The administration’s 88-page “white paper,” released last Wednesday (June 17), goes a long way in identifying most of the weak links in the regulatory chain that was supposed to protect America from a financial freefall. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

In 85 of those 88 pages, extensive fixes are put forth in an attempt to create additional financial institution transparency, to bolster consumer protections and to enhance supervisory oversight. But, in fewer than four of those pages, without any detail, the white paper calls for a  “regime” to “provide for the ability to stabilize a failing institution by providing loans, purchasing assets from the firm, guaranteeing the liabilities of the firm, or making equity investments in the firm.”

The blind spot in the need to create such a “regime” if it isn’t intentional – is the missed assumption that all of the reforms supposed to constitute “A New Foundation” will still not be enough to arrest the failure of systemically important firms. The black spot on the administration and legislators’ records may ultimately be their complicity in not breaking up so-called “too-big-to-fail” institutions, Instead, the current and past administrations and elected officials coddled these firms and allowed them to continue to grow in both size and influence, to the point that they became large enough and important enough – as well as frail enough – to end up as assets in an American-style, taxpayer-funded sovereign wealth fund.

A Threat to the Economy’s Free-Market Foundation

Democratic capitalism – the foundation of our economic system – has two inherent characteristics that, if left unimpeded by government interference, result in almost-certain economic success. The first is the ideal of free markets and the other is the notion, popularized by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, of creative destruction. Building from the foundation is a straightforward process: Free markets will themselves engender creative destruction, maximizing the ability of innovative entrepreneurs to destroy the hegemony of existing companies by creating and delivering new and better products and services to a free-to-choose public. Government coddling or the takeover of failing institutions destroys both of these foundational principles.

Keeping our eyes on the prize necessitates not impeding free markets or the process of creative destruction. And while prudent regulation is absolutely necessary to check and arrest the ever-present bad seeds from choking our field of dreams, allowing the pendulum to swing too far in the direction of government control subjects the democratic capitalist model to attack by socialist influences. And that assault is already underway.

In the face of financial devastation in America and throughout the world, government intervention has been a welcome intrusion meant to lessen the pain of lost savings, foreclosed homes, violated security, broken dreams and the horrendous fear that many of us will never rise out of the hole created by the implosion of trusted systems we rely upon for our way of life.

The danger now is that welcoming the seeming suave of government intervention may embolden some misguided politicians and the vested-interest big-government/big-money crowd to permanently corrupt our once free markets. Government intervention has the potential of destroying the creative processes by undermining entrepreneurs and small businesses to protect an emerging and quickly growing portfolio of government-controlled assets.

If it’s not intentional, why does the administration’s regulatory reform package lead us directly down this path?  By leaving in place discredited supervisory bodies and the failed regime of ineffective regulatory officers and soldiers, does the assured future failure of protected and coddled firms signal a policy paradigm shift towards more government intervention, control and ownership of giant, systemically important firms? Are we headed towards a more socialist economic model?

I brought these concerns to Bill Singer of BrokeAnd Broker.com, a partner at powerhouse law firm Stark & Stark, a veteran regulatory lawyer, staunch advocate for the rights of smaller broker-dealer firms, registered persons and defrauded investors, and a regular commentator on television and Forbes.com panelist.

“Look, I’d love to rail against creeping socialism and state capitalism, and you may well be right – that may be the sad legacy,” Singer said. “While it would be expedient to say that I don’t like it (and, frankly, I truly don’t), I like the concept that someone, somewhere has a cord to pull in the event of an emergency – the problem is whether there is anything at the end of that line when it’s pulled, or whether it merely sets off a series of contingency steps that will only reach some final stage long after the harm is done.”

When Too-Big-To-Fail Becomes Too-Big-To-Succeed

Whether it is an intentional shift towards a more socialist economic model, or the drift from the fallout of well-intended government assistance to save jobs, firms or industries, there’s an easier, more familiar and well-proven path that should be cleared and undertaken. Start by looking backwards. If too-big-to-fail firms constitute systemic threats, don’t allow firms to get too big. It really is that simple. There is no need and no place for socialist tendencies in this country if we already know that free markets create a level playing field for all willing participants and then take steps to make sure that they are not crowed out by vested interests that are backed and protected by the government.

Regulatory reforms must ensure that free markets remain free. Part of what’s necessary is to reform the tendencies of firms to overdo the concept of economies of scale. Bigger isn’t always better if it crowds out the processes of creative destruction, the drain in the tub that can overflow and undermine the floor and foundation of democratic capitalism.

It was big banks, big super-regional banks, big investment banks and big mortgage originators that deposited us into the economic sinkhole in which we’re presently mired. Community banks and small loan originators didn’t conceive of the weapons of mass destruction, but they were forced to compete with the big brothers of business by engaging in many of the same practices and investments as a way to remain competitive or be destroyed by the sprawl of bigger, bolder, and badder brethren. Why not disallow firms to get so big they swallow or destroy all competition?

To those that argue that larger and better-capitalized foreign firms will command the high ground, I say nonsense. If we want to compete with outsized international firms, we already have a mechanism to do that. For example, banks already syndicate large loans. By having even more banks participate in syndicated loans, it spreads the credit risk across a wider array of institutions. And maybe if our automotive industry hadn’t been allowed to get so large and cumbersome, we’d have more auto firms offering more innovative products and supporting a more robust industry of manufacturers, dealers and suppliers.

There’s a Way, But is There the Will?

Of course, without being overly protectionist, prudent legislation and regulation could easily control the sprawl of overly ambitious monster foreign interests. As politicians look at the power and potential of sovereign wealth funds, there may well be an inclination to compete with them by facilitating America’s own version of such a fund. Without enunciated exit plans from the asset control and ownership now enjoyed by the U.S. government, we’re going to move in that direction. A U.S. sovereign wealth fund can carry another name – state capitalism.

By keeping the old guard on duty and only giving them new binoculars, we may well see the next set of failures on the horizon – but will be powerless to stop them. Whether intended or unintended, the result will be the destruction of free markets and entrepreneurship.

We would do well to express our outrage at the prospects of such an outcome long before the debate goes behind closed doors and we end up with an oligopoly run by a cadre of self-serving officers.

Or, as best put by Singer, the veteran regulatory attorney: “Unless we are prepared to clean house – to purge ourselves of the majority of politicians now in power and to substantively overhaul the boards of directors of most public companies into meaningful, hands-on overseers, then we’re just deluding ourselves,” he said. “This isn’t merely a battle to re-start American capitalism; it is a battle for the heart and soul of our way of life.  While it would be popular to suggest that we still have a fighting chance, I think we also need to wonder whether we have the political will to implement the wholesale changes that are necessary.”

Source: Is the Obama Administration’s Financial System Overhaul Pushing Us Toward State Capitalism?

But this quintessentially laissez-faire perspective gains very little traction in modern-day America. In fact, it gains no traction whatsoever, except in a few fringey financial publications. Instead, America’s political elite conspires with the Wall Street bourgeoisie to lead the nation from the highest degree of affluence to the lowest barbarism.

The process begins innocently enough in the name of “crisis management,” as the political elite provides multi-trillion-dollar guarantees and bailouts to the Wall Street bourgeoisie. The proletariat embraces these bizarre, counterintuitive remedies because they genuinely believe these “remedies” contain curative powers. In other words, the proletariat believes that bureaucrats and politicians, following the self-serving recommendations of inept finance company executives, can deploy taxpayer dollars to the benefit of the masses.

Include us out.

The bureaucrats and politicians lack the requisite skills; the Wall Street bourgeoisie lack the requisite morality. Like a meeting between coyotes and butchers, nothing good could ever come from close interaction between Washington and Wall Street. If the butchers suggested converting all felines into meal, the coyotes would simply yelp and howl their approval

Your editors here at the Rude Awakening would prefer that the coyotes and butchers not conspire with one another. No one benefits….other than the coyotes and the butchers.

But what’s the use of complaining. We try never to complain, merely to understand. We try to identify and anticipate the key influences that are operating upon the financial markets. Identifying the key influences is usually not that difficult. But determining the effect of these influences is often very difficult.

During the last several months, for example, investors have been greeting the daily barrage of bad economic news as GOOD news for the stock market. We are not exactly certain why this would be so, but we are familiar with the daily banter of various financial news media. Therefore, we have encountered, ad nausea, phrases like, “better than expected,” “green shoots of recovery,” and “credit markets improving.”

We have encountered these phrases, and we have thoroughly and completely rejected them. We do not believe these phrases contain a single atom of validity, nor a single molecule of data that will produce a profitable investment result. That said, we should point out to the newest readers of the Rude Awakening that your editors have been wrong before…and may be again.

But we won’t let that stop us. The stock market’s splendid rally during the last three months was a classic bear market rally. The S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrials and the NASDAQ Composite all rallied more than 40%. But great big rallies like these are not rare during great big bear markets.

As we pointed out last week, Japan’s Nikkei 225 Index rallied more than 40% on ten different occasions during the last two decades. And yet, the Nikkei remains more than 50% below the all-time high it established in 1989.

Could a version of this sorry scenario unfold here United States? Sure. Why not?

The nearby charts place the recent rally on Wall Street in a “Japanese context.” The chart above compares the first 20 months of our current American bear market to the first 20 months of the Nikkei’s bear market. The chart below places this 20-month period in a 20-year context. If the American stock market were to have the misfortune of mimicking the Nikkei, the road ahead would be long and painful.

Your California editor is not predicting such a scenario. But neither does he believe that “Happy days are here again.” The road ahead – both for the economy and for the stock market – is likely to be long and painful. How long and how painful is anyone’s guess. Our guess would be: Not as bad as Japan’s experience, but much worse than most Americans currently expect.

The chart above may contain a helpful glimpse into the future we fear. Despite the fact that most investors believe the worst of the recession is behind us, the nation’s employment situation is far worse than anything we have endured during the last five recessions.

So you tell me, are things getting worse or are things getting better?

The only thing we know for certain is that government intervention increases by the day, Wall Street’s malevolent influence increases by the day, the pressure to raise taxes increases by the day, the nation’s monstrous indebtedness increases by the day, threats to the dollar’s vulnerabilituy increases by the day, and therefore the long-term viability of America’s legendary capitalistic dynamism DE-creases by the day.

This from Marc Farber:

When I consider that prosperity is created by “peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice,” I begin to fear that the U.S. and other Western governments are doing their very best to impoverish their countries.

A friend of mine, Michael Berry, whose missives I always read, could not have phrased this idea better than in “Importance of the Individual”, a recent report in which he quotes Milton Friedman in a 1979 interview by Phil Donohue.

Berry writes: “On February 11, 1979, Milton Friedman took two and a half minutes to explain the critical importance of the individual and choice in the free enterprise system to a doubting Phil Donohue…The individual’s freedom and ability to choose and take risks to create value are, of course, all-important life elements and a cornerstone of our country…

And yet, Berry continues, “Under the guise of saving the economy, there is a not so stealthy encroachment on the rights of the individual…This is not, ‘Change We Can Believe In.’ It is ‘change we must be wary of.’ Where is Milton Friedman when we really need him? Think carefully about the following interview which was conducted 30 years ago:

‘Phil Donohue: When you see around the globe the mal distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries. When you see so few haves and so many have-nots. When you see the greed and the concentration of power. Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism? And whether greed is a good idea to run on?

‘Milton Friedman: Well first of all tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fella that’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The greatest achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty that you are talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it’s exactly in the kind of societies that depart from that.

‘So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

‘Phil Donohue: Seems to reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.

‘Milton Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the Communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think… American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. And just tell me where in the world you find these angels that are going to organize society for us? Well, I don’t even trust you to do that.’”

Certainly, you won’t find any angels at central banks around the world or in the Economics faculties of universities. I needed quite a stiff drink after reading a recent Wall Street Journal article by Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, who advocates creating negative real interest rates through inflation and seems to have great sympathy for the outright expropriation of savers’ capital.

Professor Mankiw declared his faith in the curative powers of inflation in February 1, 2000 article in the dead Wall Street Journal. “When you look at the mistakes of the 1920s and 1930s,” he said, “they were clearly amateurish. It is hard to imagine that happening again – we understand the business cycle much better.”

The current Federal Reserve Chairman, and of a very large number of US economists, share Mankiw’s perspective – a perspective that he reiterated in a very recent Wall Street Journal piece, entitled, “It May be Time for the Fed to Go Negative” (Wall Street Journal, April 19, 2009).

“With unemployment rising and the financial system in shambles,” Mankiw observes, “it’s hard not to feel negative about the economy right now. The answer to our problems, however, could well be more negativity. [He means negative interest rates]…Lower interest rates encourage households and businesses to borrow and spend. More spending means more demand for goods and services, which leads to greater employment for workers to meet that demand.

Inflation is the answer says Mankiw – a Goldilocks style of inflation that is neither too hot nor too cold.

“Ben S. Bernanke, Fed chairman, is the perfect person to make this commitment to higher inflation,” Mankiw concludes. “Mr. Bernanke has long been an advocate of inflation targeting. In the past, advocates of inflation targeting have stressed the need to keep inflation from getting out of hand. But in the current environment, the goal could be to produce enough inflation to ensure that the real interest rate is sufficiently negative.”

Unfortunately, inflation is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It seems relatively tame and friendly. But it is quite the opposite. Inflation leads an economy down the path of impoverishment. If a government is determined to create inflation, there is really nothing standing in the way of its doing so.

Nevertheless, an investor can – and should –take precautions. When governments speak openly about creating inflation as a cure for macro-economic ills, the seeds of economic malaise are already germinating.

Gold anyone?

Source:  The Death of American Capitalism

This from the BBC:

Germany’s economy minister has said the government couldn’t afford to spend all the money required to save every threatened job at carmaker Opel.

With Fiat continuing talks to buy Opel from General Motors, the Italian firm has already warned that one Opel plant in Germany will likely close.

Fiat wants loan guarantees from the German government to secure the deal.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said the government “had an obligation to deal responsibly with taxpayer’s money”.

We don’t have to like the changes underway, but we do have to respond to them intelligently if we hope to preserve and increase our wealth. The time has come for us “free market” aficionados to dry our tears and try to figure out what to do next.

The federal government’s attempts to reshape the U.S. economy will provide numerous profit opportunities. Take, for instance, the inevitable move toward taxing carbon emissions. Attaching a price to carbon dioxide would, obviously, increase utility bills (and the price of anything made with electricity). As a result, consumers of energy would try to avoid this taxation by utilizing cleaner sources of energy.

Right now, many natural gas-fired power plants are brought online only at times of peak demand, while coal is considered a “base load” fuel since it’s cheaper. But a carbon tax would raise the price of coal (and the extra carbon it emits) closer to the price of natural gas. So it’s seems likely that carbon taxes or any other “climate change” legislation that comes from the Obama Administration will favor natural gas-fired electricity at the expense of coal.

Assuming the political popularity of natural gas will keep growing, and that solar and wind power production cannot increase fast enough to be meaningful (even with heavy subsidies), it makes sense that natural gas-focused exploration and production (E&P) companies and their critical suppliers like National-Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV) will enjoy years of attractive growth opportunities. NOV has an attractive business selling brand-new, highly efficient rigs built for shale gas drilling.

At the moment, a glut of natural gas has produced a drop in number of drilling rigs operating in the U.S. This drop was already discounted by the crash in the oil service stocks last fall. But the faster the rig count falls, the faster the gas glut will dissipate as 2009 wears on. If demand for natural gas rebounds later in 2009, while supply is falling, then prices could move much higher in a short period of time. I’m going to keep monitoring the supply situation closely because I think it will yield several good trading opportunities this year. And the best way to get a handle on supply is to follow where and how the smartest companies are investing.

I recently tuned in to several Webcast presentations made at the BMO Capital Markets North American Unconventional Gas Conference. The larger presenters included Talisman Energy, Comstock Resources, Southwestern Energy, Ultra Petroleum, and Range Resources — several of the visionary early movers into shale gas drilling.

These companies employ cutting-edge technology in the natural gas industry. As a group, they delivered much of the production growth the U.S. has enjoyed in recent years. We can’t do without this shale growth. Keep in mind that virtually all new electric power plants brought online in recent years have been gas-fired plants.

Most of the premier shale gas plays (Barnett, Marcellus, Fayetteville, Haynesville, etc.) can be booked into reserves and brought online at cash costs between $2-4 per million cubic feet of gas. With natural gas prices currently at $5.50, the economics of adding to shale gas reserves and production makes sense. Even if they don’t immediately hook up newly drilled wells to gathering pipelines, most of these exploration-and-production companies will still want to drill at a fairly rapid clip to book new proved reserves in 2009.

The E&P industry, like most others, contains the “haves” and “have-nots.” The haves tend to be public companies with premium valuations that reflect their huge inventories of low-cost drilling opportunities. The have-nots tend to be private highly leveraged companies that hit the accelerator on any resource that looked economic in the high-price environment. Many of them are releasing low-end rigs and will not survive this downturn.

Ultra Petroleum is certainly at the top of the “haves” list. It controls tons of acreage in the obscenely profitable Jonah and Pinedale fields in Wyoming. Because its acreage is so cheap to develop, it can keep expending production very quickly, and incremental returns on invested capital are enormous.

The same goes for Range Resources. Range is a first mover and considered an expert in developing the Marcellus Shale. It looks to have locked up most of the highest-quality acreage in the Marcellus. The Marcellus is definitely promising, but it has different characteristics across its wide geography. Range has the most profitable gas wells because it has the most experience, expertise, and proprietary seismic data. At the BMO conference, Range estimated that its Marcellus wells have the potential to earn 20% internal rates of return at $4 natural gas.

The good news if you’re exposed to E&P or service stocks exposed to shale gas: The stocks have already crashed in anticipation of an ugly environment for natural gas pricing, production, and drilling in 2009 and 2010. If conditions stabilize, rather than continue collapsing, many of the stocks exposed to growth in shale gas drilling — including NOV — should regain plenty of lost ground.

The big concern with NOV recently was J.P. Morgan’s downgrade. I read J.P. Morgan’s report and agree with many of its points. But I disagree with its method of getting to a $31 price target for NOV (I think $31 is much too conservative). It gets to $31 through a discounted cash flow model in which it assumes 2009-2011 returns on invested capital will average 8%. This is down dramatically from the 2005-2008 average of 16% and equal to the 2002-2004 average of 8%. I have two issues with this:

1) Hardly any company was investing in rig equipment during 2002-2004. The upturn in day rates didn’t really gain traction until 2004. On the next up cycle, most of the world’s drilling fleet will be approaching 30 years of age. So many of the oldest rigs will be scrapped and there could be a shortage of newer, more productive rigs that NOV helps create.

2) J.P. Morgan gives no consideration to NOV’s greatly strengthened negotiating position relative to its customers, since it scooped up several competitors. It is a one-stop shop for equipment and consumables for every E&P and drilling company worldwide. It can afford to take advantage of this down cycle with more cheap acquisitions. Such moves won’t dilute shareholder value — thanks to its strong balance sheet and cash flow.

3) J.P. Morgan gives no credit to NOV for its excellent integration of Grant Prideco — a company with very attractive growth prospects (considering that its product lines are levered to the strongest trends in oil and gas production, including stronger drill bits and better drill pipe).

So J.P. Morgan reflects the bear case on NOV, yet it still gets to a $31 price target.

J.P. Morgan’s target implies that NOV should trade at 3 times its estimated 2009 EBITDA, in line with the offshore drillers. In my view, NOV deserves to trade at more than twice the EBITDA multiple of the drillers, since it’s a far less capital-intensive business model. NOV will not be generating losses during this downturn, nor will it be forced to spend a lot on maintenance capital expenditures (as drillers must, depending on the age and shape of their fleet).

I expect the market to come around to this view when NOV reports earnings in early February. Sure, the segments of NOV’s business that are the most sensitive to the rig count will slow in 2009, but the stock market excessively discounted this slowdown when it hammered the NOV share price from its crash from $92 last July to $18 in November.

At the current quote of $25.62, NOV is a very cheap stock that could easily rebound to the mid-$30s in the coming months. I think the trend for NOV will be up over the next month or two as the market anticipates that 2009 and 2010 earnings will not be as bad as previously expected.

Source: Investing for Comrades, 101