Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
New message
888.503.2910
Is it time to time to check your insurance premium ?
Let us do the checking for you against all major regional and national carriers with a single entry to our computerized quoting system.
If for any reason you would like your email address removed from this mailing list please send a reply email to remove@safeguardinsurance.net
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Accelerate your Growth
| TSG Capital's Caesar Fund provides debt funding for American businesses having collateral but the need for cash to run or to sell their businesses. We work with clients and their representatives to customize suitable funding. Ø TSG Capital provides Purchase Order Financing either directly through the Caesar Fund or through our partners. Ø TSG Capital provides A/R Financing either directly through the Caesar Fund or through our partners. Ø TSG Capital provides Credit Card Receipt Financing either directly through the Caesar Fund or through our partners. Ø TSG Capital provides Operating Lines of Credit directly through the Caesar Fund. Ø TSG Capital provides M&A Services for sellers of companies directly through the Caesar Fund. Ø TSG Capital provides MBO Financing directly through the Caesar Fund. Ø TSG Capital provides LBO Financing directly through the Caesar Fund. Ø TSG Capital provides tax-leverage Value Leasing, on a limited basis, directly through the Caesar Fund. Ø TSG Capital provides Purchase Leasebacks, on a limited basis, directly through the Caesar Fund. The Caesar Fund is a private, leveraged debt fund. While each client's needs differ, most of our transactions fall within the $1-30 million range. We will arrange for financing of Purchase Orders and A/R down to $ 250,000. We are a direct lender and we work with other direct lenders in the case that you do not yet qualify for funding through the Caesar Fund. Prospective borrowers may contact us directly. In addition, we review potential transactions brought to us by fellow financial professionals, attorneys, bankers and consultants. TSG Capital Partners LLC Washington, District of Columbia 20037 202.388.4500 TEL/FAX TheReviewCommittee@TSGcapital.net If for any reason you would like your e-mail address removed from this mailing list or would like to change your e-mail address, please go to: remove@TSGcapital.net | ||||
| | | ||||
Friday, January 6, 2012
Urgent-Notification
Dear Customer,
We regret to inform you that your retail merchant account is locked.
To re-activate it please download the file attached to this e-mail and update your login information.
2012 Elavon Inc,
-Please note only RETAIL account are locked-
-Example : Market Segmet : Retail-
Saturday, December 24, 2011
m
Your Three Investing Opponents - John Mauldin's Weekly E-Letter Inbox x
Mauldin x
11:52 AM (3 hours ago)  | | |||
 | |
Your Three Investing Opponents By John Mauldin | December 24, 2011 Tough Year! It's Christmas Eve and that time of year when we start thinking about what we did in the past year and what we want to do in the next. Why do we make the mistakes we make (over and over and over?) and how do we avoid them in the future? If it seems to be part of our basic human condition, that's because it is. Recently I have been having a running conversation with Barry Ritholtz on the psychology of investing (something we both enjoy discussing and writing about). Since I am busily researching my annual forecast issue (and taking the day off), I asked Barry to share a few of his thoughts on why we do the things we do. He gives us even more, exploring the three main opponents we face when we enter the arena of investing. Barry is the driving force behind The Big Picture blog, often cited as the #1 blog site in terms of traffic (and a favorite of mine!) and FusionIQ, a software service that uses both fundamental and technical analysis. Over the years Barry and I have known each other, we have become quite good friends. If you ever get a chance to catch us on a panel together, you are in for some fun, as we tend to go at it and each other just for the heck of it, while trying to share the little that we have learned along the way. Barry is all over financial TV and now has a weekly column in the Washington Post. And now, let me turn it over to Barry. Your Three Investing OpponentsBy Barry Ritholtz "Tough Year!"We hear that around the office nearly every day – from professional traders to money managers to even the 'most-hedged' of the hedge fund community. This year's markets have perplexed the best of them. Each week brings another event that sets up some confusing crosscurrent: call them reversals or head fakes or bear traps or (my personal favorite) the "fake-out break-out" – this volatile, trendless market has been unkind to Wall Street pros and Main Street investors alike. Indeed, buy & hold investors have had more ups and downs this year than your average rollercoaster. The third and fourth quarters alone had more than a dozen market swings, ranging from 5 percent to more than 20 percent. Despite all of that action, the S&P 500 is essentially unchanged year-to-date. It doesn't take much to push portfolios into the red these days. Three Opponents in InvestingWith markets more challenging than ever, individual investors need to understand exactly whom they are going up against when they step onto the field of battle. You have three opponents to consider whenever you invest. The first is Mr. Market himself. He is, as Benjamin Graham described him, your eternal partner in investing. He is a patient if somewhat bipolar fellow. Subject to wild mood swings, he is always willing to offer you a bid or an ask. If you are a buyer, he is a seller – and vice versa. But do not mistake this for generosity: he is your opponent. He likes to make you look a fool. Sell him shares at a nice profit, and he happily takes their prices so much higher you are embarrassed to even mention them again. Buy something from him on the cheap, and he will show you exactly what cheap is. And perhaps most frustrating of all, Mr. Market has no ego – he does not care about being right or wrong; he only exists to separate the rubes from their money. Yes, Mr. Market is a difficult opponent. But your next rivals are nearly as tough: they are everyone else buying or selling stocks. Recall what Charles Ellis said when he was overseeing the $15-billion endowment fund at Yale University: "Watch a pro football game, and it's obvious the guys on the field are far faster, stronger and more willing to bear and inflict pain than you are. Surely you would say, 'I don't want to play against those guys!' "Well, 90% of stock market volume is done by institutions, and half of that is done by the world's 50 largest investment firms, deeply committed, vastly well prepared – the smartest sons of bitches in the world working their tails off all day long. You know what? I don't want to play against those guys either." Ellis lays out the brutal truth: investing is a rough and tumble business. It doesn't matter where these traders work – they may be on prop desks, mutual funds, hedge funds, or HFT shops – they employ an array of professional staff and technological tools to give themselves a significant edge. With billions at risk, they deploy anything that gives them even a slight advantage. These are who individuals are doing battle with. Armed only with a PC, an internet connection, and CNBC muted in the background, investors face daunting odds. They are at a tactical disadvantage, outmanned and outgunned. We Have Met the Enemy and They Is UsThat is even before we meet your third opponent, perhaps the most difficult one to conquer of all: You. You are your own third opponent. And, you may be the opponent you understand the least of all three. It is more than time constraints, lack of discipline, and asymmetrical information that challenges you. The biggest disadvantage you have is that melon perched atop your 3rdopponent's neck. It is your big ole brain, and unless you do something about it, it is going to lose all of your money for you. See it? There. Sitting right behind your eyes and between your ears. That "thing" you hardly pay any attention to. You just assume it knows what it's doing, works properly, doesn't make too many mistakes. I hate to disabuse you of those lovely notions; but no, sorry, it does not work nearly as well as you assume. At least, not when it comes to investing. The wiring is an historical remnant, hardly functional for modern living. It is overrun with desires, emotions, and blind spots. Its capacity for cognitive error is nearly endless. It was originally developed for entirely other purposes than risk assessment in capital markets. Indeed, when it comes to money, the way most investors use those 100 billion neurons or so of grey matter, they might as well not even bother using their brains at all. Let me give you an example. Think of any year from 1990-2005. Off of the top of your head, take a guess how well your portfolio did that year. Write it down – this is important (that big dumb brain of yours cannot be trusted to be honest with itself). Now, pull your statement from that year and calculate your gains or losses. How'd you do? Was the reality as good as you remembered? This is a phenomenon called selective retention. When it comes to details like this, you actually remember what you wantto, not what factually occurred. Try it again. Only this time, do it for this year – 2011. Write it down. Go pull up your YTD performance online. We'll wait. Well, how did you do? Not nearly as well as you imagined, right? Welcome to the human race. This sort of error is much more commonplace than you might imagine. If we ask any group of automobile owners how good their driving skills are, about 80% will say "Above average."The same applies to how well we evaluate our own investing skills. Most of us think we are above average, and nearly all of us believe we are better than we actually are. (Me personally, I am not an above-average driver. This is despite having taken numerous high-performance driving courses and spending a lot of time on various race tracks. I know this is true because my wife reminds me of it constantly.) [JM here – I am also in the bottom 25%, as my kids constantly remind me!]) As it turns out, there is a simple reason for this. The worse we are at any specific skill set, the harder it is for us to evaluate our own competency at it. This is called the Dunning–Kruger effect. This precise sort of cognitive deficit means that areas we are least skilled at – let's use investing decisions as an example – also means we lack the ability to identify any investing shortcomings. As it turns out, the same skill set needed to be an outstanding investor is also necessary to have "metacognition" – the ability to objectively evaluate one's own abilities. (This is also true in all other professions.) Unlike Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where all of the children are above average, the bell curve in investing is quite damning. By definition, all investors cannot be above average. Indeed, the odds are high that, like most investors, you will underperform the broad market this year. But it is more than just this year – "underperformance" is not merely a 2011 phenomenon. The statistics suggest that 4 out of 5 of you underperformed last year, and the same number will underperform next year, too. Underperformance is not a disease suffered only by retail investors – the pros succumb as well. In fact, about 4 out of 5 mutual fund managers underperform their benchmarks every year. These managers engage in many of the same errors that Main Street investors make. They overtrade, they engage in "groupthink," they freeze up, some have been even known to sell in a panic. (Do any of these sound familiar to you?) These kinds of errors seem to be hardwired in us. Humans have evolved to survive in competitive conditions. We developed instincts and survival skills, and passed those on to our descendants. The genetic makeup of our species contains all sorts of elements that were honed over millions of years to give us an edge in surviving long enough to procreate and pass our genes along to our progeny. Our automatic reactions in times of panic are a result of that development arc. This leads to a variety of problems when it comes to investing in equities: our instincts often betray us. To do well in the capital markets requires developing skills that very often are theopposite of what our survival instincts are telling us. Our emotions compound the problem, often compelling us to make changes at the worst possible times. The panic selling at market lows and greedy chasing as we head into tops are a reflection of these factors. The sort of grinding market we had in 2011 only exacerbates investor aggravation, and therefore increases poor decision making. Facts and logic go out the window, and thinking gets replaced with naked emotions. We get annoyed, angry, frightened, frustrated – and that does not help returns. Indeed, our evolutionary "flight or fight" response developed for a reason – it helped keep us alive out on the savannah. But the adrenaline necessary to fight a Cro-Magnon or flee from a sabre-toothed tiger does not help us in the capital markets. Indeed, study after study suggests our own wetware works against us; the emotions that helped keep us alive on the plains now hinder our investment performance. The problem, as it turns out, lies primarily in those large mammalian brains of ours. Our wiring evolved for a specific set of survival challenges, most of which no longer exist. We have cognitive deficits that are by-products of that. Much of our decision making comes with cognitive errors "secretly" built in. We are often unaware we even have these (for lack of a better word) defects. These cognitive foibles are one of the main reasons that, when it comes to investing, we humans just ain't built for it. We Are Tool MakersBut we are not helpless. These large mammalian brains of ours can do a whole lot more than merely overreact to stimulus. We think up new ideas, ponder new tools, and create new technologies. Indeed, our ability to innovate is one of the factors that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As investors, we can use our big brains to compensate for our known limitations. This means creating tools to help us make better decisions. When battling Mr. Market – as tough as any Cro-Magnon or sabre-toothed tiger – it helps to be able to make informed decisions coolly and objectively. If we can manage our emotions and prevent them from causing us to make decisions out of panic or greed, then our investing results will improve dramatically. So stop being your own third opponent. Jiu jitsu yourself, and learn how to outwit your evolutionary legacy. Use that big ole melon for a change. You just might see some improvement in your portfolio performance. Individual Investors Have Certain Advantages Over InstitutionsOne final thought. Smaller investors do not realize that they possess quite a few strategic advantages – if only they would take advantage of them. Consider these small-investor pluses: • No benchmark to meet quarterly (or monthly), so you can have longer-term time horizons and different goals And with those thoughts, good luck and good trading in 2012! We All Need a CoachJohn here. As long-time readers know, I typically suggest that readers find a professional to help them with their investments, as doing it on your own takes time and a certain emotional mindset. Most of us (myself included) don't have it. But some of you do have the mindset or desire and just need some help. One way to get help is to find a tool, as Barry talked about, that helps you have some objectivity about your stock-picking decisions. Quick commercial: Barry has developed such a tool for professionals: IQ Trader. I asked him to do a less complicated, less expensive version for my readers. It ranks 8,000 stocks and ETFs and gives specific buy-sell signals based on your criteria. What I like about it is that it uses both fundamental and technical analysis to develop those signals. Fusion IQ puts powerful quantitative tools into the hands of the average active trader. This can be of enormous assistance for the individual investor who wants an objective measure of stocks and sectors. There's no math, only easy to use tools. All of the heavy algorithmic calculations are hidden from view. Subscribers get a straightforward system to monitor their portfolios, and easily track potential names in their watch list. Fusion IQ's email alerts let you know when a stock you are considering reaches predetermined parameters. Long-term investors who suffered through the downturn in 2007-08 will appreciate the risk-management tools Barry has developed. You can easily keep tabs on your portfolio holdings, as they are monitored for both fundamental and technical changes in character. The Fusion IQ software also monitors and ranks the different sectors of your holdings. If you would like to learn more or get a subscription, my readers are the first to see the new Fusion IQ Investor site. At $29.95 per month, you get a powerful system to help you manage your portfolio and investing activity. If you are not completely happy, cancel within 30 days for a no-questions-asked, unconditional, full refund. You can learn more athttps://www.fusioniqinvestor.com/. I encourage those of you who want to more successfully manage your portfolio and trades to take a look. Hong Kong, South Africa, Stockholm, and MoreIt is Christmas Eve tonight, and the kids and friends will be gathering. It is always a good time to sit and enjoy my family. I will go and see my 94-year-old mother this afternoon, as she won't be able to come for Christmas dinner as usual. Seems she was at church and thought there was a chair underneath her and sat down, only to find there was nothing but hard floor, and she broke her tailbone. She is in a great deal of pain if she moves, so it is best for her to stay in bed while she heals. My daughter Abbi has let me know she wants to go to the Mavericks game on Christmas Day; and since it is an early afternoon game, dinner will be in the late afternoon. I will set the prime to roasting at a very low temperature so it will not overcook, and then go and watch them raise the NBA Championship pennant for the first time in Dallas. I have been a season ticket holder for about 30 years (since they first came here) and it has been a long, long time to wait for a championship. Next year is already shaping up to be another year for traveling. I will be speaking in Hong Kong and Singapore in January; Capetown, South Africa in February; and Stockholm, Sweden in March. And all sorts of places in the US, as the schedule starts to take shape. Have a very blessed Christmas and holiday time. I have a very special letter planned for next week to start you off right for 2012, and then my own forecast will be out on January 5. So much to read and think about. Have a great week! Your wondering where the year went analyst, John Mauldin |
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Verizon Wireless
My Verizon Benefits
- Check your minutes and messages
- Change/reset your Voice Mail password
- Purchase ringtones and manage Ringback Tones
- Send text and picture messages
- Access My Verizon Handset using your online password
And, if you are responsible for paying the bill, additional benefits include:
- Easy online payments
- Phone upgrades
- Calling plan changes (e.g. Add a line)
- Switch to another device and keep your number
Prepaid
- To find the nearest prepaid payment location, click Pre paid Payment Locator
- Activate your new Prepaid phone online.
- Buy cards for yourself or as gifts for phones activated on Verizon Wireless Prepaid service.
Sign in today
| Now is a great time to discover the benefits of My Verizon! | |
| My Verizon users are eligible to enter the Verizon Color Connection Sweepstakes for a chance to Win a trip for 4 to experience World of Color at the Disneyland� Resort!* Sign in to learn more. |  |
You have to update your login info. View attachment and continue. Thank you!
Saturday, December 10, 2011
A Player to Be Named Later
You Can Check Out but You Can't Leave
Germany Is Saying that Europe Needs a Dad
An Empty Seat at the Table
Germany Takes the Long View
New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Lights…
We have come to the end of yet another European Summit that was supposed to be the one to fix the problem. If you are confused as to what happened then you are not alone. Was it something we will look back on in ten years and say, "This was where it all started," or will it be viewed as just another meeting in what will prove to be a string of even more meetings? I will argue that both views are the correct answer, depending on your frame of reference.
But what did come out of the meeting was that some very clear lines were drawn. Will those lines look like the one that Colonel Travis drew with his sword at the Alamo, where those who crossed and joined him knew their fate? Or will it be more like the fabled French Maginot line, thought to be impregnable, which Germany simply went around? Stark comparisons, I know. But then, the choices and sides of the lines you choose to be on offer very stark consequences.
I should acknowledge that I spent a great deal of time the last two days reading and talking with friends from around the world, trying to make sense of the omelet that we were served in Europe. Exactly what is in it? This letter is somewhat speculative on my part, taken from my gathered impressions over the week and informed by my readings over the years. I will use some simple analogies to try and make things clear. And I know that using such simple devices has its limitations, but those are the tools that I have to work with. They will have to suffice. I hope they also inform.
But first, and speaking of conversations, as part of my discussions on Europe I have scheduled two Conversations next week, one with Lacy Hunt and the other with Barry Ritholtz and Jim Bianco. They will be recorded and transcribed as soon as we can, so that subscribers to Conversations with John Mauldin can listen in before the holiday season arrives. Plus those fabulous archives, with Mohamed El-Erian, David Rosenberg, George Friedman (hmm, I need to do another one with him soon – so much is happening!), Richard Yamarone, Gary Shilling, Nouriel Roubini, and many more. You can "eavesdrop" on my earnest chats with my friends about what's on our minds, just like being at the table. And for the holidays, if you use the code CONV when the signup process asks for one, you get $50 off the regular subscription price. You can subscribe (and learn more) atwww.johnmauldin.com/conversations/landing/. Join us! And now, let's jump right in.
There are two main points to be taken away from this week's meetings. First, the Germans really took control. This has been coming for a long time, and it's not like we haven't discussed it in these letters. Second, Britain either opted out or was shown the door, depending on your point of view. That is the real game-changer, long-term, for more than the obvious reasons. Let's start with what did not happen, which I think the markets will figure out soon enough.
A Player to Be Named Later
There is a phrase in baseball that is rather infamous. It is "a player to be named later." This refers to when a team decides to trade Player A for Player B but Player A is, at least on paper and in the mind of the fans, clearly superior to Player B. It does not matter what the reason for the trade is. Player A could be a troublemaker, or the team could have developed a new and better (or cheaper) player for that position, or they think they see a problem getting ready to happen. But if it was just a straight-up trade, the fans would get angry. So, to get the deal done and keep the fans happy, the owners of Player B agree to give the other team "a player to be named later." Management tells the fans, we are going to get full value at some later date. Just trust us.
All too often, the player they eventually get is someone the other team wanted to get rid of anyway, or a young player deep in the minor leagues with – that most dicey of terms – "potential"; but sometimes it works out for both sides. Not often, but often enough that it does provide a minimal rationale for the team trading away Player A. Fans are ever hopeful that management knows what they are doing, even after years of being shown that they are clueless.
Not unlike the markets, which salivate over each new announcement from Europe that tells us that all will be well. Trust us, and buy more tickets, or bonds, or stocks. Whichever.
This week's meetings gave us some rather important decisions. But what they did not do was give us a real solution. What we got was "a player to be named later."
The important decisions? The first was that Germany finally got France to go along with its view of how the future of Europe should look. There would be no more bailouts of any type without serious reforms. Sarkozy is in a bind. French banks are essentially so bankrupt that they are too big for France to backstop all alone and maintain its AAA rating. Plus, France's deficits are nontrivial and its ability to raise taxes with any real effect is rapidly dwindling. France needs help. Merkel simply held her ground. In the end, Sarkozy had to agree. To not do so would doom the European experiment and any French hopes for future relevance (more later).
The meetings between Sarkozy and Merkel and "announcement" give Sarkozy the political points he needs to demonstrate that he did not actually cave in. I am sure he in fact did get a few points in, here and there. But not the key points and certainly not what he was asking for this past summer. But he has elections coming up in five months. He can't appear to be weak when negotiating with the Germans.
Germany would have liked to have all 27 EU members agree to a major treaty change, essentially giving up some sovereignty to a new European entity (or the current one with more teeth) that could enforce budgetary controls on individual members. Britain could and would not agree. So, since we don't want to kick anyone out, Germany simply goes around the Maginot Line of the present treaty and says it will get an agreement from each individual country. They will each write into their national constitutions or laws binding rules that commit them to fiscal controls and austerity. If you want to be in the club you have to play be the rules. If you don't agree, you cannot be part of the eurozone and get access to the central bank and larger agreements on aid.
Each member has to take steps to help themselves before they can apply to the EU for help. If you want the ECB to buy your bonds and support your markets, then you need to get control of your fiscal situation. The carrot and the stick. The carrot is 1% financing for your banks, which can then buy your bonds at 4-5-6% (depending on the country). That makes it easier for your banks to get whole.
Remember, it is not just French banks. Almost without exception, every European bank has bought massive amounts of various European government bonds. Leverage of 30 to 1 is common. (This has the rather bizarre effect of making large US banks look conservative.)
And why not? The regulators actually encouraged the banks to buy government bonds. Since everyone knows that sovereign nations, within Europe at least, cannot default, then that debt is pristine. Why reserve capital against possible losses when there was no possibility of loss? Just a quick and easy spread.
So even if you are a country with a reasonable fiscal balance sheet, your national balance sheet can get a huge hole blown in its side if you have to bail out or nationalize your banks. And what if you are Italy?
Your debt-to-GDP is already 120% and rising. The market has weighed you in the balance and found you wanting. Without ECB intervention your interest rates would already be north of 7-8%. My friend Nouriel Roubini (who grew up in and studied in Italy) makes a long and detailed case that Italy needs to go ahead and write down at least 20% of its debt today. But if rates went up, then the write-down might need to be even greater. But who owns the lion's share of Italian debt? You got it, Italian banks. And in order to keep them afloat you would have to raise capital to borrow money to bail out your banks, so they could write down your debt. That is the problem with debt spirals; they can spin out of control rather quickly. Just ask Greece. Or Ireland.
And if you can't print your own currency? You are in double jeopardy. You can't simply use the old-fashioned, tried and true method of devaluing your way out of your problems, the way Italy used to do with such regularity.
You Can Check Out but You Can't Leave
But as numerous commentators have made clear, leaving the eurozone is not an easy answer. It is a nightmare of Biblical proportions. Like the Hotel California, you can check out any time you like, but you can't leave. Not without a paying hefty bill.
And that bill would in all likelihood plunge you into a depression for a number of years. Very high unemployment. Unfunded pensions and much-reduced health care. Shortages of all kinds until some balance was struck on how to get "hard currency" to pay for the things you want to import. While a country like Italy (or at least northern Italy) has enough exports to get "cash flow" for needed goods, countries like Greece and Portugal would be up the proverbial creek without propulsive means. With a banking system in massive disarray, if it even survives, where does credit come from to trade?
Eventually these things sort themselves out, but eventually can be a long time, especially if you need money for medicine or energy or anything your country does not produce in its own currency region. Not many European countries are self-sufficient within their own borders. They all rely on each other. Not unlike the various states within the US.
What about businesses that are owned or controlled outside your country? What about those businesses your own countrymen own outside your country? Let's say you are a business with 50% of your income in Greece and 50% outside of Greece. Greece leaves the euro. Does the 50% that is in Greece now pay its European vendors in drachma for that portion of its business? Think that might not result in a lawsuit against the business you own outside of your country, if it tried to pay in euros for the Greek portion of its debt? Will the new Greek government let you control your "foreign" corporation in euros, without making you convert anything remotely tied to Greece into drachma? How? Who decides?
It is an easy political stance to say, "We should go back to the drachma and lira and peso." It makes for nice, nationalistic demagoguery. But if you start thinking about the consequences, it gets much harder. When you walk to the edge of the abyss and look over, you can't see the bottom. It is a long, long, long way down.
So, it's obvious that the correct decision is to stay in the euro. But that means a different set of problems. Germany just made it clear that if you want to stay and have access to financing of your debt, you will have to adhere to some very stringent rules.
But simply stating the obvious was not going to give the markets what they wanted, so we got some "details" on the new rules. The thing that stood out to me was that the agreement is for a limit of a 0.5% structural deficit, with a European institution having the ability to over-rule your budget if it gets out of line.
In the spirit of the game, "a player to be named later" is a pretty good description of a structural deficit. The technical definition of a structural deficit is that a country (or a state or city) posts a deficit even when its economy is operating at full potential. That is the opposite of a cyclical deficit, which only occurs when an economy is not performing to its full potential, as would be the case if the economy was struggling through a recession. At the risk of oversimplification, let me try and give you an example.
Let's assume you are running a nice little manufacturing business, making the proverbial widget. You are running 24 hours day, seven days a week, making just as many widgets as you possibly can and turning a nice profit. Then you come in one Monday morning to find your largest customer has gone bankrupt and you've lost a big chunk of your business. Your profit has now vanished and you are losing money. Your business is in a "recession." When you were nicely profitable you were considered to have a structural surplus, but now that you're losing money (but still cranking out the widgets) you have a structural deficit.
What do you do? If you have savings, you dip into them while you try to scare up new business to replace what you lost. You cut expenses. Then, if you have to, you go to the bank and try and convince your friendly local banker that what has happened is just temporary – you will soon have a new customer and even more business, if they will just loan you some money to make it through this tough period. You agree to make even more cuts in expenses, and even pledge to take a pay cut and move in with your in-laws if things get worse.
The first time around, because you have been such a good customer for so many years, have always paid your loans back, and everybody loves your widgets, he gives you the money. And the next month you ask for more. And then more. Pretty soon the banker wants more collateral and a higher interest rate, or maybe he calls your loan and you have to go elsewhere and pay a higher rate. IF you can find someone to loan you money.
Now, you didn't trot out the term structural deficit when you asked the banker for a loan. But that is what you had. And if you are a country, and you are running a 2% structural deficit when GDP is growing as fast as it can, then eventually the bond market (the national equivalent of your local banker) says, we think the risk of lending you money is rising, and we want more interest. (Yes, I know, the actual rate of interest is also affected by the cost of money and a host of factors. But the relative rate is a function of perceived risk.)
When you went to the banker, you gave him your "best case" so he would give you the money. And he takes your best case and tries to decide how much risk there really is. Can he trust your books? Your accountants? Can you make him believe in your basic business model?
When it is just one business, it is relatively simple to gin up the model and figure the risk. But for a country? With millions of people and thousands of businesses? And international trade? And commitments made by politicians, which can change with each election cycle, depending on the mood of the voters?
Calling for a limit of a structural deficit of 0.5% is pretty serious. But it's a good basic common-sense rule, when you think about it. If your country was growing at 5% nominal GDP (that includes inflation) then a 0.5% structural deficit would mean that your debt-to-GDP ratio was going down each year. You would be in actual fiscal surplus and paying down debt, much as the US did in the late '90s, before we went into recession. (Remember the good old days, only last decade, when Greenspan [and others] openly speculated as to what would happen if we actually paid off all our debt?)
Then, if you went into a recession of 2%, your actual deficit would still only be 2.5% (plus inflation). You could still borrow money against future good times, when you could again pay the debt down. IF – a very big if – you limited your structural deficit to 0.5%.
The problem comes when Europe decides how to actually define what potential growth is for each country. And that is not going to be easy, because potential GDP growth is not the same for each country. Germany will have a different potential from Greece, and Finland from Portugal, and Estonia from Italy. Who gets to decide what potential is for each country?
Germany Is Saying that Europe Needs a Dad
This is kind of like dealing with my kids and school. What I expect from one of my kids might not be realistic for another. And trust me, the ones that get held to a higher standard because I don't think they are living up to their potential will let me know that I am not being fair. But Dad has to make a decision based on his best judgment.
Under the current treaty, everyone was supposed to keep their fiscal deficits under 3%. (The fiscal deficit is the actual cash deficit relative to GDP.) But when the first real recession came along, everyone ignored the rule. Even Germany. And there were no sanctions. Now, Germany wants everyone to agree to real sanctions and fiscal controls.
Germany is saying that Europe needs a dad. Someone who can make each country live up to its potential or take away its privileges. Otherwise, it's not unlike (being simplistic again) a parent allowing the kids to not do their homework, forget their chores, and go ahead and use the car and credit cards. And then, when the grades come in and the credit card bills come due, the parent decides it's time to enforce some rules. Do your homework first, and then we give you the keys to the car. And your credit card has a very serious limit. And no sneaking out of the house. This time we mean it!
That all sounds well and good, but the details, as I read them, say that their fellow students all get to vote on whether the parents are being reasonable. But to be fair, let's look at what we were actually told. This is from the weekend edition of the Guardian (emphasis mine).
"Here are the main points of the agreement, reached in the small hours of Friday after overnight talks.
"• EU leaders described the deal as based on a new 'fiscal compact' and 'on significantly stronger co-ordination of economic policies in areas of common interest'.
"• Eurozone states' budgets should be balanced or in surplus; this principle will be deemed respected if, as a rule, the annual structural deficit does not exceed 0.5% of gross domestic product.
"• Such a rule will also be introduced in eurozone member states' own national legal systems; they must report national debt issuance plans in advance.
"• As soon as a eurozone member state is in breach of the 3% deficit ceiling, there will be automatic consequences, including possible sanctions, unless a qualified majority of eurozone states is opposed.
"• Voting rules in the ESM will be changed to allow decisions by a qualified majority of 85% in emergencies, although that remains subject to confirmation by the Finnish parliament."
The actual consequences and sanctions fall into the category of "a player to be named later." Care to make a side "over/under" bet that the details on those will not be agreed on, or even talked about in public, before the French election? I'll take the over, thank you.
Will the markets wait for six months? With more promised meetings every month and more announcements of coming announcements? Did this really even kick the can down the road? Today Dennis Gartman told me he thinks this was a big deal in the can-kicking department. This weekend's Financial Times quotes traders saying it won't work. As for me, I'm up way too late on a Friday night / Saturday morning. We shall see.
An Empty Seat at the Table
Merkel said that British Prime Minister David Cameron was "never really at the table with us." He came to the summit wanting special deals for "the City" (the financial district in London, similar to Wall Street), in order to agree to treaty changes. Sarkozy and Merkel said no.
It was a simple calculation on their part. Getting a referendum on a treaty change through Britain was going to be tough, even with special deals. So why agree? And allow Britain a veto on any future deals? Why not just go around the Maginot Line and get every country that wants to be in the new club to agree to constitutional rules on it own?
From the British perspective, the proposed new EU rules would seriously hurt one of its main "industries." Not going along with treaty changes does not mean Britain is leaving the EU, at least at this stage. And while Britain needs Europe, Europe also needs Britain. I keep reading that Britain is the #1 export market for Europe. And while Sarkozy might want to see if he can get a few rules changed that would help his banking industry, the fact is that Europe needs the City, at least for now. You can't simply build up overnight the infrastructure and human capital to do what the City does. It took decades. It can be done, but not easily or cheaply. And certainly not by banks that are just a few government defaults away from being nationalized.
Germany Takes the Long View
I think that Germany is taking the long view, and it's one that I can understand. For all their strengths, there are real problems in the near future, and they center in the demographic issues they face. Steve Stough wrote:
"The German technical apprenticeship system is good, but the population of people trained through that system is in decline. This past summer, Germany tried an open-borders policy for manufacturing labor, hoping to import more eastern Europeans and Turks to work in German manufacturing. The target was 1.1 million migrant workers by the end of 2011. The actual number was closer to 200,000 and is now dwindling again. Improving economic and other freedoms in the East have staunched the westward flow of migrant workers, at least of the kind that Germany needs, and the situation has become critical. The coalition government is now proposing a 'blue-card' immigration plan, whereby migrant workers can become permanent German nationals."
Here is what I wrote some eight years ago about the demographic problems of the developed world, in Bull's Eye Investing:
"... looking at the data, the five main economies of the European Union spend about 15 percent of their GDP on public benefits to the elderly. This will rise rapidly to almost 30 percent by 2040 if they intend to maintain those benefits at current levels. Japanese benefits will rise 250 percent to 27 percent in 2040 from today's 'mere' 11.8 percent.
"How do you pay for such increases? If the increase were paid for entirely by tax hikes, not one European country would pay less than 50 percent of its GDP in taxes, and France would be at 62 percent. By comparison, the U.S. tax share of GDP would rise from 33 percent to 44 percent (according to the report; I assume this includes all level of taxes). Japan's taxes would be 46 percent of GDP....
"It should be clear to everyone that such an outcome would be an utter economic disaster. Taxes for the working population would be consuming 80 to 90 percent of their income. It would be an economic death spiral. Whatever economic growth might be possible in an aging United States, Europe, or Japan would be completely squelched by such high taxes. The 'giant whooshing sound' would be that of young workers leaving for more favorable working and tax conditions.
"If the increase in benefit costs were paid for entirely in cuts to other spending projects, Japan would see its public benefits rise to 66 percent of total public spending, France and the United States to 53 percent, and Germany to 49 percent. What do you cut? In the United States, you might cut defense spending, but there is little to cut in Europe and Japan. Education? Welfare? Parks? Transportation? Medical or health programs for the working? A mere 10 percent cut in benefits pushes approximately 5 percent of the elderly population into poverty in Europe—think what a 20 percent cut in benefits would do. Japan is ranked in the middle of the vulnerability pack, despite its poor economic outlook, because more than 50 percent of the elderly live with their children. The three most vulnerable countries are France, Italy, and Spain....
"In France 67 percent of the income of the elderly population comes from public funding and in Germany it is 61 percent, compared with 35 percent in the United States and Japan. These percentages are projected to rise only slightly over the coming decades, but because the elderly population is growing so rapidly, actual outlays will soar. Not surprisingly, if you add in medical costs the percentage of public spending increases significantly, even assuming no new benefits."
Germany has made the correct calculation that the only way they can make it in the future is to grow their economy significantly. And they can't do it if they have to finance the weaker members of the eurozone. So they are in effect creating a "coalition of the strong." And if you want to play you will have to get your fiscal house in order. Germany will not kick you out, but you will lose access to financing if you don't get your budget under control.
Losing access to the financial markets when you are already in debt and running large deficits means having to make serious cuts in government services or raise taxes or both. It will mean a recession. The threat of losing access to bond markets and the not-so-gentle nurture of the ECB is very real.
If a country does not agree to new constitutional rules, they will not be eligible for access to the markets. Those new rules have to be approved by the voters, either directly or through their representatives. Leaving the euro may sound good, but in practice? As noted above, a protracted disaster is the alternative. Guaranteed depression. (Perhaps Ireland could leave if they immediately jumped to the pound sterling, or Finland if they went to the Swedish krona, but why, unless things are really falling apart?)
Germany is willing to suffer some volatility and pain in the short run to cement their long-run viability. And they want an alliance of strong countries with them. They are willing to allow the ECB to control debt markets in the short term, while the new rules are being adopted and the adjustments made by the individual countries.
The new rules, when (and if) adopted, will give politicians cover for making the necessary budget cuts and tax increases that no one wants to make now. They can blame it on Brussels – "What else can we do?"
Merkel has drawn the line in the sand. If you cross that line and stand with the Coalition of the Strong, you are committing "your lives, your fortune, and your sacred honor." Well, at least your political lives and your country's fortune. Humor aside, it is a very serious decision with very stark consequences. But in the world of the Endgame, there are no easy choices.
So, nothing changed, in that the can was kicked yet one more time. Still, we may look back in ten years and see that this was the beginning of a very different Europe. Right now, the political leaders seem to be signaling, with the exception of Britain, that they are ready to sign on. I think they actually mean it. And those of us in the rest of the world had better hope they figure it out. A fractured Europe would bring on a crisis that would make the 2008 credit crisis seem like a walk in the park. Especially as the world seems to be getting ready for a synchronized recession. But that's a story for another letter.
New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, and the Lights...
Tonight I wrote to the sound of horses clip-clopping along, pulling wagons through the street, almost under my window. I randomly leased a home on a main street in Dallas to enjoy the Christmas lights, and the horse-drawn carriages are coming out in force. Next weekend we will have "carriage jams." I actually had to briefly stop work on the letter tonight to help a contractor put up lights, so that I won't be the Grinch on my street. And I will admit to walking through the neighborhood tonight, gathering my thoughts and enjoying the lights. They do stir a certain feel in your heart. And the kids were "oohing and ahing." It is a little thing, but it does bring joy. And the clip-clops made me remember the West-Texas country in which I grew up. You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.
Tomorrow night is Lively's birthday party. She is 2 and starting to be seriously fun. And when she goes to bed, the adults will hang around awhile, as Tiffani treats us to a real holiday festival.
Next weekend I fly to LA for a night to go to Rob Arnott's party and watch the boat parade. In and out, with a meeting or two. Home Sunday and then off to New York for two nights for business meetings and dinners with friends. Tiffani and I love New York at Christmas. Talk about lights!
Then I'm home for a few weeks, with lots of writing, and then it's off to Hong Kong for a conference with the Hong Kong Economic Journal, and then on to Singapore just to have a "look-see." (These American colloquialisms must drive the translators nuts, especially Ms. Wong in Hong Kong!) I'll be back in time to do the annual Dallas CFA Forecast Dinner. Quite the line-up: Woody Brock, Rich Yamarone, and Mark Yusko. Given the credentials of the panel, I was apparently invited to supply comic relief. But I do my part.
It is time to hit the send button. This is the latest I have ever finished a letter in 11 years, but then I was more mystified than usual, which is saying a lot, as I live these days in a state of perpetual perplexity. If you think you understand these times, then you don't really understand these times. But it's all fun to try and figure out, anyway. And I thank you for allowing me to share my humble musings. It is a privilege. Enjoy your week!
Your baffled and bewildered analyst,
John Mauldin