Sunday, February 27, 2011

Fwd: When Irish Eyes Are Voting - John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Mauldin <wave@frontlinethoughts.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Subject: When Irish Eyes Are Voting - John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter
To: jmiller2000@gmail.com


This message was sent to jmiller2000@gmail.com.
You subscribed at www.johnmauldin.com

Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints
Thoughts from the Frontline
When Irish Eyes Are Voting
By John Mauldin | February 26, 2011
Join The Mauldin Circle and learn more about alternative investing
In this issue:
When Irish Eyes Are Voting
An Extra "15 Million" Homes
Some Thoughts on the Middle East
Tokyo, Oregon, and Dallas

When Irish eyes are smiling,
Sure, 'tis like the morn in Spring.
In the lilt of Irish laughter
You can hear the angels sing.
When Irish hearts are happy,
All the world seems bright and gay.
And when Irish eyes are smiling,
Sure, they steal your heart away.

Just when I've begun saying it's safe to get back in the water, we get some shark sightings. They are a still a long ways off, but we need to keep our eyes on the deep waters and stay close to shore. This week we will look at a variety of data points and see what conclusions we can come to.

But first, I need some help from a few of you. Official publication date for my new book, Endgame: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How it Changes Everything, is March 8. I will be looking to do as much press as possible. If you are official press, drop me a note and we will get you a copy. Radio? TV? Call me.

Second, I want you to mark your calendars for April 28-30, when I will host, along with my partners at Altegris Investments, what I think will be the single best investment conference of the year. It will be the 8th annual Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla. Let me give you the Killer's Row line-up of speakers, in alphabetical order: Martin Barnes (Bank Credit Analyst), Marc Faber, Niall Ferguson (author and Harvard professor), George Friedman of Stratfor, Louis-Vincent Gave of GaveKal, Neil Howe (The Fourth Turning), Paul McCulley (if he ever surfaces from his fishing vacation), David Rosenberg, Dr. Gary Shilling, Jon Sundt (of Altegris) and, of course, your humble analyst. I mean, really. Most conferences have one or two top-tier headliners. We have nothing but the best. These guys are all great speakers, but getting them on panels together? Way cool. Plus some of the best hedge-fund managers (personal opinion) show up to give you their thoughts. And maybe a surprise last-minute guest or two. If this conference lineup were a baseball team, they would sweep the World Series. Oh, and the best part? Your fellow conference attendees. The interaction among them is what truly makes this conference the best.

We (well actually, Altegris) will soon start sending out invitations, but you can register today at http://hedge-fund-conference.com/2011/invitation.aspx?ref=mauldin. Sadly, the conference is limited to accredited investors with a net worth of more than $2 million, as there are funds presenting that require that minimum (and some even more). Those are the rules we have to live with, whether I like them nor not (I don't, as long-time readers know). But we follow them religiously.

Every year the conference sells out. Every year some of you wait to the last minute, thinking we can "always take one more." We can't. There is a limit to the space. If you have attended in the past, call your Altegris representative and make sure you get on the list. Do not procrastinate.

Now more than ever you need to consider the place for alternative investing in your portfolio. I work with partners around the world for both accredited and non-accredited investors. If you would like to know more, then go to www.johnmauldin.com and click on The Mauldin Circle, register there, and someone will call you. Seriously, the teams at Altegris (for US accredited investors), CMG (for those with net worth less than $2 million in the US), ARP (Europe), and others have some very innovative and interesting funds and managers on their platforms that really deserve a look. Even if you can't make the conference, your portfolio will thank you for finding some alternative investments that make sense in these times. Now, to the letter. (In this regard, I am president of and a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, member FINRA.)

When Irish Eyes Are Voting

Most of the world is focused on the Middle East and Libya, and rightly so. We will look at that in a minute. (Sidebar: the White House spelled the country "Lybia" in a recent tweet. Can you imagine what the liberal media would have done to poor Dan Quail if that tweet was from him? Just saying.) And I agree the Middle East is important. But my eyes are focused on what I think is the far more important event of the day, and that is the election going on in Ireland.

I have written about Ireland before, but we need to once again focus on what are not smiling Irish eyes. Ireland was once the envy of Europe, with one of the highest growth rates in the world. It was not long ago that Ireland could borrow money at lower rates than Germany. Now rates are 6% and likely to rise with the new government. Let's look at a few data points from a brilliantly written article by Michael Lewis, who ranks as one of my favorite writers. When he writes, I read it just for the education on what great writing should look like, as well as for the always fascinating information. The article is at http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/03/michael-lewis-ireland-201103 .

(I am often asked about how you can become a financial writer by young people who are starting out. I have just two suggestions. Write a lot and then write some more. Writing is no different than the piano or guitar. It takes a lot of practice, and then more practice. You don't start playing concerts on day one, and your writing won't be worth much either, but you will get better. Second, study the great writers and learn from them. Try to copy the styles of the guys you like for practice. Take the best and make it your own style. Lewis is one of the best.)

· Housing prices in Dublin had risen by 500% since 1994. Rents for homes were often 1% of the price of the home. A $1-million-dollar home went for $833 a month. That is a very clear bubble.

· Irish home prices implied an economic growth rate that would leave Ireland, in 25 years, three times as rich as the United States.

· In 1997 the Irish banks were funded entirely by Irish deposits. By 2005 they were getting most of their money from abroad. The small German savers who ultimately supplied the Irish banks with deposits to re-lend in Ireland could take their money back with the click of a computer mouse. Since 2000, lending to construction and real estate had risen from 8 percent of Irish bank lending (the European norm) to 28 percent. One hundred billion euros—or basically the sum total of all Irish public bank deposits—had been handed over to Irish property developers and speculators. By 2007, Irish banks were lending 40 percent more to property developers than they had to the entire Irish population seven years earlier.

· As the scope of the Irish losses has grown clearer, private investors have been less and less willing to leave even overnight deposits in Irish banks and are completely uninterested in buying longer-term bonds. The European Central Bank has quietly filled the void: one of the most closely watched numbers in Europe has been the amount the ECB has loaned to the Irish banks. In late 2007, when the markets were still suspending disbelief, the banks borrowed 6.5 billion euros. By December of 2008 the number had jumped to 45 billion. As Burton spoke to [Lewis], the number was still rising from a new high of 86 billion. That is, the Irish banks have borrowed 86 billion euros from the European Central Bank to repay private creditors. In September 2010 the last big chunk of money the Irish banks owed the bondholders, 26 billion euros, came due. Once the bondholders were paid off in full, a window of opportunity for the Irish government closed. A default of the banks now would be a default not to private investors but a bill presented directly to European governments.

· A political investigative blog called Guido Fawkes somehow obtained a list of the Anglo Irish foreign bondholders: German banks, French banks, German investment funds, Goldman Sachs. (Yes! Even the Irish did their bit for Goldman.)

· [And this is the kicker!] "Googling things, Kelly learned that more than a fifth of the Irish workforce was employed building houses. The Irish construction industry had swollen to become nearly a quarter of the country's G.D.P.—compared with less than 10 percent in a normal economy—and Ireland was building half as many new houses a year as the United Kingdom, which had almost 15 times as many people to house." [That makes the US housing bubble look small by comparison.]

· And just for fun: "A few months after the spell was broken, the short-term parking-lot attendants at Dublin Airport noticed that their daily take had fallen. The lot appeared full; they couldn't understand it. Then they noticed the cars never changed. They phoned the Dublin police, who in turn traced the cars to Polish construction workers, who had bought them with money borrowed from Irish banks. The migrant workers had ditched the cars and gone home. Rumor has it that a few months later the Bank of Ireland sent three collectors to Poland to see what they could get back, but they had no luck. The Poles were untraceable: but for their cars in the short-term parking lot, they might never have existed."

Now, let's turn to that repository of all things leftist, the UK Guardian, as they write about today's elections.

An Extra "15 Million" Homes

"Though the campaign has shed disappointingly little light on realistic options ahead, the financial numbers are scary. After 2000 the early Celtic Tiger years became a property-led speculative bubble, made worse by weak planning laws and 300,000 too many new homes. The crash saw GDP collapse by 11%, unemployment triple to 13.3% and government debt quadruple to 95%, which will rise to 125% by 2014 on IMF estimates."

Let's think about that for a moment and compare it to the US. We built somewhere between 2 and 3 million too many homes in our bubble, depending on whom you ask. Total Irish population (including Northern Ireland) is 6 million people. If the US had built the same number of excess homes, there would have been 15 million of them! And the banks just kept lending!

Irish taxpayers are being asked to pay French, German, and British bond banks and the ECB, which bought that debt. It is 30% of their GDP, along with the rest of the debt. At 6% interest, that means it will take 10% of their national income just to pay the interest. It guarantees that Ireland will be in a poverty cycle for decades. The ECB and the IMF seem to think the solution for too much debt is more debt. And in order to pay the ECB, the Irish must take on an austerity program that guarantees even worse recessions and higher unemployment.

The government that agreed to take on the bank debts is going to be voted out in spectacular fashion today. Whether one party can win or has to form a coalition government is not yet clear, but the mandate is to renegotiate the Irish debt. Both the ECB and the Germans have said that is not possible, that deals have been made. But asking Irish voters, you don't get the sense they feel the same obligation.

Even the venerable Martin Wolf of the Financial Times agrees. Writing last week:

"So what might a new government seek to do? Its degrees of freedom are, alas, limited. Even excluding recapitalisation of the banks, the primary fiscal deficit (before interest payments) was close to 10 per cent of GDP last year. Under the IMF programme, this is to be turned into a surplus of 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2015. Given the lack of access to private markets, the deficit would have to be eliminated even more quickly without the official assistance. Again, the debt overhang would be huge, under any plausible assumptions. Ireland is doomed to fiscal stringency for decades, given its poor growth prospects, at least in comparison with its Tiger years.

"Apart from the Armageddon of a sovereign default, two partial escapes exist. The more trivial would be a reduction in the rate of interest on Ireland's borrowing: a 1 per cent reduction in the rate of interest would save the state 0.4 per cent of GDP a year. That would be a small help, at least. A more valuable possibility would be a writedown of existing subordinated and senior bank debt, which currently amounts to €21.4bn (14 per cent of GDP).

"The ECB and the other members of the European Union have vetoed this idea, fearful of contagion. Indeed, the assistance package was partly to prevent just such an outcome. Yet the idea that taxpayers should bail out senior creditors of massively insolvent banks at such risk to the solvency of their state is both unfair and unreasonable. If the rest of the EU is determined to protect senior creditors, it should surely share in the cost of doing so. Why should the taxpayers of the borrowing country pay all? The new Irish government should make this point firmly." ( http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/436234b8-3ebb-11e0-834e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1F1aZpM1L)

There are a significant number of Irish voters who wonder why they should pay any of it. Not the majority (yet), but enough. This is the Maginot Line for the ECB. If they renegotiate with Ireland, then Greece will be at the door in a heartbeat. Ditto for Portugal.

As one story I read about Ireland said, "Parties we go to now are going away parties as people, especially young people, leave for other countries with better opportunities." The mood of the country will grow more dour.

Look at this chart. Notice how well Iceland did after it simply repudiated its debt. It wasn't easy, and inflation is brutal, but they are better off than if they had taken on a debt burden that would have made them indentured servants to British taxpayers for decades. The ECB, the IMF, and the rest of the EU is asking Ireland to willingly fall into a lengthy depression. Would walking away from the debt, or restructuring it, be any worse?

What if the opening negotiating line started was, "We will repay the principle, but no interest, and the timeline has to be stretched out over 25 years?" And no payments for five years. Oh, and we have about 300,000 houses you can have as our first payment.

Yes, the Irish would be frozen out of the bond market. It would result in an even more serious recession. But they could actually grow their way out of it over time. A lot faster than if they were trying to pay off the debt at 6-7% interest. And remember that Argentina, for God's sake, got money just a few years after defaulting – twice, if I remember right! If Ireland got back on a sound footing, they could once again find acceptance in the bond market.

I know, that sounds radical. But give it a few years of austerity and see what the next elections bring. Irish debt will default, not because the Irish don't have hearts of gold or don't want to not pay their debts, but because they are under such a burden they can't. And eventually enough voters will realize that. It may not be next month, or even next year, but it will come. You can only ask so much of a people. Defaulting on sovereign debt is only unthinkable in elite European Union circles. And asking German voters to pay for those defaults? Care to run on THAT platform?

This has the potential to really roil the debt markets, not to mention the interbank markets. The US is doing ok, except that job creation has been slow. A European debt crisis could throw a wrench into the world gears.

And that is the heart of the problem. The Irish really do want to do the right thing. The Greeks, not so much. Portugal? Spain?

The leadership of the EU is living in denial if they think that more debt is the answer to too much debt. It is all well and good for the Germans to tell everyone to cut back (and they should) but to do so means that the countries go into recession and have even less money to pay their debt burdens. They get into a debt spiral and the only way out is restructuring, which is default by a nice name.

Somewhere, sometime, this is all going to end in tears. The EU will be better off restructuring the debt, letting insolvent banks go the way of all flesh, or financing them and letting the euro drop like a stone, which will only make their exporting companies more competitive (not good for the US and China, but we don't get to vote in the EU). Or they can break up. I think the former is better than the latter, but that's just me.

The world went crazy with debt. The US, Japan (where I fly to in less than 12 hours), much of Europe, and Great Britain. And now we have to deal with it. Acting like adults would be best, and recognizing that some countries just can't assume their banking debts is just being realistic. A lot of people made bad choices and now those choices are coming home.

It is all so very sad. People are hurting. I read the blogs in Ireland and it brings tears to me Irish eyes (or the large part of me that is of Irish heritage).

There are no easy answers. No easy button. The only button we have is the reset button, for the Blue Screen of Death. That means pulling the plug and starting over. This time with realistic debt levels and bond markets.

Some Thoughts on the Middle East

Let me offer a different, and perhaps cynical, view of what's happening in the Middle East. First, the army was in control in Tunisia and Egypt, and still is. Some things will change, and hopefully the false, crony capitalism will be one of the things to go; but I don't think we will see sweeping changes for some time. Libya is 2% of the world's oil supply. Other than that, they are like Greece. They are not that big a player. Gaddafi is on his way out. His bank accounts are being frozen. He will end up in Venezuela or some equally wonderful place. Couldn't happen to a nicer bad guy. The new leadership will most likely be the army, and it will get the oil turned back on as soon as possible. (See the trend here?)

By the way, the idea that Saudi Arabia can make up for Libyan oil is a little fanciful. Libyan oil is light sweet crude, and it takes three barrels of Saudi oil to make as much diesel as Libyan oil. Oil could get very volatile and move up strongly if Gaddafi hangs on too long. $4 gas is not out of the question here in the US if he doesn't leave soon; but at the end of the day, not too much will change in Libya.

The key place to watch is Bahrain. Now THAT is an issue. It is a strategic country with the US 5th fleet based there, and it has a large Shiite population that could ally with Iran. There is no real way of knowing what will happen there, and that is something I have my Google notes set to watch, along with talking from time to time with George Friedman of Stratfor. Nice to have friends with inside information. But even he is not sure tonight.

Saudi Arabia? Pay attention, but so far it looks like the changes are still in the future. One day it will change, but it doesn't appear imminent (although anything can happen).

The one thing that I hope changes? Maybe the Iran street will force some change. I am on record saying that one day Iran will be our new best friend. The population is young and getting younger. They're on the Internet. They see what the world is like and they want it. Maybe not this year or next, but it will happen.

(Quick sidebar: My friend Barry Habib pointed out an interesting trend: the first day of the month has been a big up day for the markets. And I think we could have a solid job number on Friday.)

Tokyo, London, Oregon, and Dallas

It is time to hit the send button, as I have to get up in a few hours to catch an early flight to Tokyo, where I will only be for 48 hours. It will be interesting to see how my body does with the jet lag, so soon after Bangkok. I am just now back to normal.

I return on Tuesday and have to be ready to speak on Thursday. Reservations are now open for the second "America: Boom or Bankruptcy?" event, on March 3rd at the Dallas Lincoln Centre Hotel, from 10:30 am to 2:00 pm. It is called "Fed Friday." I spoke last year, and it was lots of fun. The 2010 event sold out. David Walker will be on the program with me. You can register at www.fedfriday.com

I will also be providing the keynote address for the West Coast-based investment advisory firm of Arnerich Massena at their 2011 Investment Symposium, on April 11-12, in Newberg, OR. Contact Bonnie Chirrick at 503-239-0475.

My friends from Copenhagen JGAM are coming to Dallas for a 2-day event April 14-15. My partners at Altegris and CMG and I will speak Thursday and Friday. JGAM has also invited Martin Barnes of BCA and Charles Rheinhard of Morgan Stanley to give presentations about the economy. Seats are limited, because attendees are invited to my house that night for a Texas BBQ dinner. If interested please contact Thomas Fischer at info@jgam.com for availability, by Friday, March 11.

Never have I been so busy. I am actually looking forward to getting on a long plane flight and catching up on my reading. And getting to have dinner with Chris Wood of Greed & Fear fame is something I have always wanted to do. I told Chris I wanted bodyguards there after my speech. Telling the Japanese that they are a bug in search of a windshield might not be popular. And by the way, if some writer uses that line (and you know who you are), at least have the courtesy to quote me by name. I don't come up with that many good lines.

I see a three-week working vacation in Tuscany this June, a few days in Kiev with friends, and then Geneva in late June. I can't wait. I will be working on my next book. Life is fun. And let me say what a pleasure it is to be able to let Tiffani do the really hard work while Dad just goofs off reading and writing, with a little travel thrown in. Big things are happening. And if you haven't visited the new website, please do so. www.johnmauldin.com – and give me some feedback. I do read it!

Have a good week! Sayonara for now!

Your trying to figure out how to stay on US time analyst,

John Mauldin
John@FrontlineThoughts.com

Copyright 2011 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

Share Your Thoughts on This Article

Post Comment
Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

Thoughts From the Frontline is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.JohnMauldin.com.

Please write to johnmauldin@2000wave.com to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote brief portions only, please reference www.JohnMauldin.com.

To subscribe to John Mauldin's E-Letter please click here:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/subscribe

To change your email address please click here:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/change-address

If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Accredited Investor E- Letter, please include your old and new email address along with a note requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request to wave@frontlinethoughts.com.

To unsubscribe please refer to the bottom of the email.

Thoughts From the Frontline and JohnMauldin.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin's other firms. John Mauldin is President of Business Marketing Group. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) member FINRA, SIPC. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at the end of each article.

Note: Joining the Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at www.MauldinCircle.com or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor's interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.

All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs may or may not have investments in any funds cited above. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.


EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/unsubscribe
Or send an email to: wave@frontlinethoughts.com
This email was sent to jmiller2000@gmail.com
You subscribed at www.johnmauldin.com


Thoughts from the Frontline | 3204 Beverly Drive | Dallas, Texas 75205

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Fwd: Stay Out of the ROOM - John Mauldin's Outside the Box E-Letter



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Mauldin and InvestorsInsight <wave@frontlinethoughts.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:11 AM
Subject: Stay Out of the ROOM - John Mauldin's Outside the Box E-Letter
To: jmiller2000@gmail.com


image
image
image
imageimage
image
image

image image Contact John Mauldin
image image Print Version
image image Download PDF

Volume 7 - Issue 8
February 21, 2011



Stay Out of the ROOM

by Ed Easterling

One of my favorite analysts is Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research. We used to get together a whole lot more when he lived in Dallas, but he has since moved to the wilds of Oregon. Ed's first book, Unexpected Returns, is a classic work that I think is a must-read for all stock market investors.

And now he favors us with yet another book, called Probable Outcomes: Secular Stock Market Insights, in which he takes on the mostly silly research, done by so many analysts, that purports to show what an investor can expect to make from his retirement portfolio over time. I can't tell you how disastrous this simplistic analysis can be for retirees.

This week's Outside the Box is an excerpt from this latest book.

From Amazon:

"Probable Outcomes continues the Crestmont Research tradition of full-color charts and graphs that enable investors and advisors to differentiate between irrational hope and a rational view of the stock market. The unique combination of investment science and investment art explores the market from several perspectives, and addresses the implications for a broad range of investors. Ed Easterling delivers an insightful analysis of the likely course for the stock market over the 2010 decade. Investors and advisors will benefit from this timely outlook and its message of reasonable expectations and value-added investing. This essential resource provides a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles that drive the stock market. Based on years of research, Probable Outcomes offers sensible conclusions that will empower you to take action, guide your investment choices during the current period of below-average returns, and allow you to invest with confidence, whatever your financial strategy."

I can't recommend this book strongly enough. If you are retiring or thinking about doing so and think you can safely take 5% a year, please, please read this book. You can get it out www.Amazom.com/probable

And now let's turn to Ed's insights.

Your starting to feel human again analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box


Stay Out of the ROOM

An Excerpt from Probable Outcomes: Secular Stock Market Insights

By Ed Easterling

Copyright 2010, Crestmont Research

Al Pacino, Dionne Warwick, Fran Tarkenton, Jack Nicklaus, Mario Andretti, Peter Fonda, Raquel Welch, Ringo Starr, and Smokey Robinson—what do they have in common with secular stock market cycles?

They were all born in 1940 and were subsequently impacted by secular bull markets. The choice of that year, which is not precise but was chosen for illustration, is that people born around 1940 aged into their forties by 1980. Most people and families accumulate savings slowly, if at all, during their twenties and thirties. By their forties, and certainly fifties, they begin to build retirement nest eggs. Therefore those born around 1940 had the opportunity to build sizable retirement savings during the 1980s and '90s if they invested well as they reached their prime saving period.

David Brinkley, Shelley Winters, Walter Matthau, and others born in 1920 were saving during the secular bear market of the 1960s and '70s. With little stock market gain over that period, their savings would be filled with contributions that earned little additional investment income. That modest capital base, however, then encountered the secular bull market of the 1980s and '90s, and though the nest was small, the eggs from it were abundant.

Chunks, Not Streams

This walk down memory lane illustrates several points. First, secular stock market cycles deliver returns in chunks, not streams. Second, most investors live long enough to have the relevant investment period extend across both secular bulls and secular bears. Third, investors do not get to pick which type of cycle comes first. Fourth, investors need to be aware that they will likely encounter both types of cycles. Those who experience secular bears during accumulation are generally better prepared than investors who are spoiled by a secular bull. A secular bull market is a pleasant surprise to retirees who endured a secular bear on the way to retirement. For retirees who grew to expect a secular bull during accumulation, the unexpected secular bear can be considerably disruptive.

Given where the stock market and valuations are today, the circumstances are quite different for people across different age groups. [This excerpt from chapter 11 of Probable Outcomes discusses one of the three sets of constituents and explores the concepts that affect this category.]

Distribution

A retiree today has a relatively long-term horizon, with an average retirement age near sixty and an expected lifespan for the last surviving spouse of almost thirty years. Relatively healthy retirees today can expect one or both spouses to live well past ninety. Whether you are retired now or on the cusp of retirement, your savings has been built over many years of toil and saving to provide or supplement your income during retirement. For pre-retirees who are still building the nest egg, this analysis can provide insights about what to expect in the future. The objective is to determine a safe assumption for investment returns, and a safe level of income or withdrawals from savings each year to sustain a desired lifestyle—the rate at which it is safe to withdraw golden eggs from the goose.

Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) is the term that investment advisors, financial planners, and do-it-yourself investors use to represent the acceptable rate at which funds can be withdrawn from an investment portfolio while still providing a high confidence of income for the balance of a retiree's lifetime. In effect, this is the rate of withdrawal to avoid the ROOM, where you Run Out Of Money!

SWR is often stated as the percentage of an investor's initial portfolio that can be safely withdrawn annually after retirement to cover life's expenses. The main variables are: (1) success rate, as reflected in the percentage likelihood of not running out of money; (2) portfolio mix and return assumptions for investment income; (3) how long the retiree assumes that he or she will live; and (4) a variety of other variables including tax rates, investment expenses, etc.

Some advisors or planners will go so far as to advocate that today's long-term retirees invest heavily in the stock market. Those pundits say, "A market that has never lost money over thirty-year periods won't let you down in the future." It's true that there has never been a thirty-year period when stock market investors overall have lost money, yet there have been quite a few thirty-year periods that have bankrupted senior citizens who were relying upon their stock portfolios for retirement income.

Most analysts and models suggest that a retiree can withdraw 4% to 5% of the original balance each year, increased annually to cover inflation, and still have a very good chance of not running out of money. The models, however, often do not use reasonable assumptions and do not sufficiently consider risk. Generally, such high withdrawal rates relate to investment portfolios that are significantly weighted toward stocks, especially during the current and recent environment of low bond returns.

For illustration, assume that a retired couple invests exclusively in the stock market because they "need" the extra return and should feel "safe" that the stock market will not let them down over a thirty-year period. Further, assume no income taxes, investment fees, commissions, or other charges. Admittedly, these assumptions probably deliver the best-case scenario and conclusions.

For the analysis, the portfolio includes a diversified stock market portfolio using the S&P 500 index including dividends. The time horizon is thirty years, which assumes that the last surviving spouse will need money for at least thirty years after the retirement date. What, therefore, are the chances of success, of not running out of money, and avoiding a job search after age eighty?

Many models use historical average rates of return. As previously reflected across multi-decade periods in the stock market, average rarely happens. Most often, returns from the market are either well above average or well below average. Regardless, as far as retirement success is concerned, each retiree's results will be binary—the retiree either will be successful or will run out of money. It doesn't matter whether the retiree—on average—has a 75% chance of success. The reality for each retiree is that success will be either 100% or 0%. Though probabilities are interesting, retirees should thus be keenly focused on the implications of the assumptions and their likely impact on the outcome.

Using history since 1900 as the laboratory to assess the likelihood of success, a retiring couple who start with withdrawals of 4% have a 95% chance of success. In other words, they have a 95% chance of not running out of money before the last surviving spouse no longer needs withdrawals. For example, this represents an initial annual withdrawal of $40,000 for a retiree with $1 million, increasing the $40,000 at the start of each year by the inflation rate. By the way, about half of retirees will live past the expected average lifespan; thus the success rates are actually lower for the half of retirees in the lucky group.

A 95% chance of success sounds pretty good—on average. The 95% success rate, however, means that you have a 1-in-20 chance of having to find a job at age eighty. If you have enough money to be thinking about SWR, you likely have a lifestyle that you don't want to compromise. When you think about last-to-survive issues, it has even greater significance.

To further emphasize the concept of success rate, assume that the doctor comes into your hospital room and says that your upcoming surgery has a good success rate: a 95% chance of success. The doctor performs this procedure five times a day. Since that's twenty per week, how many of you will immediately hope that you will not be the one that week who does not make it.

A 95% success rate sounds good to all those who are standing around the operating table, but it is quite different for the one who is actually on the table. The patient will be thinking about his or her particular circumstances—whether the odds are more likely to be above or below the 95%. A high success rate may still represent a significant risk.

Before digging into the details, what does the overall average look like? Over the 81 thirty-year periods since 1900, on average across all periods, the retiree who started with $1 million could have withdrawn 4% plus the inflation rate each year and still ended with $7.0 million. The average retiree accumulated seven times his initial savings, even after withdrawing 4% plus inflation every year for thirty years. As for the failure rate, only 4 of the 81 periods resulted in the retiree running out of money.

What are the implications for investors, especially at this stage of a secular bear market? For retirees who are primarily invested in the stock market, the most significant factor determining future returns is the level of valuation at the time of initial investment, as measured by the P/E ratio. So the level of the P/E at retirement has a significant impact on the individual investor's chances of success in retirement.

To better understand the potential success rate for a couple entering retirement, stock market history can be dissected into five ranked sets called quintiles. These sets are organized from the highest to the lowest P/E ratio at the start of the respective thirty-year periods. The result is that the highest quintile (the top 20% of all periods) includes the thirty-year periods since 1900 that started with P/Es of 18.7 and higher. The second set (the next 20%) cuts off at a P/E of 15.1, the third at 12.2, the fourth at 10.4, and the last at 5.3.

Why does this matter? While the success rate for the entire group was 95%, for a retiree who enters retirement with a portfolio dedicated to stocks when P/E is 18.7 or higher, the expected success rate based upon history is 76%—analogous to more than one loss per day for the surgeon, rather than one per week using the overall average.

When P/E started at relatively high levels historically, thereby fundamentally positioning the stock market for below-average returns, there was a significant adverse impact on future success. When P/E started at relatively lower levels, returns were always sufficient for 4% withdrawals—100% success from periods that started with a low P/E.

As figure 11.2 reflects, the starting level of P/E has a direct impact on retirement success and on ending capital. The implication for today's investor is that the likelihood of financial success in retirement is considerably less than most pundits advocate. Twenty years from now, a response of "who knew?" won't be much comfort for retirees in the employment line at the local job fair. This is especially true since a rational understanding of history and the drivers of longer-term stock market returns can help today's retiree avoid that surprise.

Figure 11.2. SWR Profile By P/E Quintile: 4% SWR, 30-Year Periods Since 1900

clip_image002

As presented in figure 11.2, covering the 81 thirty-year periods since 1900, the top 20% of the periods based upon the beginning P/E started with P/E at 18.7 or higher. Within that 20% of the periods, about 1 in 4 (24%) of the thirty-year periods resulted in the retiree running out of money before the end of the period. When that occurred, the retiree was out of money on average during the 27th year and as early as the 23rd year. For those 76% who were fortunate enough to not run out of money, the average retiree that started with $1.0 million ended the thirty years with almost $2.8 million.

Keep in mind that success provides a wide path, but failure is a thin line: those who succeed will end with a little or a lot; those who fail get to zero, or start counting pennies as their savings dwindle. Further, in reality, for retirees who invest during top quintile periods, the chance of suffering the painful effects of failure is even higher than 24%. Since a few of the periods ended relatively close to zero, fear forced some retirees to drastically reduce spending as their portfolios dwindled toward the end.

For most retiree investors over the past century, those fortunate enough to have retired when stock valuations and P/Es were lower, the results were much better. As reflected in figure 11.2, the benefits were directly and inversely related to the starting level of valuation. As the starting valuation declines, returns increase, and the resulting average balance in the portfolio at the end of the thirty years increases. This is another tangible example of the way that starting valuation significantly impacts future results.

A number of advocates and studies promote initial withdrawal rates of 5% or more of the starting portfolio: "You can have $50,000 a year from your million dollars, and have it increase annually by inflation and still last thirty years." The calculated success rate historically is 75% for retirees using a 5% initial withdrawal rate from stock market portfolio. For many retirees, that probability of success would be marginally acceptable. When the impact of starting P/E is included in the analysis, however, the odds change significantly for most of the quintiles.

As figure 11.3 shows, though the average may have been 75%, one of the sets reflects success as low as 41% while another had everyone making it safely through the thirty years. As you reflect upon the figure to assess the likely odds of either financial success or failure during your retirement, it is crucial to recognize the importance and impact of the starting level of P/E. Most important, it does not matter how many of the scenarios provide your heirs with multimillions; you will likely be most concerned about reducing the chances of being forced to work again at eighty. Risk management is not just about enhancing success; it is about avoiding the unacceptable failures.

Figure 11.3. SWR Profile By P/E Quintile: 5% SWR, 30-Year Periods Since 1900

clip_image004

Though a statistical analysis of history provides averages across a wide variety of market conditions, the relevant periods for analysis are those with similar characteristics. Given the significant impact of P/E on returns, that factor will be a major driver for retirees over this decade and beyond. When individuals or couples retire with P/E in the upper quintiles, thereby driving below-average returns, their expected results will be below average. In some instances the risks will be so great that they may need to adjust their expectations, or they may need portfolio management to enhance potential success.

Retirees during secular bear markets may be limited to withdrawal rates that are less than 3%, or in some scenarios as much as 4%, to sustain their desired lifestyle successfully throughout retirement. Retirees who want to withdraw 5% or more will need a more consistent and higher return profile for their investments than passive investments in the stock market or bond market can provide when starting valuations are high. For those retirees, it will require a more actively managed and value-added approach to their portfolios, including investments in the stock market, even then with no guarantees of success.

There is no magic solution, no one way to achieve success. Given that retirees over this decade and longer are confronting the conditions of a secular bear market, it is important to start with a reasonable expectation about future returns and market conditions, then to apply appropriate investment strategies and approaches. Early personal planning and ongoing investment discipline can help toward avoiding the ROOM.

Winston Churchill could have been talking about this decade in the stock market when he said, "Let our advance worrying become advance thinking and planning." The practical implications of another secular bear market decade should be a call to action rather than a call for retreat. Churchill offers wisdom that acknowledges challenging conditions and provides a solution toward success. His advice encourages investors to seek the benefits of preparation and risk management, the essential elements for investing through this secular bear toward the next secular bull market.



image
John F. Mauldin
johnmauldin@investorsinsight.com
image

image
image
image
You are currently subscribed as jmiller2000@gmail.com.

To unsubscribe, go here.


Reproductions. If you would like to reproduce any of John Mauldin's E-Letters or commentary, you must include the source of your quote and the following email address: JohnMauldin@InvestorsInsight.com. Please write to Reproductions@InvestorsInsight.com and inform us of any reproductions including where and when the copy will be reproduced.


Note: John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Plexus Asset Management; Fynn Capital; and Nicola Wealth Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs at Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC and InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. ("InvestorsInsight") may or may not have investments in any funds cited above.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.

Communications from InvestorsInsight are intended solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors, advertisers, sponsors and other contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of InvestorsInsight, and should not be construed as an endorsement by InvestorsInsight, either expressed or implied. InvestorsInsight and Business Marketing Group may share in certain fees or income resulting from this publication. InvestorsInsight is not responsible for typographic errors or other inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur. Therefore, all information and materials are provided "AS IS" without any warranty of any kind. Past results are not indicative of future results.

We encourage readers to review our complete legal and privacy statements on our home page.

InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. -- 14900 Landmark Blvd #350, Dallas, Texas 75254

© InvestorsInsight Publishing, Inc. 2011 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


image
image
image
image