Martin Hutchinson
Premium
An Investor's Guide to the 2012 Iowa Caucuses
Whether you see it as an example of direct democracy in action or an over-hyped media circus, there's no question that the Iowa caucuses will influence this year's presidential election.
Traditionally, the top three finishers in the Iowa caucuses have had the best shot at securing the Republican nomination for president. And while U.S. President Barack Obama has enjoyed a bit of a surge in the polls recently, he's far from a lock to win a second term.
So investors – regardless of their political affiliation – would be smart to closely consider each potential candidate's economic platform, as well as their chances of winning the nomination.
This year the Republican field is as competitive as I've ever seen. You can make a case for multiple candidates winning the caucuses, and any candidate could be boosted into the thick of the race by a strong finish.
Even the participants that are unlikely to win either Iowa or the nomination have significant strengths and policy ideas that could be absorbed by other candidates.
For investors, there are two criteria: First, how well will a candidate's ideas and personality play in the market and in the U.S. economy? And second, how likely is the candidate to beat President Obama in November 2012?
Generally, a Republican victory in 2012, if accompanied by Republican control of Congress, would be good for the market and would cut domestic public spending below that of a renewed Obama administration. It would also keep taxes lower, although a substantial tax increase is probably inevitable in 2013-14.
A Republican president would repeal Obama's healthcare legislation, although it's unlikely that that would save much money or solve healthcare's funding problems.
A Republican president also would probably replace U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, although a President Mitt Romney or President Newt Gingrich would be unlikely to change the overall "loose money" thrust of monetary policy unless forced to do so.
Most likely Republican candidates would also pursue a more aggressive – and expensive – foreign policy than a re-elected Obama. So unless a real budget-cutter is elected, there will be little improvement in the U.S. budgetary position and a likely worsening in inflation over time, leading to another financing crisis well this side of 2016.
That said, let's take a detailed look at each candidate in this field guide to the 2012 Iowa Caucuses.
Jon HuntsmanJr.
Jon Huntsman, 51, was President Obama's Ambassador to China after being Governor of Utah. In Utah, he increased spending 33% during his term, not a good sign for his ability to balance the federal budget. He also backed "cap and trade" legislation on global warming and the 2007 immigration amnesty bill.
In an attempt to attract economic conservatives, he has put forward a supply-side tax reform, but he appears blocked by Mitt Romney, another moderate Mormon, in his attempt to gain traction. His best shot is New Hampshire on Jan. 10, but unless Romney fades very fast, he's unlikely to go much further. However, he is media-savvy, which could help. Still, he's not viable as a vice presidential candidate for either Ron Paul or Rick Perry, because the neoconservative lobby (which wants an aggressive foreign policy) does not like his fairly dovish foreign policy views.
If by some fluke he won the nomination, he'd have a good chance against Obama, and if elected, he'd probably be quite a good middle-of-the-road president and good for the market.
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum, 53, was Senator from Pennsylvania 1995-2007, unluckily losing his 2006 re-election bid by 18%. He's the darling of the social conservatives and of the neocon foreign policy hawks, with an economic policy of tax breaks for manufacturing.
Premium
It's Time to Brace for a Repeat of 2008
If you think the global economy is out of the woods now that the European Union (EU) has expanded its effort to solve the sovereign debt crisis, then I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.
No doubt, the European crisis is far from being solved – but that's hardly the only potential economic catastrophe looming on the horizon.
Indeed, two successive articles in the Financial Times last week warned of a new disaster approaching: They forecast 25% declines in financing volume for both commodities finance and aircraft purchases in 2012.
Now that would be truly bad news.
You see, the most job-destroying feature of the 2008-09 recession was a 17% decline in world trade that was caused by the financial crash and the disruption to the world's banks. That decline intensified recessionary conditions and caused millions of job losses worldwide. Some 700,000 jobs were being lost each month in the United States alone for a period in early 2009. That's more than double the previous worst monthly losses since World War II.
And now we could be in for a repeat.
In fact, it's hard to see how one can be avoided.
In today's distorted world financial system, a combination of over-loose monetary policy, intractable budget deficits, and tightening regulation seems to have made a credit crunch more or less inevitable.
So if you're smart, you'll take a moment to examine exactly why, and then figure out who the winners and losers are going to be.
Here's how.
A Disruptive Disconnect
When you look at bank lending, it's clear that the link between the huge amount of world money growth and the meager supply of lending to productive enterprise is broken.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and his international colleagues can hand as much money as they like out to banks, but if the banks don't lend it, that money will be wasted. And right now the banks aren't lending to trade and private businesses for three reasons:
Premium
The BRICs Will Be Dead Weight in 2012 – Invest in These Five Emerging Markets Instead
[Editor's Note: This special report on emerging markets is part of Money Morning's annual "Outlook" series, which forecasts the prospects for stocks, commodities, and other top profit opportunities in the New Year. Our last forecast covered gold.]
Don't let the headlines fool you, there's lots of money to be made in global investing in 2012.
You're just going to have to be careful – more so than in years past – because right now the line drawn between successful markets and markets that are in danger of collapse is treacherously thin.
Take the fashionable growth markets, the BRICs – Brazil, Russia, India and China – for example.
Dead Weight
It's been 10 years since Chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) Asset Management Jim O'Neill coined the BRIC acronym. His recommendation was certainly effective – one of the best of all time, even. But today, all four BRIC countries face problems, and their troubles illustrate the dangers of following investment fashions.
Just take a look:
- China appears the least troubled of the four BRICs. However, it looks to be facing a recession, inflation is approaching double digits and there is a massive bad debt problem in the banking system. Too much money has been invested in uneconomic rubbish – "malinvestment" as the Austrian school of economics calls it. My own guess is that China will do fine long-term but you probably don't want to invest until the size and shape of its problems is clear.
- India has a government that can't stop spending, inflation over 10% and huge corruption. Furthermore, its stock market is still pretty inflated. I wouldn't put much money there until the government changes. Contrary to what you read in the media, almost all the real liberalization progress came under the Vajpayee government of 1998-2004, which the Indian electorate then ungratefully threw out. I'd want an Indian government without the corrupt socialist Congress Party before I'd invest; only then could I be sure that Indian gains would not be poured down a rat hole.
- Brazil has been run by big-spending socialists since 2002 and has been immensely lucky to benefit from the commodities boom. Now the boom has topped out (probably temporarily) but its government is still overspending and has begun to harass foreign investors. Brazil is in big trouble if commodities prices fall.
- In Russia, Vladimir Putin will become President again next March. Need I say more? Like Brazil, Russia has benefited immensely from the commodities boom (in its case, primarily the run-up in oil prices). However, it treats foreign investors even worse than Brazil does, it is even more corrupt and it appears to be running out of money.
If the BRIC's prospects are bad, those of much of Europe are even worse.
The Eurozone's debt problem could have been solved early on by throwing Greece out of the euro (a much deserved punishment). However European authorities have now thrown so much money about in such unproductive ways that it's doubtful whether the euro is even salvageable anymore.
A recession in 2012 seems unavoidable, although Germany may benefit from the problems of its trading partners (if it is not forced to bail them out). Well-run European Union (EU) members that are not part of the Eurozone, such as Poland, may also benefit from the chaos, although Poland's current foreign minister Radek Sikorski doesn't seem to think so.
Japan has done so badly for so long that it may be impossible to revive. If public debt were still at the level of a decade ago, Japanese shares would be a screaming buy, as the market is at a quarter of its 1990 peak. However, with debt around 220% of gross domestic product (GDP) and no sign of the country's budget problems being solved, it may be nearing the point of no return and eventual debt default. On the whole, it's best avoided.
Apart from the United States, that leaves one obvious rich-country market, [To continue reading, please click here...]
Premium
Master Limited Partnerships: A Simple Way to Put More Cash in Your Pocket
These days, high-yielding investments are a must-have for investors.
It's nonnegotiable. This market is simply too volatile to be taking long shots. You have to be prepared for the next potential market dip, and that means having a steady stream of "bonus" cash coming in on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, interest rates right now are absurdly low, junk bonds are too risky, and high-yielding stocks are few and far in between.
That leaves just one place to look for serious income: Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs).
MLPs, for those not familiar, are tax-advantaged limited partnerships whose units are traded on exchanges just like common shares of stock.
However, a key difference between MLPs and stocks is that MLPs pay very high yields – typically 5% to 12%. This is because U.S. law mandates that they pass most of their income on to unit holders.
Still, being limited partnerships, their ordinary shareholders do not suffer unlimited liability (as they would in a regular partnership) and so can treat their investment as if it was in an ordinary company.
However, because their income is not taxed at the partnership level, the government limits the kinds of businesses that can use the MLP structure. It's restricted primarily to operations engaged in the extraction, storage, and transportation of energy commodities, which are deemed essential to the U.S. economy and national security.
As a result, MLPs derive 90% of their income from natural resources – primarily oil, natural gas, and coal production and transportation.
Two especially attractive businesses for the MLP structure are pipelines and ownership of existing oil resources. Pipelines generally charge a fixed fee per unit of product carried, so they earn a steady return that can safely be paid out to investors. Existing oil and gas fields incur no exploration costs and only limited production costs. Meanwhile, their exposure to oil and gas prices can be hedged in the futures market, so they, too, can safely pay a fixed dividend to investors.
MLPs economically bear more resemblance to fixed income investments than to regular shares. However, the drawback is generally very little upside potential, except through variation in oil and gas prices.
Additionally, if the MLP is invested in a finite pool of oil or gas, there is a finite lifetime to it, and the income to investors may be accompanied by a gradual loss of principal. Fortunately, MLP tax treatment accounts for this, and so a large portion of each year's dividends is considered a return of principal. That may have advantages to some investors holding MLPs in taxable accounts.
MLPs are generally not very risky, and bear a strong resemblance to each other, so even though there are two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that invest in MLPs – the Alerian MLP ETF (NYAE: AMLP) and JP Morgan Alerian MLP Index ETN (NYSE: AMJ) – there does not seem to be much advantage.
Instead, you're better off investing in one of the following three high-yielding MLPs:
Euro Meltdown: This One European Country Can Bring Down The Entire EU… And The Rest Of The Global Economy With It
Tags: current global economy, Global Currency, Global Economy, global economy 2010, global economy articles, global economy definition, global economy statistics, globalization, world economy
Premium
These Two Emerging Markets Just Got A Lot More Enticing
With U.S. economic growth on the wane and the European Union (EU) on the brink of collapse, there's never been a better time to increase your exposure to emerging markets.
And two fast-growing developing economies just became a lot more enticing.
I'm talking about Colombia and South Korea – both of which just signed free trade agreements (FTAs) with the United States.
Both treaties date back to the last days of the Bush administration – when bilateral trade deals were fashionable – but had gotten hung up in Congress.
To some extent, free trade agreements merely deflect trade from other paths. However, since the EU has signed a trade deal with South Korea and is negotiating one with Colombia, there are both defensive and trade-building reasons for these deals.
South Korea is a trillion-dollar economy and one of the United States' most important trading partners, with two-way trade totaling $74 billion in 2008. And Colombia's potential as a trading partner is enhanced by its geographical position – close to both the East and West Coast U.S. markets.
Both countries are growing quite fast. In fact, Colombia is expected to clock growth of more than 5% in 2011 and 2012.
The Biggest Beneficiaries
The South Korean deal offers the most potential to U.S. exporters, as the deal is expected to add about $10 billion to U.S. exports and gross domestic product (GDP).
U.S. exporters of agricultural products, which are projected to double from their current $2.8 billion, will be the primary beneficiaries. However, U.S. auto manufacturers and banks will also have a chance to break into the market.
On the other side, Korean exporters of cars, trucks and computer equipment will benefit from better access to the U.S. market.
Colombia has a thriving agricultural sector, but U.S. meat exports should jump significantly. Pork exports, for example, are forecast to grow 72%. IT companies and chemicals producers also will gain improved access to the Colombian market. But the greatest potential will be unlocked in the heavy equipment sector, as Colombia races to develop its mineral resources.
Reduced sanitary inspection barriers will improve the trade flow both ways. That will increase demand for Colombian coffee and flowers. But the big breakthrough will be in Colombia's energy sector, as the country's oil is an increasingly important export to the United States.
Now let's take a look at some of the specific companies that will cash in on these deals.
Premium
The One Country That Could Take Down the Eurozone – And It's Not Greece
It's been a rough few weeks for the Eurozone.
Portugal is still in trouble, Spain will be back on the coals after its Nov. 20 election, and if I were a bond trader, I would be shorting Belgium, which has serious deficit and debt problems, runs for months at a time without a government and is in some danger of splitting apart into its French and Flemish bits.
A bailout package for Greece has been agreed to, but the Greeks are struggling to form a government to implement it. And yields on Italian bonds are moving ominously higher, rising above the 7% that some think marks a point of no return.
So does this mean that a euro breakup and a Eurozone economic collapse are inevitable?
Not really.
In fact, of all the European nations in crisis, only Italy has the potential to take down either the euro or the global economy.
Just take a look for yourself.
Getting Rid of Greece
At this point, Greece obviously is a goner as far as the Eurozone is concerned.
Really, it should have been pushed out 18 months ago, when it was first revealed that the country falsified its figures to gain acceptance into the Eurozone in the first place. Its government deficit at the time was 12% of gross domestic product (GDP) – not the 6% it claimed, let alone the 3% it had agreed to abide to on its entry.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy already has admitted it was a mistake to let Greece into the Eurozone, because the gap between its economy and the well-managed polities of Northern Europe was much larger than the area's other members.
Former communist countries like Slovenia and Slovakia have integrated quite smoothly into the Eurozone, because their governments and people had already acquired the discipline necessary for membership. But since its entry into the European Union (EU) in 1981, Greece has lived on handouts, and raised its living standards artificially to a level two- or three-times the market value of its output. Exit from the euro is inevitable; Greece's problem cannot be solved in any other way.
In fact, the sooner Greece exits the euro, the better. As it stands now, it's rapidly becoming impossible for Greece to get its debt down to a manageable level, since the country's official debt has been deemed untouchable.
Once the EU leaders acknowledge the need to remove Greece from the Eurozone, the country's exit will be neither difficult nor damaging. The process of recreating the drachma will be similar to that followed in Slovenia, Croatia, and other ex-Yugoslav republics which abandoned the Yugoslav dinar in the 1990s.
Inevitably, Greece will have to default on much of its debt, but it's already doing that now.
So if it's handled correctly, Greece should not be a problem for the Eurozone or the world economy.
The PIIG Pen
The other smaller Eurozone weaklings aren't major problems, either.
RSS
