Money Clip

Blog by Matthias Paul Kuhlmey


Matthias Paul Kuhlmey is a Managing Director & Partner at HighTower Advisors, where he serves as wealth manager to High Net Worth and Ultra-High Net Worth Individuals, Family Offices, and Institutions.

Monthly Archives: February 2012




Real (E)state

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Posted By: Matthias Paul Kuhlmey

 

… Back from my regular visit to one of the Toll Brothers Sales Offices over the weekend (fun!) − and as you may expect, “business is great, and we (they) are more than 75% sold …” (this, however, has been the common statement over the past 2-3 years, but enough of that). Whereas there is certainly momentum in residential real estate, among widespread optimism, it is worthwhile to “dig deeper,” or to lay the foundation as we “talk bricks.” An interesting aspect to consider is the so-often-cited “affordability” of real estate, apparently best in more than 40 years, according to a recent statement released by The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

 

What does “affordability” actually mean? Now be prepared for a good one; the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® affordability index measures whether or not a typical family could qualify for a mortgage loan on a typical home. We spare you the detailed definitions of what family, mortgage, typical home means, but fast forward on how to read the index: a value of 100 means that a family has exactly enough income to qualify for a mortgage on a median-priced home, whereas an index above 100 signifies that a family has more than enough income to qualify for a mortgage loan, assuming a 20% down payment. According to a prominent financial blog, “as hard as this might be to imagine, it (the index) shows that over the course of the biggest run up in housing prices in American history, the Index remained perfectly affordable. Except for one monthly reading of 99.55 in late 2005 − a smidge below 100 − housing never dipped into the level of unaffordable over the entire giant housing boom.” Voila. Yet another interesting aspect is that “affordability” is still very much linked to leverage, meaning an 80% mortgage is being considered in the concept of purchase. In other words, buyers of domestic real estate can “tap” into inexpensive money as so graciously provided by B&T (Benny and Team) to buy something they actually cannot afford. A lesson to distinguish between ownership and “cost of carry” has to be learned – this is nothing else but the distinction of “renting space” vs. “renting money”.  I recall from my days in European banking (Germany) that customers would make a 40-50% down-payment, and finance little – interesting to consider that Germany throughout the booming years never had a housing bubble.

 

Now, the real picture: “A new study released by the Center for Housing Policy in Washington, D.C., confirms falling home prices haven’t solved the housing affordability problems for working households. The center’s Housing Landscape 2012 report found the share of working households paying more than half their income for housing rose significantly – from 21.8% to 23.6% – between 2008 and 2010 for renters and owners.” As reported yesterday in the latest Case-Schiller report, home prices fell in 18 of 20 cities for the fourth consecutive month in December. The S&P Case/Shiller Home Price Index slid 3.8%, ending 2011 at the lowest levels since mid-2006. What a turnaround (wink, wink). 

 

You may wonder why we are not commenting on the market – it just looks too suspiciously like last year: Equities up, Bonds up, Oil up, everyone super optimistic, clapping hands (the recovery is here) … Apple owns the world; this morning, however, we received word that the Eureopan Central Bank (ECB) has loaned 529.5 billion Euro (USD 715 billion) to European Banks – not small change. If the world is “healed”, what’s up with this? 

 

Yes, we know, the market needs a breather – but please recall our earlier statement:  “As long as buyers of GDP are available, stay constructive on equity markets.” Even if markets are fully priced, we may see a massive inflation trade in the making; this will be a problem later, but, for now, pretend we are “75% sold”.

 

Of Unions and Rats

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Posted By: Matthias Paul Kuhlmey

 

The most prominent reminder of unions (at least in New York) is during times of their “protest.” Not to minimize a union’s reach and purpose, but for a non-New Yorker, it is quite a sight to spot a “ginourmous” inflatable rat standing prominently in the middle of the city. According to a recent article, “Scary-looking rats are utilized by frustrated unions to shame contractors or employers into using only union labor. ‘Scabby the Rat’ can be traced back to Plainfield, Illinois, where Big Sky Balloons and Searchlights originally crafted a rat for a striking Chicago union in 1990.”

 

Outside of the hustle and bustle of New York City, we all find ourselves in the midst of yet another “rat race” – the one taking place with respect to personal relationships, with millions of “singles” constantly aiming for the right match. According to German psychologist Erich Fromm, stated in his work, “The Art of Loving,” love (or something similar to it) is not so much romantically-driven, but rather based on a concept of setting one’s exchange value versus a potential partner; from Fromm’s perspective, it is a rather basic decision related to the concept of  the “Marketing Character,” or (worse) even considered to be a form of  pseudo-love. We have learned that “Fromm’s Marketing Character has become the dominant personality type of the age. Celebrities sell their opinions to the highest bidder – praising this or that product – and peddle explanations of their innermost feelings and tastes to glossy magazines.” That’s how we like it.

 

Now, let us consider one of the (apparently) worst unions of all – characterized by pseudo love and lots and lots of Marketing Characters: “Come and meet” the Monetary Union. Considering the basic concept, it is most certainly a noble idea, mainly designed to maximize economic efficiency and to eliminate exchange-rate risk in international trade (although other aspects may apply). Unfortunately, this concept has been tried several times throughout history and (you know what) pretty much failed: Some examples are the “Universal Currency” of 1867, the German Monetary Union of 1871, the Scandinavian Monetary Union of 1873, and on goes the list … Oh, let’s not forget the European Monetary Union (EMU) of 1999 (failed in 2012 – tbd).

 

Market participants, yesterday, were (somewhat) excited about the news related to yet another Greek bailout, helping the ailing nation to reduce “debt as a proportion of gross domestic product down to 120.5% by 2020 from the current level of 164%.” At the time of this writing, the mood, however, is changing, with Asia “coming online” and citing doubts over sustainability of the deal.

 

In summary: It is all about marketing, lots of good will, and, for your consideration, that the rats may have left the sinking ship already … Once again, the market needs a “breather.”

 

Buying Time and GDP

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Posted By: Matthias Paul Kuhlmey

 

Oh people – again and again, we are receiving word that this blog is too negative. It may be that we are not clear enough, but in our last commentary, we concluded that it is OK to be cautiously optimistic on equity markets, as long as “buyers of GDP” are readily available – not bad advice, after all.  With this out of the way, we will not “subdue” to leading media opinions, stating that all is rosy. There are plenty of opportunities in financial markets, and we have made our case, but, overall, we are still dealing with the consequences of a multi-year deleveraging cycle.

 

Today, market participants continue to be unsettled over delays to aid Greece’s Sovereign crisis. Time appears to be running out, as policymakers need to secure funding for a EUR 14.5 billion (USD 18.9 billion) bond repayment on March 20th. One of the most important aspects in order to “move things along” is related to parliamentary approvals, securing EUR 93.5bn in cash and bonds needed to execute a planned overall debt restructuring; the funding is supposed to be raised on basis of a bond swap, under which private debt holders trade in EUR 200 billion in bonds for new bonds issued, worth about half that amount. Good luck with that!

 

Turning back to the concept of “buying of GDP,” the issue at home is that “Benny and team” are divided over additional bond purchases to keep interest rates low. As recent meeting-minutes of the policy-making committee show, the FED would only be willing to continue with asset purchases if “the economy lost momentum.” Apparently, it has become clear to some members of the FED that the U.S. job crisis cannot be solved with low interest rates. What job crisis, you may ask, with continuously improving data?  Consider that last month, about 1.2 million people left the labor force (steepest month-over-month increase in 30 years), leaving the real unemployment rate at nearly 10%, rather than the reported 8.5%. Does it matter that this year is an election year?

 

On a final note, what can truly help nations of the indebted developed world is growth. Here is the catch: Greece’s economy has contracted by 20% since 2007; projected growth for GDP in the U.S. is 1.8% in 2012, according to the IMF; and Europe, in our view, is already in recession.

 

It appears that markets need “a breather.”

 

Ferraris for the Farmers

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Posted By: Matthias Paul Kuhlmey

 

In the midst of the  financial crisis in 2009, investment legends Jim Rogers and Marc Faber gave an outlook on the world: “… agricultural commodities are the place to be in for investors,” stated Rogers, indicating that it “will be farmers not bankers driving Ferraris in the coming decades.” In a more recent report, we learn that Rogers’ intuition is holding truth, when considered on an absolute (rather than relative) basis. In fact, according to work prepared by the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture, food prices have actually fallen, on average, by 1 percent per annum over the 30 period leading up to 2008. In contrast, during the same time period, the daily average calorie consumption in the U.S. rose by an average of 400 calories, or 18 percent; in consequence, there is more significant demand for higher-protein foods, typically at higher prices. More recently, food price inflation has been noted between 4-6 percent, which is not insignificant — a trend reversal in the making?

 

The global picture is not that dissimilar. A gradual change in diet patterns among newly prosperous populations of emerging nations is regarded as one of the most important factors leading the increase in global food prices; this reasoning becomes clear when considering, for example, that the production of one kilogram (or, pound, for our American friends) of beef requires seven kilograms of feed grain.

 

It was only in 2007/2008, that a global food crisis was the result of dramatically increased food prices, which caused widespread political and economic instability, as well as social unrest, in emerging and, to a degree, developed nations. In our view, the risk for similar future developments remains high. A slightly different perspective on this notion is offered by a recent Bloomberg report:  “… forces are combining to create another dangerous bubble. This food bubble, like the housing one, has grown from a system that is focused on generating efficiencies through high volumes, which generate lower prices and increased consumption. The commoditization of loans and crops, supported by government policies to keep prices low, has led to overconsumption of credit and food — resulting in a highly leveraged society, and a national obesity epidemic.” It all sounds too familiar — but should be expected — given the decade-long misallocation of global capital supported by “lush” monetary policies of most global Central Banks. Benny, you should have known better.

 

There is yet another side to this story, when considering the fact that the fastest growing regions in the world (measured by population growth and changing protein consumption patterns) also have the smallest amount of arable land available; it is for this very reason that the Chinese have been on a very particular investment-binge, “recycling” the good ol’ Green Bucks (earned in the consumer financing scheme practiced with the U.S.). Not only has China become Brazil’s largest trading partner, but loans made to farmers in the region are amounting to billions of Dollars — leaving market participants no choice but to consider a neo-colonial world order.

 

If you wonder how the key to the Ferrari is being earned, here are two suggestions:  1) change your profession to farming, or (more realistically), 2) understand the relevant investment implications (Agricultural Commodities and Brazil are the keywords for your search). We haven’t even considered water — but this is a story for another day.

 

On a final note:  Today, almost a billion people are chronically hungry and 1.5 billion are overweight or obese!  Food For Thought.

 

360: Not an Ordinary Recession

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Posted By: Matthias Paul Kuhlmey

 

This is exciting, as it is the first update in our newly established “360 Series”. Market participants are cheerful, again, as there appears to be hope (for now) to re-finance debt-laden Greece and other European nations in “funding stress” (now or later). A somewhat wicked “plan” will now “expedite the application of the 500 billion Euro-funded European Stability Mechanism (ESM), replacing the temporary strategy known as the EFSF (which is practically “dead” anyway, as we have previously reported). But that’s not all: News is surfacing that a third pool of funding, provided by the IMF, will establish a combined 1.5 trillion Euro “firewall” to help countries in financial difficulty. More money to the people! At the same time, 25 of the 27 EU nations have agreed on a new fiscal pact, aiming to create and enforce significant austerity measures. Are you confused yet? We are. 

 

Whereas the application of austerity may have helped to avoid – or, at a minimum, limit – excessive debt accumulation in the developed world over the past decade, it may not be the right measure to “heal” today’s issues. Richard C. Koo, with the Tokyo-based Nomura Research Institute, has done remarkable work to explain this not-so-obvious dilemma. One of Koo’s main findings and concerns is that we have not been dealing with an ordinary (textbook-defined) recession:

 

“The key difference between an ordinary recession and one that can produce a lost decade is   that in the latter, a large portion of the private sector is actually minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits following the bursting of a nation-wide asset price bubble. When a debt-financed bubble bursts, asset prices collapse while liabilities remain, leaving millions of private sector balance sheets underwater. In order to regain their financial health and credit ratings, households and businesses are forced to repair their balance sheets by increasing savings or paying down debt. This act of deleveraging reduces aggregate demand and throws the economy into a very special type of recession” (i.e., we are dealing with a balance sheet recession).

 

Koo’s findings further suggest that “like nationwide debt-financed bubbles, balance sheet recessions are rare and, left untreated, will ultimately develop into a depression.” One of the ways, however, not to treat a balance sheet recession is with the application of austerity measures. In fact, according to Koo’s work related to Japan’s (ongoing) balance sheet recession, just the opposite was necessary. From 1990 to 2005, Japanese Government Debt increased by 460 trillion Yen, or 92 percent of GDP, mainly in an effort to support the ailing local economy. Koo states, in this respect, that “if we assume, rather optimistically, that without government action Japanese GDP would have returned to the pre-bubble level of 1985, the difference between this hypothetical GDP and actual GDP would be over 2,000 trillion Yen for the 15-year period. In other words, Japan spent 460 trillion Yen to buy 2,000 trillion Yen of GDP, making it a tremendous bargain.”

 

In short summary, and based on Mr. Koo’s findings, there are times and circumstances when governments must borrow and spend the private sector’s excess savings. Monetary policies as provided by Central Banks, on the other hand, are simply ineffective, as low rates will not entice a deleveraging private sector to borrow (to effectively stimulate the economy). Koo concludes that “with massive private sector deleveraging continuing in the U.S. and in many other countries in spite of historically low interest rates, this is no time to embark on fiscal consolidation. Such measures must wait until it is certain the private sector has finished deleveraging and is ready to borrow and spend the savings that would be left un-borrowed by the government under an austerity program.”

 

Oh boy, more debt to come! The prudent investor needs to allocate to future stores of value (certainly not the Sovereign Debt Markets of the Developed World), and, at the same time, apply an active risk allocation vs. the “traditional” asset allocation approach, in order to manage volatility. We, at HighTower, can help you with this endeavor. 

 

Please find Mr. Koo’s referenced work under: “The World in Balance Sheet Recession:Causes, Cure, and Politics.”