Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tax. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

How to Know if This Rally Will Continue for Two More Months

Our trading partner Chris Vermeulen has our readers off to an amazing start for 2018. If this is any sign of what we have to come this year we are in store for one of our best years of trading possibly ever. 

Chris just sent over his latest article and it explains how our old reliable Transportation Index is guiding the way once again. Read "How to Know if This Rally Will Continue for Two More Months".

Our research has been “spot on” with regards to the markets for the first few weeks of 2018. We issued our first trade on Jan 2nd, plus two very detailed research reports near the end of 2017 and early 2018. We urge you to review these research posts as they tell you exactly what to expect for the first Quarter in 2018.

Continuing this research, we have focused our current effort on the Transportation Index, the US Majors, and the Metals Markets. The Transportation Index has seen an extensive rally (+19.85%) originating near November 2017. This incredible upside move correlates with renewed US Tax policies and Economic increases that are sure to drive the US Equity market higher throughout 2018.

In theory, the Transportation Index is a measure of economic activity as related to the transportation of goods from port to distribution centers and from distribution centers to retail centers. The recent jump in the Transportation Index foretells of strong economic activity within the US for at least the next 3 months.

Get our Free Technical Traders Wealth Building Newsletter....Get it Here 

One could, and likely should watch the Transportation Index for any signs of weakness or contraction which would indicate an economic slowdown about to unfold. In order to better understand how the Transportation Index precedes the US Equity markets by 2-5 months, let’s compare the current price activity to that of 2007-08.

This first chart is the current Transportation Index and shows how strong the US economic recovery is in relation to the previous year (2017). As the US economy has continued to strengthen and open up new opportunities, the Transportation Index has related this strength by increasing by near +20% in only a few short months. This shows us that we should continue to expect a moderate to strong bullish bias for at least the first quarter of 2018 – unless something dramatic changes in relation to economic opportunities.

Current Transportation Index Chart



In comparison, this chart (below) is the Transportation Index in 2007-08 which reacted quite differently. The economic environment was vastly different at this time. The US Fed had raised rates consecutively over a two year period leading up to a massive debt/credit crisis. At the same time, the US had a Presidential Election cycle that saw massive uncertainty with regards to regulation, policies and economic opportunities. Delinquencies as related to debt had already started to climb and the markets reacted to the economic alarms ringing from all corners of the globe. The Transportation Index formed a classic “rollover top” formation in late 2007 and early 2008 well before the global markets really began to tank.

2007-08 Transportation Index Chart



Our analysis points to a very strong first quarter of 2018 within the US and for US Equities. We believe the economic indicators will continue to perform well and, at least for the next 3 months, will continue to drive strong equity growth. We do expect some volatility near the end of the first Quarter as well as continued 2-5% price volatility/rotation at times. There will be levels of contraction in the markets that are natural and healthy for this rally. So, be prepared for some rotation that could be deeper than what we have seen over the last 6 months.

In conclusion, equities are this point are overpriced, and overbought based on the short term analysis. We should be entering slightly weaker time for large cap stocks over the next couple weeks before it goes much higher. Because we are still in a full out bull market, Dips Should Be Bought and we will notify members of a new trade once we get another one of these setups.

In our next post, we are going to talk about two opportunities in precious metals forming for next week!

Read the analysis we presented before the end of 2017 regarding our predictive modeling systems and how we target our research to helping our members. If you believe our analysis is accurate and timely, then we urge you to subscribe here at The Technical Traders to support our work and to benefit from our signals. We believe 2018 – 2020 will be the years that strategic trades will outperform all other markets. Join us in our efforts to find and execute the best trading opportunities and profit from these fantastic setups.

Chris Vermeulen
Technical Traders Ltd.





Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Friday, June 9, 2017

They Killed Bitcoin 129 Times and Each Time It Came Back Even Stronger

By Teeka Tiwari, editor, The Palm Beach Letter

On June 20, 2011, Forbes wrote “So, That’s the End of Bitcoin Then.” On January 16, 2015, USA Today wrote “Bitcoin Is Headed to the ‘Ash Heap.’” On May 5, 2017, The Daily Reckoning wrote “The Death of Bitcoin.” Since 2011, bitcoin’s been declared dead at least 129 times.

Newsletter writers, journalists, and academics have called it a “Ponzi scheme.” Others like the idea in theory but have doubts. They are convinced the government will shut down bitcoin and render it worthless. If it were 2013, I would have agreed with them. From 2009–13, bitcoin rallied from a fraction of a penny to over $1,100… and then spectacularly crashed 85% to $185.

It looked like a classic “pump and dump” to me. That’s why I ignored it. But then something very interesting happened. Instead of collapsing back to pennies, bitcoin found support in the $200 range. Even after the bubble popped, bitcoin was still worth billions.

This intrigued me because true Ponzi schemes have zero value when they crash. The fact that bitcoin was still attracting buyers even after the onslaught of negative news, an 85% price crash, and universal scorn said something to me. It said that maybe this asset had real value. At the very least, it told me that more investigation was needed.

Lessons From the Dot Com Bubble
I’ve seen skepticism like this before back in May 1997, Amazon went public at the split equivalent of $1.30. Amazon shot up to $113 during the dot-com bubble of the 1990s. When the bubble popped, Amazon crashed 94%—to the split equivalent of $5.97. But again, something interesting happened. In the depths of the dot-com hatred, Amazon started quietly climbing in price. Back then, I made the mistake of dismissing this action.

My error was buying into the prevailing belief that dot-com stocks were dumb and worthless. I listened to the narrative instead of digging deeper into the Amazon story. That was a mistake of lazy thinking.  So when I saw the same thing happen with bitcoin, I decided to do something different. Instead of listening to the skeptics, I asked myself: “Why are people still buying this supposedly worthless asset?”

That’s when I did a deep dive into bitcoin. I traveled all over the world interviewing experts, development teams, and venture capitalists. I wanted to understand why bitcoin had value.

Even Governments Are Embracing Bitcoin
Just as important, I wanted to know what would stop the U.S. government from banning it. How would the currency outgrow its widespread reputation as a form of “black money” used by criminals? What I found out was this: At its core, bitcoin is just a way to send and receive value without the need for a trusted middleman.

Bitcoin has no central location. That means no government (including the U.S. government) can ever shut it down. In fact, several countries have already tried to ban bitcoin and found that it was impossible. At least two of them (Russia and India) have decided to recognize bitcoin as money.

Governments are realizing that it’s better to have a hand in how bitcoin is shaped and regulated than try to destroy it (which they can’t). Think back to when the U.S. government finally realized that prohibition was unenforceable. Better to regulate alcohol and tax it.

Where’s the Future Value?
The real strength of bitcoin is the underlying network of highly secure computers that support it (called the blockchain). This is where much of the value creation will come from. As I write, software developers across the world are building applications designed to piggyback off this network.

Over the next three years, we’ll begin to see a slew of new applications emerge for bitcoin and the network that supports it. They will support everything from asset tracking to recording land registries. And much more that we can’t even think of yet. That’s why bitcoin will continue to grow in value.

Since those obituaries started popping up in 2011, bitcoin has rocketed from a low of 75 cents to as high as $2,770—an astronomical 369,223% gain. The next time you find yourself being scared out of owning bitcoin by a negative article, do yourself a favor… Read the last 129 times bitcoin was declared dead.

Let the Game Come to You!
Teeka “Big T” Tiwari
Editor, The Palm Beach Letter


P.S. Like I mentioned above, I’ve traveled all around the world looking for the most explosive cryptocurrencies out there. And I’ve found three more that have grown an average of 1,183%… including one I call the “next bitcoin.”

If you missed out on the bitcoin train ride, there’s still a chance to punch your ticket to life-changing gains with the “next bitcoin” and these other coins. You can learn more about them right here.

Friday, September 9, 2016

Weekend Edition: You’re Not Legally Entitled to Social Security

By Justin Spittler

Tom Dyson, co-founder of Palm Beach Research Group, thinks that’s a dangerous assumption. In today’s essay, Tom explains why the government could “terminate” your Social Security money without warning.

The good news is that there’s another option. Tom explains how to defend yourself against this threat.




You probably thought Americans had a “right” to collect their Social Security in old age, right? Most people see Social Security as a contract between themselves and the government. You pay money into the system, and the system pays it back at a later date—guaranteed by law.

But nothing could be further from the truth..…

You have no choice when it comes to paying your Social Security tax. It comes out of your paycheck automatically. But did you know the government isn’t under the same rigid contract? In fact, by ruling of the United States Supreme Court, the federal government is under no obligation to pay you a Social Security check.

This is the clear precedent set in the case of Flemming v. Nestor.

Ephram Nestor was an immigrant from Bulgaria. He moved here in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from the very beginning of the program in 1936. In 1955, when he retired, Nestor began receiving Social Security checks for $55.60 per month. But, just one year later, Nestor was deported. Turns out, he’d been an active member of the Communist Party in the 1930s, giving the U.S. government grounds to kick him out.

When he was deported, his Social Security checks stopped. Nestor sued the U.S. government, arguing that, since he had paid money into the program, he had a right to those benefits. The Supreme Court ruled against Nestor, saying the government had the right to terminate Social Security at any time.

The people who sign the Social Security checks sum it up this way:
[Nestor] appealed the termination, arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.
Takeaway: You have no contractual right to Social Security.

That historical precedent means it has the power to cut Social Security anytime it wants. It could end tomorrow, and there’s nothing you can do about it. (Interestingly enough, the SSA has a full page on its website devoted to the Nestor case.) Now, this doesn’t mean the government will suddenly stop paying Social Security benefits. Not now, anyway. (Suggesting an end to this system is political suicide.) But the risk, as unlikely as it seems, is possible.

Meanwhile, recent signals from the U.S. government are foreboding. On November 2, 2015, Congress and President Obama already struck down two massive Social Security loopholes called “File and Suspend” and “Restricted Application.” For some, these rule changes cut up to $60,000 of Social Security benefits over a retiree’s lifetime starting in April of this year.

Could these cuts be just the beginning?

I think so. You see, no politician wants to let Social Security cuts dominate the conversation during an election year. That’s why the government is working on all kinds of sneaky and indirect ways to pay out less money in benefits. It has to do with COLA (cost-of-living adjustment).

I won’t get into all the details here, but know this.....

A small clause in the Social Security Act says that if there is no cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, then, by law, Medicare premiums can’t be raised for the majority of middle- and lower class Americans. Instead, 3.1 million select Americans will absorb the full increase. If you’re one of them, you’ll see Medicare premiums rise 52%.

In some cases, you could lose as much as $4,200 in 2017 alone..…

That’s like having nearly three months’ worth of Social Security benefits ripped away from you. What we have here is a Social Security cut disguised as a Medicare cost increase. If you’re affected, your Social Security money is going to be taken away from you to subsidize health care coverage for lower income Americans. I think this could be one of the first changes coming immediately after the 2016 election.

Bottom line: If you’re not actively working on a plan B for the coming Social Security cuts, you should be. Congress has just given a couple of big hints of what’s to come in the months, years, and decades ahead.

Good investing,
Tom Dyson




Editor’s note: For years, retirees have relied on three main sources of income: pension plans, Social Security, and personal retirement accounts such as 401(k)s.

Unfortunately, this model is on the verge of complete collapse..…

To help you protect your wealth, Tom and his colleagues are putting on a first-ever Retirement Rescue Round table this Tuesday. Their entire team of experts will be there—including Doug Casey’s longtime friend and colleague, Mark Ford.

To learn more about Tom’s retirement strategy, click here to watch this free video.




Get out latest FREE eBooK "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Monday, February 15, 2016

The Inevitability of Dramatic Inflation

By Jeff Thomas

No one is very concerned about inflation right now and that’s understandable. Although inflation exists in some sectors of the economy, the present subject of discussion is deflation. Any depression is inherently deflationary since spending is curtailed, which drives prices down.

Since 2008, despite all the fudged reports emanating from governments, much of the world has been in a depression since 2008 and remains in one. This will continue until such time as there is a true cleansing of the system – a step the leaders of each jurisdiction have avoided as much as possible, choosing instead to extend the party as long as possible before the inevitable collapse occurs.

Since deflation is the problem that’s staring us in the face now, most economic discussion deals with it. But, historically, when deflation occurs, governments do everything they can do reverse the problem and return to inflation.

To the average person, one type of ‘flation is as bad as another type of ‘flation – he merely hopes for economic stability. And so the effort by governments to not only accept inflation but to recommend its existence as policy seems odd. But then, governments (and banks) benefit from inflation. People can only be taxed so much before they rebel, but inflation acts as a hidden tax and most people don’t recognise that it’s not the number of currency units one possesses that matters, but what level of purchasing power they have. Inflation allows the individual to retain his currency notes, but devalues them so they buy him less in goods and services. Inflation is the unperceived tax.

The US Federal Reserve has done a sterling job of exacting wealth from US citizens. Since it was created in 1913, it has devalued the dollar by roughly 97% and the dollar is now due for replacement. Through the creation of tremendous debt, the US, EU, and many other countries have created a condition that will result in deflation – the very condition that they most dread. There can be no question that they will do whatever it takes to reverse this trend and return to inflation. Indeed, this is their stated policy.

Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is famous for his 2002 speech in which he said he would dump currency from helicopters if necessary when deflation occurred. Since that date, he has reconfirmed his commitment nearly every year, as has his successor, so there can be little doubt as to what the Fed will do to address deflation. Add to this the fact that the stock and bond markets are in bubbles of historic proportions, assuring the inevitability of crashes in the near future – events that will contribute greatly to deflation.

But, given the choice, wouldn’t we all prefer a bit of inflation to deflation? Yes, in this we would agree with the Fed and the ECB, but worse than either of these possibilities is that green eyed monster – hyperinflation. At present, we feel we’re so far away from this possibility that, for most people, it’s not even a question. Trouble is, hyperinflation, when it comes, comes very fast and is uncontrollable.

So, how does it happen?
Hyperinflation never occurs spontaneously. It always happens in essentially the same way when governments attempt to artificially manipulate currency. It has occurred on more than twenty occasions around the world in the last hundred years. The most recent occurrence is currently underway in Venezuela.

But a textbook example was the Weimar hyperinflation of 1922–1923. In that instance, the government, along with the central bank of Germany, was facing a collapsing economy, so they did the worst thing possible – they expanded the creation of currency in the belief that if people had more of the stuff, they would spend more and the economy would boom. Unfortunately, the money creation only resulted in rising prices, not greater wealth (True wealth is only created through the creation of more goods and services). 

So, they printed more. Then more again, and again, and again. With each printing, the problem worsened and the bankers and political leaders reasoned that if they could only print enough, the problem would be solved. It’s important to note that at no time did anyone (not the government, nor the banks, nor private industry, nor the unions) suggest that the printing itself was the problem.

Eventually, inflation became so dramatic that the German people realised that they were better off dumping reichsmarks in favour of goods. As soon as workers were paid, they’d buy anything – food, clothing, anything that wasn’t going up in price as rapidly as the reichsmark was going down.

It is at this point that inflation becomes hyperinflation. It’s never intended by anyone (least of all, governments) to occur but, once the population begins to think of money as something to get rid of instead of something to possess, the monster is born and it happens so quickly that a hamburger that costs $5 today may cost $50 three months later, $500 after a further month, and $5,000 the following week. Soon, a hamburger costs (quite literally) millions.

As hard as this is to imagine, this is what occurs in every case. And in every case, it culminates in a collapse of the monetary system. It’s generally accompanied by a collapse in commerce, riots, food shortages, and famine.

And so, of course, we hope that this time around the leaders of the US, EU, et al, will do the right thing and avoid this eventuality at all costs. Surely, the highly educated folks at the Fed and the ECB will learn from the mistakes of past leaders and not repeat the disastrous mistakes. Hopefully, this time it will be different.

And actually, this time it will be different, but not in the way we would hope. Rather than wait for the crashes and subsequent significant deflation to occur, the Fed and the ECB have already announced a plan to introduce negative interest rates. They describe this plan as being intended to discourage saving and force people to buy goods, causing the economy to boom...just as in Weimar Germany almost one hundred years ago.

But, as discussed above, this is never the outcome. Once a population discovers that dumping currency is preferable to holding it, the green-eyed monster comes knocking. So, are we around the corner from hyperinflation? No, I believe we have a little breathing time before that, but we’ll be spending that time dealing with the market crashes and deflation that generally come first (unless the leaders decide to pre-empt them by introducing negative interest rates very soon, which they may well do).

Well then, if hyperinflation is not yet a certainty, nor is it necessarily right around the corner, why bother thinking about it? The reason is that the triggering mechanism of hyperinflation is to be presented to us on a platter in the relatively near future. Its likelihood is now great enough that if we don’t prepare our lives for its eventuality, we’ll be amongst the casualties.

If the German people could have known in 1922 what was coming in 1923, many could have saved their skins. Today, those who choose to internationalise their wealth (however large or small) and even themselves in anticipation of events will have the greatest insulation against the effects of hyperinflation. They have the greatest likelihood to not only survive, but thrive, as the world changes. Editor’s Note: Negative interest rates are an obvious sign of desperation. Central bankers are playing with fire and inviting a currency catastrophe, just like they have done so many times in the past.

The sad truth is most people have no idea what really happens when a currency collapses, let alone how to prepare…How will you protect your savings in the event of a currency crisis? Doug Casey just released video that will show you exactly how. Click here to watch it now.

The article The Inevitability of Dramatic Inflation was originally published at caseyresearch.com.


Get out latest FREE eBooK "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Stock & ETF Trading Signals

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Russia and China’s Natural Gas Deals are a Death Knell for Canada’s LNG Ambitions

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

In recent years, a number of Asian companies have been betting that Canada will be able to export cheap liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its west coast. These big international players include PetroChina, Mitsubishi, CNOOC, and, until December 3, Malaysian state owned Petronas.

However, that initial interest is decidedly on the wane. In fact, while the British Columbia LNG Alliance is still hopeful that some of the 18 LNG projects that have been proposed will be realized, it’s now looking less and less likely that any of these Canadian LNG consortia will ever make a final investment decision to forge ahead.

That’s thanks to the Colder War—as I explain in detail in my new book of the same name—and the impetus it’s given Vladimir Putin to open up new markets in Asia.

The huge gas export deals that Russia struck with China in May and October—with an agreed-upon price ranging from $8-10 per million British thermal units (mmBtu)—has likely capped investors’ expectations of Chinese natural gas prices at around $10-11 per mmBtu, a level which would make shipping natural gas from Canada to Asia uneconomic.

At these prices, not even British Columbia’s new Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act—which has halved the post payout tax rate to 3.5% and proposes reducing corporate income tax to 8% from 11%—can make Canadian natural gas globally competitive.

These tax credits are too little, too late, because Canada is years behind Australia, Russia, and Qatar’s gas projects. This means there’s just too much uncertainty about future profit margins to commit the vast amount of capital that will be needed to make Canadian LNG a reality.

Sure, there are huge proven reserves of natural gas in Canada. It’s just been determined that Canada’s Northwest Territories hold 16.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, 40% more than previous estimates.

But the fact is that Canada will remain a high-cost producer of LNG, and its shipping costs to Asia will be much higher than Russia’s, Australia’s, and Qatar’s. So unless potential buyers in Asia are confident that Henry Hub gas prices will stay below $5, they’re unlikely to commit to long-term contracts for Canadian LNG—or US gas for that matter—because compression and shipping add at least another $6 to the price.

Shell has estimated that its proposed terminal, owned by LNG Canada, will cost $40 billion, not including a $4 billion pipeline. As LNG Canada—whose shareholders include PetroChina, Korea Gas Corp., and Mitsubishi Corp.—admits, it’s not yet sure that the project will be economically viable. Even if it turns out to be, LNG Canada says it won’t make a final investment decision until 2016, after which the facility would take five years to build.

But investors shouldn’t hold their breath. It seems like Korea Gas Corp. has already made up its mind. It’s planning to sell a third of its 15% stake in LNG Canada by the end of this year.

And who can blame it? The industry still doesn’t have clarity on environmental issues, federal taxes, municipal taxes, transfer pricing agreements, or what the First Nations’ cut will be. And these are all major hurdles.

Pipeline permits are also still incomplete. The federal government still hasn’t decided if LNG is a manufacturing or distribution business, which matters because if it rules that it’s a distribution business, permitting is going to be delayed.

And to muddy the picture even further, opposition to gas pipelines and fracking is on the rise in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. While fossil fuel projects are under fire from climate alarmists the world over, Canadian environmentalists are also angry that increased tanker traffic through its pristine coastal waters could lead to oil spills.

Canada is now under the sway of radical environmental groups and think tanks like the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, which take as a given that Canada should shut down its tar sands industry altogether. For these people, there’s no responsible way to build new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Elsewhere, investors might expect money and jobs to do the talking, but Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which has called for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands, is now leading the conservatives in the polls. (Just out of curiosity, does Trudeau plan on putting a cap on the carbon monoxide concentration from his marijuana agenda? But I digress.) If a liberal government is elected next year, it might adopt a national climate policy that would cripple gas companies and oil companies alike.

Some energy majors are already shying away from Canadian LNG. BG Group announced in October that it’s delaying a decision on its Prince Rupert LNG project until after 2016. And Apache Corp., partnered with Chevron on a Canadian LNG project, is seeking a buyer for its stake.

Not everyone is throwing in the towel. Yet. ExxonMobil—which is in the early planning phase for the West Coast Canada LNG project at Tuck Inlet, located near Prince Rupert in northwestern British Columbia—has just become a member of the British Columbia LNG alliance.

But Petronas was a key player. It was thought that the company would be moving ahead after British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment approved its LNG terminal, along with two pipelines that would feed it.

Instead, Petronas pulled the plug. We can’t know how many things factored into that decision nor whether it’s absolutely final. All the company would say is that projected costs of C$36 billion would need to be reduced before a restart could be considered. (That $36B figure includes Petronas’s 2012 acquisition of Calgary based gas producer Progress Energy Resources Corp., as well as the C$10 billion proposed terminal, a pipeline, and the cost of drilling wells in BC’s northeast.)

This latest blow leaves Canadian LNG development very much in doubt. In fact, most observers believe that Petronas’s move to the sidelines probably sounds the death knell for the industry, at least for the foreseeable future.
For more on how the Colder War is forever changing the energy sector and global finance itself, click here to get your copy of Marin’s New York Times bestselling book. Inside, you’ll discover more on LNG and how this geopolitical chess game between Russia and the West for control of the world’s energy trade will shape this decade and the century to come.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!



Thursday, November 27, 2014

Debunking the Claim That Puerto Rico’s Tax Benefits Are “Hype” or “Too Good to Be True”

By Nick Giambruno

It was only a matter of time before it happened.

After releasing our groundbreaking free documentary America’s Tax-Free Zone, new and old misconceptions about Puerto Rico’s tax benefits have surfaced. Many of them had previously been debunked.

The purpose of today’s article is to drive a stake through the heart of these misconceptions and forever put them to rest. And there is really no better person on the planet to do that than David Nissman, a true authority on this topic.

David Nissman was appointed by former U.S. President George W. Bush to be the United States Attorney for the U.S. Virgin Islands. He regulated the tax incentive programs there—which have many similarities to the Puerto Rico incentives—for the US federal government during his tenure. He also has written a number of the economic development statutes in place today.

David has since left the dark side and now represents U.S. taxpayers in IRS audits concerning tax incentive programs in the U.S. Territories—like the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. His current and former experiences gives him unparalleled insight into the U.S. government’s thinking behind Puerto Rico’s tax incentives.

After reading this article, you should have no doubt that Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are not “hype” and not “too good to be true.” The fact is, they are 100% real and legal. And for those who obtain them, they are here to stay.

Puerto Rico’s tax incentives may allow you to totally eliminate all forms of taxation on capital gains, interest, and dividends and reduce your corporate income tax rate to just 4%. Americans can find similar benefits nowhere else in the world short of renouncing their citizenship. Much ink has been spilled on this already, so if you are new to Puerto Rico’s tax incentives see here to get all caught up.

David will also show that:
  • Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are not some fly by night thing. They fit into the economic development policy that has been supported by the U.S. federal government and both political parties for many decades.
  • It’s nearly impossible for either the U.S. or Puerto Rican governments to end the tax incentives for those who already have obtained them.
Now, we aren’t saying it is impossible that these tax incentives could go away for new participants. That is a possibility, but also not a very likely one. It is also an incentive to obtain your tax benefits from the Puerto Rican government (which come in the form of a legally binding contract) as soon as possible—because once you’ve received your contract giving you your tax benefits, it will be almost impossible for anyone to take them away from you prospectively or retroactively, no matter how hard some politicians will stomp their feet.

Even if the benefits were to somehow magically disappear after a couple of years, you could still reap enormous benefits from participating in them. My colleague Louis James remarked that even if the tax incentives last only for five years, he’d be able to pay for his condo with his tax savings.

And now without further ado, I’ll turn things over to David Nissman, who will put these misconceptions to bed for good.
Until next time,

By David Nissman

When the United States began its relationship with Puerto Rico and the other Territories in the Caribbean in 1898, they were poor and had been economically oppressed. The US government sought to help create financial independence with economic development policies. This was not wholly altruistic. If the Territories were not financially independent, they would be a burden on the federal government.

From the start in the early 20th century, the Territories’ use of incentives to develop their economies was challenged as unconstitutional in violation of Article 1, Section 8, which required that “all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” The Supreme Court in a line of cases known as the Insular Cases used a line of deprecating and racially insensitive reasoning to accord all inhabitants of the Territories less than full constitutional rights. The less than satisfying trade-off in the outflow from the Insular Cases was that the Territories’ ability to use special tax laws to develop their economies was not restrained by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

This policy began in 1900 with the advent of the Foraker Act, which set up the first municipal government in Puerto Rico and permitted Puerto Rico to utilize special taxing measures. During the 114 years since the Foraker Act, Congress and the local governments in the US Territories have enacted many different programs to help the Territories raise revenues. President Herbert Hoover, visiting the Virgin Islands in 1931, was stunned at the poverty and declared:

“[W]e acquired an effective poorhouse, comprising 90 percent of the population. The people cannot be self-supporting either in living or government without discovery of new methods and resources. The purpose of the transfer of administration from the naval to a civil department is to see if we can develop some form of industry or agriculture which will relieve us of the present costs and liabilities in support of the population or the local government from the Federal Treasury or from private charity.... [H]aving assumed the responsibility, we must do our best to assist the inhabitants.”
New York Times, March 27, 1931

Congress in 26 USC 933 (Puerto Rico) and in 934 (the Virgin Islands) has passed statutes that enable the local governments to grant benefits on territorial source income to territorial residents. These laws have been firmly in place since 1960.

Critics always opine that Congress and or the Territorial governments can take these laws away, but they neglect an important component of the legal relationship between the United States government and its Territories. The Territories have a very special status: according to US Supreme Court case law, the Territories have the status of federal agencies. If a federal agency grants a contract to a business or individual, the federal government is bound to honor it. It would be a violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution to take it away. So if an individual or business holds a contract from the Puerto Rico government granting these tax benefits (Act 20, Act 22), the contract is enforceable against both the Puerto Rican and US governments. Not even Congress can affect existing contracts.

Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are carefully considered programs. The Puerto Rican government based them on the Virgin Islands Economic Development Commission (VI EDC) programs. The VI EDC program has been fully vetted and litigated in the federal courts. Everyone recognizes the legitimacy of these programs and how they are part of US developmental policy toward US Territories. The bottom line is, Puerto Rico’s tax incentives are very sustainable.

Because of the continuing discussions in Congress about reforming the tax code, there is quite a bit of fearmongering that Congress may somehow repeal these programs.

Two points must be considered when hearing this:

1) Do we actually believe that our gridlocked Congress is currently capable of reaching a bipartisan agreement to overhaul the US tax code? While the tax code is in serious need of overhaul, this is a project that is years away. When there finally is new tax legislation, the Territories will lobby hard—with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DoI) firmly on their side—to continue making these benefits available.

The United States DoI continues to recognize that the Territorial tax incentives are a necessary component of U.S. developmental policy toward its Territories. In July, 2005, the DoI filed a written statement concerning its own concerns with new tax regulations for the Territories. The paper noted that (emphasis mine):

[t]he Secretary of the Interior has stated that her top priority for the Insular Areas is to promote private sector economic development there. Under the Secretary’s leadership, the Department of the Interior has been implementing a comprehensive program to advance this priority …. Because of the special fiscal and economic challenges faced by the Insular Areas, it has been the policy of successive administrations from both parties to support tax and trade provisions to help the Insular Areas generate sufficient tax revenue and economic activity to meet the most basic needs of their people. Notwithstanding these incentives, each of the Insular Areas continues to experience severe economic and fiscal difficulties. 

Special tax provisions for the Insular Areas, in particular, manifest an important underlying principle of US territorial policy: The Federal government does not treat the Insular Areas as sources of revenue. The US has a strong interest in maintaining and enhancing the economic and fiscal well-being of the Insular Areas.
—Statement of the US Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs on Temporary and Proposed Regulations to Implement the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (July, 2005)

2) Whether these programs change one day or whether Puerto Rican statehood requires different tax rules, the individuals and businesses that have decrees with the Puerto Rican government will have to be grandfathered in based on the Contracts Clause in the US Constitution. Those individuals and businesses interested in moving to Puerto Rico would be wise to get moving to the extent there is any fear of legislative change.

Finally, it is also not very likely that the Puerto Rican government itself will end these programs. Attracting wealthy people and profitable businesses to relocate to Puerto Rico through these programs is attractive to both of the major political parties in Puerto Rico. Given the financial crisis in Puerto Rico, it is unlikely that the local government—which has committed large resources to marketing these programs—will suddenly embark on a different direction.

In conclusion, those who lawfully fulfill the purpose and requirements of the Territorial tax incentive programs—like Puerto Rico’s Acts 20 and 22—should feel confident that their contracts will be honored by both governments.

Editor’s Note: If you’re considering taking advantage of Puerto Rico’s tax incentives—benefits Americans can find nowhere else—then you should check out our comprehensive video course on the topic. It’s the authoritative guide on Puerto Rico’s tax incentives with information you won’t find anywhere else; and it will save you a lot of time and money. More on that here.
The article was originally published at internationalman.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Straight Talk from Yogi Berra: 9 Ways to Retire Rich

By Dennis Miller

“In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”—Yogi Berra
It’s October, AKA the major league baseball postseason. As a lifelong baseball fan, I take the wisdom of Yogi Berra seriously. And when it comes to planning for the autumn of life, Yogi is spot on.

It seems as though every day an article titled “5 Tips for Retirement Saving” or something similar hits my inbox. I scan for the author’s name, and I’m amazed by how often it’s distinctly contemporary—Jennifer, Brandon, or another name of that vintage. Jennifer’s title is something like “staff writer,” and I immediately picture a fresh-faced young person with a newly minted journalism degree. After work, maybe she jumps in her starter BMW and heads to a local watering hole with her friends to gripe about student loan repayments.

“Jennifer” means well. After all, she’s just doing her job. She recommends setting financial goals, getting out of debt, living within your means, and saving from a young age. I won’t argue with those recommendations. Jennifer’s grandparents probably did just that. If you can pull off following that advice to a T, chances are you’ll accumulate a good deal of wealth.

However, once Jennifer has tried to put her advice to practice for a couple of decades, she might understand that it’s neither simple nor easy, despite how it might sound. Most people know what they should do, but it’s often tough and painful to execute in real life.

During my 74 years I’ve met a lot of successful and rich retired friends who sure didn’t go about it Jennifer’s way. How many baby boomers do you know who married young, raised a family, put their children through school, and consistently saved in their 20s, 30s or even 40s? There are a few, but many—if not most—young families lived through a decade or more of “Why is there is so much month left at the end of the money?”
Several times a month a 50- or 60-year-old Miller’s Money subscriber writes in asking for help with how to accomplish a last-ditch push to save. Truth be told, most of my friends never got serious about retirement until after they’d raised children. It doesn’t mean they were right; it’s just the way it was. Should they have started earlier? Of course. But they didn’t. Some didn’t know how, some were overwhelmed by day to day expenses, and some overspent on stuff, stuff, and more stuff. Many got serious in the nick of time, but they did it.

Retiring Rich When You’re Under the Wire


Whatever your age, fretting about what you didn’t do is futile. Start making the needed changes today.

The best place to begin is to define “rich.” For our team, rich means having enough money to choose whether or not to work and enough money that you control your time. Rich means you live comfortably according to your personal standards. If you’ve lived a middle class lifestyle, a rich retirement means you can maintain that same lifestyle without worry.

Ten days out of high school, I was on a train to Parris Island, South Carolina. One of the best teachers I ever had was SSgt. Thomas R. Phebus. He was an archetype—the ideal combination of common sense and straight talk. I’m going to take a page out of his book and share some straight talk on how to make a rich retirement your reality.

The 9 Step Program


#1—Saving money is a bitch! When I entered the work force, every major company and most government agencies offered some sort of pension plan. The bottom line: come work for us at age 25, stay for 40 years, retire at 65, and we’ll continue to pay you until you die, normally another 20 years or so.

Pension plans are no longer the norm. Corporate America just couldn’t do it. Some filed for bankruptcy and broke their promises. Either way, in the private sector, 401(k)s are the new norm. They’re optional—no one makes you contribute.

Now local governments are filing for bankruptcy, many unable to fulfill their pension promises. No matter whom you work for—a big or small corporation, a government agency, or yourself—if you want to retire, be damn sure you’re saving… no matter what you’ve been promised.

#2—Plan to work your tail off. I don’t know anyone who’s accumulated even modest wealth working 40 hours a week. If you want to work for 40 years and pay for 60 plus years of life, chances are you’ll have to do more than that.

When you work, you trade your time, talent, and expertise for money. When you retire, you trade your money for time. In theory, you can work 60 hours a week, live off two thirds of your income (40 hours’ worth), and invest the remaining one third (20 hours’ worth). However, if you start saving early, perhaps saving income equal to 10 hours of work will be enough. Your savings will have more time to accumulate and compound, and you’ve bought yourself extra leisure time along the way.

If both spouses are working hard outside the home, which is the norm today, work toward living off of one paycheck and investing the other (or using it to pay off debts and then start investing). Many of our retired friends did just that.

#3—Don’t complain when others have more. Someone always will.

This one saddens me. We have a few friends who chose to work 40 hours a week for most of their working lives. They felt it was important to spend more time at home with their families, and there’s nothing wrong with that choice. Still, it’s a trade-off.

I look at it as though they enjoyed mini slices of retirement time when they were young. If that’s your choice, don’t begrudge others who chose a different path and worked and/or saved more. They don’t owe you anything.

#4—Get out of debt and stay that way. Virtually every wealthy friend I have only started to build wealth after eliminating debt, including home mortgages. Some theory-loving pundits suggest taking out a low-interest mortgage and investing the money with the hope of earning more than the mortgage interest. Oh really? Most people’s investments don’t perform that well.

The chart below highlights how poorly the average investor stacks up:


Sure, some beat the odds, but even professional fund managers struggle to do so. As of mid-2013, 59.58% of large-cap funds, 68.88% of mid-cap funds, and 64.27% of small-cap funds underperformed their respective benchmark indices, according to Aye M. Soe, McGraw Hill financial director.

If the big boys have a hard time and the average investor earns just 2.1%, one better secure a darn low mortgage rate before borrowing to invest.

One of the top ways to blow your nest egg is to stop working while you still have a mortgage. Downsize if you have to. Your personal home is not an investment; it’s part of the cost of living.

#5—Get smart while you get out of debt. Commit some of your time to financial education long before you plan to retire. Part of the reason the average investor earns just 2.1% is that many, if not most, haven’t taken the time to learn. If you want to out-earn the average investor, start by investing in education.

Understanding the markets is an ongoing process. The investment world is constantly changing, and if your interests lie elsewhere, it can be a challenge to keep up. A little commonsense scheduling goes a long way, though. Record your favorite programs and watch or listen at night when you’re tired. Then find an hour a day when you are fresh and devote it to more focused study. An hour-long television show has 15-20 minutes of commercials. You can bank that much study time by hitting fast forward.

#6—Set realistic objectives. Get some professional help and a thorough financial checkup so you can set sane targets. With those in place, you can build a realistic plan. The sooner you go through this exercise, the less painful it will be to make any necessary lifestyle adjustments.

#7—Get a grip on your expenses. Investments appreciate (at least that’s the plan). Cars, televisions, and most other stuff depreciate.

Some years ago I read that around 90% of top of the line Lexuses and Mercedes were financed. I live in a community where most of the homes have three-car garages. I shake my head as I drive down the street in my Toyota and see three luxury cars in a garage. I wonder how many of them are financed. It’s easy to have well over $150,000 invested in rapidly depreciating automobiles. With so many long-term auto loans available today, it’s also easy to owe more than the car is worth fairly quickly. Once you get on that treadmill, it’s hard to get off.

All cars are not created equal. I’ve owned my share of luxury autos and can share from personal experience that a routine oil change can cost 10 times more than it does with a Toyota or the like. Is the added prestige of a luxury automobile really worth the extra cost?

#8—Put yourself first. Another common way to blow your nest egg is to spend too much money on others. Your family should not expect you to support them in adulthood, pay for your grandchildren’s college education, or help with major purchases. Take care of yourself and your spouse before anyone else. In time, your family will come to appreciate your self-sufficiency. If not, too bad.

#9—Take advantage of free money. I cannot fathom why such a large percentage of workers with 401(k)s do not maximize their contributions. In addition to the tax benefits, many employers match a percentage of those contributions; it’s free money.

If your employer doesn’t offer a 401(k), maximize your IRA contributions. And if you’re over age 50, don’t forget the catch-up provisions that allow you to save even more. This is low-hanging fruit, so run and grab as much of it as you can.

Retiring rich requires a series of choices; they are often difficult. A comfortable retirement is not a foregone conclusion, even if you lived comfortably in your working years. Since WWII, we have enjoyed one of the most productive economies the world has ever seen, yet many seniors are broke. When you reach retirement age, you don’t have to be one of them.

Start mapping your own path to a rich retirement by reading Miller’s Money Weekly, our free weekly e-letter where my team and I cover pressing money matters and share unique investment insights for seniors, savers and other income investors—all in plain English.

Click here to receive your complimentary copy every Thursday



Get out latest FREE eBooK "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here

Sunday, October 12, 2014

The Broken State and How to Fix It

By Casey Research

The United States of America is not what it used to be. Unsustainable mountains of debt, continuous meddling by the government and Fed to “stimulate the economy,” and the U.S. dollar’s dwindling status as the world’s reserve currency are very real threats to Americans’ standard of living. Here are some opinions from the recently concluded Casey Research Fall Summit on the state of the state and how to fix it.

Marc Victor, a criminal defense attorney from Arizona and a staunch liberty advocate, says there’s really no such thing as “the state”—“it’s just some people bossing other people around.”

Not everyone wants to fix things, he says; the bosses like the status quo. For example, aside from drug lords, DEA agents are the ones benefiting most from the “War on Drugs.”

Victor believes that democracy and freedom are incompatible, since “democracy is majority rule, and freedom is self-rule.” If you want to bring true freedom to America, he says, winning hearts and minds is the only way to reboot this country and create a free society.

Paul Rosenberg, adventure capitalist, Casey Research contributor, and editor of “A Free Man’s Take,” views America’s future similarly. He thinks the United States is in a state of entropy.

The bad news, says Rosenberg, is that there will be no revolution. The good news is that the peak of citizens’ obedience to the state is behind us, and people are getting fed up with the government’s shenanigans.

Real change is slow, he says, so we must work persistently to create a better world.

Stephen Moore, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, says the problem is liberal economic policy: Red states in the US, he says, have blown away blue states in job creation since 1990. Texas alone accounts for the entire net growth of the US economy over the past five years.

As another proof point in favor of a free market economy, Moore emphasizes that both Obama and Reagan took office during terrible economic times. While Obama has raised taxes and instituted Obamacare, Reagan cut taxes and regulation. As a result, the Reagan economic recovery was almost twice as robust as the Obama “recovery.”

One of the US’s biggest problems, says Moore, is that companies can’t reinvest profits because dividend, capital gains, and income taxes all have increased under Obama. Corporate taxes in the rest of the world have dramatically declined in the last 25 years, but in the US, they haven’t budged. The average corporate tax rate around the world is 24%—in the US, it’s 38%.

Overall, though, Moore is bullish on the U.S. economy. American companies, he says, are the best run in the world, if only the US government would adopt less economically destructive policies.

Doug Casey, chairman of Casey Research, legendary speculator, and best-selling financial author, isn’t so optimistic. First of all, he says, we’re in the Greater Depression right now, which began in 2008. He fears it’s too late to repair America, but says if anyone would attempt to do so, the following seven step program would help:
  • Allow the collapse of “zombie companies” (companies that are only being held up by government handouts and other cash infusions).
  • Abolish all regulatory agencies.
  • Abolish the Federal Reserve.
  • Cut the size of the military by at least 90%.
  • Sell all US government assets.
  • Eliminate the income tax.
  • Default on the national debt.
Of course, says Casey, that’s not going to happen, so individual investors shouldn’t hope for a political solution or waste their time and money trying to stop the inevitable collapse of the U.S. economy. The only way to save yourself and your assets is to internationalize.

He recommends owning significant assets outside your home country: for example, by buying foreign real estate. You should also buy and store gold, “the only financial asset that’s not simultaneously someone else’s liability.”

Casey’s suggestions include going short bubbles that are about to burst (like Japanese bonds denominated in yen), selling expensive assets like collectible cars and expensive real estate in major cities, as well as looking toward places like Africa as contrarian investment opportunities.

Nick Giambruno, senior editor of International Man, agrees that internationalizing your wealth—and yourself—is the most prudent way to go for today’s high net worth investors. It ensures that “no single government can control your destiny,” and that you put your money, business, and yourself where they are treated best.

You should internationalize each of these six aspects of your life, says Giambruno: our assets; your citizenship; your income/business; your legal residency; your lifestyle residency; and your digital presence.
Regarding your assets, you can find better capitalized, more liquid banks abroad, and using international brokerage accounts can provide you access to new investment markets.

To hear all of Nick Giambruno’s detailed tips on how to go global, as well as every single presentation of the Summit, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. It’s available in CD and/or MP3 format.

Learn More Here


The article The Broken State and How to Fix It was originally published at Casey Research.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Monday, September 29, 2014

The End of Monetary Policy

Thoughts from the Frontline: The End of Monetary Policy

By John Mauldin


We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar…
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
            –  T. S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men

What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. This is not to say that there will no longer be events to fill the pages of Foreign Affairs' yearly summaries of international relations, for the victory of liberalism has occurred primarily in the realm of ideas or consciousness and is as yet incomplete in the real or material world. But there are powerful reasons for believing that it is the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run.

– Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

Francis Fukuyama created all sorts of controversy when he declared “the end of history” in 1989 (and again in 1992 in the book cited above). That book won general applause, and unlike many other academics he has gone on to produce similarly thoughtful work. A review of his latest book, Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalisation of Democracy, appeared just yesterday in The Economist. It’s the second volume in a two-volume tour de force on “political order.”

I was struck by the closing paragraphs of the review:

Mr. Fukuyama argues that the political institutions that allowed the United States to become a successful modern democracy are beginning to decay. The division of powers has always created a potential for gridlock. But two big changes have turned potential into reality: political parties are polarised along ideological lines and powerful interest groups exercise a veto over policies they dislike. America has degenerated into a “vetocracy”. It is almost incapable of addressing many of its serious problems, from illegal immigration to stagnating living standards; it may even be degenerating into what Mr. Fukuyama calls a “neopatrimonial” society in which dynasties control blocks of votes and political insiders trade power for favours.

Mr. Fukuyama’s central message in this long book is as depressing as the central message in “The End of History” was inspiring. Slowly at first but then with gathering momentum political decay can take away the great advantages that political order has delivered: a stable, prosperous and harmonious society.

While I am somewhat more hopeful than Professor Fukuyama is about the future of our political process (I see the rise of a refreshing new kind of libertarianism, especially among our youth, in both conservative and liberal circles, as a potential game changer), I am concerned about what I think will be the increasing impotence of monetary policy in a world where the political class has not wisely used the time that monetary policy has bought them to correct the problems of debt and market restricting policies. They have avoided making the difficult political decisions that would set the stage for the next few decades of powerful growth.

Make sure you get our new FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

So while the title of this letter, “The End of Monetary Policy,” is purposely provocative, the longer and more appropriate title would be “The End of Effective and Productive Monetary Policy.” My concern is not that we will move into an era of no monetary policy, but that monetary policy will become increasingly ineffective, so that we will have to solve our social and physical problems in a much less friendly economic environment.
In today’s Thoughts from the Frontline, let’s explore the limits of monetary policy and think about the evolution and then the endgame of economic history. Not the end of monetary policy per se, but its emasculation.

The End of Monetary Policy

Asset classes all over the developed world have responded positively to lower interest rates and successive rounds of quantitative easing from the major central banks. To the current generation it all seems so easy. All we have to do is ensure permanently low rates and a continual supply of new money, and everything works like a charm. Stock and real estate prices go up; new private equity and credit deals abound; and corporations get loans at low rates with ridiculously easy terms. Subprime borrowers have access to credit for a cornucopia of products.

What was Paul Volcker really thinking by raising interest rates and punishing the economy with two successive recessions? Why didn’t he just print money and drop rates even further? Oh wait, he was dealing with the highest inflation our country had seen in the last century, and the problem is that his predecessor had been printing money, keeping rates too low, and allowing inflation to run out of control. Kind of like what we have now, except we’re missing the inflation.

Let’s Look at the Numbers

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has a marvelous website full of all sorts of useful information. Let’s start by looking at inflation around the world. This table is rather dense and is offered only to give you a taste of what’s available.



What we find out is that inflation is strikingly, almost shockingly, low. It certainly seems so to those of us who came of age in the ’60s and ’70s and who now, in the fullness of time, are watching aghast as stupendous amounts of various currencies are fabricated out of thin air. Seriously, if I had suggested to you back in 2007 that central bank balance sheets would expand by $7-8 trillion in the next half decade but that inflation would be averaging less than 2%, you would have laughed in my face.

Let’s take a quick world tour. France has inflation of 0.5%; Italy’s is -0.2% (as in deflation); the euro area on the whole has 0.4% inflation; the United Kingdom (which still includes Scotland) is at an amazingly low 1.5% for the latest month, down from 4.5% in 2011; China with its huge debt bubble has 2.2% inflation; Mexico, which has been synonymous with high inflation for decades, is only running in the 4% range. And so on. Looking at the list of the major economies of the world, including the BRICS and other large emerging markets, there is not one country with double digit inflation (with the exception of Argentina, and Argentina is always an exception – their data lies, too, because inflation is 3-4 times what they publish.) Even India, at least since Rajan assumed control of the Reserve Bank of India, has watched its inflation rate steadily drop.

Japan is the anomaly. The imposition of Abenomics has seemingly engineered an inflation rate of 3.4%, finally overcoming deflation. Or has it? What you find is that inflation magically appeared in March of this year when a 3% hike in the consumption tax was introduced. When government decrees that prices will go up 3%, then voilĂ , like magic, you get 3% inflation. Take out the 3% tax, and inflation is running about 1% in the midst of one of the most massive monetary expansions ever seen. And there is reason to suspect that a considerable part of that 1% is actually due to the ongoing currency devaluation. The yen closed just shy of 110 yesterday, up from less than 80 two years ago.

I should also point out that, one year from now, this 3% inflation may disappear into yesteryear’s statistics. The new tax will already be factored into all current and future prices, and inflation will go back to its normal low levels in Japan.

Inflation in the US is running less than 2% (latest month is 1.7%) as the Fed pulls the plug on QE. As I’ve been writing for … my gods, has it really been two decades?! – the overall trend is deflationary for a host of reasons. That trend will change someday, but it will be with us for a while.

Where’s my GDP?

Gross domestic product around the developed world ranges anywhere from subdued to anemic to outright recessionary:



The G-20 itself is growing at an almost respectable 3%, but when you look at the developed world’s portion of that statistic, the picture gets much worse. The European Union grew at 0.1% last year and is barely on target to beat that this year. The euro area is flat to down. The United Kingdom and the United States are at 1.7% and 2.2% respectively. Japan is in recession. France is literally at 0% for the year and is likely to enter recession by the end of the year. Italy remains mired in recession. Powerhouse Germany was in recession during the second quarter.

Let’s put those stats in context. We have seen the most massive monetary stimulation of the last 200 years in the developed world, and growth can be best described as faltering. Without the totally serendipitous shale oil revolution in the United States, growth here would be about 1%, or not much ahead of where Europe is today.

Demographics, Debt, Bond Bubbles, and Currency Wars

Look at the rest of the economic ecology. Demographics are decidedly deflationary. Every country in the developed world is getting older, and with each year there are fewer people in the working cohort to support those in retirement. Government debt is massive and rising in almost every country. In Japan and many countries of Europe it is approaching true bubble status. Anybody who thinks the current corporate junk bond market is sustainable is smoking funny smelling cigarettes. (The song from my youth “Don’t Bogart That Joint” pops to mind. But I digrass.)

We are seeing the beginnings of an outright global currency war that I expect to ensue in earnest in 2015. My co-author Jonathan Tepper and I outlined in both Endgame and Code Red what we still believe to be the future. The Japanese are clearly in the process of weakening their currency. This is just the beginning. The yen is going to be weakening 10 to 15% a year for a very long time. I truly expect to see the yen at 200 to the dollar somewhere near the end of the decade.

ECB head Mario Draghi is committed to weakening the euro. The reigning economic philosophy has it that weakening your currency will boost exports and thus growth. And Europe desperately needs growth. Absent QE4 from the Fed, the euro is going to continue to weaken against the dollar. Emerging-market countries will be alarmed at the increasing strength of the dollar and other developed world currencies against their currencies and will try to fight back by weakening their own money. This is what Greg Weldon described back in 2001 as the Competitive Devaluation Raceway, which back then described the competition among emerging markets to maintain the devaluation of their currencies against the dollar.

Today, with Europe and Japan gunning their engines, which have considerable horsepower left, it is a very competitive race indeed – and one with far reaching political implications for each country. As I have written in past letters, it is now every central banker for him or herself.

That Pesky Budget Thing

Developed governments around the world are running deficits. France will be close to a 4% deficit this year, with no improvement in sight. Germany is running a small deficit. Japan has a mind boggling 8% deficit, which they keep talking about dealing with, but nothing ever actually happens. How is this possible with a debt of 250% of GDP? Any European country with such a debt structure would be in a state of collapse. The US is at 5.8% and the United Kingdom at 5.3%, while Spain is still at 5.5%.

Let’s focus on the US. Everyone knows that the US has an entitlement driven spending problem, but very few people I talk with understand the true nature of the situation, which is actually quite dire, looming up ahead of us. In less than 10 years, at current debt projection growth rates, the third largest expenditure of the United States government will be interest expense. The other three largest categories are all entitlement programs. Discretionary spending, whether for defense or anything else, is becoming an ever smaller part of the budget. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid now command nearly two thirds of the national budget and rising. Ironically, polls suggest that 80% of Americans are concerned about the rising deficit and debt, but 69% oppose Medicare cutbacks, and 78% oppose Medicaid cutbacks.



At some point in the middle of the next decade, entitlement spending plus interest payments will be more than the total revenue of the government. The deficit that we are currently experiencing will explode. The following chart is what will happen if nothing changes. But this chart also cannot happen, because the bond market and the economy will simply implode before it does.



A Multitude of Sins

Monetary policy has been able to mask a multitude of our government’s fiscal sins. My worry for the economy is what will happen when Band-Aid monetary policy can no longer forestall the hemorrhaging of the US economy. Long before we get to 2024 we will have a crisis. In past years, I have expected the problems to come to a head sooner rather than later, but I have come to realize that the US economy can absorb a great deal of punishment. But it cannot absorb the outcomes depicted in those last two charts. Something will have to give.

And these projections assume there will be no recession within the next 10 years. How likely is that? What happens when the US has to deal with its imbalances at the same time Europe and Japan must deal with theirs? These problems are not resolvable by monetary policy.

Right now the markets move on every utterance from Janet Yellen, Mario Draghi, and their central bank friends. Central banking dominates the economic narrative. But what happens to the power of central banks to move markets when the fiscal imperative overcomes the central bank narrative?

Sometime this decade (which at my age seems to be passing mind-numbingly quickly) we are going to face a situation where monetary policy no longer works. Optimistically speaking, interest rates may be in the 2% range by the end of 2016, assuming the Fed starts to raise rates the middle of next year and raises by 25 basis points per meeting. If we were to enter a recession with rates already low, what would dropping rates to the zero bound again really do? What kind of confidence would that tactic actually inspire? And gods forbid we find ourselves in a recession or a period of slow growth prior to that time. Will the Fed under Janet Yellen raise interest rates if growth sputters at less than 2%?

An even scarier scenario is what will happen if we don’t deal with our fiscal issues. You can’t solve a yawning deficit with monetary policy.

Further, at some point the velocity of money is going to reverse, and monetary policy will have to be far more restrained. The only reason, and I mean only, that we’ve been able to get away with such a massively easy monetary policy is that the velocity of money has been dropping consistently for the last 10 years. The velocity of money is at its lowest level since the end of World War II, but it is altogether possible that it will slow further to Great Depression levels.

When the velocity of money begins to once again rise – and in the fullness of time it always does – we are going to face the nemesis of inflation. Monetary policy during periods of inflation is far more constrained. Quantitative easing will not be the order of the day.

For Keynesians, we are in the Golden Age of Monetary Policy. It can’t get any better than this: free money and low rates and no consequences (at least no consequences that can be seen by the public). This will end, as it always does…..

Not with a Bang but a Whimper

Will we see the end of monetary policy? No, policy will just be constrained. The current era of easy monetary policy will not end (in the words of T.S. Eliot) with a bang but a whimper. Janet or Mario will walk to the podium and say the same words they do today, and the markets will not respond. Central banks will lose control of the narrative, and we will have to figure out what to do in a world where profits and productivity are once again more important than quantitative easing and monetary policy.

You need to be thinking about how you will react and how you want to protect your portfolios in such a circumstance. Even if that volatility is years off, “war-gaming” how you will respond is an important exercise. Because it will happen, unless Congress and the White House decide to resolve the fiscal crisis before it happens. Calculate the odds on that happening and then decide whether you need to have a plan.

Unless you think the bond market will continue to finance the US government through endless deficits (as so far has happened in Japan), then you need to start to contemplate the end of effective monetary policy. I would note that, even in Japan, monetary policy has not been effective in restarting an economy. It is a quirk of Japan’s social structure that the Japanese have devoted almost their entire net savings to government bonds. As the savings rate there is getting ready to turn negative, we are going to see a very different economic result. Japan with the yen at 200 and an even older society will look a great deal different than the country does today.

Current market levels of volatility and complacency should be seen as temporary. Plan accordingly.

Washington DC, Chicago, Athens (Texas), and Boston

I am in Washington DC as you read this. I have a few meetings set up, as well as a speaking engagement, and then I’ll return home to meet with my business partners at Mauldin Economics later in the week. In the middle of October I will go to Chicago for a speech, fly back to a meeting with Kyle Bass and his friends at the Barefoot Ranch in Athens, Texas, and then fly out to Boston to spend the weekend with Niall Ferguson and some of his friends. I am sure I will be happily surfing mental stimulus overload that week.

Next weekend (October 4) is my 65th birthday. I had originally thought I would do a rather low key event with family; but my staff, family, and friends have different plans. I’m not really supposed to know what’s going on and don’t really have much of an idea as I am not allowed around planning sessions, but it sounds like fun.

I am walking on legs that feel like Jell-O, as it was “legs day” yesterday, working out with The Beast. My regular workout partner couldn’t make it, so he was able to focus on exhausting me to the maximum extent possible. I’ve never been all that athletic. As a kid, for the most part I was not allowed to participate in PE due to some physical limitations (which fortunately went away as I grew older).

I became a true geek. Not that that is all bad: it has served me rather well later in life. Geeks rule. It wasn’t until I was in my mid 40s that I began to go to the gym on more than a haphazard basis. And I must confess that I was a typical male in that I focused on my upper body as opposed to my legs and abdominals. That oversight is catching up with me now. The Beast is forcing me to devote more time to my legs and core. Much better for me as I approach the latter half of my 60s, but it’s painful to realize the cost of my negligence.

In the last five or six years my travel has reduced my gym time, or at least that’s my excuse. For whatever reason, my travel has been reduced for the last two months, so I’m getting much more time in the gym, and my workouts are more well rounded. I typically try to do at least another 30 minutes of cardio after our training sessions, even if the session was based around cardio. Except on leg days. There’s nothing left for extra walking or cycling after leg days.

I share this because I want you to understand that working out is just as important as your investment strategy. I fully intend to be going strong for a very long time. But that doesn’t happen (at least as easily) if you lose your legs. As much as I hate leg days, I probably need those workouts more than any others.

It’s time to hit the send button. I hear kids and grand kids gathering in the next room. That’s something else that is just as important as investment strategy. You have a great week.

Your thinking about how to profit from the coming crisis analyst,
John Mauldin



Make sure you get our new FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!