{"id":9467,"date":"2009-02-21T10:39:41","date_gmt":"2009-02-21T07:39:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.turkishforum.com.tr\/en\/content\/?p=9467"},"modified":"2023-07-26T11:48:14","modified_gmt":"2023-07-26T08:48:14","slug":"while-rome-burns-by-john-mauldin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/2009\/02\/21\/while-rome-burns-by-john-mauldin\/","title":{"rendered":"While Rome Burns by John Mauldin"},"content":{"rendered":"<table border=\"0\" width=\"80%\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"font-size: 19px; padding-top: 10px; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;\" valign=\"top\">\n<div style=\"font-size: 12px; padding-bottom: 3px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;\"><em>Thoughts  from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter<\/em><\/div>\n<p>While Rome Burns<\/p>\n<div style=\"font-size: 12px; padding-bottom: 3px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;\">by  John Mauldin<br \/>\nFebruary 20, 2009<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"padding-top: 10px;\" rowspan=\"2\" align=\"right\"><span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.myspace.com\/johnmauldin\"><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\">\n<p align=\"left\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;\">In this issue:<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: #003366;\"><strong>While Rome  Burns<br \/>\nThe Risk in Europe<br \/>\nThe Euro Back to Parity? Really?<br \/>\nBack to the  Basics<br \/>\nLiving in Paradise<br \/>\nThe 20-Year Horizon<br \/>\nIf I Had a Hammer<br \/>\nNew  York, Las Vegas, and La Jolla<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: #000000;\">When I sit down each week to write, I essentially do what I did nine years  ago when I started writing this letter. I write to you, as an individual. I  don&#8217;t think of a large group of people, just a simple letter to a friend. It is  only half a joke that this letter is written to my one million closest friends.  That is the way I think of it.<\/p>\n<p>This week&#8217;s letter is likely to lose me a few friends, though. I am going to  start a series on money management, portfolio construction, and money managers.  It will be back to the basics for both new and long-time readers. I am not sure  how long it will take (in terms of weeks), but it is likely to make a few people  upset and provoke some strong disagreements. Let&#8217;s just say this is not stocks  for the long run.<\/p>\n<p>And because many of you want some continuing analysis of the current crisis,  each week I will throw in a few pages of commentary at the beginning of the  letter.<\/p>\n<p>But first, and quickly, I just wanted to take a moment and remind you to sign  up for the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner, all set for Saturday, April 4 at the  Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego &#8212; if you haven&#8217;t already. This is sure to  be an extraordinary evening honoring a great friend and associate of mine, and  yours as well. I do hope that you can join us for a night of memories, laughs,  and good fun with fellow admirers and long-time readers of Richard&#8217;s <em>Dow  Theory Letter.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A significant number of my fellow writers and publishers have committed to  attend. It is going to be an investment-writer, Richard-reader, star-studded  event. If you are a fellow writer, you should make plans to attend or send me a  note that I can put in a tribute book we are preparing for Richard. And feel  free to mention this event in your letter as well. We want to make this night a  special event for Richard and his family of readers and friends. So, if you  haven&#8217;t, go ahead and log on to <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"https:\/\/www.johnmauldin.com\/russell-tribute.html\"><\/span> and sign up today. I wouldn&#8217;t want any of you to miss out on this tribute. I  look forward to sharing this evening with all of you.<\/p>\n<p>And now, let&#8217;s turn our eyes to Europe.<\/p>\n<h3>The Risk in Europe<\/h3>\n<p>I mentioned last week that European banks are at significant risk. I want to  follow up on that point, as it is very important. Eastern Europe has borrowed an  estimated $1.7 trillion, primarily from Western European banks. And much of  Eastern Europe is already in a deep recession bordering on depression. A great  deal of that $1.7 trillion is at risk, especially the portion that is in Swiss  francs. It is a story that could easily be as big as the US subprime  problem.<\/p>\n<p>In Poland, as an example, 60% of mortgages are in Swiss francs. When times  are good and currencies are stable, it is nice to have a low-interest Swiss  mortgage. And as a requirement for joining the euro currency union, Poland has  been required to keep its currency stable against the euro. This gave borrowers  comfort that they could borrow at low interest in francs or euros, rather than  at much higher local rates.<\/p>\n<p>But in an echo of teaser-rate subprimes here in the US, there is a problem.  Along came the synchronized global recession and large Polish current-account  trade deficits, which were three times those of the US in terms of GDP, just to  give us some perspective. Of course, if you are not a reserve currency this is  going to bring some pressure to bear. And it did. The Polish zloty has basically  dropped in half compared to the Swiss franc. That means if you are a mortgage  holder, your house payment just doubled. That same story is repeated all over  the Baltics and Eastern Europe.<\/p>\n<p>Austrian banks have lent $289 billion (230 billion euros) to Eastern Europe.  That is 70% of Austrian GDP. Much of it is in Swiss francs they borrowed from  Swiss banks. Even a 10% impairment (highly optimistic) would bankrupt the  Austrian financial system, says the Austrian finance minister, Joseph Proll. In  the US we speak of banks that are too big to be allowed to fail. But the reality  is that we could nationalize them if we needed to do so. (And for the record, I  favor nationalization and swift privatization. We cannot afford a repeat of  Japan&#8217;s zombie banks.)<\/p>\n<p>The problem is that in Europe there are many banks that are simply too big to  save. The size of the banks in terms of the GDP of the country in which they are  domiciled is all out of proportion. For my American readers, it would be as if  the bank bailout package were in excess of $14 trillion (give or take a few  trillion). In essence, there are small countries which have very large banks  (relatively speaking) that have gone outside their own borders to make loans and  have done so at levels of leverage which are far in excess of the most leveraged  US banks. The ability of the &#8220;host&#8221; countries to nationalize their banks is  simply not there. They are going to have to have help from larger countries. But  as we will see below, that help is problematical.<\/p>\n<p>Western European banks have been very aggressive in lending to emerging  market countries worldwide. Almost 75% of an estimated $4.9 trillion of loans  outstanding are to countries that are in deep recessions. Plus, according to the  IMF, they are 50% more leveraged than US banks.<\/p>\n<p>Today the euro rallied back to $1.26 based upon statements from German  authorities that were interpreted as a potential willingness to help out  non-German (in particular, Austrian) banks.<\/p>\n<p>However, this more sobering note from Strategic Energy was sent to me by a  reader. It nicely sums up my concerns:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is East Europe that is blowing up right now. Erik Berglof, EBRD&#8217;s chief  economist, told me the region may need \u20ac400bn in help to cover loans and prop up  the credit system. Europe&#8217;s governments are making matters worse. Some are  pressuring their banks to pull back, undercutting subsidiaries in East Europe.  Athens has ordered Greek banks to pull out of the Balkans.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The sums needed are beyond the limits of the IMF, which has already bailed  out Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Belarus, Iceland, and Pakistan &#8212; and Turkey next  &#8212; and is fast exhausting its own $200bn (\u20ac155bn) reserve. We are nearing the  point where the IMF may have to print money for the world, using arcane powers  to issue Special Drawing Rights. Its $16bn rescue of Ukraine has unravelled. The  country &#8212; facing a 12% contraction in GDP after the collapse of steel prices &#8212;  is hurtling towards default, leaving Unicredit, Raffeisen and ING in the lurch.  Pakistan wants another $7.6bn. Latvia&#8217;s central bank governor has declared his  economy &#8220;clinically dead&#8221; after it shrank 10.5% in the fourth quarter.  Protesters have smashed the treasury and stormed parliament.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8216;This is much worse than the East Asia crisis in the 1990s,&#8217; said Lars  Christensen, at Danske Bank. &#8216;There are accidents waiting to happen across the  region, but the EU institutions don&#8217;t have any framework for dealing with this.  The day they decide not to save one of these one countries will be the trigger  for a massive crisis with contagion spreading into the EU.&#8217; Europe is already in  deeper trouble than the ECB or EU leaders ever expected. Germany contracted at  an annual rate of 8.4% in the fourth quarter. If Deutsche Bank is correct, the  economy will have shrunk by nearly 9% before the end of this year. This is the  sort of level that stokes popular revolt.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The implications are obvious. Berlin is not going to rescue Ireland, Spain,  Greece and Portugal as the collapse of their credit bubbles leads to rising  defaults, or rescue Italy by accepting plans for EU &#8220;union bonds&#8221; should the  debt markets take fright at the rocketing trajectory of Italy&#8217;s public debt  (hitting 112pc of GDP next year, just revised up from 101pc &#8212; big change), or  rescue Austria from its Habsburg adventurism. So we watch and wait as the lethal  brush fires move closer. If one spark jumps across the eurozone line, we will  have global systemic crisis within days. Are the firemen ready?&#8221;<\/p>\n<h3>While Rome Burns<\/h3>\n<p>I hope the writer is wrong. But the ECB is dithering while Rome burns. (Or at  least their banking system is &#8212; Italy&#8217;s banks have large exposure to Eastern  Europe through Austrian subsidiaries.) They need to bring rates down and figure  out how to move into quantitative easing. Europe is at far greater risk than the  US.<\/p>\n<p>Great Britain and Europe as a whole are down about 6% in GDP on an annualized  basis. The Bank Credit Analyst sent the next graph out to their public list, and  I reproduce it here. (www.bcaresearch.com) In another longer  report, they note that the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Switzerland have the  greatest risk of widespread bank nationalization (outside of Iceland). The full  report is quite sobering. The countries on the bottom of the list are also in  danger of having their credit ratings downgraded.<\/p>\n<p>This has the potential to be a real crisis, far worse than in the US. Without  concerted action on the part of the ECB and the European countries that are  relatively strong, much of Europe could fall further into what would feel like a  depression. There is a problem, though. Imagine being a politician in Germany,  for instance. Your GDP is down by 8% last quarter. Unemployment is rising.  Budgets are under pressure, as tax collections are down. And you are going to be  asked to vote in favor of bailing out (pick a small country)? What will the  voters who put you into office think?<\/p>\n<p>We are going to find out this year whether the European Union is like the  Three Musketeers. Are they &#8220;all for one and one for all?&#8221; or is it every country  for itself? My bet (or hope) is that it is the former. Dissolution at this point  would be devastating for all concerned, and for the world economy at large. Many  of us in the US don&#8217;t think much about Europe or the rest of the world, but  without a healthy Europe, much of our world trade would vanish.<\/p>\n<p>However, getting all the parties to agree on what to do will take some  serious leadership, which does not seem to be in evidence at this point. The US  almost waited too long to respond to our crisis, but we had the &#8220;luxury&#8221; of only  needing to get a few people to agree as to the nature of the problems (whether  they were wrong or right is beside the point). And we have a central bank that  could act decisively.<\/p>\n<p>As I understand the European agreement, that situation does not exist in  Europe. For the ECB to print money as the US and the UK (and much of the non-EU  developed world) will do, takes agreement from all the member countries, and  right now it appears the German and Dutch governments are resisting such an  idea.<\/p>\n<p>As I write this (on a plane on my way to Orlando) German finance minister  Peer Steinbruck has said it would be intolerable to let fellow EMU members fall  victim to the global financial crisis. &#8220;We have a number of countries in the  eurozone that are clearly getting into trouble on their payments,&#8221; he said.  &#8220;Ireland is in a very difficult situation.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The euro-region treaties don&#8217;t foresee any help for insolvent states, but in  reality the others would have to rescue those running into difficulty.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>That is a hopeful sign. Ireland is indeed in dire straits, and is  particularly vulnerable as it is going to have to spend a serious percentage of  its GDP on bailing out its banks.<\/p>\n<p>It is not clear how it will all play out. But there is real risk of Europe  dragging the world into a longer, darker night. Their banks not only have  exposure to our US foibles, much of which has already been written off, but now  many banks will have to contend with massive losses from emerging-market loans,  which could be even larger than the losses stemming from US problems. Plus, they  are more leveraged. (This was definitely a topic of &#8220;Conversation&#8221; this morning  when I chatted with Nouriel Roubini. See more below.)<\/p>\n<h3>The Euro Back to Parity? Really?<\/h3>\n<p>I wrote over six years ago, when the euro was below $1, that I thought the  euro would rise to over $1.50 (it went even higher) and then back to parity in  the middle of the next decade. I thought the decline would be due to large  European government deficits brought about by pension and health care promises  to retirees, and those problems do still loom.<\/p>\n<p>It may be that the current problems will push the euro to parity much sooner,  possibly this year. While that will be nice if you want to vacation in Europe,  it will have serious side effects on international trade. It clearly makes  European exporters more competitive with the rest of the world, and especially  the US. It also means that goods coming from Asia will cost more in Europe,  unless Asian countries decide to devalue their currencies to maintain an ability  to sell into Europe, which of course will bring howls from the US about currency  manipulation. It is going to put pressure on governments to enact some form of  trade protectionism, which would be devastating to the world economy.<\/p>\n<p>Large and swift currency swings are inherently disruptive. We are seeing  volatility in the currency markets unlike anything I have witnessed. I hope we  do not see a precipitous fall in value of the euro. It will be good for no one.  It is a strange world indeed when the US is having such a deep series of  problems, the Fed and Treasury are talking about printing a few trillion here  and a few trillion there, and at the very same time we see the dollar AND gold  rising in value. Which all serves as a good set-up to the next section.<\/p>\n<h3>Back to the Basics<\/h3>\n<p>&#8220;Stocks for the long run&#8221; has been weighed in the balance in Baby Boomers&#8217;  retirement accounts all over the world and has been found wanting. The S&amp;P  500 is now roughly where it was 12 years ago, although earnings in 1997 were  higher than those projected for 2009. The Dow closed at 7466 on Thursday, a  six-year low, giving all those who follow Dow Theory a clear bear market signal,  suggesting there is more pain ahead.<\/p>\n<p>In 1997 I was a young 49. For me to make the advertised 8% average annual  returns in my equity portfolio, the Dow would have had to go on a tear for the  next 8 years. 8% compound from 1997 would have the Dow well over 30,000 now.  Remember those silly books which predicted such nonsense? (Seriously, what  statistically flawed analysis, yet people bought it.) Now the market would have  to do 18% a year for the next 8 years to get to 30,000. Anyone want to make that  bet? Let&#8217;s look at a few paragraphs I wrote in <em>Bull&#8217;s Eye Investing.<\/em><\/p>\n<h3>Living in Paradise<\/h3>\n<p>Would you like to live in paradise? There&#8217;s a place where the average daily  temperature is 66 degrees, rainy days only occur on average every five days, and  the sun shines most of the time.<\/p>\n<p>Welcome to Dallas, Texas. As most know, however, the weather in Dallas  doesn&#8217;t qualify as climate paradise. The summers begin their ascent almost  before spring arrives. On some days the buds almost wilt before turning into  blooms. During the lazy days of summer, the sun frequently stokes the  thermometer into triple digits, often for days on end. There are numerous jokes  about the Devil, hell, and Texas summers.<\/p>\n<p>Once winter arrives, some days are mild &#8212; perfect golf weather. Yet the next  day might be frigid, with snow or the occasional ice storm. That&#8217;s good for  business at the local auto body shops, though it makes for sleepless nights for  the insurance companies. Certainly the winters don&#8217;t match the chilly winds of  Chicago or the blizzards of Buffalo, but Dallas is far from paradise as its  seasons ebb and flow.<\/p>\n<p>For the year though, the average temperature is paradisical.<\/p>\n<p>Contrary to the studies that show investors they can expect 7% or 9% or 10%  by staying in the market for the long run, the stock market isn&#8217;t paradise  either. Like Texas summers, the stock market often seems like the anteroom to  investment hell.<\/p>\n<p>Historically, average investment returns over the very long term (we&#8217;re  talking 40-50-70 years) have been some of the best available, but the seasons of  the stock market tend to cycle with as much variability as Texas weather. The  extremes and the inconstancies are far greater than most realize. Let&#8217;s examine  the range of variability to truly appreciate the strength of the storms.<\/p>\n<p>In the 103 years from 1900 through 2002, the annual change for the Dow Jones  Industrial Average reflects a simple average gain of 7.2% per year. During that  time, 63% of the years reflect positive returns, and 37% were negative. Only  five of the years ended with changes between +5% and +10% &#8212; that&#8217;s <strong><span style=\"color: blue;\">less than 5% of the time<\/span><\/strong>. Most of the years were  far from average &#8212; many were sufficiently dramatic to drive an investor&#8217;s pulse  into lethal territory!<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: blue;\">Almost 70% of the years were &#8220;double-digit  years,&#8221; when the stock market either rose or fell by more than 10%. To move out  of &#8220;most&#8221; territory, the threshold increases to 16% &#8212; half of the past 103  years end with the stock market index either up or down more than  16%!<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Read those last two paragraphs again. The simple fact is that the stock  market rarely gives you an average year. The wild ride makes for those emotional  investment experiences which are a primary cause of investment pain.<\/p>\n<p>The stock market can be a very risky place to invest. The returns are highly  erratic; the gains and losses are often inconsistent and unpredictable. The  emotional responses to stock market volatility mean that most investors do not  achieve the average stock market gains, as numerous studies clearly  illustrate.<\/p>\n<p>Not understanding how to manage the risk of the stock market, or even what  the risks actually are, investors too often buy high and sell low, based upon  raw emotion. They read the words in the account-opening forms that say the stock  market presents significant opportunities for losses, and that the magnitude of  the losses can be <em>quite<\/em> significant. But they focus on the research that  says, &#8220;Over the long run, history has overcome interim setbacks and has  delivered an average return of 10% including dividends&#8221; (or whatever the number  du jour is. and ignoring bad stuff like inflation, taxes, and transaction  costs).<\/p>\n<h3>The 20-Year Horizon<\/h3>\n<p>But how long is the &#8220;long run&#8221;? Investors have been bombarded for years with  the nostrum that one should invest for the &#8220;long run.&#8221; This has indoctrinated  investors into thinking they could ignore the realities of stock market  investing because of the &#8220;certain&#8221; expectation of ultimate gains.<\/p>\n<p>This faulty line of reasoning has spawned a number of pithy principles,  including: &#8220;No pain, no gain,&#8221; &#8220;You can&#8217;t participate in the profits if you are  not in the game,&#8221; and my personal favorite, &#8220;It&#8217;s not a loss until you take it.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>These and other platitudes are often brought up as reasons to leave your  money with the current management which has just incurred large losses.  Cynically restated: why worry about the swings in your life savings from year to  year if you&#8217;re supposed to be rewarded in the &#8220;long run&#8221;? But what if history  does not repeat itself, or if you don&#8217;t live long enough for the long run to  occur?<\/p>\n<p>For many, the &#8220;long run&#8221; is about 20 years. We work hard to accumulate assets  during the formative years of our careers, yet the accumulation for the large  majority of us seems to become meaningful somewhere after midlife. We seek to  have a confident and comfortable nest egg in time for retirement. For many, this  will represent roughly a 20-year period.<\/p>\n<p>We can divide the 20<sup>th<\/sup> century into 88 twenty-year periods.  <strong><span style=\"color: blue;\">Though most periods generated positive returns  before dividends and transaction costs, half produced compounded returns of less  than 4%.<\/span><\/strong> Less than 10% generated gains of more than 10%. The P\/E  ratio is the measure of valuation reflected in the relationship between the  price paid per share and the earnings per share (&#8220;EPS&#8221;). The table below  reflects that higher returns are associated with periods during which the P\/E  ratio increased, and lower or negative returns resulted from periods when the  P\/E declined.<\/p>\n<p>Look at the table above. There were only nine periods from 1900-2002 when  20-year returns were above 9.6%, and this chart shows all nine. What you will  notice is that eight out of the nine times were associated with the stock market  bubble of the late 1990s, and during all eight periods there was a doubling,  tripling, or even quadrupling of P\/E ratios. Prior to the bubble, there was no  20-year period which delivered 10% annual returns.<\/p>\n<p>Why is that important? If the P\/E ratio doubles, then you are paying twice as  much for the same level of earnings. The difference in price is simply the  perception that a given level of earnings is more valuable today than it was 10  years ago. The main driver of the last stock market bubble, and every bull  market, is an increase in the P\/E ratio. Not earnings growth. Not anything  fundamental. Just a willingness on the part of investors to pay more for a given  level of earnings.<\/p>\n<p>Every period of above-9.6% market returns started with low P\/E ratios. EVERY  ONE. And while not a consistent line, you will note that as 20-year returns  increase, there is a general decline in the initial P\/E ratios. If we wanted to  do some in-depth analysis, we could begin to explain the variation from this  trend quite readily. For instance, the period beginning in 1983 had the lowest  initial P\/E, but was also associated with a two-year-old secular bear, which was  beginning to lower 20-year return levels.<\/p>\n<p>Look at the following table from my friend Ed Easterling&#8217;s web site at www.crestmontresearch.com (which is  a wealth of statistical data like this!). You can find many 20-year periods  where returns were less than 2-3%. And if you take into account inflation, you  can find many 20-year periods where returns were negative!<\/p>\n<p>Look at the 20-year average returns in the table above. The higher the P\/E  ratio, the lower (in general) the subsequent 20-year average return. Where are  we today? As I have made clear in my last two letters, we are well above 20.  Today we are over 30, on our way to 45. In a nod to bulls, I agree you should  look back over a number of years to average earnings and take out the highs and  lows of a cycle. However, even &#8220;normalizing&#8221; earnings to an average over  multiple years, <strong><span style=\"color: blue;\">we are still well above<\/span><\/strong> the long-term P\/E average. Further, earnings as a percentage of GDP went to  highs well above what one would expect from growth, which is usually GDP plus  inflation. Earnings, as I have documented in earlier letters, revert to the  mean. Next week, I will expand on that thought.<\/p>\n<p>And given my thesis that we are in for a deep recession and a multi-year  Muddle Through Recovery, it is unlikely that corporate earnings are going to  rebound robustly. This would suggest that earnings over the next 20 years could  be constrained (to say the least).<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: blue;\">In all cases, throughout the years, the level of  returns correlates very highly to the trend in the market&#8217;s price\/earnings (P\/E)  ratio<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>This may be the single most important investment insight you can have from  today&#8217;s letter. When P\/E ratios were rising, the saying that &#8220;a rising tide  lifts all boats&#8221; has been historically true. When they were dropping, stock  market investing was tricky. Index investing is an experiment in futility.<\/p>\n<p>You can see the returns for any given period of time by going to  .<\/p>\n<p>Now let&#8217;s visit a very basic concept that I discussed at length in <em>Bull&#8217;s  Eye Investing.<\/em> Very simply, stock markets go from periods of high valuations  to low valuations and back to high. As we will see from the graphs below, these  periods have lasted an average of 17 years. And we have not witnessed a period  where the stock market started at high valuations, went halfway down, and then  went back up. So far, there has always been a bottom with low valuations.<\/p>\n<p>My contention is that we should not look at price, but at valuations. That is  the true measure of the probability of success if we are talking long-term  investing.<\/p>\n<p>Now, let me make a few people upset. When someone comes to you and starts  showing you charts that tell you to invest for the long run, look at their  assumptions. Usually they are simplistic. And misleading. I agree that if the  long run for you is 70 years, you can afford to ride out the ups and downs. But  for those of us in the Baby Boomer world, the long term may be buying green  bananas.<\/p>\n<p>If you start in a period of high valuations, you are NOT going to get 8-9-10%  a year for the next 30 years; I don&#8217;t care what their &#8220;scientific studies&#8221; say.  And yet there are salespeople (I will not grace them with the title of  investment advisors) who suggest that if you buy their product and hold for the  long term you will get your 10%, regardless of valuations. Again, go to the  Crestmont web site, mentioned above. Spend some time really studying it. And  then decide what your long-term horizon is.<\/p>\n<h3>If I Had a Hammer<\/h3>\n<p>Let me be very candid. As the saying goes, if you only have a hammer, the  whole world looks like a nail. Many investment professionals only have one tool.  They live in a long-only world. If the markets don&#8217;t go up, they don&#8217;t make a  profit. So, for them the markets are always ready to enter a new bull phase, or  stocks are always a good value. That is what they sell, and that&#8217;s how they make  their money. What mutual fund manager would keep his job if he said you should  sell his fund? Frankly, it is a tough world.<\/p>\n<p>About half the time they are right. The wind is at their backs and they look  very, very good. Genius is a riding market. And then there are those times when  it is just no fun to be them OR their clients. Driving to the airport today, I  had CNBC on. They had a mutual fund manager on who was talking about why you  should ignore the down periods and invest today. He used every hackneyed bromide  I have heard and a few new ones. &#8220;You have to do it for the long run.&#8221; &#8220;If you  aren&#8217;t invested, you miss the bull when it comes.&#8221; (Which is SO statistically  misleading! Maybe next week I will go at that one!) &#8220;Long-term valuations are  very good.&#8221; &#8220;The economy looks to turn around in the latter half of the year, so  now is the time to buy, as the market anticipates the rebound by six months.&#8221;  Etc. He was selling his book.<\/p>\n<p>Again, back to basics. In terms of valuations, markets cycle up and down over  long periods of time. These are called secular cycles. You have bull and bear  secular cycles. In a period of a secular bull, the best style of investing is  relative value. You are trying to beat the market. These periods start with low  valuations, and you can ride the ups and downs with little real worry. Think of  1982 though 1999.<\/p>\n<p>But in secular bear cycles, the best style of investing is absolute returns.  Your benchmark is zero. You want positive numbers. It is much harder, and the  longer-term returns are probably not going to be as good. But you are growing  your capital against the day the secular bull returns. And, as bleak as it looks  right now, I can assure you that bull will be back. Some time in the middle of  the next decade, maybe a little sooner, we will see the launch of a new secular  bull.<\/p>\n<p>Why? Because low valuations act just like a coiled spring. The tighter it  gets wound, the more explosive the result. You just have to have patience.<\/p>\n<p>Now let&#8217;s look at two charts from Vitaliy Katsenelson. They illustrate my  basic point: markets go from high valuations to low valuations and then back.  The first uses one-year trailing earnings and the second uses a smoothed 10-year  trailing earnings stream. But however you look at them, you see a very clear  cycle. By the way, the one-year chart is a few months old, so the numbers would  look even worse after the horrific earnings from the 4<sup>th<\/sup> quarter of  last year.<\/p>\n<p>It is time to hit the send button. Next week, we will look at a very simple  method for timing the markets within the cycles, which can help you avoid the  real downturns. While it may seem obvious that avoiding bear markets will do  wonders for your portfolio, a lot of investment professionals say you can&#8217;t do  it. To that I politely say, garbage.<\/p>\n<p>The tables above clearly lay out how you can time the markets in broad  patterns. You can&#8217;t pick the absolute highs and lows, but you don&#8217;t need to. You  just need to know the direction of the wind and where you want to sail.<\/p>\n<h3>New York, Las Vegas, and La Jolla<\/h3>\n<p>I will be in New York in mid-March. Details are firming up. Then it&#8217;s Doug  Casey&#8217;s &#8220;Crisis &amp; Opportunity Summit,&#8221; March 20-22 in Las Vegas, where I get  to be the resident bull! <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.caseyresearch.com\/crpmkt\/crpSolo.php?id=133\">Click to learn  more about the Summit<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>I will then go to La Jolla for my own Strategic Investment Conference, April  2-4. It is sold out, but as I mentioned at the top of the letter, you can still  get tickets to the Richard Russell Tribute Dinner.<\/p>\n<p>And allow me a quick commercial. Not all money managers and funds have had  losses last year, though it may seem like it. My partners around the world can  introduce you to some alternative funds, commodity funds, and managers that you  may find of interest as you rebalance your portfolio this year. You owe it to  yourself to check them out.<\/p>\n<p>If you are an accredited investor (net worth roughly $1.5 million), you  should check out my partners in the US, Altegris Investments (based in La Jolla)  and my London partners (covering Europe), Absolute Return Partners. If you are  in South Africa, my partner there is Plexus Asset Management. You can go to <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/ce.frontlinethoughts.com\/CT00214702MjY5MTI5.html\">www.accreditedinvestor.ws<\/span> and fill out the form, and someone from their firms will be in touch. All three  shops specialize in alternative investments like hedge funds and commodity  funds, on a very selective basis. We will soon be announcing new partners in  other parts of the world. And if you are an advisor or broker, you should call  them (or fill out the form) and find out how you can plug your clients into  their network of managers.<\/p>\n<p>If your net worth is less than $1.5 million, I work with Steve Blumenthal and  his team at CMG. I suggest you go to his website, register, and then let them  show you what the blend of active managers on his platform would have done over  the past few months and years. These are primarily managers who will trade a  managed account (using various proprietary styles) in your name, and they are  quite liquid. Again, if you are an advisor or broker and would like to see the  managers on the CMG platform and how you can access them for your clients, sign  up and let Steve and his team know you are in the business. The link is <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.cmgfunds.net\/public\/mauldin_questionnaire.asp\"><\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>If you are still here, I assume that you are still one of my one million  closest friends. Have a great week, and take some time to enjoy life.<\/p>\n<p>Your worried about Europe analyst,<\/p>\n<p>John Mauldin<br \/>\nJohn@FrontLineThoughts.com<\/p>\n<p>Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved<\/p>\n<p><strong>Note:<\/strong> The  generic Accredited Investor E-letters are not an offering for any investment. It  represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It  is intended solely for accredited investors who have registered with Millennium  Wave Investments and Altegris Investments at <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/ce.frontlinethoughts.com\/CT00214702MjY5MTI5.html\">www.accreditedinvestor.ws<\/span> or directly related websites and  have been so registered for no less than 30 days. The Accredited Investor  E-Letter is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited  Investor E-Letter are not to send this letter to anyone other than their  professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with  their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium  Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with  multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave  Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer.  MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor  (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB).  Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave  Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment  offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute  Return Partners, LLP; Pro-Hedge Funds; EFG Capital International Corp; and  Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their  fees to these independent firms, who will share 1\/3 of those fees with MWS and  thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information  purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an  endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned  here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor&#8217;s services or making an investment  in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure  document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from  the funds they recommend\/market, they only recommend\/market products with which  they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.<br \/>\n<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"border-top: 1px solid #666666; border-bottom: 1px solid #666666; font-size: 11px; padding-bottom: 4px; color: #333333; line-height: 14px; padding-top: 4px; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; background-color: #eeeeee;\" colspan=\"2\" align=\"middle\"><span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/sendfriend.asp?id=mwo022009&amp;sid=269129\">Send  to a Friend<\/span> | <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/printarticle.asp?id=mwo022009\">Print  Article<\/span> | <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/pdf\/mwo022009.pdf\">View as PDF<\/span> | <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/contact.asp\">Permissions\/Reprints<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td colspan=\"2\">\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: #000000;\">You have permission to publish this article electronically or in  print as long as the following is included:<\/p>\n<p><em>John Mauldin,  Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free  Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For  more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to: <span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/learnmore\">http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/learnmore<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<p>To  subscribe to John Mauldin&#8217;s E-Letter please click here:<br \/>\n<span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/subscribe.asp\">http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/subscribe.asp<\/span><\/p>\n<p>To change your email address please click here:<br \/>\n<span class=\"removed_link\" title=\"http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/change.asp\">http:\/\/www.frontlinethoughts.com\/change.asp<\/span><\/p>\n<p>If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Accredited Investor E-  Letter, please include your old and new email address along with a note  requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request to  wave@frontlinethoughts.com<\/p>\n<p>To unsubscribe please refer to the bottom of  the email.<\/p>\n<p>PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS  RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED  FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU  SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN  ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY  INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO  PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE  COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE  NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE  HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND  ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER.<\/p>\n<p>John Mauldin is also president  of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor. All material  presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its  accuracy. All material represents the opinions of John Mauldin. Investment  recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment  counselors before making any investment decisions. Opinions expressed in these  reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and\/or the staff at  Thoughts from the Frontline may or may not have investments in any funds cited  above. Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273. <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter While Rome Burns by John Mauldin February 20, 2009 In this issue: While Rome Burns The Risk in Europe The Euro Back to Parity? Really? Back to the Basics Living in Paradise The 20-Year Horizon If I Had a Hammer New York, Las Vegas, and La Jolla When I [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":83,"featured_media":179182,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[783],"tags":[745],"class_list":["post-9467","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ukraine-eastern-europe-english","tag-economic-crisis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9467","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/83"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9467"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9467\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/179182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.turkishnews.com\/en\/content\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}