London , England

We got back from South America on Friday… ready for a rest. So, we spent the weekend reading… and occasionally, thinking.

What we’ve been thinking is that the dollar is dead meat in the long run. But in the short run, it might have enough life in it to bite investors on the derrière.

The US stock market rose 73 points on Friday, to bring the Dow just 30 points south of the 10,300 mark. Why is this level important? It’s not really. But it reminds us that this is still just in “bounce range.” Big drops in stock prices are followed by bounces – always. A bounce of 50% of what was lost is not unusual. That’s what happened after the Crash of ’29, for example. So, there’s nothing exceptional about what we’re seeing on Wall Street.

But here at the Daily Reckoning we’re not smart enough or fast enough to play the countertrends. We want investment positions that we can ignore for years… We want to be able to go on a long trip… say, down the Inca Road or over the Hindu Kush. And when we come back, we want to find that we have at least as much money as when we left.

If stock market buyers – in the US – have more money a year from now than they have now, we’ll be surprised. The private sector is still more than 2/3rds of the economy. And the private sector has begun de-leveraging. Nothing that has happened in the last 8 months makes us think that that trend is going to reverse any time soon. There are 70 million baby boomers who need money for retirement. They’ve got to save. That means cutting back on spending. And that means less income for business. Are stock prices really going to go up when business income is going down? No.

We leave our “Crash Alert” flag flying, here at the worldwide headquarters. We don’t know when… or IF… stock prices will crash. But the downside risk is not worth the possible upside. Daily Reckoning readers should be out of all US stocks, except those they wouldn’t mind holding through a 50% correction.

The other thing we mistrust – aside from politicians, stock promoters and tap water – is the dollar. But here the story is more complicated. Because the next downswing in stocks could push the dollar up! Everyone is betting against the dollar. And most think it is a one-way gamble. But it’s not like Mr. Market to grant investors a one-way bet. He’s got something up his sleeve.

Last week, the Financial Times reported that a group of IMF economists had made a “Plea to reduce demand for dollar reserves.”

That is another way of saying: find something else to put in your vaults rather than dollars!

To read the complete article at The Daily Reckoning, click here.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index is up 58% from its March lows, gold has finally broken through the $1,000-an-ounce level – and may go higher – and bond yields have fallen substantially in spite of the huge U.S. budget deficit.

It’s really not difficult to tell when you’re in a bubble. What’s tough is trying to figure out how to invest while it’s developing.

When current Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke doubled the monetary base in a few weeks last fall, it was pretty obvious that the extra money would appear somewhere, either as zooming asset prices or as surging inflation. After all, the rapid increases in the U.S. money supply after 1995 produced a stock-market bubble and then a housing bubble.

And don’t forget about interest rates. When oil prices doubled in less than 12 months between 2007 and 2008, it was because Bernanke aggressively cut interest rates after the recession first hit in late 2007. So you’d have to believe that money supply was irrelevant not to expect markets to start behaving oddly at some point.

Silver and Gold …

That’s why – since late in 2007– I have been recommending investments in gold and other hard assets. While the recession had sharply reduced demand for oil, causing its price to drop from its record high of $147 a barrel in July 2008 to around $30 in February, the gold price had dropped only from its March 2008 peak of $1,000 to around $700, before rebounding. Gold prices remain far below the inflation-adjusted equivalent of their 1980 peak, which would be around $2,300 per ounce today.

Likewise, silver prices are even further below their 1980 peak, which would be around $130 per pounce, or nearly 10 times the current level. Since both gold and silver markets are relatively thin compared to the money available – annual gold production is only $100 billion at current prices – the potential for a run-up is considerable.

The difference between a bubble and a sound bull market is that a bubble happens more quickly. Normal valuation metrics get ignored. You couldn’t rationally justify – on any sort of long-term basis – the dot-com stock prices of 1999, the California house prices of 2005, or the $147-per-barrel record oil prices of 2008.

Similarly, today’s cost of extracting gold is nowhere near $1,000 an ounce. Mining costs have increased. But extraction costs are still only about $400 an ounce for top-tier miners.

Likewise, with inflation at 2% and U.S. budget deficits at more than $1 trillion per annum, there’s no justification for a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield below 3.5%.

Let’s look at stocks. And let’s say that the market of early 1995 – when the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 4,000 – is a reasonable base for estimating a fair value for the U.S. stock market. If that were the case, then inflating the Dow in line with nominal gross domestic product to keep it at fair value would bring us to a current day estimate of 7,800.

[The Dow closed yesterday (Thursday) at 9,783.92. To reach this “fair-value” level, the Dow would have to drop 1,984 points, or 20% – enough of a decline to qualify as an official “bear market.”]

However 1995 wasn’t a bear market, and economic and earnings prospects that year were really good. Besides, the Internet was just starting its rise to prominence. Today, we’re in a deep recession, with huge budget deficits and high unemployment, yet the Dow is closing in on 10,000.

In other words, U.S. stocks are overvalued. Even after the bearish trauma of last year, we remain in a stock-market bubble.

Four “Bubble” Investing Strategies – Including the One That Works

Bubble investing is different from bull-market investing. There aren’t many “good” values, so you have to be very careful.

One bubble-market strategy is to just put everything in cash and hide under the bed. How boring! Plus, as your neighbors brag about their profits at cocktail parties, you’ll feel like an idiot until the bubble bursts. Remember, even after your neighbors’ profits have turned to losses and you look smart, you can never get those cocktail parties back!

That doesn’t mean you should abandon prudence, however. You should certainly keep much higher cash reserves than normal. Indeed, consider investing a chunk of that cash in one of the non-dollar-denominated WorldCurrency Access Deposit Accounts offered by EverBank.

At the same time, it’s a pity to completely miss out on the returns one can earn in a bubble environment. But you have to careful and smart.

A second bubble-investing strategy is to find something that isn’t overvalued, and buy only that. That strategy worked great for me back in 1999. I was working in Croatia, which was going through a deep economic crisis. NATO was bombing neighboring countries in the Kosovo War. That played merry hell with tourism, Croatia’s main foreign currency earner. Croatian shares – there were about six at the time – were each selling at less than five times earnings. So I invested in Croatia and made out nicely when the war ended and things returned to normal.

The problem with that approach is globalization. It was just possible in 1999 to find undervalued investments, if only by putting your money close to a war zone. It isn’t really possible now, at least not to any great extent. Three months ago, there were lots of shares even in the United States, which had been bombed out by the downturn and hadn’t recovered. There aren’t many left now; if a share is bombed out today there’s probably good reason for it.

A third potential strategy is to try to time the bursting of the bubble. For example, you could buy the ProShares UltraShort Trust (NYSE: TBT), inversely related to twice the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (OTC: LEHMQ) 20-year bond index. Then you’d wait for the bond market to crash, and TBT to soar.

But there are two problems:

• First, the ProShares UltraShort Trust has a fair-sized tracking error, because they have to rebalance the fund daily. Thus if you hold it too long, you won’t do as well as you should.
• Second, the bubble can take a long time to burst; meanwhile it goes on inflating and you get killed. In the long run, it was a good idea to short Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) in 1999. In the short run, it wasn’t so clever.

The Winning Play

The normal investment approach, to buy only the most conservative companies in an overvalued but bubbly sector, also doesn’t work. Everybody else is looking for them, too. And that means they end up being overvalued. Besides, they will advance only modestly with the inflating bubble, so you won’t make enough to compensate for the risk of buying too high.

The best alternative, therefore, is to buy bubbly investments – but the junk, not the cream. Buy gold and silver mines that even at $900 an ounce have only been running at close to break-even, because they have expensive deposits.

Don’t buy political risk (i.e. mines in dodgy countries), because if the gold price goes up, the local dictator will seize your company’s winnings. But operating risk is okay. And high operating costs are fine. If your mine has operating costs of $800 an ounce, you’ll make out like a bandits if gold goes from $1,000 an ounce to $1,200. That way, you need only put a modest amount in the investment, and it will zoom up to several times what you paid, making as much profit as if you’d put your entire fortune in something conservative.

Make sure to put only a portion of your money in such a play. Keep the rest in cash.

When to sell? Well, start selling at the first signs that the Fed is beginning to take inflation seriously, meaning the central bank will be pushing up interest rates. You’ll know when this is because you’ll likely start hearing a lot about Fed “exit strategies.”

Don’t be greedy – better to sell too early than too late. Better to leave the theater at the first wisp of smoke, than to wait until the entire crowd is panicking and heading for the exits.

I hate bubbles. And I hate Bernanke and the other central bankers for causing them by their misguided monetary policies. But you can make money out of them. Just don’t get carried away.

Source: The Only Way to Profit from a Stock Market Bubble

The deflationist view, which makes some compelling and elegant arguments, maintains that the credit losses in the U.S. financial system far surpass the size of the government’s monetary and fiscal stimulus. All those trillions in bad loans – plus the yanking of credit from consumers and businesses – overwhelm new money creation. The Fed, in other words, is trying to fill a swimming pool with a Dixie cup. This might take a while.

Therefore, this reasoning goes, the greater risk is that asset prices continue to fall. This is the classic debt-deflation point of view. I don’t dismiss these arguments lightly. I’ve spent some time going over the arguments of some of deflation’s most persuasive and sophisticated advocates – like the successful Treasury bond investor, Van Hoisington and the insightful economist, David Rosenberg.

Still, I think the endgame is for inflation — which is when paper currencies buy less. Given the choice of holding U.S. dollars or real assets (such as gold or iron ore or land), I’ll take real assets.

Over the weekend, Thomas Donlan at Barron’s presented a good analogy for it all. He asked what you would rather own as store of value, bananas or corn? The obvious answer is corn, because you can store it for months. Corn lasts longer than bananas. Fruit rots. You can also use corn for a lot of different things — corn flour, animal feed, etc. You can also arrange to sell corn into the future, say, by arranging to deliver corn so many days from today.

Corn can lose value, obviously, as can any real asset. But it is a better choice than holding the bananas.

Donlan likens paper money to bananas and natural resources to corn. “In the modern economy,” he writes, “a barrel of oil is much like a bag of corn… Paper money and bank balances are more like the bag of bananas.” When currency rots, we call that inflation.

The problem with the deflation arguments long term, it seems to me, is that you are betting against a government’s ability to destroy its own currency. Governments are seldom good at anything, but one thing they are undeniably good at is destroying their own currencies. The dollar has lost 95% or so of its value since 1913, the year the United States established the Federal Reserve. Enough said.

Long-term, betting that a government will safeguard its currency seems like a very bad bet. Deflation – or at least symptoms of deflation – may prevail today, but the real question is for how long. My own crystal ball is frustratingly cloudy on the issue. But the great rewards in investing are always with the out-of-consensus view.

The upside from holding Treasuries seems hardly worth the risk of being wrong, for instance. On the other hand, if we are right about currency rot, then we’ll make multiples of our money on natural resource stocks.

The downside on many commodities seems low, because the prices have already corrected. In several instances, as with oil and natural gas and iron ore, we are already below the marginal cost of production for much of the industry. So unless we don’t need these things at all anymore, the simple economics of the businesses involved help support a certain price structure.

And anyway, as far as the case for gold is concerned, I’ve been arguing that it is less about inflation or deflation than it is about creditworthiness in general. Gold does well during times of credit troubles. It did well in the 1930s, for instance, even though that was largely a deflationary era. Banking troubles made investors turn to gold.

On that front, we’ve got plenty of banking troubles on the way. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal headline, buried in the middle of the paper, hints at what’s to come: “Pick-a-Pay Loans: Worse Than Subprime.” The piece begins:

“For the third straight month, option adjustable-rate mortgages are generating proportionately more delinquencies and foreclosures than subprime mortgages, the scourge of the U.S.”

These loans require only partial-interest payments each month. So the loan balances on many of these loans have actually gone up while housing prices have tumbled. Bad combination. As of April, 36% of these loans were at least 60 days past due.

These troubled loans will mean more large losses for banks — in particular for Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase and others who were active in these markets. Wells Fargo, the WSJ points out, has a mountain of this stuff — $115 billion of it.

So as long as we have banking troubles, we have the potential for fear to return in a big way. And that is when gold does well…with or without inflation. But I’m not counting inflation out just yet.

I’d use the market weakness in the gold price and in gold shares to pick up your favorite gold miners.

Source: Gold…If Not Now, When

More from The Daily Reckoning:

Spare a moment to remember Marcus Aurelius. Obama hasn’t yet called our “Sovereign Hotline” for advice. But when he does, we’re going to recommend he read Marcus Aurelius’s meditations.

Obama has pledged to change things. That part will be easy; things are changing fast. Trouble is, they’re not changing in the way he would like.

When Marcus Aurelius was emperor, Rome was going through major changes too. There were periods of famine, war and plague. Most alarming, the barbarians were at the gates; Marcus Aurelius spent most of his career trying to keep them out.

But you can’t win ‘em all. Losses are inevitable. And losses are not necessarily a bad thing:

“Loss is nothing else but change, and change is Nature’s delight,” he wrote.

Is you’re wondering how this connects to the economy going into rehab… we’re wondering too… oh yes… now we remember…

Over the last few weeks, we’ve been laying out a view of what is going on. We’ve explained that corrections are not only inevitable… they’re essential and helpful. Like death, no one likes them… but, like death, they clear away the old mistakes and the old wood… making way for new life and new mistakes.

“Change is Nature’s delight,” as Marcus Aurelius puts it.

(Trying to stop change, on the other hand, is Nature’s horror… almost an affront to God himself. But we’ll leave that theme for another day…)

When people borrow too much money, for example, the day eventually comes when things change and they have to pay it back.

And when the party gets too wild for too long, inevitably things change and somebody ends up in rehab. Now, following the wildest party in human history, most of the world’s economy has gone into rehab… and may not come out for a long time.

In this period of rehab, corporations, investors and households need to pull themselves together. They need to get rid of houses, projects, businesses, and speculations that they can’t afford. It’s a “balance sheet recession,” as Richard Koo puts it. Balance sheets need to be repaired. Debt must be paid off or written off. Expenses must be reduced so that they can be supported by revenues, and still leave something left over to pay down debt and build up savings. This is hard to do, because revenues are falling too.

Every man looks to his own. Each one cuts his expenses.

“It’s dead out there,” said our taxi driver yesterday. “I don’t know why I bother to come to work. Everybody’s afraid to take a taxi. They’re afraid it might bankrupt them. It’s silly really. They could save a lot of money by getting rid of their cars and just taking cabs. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?”

The taxi driver was talking his book. But he was talking sense too.

“People consider taking a cab a luxury. And it’s easy to cut out. You can see them on the street. They raise their arms to hail a cab and then they think again. They put their arms down and go look for a tube stop. They probably don’t really save much money, but it’s psychological. Suddenly, everybody thinks he has to save money. I can’t remember anything like it.”

But one man’s expense is another man’s income. The man who saves a pound by not taking a London cab, denies a taxi driver a pound of revenue…. who then buys a pound less of diesel fuel… or a pound less of clothing… or a pound less of something. It is what economists call the “fallacy of composition,” the mistaken idea that what is good for one person is necessarily good for the whole lot. Cutting back on spending is clearly good for the individual, but it does to an economy roughly what a visit from a sniffling grandson does to a bedridden great-grandmother. Pretty soon, the old lady is dead.

“Losses happen,” Marcus Aurelius might say. “Get over it.”

Instead of getting over it, the feds are going to fight it every step of the way. Of course, Japan tried to fight it too, and that its efforts didn’t work. Just look at the evidence: the Japanese tried fiscal stimulus (government spending) and monetary stimulus (central bank policies). They ran deficits of 6% of GDP – equivalent to about a trillion dollar deficit in the US. And they took interest rates down to near zero and left them there for years. What else could they do?

Still, as of last week, Japanese investors were about $15 trillion poorer than they had been 18 years ago.

That is why we say these efforts didn’t work. But maybe they worked better than we realize. Maybe the damage might have been a lot worse if the Japanese had not done what they did.

Whatever the case, Obama is about to follow the lead of Hata, Obuchi, Mori and Murayama. And Ben Bernanke, too, will follow the lead of the Japanese. He will cut rates… just like the Bank of Japan did.

But there are two crucial differences between Japan and the US. First, Japan had a healthier economy, with a positive trade balance, and huge savings. Second, the US has the world’s reserve currency.

Japan could easily spend 6% of its GDP trying to replace private spending with government spending. The Japanese saved 19% of GDP. The government could simply borrow from its own people – like the US did to finance WWII.

But America can’t finance huge deficits internally; it doesn’t have the money. Its people don’t save. They have no savings to lend their government. Any money the government gets from Americans will have to come out of current private spending or out of other investments. Obviously, this is not going to do much good, since there is no net increase in spending or investing.

Nor can the US government expect to bring in unlimited financing from foreign sources. The foreigners save, but they need their money to rescue their own economies. What’s worse, the more the US government has to compete for funds with other borrowers, the more interest rates will go up – worsening the picture for the economy as a whole.

The other point is vitally important too. Not only did Japan have a cushion of cash to comfortably sit out the correction, it had no reason to do otherwise. With money in the bank, the Japanese were never threatened by an economic breakdown. And what money they owed, they owed to themselves.

America has neither of those two comforts. Millions live paycheck to paycheck, depending on credit cards to fill in the gaps. When unemployment rises above 10%… maybe above 15%… they will howl so loud the government will be forced to take desperate measures, which could send the deficit to $2 trillion. Then, crushed under the weight of so much debt, it won’t be long before the feds realize that we don’t “owe it to ourselves.” Instead, we owe trillions to foreigners. Foreign central banks alone hold about $2.4 trillion worth of US government debt. About $10 trillion is said to be the total of all US-based securities in foreign hands. That is a burden that could be easily lightened… if, for example, the dollar weren’t worth quite so much…

Source: The Economy’s Gone into Rehab

Martin Hutchinson says the Fed has finally starting doing its job: putting price stability over Wall Street’s demands. Real interest rates are negative. This is feeding inflation. It also means Treasury bond yields – also currently below the rate of inflation – are too low and should begin to rise again.

Martin says investors can profit from this situation with the Rydex Juno Inverse Government Long Bond Strategy (MUTF:RYJUX).

More from Martin in Money Morning:

The statement that was issued after the policymaking meeting was somewhat “hawkish,” suggesting that the U.S. Federal Reserve is awakening to the dangers of persistent and gently rising inflation.

Wall Street was initially spooked: it had hoped for the usual bounce that follows a Fed rate cut. However, investors subsequently decided the Fed’s inaction meant things weren’t so bad after all. Actually, the inaction was the first example in several years of the Fed doing its job – standing up to the easy-money politicians and Wall Street in the pursuit of lower inflation.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for August registered a decline in prices of 0.1%, which observers hailed as an indication that inflation worries are at an end. But don’t you believe a word of it; the decline was entirely due to the recent fall in oil prices, which we here at Money Morning expect will one day reverse course and resume their upward march. The only question is when that will happen and what the catalyst will be to make it so.

In terms of the CPI, the “real” consumer price inflation was actually 5.4% over the past 12 months, which makes the 2.0% Federal Funds rate look pretty silly.

The same is true all over the world: Inflation rates are either well above the local bank base rates (2.3% vs. 0.5% in Japan, 12.1% vs. 9.0% in India), or are only just below them (3.8% vs. 4.25% in the Eurozone, 4.8% vs. 5.0% in Britain). Only China has inflation of 4.8% to go against a bank rate of 7.2% – just reduced from 7.47% – but China had been holding prices down with direct controls for the Summer Olympic Games, so its current inflation number is pretty dodgy.

If interest rates are at or below the inflation rate in most of the world, then it follows that global monetary policy is expansionary and inflation can be expected to increase generally.

You can’t entirely blame the world’s central banks; we have been in a credit crunch for more than a year now, and investment banks the size of Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) and Merrill Lynch (NYSE:MER) getting in trouble is a pretty good indication that all is not well. However, there’s also no denying that low or negative real interest rates will tend to produce an acceleration of inflation.

The two objectives – saving the world banking system, and keeping inflation under control – are in conflict.

The market demonstrates the solution to the conflict.

On Monday the Federal Funds rate traded for much of the day at 6.0%, versus the Fed’s target of 2.0%. To get the market Federal Funds rate down towards the target, the Fed needed to inject lots of liquidity, which it did – to the tune of about $70 billion.

That liquidity increased the money supply, but only to make up for the decrease caused by bank failures and market fear, thus restoring the market’s balance and lowering the Federal Funds rate to about 3.0% by the end of the day’s trading. An interest rate cut Tuesday would simply have moved the “target” Federal Funds rate, rather than the actual rate, and would have led to more inflationary pressures without materially helping the banking system.

Indeed, one can wish that the Fed had confined itself to injecting liquidity throughout this prolonged credit crunch, keeping the Federal Funds rate level at its September 2007 level of 5.25%. In that case oil prices would probably never have soared to $147 a barrel, and U.S. inflation might have remained safely around 3.0%.

Going forward, it seems clear that next time the FOMC meets without having had about half of Wall Street disappear in the preceding week (the next scheduled meeting is Oct. 28-29), it will be tempted to announce a modest interest-rate rise, unless the U.S. economy is truly in the tank by then. Of course, the Fed would remain ready to lower rates again if a deep recession appeared, or to inject liquidity if more banks got in trouble.

That would suggest that the current sharp drop in yields on long Treasury bonds has been overdone (from 4.25% in June to 3.25% yesterday (Tuesday) morning, before rebounding to 3.49% at yesterday’s close). Thus, a rebound in Treasury bond yield – taking them significantly above the level of inflation – is called for as money is tightened and the Federal Funds rate rises.

To take advantage of such a yield rebound, you should consider the Rydex Juno Inverse Government Long Bond Strategy (MUTF:RYJUX). This invests in short futures contracts on long-term Treasuries. It can be expected to gain as Treasury yields rise.

Source: Federal Reserve Policymakers Stand Up to Wall Street’s Easy-Money Crowd