are. No entrepreneur, in his right mind, is
going to start a business today. The obstacles to success and growth
are just too great, making entrepreneurial activity too risky. The
outlook for strong and sustainable economic growth is not good until
the government removes these obstacles.
What are the chances our radical Muslim socialist President and a
like minded Congress understand the true sources of growth? The
actions taken by this administration and Congress to date guarantee
a limited and short-lived economic recovery. The economy will
significantly underperform its potential.
What Recession?
Now that we determined there is very little growth
in the 3rd quarter’s growth number and the prospect for growth in
coming quarters is not good, let’s have a look at the recession and
see how bad it is.
Was there a recession? Of course there was. But we need to examine
it a little closer to look for insights about its severity,
dispersion, and duration. Simply accepting the government’s
revelation that real GDP declined for two consecutive quarters is
not very useful to investors.
We need to understand the parts of the economy that are solid and
secure, and those parts that are extended and vulnerable. Actually,
I find it useful to think of recent economic events in terms of 2
economies.
Two Economies
Is there one recession or two economies? I think
recent economic events are better explained by considering not one
monolithic economy that goes up or down in concert and unity, but
rather by considering 2 economies operating somewhat independently
of each other.
One economy is stable and healthy, and another is false, sick and
had no business existing in the first place. But they are
interrelated …so the good or bad performance of one can show up in
the performance of the other.
The first one relates to providing goods and services that all of us
need, such as shelter, food, clothing, and other normal needs of
America’s families. This includes education, entertainment, and
lifestyles. As you will see, this economy is vital, important,
healthy and functioning.
The second economy is one that should have never existed in the
first place. It is an economy based on liars and losers buying
houses that were not homes. This economy is sick and dying and at
some point will no longer exist.
Examining the never ending stream of economic data in the context of
two economies will give us insights into investing opportunities and
dangers.
The Real Economy
The headline numbers are often about unemployment.
And it is true; unemployment now exceeds 10% and shows little signs
of abating. Underemployment is 18%. There seems to be lots of
political pressure to do something about the high and rising
unemployment and the government will undoubtedly try. But like
always, they will be too late and follow the wrong actions. The
recent Jobs Summit is a giant Joke.
The following chart compares total payroll employment (not
unemployment) with total income and personal consumption
expenditures. Payroll employment includes most of us. It does not
include self employed and farm workers.
Normally, unemployment is the commonly reported figure, but it is a
confusing number. It contains unemployed people who report every
week but not those who don’t report, or whose benefits have expired,
or those who have given up looking for employment. There are
millions of these people and the unemployment number ignores them
entirely. I find it more relevant to examine how many of us are
employed and how it has changed. That is why I use employment
instead of unemployment.

Payroll employment (blue line) has dropped
precipitously since the end of 2007. Nearly 8 million people have
lost their jobs in the past two years. Both economies have been
affected. For example, 1.6 million construction workers have been
laid off because of no construction work. But the real economy has
also shed jobs. Manufacturing employment decreased by 2.1 million
people. This reflects both the long term trend of less manufacturing
in the US and the sharp cutbacks related to the panic stop in the
supply chain last fall.
Payroll employment is behaving as it has in past recessions. In the
2001-2002 recession, employment declined and kept declining after
the recession was over. We should expect the same from this
recession…a continuing drop in employment.
The chart also shows personal income (green line) and personal
consumption expenditures (red line). Even though employment has
fallen off a cliff, both income and personal consumption has
remained flat. In the prior recession income and consumption
continued to rise as employment fell.
Income has declined slightly and personal consumption has not
declined at all during this recession. Average compensation has
actually increased. The same thing happened in the last recession.
Income leveled off and personal consumption kept increasing.
There are several parts to personal income. It includes employee
compensation, the largest part, income from investments, and income
from the government in the form of transfer payments. Examples of
government payments are social security, welfare and Medicare
payments.
There is no recession in personal consumption. 70% of personal
consumption is services and this sector has increased every quarter.
In fact, service expenditures have never declined in any quarter,
recession or not.
This next chart compares total income, which has not dropped in this
recession to salaried compensation which has. In fact, you will note
a widening t of the two lines especially since 2005. Salaried income
is important as it is the primary driver of total income. And it is
the source of the government payments through taxes.
Given the massive number of unemployed we would expect salaried
income to decline, and it has, but not significantly. In fact,
income per employee has risen in this recession.
Service employment is virtually unchanged. Declines in retail
employment have been offset by increases in healthcare employment
and federal worker employment.
Healthcare and federal government workers are asking “What
recession?”

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
Even though income levels have remained essentially
flat during this recession, the troubling point in this graph is
salaried income is declining. If salaried income continues to
decline, our economic “recovery” will be short-lived.
Let’s look at some anecdotal indicators to examine the recession
from a different perspective than just the government’s indicators.
We will look at entertainment, charitable giving, lifestyle
expenses, and others to get a better understanding of this
“recession”.
America’s Pets
Consider America’s love affair with our pets.
According to the National Pet Owners Survey, 62% of US households
own a pet. The ownership has increased over time, up from 56% of
household when the first survey was taken in 1988.
The following schedule illustrates the total cost of pet ownership
over the decade.
Annual Pet Expenditures
(Billions)
|
2000 |
$26.2 |
|
2001 |
$28.5 |
|
2002 |
$29.5 |
|
2003 |
$32.4 |
|
2004 |
$34.4 |
|
2005 |
$36.3 |
|
2006 |
$38.5 |
|
2007 |
$41.2 |
|
2008 |
$43.2 |
|
2009 |
$45.4 |
As you can see, our pampering of pets increased in
both the past two recessions. Both ownership and amount has
expanded. New products, such as hospice care and an airline that
transports nothing but pets are just two examples of how we dote on
our pets, recession of not.
Our pets are asking “What Recession?”
Garbage
Next let’s consider our production of garbage. In
particular, the amount of food scraps produced by America’s
households and restaurants.
America's Food Scraps
| |
Thous. Tons |
% of Total |
|
2000 |
26810 |
11.2% |
|
2001 |
26200 |
11.4% |
|
2002 |
27920 |
11.7% |
|
2003 |
28510 |
11.8% |
|
2004 |
29730 |
11.9% |
|
2005 |
30220 |
12.1% |
|
2006 |
31250 |
12.4% |
|
2007 |
31650 |
12.4% |
|
2008 |
31790 |
12.7% |
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Tonnage produced declined slightly in the last recession in 2001,
but increased again the following year. Even with this 2% decline,
the percentage of food scraps to total solid waste increased to
11.4%. In 2008, a recession year, both the amount and percentage
increased. America produced a record 32 million tons of food scraps
during the deepest recession since the early seventies.
The trash haulers are asking, “What Recession?”
College Football
Let’s ask America’s college football fans. We will
check their response to this recession by looking at National
College Athletic Association Football Division I attendance records
for the past six years. This does not include all college football
game attendance, but Division I is top level of competition in
college football and has the widest following. The following
schedule shows the annual attendance records at the 119 schools
included in Division I.
|
Year |
Season
Attendance |
|
2004 |
30,337,237 |
|
2005 |
30,570,915 |
|
2006 |
34,142,038 |
|
2007 |
34,659,322 |
|
2008 |
34,888,614 |
|
2009 Est. |
35,063,057 |
Source: National College Athletic Assoc.
As you can see, attendance increases every year, recession or not.
In the deepest recession since at least the mid 70’s, college
football attendance keeps climbing.
College football fans are asking, “What recession?”
New Businesses
As we all know, small businesses are a vital and
significant contributor to our economy and overall employment. There
are some 6 million businesses in America that employee people. The
difference between small and large businesses is the number of
employees. Large businesses are defined as those with 500 or more
employees. There are only 18,000 large businesses in the United
States. Small businesses, those with less than 500 employees,
accounted for 64% or 14.5 million of the 22.5 million new jobs added
to the economy from 1993 to 2008. One third of these new jobs came
from new firms.
The following chart shows the total new businesses started versus
the number of businesses closed, and the ratio of starts to
closures. About one percent of new businesses are added each year to
the 6 million existing businesses. The failure rate of new
businesses within the first five years of existence has always been
high, around 80%. The chart below does not track that, it just shows
the number of businesses opened and closed each year, not their
longevity.
As you can see, closures amounted to about 85% of new business
formations from 2004 to 2007. But the ratio shot up to 95% in 2008,
clearly reflecting the difficult business climate.
Business Formations and Failures
|
|
Starts |
Closures |
Ratio |
|
2004 |
628917 |
541047 |
86.0% |
|
2005 |
644122 |
565745 |
87.8% |
|
2006 |
670058 |
599333 |
89.4% |
|
2007 |
663100 |
571300 |
86.2% |
|
2008 |
627200 |
595600 |
95.0% |
Source: Small Business Administration
New business formation is a key element in
employment and economic growth. While new starts have remained
essentially flat, failures have increased dramatically. The
recession is just one reason. Federal regulation is another. Here is
the cost of federal regulation on businesses each year.
Annual Cost of Federal Regulations
(Cost Per Employee)
| |
Small Firms (Less Than 500 Employees) |
Large Firms
(500 or more Employees) |
| Environmental |
$3,296 |
$710 |
| Economic |
$2,127 |
$2,952 |
| Tax |
$1,304 |
$780 |
| Workplace |
$928 |
$841 |
| Total |
$7,655 |
$5,283 |
Source: Small Business Administration
As you can see, the economy’s best growth engine, small business,
bears the greatest regulatory burden. Federal regulatory costs for
small business are 45% higher than the costs for large business.
This will tend to discourage strong economic growth and make small
business failures more likely. High taxes and punishing regulations
insure economic growth in coming quarters will be tepid and
vulnerable.
Charitable Giving
You would expect charitable giving to decline when
times are tough. And it did decline in 2008, but not significantly.
Interestingly, contributions to churches and domestic and
international charities actually went up. The big decline was to
human service organizations and education.
The following schedule outlines charitable giving during this
recession, showing the source, which is primary individuals, and the
recipients, which are primarily churches.
Charitable Giving
|
|
($
billions) |
2007 |
2008 |
Change |
|
From: |
Individuals |
$235.5 |
$229.3 |
-2.7% |
|
|
Bequests |
$23.4 |
$22.7 |
-2.8% |
|
|
Foundations |
$40.0 |
$41.2 |
3.0% |
|
|
Corporations |
$15.1 |
$14.5 |
-4.5% |
|
|
Total |
$314.0 |
$307.7 |
-2.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To: |
Church |
$101.1 |
$106.7 |
5.5% |
|
|
Education |
$43.3 |
$40.9 |
-5.5% |
|
|
Charities |
$22.7 |
$23.9 |
5.4% |
|
|
Inter.
charities |
$13.3 |
$13.3 |
3.0% |
|
|
Human
services |
$29.7 |
$25.9 |
-12.7% |
|
|
Health
charities |
$23.1 |
$21.6 |
-6.5% |
|
|
Humanities |
$13.5 |
$12.8 |
-5.5% |
|
|
Animals |
$7.0 |
$6.6 |
-5.5% |
|
|
All other |
$60.3 |
$56.0 |
-7.1% |
|
|
Total |
$314.0 |
$307.7 |
-2.0% |
Source: Giving USA 2008 Report
Most givers are saying “We don’t care if there is a recession.”
And many Churches and charities are saying, “Thank God for the
generosity of the American people even in hard times.”
Cutbacks
Is everything going up? No, of course not.
Discretionary spending has declined. We are buying fewer cars, as we
already discussed, and our vacations are less expensive and
extravagant. We have cut back on eating out, especially in upscale
restaurants. The days of the $50,000 ice sculpture business
luncheons are over…at least for now. And no one will miss them
except the ice sculptor.
For the most part, families go about their lives as they always
have. But fifteen million unemployed people are going to have some
impact on all of us. You and I may have a job, but a family member,
friend or someone we know is probably out of work.
Recession and unemployment cause economic hardship. But we must
remember recessions are a natural and necessary part of the economic
cycle. That is why we call it a cycle… it has both up and down
phases. Economic cycles are healthy. The up cycle goes too far. At
its peak, it encourages marginal investments that fail. These
failures cause economic dislocations, including unemployment, but
also prepare the way for the next up cycle to begin.
Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, assures us there will always
be cycles and they will exist as long as the earth exists. So,
instead of trying to banish them, as governments desperately try to
do, so we should include them in our investment planning, as a
normal and recurring event.
The False Economy
This is an economy that should never have existed in
the first place. It could not exist without liars and losers. I am
talking about millions of houses we built that were not homes. Liars
and losers bought them at ever higher prices, all facilitated by
government requirements for banks to make loans to unworthy and
unqualified borrowers. This was the triumph of hope over experience
and was inevitably going to end badly. Liars are not worthy of loans
and losers can’t afford them.
The housing bubble that resulted took time to form as the following
chart illustrates.

Source: U.S Census Bureau
The blue line shows the steady rise in America’s total housing
units. The sharp dip in 2002 is only a change in the way the Census
Bureau tracks this information and not an actual decline.
From 2002 until 2008 America added to its inventory of houses. In
2002 our housing inventory was 117 million houses; in 2008 our
housing inventory was 130 million houses. As of the end of the 3rd
quarter of 2009 we had 130,302,000 housing units. This includes both
single family and multiple family dwellings. The number of
households has remained flat for the past 6 years at around 110
million. The current number is 111,612,000.
About one million new households are formed each year. And they need
housing. A good rule of thumb is America needs to build new houses
equal to the new household formations every year.
The number of houses and the number of households should track
closely together. In the past, these two lines (blue and red lines)
were very close together. In 2002 the blue line and red line started
to diverge. From 2002 until 2008 we built 13 million houses we did
not need and were not occupied. That’s a bubble!
The chart also shows the median house price in green (right scale),
which started rising sharply coming out of the 2001-2002 recession.
As house prices rose, we built even more houses. The difference
between houses and households is empty houses, which keeps rising
even as we build more houses.
This reinforcing pattern of higher prices and more empty houses just
kept getting worse, creating a massive housing bubble. This of
course was all enabled by the idiots in Washington, who wanted every
voter to be a homeowner even if it was temporary and foolhardy.
The music stopped when house prices could rise no further and began
to fall in mid 2007. After a lag, new housing starts began to
decline from the unsustainable rate of 2.2 million a year.
As you can see from the chart below, starts climbed rapidly after
the 2001-202 recession, despite no increase in households. And
currently, new housing starts have plunged to way below the level of
new household formations. As the excess inventory gets absorbed, new
housing starts will resume a more normal and sustainable level at
around 1 million a year.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Let’s add one more dimension to this sorry picture; the financing.
If all of these houses had been built with 100% equity they would
not have been built. The reason they were built was because 100% or
near 100% financing was available to unworthy borrowers. Congress
passed laws requiring banks to lend to liars and losers. This
created a recipe for mischief that built the bubble larger than
market forces would have allowed.
The following chart illustrates the total outstanding debt of all US
households (blue line). This is primarily mortgage debt, but also
includes $2.5 trillion in consumer debt such as car loans and credit
cards. I have also included two of the funding sources for mortgage
financing that made the housing bubble much worse than it needed to
be.
The first source was mortgage pools (red line) organized by hundreds
of small mortgage originators and sold to investors by Wall Street
firms. The second was government backed agency pools, such as
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (green line).

Source: Federal Reserve
After rising rapidly from 2002 to 2008, total household debt has
leveled off and is starting to decline. Mortgage pools have declined
drastically. Essentially, no new pools have been formed and the
existing pools are being paid off or charged off. The sad part of
this is that government sponsored loans are still increasing.
Everyone, it seems, understands a housing bubble except the
government.
Building houses we did not need financed with loans we could not pay
employed millions of people. Many are now unemployed.
The following chart shows the employment levels of both the
construction and financial services industries. As you would expect,
construction is a more volatile industry than banking. Even so, both
industries have shed millions of employees in the past two years.

Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
One million six hundred thousand construction workers and nearly
500,000 financial service workers have been laid off since the
recession began.
According to the American Bankers Association, 14.1% of single
family houses were in either delinquent or foreclosure status. This
is an all time high since the American Bankers Assoc. has been
gathering data in 1972. This amounts to just over 4 million homes.
As the largest mortgage lenders, banks are suffering massive write
offs and losses. So far this year, 129 banks failed and were closed
by the FDIC. This compares with 26 bank failures in 2008 and just
three in 2007.
Unfortunately, the real economy and many normal and prudent banks
and borrowers got caught in this housing bubble. Rising house prices
affected any family that relocated for business or career reasons.
They had to pay more and borrow more for their new house. And the
bursting bubble has left them with less equity than when they
purchased the home. In effect, they are stuck, at least for the next
few years, in homes with loans larger than the value of the house.
Limited Loans
Banks have become much more conservative in their
lending since the housing meltdown and the freezing of the credit
markets. The following chart shows where they are investing now. It
is certainly not in loans to businesses and consumers.
As you can see, business loans (called C&I loans) have fallen by
$250 billion in the past year. And consumer loans have declined
slightly. The real eye opener is the excess deposits banks must
maintain with the Federal Reserve Bank.

All banks are required to maintain a minimum amount
of reserves kept on deposit with the Fed. The minimum is shown in
the green line from 2000 until October 2008. Much of the $700
billion in government bailout money that went to prop up the major
banks last fall was immediately redeposited with the Federal
Reserve. As you can see, excess reserves zoomed from near zero to $1
trillion in the past year.
Conclusion
The declining availability of credit from banks,
declining employment, declining house prices, bank failures, housing
foreclosures, and very low new housing starts are all clear evidence
this false economy is disappearing.
The false economy is not very big, relative to our national economic
engine, but nevertheless it is causing lots of pain. Unfortunately,
that is how bubbles end…in pain and loss.
Ok, so let’s add this up:
• Most of our economy is solid, functioning and
healthy.
• The outlook is for slow growth until risk/return is in better
balance
• The housing bubble is deflating and the false economy is
disappearing
Portfolio Strategy
My analysis is that there was no recession in much
of our economy, and there certainly was no recovery.
The outlook is for us to sputter along, dragged down by excessive
regulations, confiscatory taxes, and the slow abandonment of the
economic principals that made us the most powerful economy on earth.
In this environment it becomes essential to adhere strictly to our
investing disciplines of high and sustainable income. We will
continue to avoid any investments related to the False Economy, such
as residential housing and finance.
The Model Portfolio is 80% invested. I will add to existing
underinvested positions as pricing opportunities present themselves.
May you live long and prosper,
Mike Williams, CFA (back
to commentary) |