In the near term, we think the prospects for job growth look incredibly bleak. Banks aren’t lending. Companies aren’t hiring or investing heavily in R&D, and corporate profits are up only because of cost cutting measures, like layoffs, rather than bottom line revenue growth.

In the long term, however, certain industries look primed to blossom like plastics did in the 70s and semiconductors, personal PCs, and telecom did in the 80s and 90s. Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture points out ten niche industries he thinks will fill in the gaps and push the world economy forward. Here are his top ten (listed in order of biggest near term potential.)

1. Nano Technology

2. Green Energy

3. Battery technology

4. Genomics/Stem Cell Research

5. Web 2.0/3.0

6. Robotics

7. Life extension Technologies

8. Bio-Agriculture

9. Atmospheric Engineering

10. Terra forming/Extra Planetary Colonization

Another one we’d add to his list is human computer interaction technology (HCIT). HCIT is a new breakthrough technology that is set to change the way we interact with computers. It works by using tiny chips installed under the surface of electronic devices. When activated, the chips deliver a “touch” response that you can actually feel.

So let’s say you had an HCIT-enabled computer mouse – and you moved the cursor over the picture of a beach. Even though you’re actually touching a flat mouse button, this technology makes it feel like you’re touching sand… or even rolling waves. The chips send the message to your fingers like a speaker sends a message to your ears.

It’s pretty incredible technology. Microsoft, BMW, Sony and Samsung have already jumped on board. So how can you make money in this emerging multibillion dollar market. Karim Rahemtulla of Mt. Vernon Research outlines exactly how to profit from the coming boom here.

U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) shrank 1% in the second quarter, following the first quarter’s 6.4% drop. The $787 billion Obama stimulus package, smaller decreases in business spending and slowing erosion of the housing market all helped to slow GDP contraction, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A poll of 78 economists surveyed byBloomberg News showed a median estimate of a 1.5% decline in GDP.

“The recession is slowing but we still need to get households and businesses to start spending again,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors, Inc.

With such a dramatic drop in the rate of contraction, the third quarter could sport the first expansion in more than a year. The last time the GDP grew was the second quarter of last year, thanks in large part to the $112.4 billion in stimulus payments to taxpayers.

Despite rising unemployment and a looming jobless recovery, Naroff is optimistic about consumer spending.

“Vehicle sales were actually up from the first quarter and are likely to be even better this quarter, so consumer weakness should not be a major concern,” Naroff said, adding that he’s optimistic that strong growth isn’t far off. “[GDP growth] could be either the third or fourth quarter and could approach 5%.”

Still, until there is real growth in consumer spending, any recovery will be difficult to sustain.

“We’ll get more support from government programs in the second half, but if you want a strong recovery, you need a strong consumer, and we are not seeing that,” Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. told Bloomberg.

A recovery may have to rely on business and government spending. Business investments, while still falling, slowed to a rate of 8.9% in the second quarter, a far cry from the first quarter’s 40% drop. The decline equipment and software purchases also slowed, falling a modest 9% compared to 36.4% in the previous quarter.

On the government side, federal officials – including U.S. President Barack Obama – say less than a quarter of the stimulus package has been spent so far.

“You just can’t push [funding] out that quickly, partly, not just because the federal government has to process applications but also because states and local governments have to gear up to get these projects going,” President Obama said in an interview with Fox News earlier this month.

Without consumer spending, which makes up more than two-thirds of the economy, any recovery will likely be agonizingly slow.

“We’re going from recession to recovery, but at least early on, it’s not going to feel like one,” said the chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, Mark Zandi in an interview with The New York Times. “For economists, this is a seminal part in the business cycle, but for most Americans, it won’t mean much.”

Indeed, the unemployed or the underemployed struggling to make ends meet it’s hard to be optimistic, even as the markets, corporate profits and other economic data show improvement.

“At some point it becomes Obama’s economy, not Bush’s economy anymore,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal research group Center for Economic and Policy Research told The Times. “He made a big mistake in overselling the first stimulus, and then in celebrating all the ‘green shoots.’ That just opens the door for people to say, ‘Where are my green shoots? I still don’t have a job.’ ”

Source: U.S. GDP Contraction Slows, but the Road to Recovery Will Be Rocky

The President’s man at the Treasury, Tim Geithner, is also towing the party line. On Friday Turbo Timmy spoke of “substantial improvements” in trying to beat back the “worst recession globally we’ve seen in generations.”

Why the defensive posturing? Because the White House is feeling touchy and irritable as the polling numbers sink. The rotten jobs market, it seems, has cut into Mr. Obama’s popularity. A poll of Ohio voters showed approval numbers falling from 62% to 49% in a mere two-month span.

If the stimulus is “working,” then, heaven forbid how things might look had there been no stimulus at all.

Or hold on, wait a minute. How might things have looked really and truly with no stimulus? What would have been different?

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

This is one of the challenges in dealing with a very sick patient (i.e. the U.S. economy). Sometimes the patient gets better all by himself. Other times, the medicine that is supposed to be helping actually makes things worse. Without the proper diagnostic tools, though, there’s often no way to tell.

And not all deeply ill patients die, of course. Some really do make a self-powered comeback. Shamans and faith healers often rely on this simple binary outcome to set up a “heads I win/tails you lose” type deal for themselves.

That is to say, if the sick patient gets better, then clearly it was the shaman’s powerful medicine that made it happen.

But there are other alternatives, each tailored to the situation at hand. If the patient fails to get better but still lives, then the shaman can take credit for keeping him from death’s door. And if the patient up and dies, well… then the shaman was called in too late. Or the family members did not have enough faith. Or there was a hidden mortal sin, or some other exculpatory thing.

That’s the trouble with big decisions and messy historical turning points. There’s no way to rewind the tape, so we can’t always be sure what helped or what hurt – or even which actions were justified in the first place.

The weight of history does suggest at least one thing. When it comes to intervention, the government’s track record isn’t so hot. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, it stinks. And when you think about it, the logic as to why is fairly straightforward.

Take the whiz-bang idea of creating jobs, for example. Creating jobs – real, sustainable productive jobs – is no easy task. Just ask any hard-working entrepreneur. So why should the government be any good at it?

And if the government possessed half a clue when it comes to creating jobs, why wouldn’t that capability be rolled out in good times as well as bad? If the jobs genie is all he’s cracked up to be, why wait for history’s darkest hour to rub the magic lamp?

Quantitative Wheezing

And then there is quantitative easing, or QE for short. What does the historical record say about quantitative easing? Basically two things. “Japan tried it… didn’t work.”

Hugh Hendry, co-founder of London-based Electica Asset Management, had this to say about QE in a recent Financial Times interview:

…There is no precedent, no precedent, that says quantitative easing succeeds. None. I’ll give you one actually, there is one, because there was some quantitative easing exercised by the Federal Reserve in 1933-34, and it did initiate a dramatic economic recovery without inflation. But I hesitate to say that was actually a success of quantitative easing, because it was preceded by a 46% collapse in nominal GDP.

So perhaps if you’re telling me that nominal GDP will collapse by 46% next year, then I would believe, and I would come back to you and I’d say then quantitative easing might have a chance in succeeding.

For the record, U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) was an estimated $14 trillion to $15 trillion in 2008. A nominal 46% collapse would nearly cut that in half, taking us back to 1996 levels. The Dow was around 5,000 back then.

So What’s Worked Before?

This leads to an important question. What can history teach us about getting out of jams? The last economic jam we faced of comparable size and scope was the Great Depression. How did we beat it once and for all?

There are many different theories as to how America finally beat the Great Depression. Some give credit for the comeback to FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) and his far-reaching policies. Others say no, FDR really didn’t help much at all (or even made things worse) – it was World War II that finally pulled us out. And still others say, simply, that “time heals all wounds,” even economic ones, and we simply had to slog our way through.

History rarely obliges historians by providing neat, packaged answers. Most sea-change type events have many factors involved, not just one. But still, your humble editor suggests there is one very powerful, yet generally overlooked element that brought us out of the Great Depression. That element was consumer savings.

Here is a statistic that will make you blink. According to journalist-historian William Greider, personal savings levels hit a whopping 25 percent of income in 1943 and 1944.

World War II played a clear role. As Greider writes, “with so many millions conscripted for war, unemployment vanished and scarcity became the problem.” Those who were not drawn into the WWII effort saw their income levels rise. Women saw as much demand as men, a new development for the times. And because the country was on a war footing, a sort of forced saving effort was in place. Families had to make do on an “austerity budget,” and wound up banking much of what they earned.

This huge build-up of savings – 25 cents out of every dollar earned – set the stage for an explosion of consumption in the years to follow. After the war, an era of new products came rushing in. And consumers had both the pent-up savings and pent-up desire to spend, spend, spend.

A Long, Long Road

So what does history have to say about our current predicament? Mainly that, when it comes to getting an economy back on track, there is little that the government can do (case in point Japan).

And secondly that, short of starting a new World War and railroading the nation into a forced austerity program, the country’s best hope probably resides in the U.S. consumer getting his fiscal house in order.

As Tom Petty once sang about love, “it’s a long long road.” That lone dip on the chart above shows where consumer savings rates actually went below zero at the height of the bubble. The impressively tall bar on the far right – representing one of the fastest savings upswings in more than a decade – tops out at just 4%.

U.S. consumers will probably never again save twenty-five cents out of every earnings dollar. There is too much financial innovation and benign leverage built into the system to dial back the clock that far. (And a little bit of leverage, like the kind that lets a young couple make affordable car payments, is a good thing.)

But could the consumer once again save at double-digit savings rates, as we saw not 20 years ago? Could the savings rate more than double from here, even as a hefty chunk of income goes towards paying off a serious overhang of debt? Absolutely.

And that’s why the U.S. economy is never, ever going back to “the way it was” – if by “the way it was” one means the gross runaway excesses of the past two decades. There will be new mistakes, new insanity, new bubbles… but for now and the foreseeable future, we’ve got a hell of a lot of saving to do.

Source: Guess What Really Brought Us out of the Great Depression?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is once again traveling abroad to assure foreign nations that their investments in the United States are safe But this time it’s not China he’s trying to assure; it’s another large supporter of the dollar: Saudi Arabia.

While inflation has held steady in the face of increasing budget deficits, the purpose of Geithner’s multinational tour will be to repeat assurances that such deficits will not trigger a strong bout of inflation and in turn sink the value of the dollar and foreign holdings. Last month, Geithner was in China – the largest holder of U.S. treasuries – to make the same assurances.

Geithner reiterated the Obama administration’s commitment to protecting the value of the dollar and maintaining investor confidence in the U.S. financial system in an interview broadcast on CNN’s“Freed Zakaria GPS.”

“A strong dollar is in the interest of the United States. Of course, I deeply believe that,” Geithner said. “Our commitment … to the world and of course, the American people, is to make sure we’ll put in place the policies that can sustain confidence in this economy and this financial system.”

While rising unemployment – well beyond what the Obama administration expected – is prompting talk of a second stimulus package, Geither said it’s too soon for that. Only 11% of the $308 billion stimulus funds allocated to discretionary programs will be spent in the current fiscal year, and only half by the end of fiscal 2010,Money Morning reported last week.

“I don’t think that’s [deciding on a second stimulus is] a judgment we need to make now,” Geithner said Sunday on the CNN program. “We can’t really make it prudently or responsibly.”

Assurances from the man in charge of the world’s largest economy are important to those whom have invested in it, but several economists believe the Obama administration needs to do more to address worries about U.S. deficits.

“We have a fiscal policy that will ultimately undermine the value of their holdings and that has got foreign investors nervous,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com told The Associated Press. “They are seeking assurances that the U.S. is committed to dealing with its long-term deficit problems.”

Geithner will also discuss with officials from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates the lack of stability of oil prices, which rallied about 115% to $73 a barrel after falling below $34 a barrel in February. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) last week said it will hold a series of hearings this month and in August to determine whether or not it should place new limits on energy futures contracts.

There’s a good chance that the United States and other economies will start growing again, Geithner said in a Reuters interview.

“In my view there are significant risks and challenges ahead,” he said. “We have a very powerful set of policies in place, coming on stream. I think there is a very good chance we will see the U.S. economy and the world economy get back to recovery, get growing again, over the next few quarters.”

Source: Geithner Takes Dollar Assurances to Mideast ]]> http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/geithner-takes-dollar-assurances-to-mideast/19081/feed 0 http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/blood-in-the-streets-2/19072 http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/blood-in-the-streets-2/19072#comments Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:00:55 +0000 Chris Gaffney http://www.contrarianprofits.com/?p=19072 Red ink flows…  Japan suggests diversification for their reserves…  Commodity currencies rebound…  Data galore for the rest of the week… And Now… Today’s Pfennig!
Good day… Chuck had a late night down at the ballpark watching the home run derby, so he asked me to take the helm of the Pfennig this morning. I’m going to try to get this one out a bit earlier than I did last Friday, so I’ll get right to it.

The biggest news to hit the markets yesterday was the Treasury Department’s report that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion. This monthly deficit pushed the deficit for the fiscal year to over $1 trillion dollars for the first time, and we still have another quarter to go until the…

• The U.S. Federal Reserve has opted to hold the federal funds rate at 0% to .25% and “continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period,” the central bank said in a statement yesterday (Wednesday). Information the Fed received since its last meeting in April suggests “the pace of economic contraction is slowing. Conditions in financial markets have generally improved in recent months.”

• As unemployment in the United States is expected to keep rising, the world’s largest economy may need another stimulus package, billionaire Warren Buffett said in a Bloomberg Televisioninterview. “It looks like we’re going to need more medicine, not less,” Buffett said. “We’re going to have more unemployment. The recovery really hasn’t got going.” Buffett, who like many economists sees the unemployment rate surpassing 10%, said the economy “hasn’t turned yet. There’s no telling how long it will take. It will happen.”

• The Methodist University Hospital Transplant Institute in Memphis, Tenn. confirmed a weekend Wall Street Journal reportthat said Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs had a liver transplant. The confirmation came with the permission of Jobs, who has an “excellent prognosis.” The hospital did not say when the transplant took place, but The Journal puts the procedure at sometime in April, citing an unnamed source. Billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A,BRK.B) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Warren Buffett weighed in on the controversy on whether Jobs should have revealed his condition to investors in an interview with CNBC: “If I have any serious illness, or something coming up of an important nature, an operation or anything like that, I think the thing to do is just tell the American public, the Berkshire shareholders about it. I work for ‘em. Some people might think I’m important to the company. Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. So it’s a material fact.”

• Although gas prices are significantly lower than they were at this time last year, fewer Americans will be traveling on July Fourth weekend, according to a survey by AAA. The auto club expects 37.1 million travelers, or 12% of the U.S. population to take a trip of 50 miles or more from home this year, a decrease of 1.9% from last year and a 12% decrease from 2007, months before the recession began. Factors such as the rising unemployment rate and sagging personal incomes are to blame for the drop in travel, AAA said.

• The world’s largest seed maker suffered a 14% drop in profit and disclosed plans to cut 900 jobs, blaming the deteriorating performance of its mainstay revenue source. Monsanto Co.(NYSE: MON) reported a net income of $694 million, or $1.25 per diluted share on revenue of $3.1 billion for the third quarter. That compares to a net income of $811 million, or $1.45 per share on revenue of $3.5 billion in the same quarter last year. Executives were not expecting a drop in performance of the herbicide Roundup, once a primary revenue source for the company. Several generic products hurt the prices for Roundup and profit on the product is expected to drop by half this year, Monsanto said. Shares for the company closed yesterday (Wednesday) at 76.16, down 3.9%.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted unanimously to institute tough new rules for money market funds to help avoid a repeat of what happened when the collapse of the Reserve Primary Fund triggered a flurry of redemptions in the $3.6 trillion market. The proposal will prohibit money market funds from buying illiquid securities and requiring them to hold at least 5% in liquid securities such as cash. “These proposals are designed to increase the ability of money market funds to weather future economic storms,” said SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro. “The stability of money market funds in times of turmoil is enormously important both for investors and for the securities markets. The proposals also would improve the operations of money market funds and oversight of their investments during calmer times, which can further protect funds and increase public awareness of potential risks.”

• The worst recession in 60 years has taken its toll on everyone, including the millionaire’s club. According to a report from Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management and consulting firm Capgemini, the number of people with assets of between $1 million and $30 million fell by 14.9%, BusinessWeek reported. The drop in millionaires represents the largest decline in the report’s 13-year history, said Ileana van der Linde, a principal with Capgemini. “We’ve never seen such a decline in all the years we’ve been doing the report,” she said. The recession has now reduced the cumulative wealth of the world’s millionaires by 19.5% to $32.8 trillion.

Source: Investment News Briefs Thursday, June 25, 2009

Assets like iron ore and copper would suddenly look bullish. Countries like Australia, Brazil and Canada would suddenly have brighter prospects. Asia as a whole would be more attractive to investors.

China’s voracious appetite for commodities drove the second-biggest monthly haul of crude oil and tripled aluminum imports, but very little steel, aluminum and coal went the other way.

“Industrial production is coming online and demand is rising. But sentiment may be tempered by the view that some of the material is being stockpiled and… consumption hasn’t risen as quickly as imports,” Ben Westmore, commodities economist at National Australia Bank, told Reuters.

Copper imports jumped 6.6% from March to April, to 399,833 tons; iron ore imports soared 9.4% to 57 million tons, and crude oil imports hit 3.93 million barrels per day, a 2% rise, customs data showed.

But China’s exports fell more sharply than most analysts had expected in April. The value of goods and services leaving the country was down 22.6% compared to last year, whereas economists had expected an 18% drop.

The drop in exports is leading some experts to speculate that China’s economy is being sustained solely by the $585 billion stimulus package the government is quickly deploying throughout the country. The stimulus program is heavily laden with infrastructure projects, explaining in part China’s huge demand for raw materials.

But some of that spending is spilling over into sales of construction equipment, much of it imported from the United States. Caterpillar Inc. (NYSE: CAT), the world’s largest maker of bulldozers and excavators, is among several companies already pointing an improvement in sales to China.

“March and April were pretty strong months for sales in China,” Caterpillar Chief Executive Officer James Owens said on an April 21 conference call with analysts.  Owens contends China’s stimulus spending for public works projects is working more quickly than in the U.S.

“When they say ’shovel ready,’ they mean nine weeks, not nine months,” he said.

Still, the drop in exports could put a chill on China’s imports of raw materials and construction products if consumption doesn’t pick up in the West.

“Although the downward trend is in line with our expectations the fall in exports is steeper than we anticipated,” Wang Xiaohui, an analyst at Sinolink Securities in Shaghai told Forbes.“Exports are likely to drop further in the near term as economic indicators in the United States and Europe, such as industrial output and retail sales, are not looking up.”

The U.S. trade gap with China increased to $15.6 billion from $14.2 billion from March to April. The gain in imports from China overshadowed an increase in Chinese demand for American-made goods that pushed U.S. exports to the highest level since October.

But the recent stock market surge and other economic data lead Wang to conclude that the lull in U.S. demand for China’s exports will be short-lived.

“In terms of exports, we’re looking at a better second half than first half, with the U.S economy stabilizing, which will provide support to China,” Wang said.

Source: China Imports Record Amounts of Copper and Iron Ore, but Exports Drop on Slack Global Demand

The package of proposed reductions fills in the fine print of a $3.55 trillion budget outline approved by lawmakers in April that contains Obama’s top agenda items, including a healthcare overhaul, a push for renewable, clean-energy sources and changes in education funding.

The President wants to cut or end a number of programs that he feels are wasteful or ineffective to take the first toward getting spending under control. But the administration’s attempt at bringing fiscal discipline to Washington has already been met with skepticism by analysts.

“Every government program – no matter how wasteful – will be defended by its recipients and congressional champions,” Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based research group told Bloomberg News. “Unless Obama puts the weight of the White House behind his spending cuts, Congress will ignore them.”

The cuts are miniscule compared to the overall budget package and deficits that will be ushered in the next few years. The $787 billion stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress combined with the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bank bailout will come on top of the $1 trillion deficit the administration inherited when he took office in January.

Total savings from the cuts, even if they were accepted by Congress in their entirety, would represent a paltry 0.4% of the overall budget. The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be $1.85 trillion this year, about four times the previous record, and $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010.

“Even if you got all of those things, it would be saving pennies, not dollars. And you’re not going to begin to get all of them,” Isabel Sawhill, a Brookings Institution economist who waged her own battles with Congress as a senior official in the Clinton White House budget office, told the Washington Post. “This is a good government exercise without much prospect of putting a significant dent in spending.”

Only about 80 of the proposed cuts are new – the others had been previously revealed.  And most of the cuts will be from the “discretionary” budget, avoiding the so-called untouchable “third-rail” entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs account for more than 40% of government spending, meaning the more difficult work on deficit reductions has been left for another day.
“More serious efforts at deficit reduction are going to require entitlement and tax reform – that’s where most of the money is.” Marc Goldwein, policy director of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget, a Washington-based research group, told Bloomberg. “To really get the deficit under control, we’re going to have to start thinking bigger,” he said.

But some in Congress defended the administration’s approach, saying the list of program reductions is just the start of a more comprehensive effort to cut spending and pull the reins on the skyrocketing deficit.

“It depends on what it means over the scope of five and 10 years.” Representative John Larson (D-Conn.) told Bloomberg.  It’s a “deep, cavernous hole where we have been left, we’re looking a long way up but it’s a steady climb” using the budget plan agreed to by Obama and Congress, he said.

Source: Obama’s Miniscule Budget Cuts Face Stiff Opposition

Long-time readers know that I have been growing more and more bearish of late. I have been writing for a long time that we are in for a long period of slow Muddle Through growth as the twin crises of the housing bubble and credit bubbles require time to heal. Today we look at a serious proposal for cutting the time to healing for at least one of those bubbles (housing), and at least keep the other (credit) from getting worse. This is the most serious idea I have seen that could actually make a real positive contribution to the economy and help put us back on a growth path.

I will post Gary’s papers and a link to the actual op-ed piece for those who want to do further research, but let me make one point at the beginning that he did not emphasize: the US is already allowing roughly 1 million immigrants a year into the country (which for a variety of reasons I and most serious economists of all stripes believe is a very good thing). We are suggesting that we simply change the nature of what constitutes the conditions for acceptance, so as to jump start the housing industry and the economy. We are not suggesting additional immigrants, although nothing would be wrong with that. I will also post a link for you to send this e-letter to your congressmen and senators.

Let me put up front a few benefits of a program that would allow legal status to immigrants buying a home. Housing values would stabilize and in many cases rise. The massive losses because of bad loans that are being subsidized by US taxpayers would be stemmed, saving many hundreds of billions, if not a trillion or more dollars. The excess inventory of homes would quickly disappear and the millions of jobs that were lost as home construction fell into a deep depression would come back. If housing values rise, many families would be able to refinance their homes at lower rates and have more income left over after paying their mortgages. $12 billion in commissions would end up in real estate agents’ pockets, helping a very battered and bruised group. Hundreds of billions will flow into local businesses, as these new immigrants will need to furnish their homes. This could mean as much as a half trillion dollars in sorely needed stimulus in the next few years, without one penny of taxpayer money and actually adding taxes back to governments from local to national. And we are not bringing in 1 million foreigners, we are attracting 1 million mostly middle-class new Americans, which, if we are smart in how we do this, will result in more jobs for all Americans. So let’s jump right in and look at the details.

Housing Could Drop Another 20% in Pricing

Let’s review the situation as it will be if we do nothing. Shilling shows that we built 6.7 million more homes in this country between 1996-2005 than the normal trend would have projected, partially because we underbuilt the decade before that. New housing starts average about 1.5 million in normal times but have fallen to 500,000 recently, and could fall further as unemployment rises and demand declines. Even so, Shilling estimates that we still have about 2.4 million excess homes.

This compares rather well with estimates by independent analyst John Burns, which I cited in the e-letter early last year. What they both agree on is that it will take at least until 2012 to work through this excess inventory, and that assumes that foreclosures do not increase as housing prices drop.

Excess supply of anything means lower and continuously falling prices, and that has certainly been the case in housing. Here is what Shilling writes:

“We believe that if nothing is done to eliminate surplus housing, prices will fall another 20% between now and the end of 2010 for a total peak-to-trough decline of 37% (Chart 1 below). The resulting further negative effects on the economy will be devastating. At that point, almost 25 million homeowners, or almost half the 51 million total with mortgages, will be underwater… That’s also a third of the 75 million total homeowners, with the remaining 24 million owning their houses free and clear. It would take a little over $1 trillion to reduce their mortgages to the value of their houses, compared to $449 billion for the almost 14 million currently underwater.”

This is not inconsistent with similar projections by other acknowledged experts and independent analysts like John Burns and Professor Robert Shiller of Yale. If nothing happens to stimulate buying, there is a great deal more pain ahead for American homeowners.

For the great majority of Americans, their homes represent the largest portion of their assets. This is particularly true of Americans of more modest means, who have been hit the hardest. Watching their single biggest assert drop another 20% will be devastating and for many will mean they will not be able to retire as they had planned. More Americans own homes (68%) than own stocks (50%). This helps explain a recent poll which shows more Americans are worried about house prices than about the decline in stock prices.

Falling home prices means that consumers have to save more for retirement, which results in lower consumer spending, which translates into lost jobs and more homeowners coming under stress — a vicious spiral that is increasing unemployment. Realistic estimates of unemployment rising to over 10% within the year abound.

Two years ago I and a few others foresaw the current housing crisis (and an accompanying credit crisis), predicting a protracted recession and a slow, multi-year Muddle Through recovery. Sadly, I was right about the housing crisis. Without some intervention, there is little to suggest that the prediction of a long, protracted recovery will not come true.

Lowering rates, as is being discussed in various circles, will help homeowners who can make their payments, but it does nothing to really bite into excessive inventory. Until we reduce the inventory, housing prices in many neighborhoods all across America are going to continue to come under pressure. And as Barry Habib points out, while the Fed may be lowering rates for securitized packages of loans, those low rates are not available to the average home buyer. The cost of packaging and securitization adds considerable cost.

Shilling discusses the “traditional” options for reducing home inventories, but in the end there is no real solution other than time, or massive amounts (read trillions) in taxpayer money being given to homeowners, which will be very unpopular, as homeowners who were responsible and are paying their mortgages would get no benefits. Waiting another two and a half years for the excessive inventory to sell will keep this country in a very slow or no-growth economy, and devastate the wealth of millions of homeowners.

But there is a solution. There are millions of foreigners throughout the world who would like to come to live in the US. In 2006, there were 1.1 million immigrants allowed into the US, some 63% of whom were allowed in simply because they already had relatives here. Only 13% of visas were granted to people because of their skills. While allowing relatives of current residents to come to the US may be a humane and reasonable policy, it does nothing to assure they bring more than that relationship to help them make their way in the US.

Buy A Home, Get a Green Card

What if we changed the rules for a few years? Starting as soon as possible, we should allow anyone to come into the country who would buy a home. They would be given a temporary visa which would become permanent if they had no problems after, say, five years.

While Gary proposes that they be allowed to borrow against the value of their homes, I lean toward suggesting that initially we take those who buy their homes outright (with a few exceptions). That means they have enough capital to purchase a home to begin with, which probably means they are educated and have skills. In fact, if they have enough cash to buy a home, that means they would have more actual savings than most US citizens. We would be attracting future citizens with the capital to invest in job-creating businesses and/or who have useful skills to assist in the recovery of the US economy.

Of course, there should be some rules that go along with this proposal. Background checks and references should be required. The home could not be rented for a period of time (at least two years), to help reduce the supply of available housing, and could not be resold for at least two years unless another home was purchased. There should be a minimal price, which could be somewhat different for various regions, but $100,000 would seem to be a good minimum for most areas, with higher minimums in certain areas.

The immigrant should demonstrate the ability to support himself and his family for a period of time (at least one year, preferably two), including the purchase of health insurance. Cash or letters of credit or other guaranteed commitments would be required. Only immediate family members (spouse and children) would be allowed to come with the immigrant. Cousins and siblings must buy their own homes. The permanent visa should be contingent on not having gone on welfare or public assistance at any time in the past five years. We are trying to solve a housing problem, not looking to create others.

I would make an exception in having 100% financing for immigrants with advanced degrees or special skills, especially those who did their schooling in the United States. If the US is to remain competitive in an increasingly technological world, we need more scientists and engineers. But getting permission to stay is becoming increasingly difficult. We are seeing a brain drain of those who would like to stay and create new jobs and technologies (and buy houses) here in the US. Shilling and Le Frak write:

“The authors of this report believe that a number of people have given up waiting for those visas or don’t want to put up with the hassle and are leaving the country. This “brain drain” is unfortunate since many of these foreigners are highly productive. In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the U.S. were named as inventors or co-inventors on 25.6% of the 42,019 international patent applications filed from this country, up from 7.6% in 1998. Studies of the authorship of academic papers show the same trend.

“U.S. educational institutions are considered the best in the world by many and are magnets for foreign students, especially at the graduate level. Many of them are inclined to settle and work in this country after completing their studies, if they can obtain permanent resident status.

“The Council of Graduate Schools survey revealed that in the fall of 2007, 241,095 non-U.S. citizens were enrolled in graduate programs. Technological progress and the productivity it generates depends on people educated in biological sciences, engineering and physical sciences, but only 16% of U.S. citizen graduate enrollment was in these three disciplines. In contrast, 55% of total non-U.S. citizen enrollment was in those fields. Conversely, 53% of graduate enrollment by Americans was in education, business and health sciences while those three fields accounted for only 24% of foreign graduate students.”

(There is a great deal more background detail in the second white paper. See link below.)

Much can be learned from similar programs already in place in immigrant-hungry countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The United Kingdom has recently added new programs. Many countries realize that in the coming years there is going to be increasing competition for the best and brightest of the world. Again, there are more details in the white papers, but let’s turn to the effects that would result from such a program.

A Real Stimulus Package

First, upon Congressional approval, it would almost immediately stop the seemingly inexorable slide in house prices, as initial demand would be significant. Let’s assume one million new immigrants would buy homes. At an average price of almost $200,000, that would be $200 billion injected into the economy. And each of those homes has to be furnished, food has to be bought, clothing will be needed, local taxes will be paid. Airplane tickets to research potential areas, hotels needed during the interim period, and other related expenditures would add up. Over two years, this could easily be another $100 billion.

Couple 1 million new buyers with current US demand, and the excess inventory would be worked through within a year, and possibly faster. This puts a floor under the housing market, and home values could once again to begin to rise in line with a growing economy.

Such a program would have a salutary effect on the value of the dollar, as not only the initial purchases of homes and materials would need to be converted to dollars, but it is likely that immigrants would bring even more capital into the country.

By stemming the fall of home values, it would decrease the likelihood of foreclosures and help homeowners get refinancing at lower rates. Refinancing now is difficult because most lenders want a substantial slice of equity to go along with any new mortgage. If your home value has dropped 20% and is likely to fall another 20%, it is hard to have enough equity to qualify for a new mortgage. Stopping the fall in prices is critically important; and maybe if prices rise in some areas, homeowners will be able to refinance at better rates, giving them more cash each month to save or spend.

As I have written in previous letters, the psyche of the American consumer is permanently scarred. We are on our way back to a savings rates that will look more like 1987 than 2007, when it was almost zero. Just a few decades ago, we saved 7-10%. Consumer spending was only 64% of US GDP in 1987. It was 71% in 2007. It is on its way back to that lower level.

Lower consumer spending will be a drag on growth for years. But bringing in 1 million already middle-class new immigrant families will help make up for a lot of that reduced spending. If you can spend $200,000 on a home, you are likely skilled at something and well-educated. You will find a job, or create one, as many immigrants do, and then you will add to our total consumer spending.

If you are a real estate agent, you should love this proposal, as it would result in an additional $12 billion in commissions.

If you are a home builder, what a great way to reduce inventory and get back to the conditions where there is a demand for your product. This would help put back to work those who have lost their jobs in the home construction collapse. Home Depot and Lowe’s and local stores? It would help them to increase sales, which leads to more jobs.

We are on the cusp of the Baby Boomers beginning a huge wave of retirement, both in the US and elsewhere in the developed world. There is going to be a need for skilled workers to replace those Boomers, as well to provide services to the retirees. Further, the promised Social Security and Medicare expenditures are going to start increasing at a significant rate. We are going to need immigrants to help pay for those benefits. Given the controversy over immigration, we will look back with some irony in ten years when we find we are in a serious competition with other nations to attract skilled immigrants. We should start now. I think the concept is, let’s not waste a good crisis.

Let’s look at some of the potential critics of this proposal. I was on Yahoo Tech Ticker yesterday talking about this, and got a few irate emails and phone calls.

“Why,” I was asked, “do I hate American workers? Isn’t there enough unemployment? Why do we need more immigrants taking American jobs?” And there was considerable angst about illegal immigrants.

First, I am suggesting we transform the already existing legal immigrant flow, which is going to happen anyway, into a form which helps us solve a major crisis. I am not talking about adding another 1 million immigrants on top of the current legal inflow. Just change the nature of that inflow until the excess housing inventory is settled, and then we can go back to the current program, if that is what is wanted (more on that below).

Second, I am not suggesting we bring in or condone illegal immigrants. That is another issue altogether, for another debate at another time.

If we do nothing, unemployment is going to rise to at least 10%. That is certainly not good for the American worker. Home values are going to continue to fall. That is certainly not good for the American worker. The economy is likely to be stagnant for an extended period of time, which means job growth in a Muddle Through recovery will be slow and stagnant. That is not good for the American worker.

Hundreds of billions more of taxpayer dollars will have to go to banks to keep them solvent as falling home prices and increasing unemployment increase foreclosures. That is not good for the American worker and taxpayer.

And further, I am not talking about bringing 1 million foreigners to this country. I am talking about bringing 1 million future Americans, who want to work hard and live the American dream.

Let me say a few words to those who are opposed to immigration — and I have heard from you. With few exceptions, US citizens reading this have an immigrant in their genealogies. Some of mine go back to the 1600s. Some of mine were not exactly considered welcome. “No Irish and Dogs allowed” read the signs. But immigrants and their children have been the driver for growth in this country for generations. It is hard-working immigrants who leave their homes for the dream of being Americans that have been the backbone of the building of the nation — the hewers and shapers, if you will.

It is precisely that melting pot of human diversity that is the strength of the American idea. Each new wave of immigrants has been viewed with trepidation or scorn, yet within one generation they have become American. And in turn, their children’s children forget that their forebears had to deal with discrimination.

America — the US — is not so much a country as it is an idea, the idea that anyone, regardless of race or religion or gender, can come here and with hard work and determination make their own way. Some end up owning the local deli, and some end up founding Google. Some 25% of Silicon Valley start-ups, I am told, are by immigrants, creating jobs at the bleeding edge of technology. They see the US as a land of opportunity. That is why so many want to come and that is why we can attract a new generation of affluent, self-reliant immigrants who can help us solve a problem that we created.

I can see no downside to changing our immigration policy for a few years. We solve the housing crisis, stabilize home values, brings hundreds of billions in stimulus to the US, and with no taxpayer outlay. For a short time, we substitute one class of immigrant for another, to solve a serious crisis. It is not a matter of immigrants or no immigrants, just which immigrants

So which do you want? 10% unemployment and a decade of lower home values and increasing foreclosures, with a slow, Muddle Through, jobless recovery, or a stable housing market and home construction back to trend?

If you agree with me, I suggest you contact your Congressman. You can go to http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ (selected at random from many such sites) and type in your address and get the name of your congressperson and senators. Just tell them you like this idea, and cut and paste the link where you read this into the letter. And tell them to get into gear! I would like to point out that this proposal is not Republican or Democrat, it is just common sense. I hope we can get broad bipartisan support.

The link to the Wall Street Journal editorial is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725421857750565.html

The links to the white papers are:

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/pdf/Housing_Whitepaper_1.pdf
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/pdf/Housing_Whitepaper_2.pdf

Las Vegas, La Jolla and the OC

I expect I will get a few new readers from this letter. Normally, at the end of my regular weekly letter, I make a few personal comments. I write this free weekly letter to my 1 million closest friends, and you can add yourself to the list at www.frontlinethoughts.com. You can find out more about me at www.johnmauldin.com.

Parts of this letter have been written in New York and Dallas, and as I write this I am on a flight to Las Vegas to speak at a conference on natural resources. I am sure the recent Fed actions will be at the center of conversation. There is not enough space now to comment on that; but I did do a few segments on Yahoo Tech Ticker (one of which evidently made the Yahoo home page), which you can listen to at the following links.

Links to the Yahoo segments:

D.C. to America: You Can’t Handle the Truth
http://bit.ly/10rUiF

Plan to Solve Crisis: Let Immigrants Buy Houses
http://bit.ly/W0XLq

Fed Strategy: Spread Economic Pain Over Multiple Years
http://bit.ly/wgGjA

Source: Solving the Housing Crisis