Economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal said things are going to get worse before they get better, but that they should start getting better around, oh, say, mid next year. “For the household sector, this will be the worst event we’ve had in the post-World War II period” says Bruce Kasman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Event? A rock concert is an event. A wedding is an event. A spelling bee is an event. A recession/global depression is not just an event. It’s a way of life, at least for awhile.

In the stock markets, Aussie stocks followed the negative lead set by New York overnight. And boy was it negative. It wasn’t so much the size of the fall in New York (the S&P was only down 2.85%). It was the news that Bank of America would be laying off 30,000 people.

Then there was the news that GM has hired bankruptcy lawyers. Then there was the news that Bernard Madoff was charged by the FBI with running a $50 billion ponzi scheme-a term he apparently used himself when confronted by senior employees. He also said the business was “one big lie.”

You get the drift. And to be fair, there’s been a whole lotta lying going on everywhere over the last few years. The net result is wealth destruction and, at least for some people, a real sense of shame. But people are resilient too. They’ll get back to the business of making ends meet. More on that below.

It’s not all bad news. The U.S. dollar called in sick again yesterday. Gold and oil, however, showed up bright and early and took advantage of the greenback’s illness to rally. Gold was up $17 and is up over 12% in the last month. Oil is trickier. But January crude futures were up over 10% as well on a weaker dollar and a possible OPEC production cut.

Gold, oil, and yields. These are the signals and prices we’re watching for signs of stress and leakage in the bond bubble. We mentioned yesterday that the popping of the bond bubble would unleash financial chaos. But that’s not a very useful term. So what did we really mean?

Well, the popping of the bond bubble is going to lead to a kind of financial Diaspora. Capital will flee from bondage to the U.S. government. But where will it go? Where is the land of milk and honey? Forty years is a long time to be wandering in the desert with a bunch of cash in your pocket.

This raises an interesting question. There are 14,600 days in forty years. You could wander a long way in that many days. What in the world were the Israelites doing the whole time? Going in circles? Arguing over directions?

Hmm. Maybe it took them so long to find the Promised Land because they didn’t have a map. That map, you could argue, came down in the form of the ten commandments Moses brought with him. Even peripatetic nations need laws. It is hard to have order with them (even if the laws are unwritten, they’re still there.)

What are we getting at? The investment laws of the universe have not been rewritten with this financial big bang. But you have a whole generation of personal, corporate, and government behavior that’s not fit for the purpose of living in a world where money is tighter. People will have to learn new habits, live within their means, and not rely on access to debt to improve their standard of living.

Investors have already begun the switch, with a preference for income and safety over capital gains and risk. The equity premium-what investors get over and above the so-called risk-free rate of return on government debt-is going to have to widen considerably to tempt people back into the capital markets with their savings.

But this is what happens with market cycles. Investors and institutions over indulge in the boom phase, using leverage to buy financial assets because the equity premium is so high. Now, the equity premium has all but collapsed. Some stocks have compelling value. But no one is interested in buying them.

What breaks the cycles? Entrepreneurs. Keep in mind the great Austrian economist and economic historian made a great distinction between capitalists and entrepreneurs. The capitalists provided the capital. But in Schumpeter’s theory, it was the entrepreneurs who unleashed the gales of creative destruction that blew down failed businesses and replaced them with newer, more competitive firms, better adapted for the world.

Right now, one set of failing institutions (governments) are trying to prop up another set of failing institutions (financial companies, auto makers, etc). This effort actually retards the very process that would cleanse the world of all its misallocated capital and investment. Real Schumpeterian capitalism is being gelded by a new generation of Keynesian socialists.

These socialists have always feared the risk of personal failure that’s inherent in any wealth-producing system, where there have to be winners and losers in the game of enterprise. Instead of accepting the naturalness of failure-and softening the blow where they can-they instead institutionalise failure.

So that’s what we have now. Welcome to the State of Failure. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to avoid citizenship in this State and carve out a semi-sovereign State of your own, at least financially. More on this ambitious plan to find the Promised Land next week. Until then…

Source: Search for the Promised Land

The losses among banks, insurers and money managers may spark the next round of writedowns on CDOs after $660 billion in subprime-related losses. They may force lenders to post more reserves against losses after governments worldwide announced $3 trillion in financial-industry rescue packages since last month, according to Barclays Capital.

– Meanwhile, Reuters reports that U.S. banks will need more $700 billion in government cash injections to stay afloat because “banks cannot predict how many of their loans will sour because they do not know how much the economy will shrink, and forecasts of their future losses would only spook investors.”

– The numbers are certainly worrying:

By the numbers, the outlook for banks is troubling. U.S. commercial banks had about $1 trillion of capital as of the end of the second quarter.

That may sound like a lot, but Alpert estimates that banks globally could have a total of $1.25 trillion to $1.5 trillion of writedowns and losses from mortgages, of which perhaps $600 billion have already been recorded.

– Earnings season is upon us. Investors are reacting to the prospect of corporate losses. This from MarketWatch:

U.S. stock futures pointed to a second straight drop on Wednesday on concerns for earnings in a rocky economy, though Apple looked set to buck the trend after the consumer electronics giant was able to sell far more iPhones than expected.

S&P 500 futures fell 20.1 points to 939.20 and Dow industrial futures tumbled 166 points. Futures on the tech-concentrated Nasdaq 100 fell a more modest 15.5 points to 1,277.00.

– Global stock indexes also fell. This from Bloomberg:

The MSCI World Index lost 2.9 percent to 944.07 at 12:02 p.m. in London. The index has lost 40 percent this year and oil has tumbled more than 50 percent from its peak in July as concern deepened government bailouts to save the global banking system won’t avert a recession.

– In the currency markets, the British pound hit a five-year low against the dollar. The euro plumbed a 20-month low against the buck.

– Crude oil prices fell below $70 a barrel on growing fears of a global economic slowdown. OPEC’s scheduled meeting on Friday to discuss output cuts has so far failed to stem oil’s slide.

– A lot of investors are calling a bottom — at least a tentative bottom — in stocks.

– Addison Wiggan and Ian Mathias in The 5 Min. Forecast note that Jeremy Grantham, self-proclaimed “perma-bear” is turning bullish.

Grantham says the time has come for “hesitant and careful buying” of equities. Grantham, who also correctly called a global bubble among all asset classes last year, told his $120 billion worth of clients that this is the quarter to start buying.

“On Oct. 10, we can say that, with the S&P at 900, stocks are cheap in the U.S. and cheaper still overseas. We will, therefore, be steady buyers at these prices. Not necessarily rapid buyers — in fact, probably not — but steady buyers…

“History warns, though, that new lows are more likely than not.

“Fixed income has wide areas of very attractive, aberrant pricing. The dollar and the yen look OK for now, but the pound does not. Don’t worry at all about inflation. We can all save up our worries there for a couple of years from now and then really worry!

“Commodities may have big rallies, but the fundamentals of the next 18 months should wear them down to new two-year lows. As for us in asset allocation, we have made our choice: hesitant and careful buying at these prices and lower.”

A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into credit-rating companies found the firms improperly managed conflicts of interest and violated internal procedures in granting top rankings to mortgage bonds.

A 10-month review of Moody’s Investors Service, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings found analysts contributed to fee discussions and weighed losing clients over certain ratings, the Washington-based SEC said in a report released today. Employees also cast doubt on the quality of some ratings, the SEC said, declining to link firms to specific findings.

“We uncovered serious shortcomings at these firms,” SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said today at a news conference. “When there were not enough staff to do the job right, the firms sometimes cut corners.”

Pension and money-market funds bought AAA-rated securities backed by mortgages to the riskiest borrowers because they offered higher returns than government bonds with the same ratings. In many cases, credit raters were paid by investment banks selling the bonds, prompting regulators and lawmakers to question their independence.

The SEC report describes an e-mail in which an analyst refers to the market for collateralized debt obligations as a “monster.”

“Let’s hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters,” said the e-mail, which was sent Dec. 15, 2006, to another analyst at the same firm.

Mike Burnick at Sovereign Society says,

A look inside one of these [subprime mortgage] bonds tells a frightening tale. A US$80 billion sub-prime asset-backed bond issued by Deutsche Bank in 2005 is still rated AAA by S&P and Moody’s. Yet, 18% of the mortgage loans in the security are in foreclosure.

Additionally, lenders have already seized 15% of the properties underlying the loan values for this security. Another 10% have been delinquent for more than 90-days.

Another Morgan Stanley Capital sub-prime mortgage-backed security has credit support of 64% relative to the number of delinquent mortgages loans in the pool. But the credit should be at least twice the delinquent mortgages to maintain a top rating.

Why This Junk Isn’t Rated As “Junk”

Technically, much of this so-called triple-A rated debt should have been downgraded long ago. So why hasn’t it? The simple answer is: Fear of too much “collateral damage.”

According to Bloomberg, “Financial firms own high-grade collateralized debt obligations, which package securities such as mortgage bonds and slice them into pieces with varying risk. As the underlying mortgage bonds are downgraded, those securities will also lose their ratings and tumble in value.”

There’s a huge potential “contagion” effect that would ripple through the financial system if Moody’s or Standard and Poor’s dared to downgrade these shaky sub-prime credits across the board. For instance, a bank holding US$100 million of AAA-rated sub-prime bonds needs just US$1.6 million in capital backing such a highly rated credit. – that’s a lot of leverage. And such leverage is fine, as long as the bonds remain triple-A rated.

Should the bonds get downgraded to below investment grade however, under global accounting rules, a bank must put up additional capital. In fact, it would take US$16 million in capital to back US$100 million in non-investment grade bonds.

That’s 10 times as much capital required in the event of a credit ratings downgrade. Wall Street just doesn’t have that kind of extra capital lying around. Bear Stearns found this out the hard way over the weekend. That’s why I expect the major ratings agencies, perhaps abetted by the Treasury Department and the Fed, to continue covering-up the true health of US$650 billion in outstanding sub-prime bonds.

Burnick concludes that:

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, I just have one question. What happens to confidence in the U.S. financial system (not to mention the dollar) when people wake up and realize these fairy tale markets (held up by fantasy ratings) turn into a nightmare?

The Fed is merely monetizing Wall Street’s mistakes yet again, while leaving future generations of taxpayers with an even bigger tab to settle, and higher future inflation to fight.

But there’s just no time for such ponderings now, we’re in the midst of a full-blown financial crisis after all. Damn the financial torpedoes, full speed ahead with the monetary printing press.

When Albert Hofmann — the Swiss chemist who discovered LSD — passed away at the start of this month, newspaper editors the world over reported it as the death of the man “who experienced the first ever bad trip.”

But Hofmann’s hallucinations seem little worse than most acid-induced visions. Or so people tell us…

“Beginning dizziness,” he wrote in his lab journal for 19 April 1943. Looking to find a stimulant for the circulatory and respiratory systems, he’d just concocted — and taken — a big dose of lysergic acid diethylamide-25.

“Feeling of anxiety,” he noted, before adding in due course “Difficulty in concentration. Visual disturbances. Desire to laugh.”

Finally, Hofmann scrawled the words “most severe crisis” and fled the lab on his bicycle. It seemed to stay stationary even as it wheeled him back home, where his neighbor — who brought him a nice glass of milk to calm him down — appeared as a witch in a colored mask.

He felt possessed by demons. The furniture in his bedroom began to menace him. All pretty run of the mill stuff if you dabble with psychotropics, in short.

But such “fantastic images” don’t always ease into the sensations of “good fortune and gratitude” Hofmann got to enjoy later that day. Hallucinations can still cause the “most severe crisis” — even without some fool laying Witches Hat by the Incredible String Band on the turntable.

“Inflation will return to the two percent target,” claimed Mervyn King, head of the Bank of England, and one half of the financial furry freak brothers running Anglo-American monetary policy.

“Growth will eventually recover to a sustainable rate.”

Just a central banker’s wide-eyed hallucination? Maybe not. Like Albert Hofmann’s wobbly bike-ride six decades ago, the credit cycle will get us home in good time, ready to turn once again from boom to bubble to bust. But like any powerful psychedelic, the trip gobbled down by Western investors could last much longer than anyone dares hope right now.

And just what was the Governor smoking when he claimed, “In these [current] circumstances, the household saving rate is likely to rise…”?

The Bank of England has been cutting U.K. interest rates since December. Its latest Inflation Report says it will continue to cut interest rates “in line with [bond] market expectations,” too.

And U.K. households have grown their savings only once when interest rates fell in the last four-and-half decades. That brief period lasted for two years at the start of the 1990s.

Both before and since — and most markedly during the previous post-war recessions (of 1974 and 1981) — people have tweaked their savings almost precisely in line with changes to the rate of interest, as set by the Bank of England itself.

King’s starry-eyed vision, however, “is part of a rebalancing of the U.K. economy, away from spending and importing, toward saving and exporting,” he told reporters last week.

The sky’s turned all purple in Washington too if U.S. policy-makers think the credit crunch will somehow boost household savings there.

Put another way, “who had heard of collateralized debt obligations just 10 years ago?” as Niall Ferguson, history professor at Harvard, asked in a speech opening New York’s new Museum of Finance back in January this year.

“Collateralized loan obligations? Credit derivatives? These forms of financial instrument are of very recent origin. So are the hedge funds; so are the private equity partnerships; so are the sovereign wealth funds; and so are those wonderfully named entities, the conduits…”

~~~~~~~~~~~One Day Left~~~~~~~~~~~

Closed to New Investors for the Last Six Years — Now Open Again…

The “Chaffee Royalty Program” That Turned Every $1 Into $50

In 2002, the same royalty “paycheck program” that paid out $50 for every $1 invested… decided to shut the door to new “members.”

In 2008, that door is open again…and it just got easier than ever to “make money while you sleep”…

Brand New Report Right Here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But that party is over. And in all probability, bank stocks will remain poor investments over the next five years and beyond.

In the next few years, I see a host of formidable challenges facing the badly bruised financial services industry. This includes new government regulation, losing the traditional investment banking deal-flow and far less lucrative leveraged loan portfolios. All these factors are conspiring to make financial services stocks a dull investment proposition.

The Financial Sector – Flying High Until Last July

The Easy Money is History

Most banks have been operating as casinos for years…that is until last July. Suddenly the sub-prime crisis imploded credit markets.

Sub-prime’s collateral damage will revolutionize the way banks do business going forward. In all likelihood, some of the most profitable revenue streams on Wall Street will disappear, mostly those tied to CDOs or collateralized debt obligations and other illiquid and hard-to-price synthetic securities. Worse, government regulators are bound to reshape the way investment banks mark these illiquid securities. In some cases, I can see banks even forbidding to trade the more exotic and leveraged securities that risk trashing the financial system.

In a nutshell, the investment banking business model is about to change. For shareholders, this implies far less profits as traditional sources of revenues are streamlined or liquidated altogether in 2008 and beyond.

The Fed, Bear Stearns and Systemic Failure

In order to avert a probable run on U.S. and many international prime brokers in March, the Federal Reserve orchestrated a US$39 billion dollar bailout for Bear Stearns. This event marked what many pundits called the “end of the sub-prime crisis” because the Bernanke Fed unofficially guaranteed all major U.S. financial institutions would remain solvent.

The implications of this watershed event are enormous. The Bear Stearns saga shows with brutal clarity that modern financial markets are even more tightly interwoven than before. That leaves regulated institutions even more exposed to each other’s risks. The next U.S. administration will spearhead a global effort to legislate and superimpose a watchdog on the financial services industry as the threat of systemic collapse is addressed through policy initiatives. More rules or restrictions won’t be bullish for bank and investing banking revenues.

The bottom line for the banks and their shareholders is not inspiring.

Greater financial market regulation, especially as it pertains to credit risk, will reduce long-term earnings for most investment banks worldwide. Even with Wall Street’s uncanny ability to create new models to maximize profits, government regulation and a new set of restrictions will likely dilute the innovative financial product development.

Increasingly, the government will scrutinize dealers and market-makers to isolate where systemic risks threaten the global financial system. And I can see the government destructively harsh on Wall Street.

Buffett Correctly Predicts Shareholder Dilution

In an interview with the National Post in Toronto, Canada, earlier this year, Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway urged his audience to avoid most bank stocks in the future. Buffett stated that although some banks might be fair long-term investments, other sectors of the market offer far superior returns.

Buffett correctly predicted a wave of rights offerings. In other words, banks diluted their own banking shares by issuing a rash of new, public shares to finance bulging losses. Five months after his speech in Toronto, Buffett’s prediction came true. Today, many U.S. and European banks have already announced new rights offerings this year to shore-up depleted capital ratios.

For the record, Buffett does own stakes in U.S. Bancorp (NYSE-USB) and Wells Fargo (NYSE-WFC). The former is probably the cleanest of all U.S. large-cap banks with no sub-prime exposure.

U.S. banks have already issued more than US$26 billion worth of preferred stock in 2008 to bolster their balance-sheets. Merrill Lynch this week announced a US$4 billion offering while Citigroup has issued billions in preferred securities since late 2007.

To date, global banks have lost over US$200 billion dollars with Switzerland’s Union Bank of Switzerland (NYSE-UBS) responsible for almost 20% of that total. The International Monetary Fund or IMF has pegged total losses tied to sub-prime and other credit losses to peak at roughly US$1 trillion. That suggests banks still have a stash of cash to write-down over the next several years.

Dead-Cat Bounce or Market Bottom?

From their lows in mid-March following the near-demise of Bear Stearns, U.S. bank stocks have gained 14%. Now investors are starting to bargain hunt amid the credit wreckage.

To be sure, some banks are probably worthy investments at these levels assuming write-downs have peaked and their respective dividends won’t be reduced or cut entirely. But for most of the financial sector, more pain lies ahead as other segments of the credit markets and real estate come undone.