But they may be struggling in vain.

Since 1945, the party that has controlled the White House has lost an average of 16 House seats in the president’s first midterm election, according to the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan publication in Washington. However, losses for the Democrats could be far steeper next year if they fail to put unemployed Americans back to work.

Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton and the Democrats lost 52 House seats in 1994.

“Unemployment is the leading economic indicator when it comes to politics,” Democratic pollster Peter Hart told The Wall Street Journal. “Anytime unemployment hits double digits, it’s hard to see the party in control having a good election year.”

Right now, polls are showing that the majority of Americans list jobs as their top concern. And rightfully so.

The economy unexpectedly shed 263,000 jobs last month as the jobless rate soared to a 26-year high of 9.8%.  And many economists expect the unemployment rate will reach 10% by the end of the year and peak at about 10.5% next summer.

Lawmakers are scrambling to staunch the bleeding, but that process has been made difficult by an escalating budget deficit.

The government ended its 2009 fiscal year in September with a total deficit of $1.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said. That equates to 9.9% of gross domestic product and is the largest deficit since 1945.

Government spending rose by 18% in the year, with the bailout of the financial industry, which alone required $245 billion. The spending increases and tax cuts included in the economic stimulus package approved in February added almost $200 billion to the 2009 deficit, the CBO said.

The Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan, which was touted as a catalyst for job creation, has been criticized for its slow progress and ineffectiveness.

Only about a quarter of Obama’s stimulus, or $164 billion, has been paid out. About half, nearly $400 billion, will be paid out over the next 12 months in the build-up to mid-term elections, and the remainder will be disbursed in 2011.

In January, the administration claimed the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8% and push it below 7% by the end of 2010 – a fact that has already been seized on by Republican opposition.

“We’ll continue to remind Democrats of their failed promises that led to what is now, at best, a jobless recovery,” said National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Paul Lindsay told The Journal.

President Obama said in his Saturday radio address that he would “explore additional options to promote job creation.”

But with a growing perception that the stimulus has failed and a deepening concern about the nation’s snowballing deficit, the White House has bristled at talk of a second stimulus package.

“This is not a discussion of second fiscal stimulus,” Jen Psaki, the senior White House economic spokeswoman told the Financial Times. “The president and his economic team have continued to look at a wide number of policy options to create new jobs and ease the burden of those who cannot find employment but any notion that we are any farther along than preliminary discussions about new proposals is wildly inaccurate.”

In particular, the administration is hoping to extend such stimulus measures as the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers.

When it expires on Dec. 1, the homebuyers credit will be responsible for nearly 400,000 sales of new and existing homes, out of total sales of 1.4 million, Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told The New York Times. That’s roughly in line with estimates from the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

Zandi, who formerly advised Senator John McCain, recommends extending the credit through August 2010. Legislators are also considering extending the credit to current homeowners.

The administration may also consider expanding the federal transportation funding program, which comes up for renewal every six years. That 2003 program expired on Sept. 30 and is currently operating under a 30-day extension period.

Obama is also expected to push for an extension of the “Making Work Pay” middle class tax cut that accounted for about a third of the February stimulus.

Extending these programs could cost the government tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue.

For example, congressional analysts estimate the cost of the current homebuyer credit at about $1 billion a month. Expanding the credit through next August could cost as much as $30 billion, according to Moody’s Zandi.

That, in turn, could lead to another large run-up in the budget deficit, which in the last year was exacerbated by dwindling tax revenue. Individual income taxes, the biggest source of tax receipts, fell by 20%, and corporate income taxes dropped by 54%, the CBO said.

“There may not be anything we can do,” a Democratic Congressional leadership aide conceded to The Times. “Under any circumstances, it’s going to take a while for jobs to recover.”

Source: Can Democrats Anchor Unemployment Without Doing More Damage to the Deficit?

Yesterday, it touched a new record – $1,050 – even as the dollar rose, oil slumped under $70 and stocks dipped very slightly.

Well, what do you expect? The United States added $1 trillion to its monetary base in the last year or so. The federal government is running a deficit of $1.7 trillion this year. And along comes Barack Obama with an idea to stimulate employment – spend more money! This time, Obama’s plan is a kind of ‘Cash for Workers’ program…in which businesses get a tax credit for hiring new employees.

Gold investors must think the new program will be the straw they’ve been waiting for. Government has piled on bales of costly new initiatives on this poor camel’s back. Still, he stands up straight.

So, is gold at $1,000 a bargain…or a trap? Or both.

We begin by asking: where’s the inflation? We don’t see any inflation. What we do see is deflation.

Barclays Capital says gold could go to $1,500. We don’t know where they got that number. It could go to $15,000 for all we know. Or it could go down, too.

Our guess is that it will go down enough scare the bejesus out of speculators. Then, it will soar.

But, hey, we’re just guessing – along with everyone else.

Sooner or later gold is probably headed to the lunatic moon. We’re sticking with the yellow metal. We don’t want to miss that ride.

But when?

Ah…we’re going to stick our necks out and say “eventually.” We’re sure we’re right about this. Just don’t ask us for more precision; we have none. And what bothers us is that between eventually and now there could be a lot of time and a lot of trouble. And one trouble that could come up pretty fast is another crash in the stock market.

If the stock markets of the world take another dive…like they did last year…gold will probably go down with them. Not as much, but down nonetheless. So, if we were speculating…we’d probably be short gold and short stocks too. We’d bet against bonds too – even though we think they will probably go up in the short run. The smart, long term money – in both stocks and bonds – is probably on the short side.

Here at The Daily Reckoning, however, we never speculate – except in print. As to ideas about how the world works we have plenty. We speculate daily. As to gold, stocks and commodities, we prefer to hold onto our long-term positions.

What seems fairly sure to us is that this recovery is a fraud. It’s a mountebank and a flimflam.

And now approaches a moment of truth – earnings announcements. Stock market investors bid up shares on the theory that sales and profits would rise. Will they? We don’t think so.

We think sales are going to be disappointing…and earnings will be even worse. If so, we’ll see analysts begin to change their expectations…and announce that the results are “not as bad as expected.”

If we get a few really bad announcements – with results much worse than expected – it could sink the rally. Then again, if we’re surprised with exceptionally good reports…it could send the market in the other direction.

Good results will also cause us here at The Daily Reckoning to question our position. Maybe the economy is not sinking into a chronic depression, after all. Could we be wrong?

Ha ha…are you kidding, dear reader? Of course, we can be wrong. When we were younger we were uncertain about things. But now that we’re older, we’re not so sure.

Here is what we’re pretty sure about:

1) The credit cycle has topped out.

Americans are saving – think of the poor boomers, 10 years older but not a penny richer than they were in 1999. Stocks have gone nowhere but down in real terms. Houses hit a high in 2006…now, they’re off 30%…and still going down. Jobs? Forget it…there are already 15 million people who are unemployed and about 200,000 more every month. The job market is unlikely to recover for another 6-13 years – that is, after many of the boomers are retired! And if you are lucky enough to have a job, you’re not likely to get a raise…not with so much spare capacity in the labor market.

Under those conditions, a consumer boom is very unlikely.

2) We know that a period of credit contraction is deflationary.

Prices go down as demand falls. Buyers disappear from the malls that once knew them, while the factories that produce stuff grow dusty and quiet.

But we know the feds hate falling prices. And we know they are taking extraordinary actions to get prices to go up. So far, their efforts have been a giant flop. Prices are falling in the United States at the fastest pace since the ’50s.

Most of the feds’ efforts have been directed towards keeping the bankers fat and happy…and getting themselves a bigger share of America’s output. They took funds designed to relaunch the US economy, for example, and used them to buy themselves a big position in the auto industry, the financial industry and the insurance industry.

3) We know too, by the way they conducted themselves in those affairs, that the feds have become much more aggressive…throwing their weight around in the private sector as never before.

What we don’t know is how this affects markets in the short term. So far, consumer prices are falling, but the stock market is enjoying a bounce. It is a real, new bull market? Or just a bear market bounce? It is probably a bear market bounce…but it has been going for long enough that we have to at least consider the idea that it is a genuine bull market. That’s why the numbers from this quarter are important…they’ll tell us if the companies themselves are expanding earnings fast enough to justify investors’ optimism.

4) We know too that there is a whole lot of ’flation going on.

We are just unable to tell you what kind of ’flation it is. The monetary base is way up – it increased by $1 trillion in the last 12 months. But the money-in-circulation has barely budged. The feds give the banks overnight loans at practically zero interest. Then, the banks lend it back to the feds at nearly 4% more.

What happens to it then? Well, what do you think…it is wasted on typical federal government scams and humbugs.

So, relatively little of the money actually ends up in the consumer economy. And so, we can’t tell you whether the ’flation will have a ‘in’ prefix or a ‘de’ prefix. They’re just two letters. But they will make a whole alphabet of difference to the economy and to your investments.

5) Most important, we are dead sure that the people running America’s financial policies are jackasses.

We say that with all due respect, which is probably not much. They have only one idea – and it is a bad one. They think economies are improved by more consumer spending. They don’t seem to care why consumers occasionally cut back on their spending. All that matters to them is finding ways to get the consumer shopping again. So they try tax cuts and government spending…bailouts and boondoggles…zero interest lending and federal takeovers…cash for clunkers, cash for houses, cash for employees….

…trillions worth of claptrap and folderol. But what a nuisance! The fool consumer still won’t shop!

But they’re determined to keep trying. That’s why we can be pretty sure that, eventually, they’ll get inflation rates up. One way or another. And then, gold at $1000 will seem like an outrageous bargain.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: Gold Touches a New Record

Investors must be pondering the future.

What will the future look like? No one knows. But investors thought they saw things they liked.

For one thing, there was the Federal Reserve governor from New York, who told the world that there was no risk of a rate hike anytime soon. Bill Dudley knows which way the wind is blowing. He said the Fed would hold money policy loose “indefinitely.”

Indefinitely is otherwise known as “as long as it takes.”

But as long as it takes for what? Ah…as long as it takes until the economy appears strong again.

How long will that be? Ah…maybe longer than anyone realizes.

Yesterday, we were calculating how long it would take to get the jobless number back down to ’90s levels…that is, around 5%. There are now about 131 million jobs in the United States…and about 15 million people who would like a job but can’t find one. Meanwhile, population growth adds about 1.5 million new workers every year. That means the economy has to grow at 1% (in real terms) just to stay even with population growth. Currently, the economy is going in the wrong direction – backwards. It’s losing jobs…maybe 3 million this year…and maybe another 2 million or so before it finally stabilizes (who knows?)…for a total of 20 million jobs down (about 13% unemployment) by the time unemployment bottoms out.

Let’s suppose, by some miracle, the economy turns around…and begins growing at 3% per year. That should be about 3 million new jobs per year. Half of those, remember, are just to keep up with population growth. So the other half – 1.5 million – gradually reduce unemployment. Now, let’s get out the calculator…20 million divided by 1.5 million equals a little more than 13. By these numbers you can expect full employment again in 2022!

But what if the economy doesn’t grow at 3% per year? Ooooh…that’s the problem, isn’t it? All the feds – and practically all other economists too – are projecting a return to normal. They expect a ‘recovery.’ But what if there never is a recovery?

Heck, yesterday, the central bank of Australia said it was so sure that everything was going well it raised its key lending rate by 25 basis points.

“Canberra says risk of serious retraction over,” The Financial Times reports.

But they get a lot of sunshine down under. Possibly, the heads of the Reserve Bank of Australia got a little too much of it yesterday. Australia is also a supplier of natural resources to China; possibly, the sun burnt bankers failed to notice that China is a bubble.

Or maybe they failed to notice that China’s biggest customer is broke.

Right under The Financial Times’ article about Australia is the following headline:

“No sign of credit revival for US households.”

“The latest data from the Federal Reserve show consumer credit declined at an annual rate of 10.4% in July – the fastest rate since the crisis began two years ago.”

Yes, dear reader, Americans are shedding debt. They are cutting back. They are saving.

Another headline in The Financial Times tells us, “Holiday sales [are] set to fall.”

Hold on. Who makes all that junk that Americans buy for Christmas? And how can China buy more raw materials from Australia when it is selling fewer finished products to Americans?

Perhaps China is focusing more sales on the domestic market; we don’t doubt it. But you don’t refocus the world’s second or third largest economy in 12 months. It takes years. And you don’t get this kind of rebirth without some kind of suffering. The big, old oak tree has to fall down before the sapling can take its place. And when the oak falls – it makes one helluva mess.

Meanwhile, President Obama is adding more gin to the party punch. He says he’s considering ways to create more jobs without a new stimulus program. Among the schemes under consideration is a $3,000 new job tax credit.

Hey, why not! They had such great success with the Clunker tax credit…and with the first time house buyer tax credit. Of course, when you pay people to do things, you can’t be too surprised that they do them. And then, you can’t be too surprised when they stop doing them after you stop paying them. Thus, when the Clunkers program conked out in August car buyers stopped buying. And when the new house purchase tax credit expires in November, don’t be surprised if house sales collapse too. So, if the feds are going to pay people to hire other people, they better be prepared to do it for a long time.

Which brings us back to our calculations. How long will it be before this economy can walk without the feds clutching both arms? A few months ago, we wondered how long it would take consumers to put their finances back in order. Five years? Ten years? There are so many assumptions required that the numbers barely make sense. Still, if you think the total debt burden is headed back to under 200% of GDP, where it was for most of the last century, that would require the elimination of debt equal to about 160% of GDP…or more than $20 trillion worth. How do you eliminate debt? Well, some of it simply disappears…through defaults, foreclosures and bankruptcies. The rest is paid off. How? By saving. Now, imagine that the United States could put an amount equal to 15% of GDP to work paying down its debts. That’s savings and capital formation of all types – corporate as well as individual. It ignores government, which is going in the other direction. At 15% of GDP per year, paying America’s private debt down to under 2 times annual output is still about a 7-year project.

So, prepare for a long dry spell. In the best of cases, the American public has to stay on the frugality wagon for 7 to 13 years.

And in the worst of cases? Oh, well…that’s a different matter. The aforementioned US government is desperate to short-circuit the process of balance sheet repair. It is propping up the old tree every way it can. Thus, the whole period of adjustment may take much, much longer than it should. Instead of coming down with a crash, the limbs fall off one at a time. At this rate, the whole process could take nearly forever.

As the private sector eliminates debt, for example, the feds add it. The deficits are scheduled – by the Congressional Budget Office – to be monstrous, but controllable. Cash for clunkers, cash for houses, cash for jobs – it adds up. But the CBO projections are based on very optimistic assumptions, in which the economy ‘recovers’ quickly and grows strongly. They do not take into account the real nature of the slump. It is not a pause…it is a permanent change. The Obama administration cannot, ultimately, prevent change. But it can slow down the process so much that the depression begins to seem eternal.

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner

Source: The Eternal Depression

We’re told media conglomerates are among the most hated industries in the market today. Everyone knows they are struggling to keep afloat with competition from the Internet. Newspapers compete with blogs and free news sites. Magazines compete with nontraditional gossip and entertainment websites. And television ad revenue is continuing to dry up because of TiVo and DVRs. Even motion picture studios and record labels aren’t realizing what they’d like because of the never-ending efforts of media piracy.

But that doesn’t explain why these companies are still trading at astronomical ratios. Take The New York Times Co. for instance. NYT is one of the most out-of-favor stocks on Wall Street, or at least that’s what you’d think. Meanwhile, it’s trading at more than 2.2 times its book value. That means that if they called it quits tomorrow, shareholders would only receive about 45% of their money. And by shareholders, I mean preferred shareholders. Commoners probably wouldn’t get a penny.

Rupert Murdoch’s  News Corp (NASDAQ:NWSA) is a little better at 1.5 times book, which would be a fair valuation for a growing business. Murdoch’s precious Wall Street Journal addition isn’t even helping. He can add as many of these fallen media giants as he wants. It’s still not helping him grow his bottom line.

The problem is debt. These companies are swimming in it – especially smaller, regional media companies. Citadel Broadcasting, owner of the ABC Radio Network and 4,500 affiliates, is expected to close its doors soon, even though it somehow pulled a $2 million interest payment out of thin air earlier this month. The company owes some $2 billion, but its common stock is worth about six cents per share on the bulletin boards.

We already know what happened to Tribune Co. The owner of the 162-year-old Chicago Tribune filed for Chapter 11 last December, and was just cleared to sell the Cubs and its Wrigley Field.

These stories are nothing new. They’ve been happening for a while, and it doesn’t look like they are going away any time soon. According to Reuters, television and print companies, along with automobile and airlines, are about four times more likely to go bankrupt in the next year than any other type of company

So why are the likes of The NY Times and News Corp still trading for more than they’re worth?

To us, it sounds like another case of investors covering their eyes and ears and pretending not to know there’s even a problem. So instead of building up the bubble, we’re just sitting on years of letting the bubble bounce on down the road. Today’s economic situation might just be the pinprick to pop this forgotten 20th century blister.

Last year, print ad revenue fell 18%. When these advertisers start filling newspapers and magazines again, they’ll do so in the online versions first. After all, that’s where the sweet 18-34 age group spends most of its time.

Murdoch and Turner can spend any amount of money on traditional media business they want. The industry as we know it – and the stocks that represent it – are headed for a collapse worse than the tech and financial services industries. At least tech and financials still play a significant role in the world economy. Television and print media don’t.

You can see how the market treats ugly industries. It just lets them hang out for years longer than they should. GM was dead long before Obama grabbed the defibrillators. The same has been true with television and print. That’s about to change.

Both the auto and television/print industries as we know them are showing us a new way to watch a collapse. Make sure you’re on the right side of this trade.

Sincerely,

Jim Nelson

Source: The New Way to Collapse an Industry

Could this be a sign of things to come? Earlier today, Gander Mountain (NASDAQ:GMTN) announced its two largest shareholders have made a deal to take the company private.

In an economic environment where regulations are increasing by the minute and costs are rising even faster, middle-weight companies are quickly realizing it is better business to buy their shares from the secondary market and go private.

Sure, the move is costing Gander Mountain a pretty penny – a premium of about 35% of Friday’s closing price – but the handful of investors that created the deal are certain their company will be better served without the regulations of the public market and without the ever-peering eyes of thousands of interested investors.

If you have been watching this $100-million company over the past few months, you know its share price has not taken advantage of the bullish run in the overall markets. After a wide second-quarter loss, shares of the outdoor retailer plunged by close to 40%.

The timing of today’s announcement is certainly a sign the company’s board believes the worst is over. By making the move now, the few investors that will be left in the company will get a relative bargain, even if they are paying a decent premium.

Of course, this story may be far from over. With the markets increasing in value at a rapid pace over the past few months, long-term investors may not be happy to cash out at these prices. There’s a good chance the company may have a fight on its hands as shareholders fight to get the buyout price as high as they possibly can.

Paying attention, Obama?

Really, the biggest story here is not the overnight surge and the potential for more gains. The big news is stories like this are likely to happen more and more often in the near future.

We have all heard of the fallout from the semi-recent Sarbanes-Oxley infusion of oversight and regulations. Scores of the world’s largest companies are doing all they can to remain out of tightly regulated American markets.

But now that the Obama administration has its eye on everything from executive pay to corporate travel, you can bet a slew of firms have their bean counters figuring out the most effective way forward… public or private?

In the long run, the trend will be detrimental to American investors. But in the short-term, as the markets add a premium to all companies that may be tempted to bail out of the realm of publicly traded shares, investors will prosper.

If you are on a hunt for companies ready to make the move, look for firms with well-established businesses and small market values. Gander Mountain with its limited growth ability and low market cap is a perfect example.

This should be a glaring clue for any politician or regulator that the world of business is uneasy with current actions. Forcing businesses into an unregulated shell will not be good for the nation’s economy.

Source: Gander Mountain: Going Private, Sending a Message

It’s probably a literary no-no to quote yourself. But we begin today with words we wrote last November not because we admire our own work, but we because we meant it then… and it’s becoming a reality today.

No matter which way you measure it, unemployment among Americans aged 16-24 is now at a post-World War II high. As typical in these kinds of stats, we’re seeing numbers all over the place… the NY Post reported yesterday that the rate has “exploded” to 52%, while the government’s latest tally (set to be revised this week) has it closer to 25%. Neither stat includes students not looking for work.

Both ends of this spectrum still mark the highest youth unemployment rate since at least 1948, when the government started keeping track. That’s especially interesting given the “official” unemployment rate for the total population — a 26-year high of 9.7%.

This has the Obama administration worried enough to shell out $1.2 billion — an earmark in the stimulus bill which has (if anything) only kept the situation from getting REALLY ridiculous. In the meantime, the masses of disgruntled youth swell by the day. How dangerous is that in modern times? Ask Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Why do our youth have it so tough? For starters, competition for jobs is at a record high. Here’s a worthy alternative way to examine our jobs crisis:

There are 14.5 million officially unemployed people in the United States and 2.5 million job openings. In other words, for every six people looking for work, there is one job to fill — not counting those already employed who are looking for a new gig. And we hasten to add, these are Labor Department numbers… if the reality were twice as bad, it’d be no surprise.

So pity the youth. That English Lit degree might be useful one day, but not up against five other resumes with real work experience. Summer internships are over, and all that’s left are a few hourly, low-wage gigs. According to Northwestern University, half of college grads under 25 that do hold jobs are working in a position that doesn’t require a degree — also the highest portion on record.

Our biggest fear is that these jobless youths lose all hope and make the ultimate mistake — law school.

Source: Unemployed Young People are the Real Danger

Even in the world of finance, there are momentous conversions. As they say on Wall Street, a rally ends when the last bear gives up. An old friend had been a source of inspiration for tech bears for many years. He suddenly saw the light and gave up in 1999. Shares he had formerly scorned – often dotcoms with no revenue and no business plans – were suddenly added to his own portfolio. This also heralded a big change – the end of the tech bubble. Tech stocks collapsed. Most disappeared. Then, Stephen Roach became vaguely bullish in 2007, after a long period of doubt and misgivings.

Now it is Jim Grant who has changed his mind. A generation of investors has gotten used to Grant’s ‘doom is nigh’ warnings. Now, he says, it’s a boom that is nigh.

What is remarkable about the Grant conversion is that his vision gives off so little heat and light. His WSJ article shillyshallies around; rehearses the history of previous recessions and comes to rest in front of a flickering match: “The deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery.”

Many were the sheep in Grant’s flock. They feel betrayed, as if their shepherd had gone over to the wolves. Here at The Daily Reckoning, we take no personal offense. In the following few words we merely stoke up the fire.

We will not argue with Newton’s Third Law. For every action, there is a reaction. Every boom has a bust. And every busted bubble has a bounce. Even the Titanic’s stern rose, before she slipped below the waves.

First, we consult the facts. But facts are survivors. They will tell whatever tale their interrogators want to hear. As for opinions, after six months of a stock market rally, the once half empty glass has become half full. We predicted it ourselves. But we’ll let Robert Prechter say, ‘I told you so.’ Even before the rally began, Prechter foretold its story:

“Regardless of extent, it should generate feelings of optimism. At its peak, the President’s popularity will be higher, the government will be taking credit for successfully bailing out the economy, the fed will appear to have saved the banking system and investors will be convinced that the bear market is behind us.”

As to Mr. Obama’s popularity, Prechter was wrong. But 4 out of 5 ain’t bad.

Grant’s brief tour of recession history seems to confirm his Newtonian position: the further an economy falls, the further up it rises to get back to normal. This downturn has clipped nearly 4% off America’s GDP, substantially more than any previous downturn since WWII. Therefore, it will come back strong.

Today’s slump in the United States hardly compares to the one of ’29-’33, which took 27% off the GDP. Then, in the ranks of the unemployed, stood one out of every four able-bodied workers, as opposed to just one out of every 10, according to today’s statistical legerdemain. Still, the depth of the drop did not prevent a vigorous bounce; on the contrary, it seemed to demand it. After ’33, the US economy grew by nearly 10% in each of the next four years.

In the slump of ’82, GDP sank at a 6.4% rate. Again, the reaction was nearly equal and opposite to the action. “Not until the third quarter of 1984,” says Grant, “did real quarterly GDP growth drop below 5%.”

Of course, even a US Congressman will bounce, if you push him down the Capitol steps. But not every one will get up again. In the ’33 example, the US economy, still youthful and vigorous, got up nicely. But then it fell again. By the end of the decade he was still on his back, with 15% unemployment and 2% deflation. Only later, after four years of world war, did the economy begin a sustained recovery.

Now it is 2009. The poor fellow is down again. The feds rushed to help him to his feet. They gave him a combined fiscal and monetary shot-in-the-arm seven times stronger – in terms of GDP – than the average postwar countercyclical stimulus. The juice opened his eyes. But he still staggers. He has put on some weight over the years; he now carries three times the debt/GDP as he had in ’82. His stocks are three times as expensive, in P/E terms, too. His bones are more brittle and his mind a little slower. What’s more, in ’82, he had been on a deleveraging diet for more than a decade. In ’09, he has just begun.

What will happen next, we don’t know. But if we turn bullish on this economy and urge you to buy stocks, it will surely be time to sell them.

Enjoy your weekend,

Bill Bonner

Source: The Last Bear

The first time around, the three-headed federal serpent – the Bush administration, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Federal Reserve – used Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) to “legitimize” trillions of dollars worth of toxic financial waste known as subprime mortgages.

The result was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression – a mess that was global in nature.

And we’re now headed for a repeat performance.

Some of the players may have changed since the first subprime-mortgage crisis, but the game apparently remains the same. With banks currently unwilling to lend, the new federal triumvirate of the Obama administration, the Treasury and the Fed are trying to inflate the moribund U.S. housing market. This time around, however, the FHA is the weapon of choice.

Obama & Co. are making an all-or-nothing bet that the U.S. economy will recover and bail out the housing market before the final bill for this ill-advised gambit comes due.

When this bubble bursts – and it will – U.S. taxpayers will be on the hook for more than $1 trillion in government-guaranteed debt.

Ginnie Mae: Fannie and Freddie’s Once-Quiet Cousin

As a direct result of the real-estate meltdown, U.S. banks have become reluctant lenders. And they’ve raised their loan standards considerably. Federal officials knew they had to keep the mortgage spigot open, especially to suspect borrowers, so they turned to their new “secret weapon” – the FHA.

The FHA has been cranking out new government-insured subprime loans, which it packages into government guaranteed securities for sale to banks. This frightening reflation of the subprime bubble is being engineered for two key reasons:

• To put a floor under falling house prices.
• And to let banks swap toxic Fannie and Freddie securities for new toxic debt that is 100% guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

The almost inevitable insolvency of the FHA could rapidly undermine the fragile recovery of the U.S. economy. And it could plunge stock prices and bank viability to new lows.

Why the FHA?

That’s simple. In an era of increasingly stringent lending standards, the FHA’s standards are laughably lax.

Created by the National Housing Act of 1934, the FHA insures private mortgage lenders against borrower default on residential real estate loans. But its current allure is that it opens the door to prospective homebuyers who almost certainly wouldn’t qualify for a conventional home mortgage. These are buyers with no credit history, a history of credit problems, or not enough cash to cover the down payment and closing costs.

The FHA has quadrupled its insurance guarantees on mortgages in just the last three years, with the bulk of that growth coming in the past two years. Currently, the FHA insures $560 billion of mortgages.

Loans that are FHA-insured are pooled and packaged into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) by the Government National Mortgage Association, more commonly known as Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae insures the actual MBS pools composed of FHA loans. Ginnie Mae securities are the only mortgage-backed securities backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

Two weeks ago, Ginnie Mae proudly announced that it had issued a monthly record $43 billion in FHA mortgage-backed securities, and through the end of July held guaranteed securities with a value of $680 billion. It is on track to exceed $1 trillion worth of guaranteed securities by the end of calendar year 2010.

Ginnie Mae is a cousin of its better-known siblings Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two mortgage giants are technically insolvent, and were forced into government conservatorship at the height of the financial crisis – ostensibly due to concerns that foreign central banks in China, Japan, Europe, the Middle East and Russia might stop buying our bonds. As “government-sponsored enterprises,” or GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were only supposed to have the “implicit” backing of the U.S. government. But recent events have shown these to be fully backed by taxpayers.

The implosion of Fannie and Freddie severely threatened the mortgage market. It essentially shut down the two giant repositories that bought the loans banks and mortgage originators didn’t want to hold as assets on their own balance sheets.

The FHA and its mortgage-backed securities “factory” – Ginnie Mae – have taken up where Fannie and Freddie left off, and are now the dumping ground for toxic mortgages. Using the FHA is the core strategy in the administration’s misguided effort to prop up mortgage origination and modifications, real estate prices and insolvent banks.

Warning Signals?

Administration officials might want to take heed of some eerie parallels between the current situation and the one involving Fannie and Freddie. They could serve as an early warning system.

First and foremost, the FHA has already started to acknowledge systemic fraud in its business. In the earlier subprime crisis, similar circumstances led to the revelation of massive fraud in the issuance, packaging, ratings and sale of subprime toxic mortgage-backed securities.

On Aug. 4, the FHA suspended Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., one of its largest approved independent mortgage originators, from making anymore FHA-backed loans. The suspension came one day after federal investigators raided Taylor Bean’s Ocala, Fla., headquarters.

Since 2007, the value of FHA-backed loan originations underwritten by Taylor, Bean had soared 117%. By contrast, the origination of conventional loans by the firm dropped 34% over the same period. Taylor, Bean subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which oversees the FHA, raised concerns about FHA practices. On June 18, HUD released an internal inspector general’s report that revealed that the FHA’s default rate exceeded 7% and that more than 13% of its insured loans were delinquent by more than 30 days.

In a “Review and Outlook” piece, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FHA’s reserve fund dropped from 6.4% in 2007 to about 3% today, putting it dangerously close to its mandated 2% minimum. That translates to a “33-to-one leverage ratio, which is into Bear Stearns territory,” the newspaper report stated, referring to the now-failed investment bank that had been a central player in the original subprime mortgage crisis.

Bear Stearns is now owned by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM).

The HUD inspector general’s report stated that the agency’s growth makes it “vulnerable to exploitation by fraud schemes” and that it may need “Congressional appropriation intervention.”

In a recent article – “FHA Disputes Whispers of Capital Reserve Problems” – on the Mortgage News Daily Web site, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said in June that “there’s a better than even chance that we will stay above the two percent reserve threshold. That suggests, not just for the 2010 business, but overall for the portfolio, that we’ll more than likely to stay out of a broader need for any taxpayer funding.”

It may be more than a little disheartening to know that in a very uncertain economic environment, precisely due to fraud in mortgage lending and increasing borrower defaults, that our government is stretching a 50/50 wager on the backs of taxpayers.

That’s only part I of the FHA dilemma story.

Part II is even more frightening.

A Look Ahead

Banks are dumping Fannie and Freddie-backed securities onto the Fed’s balance sheet and replacing them on their own balance sheets with FHA-insured loans packaged into government-insured securities issued by Ginnie Mae. Banks aren’t reducing their net assets, they are aggressively swapping acknowledged toxic securities that no-one wants for a new variety that no one will want in the future. Why?

It’s not just that Ginnie Maes are fully backed by the U.S. taxpayers and Fannie and Freddie’s securities are only implicitly backed. All of them will be covered by taxpayers.

The devil is in the details.

Because Fannie and Freddie securities are only implicitly guaranteed, banks that hold these securities as assets on their balance sheets must “haircut,” or set aside reserves, based on a 20% risk-weighting assigned to the value of those holdings.

Because Ginnie Maes are explicitly 100% guaranteed, they are considered “risk free,” and on par with U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills. There is no reserve requirement, or haircut, on Ginnie Mae securities.

By replacing their asset mix and holding Ginnie Maes, banks don’t have to set aside reserves. They can use the money they otherwise would have to set aside to actually leverage-up their balance sheets. And guess what they’re buying?

More Ginnie Maes, naturally.

The effect of the asset swap – basically one toxic pool for a replacement that’s not much better – creates the illusion that banks have healthier balance sheets and that they are meeting their reserve requirements. It’s such a good deal for the banks and actively promoted by the Fed and Treasury, that banks are using Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) money to buy Ginnie Maes.

But it’s all a façade.

Capital ratios are being manipulated and insolvent banks are being propped up.

The danger of relying on the FHA to prop up the shaky housing market by facilitating mortgage origination, modifications and refinancing to less-than-stellar borrowers will only result in more subprime loans being stockpiled on the Federal Reserve balance sheet.

Eventually, defaults will overwhelm the FHA. And the hoped-for floor in residential real estate pricing will be pulled out from under us all. The next down-round in real-estate values will expose bank balance sheets for what they really are: Over-leveraged and over-stuffed with junk. Already on the ropes, banks will lose capital and will have to tighten the credit screws on consumer borrowers even more.

We may be headed for another bruising round of real-estate and MBS-related depreciation. Even a mild financial-markets setback could put the economy and the stock market onto the canvas for a 10-count. Further pummelling of shaky consumer confidence accompanied by a couple of major bank failures could easily send the U.S. market down for the financial-system equivalent of a TKO.

Taxpayers, always the lowly cornermen holding the spit buckets, are already in place with the safety nets. We will catch the FHA loans because we insure private lenders against subprime borrowers with no skin in the game. We then will have to catch the buyers of Ginnie Maes, because we guarantee those MBS securities. And we will be forced to catch the falling banks, because we already insure depositors through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

Perhaps our ultimate fate is that of the permanently punchdrunk veteran boxer, who rues his decision to stay in the game, realizing that he fought “one bout too many.” If that’s the case, that “one bout too many” could be Subprime Crisis II, arranged by the very market referees whose job it was to protect us from such beatings.

Source: How the Government is Setting Us Up for a Second Subprime Crisis

But since then, little progress has been made on financial regulatory reform, and many of the large investment banks that received billions of dollars in government bailouts are booking huge profits on the same risky wagers they were making before the financial crisis.

In fact, the five biggest banks in the country – Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Wells Fargo Corp. (NYSE: WFC), and Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC)  – posted second quarter profits totaling $13 billion.

That’s more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and almost two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007, when the economy was still strong, CNBC reported.

Goldman Sachs reported record earnings in the second quarter. As was the case before the financial meltdown, Goldman leaned heavily on its trading desk for revenue. Trading revenue accounted for 50% of the firm’s total revenue. At $6.8 billion, trading revenue was up 186% from the second quarter of 2008.

The bank also saw a massive bump in equity trading where revenue jumped to $2.2 billion – a 110% quarterly increase.

The story was much the same at JPMorgan whose investment-banking operations generated $1.47 billion of profit, almost quadruple the amount earned in last year’s second quarter.

Investment-banking fees – which zoomed 29% from a year ago and 62% from the first quarter – totaled $2.2 billion, and were a “record for any investment bank in any quarter,” according to JPMorgan Chief Financial Officer Michael J. Cavanagh.

Citigroup and Bank of America- which received some $45 billion in government bailout funds – also topped profit estimates in the second quarter.

Of course, it’s not the fact that Wall Street has returned to profitability that’s raised the hackles of analysts, it’s that Wall Street firms are turning huge profits by employing much of the same risky behavior that led to Lehman’s undoing.

“We’re seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels,” Simon Johnson, former chief economist with the International Monetary Fund, told CNBC.

For instance, banks are still making bets that put far more money at stake than they have on hand to cover potential losses. The five biggest banks average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion in the second quarter, up 76% from two years ago, according to regulatory filings.

Even more disconcerting is that banks are still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them as investments, which is precisely the behavior that helped inflate the real estate bubble and lead to the financial meltdown.

With the full blessings of ratings agencies, banks are repackaging their money-losing securities into higher-rated ones called re-securitization of real estate mortgage investment conduits, or “re-remics,” The New York Times reported. At least $30 billion in residential re-remics have been done this year, according to Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

Wall Street bankers have even set out to create new and exotic financial products, including the securitized life insurance policies.

Indeed, bankers plan to buy so-called “life settlements,” which are life insurance policies that sick and elderly people sell for cash, and package them into bonds for investors. This essentially creates a whole new bond market that lets firms gamble on the lives of thousands of people.

Many analysts fear that insurers will have to raise premiums, because they could end up paying more death claims out to investors than they previously had anticipated. That is, if a policy is purchased and packaged into a security, investors will keep paying the premiums that might have otherwise been abandoned by policyholders. If that’s the case insurance companies will have based their premiums on false assumptions.

“The securitization of life settlements adds another element of possible risk to an industry that is already in need of enhanced regulations, more transparency and consumer safeguards,” U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., told The Times.

Meanwhile, the regulatory overhaul that U.S. President Barack Obama proposed back in June has been derailed by lobbyists and cast aside by a Congress that is preoccupied with the heated debate over healthcare reform.

Obama’s Overhaul Losing Traction

President Obama on June 17 proposed a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. financial regulatory system.

Under President Obama’s proposal:

• Hedge funds and other private pools of capital would have to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
• Many financial institutions would be required to increase capital reserves to protect against unexpected losses, and companies would also have to keep part of the credit risk for loans they have packaged into securities.
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) would have the power to seize and break up large financial companies that are under duress.
• The U.S. Federal Reserve would be granted more powers over payments and settlements systems in U.S. financial markets to prevent a breakdown that officials fear could destabilize the economy.
• The Office of Thrift Supervision would be merged with the Office of the Comptroller of Currency.
• A new consumer protection agency would be created. That agency would write rules related to mortgages, credit cards and other consumer products, taking away powers previously held by the Fed.

However, the proposal has lost much of the momentum it would have had earlier this year. Now that the U.S. economy is seemingly back on track and many banks have paid back their huge government loans, much of the anger over Wall Street’s hand in the financial crisis has dissipated.

“As we get a little more distance from the actual collapse and things begin to stabilize, then people think we don’t need to take as much drastic action,” Michael Bernstein, an expert in political and economic history who is currently serving as provost at Tulane University, told NPR. “That’s a very disappointing reality.”

In fact, a large portion of the anti-business rhetoric that provided the backdrop to the financial crisis has been replaced by public rants against big government and the vehement debate over healthcare reform that has consumed Congress.

“The president has offered a reform proposal that would grant broad new authorities to government bureaucrats while intruding in private markets and restricting personal choice,” Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the senior Republican on the House Financial Services Committee told The Times. “The obvious lesson of the events of September 2008 is that we need smarter regulation, not more regulation, not more government bureaucracy, and not more incentives to engage in harmful business practices.”

Meanwhile, big financial institutions and community banks have unified against several pillars of the proposal, including the creation of a new consumer protection agency, and tighter regulation and more transparency regarding derivatives and credit default swaps – the very instruments that have been blamed for exacerbating the financial crisis. They’ve also lobbied hard against restrictions on executive pay, The Times reported.

On the one-year anniversary of Lehman’s collapse, President Obama again sounded the call for reform, warning that “there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment.”

“I want everybody here to hear my words,” Obama said in a speech at Federal Hall in New York. “We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.”

Still, many in Congress continue to bristle at the prospect of more government oversight.

“President Obama supports changes that push us in the wrong direction,” Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told The Washington Times.

But as Congress continues to substitute rhetoric for action, America’s largest financial institutions are growing more powerful and analysts see a precious opportunity for real reform slipping away.

“The clock is ticking and we’re at a cross roads,” Travis Plunkett, chief lobbyist for the Consumer Federation of America, told CNNMoney. “If we don’t see a substantial move this fall, financial reform may wither on the vine.”

Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, who leads the House Financial Services Committee and largely supports Obama’s plan, will begin marking up the bill in October and is expected to have legislation to the floor of the House by the end of next month or early November.

Source: Wall Street Back to Business as Obama’s Regulatory Overhaul Loses Momentum

Years of debt and securitization finally caught up to the FIRE (finance-insurance-real estate) sector of the economy. The titans of finance refused to come clean about the real value of the ‘assets’ they sat on…and finally it came time to pay the piper.

Dan Amoss, whose recommendation of Lehman put options generated 462% gains earlier that summer, wrote in this space a year ago, “Think about how much better off Lehman Brothers would be if its management hadn’t put off the process of reporting losses, dumping impaired assets and raising new capital. Would its stock be 26 cents today? Probably not.”

So the heavy-hitters of the finance sector have surely learned their lessons and proceeded to mark down their “assets” to realistic levels over the last year, right?

You wish. Even mainstream economists like the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz say we’re in a worse pickle now. “In the US and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger,” Stiglitz told Bloomberg over the weekend. “The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis. It’s an outrage.”

And how do ordinary people feel about the response their government leaders have made to the crisis? Americans are, as our friend Doug Casey would put it, ‘a bunch of whipped dogs.’ Rather, they’re supremely sanguine, compared to much of the rest of the world.

For all the honeymoon-is-over talk surrounding Obama, we’re struck by how much grumpier people seem to be elsewhere. Americans are as satisfied with the actions of Obama and Congress to the same extent Russians are satisfied with those of the Putinocracy.

We should note here that Russian GDP contracted at a breathtaking 10.9% last quarter, while consumer prices are rising at a better-than-10% clip.

Source: Have the Titans of Finance Learned Their Lesson?