Rosenberg

Rosie doing what he does best: staking a lot by going against the consensus... Again

"Below we highlight President Obama’s weekly address, in which he blames the big bad banks for luring borrowers into the myriad of products during the credit bubble, a bubble that in our view was promulgated by the nation’s policymakers.

When things go awry, however, it is very easy for those in Washington to point the fingers at somebody else. What did Congress, the SEC, the Fed, and the White House think in that 2002-07 bubble period except that excess credit was creating jobs; in turn, those jobs were creating prosperity and that prosperity led to votes. Now the borrowers, who signed contracts, and as adults should also be held accountable, are being treated as “victims” by politicians and the media." - David Rosenberg

Typical of a post-bubble credit collapse, I see the range of outcomes in the financial markets and the economy to be extremely wide. But one conclusion I think we can agree on in this light is the need to maintain defensive strategies and minimize volatility and downside risks as well as to focus on where the secular fundamentals are positive such as in fixed-income and in equity sectors that lever off the commodity sector, under the proviso that the “experts” are correct on this particular forecast — that China and India remain the global growth leaders. - David Rosenberg

The focus of Rosie's morning note has to do with debunking the latest misconception pushed by Barron's, which in all honesty is merely paraphrasing one of Rosie's own successors at Merrill Lynch - David Bianco, whose most recent fluff piece "Harvesting the Truth" (presented below) was an insult to thinking homo sapiens worldwide. The particular item that Rosie has beef with is the Bianco allegation that the consumer is not really 70% of US GDP. Here is Rosie's rebuttal.

David Rosenberg shares his response to Raymond James' Jeffrey Saut

Looking at the mudslinging campaign going among economic strategists, one would think the presidential elections are early (and for once we may just elect someone who understands something...anything... about the economy). First we had Rogers and Roubini, and now it appears that the Bull-Bear combo of Saut-Rosenberg is next to take center stage.

"In 1982, Ronald Reagan was President (two consecutive terms as Governor of California), Don Regan was Treasury Secretary (35 years of financial sector experience), Martin Feldstein as the Chief Economic Advisor to President Reagan (the dean of business cycle determination), and Paul Volcker was Fed Chairman (9 years of prior financial sector experience). Compare and contrast to Barrack Obama (junior senator from Illinois for 3 years); Timothy Geithner (21 years experience in government, three years as a lobbyist); Larry Summers (no private sector experience; 27 years of academia and government) and Ben Bernanke (no private sector experience; 30 years of academia and government). Which team do you think deserved the higher multiple — the one with actual experience in the real world or the one immersed in academia and government?" David Rosenberg

"If the USA were to go back to a 40% ratio of gold reserves to money supply (using the monetary base), where it was a century ago when the Fed was first created, from 17% currently, that would equate to three years’ supply of bullion, and alone take the gold price up to $2,750/ounce, based again on our research on price sensitivities to central bank buying activity." - David Rosenberg

Yesterday, the market moved on what was the double whammy of the government's own rather fluid favorable interpretation of what was essentially the government's very own stimulus. Yet others can play, and unwind, the number fudging game too. According to David Rosenberg, absent the now declining impact of the massive governmental stimulus, GDP would have been flat if not negative. So much for bickering over whether GDP was 2.7% or 3.5%: at the end of the day, on a normalized, non-stimulus inflated basis, GDP was flat, and if the equity market cared about isolating non-recurring items such as excess government spending driving a collapsing economy, the stock market reaction would have been quite the opposite.

He came, he saw, and he couldn't believe his eyes... or ears. It is almost painful to watch David Rosenberg smack the Managing Partner of Seygem Asset Management like the puppet doll the formerly insightful anchor has become. The same goes for the balance of his CNBC colleagues as they proceed to ask highly (ir)relevant question after question.

We have recently stated that it is our belief that at this point any excess liquidity pumped into the system (see the prior report from Goldman on the debt ceiling, in which the investment bank presents some ideas on how the Treasury (never mind the Fed) can increase liquidity in the market by reducingobligations until such time as (if) the Congress votes to raise the debt cap) will likely go to chase n ot so much returns in credit or equity markets, but directly to appreciate the price of gold. Reading through Rosie's Breakfast with Dave piece from earlier, leads us to believe that the strategist may have jumped on the dollar bull bandwagon.

A dangerously snarky Rosie for a late Friday afternoon:

"We still marvel at the shills who believe that the market is fairly valued and that somehow it is not fair to compare how far the market has ballooned over the March lows since those lows were “artificial”. Excuse me. The 676 closing low on March 9th was any more of an egregiously oversold low than the October 9th/02 low of 776? Or the August 12th/82 low of 102 when the S&P 500 was trading at an 8x P/E multiple, a 6 1/2% dividend yield and below book value? It always appears to be an oversold low at the trough, with the benefit of perfect hindsight. But the stock market, at the lows, was merely pricing in reality, a -2.5 GDP growth trajectory which is exactly what we will see posted for 2009 when the books are closed for the year. The market was down 60% from the highs, but guess what? So were operating earnings. And reported “unscrubbed” profits tumbled 90%. To think we can have a 60% rally from the lows in six months and believe that somehow this is normal – please. By the time the market is up 60% from any low, it usually is up that amount in three years, not six months; and over 2 million jobs have been created. This is the first time the market has rallied this much with the economy shedding 2.5 million jobs."

- David Rosenberg

"This inventory has yet to hit the market, but it will. So pundits that get excited about two or three months of Case-Shiller data are spending too much time looking out the back window. More deflation is coming in residential real estate — this bear market in housing ain’t over yet. Remember, homes that are foreclosed typically go on to the market at discounts ranging between 10% and 50%." - David Rosenberg

While we disagree that Rosenberg has anything to defend against, be it strategy critics or vapid iconoclasts who mimic whatever they overhear during dinner conversations, the report below is a must read for those unacquainted with David Rosenberg's work, who would like to catch up to the key issues that one of the best economists discusses on a day to day basis.

The growing divergence between lower 10 year Treasury yields and higher equity prices continues.