4/20/2011 1:40 PM ET|
Is America the new Greece?
I checked in with Societe Generale economist Aneta Markowska to see what her interpretation of the market action was. She recently cut her real-time Q1 U.S. GDP estimate to just 1.25% due to weakness in retail sales, business inventories and the international trade balance. Here are her comments to me concerning the credit outlook downgrade, reprinted verbatim:
"It shouldn't impact the near-term economic outlook, unless risky assets really fall apart here. Interestingly, the bond market really took the S&P in stride, so that limits the near-term economic impact. We still look for a more respectable GDP reading in Q2 (~4%), which would be more in-line with the ISM surveys and production data.
"The potential impact of S&P's decision is medium-term. I think that the outlook change could serve as a wake-up call in Washington and increase the chances that a compromise can actually be reached this year. If so, the fiscal drag on the economy in 2012-2013 would be greater than we had assumed, and the Fed's exit could be delayed. Ironically, this means that the S&P move could actually prove supportive for the Treasury market in the medium-term."
So there you have it. A credit outlook downgrade of U.S. government debt -- on concerns we won't repay it -- in the end had a positive influence on bond prices as traders priced in the economic impact of fiscal tightening.
In simpler terms: Wall Street is betting on a new recession caused by the budget cutting and tax hikes as we deal with our debt.
Pricing in the pain
So how painful will austerity be?
Well, the cuts and tax increases currently proposed by the president and House Republicans don't come close to controlling the problem. The International Monetary Fund -- a global watchdog on fiscal matters -- has lambasted U.S. leaders for the lack of a "credible strategy" to reduce debt.
According to IMF calculations, no more than half the spending cuts and tax increases that are needed to reduce the government's debt to pre-financial crisis levels (around 60% of GDP) by 2030 have been proposed. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., wants $6 trillion in cuts over 10 years; the president wants $4 trillion in savings over 12 years.
The IMF estimates that -- after accounting for age-related spending on entitlements -- the federal budget would need to be slashed by nearly $12 trillion by 2020 to reach pre-crisis levels.
Compare that number with the much-ballyhooed $38 billion "cut" from the 2011 budget agreement hammered out two weeks ago to avoid a government shutdown. This was voodoo austerity. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that actual reductions in spending amount to only $352 million, or 0.002% of GDP.
All of that heavy breathing and political posturing, and we haven't even started yet.
And one could argue that politicians are just doing what Americans want. People like the idea of a balanced budget and reduced indebtedness, but they don't like what we'd have to do to get there. In a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, 47% of respondents said we should not make significant cuts in spending in next year's budget.
It's hard to find much support for specific actions, either. A Pew Research Center poll found that ideas including reducing funding for roads, making Medicare recipients pay more out of pocket, eliminating the home-mortgage-interest-deduction and raising the Social Security retirement age were all nonstarters. The only two ideas that attracted a majority of respondents were raising the Social Security contribution cap (a variation of tax the rich) and freezing the salaries of federal workers.
We're also facing these uncomfortable choices at a time of economic vulnerability because of increased inflationary pressure and a drop in consumer confidence.
Standard Chartered economist David Mann told clients this week that the U.S. economy "is proving to be less resilient in the face of shocks than many would have thought." And that's because consumers are still working off the excesses of the housing boom. Incomes are stagnant.
Already, Mann estimates at the GDP growth contribution from consumer spending is down to 1.3% from 2.9% in the fourth quarter. We're nearing the economy's stall speed -- and spending cuts and tax increases won't help.
Time to pull on the reins
Like the market, I think we will eventually do the right thing. But that means we're headed for another soft patch of growth as austerity bites. We had one last summer as the eurozone was forced to clamp down economically and save Greece. Now, it's America's turn.
Because of this tough patch ahead, I've recommended my newsletter clients move into conservative assets like iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond Fund (LQD) and shun risky assets like commodities and economically sensitive cyclical stocks for now.
One point of concern has been the huge shift into late-stage defensive stocks like consumer staples and health care over the past two months -- ending three years of relative underperformance. Similar behavior was seen in late 2007 as the last bull market entered its final stage. Investors are hunkering down.
The trouble with diving headfirst into defensive issues, though, is that they tend to outperform early in this cycle. So be careful not to buy a price spike.
If you are a buy-and-hold investor holding a varied portfolio, then than you should already be prepared for this movement, called sector rotation. If you like to actively manage your holdings, move away from cyclical and small-cap stocks. Hold more in cash until investors show an appetite for risk again.
And although precious metals look pricey now, I'd increase exposure to gold and silver assets -- specifically the commodity ETFs like the SPDR Gold Shares (GLD, news) and the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) -- as protection against the Federal Reserve's temptation to increase inflation as a way of easing the government's debt burden. Be sure to see my April 18 column for more on the long-term outlook for gold prices.
Disclosure: Anthony has recommended iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond to his newsletter subscribers.
Be sure to check out Anthony's new money management service, Mirhaydari Capital Management, and his investment newsletter, the Edge. A free, two-week trial subscription to the newsletter has been extended to MSN Money readers. Click here to sign up. Mirhaydari can be contacted at email@example.com and followed on Twitter at @EdgeLetter. You can view his current stock picks here. Feel free to comment below.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
"47% of respondents said we should not make significant cuts in spending in next year's budget"
And thus we have proof that 47% of America is monumentally stupid. Tax increases, yes, that'll help to close the gap, but it's not the silver bullet. We have to stop spending like we have it. We don't.
Americans are spoiled and don't want to give up their luxuries. We all want our new cars and houses, but if you can't easily pay the debt or pay cash then you need to live with what you have. Be it individuals, companies, or governments. I'm lucky to be making good money (haven't always) and I easily live within my means.
I agree the bailout was a joke. To big to fail? My _ _ _! Let the billionaires bail their own companies out. Universal health care? Great idea, but it won't work in this environment. I have no problem with immigrants, but they need to come in LEGALLY. Our wars have degenerated into protecting our oil interests in foreign countries that don't want us invading their countries. What ever happened to Bin Laden? You never hear about him anymore and isn't he the reason we are supposed to be at war in the first place?
The spending will continue until the deficit is solved is our government's motto!
So as a first solution why not raise taxes on the wealthy to an effective tax rate of 35-40%?
That would still leave them with a couple hundred million to fool around with every year.
Except in the case of the government, no one will buy your bonds or accept your worthless dollars in payment anymore. And the complaint I have with the "Repugs" is that they didn't go far enough in demanding spending cuts, and the Dems must be living in their tired old dreamworld, that if we just spend enough, everyone can live happily ever after, and the government needs to take care of everybody. I was shocked to read that only Ireland and the US have deficits in excess of 10% of their GDP. We can't wait for the 2012 election. Action must be taken now! Sadly we are stuck with politicians when we desperately need statesmen. The only problem with democracy is that the people get the government they deserve.
Reading these comments this morning is disheartening. There's a serious need for some of you to read Adam Smith, George Orwell, Napoleon Hill and some Aye Rand.
The theme woven here is that government is the answer. That's what you are saying when you advocate higher taxes, whether on the rich, or across the board. A basic rule, as inevitable as gravity, is that you get less of what you punish (tax) and more of what you reward. Tax the rich, and first their money will leave, they they will. Make it easier to be poor (the great society) and you get generational poor who accept it as a normal life style. Why is that bad? Mostly because the rich are the ones with the mental capital that is required to drive any economy forward. Sadly, many, if not most of them have lost the moral compass that would compel them to feel obligated to share that wealth.
Andrew Carnagie gave us free library's, Henry Ford increased the average pay from one to five dollars a day so his people could buy his cars.
The answer to this dilemma is not to used to force of government to confiscate their wealth. It's to create an environment so you can create and share your own wealth as you, a free agent, see's fit.
Some will fail.....some will succeed beyond their wilds dreams. Both will rise and fall on their own choices. The rich can help or hoard. The failures can turn to those will to help, not forced to, and try again. I know, it's a terrible system. But you're not going to fix it with big government. The cliche, and the truth is communism would've been a world wide success if that was the answer. Lastly, remember, the collapse of the Soviet Union was not a military event, it was an economic event brought on by debt. It was long in coming and frighteningly swift in its conclusion.
We are on the same path.
I mostly agree with you. However you left out one guilty party, either accidentally or intentionally. Large corporate interests who have, through lobbying, managed to loophole 95+% of what they do out of the tax code, or be subsidized by the rest of us.
I think it's safe to say GE doesn't pay its fare share at zero. Lets make sure we get all the bad actors in here.
Like happy endings,
Iceland? The land that never met a sub-prime mortgage security they didn't like? The land that literally had a bank implosion and their currency went to next to nothing? The land that had McDonalds close down because they couldn't import the packaging for the burgers at a price that was affordable to even sell the burger? They didn't nationalize the private banker debt but they took on more then enough that they ate a big turd pie and still had an economic collapse.
Only good thing about Iceland is they have already imploded. We're just on the other side of the curve.
I have no problem with communism (democrats in control). I don't have to think or innovate. I can just go through the motions, knowing I will be paid the exact same low wages...
Then we can all watch our standard of living drop until everyone is poor... We can have big government run everything, determine where to invest capital, and have decades of failed 5 year plans.
Didn't we learn anything from the communists? Why follow the democrats down that path again?
So much for it being global.
What the heck is this crap at the bottom of my reply.
(Your post was blocked because it has a hyperlink or appears similar to spam. Please revise your post and try again.)
America can't be the new Greece because we control our own currency and they don't. It's an invalid comparison.
So S&P is sounding the alarm. Let's see, that would be the same S&P that collected all those banker fees for rating their now worthless mortgage derivatives AAA, wouldn't it? How much credibility should they have?
Let these boys pay for cleaning up their own mess by taxing financial transactions. A few cents apiece will raise a lot of money from the people who should be paying.
Bunch of liberal losers blasting rich people again - what else can I expect?
The fact is clear: US is a fairly equal-opportunity country. Citing some left-leaning studies about wealth gap does not invalidate this fact. The last time I check, Harvard give scholarship to hardworking and deserving kids.
So, if you are not rich or well-off (in this COUNTRY), it is most likely that you are lazy, stupid, have poor working attitude, make poor decision or just don't bother to think about making money.
Go ahead to tax hardworking 250k earners like me until I get mad, and I may decide to go to work in China and teach the engineers there to compete with US workers. Or at the minimum, I will move to a low-tax state, reduce my charity contribution, find more tax breaks / loopholes, avoid spending money and / or invest my extra cash overseas instead of in US.
The debt problem we have in Washington and states are not caused by rich people. They have contributed more than their fair share of tax. Most people who want to tax the rich are just so ignorant. (FYI: I paid > 40% of my gross income to all forms of taxes last year - and I say enough is enough)..
The debt problem is a result of irresponsible promise of entitlements to middle class that were created by politicians (mostly democrats, and also many equally guilty republicans). The second (but less important) reason is the military spending. Tax rate from the rich is not the cause of our debt problem. Could you guys please read up more before showing your ignorance?
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market ended the Thursday session on a modestly lower note, but a late-morning rebound lifted the indices off their lows. The S&P 500 shed 0.2% with seven sectors ending in the red.
This morning, European equities and U.S. futures slumped around 6:00 ET after Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko was quoted as saying Russian forces have invaded an area southeast of Donetsk. The news pressured the markets, but a brief uptick took place after a correction to ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|