Boom2Bust.com

World’s Highest Paid Investment Adviser: U.S. Faces Hyperinflation Or Depression

I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this, but I am extremely grateful to Peter Brimelow over at MarketWatch. Without his column, I wouldn’t have access to the insights of Harry Schultz, the highest paid investment consultant in the world. For those readers not familiar with Mr. Schultz, I talked about him back on December 13. From that post:

Have you ever heard of Harry Schultz? I sure have, and to this day I am still in absolute awe of the money this man earns. Mr. Schultz, publisher of the International Harry Schultz Letter, is the highest paid investment consultant in the world at $3,500 an hour (or $4,900 an hour if you require his services during the weekend).

Brimelow talked about Schultz’ latest U.S. economic forecast this past Monday on MarketWatch. He wrote:

Harry Schultz’ The International Harry Schultz Letter was posted last night right about the time the Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac bailout was reported. But Schultz anticipated it, writing sarcastically:

“Flash: As we go to press, the US Government reveals plan to take over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the biggest bail-out by taxpayers in history. It also wipes out the shareholders! Sunday selected to avoid stock market action same day, just as bank closures are told after market close Friday. That tells you what shape markets are in when government and CEOs hide behind holidays.”

Schultz had earlier made his overview clear (I’m translating slightly from of his text-message style):

“Fed maneuver room approximately gone. Any $US injection big enough to avert a depression triggers runaway inflation. If not big enough: depression. US on knife-edge. Gold helps you either way.”

This apocalyptic vision is consistent with his earlier predictions, such as one I discussed in a February 18 post. Brimelow stated back then:

Schultz writes: “It’s a derivative crisis, stupid!… 9,000 U.S. banks failed in 1929-1932; look for new records… Hyper-inflation is a distinct possibility; stay awake!”

Among his more colorful recommendations: “Buy a few local non-rare gold coins of whatever country you are in for emergency/barter use, smallest denominations… Keep 6-12 months cash at home/office/ lawyer-doctor office. Pretend an emergency is coming, because it may be.”

…and from that December 13 post:

Among other interesting ideas raised by Schultz in his intense, somewhat terrifying introduction: recession, possibly depression; bank failures; exchange controls; housing prices down by 50%; credit card company failures; money market fund dangers; tripling of U.S. jobless numbers; federal bail-outs for Fannie Mae.

Note the bailout prediction for Fannie Mae.

Fast forward to Schultz’s latest forecast. Brimelow wrote:

Schultz suggests just two alternative scenarios, both equally appalling:

“If Bush bails them all out, the die would be cast for inflation unseen in the West since 1923 Germany. If no bail: Hello, 1929.”

Gee, thanks.

Brimelow talked about what Schultz thought was going to happen next, and what those hoping to be one step ahead of the herd should do about it. He wrote:

In his latest issue, Schultz summarizes:

“Widespread stagflation will probably now build more inflation than stagnation, then gradually morph into more stagnation than inflation. Then, deflation takes over, and ultimately, depression. All this over next 9 years.”

“For the moment, seal off major wipe-out risks. Exit all money funds and currency time deposits, step up gold & oil positions, move into 1-2 year government bonds (non-US $) in First World nations. Swiss first choice. Think not of yield; think of an ark’s life preserver around your neck.”

Schultz, notes Brimelow, is currently negative on the U.S. stock market. But, the Swiss-based investment adviser predicts an upside target of $1,600 an ounce for gold as he believes its recent plummet in price is merely a correction.

Source:

“Unraveling according to schedule”
Peter Brimelow
MarketWatch, September 8, 2008

Bank Of Central Banks: Stagflation Risk For U.S. Economy

Malcolm Knight, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, told Reuters’ Brian Love last week that stagflation might occur in the United States, with weak economic growth lasting well into 2009, if not longer. According to Investopedia, stagflation is “a condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment- a time of stagnation- accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation.” The BIS is an international organization which fosters international monetary and financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks around the world, including the Federal Reserve. Established on May 17, 1930, it is the world’s oldest international financial organization.

Reuters’ European economic correspondent wrote:

“I see a certain amount of scope for stagflation in a number of economies and that usually tends to result in subpar economic growth performance for an extended period of time, which could go well into 2009 or even longer,” said Knight, a Canadian who worked for more than 20 years at the International Monetary Fund.

“I think the U.S. economy is likely to experience weakness this year and in much of 2009,” said Knight, speaking to Reuters at BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.

“Stagflation is a definite risk.”

Love noted that Knight’s outlook contradicts the White House’s assertions that the U.S. economy will rebound later in the year as the result of economic stimulus initiatives.

Source:

“U.S. risks stagflation: BIS chief”
Brian Love
Reuters, April 29, 2008

Head Of Group That Identifies Recessions Says 50% Probability

Last Friday, the head of the nation’s leading nonprofit economic research organization told Bloomberg in an interview that the chance of a recession in the United States stood at about 50%. Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economist and president/CEO of the NBER (the group responsible for dating U.S. economic cycles), said there may “easily” be a U.S. economic recession in 2008 if consumer spending declines along with home values. When asked about the chance for an economic contraction, Feldstein replied, “I would put it at about 50 percent…” He said the risk “clearly has been increasing.”

The Ivy League economist also warned that, “There’s a danger of the U.S. falling into stagflation,” with gross domestic product shrinking and inflation increasing by around 3.5%. Feldstein added, “We are looking at a slightly higher inflation rate than we want.” However, he noted, “We are not back to the very high inflation rates we had in the late 1970s.” On whether or not the United States is heading towards stagflation, it “depends on how you want to define it.” Investopedia defines stagflation as, “A condition of slow economic growth and relatively high unemployment - a time of stagnation - accompanied by a rise in prices, or inflation.” On the Sunday ABC program “This Week,” fellow economist and former Fed chair Alan Greenspan told host George Stephanopoulos that, “We are beginning to get not stagflation, but the early symptoms of it.”

Greenspan On Recession, Stagflation, And Rescuing Homeowners

This morning, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared on the ABC program “This Week” and talked with host George Stephanopoulos about the risks of recession and stagflation, and what could be done, if anything, to prevent more homeowners from losing their residences.

On the probability of an economic recession in the United States:

Well, that the probabilities of a recession have moved up to close to 50 percent — whether it’s above or below is really extraordinarily difficult to tell. I think that’s correct.

On the prospects for stagflation in the U.S.:

Well, I’m most concerned about it… and the evidence is clearly there in rising export prices coming out of China. It’s coming out — it’s showing up in a slowed rate of productivity growth in the United States and elsewhere, and we are beginning to get not stagflation, but the early symptoms of it.

The former head of the Federal Reserve also discussed the current housing crisis in the United States, the problems associated with subprime and other classes of mortgages, and foreclosures:

Greenspan: There are going to be significant losses [on Subprime and Alt-A mortgages]. And there are loss ranges, now — the minimum, now, is $200 billion. But it’s easy, by some calculations, to get to $400 billion.

Stephanopoulos: The political world is now looking at the immediate pain. And Senator Clinton looks — has called for a freeze on foreclosures. Senator Edwards called for a rescue fund to be set up by the government for people who are facing these kind of foreclosures. What do you think about those ideas?

Greenspan: It’s important to help those people without affecting the mortgage rates and without affecting the structure of markets. Cash [from the government] is available and we should use that in larger amounts.

… It’s far less damaging to the economy to create a short term fiscal problem, which we would, than to try to fix the prices of homes or interest rates. If you do that, it’ll drag this process out indefinitely.

Stephanopoulos: But by infusing cash, it sounds like you agree, then, with former Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who says that, right now, given this crisis, there has to be a bias toward activism.

Greenspan: It depends what you mean by activism. If you mean doing something that works, absolutely. If you mean doing something just for the sake of perceptions, that’s very costly. I don’t know if [infusing cash] would work, but it would certainly help people — it would help their incomes; it would help their personal state, without affecting the structure of the way markets are behaving and the way adjustment process is going on. It’s very critical that this thing reach a selling climax — if I may put it in other words, exhaust itself. It’s only when the markets are perceived to have exhausted themselves on the downside that they turn. Trying to prevent them from going down just merely prolongs the agony.

The Financial Times (UK) noted afterwards that Alan Greenspan’s remarks about supporting the use of public cash to help struggling U.S. homeowners would likely “fuel growing political pressure for a more radical response to the housing crisis.”