Consumer Co-dependency

It appears that the abused average American has finally had enough. Target reported that Christmas sales were very weak and lowered their revenue growth numbers for December quite a bit. Add in the margin pressure from discounting and earnings in that sector should be a mess. The problems seem to be widespread and for once, stocks actually seem to be reacting to obvious fundamental problems. This should really be no surprise at all but sadly, equities have ignored fundamentals for so long that it's a shock when reality intrudes on the feeding frenzy.

Here at Financial Jenga, we've been documenting the many pressures facing consumers for some time now. Housing and mortgage debt were covered in Where to Start? We wrote about the deteriorating employment situation and failure of government statistics to reflect it in Behind the Numbers. The collapse of personal savings and explosion of total household debt was the theme of First Principles. Why is anyone surprised that a consumer sector with no savings, huge debts and fewer jobs would decide that reducing spending the the right course? "When you're in a hole, quit digging" is just common sense.

Of course, common sense has been in short supply for years. Americans have been able to get away with all sorts of foolishness and the banks and other lenders have been their enablers. It is simply human nature to slip into wishful thinking that there really IS a free lunch out there somewhere. Mark Twain once described a banker as "a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining and wants it back the minute it begins to rain." Former uber-banker and CEO of Citigroup, Chuck Prince pretty much confirmed Twain's characterization back in July when he said:

When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.

Apparently, Chuck has stopped dancing and wants his umbrella back - except that he's no longer CEO. The reason he's not CEO now is because he waited too long to grab the umbrella and it looks as if he was right that "things will be complicated."

Banks are always willing to lend when they think there's little risk. That doesn't mean they are right in their risk assessment. Consumers have proven willing to borrow as long as they think they can make the payments. They are often overconfident on that front. The confidence of both is being pressured by the weak job market. Banker's willingness to lend is also falling with the value of the loan collateral - especially housing. Consumer confidence faces additional challenges due to higher food and energy prices. They were both wrong to be confident because they confused cyclical and secular economic forces. They also failed to recognize that their own behavior was the cause of the spike in asset prices. They borrowed and lent money used to buy the assets and prices quite naturally rose. Then they all congratulated each other on how smart they all were to "get in on a rising market." Now the prices are falling and the debt will still be the same size.

Consumers have a co-dependent relationship with their bankers - who have enabled destructive behavior for years. It appears that both sides are ready to walk away now that the relationship serves the needs of neither side.

Sea Change on the Street

Guys, there was a huge change of tone over the last two weeks and especially this week. The denial that has ruled Wall Street for so long is beginning to show major cracks. We're finally seeing grudging admissions that this is a much bigger problem than they were willing to admit. What used to be just a "subprime" crisis is now a "mortgage" crisis.

The terrible reports from major retailers like Pennys, Macys, Kohls and the spectrum of apparel shops along with restaurants like Starbucks, PF Chang, Chipotle, Brinker and Panera are causing the Street to question the "resilient consumer" thesis. They should since it is based on the ability of the consumer to dig themselves into an every deeper hole of debt. But McDonalds and Target did well and Walmart OK. What does it tell you when spending is switching from department stores to discounters and from premium or sit down restaurants to the golden arches?

We don't hear the word "contained" much anymore do we?


Smacking Fannie
Fannie Mae is messing with their accounting to hide rapidly rising losses. They snuck in the accounting change that cut reported losses by almost half. This sort of game has been very common at financial companies in the last few years. They usually get away with it but this time investors noticed and slammed the stock down 20% in just a few sessions. The executives at Fannie must feel like Mike Leach when one of his OLinemen gets called for holding. We're going to see a LOT more of this simply because there is so much out there to find.
More doubts about Fannie Mae's disclosures


Commercial Divers
Next, we get the first real world confirmation that commercial real estate pricing is now falling. Synthetic indexes like the CMBX and credit indicators have been indicating decline for many months. The MIT index covers CRE owned by large pension funds and showed a decline of 2.5% for Q3. That would imply that prices rolled over either during Q2 or early in Q3. Commercial joins residential and commercial construction spending should follow shortly.
MIT index shows first drop in commercial property value since '03

Just incidentally, the subtitle "Indicates housing woes, credit crunch 'may be spreading' " trips one of my pet peeves. There is not a housing crisis spreading to other sectors like a contagious disease. This is more like a genetic heart defect inherited by a group of brothers from the Credit family. One, let's call him "Bob Residential" has a near-fatal heart attack. Another, named "Joe Consumer" is in the hospital for major symptoms but nothing life-threatening yet. "Jim Commercial" and "John Corporate" are having chest pains. The media wants to blame Bob for everybody's problems but the reality is they were all flawed from birth (of the current crop of loans).


Goldman Shocker
Goldman Sachs, which had previously been very bullish, is now calling for $400 billion in direct losses from the crisis in mortgages, plus $2 trillion in withdrawn credit as bank reserves shrink. Well, at least they've got the right number of zeros now but they still fail to account for anything beyond residential real estate.
U.S. could face $2 trillion lending shock

Quote:

---

"The macroeconomic consequences could be quite dramatic," Hatzius said in the note to clients. "If leveraged investors see $200 billion of the $400 billion aggregate credit loss, they might need to scale back their lending by $2 trillion."

Hatzius said such a shock could produce a "substantial recession" if it occurred over one year, or a long period of sluggish growth if it occurred over two-to-four years.

---

The related article in Forbes made me roll my eyes and mumble "nice job Goldman, what took you so long?" This was obvious to anyone who bothered to do elementary analysis even a year ago. It's also why the Ben Stein's of the world have always been full of it. His "analysis" failed to account for how much the losses would push down the price of everyone else's houses or how the damaged financial system would be forced to cut lending. Duh!
Cost Of The Crunch? $2 Trillion, Says Goldman

Quote:

---

In July, for example, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke put subprime-related losses at $50 billion to $100 billion. "Even at the time, these numbers seemed quite optimistic," wrote Goldman economist Jan Hatzius, in a note Friday. "Now it is clear to most observers that they are far too low."

---

So it looks as if the new bull case is huge losses and probable deep recession. Goldman has been a constant cheerleader since they have a lot to lose from this scenario. IMO, they have simply calculated that the loss of credibility from continuing to spew slanted nonsense now outweighs the loss of business if the economy and market fall a little sooner. Make no mistake, they would be extremely unlikely to make such a change unless they felt the events were already on the doorstep.


The Bleeding Edge
Of course, Hatzius at Goldman is just catching up to David Rosenberg at Merrill, who turned quite bearish 6 months. The guys who had this right from the beginning are Paul Kasriel at Northern Trust and a pair of academics - Nouriel Roubini at NYU and Robert Shiller at Yale. Notice that none of them work for investment or money center banks. Earlier, I linked the Bloomberg interview with Morgan Stanley's head of credit strategy, calling for a greater than 50% chance of the credit markets coming to a "grinding halt." The scary thing is that Roubini is now going further and saying the "risks of such a generalized systemic financial meltdown are now rising."
Nouriel Roubini's Global EconoMonitor

This is obviously not something I've foreseen. My expectation has been for severe and widespread losses, with a few major firms failing. Roubini has not yet published his full analysis but I pray that his conclusions are wrong though I will consider them with an open mind. Just as I've prayed that my own conclusions were wrong despite believing in them wholeheartedly. The problems seem inescapable. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.