Volatility is making a comeback. I often joke that investors never get upset about upside volatility, but if they are wise they should. Risk is risk, and while it is exciting to take risks when they work out, eventually one will experience the downside.

This last quarter has worked out pretty much like we thought it would. The crisis in Europe once again grabbed headlines and the markets gave up much of the gains from the first quarter. We were well-positioned in all of our strategies for the downturn and, as expected, outperformed. Then a funny thing happened: On the last day of the quarter the market went up by 2.5 percent. That is some upside volatility. What caused it? Some believe it was a positive reaction to the news that the EU is going forward with creating a banking union, so banks can be bailed out directly by the EU instead of by the individual countries. Others, more cynical but probably more accurate, believe a lot of traders needed to cover their short positions before client statements went out and/or they left town for their 4th of July vacations.

Regardless of the reason, that one day made the entire quarter look significantly different. In our case we went from significant outperformance to being roughly in line with the market, as we had outperformed on the downside but underperformed on the huge up day. It is frustrating that one day can be so important from a client visibility standpoint. By tradition and regulation investment managers report on a calendar quarter basis, but is that three month period any more valid than the three month period that ended a day earlier? The frustration leads to a phenomenon known as “window dressing.” Knowing that clients get to see what they are doing at the end of every quarter, some managers will make trades to make their portfolio look better. They may sell controversial holdings, which are likely their best ideas, in order to not offend. They may purchase big winners to make their clients believe they owned them all along. If a manager gets a big lead on the market half way through a quarter they may become a quasi-index fund for the remainder of the quarter in an effort to “book” their relative performance.

We don’t engage in these practices, and for the record I don’t believe window dressing is as widespread as the rumor mills insinuate. However, there are some who do it, and anyone who has been in this business for a number of years understands the temptation. The problem is two-fold. First, a manager who conducts himself in this manner is putting his own interest before that of his clients. Risk to the client is losing money; risk to the money manager is underperforming the market. A manager who gets ahead of the market and then changes his portfolio to “book” that relative gain is reducing his risk, but in all likelihood increasing the risk of the client.

Secondly, it is just a day. The unfortunate timing that gives days like this seemingly greater importance is illusory. The reality is that markets go neither up nor down in straight lines; we often have big up days in down markets and vice versa. Regardless of which story you believe – that the market rebounded because of EU action or that it was all window dressing – both effects are temporary and will be undone within a week or two.

In the case of window dressing it should be obvious why it is undone. We are now in July and three months away from most managers having to come clean to their clients, so they can once again position their portfolios as they wish versus what they wish to show their clients.

In the case of Europe my prediction may be a little more controversial. However, nothing has really changed. The latest moves to assist the banks will put off catastrophe a while longer, but once again the proverbial can has just been kicked down the road. In the interim Europe’s recession is still here, and investors and economists are just beginning to understand the severity of the situation. China’s economy is slowing as is ours, when we were already not far from recession.

The reason this crisis is important to investors is that we invest in companies that must operate their businesses in the economies that are impacted by an overwhelming amount of debt. The economies are slowing, therefore earnings will be slowing, and therefore the companies we invest in will be worth less. This dynamic has not changed. Watch for earnings reports, as they are not likely to be very encouraging.

We will get through this crisis, but it is not going to end neatly on one day at the end of a quarter. It will be a process that takes time. Recovery will most likely be marked by a market slowly climbing a wall of worry, not 2.5 percent jumps of temporary euphoria.

Warm Regards,
Chuck Osborne, CFA
Managing Director

~What A Difference A Day Makes…or Does It?

Spanish Banks are getting bailed out…so why is everyone so gloomy? It seems that after two years of bailout after bailout, market participants have finally realized that one cannot escape indebtedness by borrowing more money. It is hard to believe it took this long for investors to figure that out, but then again it seems that politicians and even some economists are still having trouble with this concept.

It is possible that this latest bailout has made obvious the unholy alliance between big banks and big government. Make no mistake, this €100 billion bailout was targeted for Spain, not Spanish banks. Multiple times over the last several weeks the Spanish government has warned that they were being cut off from the financial markets and would no longer be able to borrow money. The solution: prop up Spanish banks so they in turn can continue to loan money to the Spanish government.

It is a vicious cycle. Governments have only two choices for collecting revenues: they can tax their citizens or borrow the money, and most of the borrowing comes from financial institutions. Under normal circumstances with manageable debt levels this is not an issue, but as the debt levels get out of control, as they have in Europe, fewer and fewer investors are going to be willing to loan money, and if they do they are going to demand higher and higher interest payments to justify the risk. The exception is big banks that have a dual relationship with the government. The government is a large client, as they have loaned much of their capital to the government, and the government is their boss as they regulate the banks. One can see where conflicts may arise.

Suddenly in Europe the call is for a Europe-wide banking union. Why? Because market participants are starting to figure out that most of Europe’s banking problems are from the fact that the banks have loaned money to various European governments. Sure there are real estate losses in Spain and Ireland, but the biggest issues throughout Europe are related to sovereign debt. The solution to banks being in trouble is for the government to come in and back-stop the banks. So follow this: the banks are in trouble because they have loaned too much money to the government that is in debt way over its head, and the solution is for the government to bail them out? Increasingly this is looking ridiculous to anyone who is actually paying attention.

This brings us to Herbert Stein’s Law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Debtors, including governments, will hit a point when lenders simply stop lending them money. The problem is that it is next to impossible to know exactly when one will reach that point. So while it is a good thing that Spanish banks are being bailed out, avoiding that tipping point for Spain, the market sees that nothing really seems to be learned. Every step in this crisis has been about Europe’s leaders looking to find more money to borrow instead of fixing the problem. Eventually Europe must live within its means and start reducing debt instead of adding to it. The current situation cannot go on forever and therefore will stop. The question is: does it stop voluntarily with European governments making difficult grown-up decisions, or does it stop by force when there is nothing left to borrow? The former would be less painful, but thus far the latter looks more probable.

Chuck Osborne, CFA
Managing Director

~Borrowing Your Way Out of Indebtedness

Since we last stirred you with our insights on austerity, Europe’s woes have continued with almost all of Southern Europe now reporting negative GDP growth; JP Morgan has embarrassed itself with a loss that CEO Jamie Dimon called stupid; and markets have reacted as we thought they would.

While JP Morgan’s highly publicized loss has once again surfaced the anger many feel towards the titans of Wall Street, the coverage has really added more heat than it has shed light. The complicated nature of what occurred makes it difficult to understand, but I believe it was Albert Einstein who once explained that if you cannot explain a concept so that a kindergartener can understand it, then you really don’t understand it yourself. This is why we always start out investment education sessions by explaining the simple truth that there are only two ways to invest: You either own something that you believe will increase in value while you own it, or you loan money to someone who you feel confident will pay you back plus interest. That is it. When you own something – it could be stock of a publically traded company, stock of a privately traded company, a bar of gold, a work of art, or baseball cards – you had better understand what it is you own and what it is really worth. When you loan money –as simple as a direct loan to a family member or as complicated as the collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s) that have JP Morgan sweating – you had better understand to whom you have loaned and what kind of credit risk you are taking. JP Morgan evidently did not understand just how much they had loaned out, which, as Jamie Dimon said himself, is really just stupidity.

Of course the root cause of all this market turmoil and JP Morgan’s trading woes is the ongoing saga of Europe. In our last Insight I said there is no alternative to austerity. Of course there are those who claim that there is an alternative; they say Europe – or any of the individual countries who wish to exit the Euro and re-establish their own currency – can simply turn on the printing press, so to speak, and print enough money to pay all of its bills. This is often referred to as devaluing the currency because it causes a high amount of inflation.

They are not wrong exactly, but in reality austerity and devaluation of currency accomplish the same thing. Devaluation just has the political advantage of being dishonest. You see, if you are a retiree in Greece receiving a state pension check of €2,000 per month and the government says we can’t afford this payment and we must cut your check by €500, that is austerity. If they instead decide to inflate their way out, you will still receive a check for €2000 but it will be worth only €1,500 or potentially much less because of inflation. It is still the same pain, it is still austere, it is just less honest.

The thing the advocates of turning on the presses don’t understand is that governments do not create money; they print currency, but that is not the same thing. Money is an economic mechanism that allows one to store value. Just as all investing boils down to two basic roles, owner or lender, all economic activity ultimately boils down to barter. Our clients are a diverse group: some practice law, some run hotels, some load and unload cargo from ships, but all of them produce economic value. Money allows us to spend our time doing whatever it is we do best. I get to research financial and economic data and make investment decisions, and not worry about planting crops or hunting for meat or building my family’s house. You, our clients, value what I do and you pay me for it. I can then exchange that value for things my family and I need, like food and shelter. We all do this. If the government decides to greatly increase the amount of currency in circulation, that does not increase the value of my services.

My father grew up in the depression and he is fond of telling us stories about how he walked barefoot five miles to school, up hill both ways, often in knee-deep snow. (I think that is how it goes; to be honest his children stopped listening a long time ago.) He also talks about a loaf of bread costing a dime. When the baker bakes that bread he creates value. When my father was a child, that value could be stored in a dime. A loaf of bread is still a loaf of bread and it is no more valuable today than it was then; if anything it is less valuable, as we are a much more prosperous society today. My grandparents wouldn’t have thrown away any end pieces while struggling to feed seven children during the depression. However, today a loaf of bread costs $2.31 according to government data (and a lot more than that if you buy the whole wheat bread we eat at my house). Bread has not changed in value, but our currency has changed, and it stores much less value today than it did when my father was young.

Southern Europe has consumed much more economic value than it has created. It must find ways to pay back that debt. You can call it austerity or you can call it devaluation of currency but either way, life will be austere and markets will be disrupted. Austerity is the reality of Europe and it must be faced sooner or later.

Chuck Osborne, CFA
Managing Director

~Austerity 2, Europe’s Mess and JP Morgan’s Embarrassment

The economic news of late has not been good. Last week the UK officially went into recession, followed this week by Spain. At home we continue to receive mixed signals. Last week’s durable goods report showed a significant pullback, followed by a GDP report worse than most expected, showing the economy grew at a slow 2.2 percent rate in the first quarter. We received a better-than-expected report from the Institute of Supply Management, which stated that manufacturing expanded in April. Interestingly, the expansion is the highest since March of 2011, right before the last attempt at recovery stalled. Based on all the other data, it seems likely to happen this time as well.

I wish I could come up with a better scenario, but when durable goods orders are down, meaning consumers are buying fewer manufactured goods, and manufacturing activity is higher, meaning more goods were manufactured, the signal for the future is, “slowdown ahead.” I know that I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but this is what a 2 percent growth economy looks like: fits and starts, and good news followed by bad, but little real growth.

In Europe things are much worse than most expected, although we never understood the optimism in the first place. It has become popular to blame the whole thing on the austerity measures taken by the troubled European governments. The problem with this theory is that it ignores both the actions that got Europe in this mess at the outset, and the current reality that the European nations are bankrupt. I really believe that much of the denial regarding Europe has to do with the fact that we are witnessing the collapse of social democracy, much like we witnessed the collapse of its more pure cousin, socialism, twenty years ago, and there are many to whom this realization is an anathema.

Unfortunately for those who want to blame austerity, when you have spent all the money you have as well as all the money people are willing to loan you, then you are bankrupt. Bankruptcy brings on a very austere reality. The long-term solution is to learn to live within one’s means, but in the short term, pain is unavoidable. Those who champion less austerity or even more stimulus are correct about reducing the immediate pain, but they only dig the hole deeper, leading to even more pain down the road. Borrowed money must be paid back.

I often think that John Maynard Keynes must turn over in his grave every time the proponents of never-ending spending use his name. The thing politicians don’t seem to understand about Keynes’ theory on the role of government in smoothing capitalism’s rough edges is that it was intended to be a two-edged sword. Yes Keynes believed governments should run deficits during economic downturns in order to stimulate the economy, but he paid for those deficits by running surpluses during the good times. His idea was to smooth the cycle, which in theory would not only reduce the pain of recessions but also reduce the reward of boom times. Keynes knew that there was no such thing as a free lunch.

Unfortunately, many politicians who claim to be following his theories do not seem to understand this basic principle. (Interestingly, one of the reasons economists believe Keynesian stimulus has never worked in reality as he thought it would is because the masses are smarter than he thought and intuitively know that borrowed money must be paid back.) If you ignore this reality long enough you become Greece or Spain or soon the whole of Europe. Those who call for less austerity are simply in denial about the seriousness of Europe’s situation.

The markets are just beginning to pay attention. The silver lining is that this scenario – recession in Europe and anemic growth elsewhere – is exactly what we thought would happen, and we believe our portfolios are well-positioned to ride out the impending storm. This storm, like all storms, will pass, and good times will return, but the storm must come. Blaming the medicine will not cure the disease, and holding back the storm will just make it bigger. Austerity is not fun, and will not be popular, but ultimately it is the only way out.

Chuck Osborne, CFA
Managing Director

~Austerity

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Fed), gave a speech on Monday that sent the equity markets skyward. He announced to the world that he is going to keep the peddle down and the presses rolling:  loose monetary policy is here to stay. The markets applauded, but should they?

There is another way to interpret what Bernanke is telling us:  The economy is still in trouble. We have been hit with a lot of encouraging news over the last few weeks, especially with improving unemployment numbers. However, the Fed is concerned that these recent gains may not be sustainable. Unfortunately, we would have to agree.

Europe’s problems are not going away even if the media decides not to report on them when there are other more exciting things to cover. In Europe once again there are calls to increase the ever-growing bailout fund, and once again Germany is saying, “Wait a minute.” Italian and Spanish yields are creeping back up. Although the new Italian government led by Mario Monti has introduced some brave, and needed, reforms of the Italian labor market, those reforms are being resisted by the powerful trade unions. If Italy cannot overcome that resistance it will likely follow the path of their neighbor, Greece, with much greater consequence to the rest of the world.

China’s growth is slowing perhaps more than we realized. We have been very hesitant to jump on the anti-China bandwagon, but there are certainly signs that the world’s economic growth machine is slowing down. China is in the middle of an economic transition. Factory wages have grown dramatically and have encouraged a shift from China being simply being a cheap source of manufacturing for the developed world, to becoming a self-sustaining, consumer-driven economy. This maturing process may come with some growing pains.

Then of course there is the Middle East. What is going to happen between Iran and its neighbors is anyone’s guess, but we deal in the world of probabilities and a military conflict of some sort seems like a fairly strong probability. That will not go over well with oil prices, and if the already high price of oil spikes from current levels, all economic recoveries could be off.

This is the world Bernanke sees. Unfortunately keeping monetary policy loose will not help with most of the risks. This, however, is the problem with the Fed’s dual mandate of stable money and economic growth for low unemployment. The Fed must realize that since the end of the financial crisis its policies have not been effective, but what choice do they have as long as their mandate is to promote growth? It is increasingly clear that the problems our economy faces cannot be solved through monetary policy alone.

Markets cheer the news that money will continue to be printed, but this knee jerk reaction could quickly move the other way when investors start to understand what Bernanke and the Fed are really saying. They are saying that despite all their efforts things are not getting better. That is not a bullish message.

Over the past month the market bulls have been saying that the U.S. economy is picking up and that we can be a catalyst for global growth once more. Bernanke just told us that isn’t going to happen, and we think investors should listen.

Chuck Osborne, CFA
Managing Director

~What Is The Fed Really Telling Us?