Boom2Bust.com

How Will McCain, Obama Deal With A Record Budget Deficit?

Last week, I talked about the U.S. national debt. $53 trillion of debt (factoring in long-term liabilities), or $455,000 per American household.

This week, it’s the U.S. budget deficit, which the White House predicts will reach close to half a trillion dollars in 2009. The Associated Press’ Andrew Taylor wrote earlier today:

The government’s budget deficit will surge past a half-trillion dollars next year, according to gloomy new estimates, a record flood of red ink that promises to force the winner of the presidential race to dramatically alter his economic agenda.

The deficit will hit $482 billion in the 2009 budget year that will be inherited by Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the White House estimated Monday. That figure is sure to rise after adding the tens of billions of dollars in additional Iraq war funding it doesn’t include, and the total could be higher yet if the economy fails to recover as the administration predicts.

The result: the biggest deficit ever in terms of dollars, though several were higher in the 1980s and early 1990s as a percentage of the overall economy.

Both presidential candidates have proposed new initiatives as part of their campaign platforms. The question is, how will this latest deficit forecast affect their agendas? Taylor noted:

Neither campaign is backing off campaign promises — McCain to cut taxes and Obama to expand health and education programs — in light of the bleaker new figures.

“We can’t afford not to invest in some major initiatives such as health and energy and middle-class tax cuts,” said Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. “And we also can’t afford not to pay for those initiatives.”

Some would disagree with Furman. MarketWatch’s Robert Schroeder wrote today:

Stan Collender, a managing director for Qorvis Communications who formerly worked on both the Senate and House Budget Committees, is skeptical that the next president will have an easy time getting much accomplished as long as the deficit remains high.

“Based on what we now know for sure about next year’s budget, none of the presidential candidates’ promises should be taken seriously,” said Collender. “Unless they, the country, and those lending us money are willing to tolerate much higher nominal deficits and a larger debt than has so far been imaginable, the next president’s options will be severely limited,” Collender wrote Tuesday.

Sources:

“US deficit zooming to half-trillion as Bush leaves”
Andrew Taylor
Associated Press, July 29, 2008

“Deficit projections complicate candidates’ plans”
Robert Schroeder
MarketWatch, July 29, 2008

Vanguard Founder Says Recession Odds At 75 Percent

Earlier today, CNN Money posted the answers to questions Fortune readers asked of John Bogle, the 78-year-old founder of mutual fund giant Vanguard. With $1.3 trillion in assets, Vanguard is now the second-largest mutual fund company. Bogle talked about the odds of a U.S. recession, the U.S. housing market, the subprime crisis, and challenges to the U.S. economy, among other issues.

What are the odds of a recession right now?

I would put the odds of a recession at 75 percent. This economy is very much consumer-based, and I believe that 70 percent of the GDP is consumer spending. That’s a very high number. Two things are happening there: Consumers have fewer resources because from 2001 to 2005 they took $5 trillion out of real estate. That will not recur. This is a big drop. We also see weakness in auto sales and retail spending - we even see it at companies like Starbucks. There is another, equally important factor in consumer spending, and that is confidence. Consumers are not going to spend if they are worried about the future.

Will the real estate market improve anytime soon?

It doesn’t look so good. I really don’t see it improving soon. At some point homes will have to be built. But right now there is not much incentive to build new places when there are so many old places on the market. When those lines cross I don’t know. It’s complicated by the fact that many people have gotten into ARMs [adjustable-rate mortgages] who didn’t know what they were doing. I don’t know what is going to happen to those people when lenders foreclose. When banks were community banks, they were more careful. But when banks sell loans in a bundle, they are clearly not going to be concerned about mortgage quality. So we have to have a better system in the future to make sure we have a much better element of credit quality in mortgages.

How does the U.S. subprime mess compare with other crises you have seen in your career?

I’d say the most similar example was the S&L crisis of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s. The issues were somewhat the same: Institutions borrowed short and lent long.

The immediate concern for most investors is the subprime market, but over the long term what do you see as the biggest challenges facing the U.S. economy?

Externally, we are faced with $1.5 trillion already poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. So you have enormous expenditures in a corner of the world that is important to us, but it is very unwise to think we can bring democracy to a place that doesn’t share our values. There are also the challenges from low cost production in China and India. At home, we have a tremendous future financial problem with the federal deficit. We’ll have to take action on Social Security someday. Government spending has gotten to the point where we will have to either cut spending or raise taxes. Another problem is this deadlocked Congress. And I see the quality and caliber of our presidential nominees, and I am not impressed.

It raises the question of whether this country is even able to run itself anymore.

Russia’s Gazprom May Say No To Dollars

When I see what’s happened to the U.S. dollar, I think of Rodney Dangerfield and him always joking “I don’t get no respect.” And according to Bloomberg this afternoon, the greenback took another one on the chin as Gazprom, the world’s largest natural gas exporter, announced it may start selling its crude and gas production in rubles rather than dollars and euros.

Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive officer, told reporters in New York today that, “We are seriously thinking about selling our resources in rubles.” The gas giant’s chief financial officer, Andrei Kruglov, told the same members of the press that the switch would happen “sooner, rather than later.”

According to New York Times reference material on Gazprom:

What former General Motors president Charles E. Wilson said of his company – “what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa” - could well apply to Russia’s Gazprom, the nation’s largest company. The line between state-owned Gazprom and the Russian state is often blurry. The monopoly’s primary activity is selling natural gas in Europe at market rates to subsidize energy prices domestically. Several board members wear two hats and also work in government; for example, Dmitri A. Medvedev, a first deputy prime minister, is chairman of Gazprom. Still, the company controls more hydrocarbon reserves than the country of Iraq. So when it opened to foreign investors earlier this year, the capitalization spiked over $200 billion. Gazprom produced 545 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2004.

Bloomberg noted that the dollar has fallen 11% against the euro so far this year, which has reduced the value of exports by oil-rich nations and contributed to a 49% increase in crude oil prices. This announcement comes on the heels of the secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council saying last week that six Gulf Arab states will discuss a proposal next month to revalue their currencies against the U.S. dollar.

Gold: Barbarous Relic Or Investment Superstar? Part 2

In part one of a three-part series on gold, I noted that the price of the metal has risen significantly in the past year, despite all the arguments leveled against gold by its detractors. Meanwhile, the metal looks to be headed for its seventh straight annual gain. Gold bulls point to the following as having a significant impact on its price in 2007:

U.S. Dollar Weakness- The U.S. currency is down four out of the last five years, and has dropped almost 11% so far this year based on the Federal Reserve’s U.S. Trade-Weighted Major Currency Index. This autumn it’s been at its weakest against the euro since the European currency started trading in 1999, the lowest against the Canadian dollar since it was floated in 1950, and at a 26-year low versus the British pound. The end of the U.S. housing boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, and a credit crunch, in conjunction with forecasts for a slowing U.S. economy, have weighed down the U.S. currency. The increased threats from dollar diversification by countries holding large numbers of greenbacks in their foreign currency reserves, sovereign wealth funds looking to exchange their dollars for other assets, and more nations looking to decouple their currencies from the U.S. dollar have only made matters worse for the world’s reserve currency. Assuming the existence of a strategic inverse relationship between gold and the greenback, investors have poured money into the precious metal and related investment vehicles. Validating such actions have been forecasts by legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, Jim Rogers, and George Soros, who all predict that the U.S. dollar is going lower. Back on October 25, Buffett was quoted by CNBC as saying, “We are still negative on the dollar. We bought stocks in companies that are earning their money in other currencies.” On November 15, Rogers told Bloomberg that, “If you have dollars, I urge you to get out. That’s not a currency to own.” Finally, on June 2, AME Info reported that Soros said, “A slowdown in the United States will be transmitted to the rest of the world via a weaker dollar.”

Geopolitical Risk- The continuing stalemate between the West and Iran over its nuclear program, political instability in Pakistan, and Turkey’s spat with Iraq are just some of the more recent geopolitical risks that have driven the price of gold higher. The ever-present danger from Al-Qaeda should not be forgotten either. Consider the following warning from Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), where for 6 years he was in charge of the search for Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. When asked by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty earlier this year if he expected more attacks on the United States or in the West on the scale of September 11, 2001, Scheuer’s response was:

Oh, I think greater than 9/11. I don’t think it will happen in Europe, but I do think it will happen in the United States. Bin Laden has been very clear that each of Al-Qaeda’s attacks on America will be greater than the last, and I think the only reason we haven’t seen an attack so far is that he doesn’t have that attack prepared. But when he does, he will use it. And try to get us out of the way, which of course is his main goal.

Stephen Walker, director of global mining research at RBC Capital Markets, said last week that increasing geopolitical risk, combined with combined with rising economic uncertainty, “should continue to provide incentives for investors to increase their exposure to gold as a safe haven.”

Supply and Demand- Last Friday, the Telegraph (UK) announced:

The era of ‘peak gold’ has arrived. Try as they might, miners cannot find enough ore at viable costs to replace their fast-depleting reserves, even if they dig miles into the centre of the earth.

The global mine supply of gold peaked in 2002, and has fallen every year since. Last year alone, the mine supply of gold fell 15%. Also in 2006, South Africa, the world’s single-largest gold producer, produced its lowest amount of gold since 1922 with overall output down 72% since its 1970 peak. It should be noted that no major new mine production is expected in the near-term either.

On the demand side, RBC Capital Markets noted last Wednesday that demand is rising as consumption increases in China, India, and the Middle East. On Thursday, a study by precious metals consultant GFMS Ltd. showed that global gold demand in the third quarter rose 19% year-on-year on the back of robust inflows into bullion investment funds and improved jewelry consumption. The report revealed that the increase in investment demand replaced jewelry buying as the major source of growth for the third quarter. Demand grew sharply in India, China, Turkey, and the Middle East, while it slowed in the United States.

Outside of U.S. dollar weakness, geopolitical risk, and supply/demand factors, gold bulls say that some of the drawbacks which Bloomberg’s Michael Sesit spelled out in part one are actually advantages to owning the precious metal. Critics of gold like to point out that it “doesn’t earn a return.” Michael J. Kosares, President and Founder of Centennial Precious Metals, Inc., argued in his book The ABCs of Gold Investing, that:

Those who criticize gold because it fails to offer a return do not really understand gold’s position as the fixed North Star of asset value around which all other assets rotate. Gold is a stand-alone asset. It relies on no individual or institution for value. Gold investors prefer it this way. In the ultimate sense, this is what money is and what money should be.

Another criticism directed at gold, said Sesit, is “the world’s biggest holders of gold, major central banks, aren’t overly eager to keep owning it.” If so, gold bulls ask why central banks hesitate to unload the metal. In 2006, net central bank sales amounted to just 319 tons, less than half of the 659 tons recorded in the previous year.

Love it or hate it, bulls and bears, gold is here to stay. In the final part of this series, I will talk about where this precious metal may go from here.

(Part 3 will be posted on Wednesday)