To sum it up, on April 23, 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sent a letter to Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chris Dodd; Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank; SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro; and Chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel Elizabeth Warren.
The letter outlined how former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke forced Bank of America’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch – even though Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis and the board of directors tried to pull the plug on the deal after it turned out that Merrill Lynch was far deeper in debt than it had admitted.
In the words of Attorney General Cuomo himself:
Immediately after learning on December 14, 2008 of what Lewis described as the “staggering amount of deterioration” at Merrill Lynch, Lewis conferred with counsel to determine if Bank of America had grounds to rescind the merger agreement by using a clause that allowed Bank of America to exit the deal if a material adverse event (“MAC”) occurred. After a series of internal consultations and consultations with counsel, on December 17, 2008, Lewis informed then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that Bank of America was seriously considering invoking the MAC clause. Paulson asked Lewis to come to Washington that evening to discuss the matter.
Bank of America’s attempt to exit the merger came to a halt on December 21, 2008. That day, Lewis informed Secretary Paulson that Bank of America still wanted to exit the merger agreement. According to Lewis, Secretary Paulson then advised Lewis that, if Bank of America invoked the MAC, its management and Board would be replaced.
Meanwhile Ken Lewis has been sacked as chairman of the board at Bank of America… even though he might well have been the only conscientious and honest player in this scheme. And now the sharks have started to turn on each other: according to Cuomo, Paulson “largely corroborated Lewis’s account” and informed the attorney general’s office that he “made the threat at the request of Chairman Bernanke.” The latter has so far chosen to keep his mouth shut.

The key factor here is not that the Devious Duo forced Bank of America into a merger it didn’t want to commit to. Granted, that’s an unheard-of interference of government in the free market, but we’re quite sure that the Powers-That-Be could sweep it under the rug by invoking the “greater good.”
No, the part of the story that could really break Al Paulson and Don Bernanke’s necks is the failure to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as Bank of America’s shareholders, of the extent of toxic waste Bank of America was forced to accept. That’s fraud, pure and simple.
And that’s a pretty good sign that this is not going to go away. Some of the Casey Research editors – yes, we do have bets out – think it’s going to be huge, especially since the scandal happened on President Bush’s watch and the Democrats are in control of Congress. Chances are that either Paulson or Bernanke is going down, depending who cuts a deal with prosecutors first. Their “friends in high places” may be able to keep the Justice Department out of it, but they won’t be able to control ambitious state officials like Cuomo. There’s blood in the water, and this is a career maker for a prosecutor.
So what happens when the highest financial officials in the U.S. government are unmasked as crooks? Will there be riots in the streets? Will the average American pick up his torch and pitchfork and march on Washington D.C.? Probably not. But it may happen at some point as we are moving deeper into the Greater Depression, a term coined by Doug Casey, our resident contrarian investment guru. Read Doug’s FREE, 13-page special report about what will happen when social unrest breaks out in the United States, and what you should do to prepare your assets for that time. Click here to read it now.

Source: Bigger Than Watergate?

“Currently, the vast majority of banks have more capital than they need to be considered well capitalized by their regulators,” Geithner said in testimony to a congressional oversight panel on the government’s financial rescue program.

One of these banks, Bank of America (BAC), the world’s second largest in terms of market capitalization, booked a first-quarter net income of $4.247 billion – 6% more than it made in all of 2008.

So is this the turnaround Geithner et al. have been willing to beggar our nation’s future for?

Before calling your broker and placing a big order for bank stocks based on all this “good” news, it might be prudent to answer a couple questions first.

For starters, just where did all this income come from? And has credit quality really improved?

The answers to both can be found buried in a company press release bearing the encouraging title “Bank of America Earns $4.2 Billion in First Quarter.”

I’d like to draw your attention to the four most telling excerpts from this release.
1. “Equity investment income includes a $1.9 billion pretax gain on the sale of China Construction Bank (CCB) shares.”
2. “Noninterest income included $2.2 billion in gains related to mark-to-market adjustments on certain Merrill Lynch structured notes as a result of credit spreads widening.”
3. “Credit quality deteriorated further across all lines of business as housing prices continued to fall and the economic environment weakened.”
4. Nonperforming assets were $25.7 billion compared with $18.2 billion at December 31, 2008 and $7.8 billion at March 31, 2008, reflecting the continued deterioration in portfolios tied to housing.”
Now we see that out of its $4.2 billion in profits, a total of $4.1 billion came from a one-time sale of CCB stock and marking up Merrill’s book of mortgages. If you subtract these one-time gains from net income and include preferred dividends, Bank of America actually lost $1.286 billion.

As far as credit quality goes, I think number 3 above makes the situation as clear as can be.

Importantly, Bank of America is not the only big bank engaged in accounting sleight of hand.

As The New York Times article “Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air” by Andrew Ross Sorkin points out:
With Goldman Sachs, the disappearing month of December didn’t quite disappear (it changed its reporting calendar, effectively erasing the impact of a $1.5 billion loss that month); JP Morgan Chase reported a dazzling profit partly because the price of its bonds dropped (theoretically, they could retire them and buy them back at a cheaper price; that’s sort of like saying you’re richer because the value of your home has dropped); Citigroup pulled the same trick.

So what’s the takeaway?

When the Treasury secretary tells you banks are well capitalized and you read in the press that financial institutions have turned a corner, don’t buy it. And don’t buy the stocks of these companies either.

These days, smart investors are well advised to carefully watch the investment as well as the political landscape… because Washington’s movers and shakers’ influence on the markets has never been greater. The Casey Report investigates and analyzes those influences and trends – to find the best investing opportunities with maximum gains. You can try it completely risk-free – check out our 3-month trial with 100% money-back guarantee. Click here to learn more.

Source: Are Banks Going Bankrupt? “NO!”, say Banks

According to a November report by the Federal Reserve, nearly 60% of banks severely tightened their lending standards on credit card loans and 65% on other consumer loans in the last three months. As unemployment and delinquency rates go up and lenders are trying to minimize their risk, the average American all of a sudden finds himself cash strapped… this at a time when home equity has dried up, 401(k)s and IRAs are losing value by the day, and many common stocks are barely worth the paper they’re printed on.

“We’ve been hearing about the liquidity crisis affecting banks for quite a while,” Joe Ridout, spokesman for the advocacy group Consumer Action, told the Washington Post. “Now we’re seeing it transform into a crisis affecting people’s personal finances as well. The next wave of the financial crisis may well be a credit-card-related crisis.”

Credit card companies are indeed clamping down hard on customers. Many Americans may have noticed that while their mailbox used to burst with junk mail of the “You’re Pre-Approved!” sort, these days the influx has slowed down to a dribble. That’s no coincidence – credit card direct mail offers in the third quarter of 2008 have seen a 28% drop year-over year as Visa, AmEx & Co. are struggling to cope with a tidal wave of defaults.

Moody’s Investors Service reported that charge-off rates rose 48% in August compared to the same month last year, the 20th consecutive year-over-year increase. This number is expected to go even higher in 2009, potentially exceeding the charge-off rates during past recessions.

Thus, credit card members are increasingly coming under scrutiny – and not just those in the subprime category. Customers with a credit score of 700, who were deemed “most creditworthy” just a year ago are not anymore. According to cardratings.com, 730 is the new 700.

The palette of “risk factors” has also broadened. Aside from late bill and mortgage payments, now location, profession, and even shopping behavior are considered. If you live in a high-foreclosure area, work in the real estate, auto, or construction business, and buy your household necessities at Wal-Mart, you’re likely on the target list.

One of the measures credit card issuers have devised to reduce risk is slashing credit limits in half. 60% of banks lowered the credit ceiling for existing nonprime and 20% for prime customers. And, as a testament that the intended “trickle-down effect” of the Fed’s massive rate cuts didn’t work at all, many companies have kept their interest rates at the same level or even raised them by two or three percentage points. Late fees, too, have been increased.

This tightening of credit translates directly to people’s shopping habits. While Black Friday weekend brought an overall growth of 0.9% in sales from last year, retail sales data show that that wasn’t enough to save the month of November. The MasterCard SpendingPulse reading noted that electronics and appliance sales dropped by 25% in November, luxury goods by 24%, and sales at clothing and department stores by 20%. Foot traffic decreased by 19% from 2007, meaning shoppers visited fewer stores.

C. Britt Beemer, CEO and founder of America’s Research Group, who has correctly predicted percentage changes in Christmas retail sales for 16 of the last 17 years, published his first negative forecast (of -1%) in 23 years, calling the 2008 Christmas shopping season a “perfect storm” for retailers.

Even as the average American is battening down the hatches and reining in consumption, the Federal Reserve seems to be going the opposite way, judging from the $700 billion bailout package that has – literally within weeks – ballooned into an estimated $8.5 trillion colossus. But despite throwing fistfuls of money at the problem, says Bud Conrad, Casey Research chief economist and editor of The Casey Report, “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men haven’t been able to put Humpty back together again.”

We don’t know whether the Humpty Dumpty economy can be saved… what we do know, though, is that every crisis holds danger and opportunity. By making the trend your friend instead of swimming against the stream, you can preserve your assets and profit handsomely, especially in highly volatile environments like the one we are seeing now. To learn more about how to generate double- and triple-digit returns in a crisis, click here.

Source: The Credit Crunch, Close Up and Personal

Unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise.  Three months before the recession was officially declared, Paulson and Bernanke have embarked on the largest bailout program ever conceived with the blessing of a lame-duck president and a complicit Congress – a program which so far will cost taxpayers $8.5 trillion. This staggering sum encompasses:  loans backed by worthless assets ($2.3T), equity investments in bankrupt companies with negative net worth ($3.0T), and guarantees on crumbling derivatives and other hollow collateral ($3.2T).

Back in September I was stunned that Paulson was able to make his case and win the support of Congress for a $700 billion bailout package (more than the total war spending in Iraq to date).

How could Americans (or more accurately, their representatives) agree to give such a broad mandate with so few checks and balances?  Have we become completely numb?

While I realize that many of our compatriots have been running large credit card balances and interest-only mortgages with little thought as to how they would repay their debt, one would expect a little more restraint when dealing with the financial future of the largest economy in the world.

Operating under the assumption that our largest financial institutions are “too big to fail”, in the span of a few weeks we went from pledging to spend $1 trillion to $3 trillion – a commitment which then grew to $5 trillion before ballooning to a staggering $8.5 trillion.

At the rate we are going, we will be dealing with double digits – in trillions- before the end of the year.
And while all off that money is not yet spent, make no mistake – these are real commitments with serious liabilities attached to them.

I have heard the argument that an equity infusion is not the same as spending money.  While I would agree that in an arms-length transaction this might actually be the case, our government is definitely paying a large premium.  What is the real value of Citicorp or AIG?  Since they are quasi-bankrupt (and would be totally bankrupt without massive injections from the Fed), a reasonable businessperson might pay a token price for their equity and the assumption of their enormous liabilities.  Before doing so however, a buyer would have to see some significant value in buying these entities as a continuing business.  In most cases, a buyer would not want to assume the company’s liabilities but would prefer to buy selective unencumbered assets in a bankruptcy proceeding.  Any money our government pays above what a reasonable person would pay in an arms-length transaction is real spending and should more accurately be called a grant.

While defenders of the too-big-to-fail policies argue that providing guarantees is not the same as granting money, the reality is that these guarantees are necessary to prevent the collapse of financial institutions currently lacking the necessary collateral to meet their loan covenants.  Should their loans be called, we could actually find out the real value of their assets.  The fact is that in-spite of Paulson’s and Bernanke’s efforts, deleveraging is already happening.  Although at a slower pace, one asset class after another is being adjusted down towards its intrinsic value, which is usually not much.  Make no mistake; many of these guarantees will eventually be called in by lenders.  In due time, unless our government is able to inflates its way out of this bottomless pit, it will have to honor most of these guarantees.

So how does $8.5 trillion dollars compare with the cost of some of the major conflicts and programs initiated by the US government since its inception?  To try and grasp the enormity of this figure, let’s look at some other financial commitments undertaken by our government in the past:

As illustrated above, one can see that in today’s dollar, we have already committed to spending levels that surpass the cumulative cost of all of the major wars and government initiatives since the American Revolution.

Recently, the Congressional Research Service estimated the cost of all of the major wars our country has fought in 2008 dollars.  The chart above shows that the entire cost of WWII over four to five years was less than half the current pledges made by Paulson and Bernanke in the last three months!

In spite of years of conflict, the Vietnam and the Iraq wars have each cost less than the bailout package that was approved by Congress in two weeks.   The Civil War that devastated our country had a total price tag (for both the Union and Confederacy) of $60.4 billion, while the Revolutionary War was fought for a mere $1.8 billion.

In its fifty or so years of existence, NASA has only managed to spend $885 billion – a figure which got us to the moon and beyond.

The New Deal had a price tag of only $500 billion.  The Marshall Plan that enabled the reconstruction of Europe following WWII for $13 billion, comes out to approximately $125 billion in 2008 dollars.  The cost of fixing the S&L crisis was $235 billion.

The best deal ever for a government program was the Louisiana Purchase, a deal with the French that gave us 23% of the surface of today’s US for only $15 million ($284 million in today’s dollars).  Why couldn’t Paulson and Bernanke display the financial acumen of a Thomas Jefferson?

How will our country repay its debts?   The current bailout represents 62% of our GDP.  Our current deficit of almost $11 trillion may exceed our GDP next year.

Recently the Treasury has been able to place new debt; investors have liquidated equities and bonds and sought refuge in the relative safety of the dollar and government bonds.

As we move forward however, our government will need to attract trillions of dollars annually to fund its programs and commitments.  The foreigners who have financed our irresponsible spending for many years will no longer be able to afford it, let alone finance more of our reckless behavior.

As a matter of fact, several countries have already announced their own bailout packages to prop up their domestic economy.  And, unlike during WWII, when Americans invested their savings to support the war effort and fund our government’s deficit, our citizens are in debt themselves with no savings left to invest.

In the near future, the Fed will have no choice but to turn on the printing presses and start operating them around the clock to create the money that can’t be raised in the capital market.

These actions will lead to a significant debasement of the dollar and a major appreciation of gold and all commodities (real assets).

Once this inflationary cycle starts, foreigners will realize that their investments in T-bills are depreciating rapidly.  There will be a massive exodus that will put more pressure on the dollar and on interest rates.  Our weakened US economy will be faced with the rising cost of capital and a painful period of stagflation.  Trillions of dollars will have been wasted.  Our government will have mortgaged America and the ensuing debt will have to be paid by future generations.

Not a very bright picture, to be sure, but the Casey Research team strongly believes that there are opportunities in every crisis. Preserving your assets and even profiting in times of crisis by making the trend your friend is the focus of Casey’s flagship publication, The Casey Report. We have helped subscribers get positioned in commodities in the late ‘90s, buy grains in 2006, and short financial stocks 18 months ago… resulting in double- and often triple-digit returns.

To learn more about the trends we predicted and, more importantly, the emerging trends we now foresee, click here now.

Source: The Real Cost of the Recession

“The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said Albert Einstein.

The best thing that could happen to the auto industry is the Big Three filing for bankruptcy protection. As a former turnaround professional, I am convinced that the tools afforded by the bankruptcy courts would allow these companies to restructure dramatically, thus allowing them to renegotiate and drastically lower most of their liabilities. Management would be overhauled, pensions renegotiated, union agreements tabled and made more flexible. Everything that these three companies have attempted to do for years, and could never achieve, would now be possible.

So, why in the world is management siding with the unions in their appeal to Congress?

Because under bankruptcy protection, management becomes accountable to the court, many of their perks and benefits would be curtailed, and they could, heaven forbid, even lose their jobs.

The auto industry, its unions and allies are therefore quick to point out that they, too, are “too big to fail” (have we heard that before?), that the American economy would not recover from the job losses and the economic impact of failures that would have far-reaching implications.

The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) has just released a comprehensive study on the impact of a 100% failure of the Big Three in the U.S.:

• In the first year, the U.S. economy would lose 3 million jobs (about nine additional jobs for each auto worker that is laid off). It would lose another 2.5 million in year two and 1.8 million in year three.
• U.S. personal income would decline by over $150 billion in the first year and another $250 billion in the next two years.
• Our government would also lose $60 billion in 2009 and almost another $100 billion in the next two years.
• We would lose a piece of Americana (those of you who are nostalgic for the good ol’ days might enjoy the following video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGZvQoPxhNs)

I agree – it poses a very grim scenario.

In fact, Senate Bill Sec. 402 seeks to “(C) preserve and promote the jobs of 355,000 workers in the United States directly employed by the auto industry and an additional 4,500,000 workers in the United States employed in related industries; and (D) safeguards the ability of the domestic automobile industry to provide retirement health care benefits for 1,000,000 retirees and their spouses and dependents.”

Obviously, the $25 billion approved by Congress on September 24, 2008 is already falling short. It is clearly not enough to deal with a problem of that scale and, the car makers lament, needs to be doubled immediately. But in case you wonder, the industry and its unions do reserve the right to come back for more…

So let’s review some of CAR’s assertions in light of what we know:

Auto sales are forecast to decline from 16.1 million in 2007 to 14.9 million in 2008. 2009 can be expected to be much worse. Spending on capital goods such as cars and trucks will be affected long-term as a result of excessive consumer debt, tighter credit terms, higher unemployment, and a serious recession (or depression).

If car sales decline dramatically, manufacturing capacity has to be reduced to match demand. This means that the less productive plants would be shut down, employees laid off, and that the supply chain would have to adjust accordingly. This is basic economics so far.

Now comes our choice: On the one hand, we have some highly productive global manufacturers that produce fuel-efficient vehicles the U.S. consumer wants and can afford to buy. On the other hand, we have three inefficient companies that produce unattractive gas guzzlers and are plagued with high legacy costs and liabilities (Big Three workers make $73/hr, Toyota’s $48, the average manufacturing worker makes $32). Why should U.S. taxpayers subsidize these losers? Is it so that they can continue to compete unsuccessfully with productive manufacturers and avoid any dramatic (and much-needed) changes in their way of doing business?

In light of the fact that throwing good money after bad almost never works out, I think the U.S. taxpayers should not bail out GM, Ford, and Chrysler. A common-sense alternative would be to save our tax dollars and allow the most efficient manufacturers to gain market share and hire more workers. Ultimately the U.S. market will post sales of 12 to 15 million cars annually. If it takes one, two, or three million fewer workers to produce the cars U.S. consumers can afford to buy, so be it.

A farmer with one modern wheat combine can do the job of a thousand 18th century farm hands. That is a lot of unemployed farm workers, yet nobody demands to return to those good old days. Productivity and efficiency do result in job losses and dislocation, but eventually progress creates new jobs and additional wealth.

Whether a Honda, GM, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai, or VW, currently each and every car still requires one engine and four wheels. Each manufacturer uses basically the same domestic and overseas suppliers, and each has dealers selling its cars (most dealers represent a broad spectrum of brands and will sell whatever car the market wants). The argument that GM closing its doors would result in the loss of 2 million jobs or more is ludicrous as the competitors that pick up the slack will hire workers and buy more from their suppliers. While that may not be good for Detroit, it may be good for the Carolinas or Tennessee.

Simply, business shifting from certain players in the industry to others is called competition. Capitalism and competition are the forces that have made the U.S. the most successful economy for many decades. Granted, it is a harsh reality, but it works, and so far no other system has come even close to creating as much wealth for most of its agents.

Anyone who follows our flagship newsletter, The Casey Report, knows our stance: we hope, most likely in vain, that the new administration will finally come to the realization that no entity is too big to fail. Besides, bankruptcy reorganizations have a much greater chance of success with larger corporations, as they usually have lots of assets to dispose of — assets that can be sold cheaply to new enterprises, which are then able to build businesses on a much sounder basis. In the process, there is innovation and progress.

The choice is clear: Either the Obama administration can continue on the path of nationalizing entire segments of our economy (so far banking, insurance, auto – next, health, airlines…) and run them into the ground. Or it can let poorly managed companies fail, thereby making it easy for successful businesses and new entrepreneurs to buy the assets of these organizations. Step back and let the markets work their magic instead of blaming the market for ills that were created by special interests and poorly designed regulations.

Source: Should the Big Three Be Allowed to Fail?

Despite the current, volatile environment, though, the expert team at Casey Research maintain their core prediction: that a highly inflationary cycle is not far off. While we, along with several external experts, continuously review our assumptions and conclusions and encourage dissenting opinions and analysis to avoid biased conclusions, so far we keep returning to our views about what’s coming. That said, the hardest thing to predict is not what will happen, but when.

The way I see it, the swift, far-reaching and mostly ill-conceived reactions from most of the world’s governments under the leadership of two apprentice sorcerers (Bernanke and Paulson) have until now resulted in a widespread run for an exit to nowhere, a deep credit freeze, and total and indiscriminate mistrust in the market and all of its players.

The fact remains that in the last year, many principles that have long been rooted in the success of capitalism have been thrown out of the window.

• First, market players discovered that the longest-lasting asset bubble in recent history was made possible by poor regulations (as opposed to lack thereof), greed, and the misunderstood and misrepresented risks of credit derivatives.
• Second, we found out the real meaning of “too big to fail.” If a business is large enough and has enough clout, it doesn’t matter how poorly managed it has been, it will be bailed out at the expense of taxpayers (us) and investors (us again).
• Third, we found that the rating systems the financial markets had been relying on have been misleading investors and failing to identify some of the riskiest asset classes. As a result, investors and all other economic agents are left with no means of evaluating risk as they conduct business, hence the credit freeze and rush to cash.
• Fourth, to add to the confusion, the U.S. Fed and Treasury, followed by many other central banks, have been altering the rules of the game by the minute (buying toxic waste at face value, bailing out certain financial institutions but not others, becoming shareholders of several behemoths in the banking and insurance industry, and trumping all accepted rules of creditors’ and stakeholders’ priority, prohibiting the shorting of certain classes of assets on a moment’s notice).
• Last but not least, the U.S. presidency, weakened by almost eight years of mismanagement, has continued to show total lack of leadership. It has empowered a couple of technocrats to run the country’s finances without leadership until a new administration gets in and, hopefully quickly, figures out what to do. To make matters worse, the EU has shown its ugliest face and demonstrated a fact we all truly knew but didn’t want to recognize until recently — that economic unity and coordination is easy in good times but almost impossible when the going gets tough.

No wonder economic actors are wreaking havoc as they race for shelter.

Add to this the fact that all natural resources have been hammered by the combination of a credit freeze and lower real and anticipated demand from most industrial nations.

Finally, junior exploration stocks – being very thinly traded and rightfully considered to be in a higher risk class — have been hammered twice as hard as the rest of the markets (hence the performance of the TSX-V, which has lost 76% in the last year and 30% in the past 30 days alone). The fact that many hedge funds had to unwind large positions in such a small market certainly did not help values.

What does this mean for investors in this market?

We all have suffered significant losses in our portfolios, and although our choices may have reduced some of the downside, quality companies have been hit almost as hard as fly-by-night juniors with no future.

Several of our companies are trading at or below cash value and get no goodwill for the significant assets and outstanding management teams they have assembled.

Although there is no way to tell when we will hit a bottom in these markets, we believe that once tax-loss selling season is over and reality settles in, we will see the beginning of a slow recovery process for the best of the juniors. Investors who have the ability to stay the course and are invested in the highest-quality juniors will recover from their losses and benefit from what will eventually be another bull market in commodities.

Precious metals and agriculture, followed by certain segments of the energy sector, will lead the way to widespread price increases across the range of commodities. While we can’t predict the exact timing of this run, the fundamentals are in place once the world economies take a turn for the better or at least stabilize somewhat.

Here is why:

• The current crisis is taking tremendous amounts of needed capacity off the supply pipeline. Whether it be energy, base metals, or agricultural goods, projects to bring online expensive oilfields and alternative fuel sources are being shelved and will take years to get back on track. Mines are closing and projects are being canceled, thereby removing much of the supply; the credit squeeze is cutting down on agricultural investment, and working capital constraints will dramatically limit supply.
• The world’s demographics are not changing, nor are the aspirations of a hard-working, fast-growing middle class in emerging economies. The changes that drove commodity markets up for the last few years are long lasting and real.
• Peak Oil and peak-everything. There is limited supply for many commodities, and although there are alternatives (curbing consumption and finding alternative sources of energy), it takes large investments to do so. In current markets, many of these investments are going to be put aside until the next crisis/shortage hits – at which point we will have years of a commodities bull run before an equilibrium is reached.
• We anticipate that China, Russia, and India will take advantage of low commodity prices to secure very large, long-term supply commitments while the Western world licks its wounds and tries to recover. By the time we do, an even larger portion of the world’s available resources may no longer be available on the markets, for example oil and gas.In the last edition of Casey Energy Opportunities, Marin Katusa pondered how the U.S. is going to replace the supply of uranium when the HEU program with Russia is set to expire in 2013. The answer is that the U.S. will struggle to replace 40% of its needs, and this will benefit a handful of U.S. suppliers with proven reserves. Currently shares of these companies, which have the cash to develop resources or are already producing with positive cash flows, are incredibly cheap – a win-win situation. Eventually similar opportunities will come from copper and strategic metals.
• We can expect the world to continue to be a very unstable place, where regional conflicts can quickly spread and spin out of control, with obvious impact on the smooth supply of key commodities (Gulf region, Nigeria, former Soviet republics, to name a few). In fact, a widespread financial crisis could precipitate those events as conflicts are often linked to economic hardship.
• The unprecedented deficits, a wave of bailouts, and growth in the money creation by central banks in the Western world will eventually lead to massive inflation. In the U.S. alone, the monetary supply has increased by 50% since early September. This will unequivocally reverse the current short-term deflationary pressures and lead to a steep devaluation of the dollar and other major currencies. At that point, precious metals and all tangible assets are poised for a strong recovery.

So, if you ask me if I am still bullish on the resource sector, my answer yes, now more than ever. Juniors are juniors, and when things go wrong, they get beaten down. The strong ones with great teams and lots of cash will survive and prosper, the others will disappear. When commodities come back with a vengeance, there will be fewer companies, almost all with good projects… and those who are invested in these few companies will see a very sizeable appreciation of their capital as the broader public returns.

It’s very hard to be a contrarian investor, especially when all forces seem to be against you, but one thing the markets have taught me is that memory on the Street is unbelievably short, and they will come back.

Not only is the economy presently going haywire, there’s also still the boogeyman of Peak Oil looming on the horizon. While oil prices are at a low not seen for a while, it is all but certain that this sweet relief for motorists won’t last very long.

When oil prices come roaring back, the energy market will virtually explode… and,  if you are safely positioned in the right stocks by then, your bank account will too. Learn more about how being a contrarian investor can earn you a fortune – click here.

Source: Lost Principles

On November 19, bonds and stocks backed by commercial real estate loans plummeted on investors’ fears the struggling U.S. economy might lead to a wave of defaults.

Big real estate companies suffered big losses: shares of Simon Property Group, the top U.S. mall operator, declined 13%; Boston Properties Inc., owner of skyscrapers and office buildings in key U.S. markets, fell 12.1%.

General Growth Properties Inc., which owns more than 200 mall properties throughout the United States, is teetering on the brink of annihilation. If the flailing company can’t come up with the $958 million of its debt that is now due, and the $3.07 billion due next year, it will have to file for bankruptcy protection.

“Ghost malls” may become a common sight around the country, with major mall developers and big-name retail chains like Linens ‘n Things and Circuit City going broke and others, such as Starbucks, closing hundreds of stores nationwide. Small businesses are even worse off as shoppers tighten their belts.

A recent Newsweek article quipped that it would “take some kind of sorcery to keep the current mix of store closings, skeletal inventories, hard-to-find sales staff and anxious consumers from turning the yuletide shopping season of 2008 into a seriously cranky Christmas. Even Santas have been getting pink-slipped.”

None of what’s happening surprises Andy Miller, a consummate real estate entrepreneur and friend of Doug Casey’s, who presented his outlook on the commercial real estate market in the September edition of The Casey Report.

Miller on Retail Shopping Centers:
“Retail  are the most exposed product type. For example, we have a grocery-anchored shopping center in Phoenix that’s about 94% occupied. We’ve been trying to sell it for the last nine months. We’ve had it under contract probably four times. Each time, it’s fallen through because the buyers were unable to find a lender. The lack of liquidity is particularly acute in the commercial markets.

“Most commercial mortgages that were written over the last 10 years for most product types, except apartments, were done by conduits, and they were done by asset-backed finance securitizations, CDOs, etc. The overwhelming number of those conduits are now either out of the market or shut down. There’s going to be a tremendous upheaval in the commercial market relative to the fact that there’s almost no conduit money available anymore.”

Miller on Office Space:
“The office market, of course, is eroding. While I expect the central business districts around the 20 top cities in the country to probably be relatively stable in terms of office occupancy, I think the suburban markets are going to get creamed.”

Miller on Warehouses:
“Warehouses are bad. They’re very flat. Users are consolidating; they’re not expanding.”

Miller on Hotels:
“I’d also be wary of hotels. The hotel business is proliferating right now, in a way that I’ve never seen. There are so many new hotels being built right now nationally that there’s no way, even in good times, that I think they could sustain occupancy. A lot of these hotels now have created new flags and they’re putting them in multiple locations in most big cities. So there’s been a tremendous proliferation of hotels and, with high air fares and high gas costs, there’s no question that that’s going to be a bad place to be.”

Miller on the Real Estate Bubble:
“There is no historical comparison to the situation today. Not even the Great Depression was like this. I believe we’ve just lived through the greatest expansion of capital in the history of planet Earth, in the history of mankind.

“And this happened really all over about 12 or 13 years, this gigantic, dynamic expansion of money. There is no precedent for this. One truth about cycles is that the downward part of the cycle is usually quicker and more painful than the upward swing. We didn’t get into this thing overnight. It took many years, and we are not going to get out of it overnight. It’s going to take many years to unwind.”

Waiting for the other shoe to drop is an uncomfortable position to be in. Thankfully, there are a number of lifelines we as investors can grab on to, to avoid getting sucked into the whirlpool of declining asset values and a declining dollar… and we should take every chance we get to use them.

How well you do in the unfolding crisis will depend on how well informed you are. “Making the trend your friend” is now more critical than ever to financially survive the onslaught of tidal waves rocking the U.S. economy. The Casey Report diligently analyzes major economic trends and provides actionable advice on how to profit from the  “market riptides” – with the goal of preserving and multiplying your assets while others capsize in the stormy seas. Learn more here.

Olivier Garret, Casey Research

Source: Commercial Real Estate – the Next Show to Drop

This from Oilver Garrett at Casey Research:

Doug Casey coined the term “Greater Depression” in his best-selling book Crisis Investing, published in 1979. Today, it resounds throughout the land; even CNN’s Glenn Beck recently used it in an op-ed piece. And the signs are increasing that a depression may indeed be what we are moving towards.

On September 30, 2008 (end fiscal 2008), the Congressional Budget Office reported a record federal budget deficit for the year of $455 billion, up $293 billion (or 181%) from fiscal 2007.

And that does not yet include the Fed’s bailout package for failing banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and various other “economic stimuli.”

The chart below shows that the $700 billion agreed to by Congress may have been a very optimistic estimate.

On October 3, President Bush signed into law the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. With this Act, Congress and the president have ensured a runaway government deficit next year…one sure to exceed $1 trillion.

Along with total federal debt outstanding already around $10.3 trillion, unfunded liabilities of at least $50 trillion, and many new programs and tax rebates promised by both presidential candidates, this does not bode well for the global economic outlook.

As if that was not enough, during the past few weeks, the Fed increased the country’s monetary base by as much as 20% to shore up the financial systems.

Federal budget deficits facilitate “loose” (expansionist) monetary policies, and these policies set in motion the business cycle. As the economy enters the cycle’s “bust” phase, massive federal deficits have left the government with only one option — to try to inflate itself out of the current crisis, regardless of the impact on the value of the dollar.

A rapidly growing money supply at the same time the biggest credit bubble in 25 years bursts makes for a less than desirable scenario –- one that could make the stagflation of the ‘70s look like a walk in the park.

In March 1975, industrial production fell by nearly 13% while the yearly rate of CPI growth jumped to around 12%. It took another seven years and a second recession before the US was able to break from the stagflation cycle.

What we are likely in for now is an unprecedented period of price inflation, economic depression, and high unemployment, i.e., not just stagflation but depflation (inflationary depression).

Depflation will affect the entire population, and its effects on people’s personal finances will manifest in multiple ways.

• Purchasing power declines as prices for consumer goods increase faster than wages.
• Taxes levied on businesses and individuals increase when nominal incomes rise.
• Late recipients of new money incur cost of additional hidden tax.
• Cost of money (interest rates) increases, hurts investments in capital goods, stocks and bonds.
• Once expectation sets in, it becomes a self-feeding phenomenon, taking years and a severe recession to work itself out.

Just like a shot of adrenalin administered to a sick patient generates an apparent revival, only to have the patient collapse as soon as the injection wears off, the artificial monetary injections by the Fed will do the same.

Paraphrasing former Fed chairman Paul Volcker, “Once you have a little [monetary] inflation, you need a little more”. As with any medicine, its effects wear off and become less potent the more “injections” are received.

At this stage, your primary goal should be asset protection. Once that is in place, you will be in a better position to hunt for the opportunistic profits one can only find in times of crisis.

Source: US in Crisis Mode — What’s Next?