|
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought
about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should
come sooner as a result of the voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion,
or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." - Ludwig
von Mises, Human Action, A Treatise of Economics, Yale University Press,
1949
Once again, we are treated to the vaunted "second-half recovery" mantra
from the mainstream financial press. Could it be that this year we will finally
have our cake and eat it, too? For the benefit of long-time Daily Reckoning
readers, we will cut to the chase and dispense with all illusions of suspense:
in reality, the U.S. economy is in recession, as reflected in the dismal employment
performance.
Pointing to the various statistical adjustments in the price indices that
substantially boost Americas real GDP growth, we have argued ad nauseum that
the reported U.S. growth rates grossly overstate the reality in comparison
to other countries.
Of course, it is nevertheless always possible that the economy is embarking
on a strong, solid recovery, as predicted and widely expected. The bullish
consensus draws its optimistic assessment largely from the belief that a sufficiently
strong policy stimulus is now in place and partly from some better-looking
indicators.
As to the first assumption about policy stimulus, we can only express our
utter amazement. It flatly ignores the extremely poor economic effects of the
even more prodigious monetary and fiscal stimulus of the past two-and-a-half
years. To us, this recent experience really forbids any optimism in this respect
about the future.
Assessing the U.S. economy's prospects essentially begins with two crucial
questions: first, will businesses start hiring and investing again pretty
soon? And second, will the consumer be willing and able to keep up his
borrowing and spending binge? Please consider that one month of the second
half of the year is already behind us.
Looking for the recovery, it strikes us in the first place that the second
quarter was no better than the first quarter, if not weaker. Production posted
gains of 0.1% in May and June. But it decreased at an annual rate of 3.2% in
comparison to the first quarter.
The central assumption behind the consensus' U.S. recovery forecasts is an
incipient, strong revival in business capital spending. In actual fact, it
is absolutely indispensable that it materialize very quickly.
Since any sign of higher investment spending or even of higher production
is so far completely missing, we have to look for early indicators. There are
modest improvements in survey indexes, generally considered as leading indicators,
but there is no trace of it in the hard data, reflecting current facts.
Capital goods orders and shipments, in our view the best proxy for investment
spending, remain stuck in virtual stagnation. In fact, 'core' orders for capital
goods excluding defense and aircraft dropped 0.4% in May, following a 2.8%
decline in the month before. New orders for machinery were 4.3% below their
level a year ago, and among those, orders for computers and electronic products
were down by 9.6%.
However, the bullish consensus argues that the necessary conditions for the
investment revival - above all, higher profits, higher cash flow and stronger
balance sheets - are developing.
It is generally agreed that a strong rebound in profits is the key condition
for a solid and sustained investment recovery. Aggregate after-tax profits
of nonfinancial corporate business, as measured by NIPA, were $197 billion
in 2002, even lower than the $205.3 billion in the recession year before. Yet
they improved in the course of the year. But as it is so often, the devil is
in the detail.
The fact is that profits have been and continue to be heavily inflated by
special factors. We note: first, big 'inventory profits' deriving from
rising oil and commodity prices; second, big gains from financial activity
and speculation; third, big currency gains by foreign subsidiaries of
U.S. firms; fourth, an unusually large rise in the profits of foreign firms
in the United States; and fifth, continuous, heavy underfunding of pension
fund obligations.
If the poor profit performance needs any further proof, it is in the unfaltering
'earnings-management game.' Despite the condemnation of past accounting tricks,
the familiar tricks to make profit numbers look better than they are have remained
in rampant use. A common ploy is to report fictive 'pro forma' profits; another
is to measure them against deliberately reduced 'expected' profit. For example:
the reported profits of Apple Computer topped expected profits by a whopping
67%. In actual fact, they had fallen 41%.
Whenever we read of better-than-expected profits, we presume cheating. Such
reports often lead to the systematic delusion of investors. Yet no one protests;
instead, they follow after the delusion in the hope that it will mean higher
stock prices. Economic reality is too unpleasant to be faced with open eyes.
But for people with a bit of common sense, this method of comparison is completely
arbitrary and meaningless.
It seems, of course, a fair assumption that a solid second-half economic recovery
will not fail to buoy profits. But first of all, we do not believe in this
recovery, and second, we fail to see the micro and macro adjustments that are
necessary to improve profits.
As we have stressed many times, our own assessment of profit prospects is
strictly determined by focusing on the particular flows of business revenues
and expenses that generate business profits. Based on this analysis, we see
nothing that speaks for substantially higher profits. There is a great risk
to profits in a probable, prolonged rise in personal saving from current income.
A possible boost may come from the rising budget deficit.
P.S. Poor profit prospects are not the only reason we are unable to see a
solid, sustained investment recovery in the United States. General financial
viability, measured by various financial indicators, is another indispensable
condition.
How robust are American company finances? The short answer is that balance
sheets are not a picture of health. What's more, whether they are improving
or deteriorating remains an open question. We believe in the latter eventuality;
at best, there has been very little recent improvement.
In the frantic pursuit of higher stock prices, American managers in the past
few years have systematically devastated the balance sheets of their companies.
Financial damage that took several years to build up cannot be corrected in
several quarters.
Editor's note: Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker once said: "Sometimes I
think that the job of central bankers is to prove Kurt Richebacher wrong." A
regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal, Strategic Investment
and several other respected financial publications, Dr. Richebacher's insightful
analysis stems from the Austrian School of economics. France's Le Figaro
magazine has done a feature story on him as "the man who predicted the
Asian crisis."
Dr. Richebacher continues to warn readers about the follies of the Fed's current
easy-money policies. For more, click here: Greenspan
Is Robbing You Blind
|