Thursday 29 March 2007

The End Of The World As We Know It

"IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT"
by Doug Casey

.."And I feel fine."

That's not just the title of an R.E.M. song. It's how today's gold and
silver investors feel every time they get a reminder from a newspaper or
news program.

They see what you see, and anyone paying even a little attention can't help
but notice the stunning array of problems that are menacing the global
economy and threatening traditional investments. In fact, I can't say I've
experienced the like of it before. And that's saying something, considering
I've made crisis (and how to profit from it) the focus of my life's work.

This time around, the unfolding crisis carries several especially dangerous
features - and a locked-in profit
opportunity available to anyone even moderately fleet
of foot.

First, the intractability of the situation. That's the word Paul Volcker,
former Chairman of the Fed, used to describe things, and it's a perfectly
good word meaning, simply, that the underlying problems can't be fixed.
In the Middle East, for example, even if we pull all our troops out today,
the situation won't settle down for years... or maybe even decades. And each
day of turmoil will cost the U.S. more tens of millions in direct and
indirect costs - and keep the global economy in a state of chronic worry
over energy supplies. Then there's the collapsing housing bubble. For years
a galloping real estate market was the primary driver of our economy. Now
real estate is hobbling on three legs and has become the primary driver of
personal and corporate bankruptcies.

Even more serious is the 6 trillion or so U.S. dollars in increasingly
twitchy foreign hands. Hardly a day goes by without some government or
another announcing plans to diversify out of the dollar. And no wonder,
given the record levels of personal and government debt in the U.S.
And even more debt is baked in the cake. We have a freshly-elected slate of
Democrat law makers looking to "do something"... from universal health care,
to global warming, to confronting the "unfair" trade practices of China and
Japan (the very people who own much of the above mentioned $6 trillion).
Those projects are just for starters, of course. Congress's "must-do" list
goes on and on, and for politicians, "do something" never means "do
something cheaply."

So far, so bad.

But it gets worse. Much worse. Over 20% of the U.S.
population - the baby boomers - are now beginning to retire, and most of
them have nowhere near enough savings to enjoy their senior years. So
they'll be absolutely dependent on the Social Security and Medicare promises
they've been hearing all their lives. Politically, those promises are
impossible to renege on. Financially, they're impossible to pay. And along
with the government's other unfunded entitlement programs, they add up to
$50 trillion of off-the-books debt.
Mr.Volker spoke well. Intractable is the word.

There's more, but that's enough. We're in a box canyon with a floor of
quicksand, and the only exit is blocked by a landslide. Investors who take a
business-as-usual attitude are not going to have a nice day.

In case that litany of problems isn't enough to get the sweat beading on
your forehead, ponder derivatives. While these hybrids have been around for
decades, the rocket- shot rise of hedge funds and the advances in financial
modeling techniques have spawned something of a competition among the
so-called best and brightest to find ever-more-complex ways of skimming
pennies from very large piles of money.

The collective result is that our financial system has been wired up to $370
trillion dollars of privately negotiated investment contracts. They're
usually written to shift risk from one bank, pension fund, insurance company
or brokerage firm to another. And many are linked together in long chains,
with each contract providing collateral for the next.

It's all very clever, but layering the enormous size- $370 trillion dollars,
far more than the net worth of all the financial institutions in the world -
on top of all that complexity is downright scary. In simpler times, a home
loan going bad would affect only the particular lender. Enough defaults
would put the lender out of business. And that would be the end of it. But
today a wave of defaults can send a shock through the portfolios of
financial institutions around the globe, including hedge funds, banks and
pension funds far removed from the troubled borrowers.

Imagine an electrical circuit with thousands of connections. No one designed
it. No one tested it. No one has a diagram for it. It just grew. Now,
because of its size and power and pervasiveness, everything depends upon it.
So what happens when one of those thousands of connections burns out? No one
really knows, but I say it's a circuit you should disconnect from before the
world learns the answer.

If you are relying on traditional investments to pad your nest for the
future, the problems stalking the world economy should be a matter of
serious concern.
Especially given that as bad as we think things are about to get, there
remains the potential for things to spin entirely and un-recoverably out of
control. That's because so many wildcards are now in play. A war in Iran?
New York hit by a freelance nuke? A worldwide panic exodus out of the
dollar? Traditional investments would be the first casualty.

The $2 trillion or so loss in stock market valuations during the recent
correction is a precursor of what's to
come... in a best case. The worse case is... much,
much worse.

Working apart from the investment multitudes, a very small minority of
investors over the past few years have been building portfolios of precious
metals and Canadian precious metals stocks. It's a minority I'm happy to be
a part of, as it allows me peace of mind and the
considerable advantage of viewing these crises
somewhat dispassionately.

That doesn't mean I'll enjoy standing on the sidelines and watching the
impact of a monetary crisis on the lives of the unprepared. Of course not.
Yet I would be a fool, having recognised a crisis shaping up, not to take
the fairly obvious steps to profit.

Which brings me to the opportunity that the crisis is carrying on its back.

For any number of reasons, but first and foremost its use as money in all
the world's cultures, throughout all recorded history, gold has begun to
find renewed favour with in-the-know investors as the currency of last
resort.

Make no mistake, despite gold's rise from its $255 low in April of 2001 to
over $650 as I write, so far, only the thinnest of trickles, a minor
fraction of global capital, has made it into gold. When the flight to safety
really heats up, the real fun will begin, and the price of gold won't just
add dollars, it will add digits.

If that sounds like hyperbole, remember that, unlike the U.S. dollar, which
can be created at the speed of light, the available supply of gold is finite
and is painfully slow to change.

You can't print gold the way you print paper money. And you can't just build
a gold mine the same way you might build a Starbucks almost anywhere and on
short notice.
Instead, you first have to find a promising ore body - which is, without
exaggeration, like finding a needle in a haystack... a haystack buried
"somewhere" in the earth's crust.

Then you need to go through the immensely complex and expensive exercise of
confirming that the ore body is economically viable. Then, years after you
started exploring, you can start the even more time consuming and expensive
process of actually building your mine. That entails finding a labour force,
bringing in power, roads, mills, etc., etc... with every step hindered by
environmentalists waving court injunctions.

The long and short is that there are hardly any gold mines of size scheduled
to come on stream... and we are not talking about just over the next year or
two, but ever. Most people in the know see annual gold production falling
from here on.

For proof, there was news recently out of South Africa,
the most world's prolific gold producer. Despite the
loud incentive of higher gold prices, South African
gold production in 2006 dropped to the lowest level
since 1922.

And, above ground, there just isn't much gold to go around either. The U.S.
government, for example, possesses the world's largest gold reserves...and
those reserves amount to only about $170 billion at today's prices...not
even a rounding error on the trillions of dollars in debt the government has
guaranteed.

Put simply, the amount of gold available to investors and central banks is
like the number of beachfront home sites at Malibu - it's not going to
change much. As a result, when the rush for the lifeboats begins in earnest,
the upward pressure on gold will be unimaginable. As will be the profits for
anyone who acts now, ahead of the crowd.
If you haven't yet started accumulating precious metals, you still have
time. Start by picking up some bullion coins from a reputable dealer (silver
should do as well as gold).

Then build a portfolio of the better small companies exploring for new
deposits - the ones with the best management teams, working on the best
projects, in the best geology. These stocks are the true profit gems - in
part because of an accident of recent history.

During the long bear market that ended in 2001, the large mining companies
all but eliminated their exploration departments. Now they urgently need new
deposits to restock their declining ore reserves. But rather then scouring
the world themselves, the majors let the more agile and entrepreneurial
junior explorers - often Canadian firms, due to the resource orientation of
that country's economy - invest the capital and sweat needed to find a new
deposit. Then, when a junior company's project seems ripe, the majors
compete to buy the deposit or to acquire the junior explorer itself - and
they pay up in a most serious way.

Pick your companies right, and you can pay pennies today for shares in a
junior exploration company that history has shown again and again will sell,
with a little success, for $10, $20 or more when the market gets rocking and
investors at large rush into all things gold.
While there's no such thing as a sure thing, there are times - like now -
when the deck is heavily, massively, stacked in your favour.

You are, therefore, left with a relatively simple choice.
Do nothing and hope that all the world's troubles just drift away-and risk
personal financial disaster if they don't. Or take action, if even with a
modest share of your portfolio, and position yourself for extreme profits.

Regards,

Doug Casey

Prime slips...and slides into sub-prime.

Problems in sub-prime mortgage loans could be spreading into sub-prime
auto-loans...and sub-prime commercial loans...

As to the sub-prime auto and truck loans alone, there are some $34 billion
outstanding. As to the rest of the loans that were made to shaky borrowers,
without proper credit standards, the total may reach into the hundreds of
billions...

And what about politics? Isn't the US government operating at sub-prime
levels? And aren't the candidates for next year's presidential election also
less than prime?

Oh where...oh where...dear reader...shall we begin?

No big breaks in the financial markets yesterday. But the millwheels keep
grinding...turning the pretensions of the smart...the conceits of the
powerful...the assets of the rich – all to dust.

When standards go out the window, they just don't go out of windows in
trailer parks and ghettos. They go out of windows in gated communities in
Florida...and in Washington...and they would go out of windows of
skyscrapers in Manhattan and London, if you could only open the windows.

Even in education and art...standards slip...

We were looking at Henry's report card last night. Ai yi yi...

"Needs to work harder..." said his science teacher.

"Performing below his capacity..." said his math teacher.

"Work okay...but could be much better..." said his Latin teacher.

The half-empty part of that glass was obvious. But there was a half full
part too.

Henry does his homework until midnight every night...and works on it at
least 8 hours each weekend. And still, his teachers aren't satisfied.

We checked his grades and class ranking (in France, every student knows
exactly where he stands) and found that Henry is above the average in what
must be one of the toughest schools in France. Ah ha! A school with
STANDARDS...

From what we've heard, in most of the schools in France – and America -
students get passing grades, even without really knowing anything.

Meanwhile, yesterday, Elizabeth came back from an exhibit of Greek
statues...attributed to Praxiteles or his imitators.

"It was unbelievable," she remarked. "The sculptures had such dignity. It
is incredible that they were done more than 2,000 years ago..."

A thought crossed our mind. How many of today's artists could create a
beautiful statue out of a block of marble?

But blocks of marble are not our beat, here at the Daily Reckoning, so let
us get back to money.

What is endangering America's money is the same thing that is undermining
its position in the world – slipping standards.

And slipping standards is what had brought about the fifth of our Big E's.

We began to review our Five Big E trends yesterday:
Energy, Experimental Money (the faith-backed dollar), and the Exodus of
power and wealth from West to East. Today, we look at our fifth – the
Empire.

When we say that America is an Empire, it is neither a matter of desire or
reproach. It is simply an observation.

Some readers think it is unpatriotic or un-American to notice. But while a
good husband doesn't notice when his wife gets fat, perhaps, a citizen with
his wits about him might do well to keep a close eye on his government. And
if he looks carefully at America circa 2007 he will see it resembles an
empire more than a modest republic. Its troops...its culture...its
commerce... impose themselves over almost the entire planet.

Empires must be empires and follow the imperial path...from humbug, to
farce, to disaster. They must believe what isn't true (that they have some
intrinsic, inalienable advantage)...and they must relax their standards...as
they stretch...and then overstretch...until they have stretched too far.

Nine trillion in federal debt...a 'fiscal gap' 50 trillion dollars wide...
an $800 billion trade deficit...an everlasting War on Terror...

And in today's news comes word that the US is "no longer technology king."

The BBC reports:

"The US has lost its position as the world's primary engine of technology
innovation, according to a report by the World Economic Forum.
"The US is now ranked seventh in the body's league table measuring the
impact of technology on the development of nations.
"A deterioration of the political and regulatory environment in the US
prompted the fall, the report said.


NETWORKED READINESS
INDEX RANKINGS 2006
(2005)
1: Denmark (3)
2: Sweden (8)
3: Singapore (2)
4: Finland (5)
5: Switzerland (9)
6: Netherlands (12)
7: US (1)
8: Iceland (4)
9: UK (10)
10: Norway (13)
Source: WEF

And more bad news. Alan Blinder writes in the Wall Street Journal that
globalised competition could cost the US as many as 40 million jobs over the
next two decades. Fifty years ago, America was the world's most competitive
economy. Now, Asians have an edge when it comes to low cost production. And
Europeans have an edge when it comes to innovation and high quality
production. The Empire is peaking out...

What will it do when it can't pay its bills? We're going to find out...

More news...

*** "What did the economic boom ever do for us?"

The world is booming...the economy's growing...and yet.
And yet somehow we feel poorer. Somehow we are poorer too, according to a
report in today's FT. Disposable household income fell by 1.7% in the last
quarter of 2006 and managed a miserable 1.3% for the year as a whole.
With inflation nearer 3% than 2%, this for happy campers does not make.

And that doesn't help Britain's Chancellor Gordon Brown either regardless of
the quality of his recent dental work. In the run up to the push (or is it a
shoo-in?) for No 10 a disgruntled swathe of Middle England totters a step
nearer the financial edge as higher taxes, rising interest rates and rising
inflation put a squeeze on take home pay.

And what happens when standards of living are under siege? Pull in our belts
and save a little harder in case things get worse? Sounds a sensible idea
but that's not the way it works in practice explains Jonathan Loynes of
Capital Economics.

People do what they want rather than what they need.
Given the choice between foregoing the annual cash ISA allowance and the
holiday in Florida, it's the ISA that gets the bullet. To keep up the
spending, something's got to give and what's giving is the rate of saving.
At 3.7%, the UK household savings rate is at its lowest level since 2004.

So as the queen bee of globalisation coins it in the average drone is
getting squeezed...and these are the good times.

And as money gets tighter the risks considered to get more of it become
wilder and hopes more delusional. A gambler's mentality can develop...

Looking at a chart published in The Times this has already happened in the
virtual world of the internet. It publishes a chart plotting the growth in
UK online gambling revenues since 2000. Were this a stock chart and had I
bet the house on it, I would not be straining away at my keyboard today. UK
revenues have ballooned from around £300m in 2000 to £2,750m in 2005. And
that was 2005! Then there's other temptations for a 'flutter'...spread
betting, the National Lottery, gaming machines, super casinos... Oh there
are many ways for the financially squeezed to throw the dice one last time.

And while Middle England struggles to keep up appearances we hear a
confession from a senior civil servant:

'I'm an alcoholic and do very little for my £737,000 a year'.

Bob Kiley, formerly London mayor Ken Livingstone's transport czar charged
amongst other things with making the London Underground less of a hell hole,
has gone public with his personal problems. We can admire the candour but
despair at the waste. More taxes, more wasted spending - twas ever thus.

Finally, good news. Bao Xishun, at 7ft 9 inches the world's tallest man has,
after a global search for a partner, found a wife says The Times. He's
managed to stumble on a bride living in his home town of Chifeng, 5ft 6 inch
Xia Shujuan. Given the lousy demographic odds of finding a wife in China,
achievement indeed.

--------------------------

And more views:

*** Et tu, Dear Reader?

The Daily Reckoning is too long. That's what readers tell us. We're sorry.
But we don't have time to write something short.

*** And we promised to explain our Theory of Modern Politics...

The question before is how come all governments – including the supposedly
freedom-loving U.S. of A – have edged towards collectivism?

We begin with a conversation we had with our bus driver.
The last two days were spent at the Chateau de Courtomer, where we were
attending a conference with Addison and Eric and many others on the Daily
Reckoning team. The days were bright and sunny. The conversation quick and
agreeable. The wine soft and smooth.

Coming back, we sat up next to the bus driver, where we could get a good
view of the rolling Normandy hills.

"I worry about what will happen to our kids and grandchildren...about what
kind of world they're going to live in," he said.

He was a very-French looking man of about 50, with a full head of dark hair
with gray streaks in it, and an ironic smile. He wore a tie and might have
passed for a waiter in a good restaurant.

"I started my career as a chauffeur 30 years ago," he went on. "Back then,
you had no trouble getting a job.
And they didn't ask you a million questions or tell you what to do. You just
had to drive the bus.

"But now, everything is regulated. Everything. I can't drive more than 4
hours without stopping for a 45 minute break. That's why I couldn't move the
bus out of the parking lot when we got to the chateau. I had to stay there
and do nothing for 45 minutes. The 45-minute break is supposed to be a
safety measure. But, the effect of it was that I was driving at night...and
I was tired.

"Back when I started, I could decide for myself But now everything is
decided for us."

He is onto something. Just look at the current issue of Fortune Magazine for
proof. It is supposedly the voice of conservative, capitalistic freedom
lovers – people who treasure the liberty of the individual to decide for
himself when to drive his bus...or how organize his work...or how to spend
his money.

"Fix the health care system: Raise taxes," says the headline. "Sometimes
raising taxes makes sense, even to conservatives."

The writer, Matt Miller, goes on to explain that there is an "opening of the
capitalist mind," going on, allowing the old robber barons to appreciate the
benefits of taxation.

We almost fell out of our chair when we realised what he was proposing; we
were laughing so hard.

The story is this: employers are finding it hard to keep up with the cost of
health care benefits. For example, another article explains that a
65-year-old couple, not covered by a private health care plan, should plan
on spending $215,000 on health care through the end of their lives – an
amount up 7% from the year before.

But far as we have observed, there is no direct relationship between
spending money and enjoying good health. Many of the most expensive health
problems are simply a result of bad habits. We suspect that 90% of
heath-care expenditures is unnecessary or inefficient, or both. But if
people want to spend their money on health care, well...it's their money.

Already, company-sponsored health care is collectivised.
But it is collectivised privately...and honestly. For the most part,
employers and employees can decide for themselves what they want to do about
their health and how much they want to spend on it. But employees want
health care benefits...and many employers have health care plans with
crushing legacy costs. So what do they want to do? Own up to the fact that
they their costs are out of control? Raise the standards...and cut the
costs?
Figure out how to fix their own health care system problems? No, they want
to shove the costs of their health care obligations onto the general
taxpayer!
They want a program of forced collectivisation – where their employees spend
someone else's money on their health...and where the government will be
ultimately responsible for the health care of everyone in the country.

Most likely, the pseudo-conservatives at FORTUNE will get their wish.
George W. Bush went a long way towards forced collectivisation of health
care costs with his big drug bill. The next president is likely to go even
further.

And so...the whole world goes in Marx's direction...in Bismarck's
direction...away from Liberte and towards Egalite...away from the Theory of
the Individual and towards the Theory of the Collective.

Wednesday 28 March 2007

Private equity is the hottest thing on Wall Street

Private equity is the hottest thing on Wall Street.

Here's why. Profits in 2006 reached $2.27 billion, more than double that of
the previous year.

"That means," says the FT, "each of its 770 workers produced an average of
$2.95 million in net income. By comparison, employees at Goldman Sachs Group
Inc. - the largest U.S. investment bank - each averaged about $360,000 for
the company in 2006."

And now, more news of a fabulous offer by the same Blackstone Group. We say
'fabulous' because it is the stuff of fable…a morality tale telling itself.

Blackstone, this fabulously sucessful firm of private equity investors, now
will offer 10% of its shares to the public for $4 billion. We asked 'Why?'
earlier in the week.

We will endeavour to answer today.

The facts: The Blackstone Group is the largest private
equity firm in the world. According to the report in the
Financial Times, Blackstone's assets have grown from $14 billion to $78
billion in less than 6 years. That is, it has multiplied its assets under
management more than 5 times in 6 years.

Even more remarkable has been the incredible profitability of the firm. Its
annual rate of return is better than Warren Buffett's. Since 1987 it has
averaged 23% a year, while Buffett's rate of return has been 22% -- though
over a much longer time. Blackstone's real estate holdings have done even
better – up 29% per year since 1991.

But now cometh these uber money shufflers with an offer to shuffle some
money to the public.

Or from it?

How does it make so much money? We turned for an explanation to our
colleague, Eric Fry, who is sitting next to us:

"Private equity can mean a number of things. But what a company like
Blackstone does, typically, is to buy a company from the public, reorganize
it and sell it back to the public. Or, sometimes it will buy a private
company and sell it to the public. The paper almost always ends up with the
public."


Today, we stop to marvel at the chutzpah of it.

Associated Press describes the deal:

"Consider this: Blackstone is a great firm. Going public will bring even
greater riches to those at the top. That said, great riches have already
been captured by those up and down the management hierarchy. This is not the
case of a go-go high-technology firm that generates little free cash flow
and requires an IPO or a sale to crystallise value for its shareholders.
Blackstone has been and will continue to be a cash machine that can
distribute substantial sums to its minions every year. Therefore, either an
IPO or a leveraging of the balance sheet is simply a means of extracting
even more cash from the business. Given the friendly nature of today's
equity markets, going public offers the best risk/reward decision for
Blackstone's existing shareholders. This is an opportunistic step driven by
the state of today's equity markets and other considerations such as the
state of the private equity market."

Yes, but what does that mean?

The Financial Times comments:

"These self-motivated, intelligent individuals are trying to tell us
something important. The question is: do we have the ability to look beyond
their words and actions and intuit motivation? Greed, uncertainty and fear.
What are the implications? That the equity markets are in trouble?
That the credit markets are on the verge of a sharp sell- off? That we are
at the dangerous stage of a private equity bubble?"

There is no magic to the Blackstone Group or other private equity firms.
The genius of private equity prime capital is no different from the genius
of subprime credit. When liquidity rises…both ride high.

But money and credit are no different from bananas or lovers; the more you
have, the more will go bad on you.
This is what economists call the Law of Marginal Utility.
Each additional increment, of whatever it is, is less
valuable than the one that came before.

We find in the Fed statistics that the total credit market debt has been
increasing five times as fast as GDP for the entire 21st century, or at
least, what we have seen of it so far. Subprime lenders had so much money
to lend that they gave it away to people who couldn't possibly pay it back.
There are only so many good borrowers. And there are only so many good
private equity deals. And a credit bubble lasts only so long.

AP again:

"What will happen when the debt markets grow less friendly and additional
equity is required to get deals done?
Returns will fall. What will happen to those who have invested in private
equity funds? They will not be happy.
And those who have invested in common shares of the private equity
management company? Unhappier still.


More news:
--------------------------------

Adrian Ash, just trying to make the repayments in Tunbridge Wells:

- Hands up for a housing crash! What's not to love about falling property
prices?

- Bill Gross at Pimco, for instance. He forecasts "an ongoing bond bull
market of still undefined proportions"
to follow the subprime collapse in the US.

- Manager of the world's biggest bond fund, Gross thinks lower house prices
will force the Fed to cut Dollar interest rates. His model puts US interest
rates back at 4%, down from the current 5.25%, if the Fed's going to keep
home prices stable.

- And if the Fed doesn't cut? Average home prices may fall by one fifth,
says Gross.

- "Investigate the Fed's own study," he advises, "written in September of
2005 [and] covering housing cycles in aggregate and individually for 18
countries over the past
35 years. This study's important conclusion...is that if home prices in the
US have peaked, and are expected to stay below that peak on a real price
basis for the next three years, then the Fed will cut rates and cut them
significantly over the next few years in order to revigorate an anemic US
economy."

- Here in the UK, cheaper housing would save the Bank of England from having
to raise Sterling interest rates, too. Which explains why the Old Ladies
keep wishing away their own property bubble, too. Mervyn King told a
Treasury Committee on Tuesday "there are now some signs that the housing
market is beginning to slow."

- Ha! You should be so lucky, Dr. 'Blin' King! Perhaps the chief pooh-bah is
reading different data from everyone else. Because average national asking
prices have risen 12% from this time last year, according to Rightmove. That
estate agency website covers half of all properties for sale. In March
alone, it shows, average asking prices rose £3,381 ($6,626).

- You call that beginning to slow?

- And while Mervyn King shuts his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and
cries "I can't see you! I can't hear you!", would-be buyers are starting to
demand home- ownership as part of their human rights. No, really.

- "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association
with others," says Article 17 of the UN human rights declaration. It's
quoted by a regular blogger at PricedOut.org, the website where first-time
home buyers yet to enjoy their first time gather to bewail their lack of
mortgage debt.

- "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property,"
the UN goes on. "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food,
clothing [and] housing..."

- The UN doesn't mention mortgage indemnity insurance or stripped pine
flooring from Ikea. But never mind. That lower house prices will soon prove
obligatory, we have no doubt. The first-time buyers will get what they want,
just in time to dive into negative equity.

- "Legislation must be bought into place to control the market," says Carron
Miller, a young mother and teacher.
She's now threatening a BBC chatroom that she'll emigrate if she can't buy a
house soon. "People need to be put before profit."

- Over in Tokyo, meantime, it's the Bank of Japan praying for slower
real-estate inflation. Incredibly, after 17 years of depression, land prices
in Tokyo finally turned higher in 2006 according to official data last week.

Trouble is, rather than just picking up, land prices in some parts of Tokyo
leapt 46% higher. How the gods must be howling with laughter!

- "We aren't yet in a situation in which land-price gains warrant concern of
excessiveness," said Toshihiko Fukui, governor of the BoJ to the Japanese
parliament Tuesday.
"But we'd like to keep a close watch on them."

- Commercial land prices in Japan's three biggest cities rose 8.9% in 2006.
With interest rates still next to zero, why not? The fastest property gains
came in the Omotesando Hills of central Tokyo, a retail and residential
development that opened in Feb. last year.
Amid the developers' scramble, the city's tallest building is now due to
open on Friday. A 42-storey skyscraper will open in front of Tokyo Station
next month.

- Still, there's a long way to go before Tokyo, Osaka and Yokohama catch up
with Glasgow, Baltimore, Derry, San Diego, Pula, Beijing, Buenos Aires,
Reykjavik, Jo'berg, Auckland and the rest of the planet. Japanese land
values for commercial and residential property now trade for half the price
of their 1989 peak.

- But what a peak! And what a mess Japan's had to endure trying to unwind it
ever since. Gearing up to speculate on the wasting asset called real estate
cost Japan more than a decade of recession, depression, banking defaults and
deflation.

- "The buy to let market," says the young British teacher who can't get a
mortgage, "is responsible for a lot of misery." We don't doubt she's right.
But it's not created half as much misery yet as it will when house prices
really do start slowing down.

- Beware what you wish for, Dr. King...
--------------------------------

And more views?

*** Well, at least we know the fire alarm works.
We were sleeping soundly last night. Then, all of a sudden, at about 3AM, we
became a victim of modern technology. A fire alarm interrupted our dreams.
Was the place on fire?
It didn't seem likely. But we couldn't sleep with the screeching alarm
going off…so we dressed and went downstairs.

It is one thing to turn on an alarm. It is another to turn it off.

Pierre was already at the control panel when we got downstairs. He was
pushing buttons. But the noise continued for another 10 minutes – until
everyone was wide awake.

What could we do, but open another bottle of wine?

*** We know we left you on the edge of your chair, last week, with our
theory of modern politics.

Why has collectivism triumphed everywhere, we asked.
But for today, we have to cease with our views. We're attending a conference
and we need to pay attention; maybe we'll learn something. More tomorrow,
dear reader…

FOLLOW THE SILICON TRAIL TO GLIMPSE THE FUTURE OF MEDICINE

Michael Orme

Set your sights on medical diagnostics as the next big thing. The bloated
$3-$4 trillion global healthcare industry shows itself overripe for radical
disruption and the alchemists of Silicon Valley have set their sights firmly
on it.

When they home in on an industry, the game changes and wealth creation
amounting to hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollar can result.
And sometimes be destroyed, it should be added, when a bubble bursts, like
the Internet 1.0 bubble in 2000, only to bubble up again as Web 2.0.

Here, though, we're in at the creation. So let me give you a sense of what's
being spawned. Today, doctors are overwhelmed by administration and
forceably moved far beyond their main function of old of the laying on of
hands and offering a comforting bedside manner. In prospect, is a medical
world where they will be superseded by medical knowledge and expertise
captured in silicon, software and algorithms and delivered cheaper every
year.

It's been called 'rebooting your doctor.'

In prospect are diagnostic tools that will detect early signs of plaque in
arteries or tiny clusters of cancer cells to enable preventive therapies—all
without the need for hospitals, prima donna specialists or blockbuster drug
treatments. We don't have to speculate about weird nanobots cruising through
our gizzards and blitzing incipient cancer cells en route to get the picture
and see that radical change is afoot.

If you want to glimpse where medicine's going, best to talk to those silicon
alchemists rather than medicos, biotech scientists or government policy
makers. Better still, perhaps, to a truly switched on venture capitalist
with a technology background. I sat next to Don Valentine, the doyen of
Silicon Valley venture capitalists a few years ago at a dinner in Menlo
Park, California.

Formerly, a top executive at National Semiconductor, he is worth over a
billion dollars and put seed corn into CISCO and Google when each was little
more than a couple of bright sparks from Stanford with a business plan. I
asked Valentine his secret. "Follow the silicon'' was his brusque reply as
he turned to his other neighbour.

The one thing I learned in 20 years tracking the technology business, first
as a journalist and then as a consultant, is that once silicon focuses on
something you only have to wait for the big markets to be created from
almost nothing - witness PCs, mobile phones, digital cameras and iPODs.

The master mantra is 'better, faster, cheaper, smaller.' Silicon gets
cheaper by 30% every two years and halves in price roughly every two years.
If you find something that works today, more or less, but is too expensive,
then wait a bit and the fireworks start. Look at PCs, routers, mobile
phones, iPODs, search engines, GPS systems for cars, digital cameras. Under
the lash of this relentless mantra, silicon integrated circuits get better,
faster, cheaper, and smaller with every shortening product cycle.

The same cycle of innovation is about to hit medicine, which contrary to
everything in information technology, gets more expensive, more muscle bound
and less satisfying to its customers every year. This is why medicine meets
the criteria laid out by Professor Clay Christensen of the Harvard Business
School, author of best seller, The Innovator's Dilemma, and the chief
theorist of disruptive forces in business, for being 'ripe for disruption'
from the bottom-up.

This is why Andy Grove, the legendary ex-chief honcho at microprocessor
giant Intel, talks of the need for medicine to move "from the mainframe to
the PC era''.
He is talking metaphorically. He means that technology must now be deployed
to undermine the current medical establishments and their ways of doing
things, not least to evaporate the crippling fiscal burden of healthcare on
governments across the world.

In his recent book, End of Medicine, a sprightly but profound study of the
scene, Wall Street veteran and ex-hedge fund manager Andy Kessler points to
what he calls "the cholesterol cancer conspiracy'' as the main culprit. He
argues that hospitals, specialists, and insurance and drug companies have
combined to put the medical focus on costly 'cut and drug' treatments for
chronic conditions, mostly around 'the Big Three', heart disease, stroke and
cancer. But this 'conspiracy' and this focus on costly late stage treatments
is on the point of being subverted by new breeds of diagnostic tools - real
time 3D scanners, biomarker chips to scan for cancer cells, neural networks
to read mammograms, portable ultrasound kits and expert system GPs etc - all
built around silicon.

Rather as the mainframe and minicomputer cultures were subverted by silicon
dominated and defined PCs, and by employees smuggling them into their places
of work twenty years ago, so these diagnostic tools will surround, squeeze
and suffocate medicine's old ways of operating. And they will keep on
improving in lockstep, just like mobile phones or digital cameras do now,
with the remorseless power of siliconomics.
Let's quickly look at what's happening with CT Scanners (Computerised
tomography scanners: a diagnostic medical imaging technology) to round all
this out and make it tangible.

You're a baby boomer and you may have a heart attack, but then again you may
not.
How about having a look in your arteries to see if there's a blockage?
The test is doable with the current generation of 64 slice CT scanners but
is still too expensive and perhaps still not a good enough test.
Coming next is the new generation of 256 slice scanner making its way to
market. They can scan your heart in 4/10ths of a second or less and create a
colour 3D image of it of sufficient quality that you and a medical
professional, not necessarily a heart specialist, can look at to identify
any clogged arteries. Following that, in two to three years time, will come
new and improved volume produced scanners costing less than $200. They will
become a mainstream product and heart attacks will be a lot less common.

Same for strokes.

With cancer, the development of 'molecular imaging' will be able to detect
tumours 3-5 years earlier when they are easier to treat. Antibody chips
costing 10 cents or less will scan your blood or urine for unique proteins
of circulating cancer cells. The current medical establishments hold on late
stage treatment will be increasingly undermined by technology driving
medical practice to the front end, to early detection and preventive
therapy.

As Grove, looking back on over 40 years in the tech business, remarks:
"technology always wins''. Nobody is forecasting root and branch change
overnight in medicine.
But as Kessler puts it: "even if the things budge slightly from chronic to
early detection, waves of change like a Cat 5 hurricane will rip through
medicine.'' And they will.

Regards

Michael Orme

for The Daily Reckoning

Michael Orme is a financial journalist and former stockbroker.

Editor's Note: A Cambridge philosophy graduate, Michael Orme has worked in
the UK Treasury and in stockbroking, the latter under the legendary fund
manager Nils Taube. He was Mr Bearbull on the Investors Chronicle in the
1970s, then a tech journalist covering Silicon Valley for various journals
in the 1980s, including Management Today, Computing and the Mail on Sunday.
He is currently an Associate at Westhall Capital, a investment house
specialising in Asia.

FW: Why British prosperity is no illusion

WHY BRITISH PROSPERITY IS NO ILLUSION
by Brian Durrant

Many people in Britain are perplexed by UK's apparent prosperity. How can we
enjoy such a rising standard of living while at the same time we do not seem
to produce anything? City and town centres, even in the formerly depressed
industrial regions of the north, are buzzing with busy shopping complexes
and restaurants. Out-of-town supermarkets and D-I-Y superstores are
springing up everywhere as are new private housing estates. People dress
well, eat out more often and drive bigger cars.

When whole swathes of manufacturing industry closed down in the early 1980's
and the coalmines were shut down in the second half of the decade, a bleak
future of economic decline beckoned with mass unemployment, boarded up shops
and crumbling amenities. Somehow Britain has, in most parts, escaped this
outcome of economic hardship. But people still harbour nagging doubts that
their apparent prosperity is built on sand. This Easter there will be a
credit-fuelled spending spree on D-I-Y goods made in China, Swedish
furniture and Australian wine, while our wealth is somehow based on
homeowners bidding up the value of each other's property. It is
understandable that people who measure their own wealth in terms of material
possessions tend to see prosperity based on services like entertainment as
some kind of statistical trickery.

Scepticism about our economic prosperity is deep rooted particularly among
those endured the trials and tribulations of the 1970's. This miserable
decade included a three-day week, power cuts, a near 70% fall in share
prices in the 1973-75 bear market, inflation at 26%, an IMF loan and the
winter of discontent. Sir Nicholas Henderson, the British Ambassador to
Paris, sent a telegram to the new British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
in June 1979 saying "our economic decline in relation to our European
partners has been so marked that today we are not in the first rank even as
a European one". He supported the message with a table which showed how
Britain's GDP per head had fallen to 46% below the German level and 41%
below that of France. Britain's economic success particularly in relation to
Europe over the last 15 years bucks a century old trend, which is still
embedded in the psyche of those who suffered in the 1970's. It is indeed
difficult to believe that in 2005 British per capita income was over 8%
higher than France and 6% above a united Germany, despite the fact that
Britain no longer makes anything that one can lay one's hands on.

While it is true that almost everything we buy today has a "made in China"
label, this does not mean that the all money we spend on these goods ends up
in China and drains jobs and resources from our economy. Here is an example
that may seem trivial but it makes a point.

Later this month the shelves of toy shops will be flooded with Spider-man
merchandise ahead of the launch of Sony Pictures third block buster movie
"Spider-man 3" in May. A simple action figure toy will have "made in China"
embossed on it. Say for example it retails at £10.00, roughly half the
retail price will go to the UK retailer and distributor, with another 20% or
so paid to Hasbro, a US toy company which will spend much of this on
advertising, promotion and distribution in the UK. A further 10% or so will
go Sony Pictures Limited, which owns the Spider-man film rights and
additional royalties will be paid to Marvel Enterprises Inc. Furthermore
£1.49 will go to the UK Treasury in VAT, and there's the cost of shipping
and insurance too, leaving a small remnant of the purchase price going to
the toy manufacturer in China, who has to buy materials and plastic moulding
machines, probably imported from Korea or Japan. In the end less than 5% of
the £10 you paid for the Spider-man toy will end up as wages for Chinese
workers or profits for Chinese manufacturers. Meanwhile the retail and
wholesale margins, advertising and promotion will probably contribute around
£7 to Britain's GDP.

In the 1960's and 1970's the economic success stories were West Germany and
Japan. These countries enjoyed strong growth led by manufactured exports.
The nature of the world economy has been turned upside down since then.
Manufactured goods, whose production can be readily transferred to the
lowest labour cost economies like China, are falling relentlessly in price.
This process of outsourcing has created a new type of business, called a
"platform company" which sell everywhere but do not own factories. Examples
include Dell, Nokia, L'Oreal, Ikea, GSK and Apple. These companies
subcontract almost all their manufacturing to other businesses, mostly in
developing companies. A generation ago production and manufacture was the
key to business success. Today design and marketing add the most value,
because manufacturing is in the hands of subcontractors in developing
countries that compete intensely to drive down costs.

Moreover if there are changes in demand for goods, it is the manufacturing
part of the business that bears the brunt of the adjustment, so the
volatility of the business cycle is outsourced to developing countries while
mature economies enjoy greater economic stability. This new found stability
has in turn made higher levels of borrowing safer and more attractive for
businesses and consumers in advanced economies. And it is the countries
which are financially the most deregulated like the UK that have benefited
most from the processes of globalisation and outsourcing. The new world
order has played into the hands of Britain, which throughout the last
century always struggled to compete in manufacturing goods, but has always
enjoyed a comparative advantage in finance and other knowledge based
services. The prices of manufactured goods have collapsed in the last 15
years, while the prices of knowledge based services like finance, law and
entertainment have risen in price. In economics jargon Britain has enjoyed
an improvement in the "terms of trade".

To illustrate this point, an international lawyer earning £250,000 a year
today probably works no harder than his counterpart in 1990 when he probably
earned less than half this amount. Although the lawyer's productivity has
not doubled, his contribution to the British economy from his foreign
income, his taxes and his consumer spending has.

However for Britain to be in a position to benefit from this new world
order, it had to lick itself into shape domestically. Two events are crucial
to the story: the election of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 and the ERM debacle of
September 1992. The trade union reforms, deregulation and privatisation of
the Thatcher era created a truly competitive market economy in Britain for
the first time since before the First World War. Cast your mind back to the
world of the 1970's when you had to "queue" for a mortgage, have
restrictions on how much money you took out of the country and the
nationalised telecoms industry lacked funds for investment because the
government was too busy backing losers like British Leyland.

But Thatcherism alone was not enough, the government was still making a mess
of the economy by using interest rates to target the exchange rate. This
resulted in the Lawson boom and bust of 1988-90 and the unnecessarily long
recession that followed. It took the climactic events of 16th September
1992, which I like to call "White Wednesday"
to bring economic policy makers to their senses. Thereafter interest rates
were set according to the domestic needs of the British economy and our
decision to stay out of the euro has ensured that this framework that has
delivered economic stability has remained in place.

The market reforms of the Thatcher era, the sane monetary policy framework
after White Wednesday and fall in the prices of manufactured goods relative
to knowledge based services have helped transform Britain's economic
performance and reverse a 100 years of relative decline.
How long Britain's economic renaissance lasts depends on the wisdom of
policy makers and the evolution of the world economy. But for now, Britain's
prosperity is no illusion.

Regards,

Brian Durrant


What's it all about, Alpha?

Alpha (above market returns) is what hedge funds are supposed to bring
investors. Alpha is why they get away with charging outrageous fees (usually
2% of capital and 20% of performance).

Alpha is why, developing a case of 'mission creep,' the funds then began
speculating rather than hedging.

But after that came news of another extraordinary
development: hedge funds started going public. The lay public, it seems is
willing to pay for alpha and pay more for alpha than alpha is making for the
funds. What gives?

Take a look at the amazing sale of shares in the Blackstone Group.
Blackstone is one of the multi-billion dollar groups of 'Private Equity'
money that prove to us that Wall Street is no place for an honest man.

Think about it a minute and it almost makes you stop breathing. The idea of
the hedge fund was, primarily, that it could protect investors by hedging
risk. It did so by being able to go both long and short. Mutual funds, by
contrast, are always long. You buy a fund that invests in China, for
example, because you want a little sliver of the China pie. If Chinese
shares go up, you want to go up with them. And you know you're not
competent to select shares in China yourself. So, you don't mind paying a
mutual fund manager for helping you. It wouldn't make any sense for the
manager to hold cash…you could do that yourself without paying a commission
or fee.

Along comes the hedge fund with a different mandate -- to make money even
if shares go down. The idea was to protect the investor on the downside.
All very well to own shares in China and the US, but what if the shares went
down? The hedge fund manager hedged an investor's bets, by shorting
(selling shares he didn't own) or by using put options (giving him the right
to buy shares at a lower price) or other strategies designed to make money
when most investors lose it.

Then came the curious news that a few hedge funds were selling shares to the
public. That too took our breath away. The only justification for the high
fees was the 'alpha' performance. But if a hedge fund manager could get
'alpha,' why would he want to sell shares to perfect strangers? Hedge fund
managers can do math. They wouldn't sell shares of their own fund unless
someone else thought they were worth more than they did. You could infer
from that that either the public was paying more for alpha than alpha was
worth. Or, that there really wasn't any alpha at all.

And now, before us is Private Equity, the hottest thing on Wall Street,
because it delivers alpha. In theory, you can't really beat the public
market – because it has so much more information than any individual
investor or group of investors. But along came the Private Equity money…and
phyzzzt went the theory. In fact and in practice…the smart, well-informed,
well-funded private investors were letting us know that they were the ones
making money, not the rubes in the public marketplace.

But Private Equity is going one step further now…a step too far, in our
opinion. The Blackstone Group is going public to raise billions of dollars.
"Look," it says to the rubes, yahoos, and lumpencapitalists, "We can get you
alpha; buy our shares."

But the Blackstone Group is not a religious or charitable order. They are
not going to give away alpha. Nor are they innumerate; they can do the
math. The only circumstance in which they would possibly sell their shares
to the public was if they felt their alpha was over- estimated by the
share-buying public...or, they didn't have any alpha.

What is happening to Private Equity is what has happened to hedge
funds...and happens to everything else in the markets...and indeed, to the
rest of life. Alpha – the extraordinary, the special, the above-market -- is
in short supply. And the more people chase after it, the harder it is to
get.

As more capital sought out more above-market returns, the returns fell.
That's why hedge funds are already yesterday's news.

Now Private Equity too is running into the Law of Diminishing Returns. Or,
the Law of the Declining Marginal Utility of capital chasing alpha.

Private Equity is probably selling to the public for the same reason hedge
funds did: they've lost alpha.

Meanwhile a look at the headlines tells us immediately what 'gives' in the
market these days:

"Subprime Bust Forces Families From Homes," says the AP.

"American dream becomes nightmare as millions face foreclosure," trumpets
the AFP.

Is the problem containable, as Treasury Secretary Paulson says?

We don't know...but we wonder if he does either.


And more news:

-------------------------

Adrian Ash, reporting from BullionVault in Hammersmith:

- So the US housing market picked up in February, or so said the National
Association of Realtors in Washington on Friday. Sales of previously owned
homes in the US, said the real estate shills, rose 3.9%.

- Phew! That was close. And there we were thinking the biggest housing
bubble in US history might take more than a few months to unwind.

- Forty-four lenders in the subprime market have now gone kaput since late
2006, reports ML-implode.com. "It is clear that some subprime lenders have
engaged in abusive practices," barked Emory Rushton, senior deputy
comptroller, at a senate hearing in Washington last week.

- In the wider economy, "the US housing recession has contributed to pushing
overall GDP growth down to a 2% annual rate over the past three quarters
ending 1Q07," says Stephen Roach, chief economist at Morgan Stanley – "well
below the 3.7% average gains over the previous three years."

- But c'mon! What's to fear as the world's biggest economy, driven by
consumer debt, moves from those super-low "teaser" rates onto full-fat Fed
funds rates nearer 5.25% and above?

- "The headlines in the financial press proclaim (for the umpteenth time)
that the worst of the housing slump is behind us," notes our friend John
Mauldin in his latest missive. "Home prices are down a mere 1.3% from a year
ago, although the number of homes for sale rose slightly to a supply of 6.7
months, meaning homes are staying on the market longer, as sellers are still
reluctant to sell at lower prices."

- "But the problems for new and existing home sales are in the future," says
John. "Last year there were 400,000 foreclosures. Moody's estimates that
that number will double in 2007. That means that there will be an additional
800,000 homes added to the supply of existing homes this year, which is at a
seasonally adjusted 6.69 million homes."

- Outside the real estate offices, "jobs are supposedly plentiful," adds
Mike Shedlock for Whiskey & Gunpowder.
"Yet 2.1 million Americans with a home loan missed at least one payment at
the end of 2006. That seems pretty hard to me. And it's going to get a lot
harder paying that mortgage when ARM interest rates reset and unemployment
starts to rise. Both are going to happen."

- And still there's nothing to fear. "Most of the housing adjustment is
completed," reckons one Californian economist interviewed by Bloomberg. Put
another way, "House prices to recover next year," as the Times of London
announced in November 1989...just before the UK real estate market lost
one-third of its value over the next 7 years.

- Regular readers won't need reminding, but that's never stopped us before.
"Recovery [was] forecast for house prices in market awash with loan funds,"
reported the Times in Jan. 1990. Not even broad money supply growing by 18%
year-on-year could stop the rot, however.

- By July 1990, "the bottom of the current house price cycle may have
passed," the paper went on. Come the autumn of that year, however, The Times
had to repeat itself again.

- "House prices bottom out...the long slide in house prices could be nearing
its end," it said. National prices continued to slide regardless.

- By Sept. '91, real house prices - adjusted for inflation
- stood 25% down from the peak. "House-price surge is on the way," said The
Times, "but wait for it."

- No fooling! The following month, Oct. 1991, The Times finally admitted
that "Fall in house prices dashes market hopes."

- Why so glum? Well, mortgages more than 6 months in arrears accounted for
3.5% of all loans outstanding at the start of 1992. Cue The Times to report
that "record repossessions are keeping down house prices" - even though the
mortgage lenders themselves had long since stopped repossessing when they
could possibly help it.

- Ahead of the United Kingdom's last house-price crash, nine out of every 10
late-paying mortgages more than 12 months in arrears were taken into
repossession. By the bottom of the slump, however, the mortgage lenders
slashed that kill rate beneath one-in-5. America's mortgage lenders may well
try the same remedy in 2007.

- US foreclosures rose 42% in 2006 according to RealtyTrac.com, up from
855,000 in 2005 to 1.2 million nationally. But throwing young families out
on the street rarely makes for good PR. And during a genuine real-estate
slump, it only adds to the downward pressure on home prices.

- For now, reports Bloomberg, many US lenders are urging their late-paying
borrowers to sell their homes themselves...and redeem whatever they can of
their outstanding debts. Better that, the lenders are thinking, than collect
ever-more default properties on their books.

- But leaving late-payers where they are could soon become the subprime
strategy of choice. What that decision will do to America Inc's credit
rating – and the implied value of its paper promise, the Dollar – we'll just
have to wait and see...


And more thoughts…

*** Remember Harry Dent?

He's the one who forecast the Dow at 40,000, based upon his reading of
demographic trends. All those aging baby boomers had to save for their
retirement, he said. And the logical place for them to put their money was
in the stock-market.

Well, as the years have passed…it now becomes clearer that the boomers
aren't all that interested in saving money – not when credit is easily
available and when their houses are rising in price. So, this past November,
Dent felt it was time for a little backtracking. Now he says the new bubble
will reach its maximum in late 2009, with the Dow near 20,000 and the Nasdaq
at 5,000.

Could he be right? Anything is possible. We suspect that the boomers will
start saving again. They've been on a spending binge for the last 10 years.
They're probably about ready to go on a saving binge. Not only will they
need the money, we've noticed signs that saving money is becoming avant
garde. There may be a backlash against conspicuous consumption coming.
We'll have to explain more tomorrow – when we take up our new theory of
modern politics. But there are times when spending is hip, stylish and
trendy. There are other times when spending is regarded as vulgar, crass
and foolish. The times could be changin' now.

*** If boomers begin saving…what will they do with their money? Will they
put it in stocks? Or real estate?

We noticed, recently, how much of a drag owning real estate is. You're not
bothered by it when prices are rising sharply. But when they begin to
flatten out…and when sales sag…you begin to resent having to fix the roof or
the dishwasher.

This came home to us when we looked at what it costs us to hold onto our
farm in Maryland. There are a couple of houses on the farm, which are
rented out. It should be making money for us. Instead, we get this message
from our property manager:

"Last year there was around an $8,500 loss. The main house was rented for
$2,500 a month for six months. We had to replace an HVAC in the dairy
apartment, a water heater in the tenant house, a heating stove in the barn,
carpet in the dairy apartment.
Last year we spent the following for maintenance and repairs (parts & labor)
on each of the buildings:

Barn-$1,665
Dairy $3,667
Main House $17,250
Tenant house $890
Grounds $9,659 ($2,547 for labor, the rest for mulch, gravel, etc.)
Management $2,770.00"

We doubt boomers will want to deal with these problems.
And we wouldn't be surprised to see attitudes to real estate revert back to
what they were 30 years ago – when people regarded property as an expensive
burden, not as an investment.

*** Want to buy property where property is still going up.
Buy in Japan. For the first time in 16 years, Japanese real estate prices
are going up nationwide.

The biggest gains came in Tokyo commercial property – where prices were up
by 9.4% in 2006.

ores why and how Britain has become so prosperous...

Thursday 22 March 2007

FW: An Unprecedented Speculative Spree

AN UNPRECEDENTED SPECULATIVE SPREE
by Dr. Kurt Richebächer

A study recently published by the Bank for International Settlements
(Monetary and Prudential Policies at a
Crossroad?) says:

"Financial liberalisation is undoubtedly critical for the better allocation
of resources and long-term growth.
The serious costs of financial repression around the world have been well
documented. But financial liberalisation has also greatly facilitated the
access to credit... more than just metaphorically. We have shifted from a
cash flow-constrained to an asset- backed economy."

Though we basically agree with the analysis and the conclusions of the
study, we radically disagree with the one sentence that "Financial
liberalisation is undoubtedly critical for the better allocation of
resources and long-term growth." The indispensable first condition for
proper resource allocation at a national as well as global scale is
avoidance of excessive money and credit creation. In many countries, and in
particular in the United States, they are excessive as never before.

If Mr. Bernanke complains about irregularities of M2, this is nothing in
comparison with the fact that credit and debt growth in the United States
has exploded for more than two decades. When Mr. Greenspan took over at the
helm of the Fed in 1987, outstanding debt in the United States totaled $10.5
billion. In less than 20 years, this sum has quadrupled to $41.9 billion. In
reality, this significantly understates the rise in debts because, for
example, highly leveraged hedge funds with trillions of outstanding debts
are not captured. In 1987, indebtedness was equivalent to 223% of GDP, which
was already pretty high. Lately, it is up to 317% of GDP.

In actual fact, there used to be a very stable relationship between money or
credit growth and GDP or income growth until the early 1980s. Growth of
aggregate outstanding indebtedness of all non-financial borrowers – private
households, businesses and government - had narrowly hovered around $1.40
for each $1 of the economy's gross national product. Debt growth of the
financial sector was minimal.

The breakdown of this relationship started in the early 1980s. Financial
liberalisation and innovation certainly played a role. But the most
important change definitely occurred in the link between money and credit
growth to asset markets. Money and credit began to pour into asset markets,
boosting their prices, while the traditional inflation rates of goods and
services declined.
The worst case of this kind at the time was, of course, Japan.

Do not be fooled by the sharp decline in consumer borrowing into the belief
that money and credit has been tightened in the United States. Instead,
borrowing for leveraged securities purchases (in particular, carry trade and
merger and acquisition financings) has been outright rocketing, with
security brokers and dealers playing a key role. Over the three quarters of
2006, their net acquisitions of financial assets have been running at an
annual rate of more than $600 billion, more than double their expansion in
the past.

Federal funds and repurchase agreements expanded in the third quarter at an
annual rate of $606.3 billion, or an annual 26%. The main borrowers were
brokers and dealers.
During the first three quarters of the year, their assets increased $427
billion, or 27% annualised, to
$2.57 billion. A large part of the money came from the highly liquid
corporations. There is no reason to wonder about low and falling long-term
interest rates.

All this confirms that financial conditions remain extraordinarily loose.
Even that is a gross understatement. Credit for financial speculation is
available at liberty. Expectations for weaker economic activity only foster
greater financial sector leverage.
Why such unusually aggressive speculative expansion in the face of a slowing
economy?

The apparent explanation is that the financial sector intends to make the
greatest possible profit from the coming decline of interest rates,
promising further rises in asset prices against falling interest rates.
While the real economy slows, the leveraged speculation by the financial
fraternity goes into overdrive.
Principally, there is nothing new about such speculation. New, however, is
its exorbitant scale.

Before leading his jumbo-sized delegation to Beijing, Henry Paulson, U.S.
Treasury secretary, cautioned against expecting any big breakthroughs from
the visit.
And so it has turned out. The meeting produced plenty of statements about
the desirability of improving relations, but nothing concrete to do so.

Of course, the Chinese are in a very strong position with the central bank
holding more than $1 trillion of bonds in its portfolio, mostly denominated
in dollars.
According to reports, the American visit was initiated by Mr. Paulson in an
effort to contain rising Sinophobia in the U.S. Congress, which increasingly
blames China for America's economic problems, from its huge current account
deficit to stagnating real incomes. In other words, those troublemakers, not
the trade deficit, are the problem.

One cannot say that U.S. policymakers and economists have been preoccupied
with worries about possible harmful effects of the exploding trade deficit.
They appear obsessed with the conventional wisdom that free trade is good
and must always be good under any and all circumstances, as postulated in
the early 19th century by David Ricardo.

Ricardo exemplified this by comparing trade in wine and cloth between
Portugal and England. Portugal was cheaper in both products, but its
comparative advantage was greater in wine. As a result, according to
Ricardo, Portugal boosted its production and exports of wine. In contrast,
England gave up its wine production and could produce more sophisticated
goods. In both countries, living standards rose.

For sure, it appears highly plausible that American policymakers feel they
are following Ricardo's logic.
Only they are disregarding some caveats of Ricardo's.
For equal benefit, first of all, balanced foreign trade is required.
"Exports pay for imports" was a dogma of classical economic theory. Ricardo,
furthermore, disapproved of foreign investment, with the argument that it
slows down the home economy.

With an annual current account deficit of more than $800 billion, the U.S.
economy is definitely a big loser in foreign trade. To offset this loss of
domestic spending and income, alternative additional demand creation is
needed. Essentially, all job losses are in high-wage manufacturing, and most
gains are in low-wage services.
In essence, the U.S. economy is restructuring downward, while the Chinese
economy is restructuring upward.

Considering that Chinese wages are just a fraction of U.S. or European
wages, it appears absurd that the Chinese authorities deem it necessary to
additionally subsidise their booming exports by a grossly undervalued
currency, held down by pegging the yuan to the dollar.

In the U.S. financial sphere, the year 2006 has set new records everywhere:
records in stock prices, records in mergers and acquisitions, records in
private equity deals, record-low spreads, record-low volatility.
Manifestly, there is not the slightest check on borrowing for financial
speculation. There is epic inflation in Wall Street profits.

One wonders what can stop this unprecedented speculative binge. Pondering
this question, we note in the first place that the gains in asset prices -
look at equities, commodities and bonds - have been rather moderate. To make
super-sized profits, immense leverage is needed. We think the speculation is
unmatched for its scope, intensity and peril. Plainly, it assumes absence of
any serious risk in the financial system and the economy.
The surest thing to predict is that the next interest move by the Fed will
be downward.

In our view, the obvious major risk for speculation is in the economy - that
is, in the impending bust of the gigantic housing bubble. Home ownership is
broadly spread among the population, in contrast to owning stocks. So the
breaking of the housing bubble will hurt the American people far more than
did the collapse in stock prices in 2000-02.

For sure, the U.S. economy is incomparably more vulnerable than in 2001.

Another big risk is in the dollar.

Regards,

Dr. Kurt Richebächer
for The Daily Reckoning

Market Notes

Adrian Ash, shouting at the traffic in 'Ammersmith:

- So fat tongue in fat cheek, the great Gordondo pulled off his greatest
feat of magic in 10 years of trickery at Westminster.

- "Abracadabra...ala-ka-zam" he shouted for 54 minutes.
And poof! Nothing had changed except the detail – and the press coverage. He
got the headlines alright. Even the London press knows to watch his sleight
of hand these days.

- Now that's magic!

- The detail's so dull, in fact, that only London's army of financial hacks
could spin it out to 20 pages packed with "analysis". Gordon Brown's
swag-bag was £1 billion lighter in 2005/6 than he had projected. Now he
reckons he'll nab £1 billion more in 2006/7 than he forecast 12 months ago.

- A billion here...a billion there...who cares?

- The Cabinet Office alone will spend £2.4 billion this year. On what, you
might wonder – new mugs and biros?
Only inflation looks certain after yesterday's palaver.
Keeping the New Labour executive in tea and biscuits will cost 9% more in
2007/8 than it did during the last fiscal year.

- But hey – you gotta keep the troops' strength up! War never came cheap.
And now they're waging war on terror...poverty...light bulbs...and what's
left of British manufacturing.

- So what if Gordon Brown knocked 2p off the basic rate of income tax? He
more than doubled the tax rate on your first £2,000 of taxable income.

- He cut 2% off corporation tax, but excluded anyone investing in plant. R&D
firms got a £100m tax cut, but the punitive charges on North Sea oil & gas
firms remain. Better to trade "carbon credits" than squeeze the last few
drops out of Britain's domestic resources.
Offshore hedge funds trading these 21st century indulgences will now enjoy
zero tax.

- He also gave fresh tax breaks to "sukuk" investors looking for financial
products to comply with Koranic law. But he raised the tax-rate paid by very
small businesses. A smart way to encourage risk-taking outside the financial
markets, eh?

- He gifted free money to property speculators too, sharing the tax
advantages of REITs with unit trusts invested in real estate. Their number
has swollen from four to 15 over the last two years.

- You might wonder where the value-added lies here, but so what? That kind
of growth at M&G and New Star deserves recognition – as do second-home
owners buying property overseas. Cutting income tax charges on holiday homes
will reward around 2-3% of British adults, the FT says today. Failing to cut
the 70% charge on pension assets passed onto your family, on the other hand,
hurts everyone wanting to save for the future.

- "Mr Deputy Speaker," said Prudence, "I want to send a signal about the
importance we attach to encouraging saving." Raising interest rates would
make a start. For basic-rate payers, cash in the bank now pays minus 0.4%
after tax and inflation.

- He also recalled his "ambition for this Parliament...of two million new
owner occupiers." Yet again, higher interest rates would actually help here.

Even Mervyn King knows that cheap money has failed!
Meddling with shared-ownership schemes only pushes inflation in house prices
still higher.

- But simple economics was never going to be Gordon Brown's game.

- Oh, and in a move of brilliance he cut the new issuance of index-linked
gilts, too. The pensions industry, as regular readers well know, is forced
by government to hunt down these rare beasts...matching liabilities to
assets as judged by the price of inflation-proof bonds.

- Just last week, Ed Balls – our dear Chancellor-in- waiting – told pension
fund managers in Edinburgh that New Labour would skew new gilt issues
towards index- linked and long-dated bonds. Did he really not see a draft of
yesterday's Budget? In 2007/8, the government will issue £4 billion less in
these bonds than in 2006/7.

- "This is not particularly helpful to pension funds,"
says Nick Horsfall, a senior consultant at Woodrow Wyatt. "We are already
struggling to get pension funds long-dated, high-quality assets."

- Not that it matters, of course. No budget from Culpability Brown, Ed
'Chocolate' Balls, George Osborne or any other buffoon will ever halt the
megatrend towards big government stealing your money just to give you a
little of it back...and all at the policy wonks'
discretion and a time of the bureaucrats' choosing.

- Better look after yourself and get what wealth you can to safety. The
ballot box will only pay dividends if you sneak into Westminster and grab a
few non-exec directorships alongside your state-paid expenses.

Wednesday 21 March 2007

Mexican Jumping Oil

MEXICAN JUMPING OIL
by The Mogambo Guru

Sean Brodrick at Money and Markets writes that it appears Peak Oil has
affected Mexico, as, "In December 2005, Mexico sent the U.S. 1.7 million
barrels of oil per day (bpd). This past December, Mexico only exported 1.2
million bpd to the U.S."

He asks, "Why is Mexico sending less oil?" For some reason, I thought that
he was really asking a question, so I leap up and say, "Because they are
selling it to China and India and everywhere else, but they don't need the
money, anyway, because my appetite for tacos is off the charts here lately,
and they are making plenty of money that way! And speaking of tacos, that
sounds good!
Let's break for lunch! Your turn to buy! Let's go! Hup!
Hup! Move it! Let's go, go, go!"

This was, as I interpret the pained and angry look on his face, the wrong
answer, probably because it is only 9:30 in the morning. He pointedly
ignores me and explains, instead, "Because it's producing less oil. Total
oil output fell to just below 3 million bpd in December 2006.
That's down from nearly 3.4 million barrels at the start of the year, and
Mexico's lowest rate of oil output in seven years."

This is bad news for Mexico because "Mexico relies on oil exports for about
40% of its revenue." Notice the complete lack of exclamation points in those
four previous sentences. When it is reported in the Mexican newspapers, you
can bet your burrito supremo that headlines will have PLENTY of exclamation
points all over the damned place. For example (showing off my impressive
command of Spanish), "Ustamos Mucho Grande Freaking Doomed, Just Exacta
Mundo Para El Mogambo Habla!!!" which got three exclamation marks, since
they understand the true significance of, "Mexico relies on oil exports for
about 40% of its revenue"!!!

It seems that half of the revenue of the whole economy of Mexico is
unhealthily dependent on just one source of revenue! Hahaha! If the Mexican
government had taken the time to look, they would have seen that my family
is dependent on me as their sole source of revenue, and as I am as similarly
corrupt, stupid and worthless as the Mexican government, they should have
noticed from the chaos and hostility that it clearly hasn't worked out here,
either! I mean, the parallel is obvious! What in the hell is the matter with
those people?
Even worse, "55% of Pemex's sales revenue went to the Mexican government
last year".

And it is not just the Mexicans that seemed to be gripped by the looming
terrors of Peak Oil Syndrome, as "Kuwait's giant Burgan field has also
peaked. Iran's energy use is rising so fast that its oil exports are being
crimped badly. And despite the fact that the Saudis are supposed to be
sitting on a thousand years of oil, their oil production declined 8% last
year". Of course, "The Saudis will say they made their cuts to 'stabilise'
the market."

Hahaha! "stabilise" the market! I did not realise the generous beneficence
of the Saudis! They will sell less oil and make less money, while their
competitors wax rich by continuing to pump furiously, so that the cost to
the ultimate consumer, mainly Chinese and Western infidels, doesn't rise!
What can I say, except "Thanks, dudes!"?
But the underlying message is that (and pay particular attention here)
demand for oil is going up, but supply is going down. And I am sure that
something flickered in your Fledgling Mogambo Mind (FMM) about the effect on
the price of oil (an absolute energy necessity) resulting from such a
falling supply/growing demand imbalance, which is actually getting worse
rapidly, and which will continue to get worse for a long time.

And if you are a Junior Mogambo Ranger (JMR), then you are probably
salivating, literally, at the prospect of reaping a lot of those enormous
oil riches for yourself so that you can easily afford to stretch your Second
Amendment rights to include getting some tactical nuclear weapons. That'll
show that pesky Skyview Neighbourhood Association who's REALLY the freaking
boss around here, and it will be very educational to see if the threat of
imminent nuclear obliteration will make my decrepit hovel seem a little less
of an "eyesore" and "public nuisance"
to them! I'm betting it will! Hey! I love this investing stuff!

Doug Noland's Credit Bubble Bulletin at PrudentBear.com starts out this week
with some interesting graphs. All of them are bad news, of course, but the
one that really grabbed my attention was the one labeled "Balance Sheet of
Household Sector". Going back to March of 1989, the average household had
$19,000 in net worth, which was, back then, about the average household
yearly income.
Now, as our bloodshot eyes nervously scan across the graph, we see that the
average household net worth is about $55,000, which is, again, about the
average household yearly income! Hahaha! You are right back where you
started, in terms of buying power, and yet you think that the stock market
and the housing market and the bond market are going to provide you with a
decades-long comfortable retirement? Hahahaha!

I'm laughing so hard that I am actually spitting up blood! Hahaha! I can't
stop! Hahahaha! With a burst of Mighty Mogambo Self-Control (MMSC), I gain
dominance over my giddy emotions, and with rasping, gasping breath I say,
"If you believe that everyone will make money and retire in comfort by
investing long-term in the stock and/or bond markets, then that is the
biggest load of hooey that a gullible, dim-witted population has ever
swallowed without even gagging."

The ugly truth is that the majority of investors will not only suffer a loss
in strict dollars ("the majority is always wrong"), but even those who
manage to get marginally ahead, in nominal terms, will have the purchasing
power of the money stolen by the ravages of the inflation caused by the
Federal Reserve constantly creating so much money and credit, which is,
ironically, where the money came from that enabled them to buy the stocks
and bonds!

The bottom line? The best that you can expect to do is to invest one
dollar's worth of buying power to get, in the future, an equivalent amount
of buying power. The majority, alas, will lose both nominal money AND the
buying power of what's left!

Until next week,
The Mogambo Guru
for the Daily ReckoningBill Bonner in London:

Yesterday, the markets seemed to return to 'normal' - or, at least to what
is taken for normal by today's investors. That is to say, things that were
already over- priced became more overpriced. And investors who were already
over-stretched, reached a little further.

Time heals all wounds...and wounds all heels. Got a problem? One way or
another, time will solve it.
Something not right? Someone getting away with something?
Don't worry...time will take care of it.

And if we can't sort out what is going on in the financial markets, time
will have to do it.

The Dow rose 115 points. "Investors regain an appetite for risk," says the
Financial Times.

Regaining an appetite is a good thing when you are sick.
We are not so sure it is a good thing when you are about to explode from
over-eating.

And if time can heal things...it can rot them too.

"Oh time...won't you spare me over another year? I'll give you my gold
coins. I'll give you my stocks. How 'bout my beach house?

"I'm not asking much. Just make my face look like it did in '68...just let
me buy a gallon of gas for 25 cents, like I did in '72...just let us stay up
all night and howl at the moon like we did in '82...just make my dot.com
stocks worth what they were in '99...

"That's not asking too much is it?"

Yes, you can ignore time, but it won't ignore you.

Time sorts out everything and everybody. Nothing and nobody is missed.

You can't hide from it.... You can't escape it. You can't outrun it. You
can't make a deal with it.

If only we could arrange time...chivvy it into place where we want it, we
would have ourselves a bit of fun.

We would set the highway traffic back to the levels of '50s. And our
automobiles back to the '50s too...but then, let's put 21st century
technology under the hood.
We don't want to have to fool with carburetors like we did back then. And
consumer prices...let's put them back into the early '60s too...before the
first big wave of inflation hit. We recall buying a hamburger at The Little
Tavern in Annapolis for 25cents. Another quarter got us a coke. And what did
it cost to go to the movies? We can't remember, but we think it was about 60
cents a ticket.
Everything was cheap. Of course, it didn't seem cheap back then. So, since
we're rearranging the sequence of things, let's set incomes at 2007 levels.


And let's go back to the Eisenhower era to find a political system we can
live with. There were real conservatives back then - people who were
reluctant to spend the public's money...and reluctant to meddle in the
public's affairs. Now, we have only phoney conservatives - people who
preach 'conservatism' while pushing the most
activist agendas since FDR.

'Turn the desert tribes of Mesopotamia into Dixie democrats?' the old timers
would have joked. 'Why not turn them into Baptists too? Ha ha..."

Meanwhile, the front page of the USA Today tells us that this latest attempt
to remake the world in our own image is running into problems. A few months
ago, Iraqis held up their purple fingers and proudly supported democracy.
But now that they've had some experience with it, a new poll shows that the
majority of them are against it. Only 43% think democracy would be good for
Iraq. The rest have other ideas. By contrast, a majority of Iraqis think it
is 'acceptable' to kill U.S. soldiers. These are the same people - at least,
according to the fiction of it - that U.S. soldiers are trying to protect.
Take them out of the picture, said America's president last night, and the
Iraqis might start killing each other.

Oh, if only we could rewind the tape. If only we could go back to the
Eisenhower era when US presidents still had wit and charm! Yes, those were
the good old days - at least they seem pretty good looking from a half a
century later. America was still a free country, as near as we can recall.
No phoney wars against terror...no Sarbanes...no Oxley...no Hillary...no
George... And who was chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1956? Who knew?
Who cared? The dollar was still linked to gold. You could trust it. America
was the world's biggest factory...the world's biggest creditor...the world's
biggest exporter...the world's fastest growing economy. All people cared
about was that 'Ike & Dick... 'were 'Sure to Click' - no kidding, we have an
old campaign button.

Of course, public life was as full of humbug as it is now...but the humbug
seemed more innocent, less intrusive...and ultimately, more humane.

But enough of this reminiscing...no point to it. Time cuts no deals for no
one.
Not even for the New York Stock Exchange.

Let's see. According to the press reports, three things helped investors
chow down again.

First, Chinese stocks took off. After a brief and feeble panic attack a
couple of weeks ago, the Shanghai stock exchange is as fat and happy as
ever. The index is nearly in record territory again.

Second, a whole new selection of merger and acquisition targets was added to
the menu. How could investors resist? All that delicious, syrupy, rich sauce
floating around! There is even talk of a major acquisition in the gold
mining sector. Barrick is said to have its eye on Newmont whose shares are
expected to bring in the mid-50s.

And third, investors are coming to terms with the whole sub-prime issue. Tim
Harris, a strategist at JP Morgan, put the matter in perspective:

"It is estimated that the US mortgage market is worth some $10,000 billion,
approximately 10 per cent of which is cumulatively classified as sub-prime;
12-15% of which may be in or approaching distress/default."

No biggie, in other words. But wait! Ten trillion dollars is still a lot of
money. And 10% of it is still $1 trillion...and 15% of $1 trillion is still
$150 billion.
Who's got $150 billion to lose?

And the problem - again, according to the press - is the risks now
overflowing into other segments of the mortgage market - notably into Alt-A
and Jumbo loans. The same stretch for profit that led lenders to make loans
to people who couldn't pay them back...led investors to buy the loans
packaged as debt-back securities...along with high priced stocks in a
communist country...and a great deal more. They will keep stretching until
something snaps, we figure. Maybe it already has.

Time will tell.

More news:

--------------------------

*** Adrian Ash, emptying his wallet into the bin in
Hammersmith:

- Money, money, money...the more we get - £13.9 billion more last month than
in January according to the Bank of England today - the less anyone wants
it.

- Stuff your cash in the trash, gentle reader; the bin men will be round in
a fortnight and cart it off to the landfill. It's not even worth trying to
recycle. Paper money's so smelly, ugly, bulky, out-dated...ugh!

- Hence the rise and rise of stock markets, vintage wines, junk bonds, real
estate prices, fine art, race horses, physical gold bullion, beachfront in
Central America, English soccer teams and African mining resources. So much
money's now flooding the world that anything and everything looks a safer
bet for growing your wealth - or merely preserving it - after tax.

- The price of terraced housing in West Belfast, for instance, has risen 45%
year-on-year. It doesn't matter where the money has come from; it's wound up
on the Falls Road. Prices there have trebled since 2002.

- No matter that two-thirds of Ulster's economy is run by tax-funded
government programs rather than private enterprise. No matter that Tony
Blair think peace in the province has to mean giving Stormont to a pair of
class idiots who won't shake hands with each other. Paisley and McGuinness
will conspire for as long as murder alone fails to put new patio doors on
the pebble-dashed bungalows out in Donegal and Spain.

- The real estate agents certainly don't care either way, and nor do the
lenders. Prices are up, Up, UP...and all because the value of money has
shrunk to nothing.

- Cross the 'Peace Line' (if you can) onto the Shankhill Road, and prices
for Loyalist home-owners have more than doubled over the last 12 months
alone. There's a legacy for Tony Blair to be proud of! Priced at up to
£150,000 according to The Independent, houses on the Shankhill now draw
bidders routinely offering 10-20% over the asking price.

- Sail across the Irish Sea to the mainland, and the cheapest housing in the
UK now sits in Nelson and Burnley, according to the BBC, heart of
Lancashire's industrial waste land. These bargain-priced terraces are all
empty, vandalized, boarded up, and due for demolition or arson - depending
on whether the government's "compulsory purchase" scheme gets there first.

- But empty shells that are utterly worthless, these abandoned terraces are
STILL worth 22,000 times the Pound in your pocket!

- Just what might it take to restore confidence in currency today? During
autumn 1992, the Bank of England hiked UK base rates to defend the Pound
Sterling.
Somebody had to. Speculators across the world, most famously George Soros,
were betting that Europe's exchange rate mechanism - the precursor of
today's Eurozone currency system - was about to collapse.

- The Pound, thought the traders, couldn't defy the UK's housing collapse
and broad-based recession forever. But the Bank of England tried to defy
gravity regardless. On
16 Sept. 1992, the Old Lady took base rates from 10% to 12%. She then
promised to take rates to 15%, too!

- Speculators continued to sell Sterling, however...and by the end of that
terrible day, George Soros had made £1 billion betting the Pound would be
forced to devalue. He was right, and the Bank of England was wrong, in
short.
Higher interest rates failed to revive confidence in the value of Sterling.

- The same problem hit Mexico in late 1994. Following the Peso's devaluation
in December, the Mexican government struggled to find foreign investors to
stump up at its monthly bond auctions - despite interest rates exceeding
40%.

- And this same hatred of cash at any price whacked the US Dollar even as
deflation hit and the value of money seemed to be rising during the Great
Depression of the early 1930s. As Sam Hewitt of Sun Valley Gold noted in a
paper of 10 years ago, the risk of a Dollar devaluation led Americans to
hoard gold rather than cash. It was appreciating much faster.

- It took the Presidential executive order of 5th April
1933 to force US citizens - at gunpoint - back into the Dollar. President
Roosevelt made gold ownership illegal, punishable by $10,000 fines and/or
imprisonment.

- Today, we hazard, it will take more than a few 0.25% hikes in interest
rates to restore the world's faith in money. But at least in 2007, investors
have the option of hoarding physical gold overseas at low cost...beyond the
reach of their own government's caprice and diktat.

And more thoughts, views, ideas from Bill...

*** The dollar! Is anyone paying attention? The greenback is slipping. But
in all the commotion hardly anyone seems to notice. We checked this morning
and found the euro priced at nearly $1.33.

What could go wrong? Well, the dollar could continue slipping.

Now, let us imagine that you have the world's biggest stash of money, which
today is more than $1 trillion. No one ever had such a big pile. But let us
imagine that the money isn't really yours. You have been put in to manage it
on behalf of the People's Republic of China. And if you lose it, the people
aren't going to be very happy.

Now, about 70% of that money - $700 billion or so - are in dollars.

You have already gone on record saying you intended to diversify out of
dollars. You expect to do it in an orderly way. But with the dollar going
down, you realise that when you finally do diversify you're going to get
less for your dollars than you could get now. In fact, if the dollar falls 5
cents against the euro, you have effectively lost 5% of your dollar holdings
- or $35 billion. Hmmmm...what will the people say?

What if the dollar goes down 10%? Hmmm....now you're talking serious money.

Of course, this is not the first time we have posed this
question: why don't the people with serious money at stake move to protect
themselves? And how come the dollar has, so far, resisted our predictions.
With a current account deficit at 6% of GDP...it seems obvious that the
dollar must fall. So must it fall when the carry traders unwind their
trades? Many borrowed yen to buy dollars.
When they get out of their positions they will have to sell dollars and buy
yen. The dollar should fall. But it doesn't. Or it hasn't. Yet.

**** Mogambo sez: Oil is getting so cheap that I am drooling at the glaring
bargain. And gold and silver?
Don't get me started, as I could go on for hours and hours about why you
should buy as much as you can, as soon as you can, turning the exercise into
a long, angry harangue which will end with you desperately trying to get
away from me. Of course, I'll be grabbing you by the sleeve and hitting you
up to loan me a lousy twenty bucks so that I can save up to buy some gold,
too. But you say "no", you selfish little bastard, and we get into a big
fight, and it's all real, real ugly.

Anyway, like I said, don't get me started. Just buy the stuff and save us
both a lot of hassle.

Editor's Note: Richard Daughty is general partner and COO for Smith
Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the
editor of The Mogambo Guru economic newsletter - an avocational exercise to
heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it.
The Mogambo Guru is quoted frequently in Barron's, The Daily Reckoning and
other fine publications.