The day was full of very shaky economic data, led by the Conference Board’s report that its consumer confidence index declined to a record low of 38 in December, from a revised reading of 44.7 last month. That was well below economists’ expectations, which were for a modest rise to 45.8.

“The further erosion of the consumer confidence index reflects the rapid and steep deterioration of economic conditions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2008,” wrote Lynn Franco, director of the Board’s Consumer Research Center. “The overall economic outlook remains quite dismal for the first half of 2009, and only a modest recovery is expected in the second half.”

The consumer confidence subindex for present conditions plummeted to 29.4 in December from 42.3 in November, the Board said.

Meanwhile, home prices in 20 major U.S. cities dropped 2.2% in October from September, and fell a record 18% from the previous year, according to the Case-Shiller home price index, as reported by Standard & Poor’s. That sends prices back to their March 2004 levels.

Falling prices are likely to accelerate in coming months, said Patrick Newport, economist at IHS Global Insight. “The main force driving house prices down is foreclosures, which are still rising,” Newport wrote. “The Obama administration and the Fed are working on ways to limit the number of ‘preventable foreclosures.’ Unfortunately, trial and error will be part of this process.”

Source: Dollar Slides Against Euro

S&P’s said the “outlooks on the large financial institutions sector in the U.S. are now predominantly negative” and that “the pace and extent of earnings improvement could be considerably more muted than we previously anticipated.”

“Lehman Brothers, the most vulnerable of the three houses downgraded, got it the worst,” say Ian Mattias and Addison Wiggan in the 5 Min Forecast. “Traders pushed LEH down 8% during yesterday’s session.”

This morning, the suits at Lehman are putting together a plan to raise more emergency capital. Having already raised $6 billion over the past year, Lehman is far and away the most likely candidate to play the role of “next Bear Stearns” during this encore production of the credit crisis.

“What does Wall Street expect?” asks Dan Denning in The Daily Reckoning Australia. “We’re in a bear market in credit.”

The grim news Stateside is that the board of directors of Wachovia, the fourth largest bank in America, fired its CEO Ken Thompson. Wachovia lost US$708 million in the first quarter of 2008. It didn’t help Thompson that he engineered the acquisition of mortgage lender Golden West Financial in 2006 – right at the peak of the mortgage lending bubble.

Thompson joins a long list of CEOs falling on their sword for thinking a credit boom would never end. It has. It’s still ending, in fact. Ratings agency Standard and Poor’s lowered the credit ratings of three big Wall Street firms earlier today. JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch were all downgraded because the S&P reckons the firms will have to take further asset write downs this year.

What did you expect? It’s a bear market in credit. The story comes straight from the department of news so obvious a rock would know it. What does it mean?

Well, a bear market in credit is bad for firms with heavily leveraged balance sheets. That includes most financial and banking stocks. Why any investor would go bottom fishing in the financials when we still have a bear market in credit is beyond our reckoning capabilities.

William Patalon III in Money Morning reckons investors should take the fresh warnings about the credit crisis from Oppenheimer & Co’s analyst Meredith Whitney to heart.

Whitney now says the worst may be yet to come. The banking-sector financial crisis will last at least until the end of next year, and may actually stretch well past that. And that could lead to a major U.S. downturn.

“We believe the credit crisis is far from over,” Whitney wrote in a research report last week. “In fact, we believe what lies ahead will be worse than what is behind us.”

The so-called “first wave” of the credit crisis hit banks’ trading books. But the second lightning strike will hit lenders where it hurts the most – right in their lending businesses. If she’s right, the impact on the economy will be devastating.

Here’s why. The banking system’s “originate-to-distribute” model changed the rules of the game. No longer did banks make loans that were based on very careful risk-of-loss analyses. Under the new system, banks make loans – such as subprime mortgages – which are then “securitized,” or packaged together, into debt instruments that the trading operations of banks, investment banks or institutional investors might then purchase, believing it was a way of achieving higher returns.

Initially, this led to higher profits. Which induced banks to boost lending so that they could boost securitizations. But here’s the problem. First, since the banks were no longer going to keep the loans, they relaxed lending standards. In fact, they actually had to since, second, they wanted to boost those volumes.

When the underlying loans unraveled as the subprime-mortgage crisis spiraled deeper and deeper out of control, companies such as The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. (BSC) took losses that just kept growing. Bear Stearns is now being taken over by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), with the help of the U.S. Federal Reserve.

The sins weren’t limited to banks, however. Consumers stoked this credit inferno – and, in doing so, unknowingly created their own funeral pyre.

Consumers grew accustomed to the “rolling loan gathers no loss” mindset, Whitney says. Housing values were soaring, and as long as those values continued to rise, homeowners could continue to roll over their loans into new borrowings – often packing in a lot of ancillary consumer debt from credit cards or car payments long the way.

When the housing market collapsed, however, homes were no longer a real-estate-version of an automated teller machine (ATM) that consumers could turn to each time they needed to eradicate debt from car loans, home loans or even credit-card debt.

When banks stopped lending, consumers had nowhere to turn to roll over their loans. Making matters worse were two other factors:

• First, many of their loans had so-called “re-set” provisions that permitted the loans to reset at much higher interest rates – a fact that caused the overall monthly mortgage payments to increase, sometimes by as much as 40% or more. And since their incomes weren’t rising in kind, many consumers could no longer make these payments, and defaulted on their mortgages.
• Second, the downturn in the housing market sent home prices into a severe tailspin, in some cases leaving homeowners with mortgage balances that were much larger than the new (lower) market value of their home. And if the mortgage loan also reset, that homeowner was hit with a double-whammy blow – a boosted mortgage payment on a house whose value had plunged.

Those resets have caused foreclosures to soar, the news is going to get lots worse, real estate data firm RealtyTrac Inc. said last month. Indeed, U.S. home foreclosures likely won’t peak until the fourth quarter, Money Morning reported last month.

“What we’re really looking at is ongoing fallout from people overextending themselves to buy homes they couldn’t affordand using highly toxic loan products to get into the houses in the first place,” Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac’s vice president of marketing, told The Associated Press. “We’re going to see quite possibly a record amount of foreclosure activity in the third or fourth quarter,” reflecting the spike in monthly payments because of the re-sets on adjustable-rate subprime mortgages that will take place in May and June.

And that brings us back to Whitney.

The banking sector’s lending pullback will fuel these losses and foreclosures, for many of the reasons we’ve detailed here. Already, banks will likely have to set aside an additional $170 billion in reserves through the end of 2008 – just to keep up with mounting loan losses.

To do that, banks will have to further rein in lending – to the tune of about $2 trillion worth of available credit lines, BusinessWeek.com reported. For some context, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the entire U.S. economy is approaching $14 trillion. Two-thirds of that is driven by consumer spending.

That’s why the lending pullback is going to have a massive contractionary effect on the U.S. economy.

“New and unforeseen strains on consumer liquidity will push more consumers into precarious credit positions and cause consumer credit losses to be far worse than what is currently estimated, even by the most-draconian of investors,” Whitney wrote.

Why has the price of oil risen so much in the past few months? Is it a supply and demand issue as some believe; or is it because of an out-of-control futures market driven by the proliferation of commodity index funds and rampant speculation, as everyone tries to get in on the rise in commodity prices? This is a very complex issue, with a lot of emotion attached to it.

This week I try to give you an understanding of why oil prices have risen and whether they are likely to stay at such lofty heights or maybe even fall! And we look at a very odd statistic: where are all the tankers? There are some very unusual things happening in the oil patch. If you are currently exposed to the energy or commodity markets, or are thinking about it, I believe you will find this letter of interest. At the end of the letter, I also tell you how you can personally see that help gets to the victims of Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar. It is a desperately needy situation. There is a lot to cover, so we will get to the essay right after this quick note.

I have talked for the past few months about why I feel we may be in for a tough investment environment and a Muddle Through Economy. I think in this type of market cycle it is important to increase your portfolio allocation weighting to noncorrelating investment strategies. I work with Steve Blumenthal and his team at CMG to help investors find managers who can take smaller minimums and who have such alternative strategies. We are creating a platform of managers that you can access for your personal portfolio. I recently completed a special write-up on Eric Leake of Anchor Capital, an investment advisor I am particularly impressed with. For the last 12-1/2 months, he is up 16.77%, in comparison to the S&P 500 index that is down -2.08% (net of fees from April 30, 2007 through May 15, 2008). Equally impressive is that he has generated this return while being uncorrelated to the S&P, and with lower volatility than the market.

You can get this report and others I have written by going to https://cmgfunds.net/public/mauldin_questionnaire.asp and filling out the form. If you are a manager and would like to be considered for the platform, drop a note to PJ Grzywacz at pjg@cmgfunds.net. And if you are an investment advisor and would like to see the managers that are on our platform and determine whether they might fit into your client portfolios, we do have a program to work directly with you.

And as always, if you have a net worth of over $2 million, I strongly suggest you go to www.accreditedinvestor.ws and register there. My partners in the US (Altegris Investments), London (Absolute Return Partners) and South Africa (Plexus) are experts in alternative investment strategies, including hedge funds and commodity funds. We have a very strong selection of funds in a wide variety of styles to help you diversify your portfolio. (In this regard, I am president and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.) And now, let’s jump into the oil patch.

Those Nasty Index Speculators

Are institutional investors in the form of large commodity index funds the reason behind the current rise not just in oil prices but in the prices of seemingly all commodities? Michael Masters, a long-short hedge fund manager, in testimony before the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said:

“You have asked the question ‘Are Institutional Investors contributing to food and energy price inflation?’ And my unequivocal answer is ‘YES.’ In this testimony I will explain that Institutional Investors are one of, if not the primary, factors affecting commodities prices today. Clearly, there are many factors that contribute to price determination in the commodities markets; I am here to expose a fast-growing yet virtually unnoticed factor, and one that presents a problem that can be expediently corrected through legislative policy action.”

You can read the entire testimony at http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/files/michael_masters_written_testimony.pdf, but let’s hear the basics of his argument:

“What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets: Institutional Investors. Specifically, these are Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors. Collectively, these investors now account on average for a larger share of outstanding commodities futures contracts than any other market participant.

“These parties, who I call Index Speculators, allocate a portion of their portfolios to “investments” in the commodities futures market, and behave very differently from the traditional speculators that have always existed in this marketplace. I refer to them as “Index” Speculators because of their investing strategy: they distribute their allocation of dollars across the 25 key commodities futures according to the popular indices – the Standard & Poors – Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and the Dow Jones – AIG Commodity Index.”

These index funds are composed of a number of commodities. While oil is the biggest component of the various funds, they also have exposure to grains, base metals, precious metals, and livestock. When you buy one of these funds you are buying a basket of commodities.

Why would an investor want exposure to a long-only index of commodities? Perhaps for portfolio diversification, as commodities are uncorrelated with the rest of the portfolio, or as a way to play the growing demand for commodities of all sorts from emerging markets, as a hedge against inflation, and so on. Mainline investment consultants began to suggest a few years ago to their clients that they get into the commodity market on a buy and hold basis, just like they do with stocks and bonds.

And they have done so in a very large way. As the chart below shows, at the end of 2003 there was $13 billion in commodity index funds. By March of this year, that amount had grown 20 times, to $260 billion. Masters also shows that this corresponds with the stratospheric rise in commodity prices. In many commodity futures markets, index speculators are now the single largest participant.