Apr 19, 2011

Interview Between Porter & Marybury (S&A Digest)

Porter's note: In today's Digest, we make a departure from our usual fare of stocks, bonds, and commodities to bring you one of the most important interviews you'll read this year. It's with our friend Richard Maybury…
For those who are unfamiliar with Maybury's work, it's important to know his Uncle Eric book series is one of the best educations on history, liberty, personal responsibility, and the idea of America that you can find anywhere, for any price. If some bizarre stroke of fate put me in charge of the American educational system, I would stay on the job for less than one day. That day would consist of me flushing the whole corrupt system, mandating every child study and understand the Uncle Eric series, and retiring before lunch.
If you have children who you'd like to see grow up right – or if you want to learn more about the subjects above – the Uncle Eric series is a must-read.
Maybury is also the editor of the U.S. & World Early Warning Report, an investment newsletter so highly regarded it's read by Congressman Ron Paul and officials at the Pentagon and CIA. Put simply, Maybury is a legend in our business…
You'll find Maybury and I share many ideas on the "End of America" – that our country has completely abandoned the ideals of our founding fathers… ideals that made the U.S. the richest, freest nation the world has ever seen. That's why today, we're publishing a recent interview our news and insight "aggregator" The Daily Crux just conducted with Maybury. You won't find the ideas below in any mainstream publication or television program… which is why they are so important.
The fall of the American Empire has begun:
An interview with Richard Maybury
 
The Daily Crux: Richard, you've long said the collapse of the American Empire would be the central issue for Americans, with regard to money, investing, and life in general.
In your recent issue of Early Warning Report, you said there's now a very high probability this collapse has already started. Can you talk about why you think that is?
Richard Maybury: Let's start with a little history: All empires eventually fall. No one in Washington will admit it, but the U.S. has been an empire for decades now, and there has never been any reason to believe our empire would be immortal.
People who are power-seekers want more power, and they'll sacrifice other things in order to get that power. One of the things power-seekers in a large government almost always sacrifice is the financial integrity of the country. They will bleed the whole economy dry just to increase their power. That's a main reason empires fall.
We see it all through history. You can look back to any of the ancient empires… They're forever wrecking their economies in order to increase their political power. So it's no brilliant prediction to say the U.S. Empire is going to fall. Anyone who has studied much history should have been able to predict this mess was going to arise… and here it is.
It's fascinating to me. I talk to all sorts of so-called ordinary people, such as dentists, barbers, and taxi drivers. Most have no understanding of what's actually happening to America, but they all know deep in their hearts something has gone terribly wrong… and it's not going to end anytime soon. This is an interesting condition that has arisen recently.
Americans, up until the last year or two, have always been optimistic. They would say things like, "Yes, hard times come along, but this, too, shall pass." They aren't saying this anymore. They're beginning to figure out that America's troubles aren't going away this time.
You can see these problems in the financial markets and elsewhere… unemployment, bankruptcies, mortgage defaults, poverty… These are all just symptoms of the fall of the empire. Let me quickly point out, however, that the fall of the empire is actually a wonderful thing. Empires are cancers, and it's a good thing to excise them as fast as possible. But the surgery necessary to do it is awfully painful.
If you look at any previous empires I write about – the French Empire, the British Empire, the Russian Empire – these countries are all much better places today than they were when they had empires. America will be too. But we've got to get from here to there… and the process is very, very painful. We're going to experience an awful lot of trouble because of it.
Crux: For many years, you've also been writing about the problems in the Middle East. In the past few months, it seems many of those problems are coming to a head. Can you explain how the troubles there – part of the area you refer to as "Chaostan" – are related to the troubles we're facing here at home?
Maybury: Sure. For those who aren't familiar, "Chaostan" is a term I coined for the area from the Arctic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, and Poland to the Pacific, along with North Africa. This area includes the Middle East.
In Central Asia, the suffix "stan" means "the land of." For example, Afghanistan is the land of the Afghans. So in 1992, I coined the term Chaostan to mean "the land of great chaos."
The reason this area is so often in chaos is a conversation of its own, but here's a quick summary.
All religions teach that there is a higher law than any government's law, and they all teach two fundamental laws: Do all you have agreed to do, which is the basis of contract law, and do not encroach on other persons or their property, which is the basis of tort law and some criminal law. Each religion expresses these laws in different ways, but they all teach them.
These principles are the basis of the old British common law. It was called common law because it grew out of principles common to all.
In a book called The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, historian Bernard Bailyn pointed out that the American Revolution, the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence all sprang from the common law.
In the decades following the revolution, other people saw America's new liberty and prosperity. They wanted the same thing, and the American philosophy began to spread around the world. The areas where it took root became known as the "Free World."
Then in the mid-1800s, socialism began to spread, and it nearly killed off the American philosophy – a philosophy that I believe is now being rediscovered.
Chaostan is the most important area where the principles of liberty never got a chance to take root. From the beginning of history, most parts of Chaostan have been a sea of blood and destruction because they never had rational legal systems… and still don't.
The turmoil is greatly aggravated by the interference of European regimes during past centuries.
When you look at this area on a map of the world, you see all these countries are delineated by borders drawn by Europeans. Very few Americans understand this. Practically every border in the world was drawn by the European governments as they swept over the globe conquering one country after another.
European rulers would draw the borders in locations that were convenient to them. And so there are very few borders in the world that were drawn by the people who are native to those areas.
This means what we regard as a country when we look at a map usually isn't really a country at all. It's a collection of tribes cobbled together by the Europeans for the convenience of the Europeans.
In each of these so-called "countries," there are some tribes that are either dominant or want to be dominant. And the way they achieve dominance is by acquiring money, weapons, and other resources from outside powers, which were originally the Europeans.
A good example is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi tribe was one of many that lived on the Arabian Peninsula. The British government essentially created Saudi Arabia by giving money and weapons to the Saudi tribe and helping them take control of the other tribes.
This would be akin to China or some other foreign country coming to the United States and choosing single families or neighborhoods to rule over entire states. These families would have all the wealth, all the power, and would make all the rules. And just in case anyone got any ideas, the Chinese government would keep a few battleships and aircraft carriers parked near our shores.
Crux: We're huge fans of your Uncle Eric books here at The Crux, and I remember being blown away the first time I read that example. We're not taught these things in our schools… But when you look at it from that perspective, it's not surprising there's so much anger toward Western governments.
Maybury: Exactly… and this is the case all over Chaostan. None of those nations are what you and I would regard as natural countries. They were artificially created, and the rulers of those countries were propped up, in nearly every case, by the Europeans.
Keep in mind that except for five countries — Iran, Thailand, Afghanistan, most of China, and Japan — every country in the world at one time or another was conquered by the Europeans. So the political structures we see in these countries — nearly all countries — are either creations of the Europeans or outgrowths of those creations.
During and after World War II, some of these tribal leaders wanted help maintaining their power after the Europeans departed. The U.S. was the top dog at that time, so they said to Washington, "We will do your bidding – we will be your surrogate here – if you do what's necessary to keep us in power."
That's the deal that was made with dozens of regimes around the world. That's the U.S. Empire, and that's what is falling apart now. The people who have been dominated by tribes backed by Washington are sick of it, and they're starting to overturn the existing political matrix.
So the troubles in the Middle East are to a large extent part of the collapse of the empire. For instance, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was one of Washington's closest surrogates… and he was a nasty guy. He's out of power now, and Egypt is in great turmoil. Nobody knows who's going to take over the place.
That's just one example out of many. The whole thing is beginning to crumble. Egypt was one of the early cases, and I think there are going to be a lot more.
Even nations that were not part of the U.S. Empire are being thrown into chaos, as the spirit of rebellion spreads.
As of a couple weeks ago, I think there are now 11 countries over there experiencing uprisings of one kind or another. I expect this is going to continue to spread.
It's very possible Egypt will wind up being the model for what happens in many of those countries… where you have a U.S.-backed dictator who is overthrown and then so-called Islamic fundamentalists come in and take over. That's very likely what's going to happen in Egypt.
Obviously, I don't know for sure… no one should be certain about these things. But I'm inclined to believe the Egyptian government is going to be replaced by something that will not be friendly to Washington.
Again, however, we're really on thin ice when it comes to making predictions about these sorts of things. Egypt contains many millions of people, each with his own agenda. Predicting how all that's going to go is very, very problematic.
What I can say with confidence is the political matrix Washington put in place during and after World War II is now crumbling. I think that's pretty clear. And again, I return to the point: This is ultimately a good thing. The U.S. Empire should never have existed in the first place.
Crux: Why did the U.S. get involved in Chaostan to begin with?
Maybury: I believe it really just goes back to the lust for power. That's one thing the mainstream news media is absolutely derelict about… They say practically nothing about political power.
Crux: Could you define political power for us?
Maybury: Perhaps the simplest definition is "the legalized privilege of using brute force on persons who have not harmed anyone." This privilege is what sets governments apart from all other institutions. No church, charity, fraternal organization, or any other institution can legally send people with guns to your home to force you to buy their services or obey their rules. Only the government can do that. And whether they realize it or not, it's this privilege – of using force on persons who don't deserve it – that a power-seeker wants.
Crux: Is that related to the old saying that power corrupts?
Maybury: Very astute of you to make that connection. If the American founders were here today, they'd tell us political power is poison… Stay as far from it as you can… It's evil stuff.
But the media have bought into this assumption that political power is good, it's the solution to our problems, and a world full of political power is a good place. They almost never look into the psychology of it… What causes a human being to want to force his will on other people? Because that's what political power essentially is – the ability to bend other people to your will. And the media just don't look at that at all.
There's this assumption that the people in the federal government are a whole lot of nice individuals who have good intentions, and it would never occur to any of them to get a thrill out of forcing their plans onto somebody else.
But that's what it's all about, and that's what it's been about for thousands of years. Government is brute force. Coercion. Chains. Prisons. Follow our plans or else. The political mind is the mind of a bully.
Crux: We often hear the U.S. is involved in the Middle East because of oil… How big a role does oil actually play?
Maybury: I think oil is an excuse. I don't think it's a reason for the empire. Whoever owns the oil has to sell it or it's worthless.
They may not want to sell it directly to us, but they're going to sell it to somebody. This will increase the total world supply of oil, and the price of oil from other suppliers will go down.
So the idea that this is all about oil… that's just a smokescreen. It's about power. It's about the thrill that these people in Washington get out of meddling in other countries.
Crux: You mentioned before that it's very difficult to make predictions. But what do you see happening next in the region?
Maybury: As far as that's concerned, I refer to Egypt again. The friends of Washington are widely hated by their own people, and they will be coming under pressure to hit the road.
Look what happened to the Shah of Iran back in the late '70s. I think it's going to happen to pretty much all of Washington's surrogates. Like I said, it's a fool's game to try to predict these things, but that's the direction events are going now, and that's the direction I've been predicting since the early 1990s.
Before the Soviet Empire fell apart, the Soviet Union sat on Chaostan like a lid on a pressure cooker. One of the forces at work there was the individual tribes that ruled these countries did not want to be conquered by the Soviets, so they formed alliances with Washington as a protection against the Soviets. When the Soviet Union fell in the early '90s, this essentially removed the lid on the pressure cooker. The explosion began, and now it's escalating.
In the 1990s, the rest of the world was cheering a new era of peace and brotherly love… and I was saying, "That's ridiculous. The whole place is going to blow up." Everybody said I was crazy, and I kind of wondered if maybe I was.
But it turned out that by the year 2000 – a mere 10-year stretch of the new era of peace and brotherly love – more than 100 wars broke out and more than 5 million people were killed.
I think what's happening today is just the beginning of what will turn out to be even more violent than the '90s. There are literally hundreds of millions of really angry people over there, and a rebellious momentum is growing.
Again, I'm really reluctant to make specific forecasts on this kind of thing. All you can say is governments have been creating empires since the beginning of history, and empires have been falling apart since the beginning of history… We're in one of those "falling apart" periods now.
Crux: Do you think the individuals in power in Washington realize the empire is crumbling? Do they even realize it's an empire?
Maybury: Well, it's official U.S. policy that Washington does not have an empire. Everybody is taught that.
But just a couple months ago, President Obama phoned up Mubarak in Egypt and fired him. If that's not an empire, what is it?
Now, Obama has decided the Libyan government should change, too. These people in Washington seem to think they're ordained by God to somehow make the world better.
I think it's amazing they believe they're intelligent enough to be able to do that. It's actually pretty hilarious.
Crux: So as the empire begins to crumble, how do you think Washington will respond?
Maybury: I think we'll see more examples of Washington trying to steer events in directions favorable to Washington. Notice I'm not saying favorable to America. I'm saying favorable to the U.S. government. They are two entirely different things.
Of course, the people in Washington are all individuals. They all have their own agendas. They can't even agree on what's favorable to the government.
So they're all grasping at straws. They have no idea what they should really do in a situation like this. There are no guidelines. And since they don't even want to acknowledge they have an empire, they don't understand what it is they're trying to save.
I mean, talk about a bunch of lost souls. They seem to think being elected means they have some sort of special ethical position in the world. They have no idea what it is they're trying to defend. All they know is they're trying to defend it.
Typically, in every empire, it all continues until one day somebody looks at the books and says, "Gee, we're broke. We can't do this anymore." That's when it all starts to come apart.
One of my favorite stories is about William Gladstone – the prime minister of England in the mid-1800s – and that's essentially what he did. He just said, "Look, we're going broke trying to prop up this empire. This is ridiculous."
He started dismantling the British government's power. He probably made more progress in abolishing political power than any other lone individual in history. It's an amazing story.
Gladstone is one of the few peaceful examples of how all empires go down. They eventually realize they can't play the game anymore. They realize they've exhausted their resources… They've bled the population dry.
Humans can only produce so much wealth, and the government is consuming this wealth in order to prop up the empire. Eventually, it all just goes under.
Incidentally, we're talking here today about the federal government's empire abroad… But America itself, internally, is part of the federal empire, too. There are no less than a quarter-million federal bureaucrats making and enforcing regulations on us. And each of these regulations is backed by guns, chains, and prisons. It's not much of an exaggeration to say the whole world – including America itself – has been conquered by the federal government.
Crux: How close do you think we are to the point where the empire collapses the economy?
Maybury: My best guess is we're in the process of going under now. That's the economic trouble the average American is noticing… the unemployment, the business failures, the financial crash, the real estate collapse… plus the mental and emotional strain – the psychological depression, marital problems, divorces. It's the process of the empire going under. The economic problems are symptoms of the manipulation of the currency, and all sorts of other economic tomfoolery, to try to keep the federal bureaucracy well fed at the expense of the rest of us.
The absolute best thing Washington could do for the American people – if the folks in Washington were honest – is just announce that the empire is over. "It's finished, we quit." We're going to withdraw our troops from all those countries around the world. We're going to bring them home to defend America. We're not going to meddle in other countries anymore.
After all, this attempt to keep the Empire alive is just squandering blood and treasure for nothing. We're bankrupt. We can't do this anymore. The attempt to preserve the empire – which means, largely, the attempt to keep Washington's surrogates in power – is just dragging out the whole painful process and making it all the more expensive and hopeless.
If they'd just give it up, that would be the first big step in triggering the economic recovery. But they're not going to do it. They're power junkies. They'll drag this thing out until – in the words of political philosopher Howard Kershner – the last bone of the last taxpayer has been picked bare.
Crux: So what are the personal and investment implications of the fall of the American Empire? How do you recommend people prepare for what you see coming?
Maybury: First and foremost, you should have a good stash of emergency equipment and supplies. Everybody should have these things anyway, because you never know what's going to happen, be it earthquakes, riots, hurricanes, riots, epidemics, riots, blizzards – did I mention riots?
Life is full of really nasty surprises. Everyone should have the ability to be completely self-sustaining for at least a month. Three months would be better. You want food, water, all the necessities of life, plus the ability to defend yourself and your loved ones.
As far as investing, my approach in Early Warning Report is to try to identify long-term trends that are very solid, and invest in things that will benefit from these long-term trends.
If you look at history, you'll find there are two carved-in-granite long-term trends that never seem to change. The first is war. The second is currency debasement. So what I do is suggest investments that will benefit from these two major trends.
The obvious winners from war are the defense giants: Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Raytheon. If you want to just buy a collection of defense stocks, the Fidelity Select Defense & Aerospace Fund contains those four and a lot more. Its symbol is FSDAX.
The major beneficiaries from currency debasement are raw materials, because they cannot be created in unlimited quantities on a printing press… especially precious metals. So I recommend everyone own some gold, silver, and platinum bullion coins. These have been doing wonderfully, and I think they'll continue to do so because the fiat paper currencies are dying. Beyond those, you can also consider some of the top commodity and energy producer stocks. To find a list, just look at "Track Record" on the home page of our website.
For an investor who's just starting out in this area, FSDAX and the coins are good ways to go. Get into those first, and as you learn more, you'll find other ideas you'll want to follow. You can find many more in my letter as well.
Crux: You mentioned earlier that the fall of the empire – while painful – will ultimately be a great thing for our country. Can you talk about what you see for the future of America?
Maybury: Many people misinterpret me as a "doom-and-gloomer." But let me tell you, for the long term, I'm unimaginably optimistic. I am more optimistic now than I have ever been in my entire life, and I'm 64 years old.
I fully expect to live a healthy life until at least 140 because I believe technological breakthroughs are coming so fast now that Ray Kurzweil is right – a healthy 140-year lifespan is plausible. And before I die I expect to see the beginning of the civilization that is depicted in the Star Trek stories. Not the whole Star Trek civilization, but the beginning.
I believe the next great civilization will begin almost instantly, as soon as we get the present statist nightmare out of the way. But getting from here to there is going to be really hard. For the short term and medium term, it's going to be really awful, I'm afraid for quite a few years.
I hope things in America and Western Europe don't get as bad as Russia was in the 1990s – when the Soviet empire was falling – but it's definitely a possibility in some places, especially the major cities. I encourage everybody to be ready to ride through some very hard times, because empires almost never fall quietly.
Once the U.S. Empire does go down, though, I expect we'll see a new prosperity. I'm very optimistic about this, because the world is now learning what statism is really all about… what political power really does. It's not theory anymore… We're experiencing it every day.
The true nature of statism is an extremely painful lesson to learn, but once it's learned, the decks will be clear to produce a truly healthy, advanced civilization. When that happens, hold on to your hat… Things are going to be wonderful, and it will happen fast.
Crux: Could you define statism for us?
Maybury: Statism is the belief that political power does not corrupt, and government is a good thing, the solution to all our problems. This is what is taught in the government-controlled schools. If Jefferson and the other American founders were here, they'd fall down laughing at such a notion. But what else would a government-controlled school teach?
Crux: Why wasn't that lesson learned after the fall of the Soviet Union?
Maybury: Well, the economic side of it was learned to a large extent. The world saw what central planning did to the Soviet economy… So even communist China has embraced free-market economic principles, to some extent.
But you still have seen practically no focus on the dangers of political power itself… on the fact that political power is evil and treacherous – it corrupts.
That lesson has yet to be learned… or re-learned. The early Americans understood it well. But most people today have this attitude that the reason things are bad is the wrong people are in power, and if we somehow put the right people in power, everything would be okay.
There's little appreciation for the fact that political power itself is the problem. It corrupts morals and the judgment. And no matter who you put in there, he or she will likely end up making a mess.
So that lesson has yet to be learned. Once you see discussions about political power itself – about what it is and what it does to a person's mind – appearing in the news media, we're going to be well on our way to where we want to be – a new world of liberty, peace, and abundance.
Crux: That sounds great. Thanks so much for talking with us, Richard.
Maybury: It was great speaking with you. Thanks for having me. Take care.

Apr 12, 2011

Who will Buy Treasury when the Fed doesn't?

BY Stansberry & Associates

Our country's next D-Day is coming this year… The Fannie and Freddie Ponzi scheme… UniCredit in the sh*t again… Gold hits an all-time high… The government's out of silver… Building a monument to a whiny subscriber… Investment advice for a 17-year old…
 
  "Investors should view June 30th, 2011… like D-Day"

The above quote is from Bond King Bill Gross – who manages the world's largest bond fund for PIMCO. On June 30, the government's second round of quantitative easing (QE2) ends – after a combined $900 billion between new money and maturing bonds. As a massive purchaser of U.S. Treasury bonds and municipal bonds, PIMCO is worried. Currently, Gross says, "Bond yields and stock prices are resting on an artificial foundation of QE2 credit that may or may not lead to a successful private market handoff and stability in currency and financial markets."

As Gross notes, the Fed has purchased nearly 70% of the U.S. government bonds issued since the beginning of QE2. China, Japan, and other sovereigns purchase the rest. So the Treasury issues bonds, and the Fed buys them. It's a scam. And the important (and obvious) question Gross poses is, "Who will buy Treasurys when the Fed doesn't?"

 

At current yields (10-year Treasurys at 3.24%), we'd say the government will have a hard time finding buyers… But everything is a buy at the right price. The next question is, what's that price? In Gross' opinion, "Treasury yields are perhaps 150 basis points or 1.5% too low when viewed on a historical context and when compared with expected nominal GDP growth of 5%."

Gross concluded his letter saying, "PIMCO's not sticking around" to see how this situation plays out. You can read Gross' full letter here. When one of the world's biggest investors issues such a dire warning, pay attention…

    What else is the Fed spending its QE2 money on? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, of course. As part of their takeover, Fannie and Freddie are required to pay a 10% dividend on the Treasury's preferred shares. It costs the firms around $15 billion a year. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The firms have paid $7.5 billion in total dividend payments, while receiving injections of $5.7 billion to help keep them in business."

It's ludicrous, but Fannie and Freddie say it's working. Fannie reported fourth-quarter income of $73 million last week – its first profitable quarter in 3.5 years. Oh… but that doesn't count the $2.2 billion Fannie had to pay the government (the government gave Fannie $2.6 billion that quarter).

"Even in their best years, they rarely had the type of income to pay these dividends," said Mahesh Swaminathan, senior mortgage strategist at Credit Suisse. 

    So the Treasury sells its bonds to the Fed, which it pays for in printed money. And the Treasury "loans" billions to Fannie and Freddie (the U.S. housing market), which they then pay back to the Treasury. This is a Ponzi scheme… plain and simple. Except in this case, the patsy and the beneficiary are the same entity. One day, this will all end. And it will be ugly.

    Porter dedicated the lead in his March 2010 issue of Stansberry's Investment Advisory to the history of Oesterreichische Kredit-Anstalt, Austria's largest bank – and the leading bank in all of Eastern Europe. Following the crash of 1929 and the ensuing chaos, the bank became insolvent on May 11, 1931. The bottom line of the story is Kredit-Anstalt (now known as UniCredit) is a flawed bank. If there's a crisis somewhere in the world, you can bet UniCredit is involved. From Porter's issue: 

 
[R]oughly 75 years after its collapse set off the banking crisis that ended the gold standard and destroyed the world's financial system, Kredit-Anstalt (now known as UniCredit) is once again the largest bank in Eastern Europe.
I believe it will soon fail again, setting off another global banking crisis that will signal the end of the U.S. dollar standard. – March 2010 issue of Stansberry's Investment Advisory

    When UniCredit needed a bailout in 2008 (following the subprime crisis and heavy losses from Madoff), who came to the rescue? It wasn't Italy, the U.S., or Germany. It was Libya.

Muammar Gaddafi invested $1 billion in the company for a 3.6% stake. As you know, Gaddafi's seen better days. He's currently in the middle of a massive civil war. And he's threatening to kill all opponents. Meanwhile, banks around the world are freezing his assets… The U.S. seized $30 billion of his assets. Canada froze $2.4 billion, Austria froze $1.7 billion, and the U.K. $1 billion. Where do you think Gaddafi had his assets? Libya's sovereign wealth fund and central bank (we use those terms loosely) own 7.3% of UniCredit. Assuming the majority of Gaddafi's wealth is parked at UniCredit, a freeze on his global assets will destroy their equity. The bank hit its lowest point is down another 1.5% today to its lowest point since the Libya crisis began. 

    In the midst of the madness, gold and silver are soaring. Gold hit an all-time high of $1,438.20 an ounce. And silver is approaching $35 an ounce. The dollar is still plunging.
    On the topic of silver, the U.S. Mint just halted production of American Eagle silver coins (in addition to its indefinite halt of American Buffalo coins). The Mint stated:
 
[B]ecause of the continued demand for American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins, 2010-dated American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coins will not be produced. The United States Mint will resume production of American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coins once sufficient inventories of silver bullion blanks can be acquired to meet market demand for all three American Eagle Silver Coin products.

Apr 9, 2011

Milton Friedman Month.... Very Enticing Guy!


Generic Manufacturers Find Their New Medicine

By Michael Waterhouse | 04-08-11 - Taken from MorningStar
 
Consolidation to Continue in the Generics Industry
The generics industry remains in the midst of a consolidation phase. Operating in a highly fragmented and relatively commodity-based segment of the health-care industry with low barriers to entry, generic manufacturers gain advantages from acquisitions, which can quickly boost economies of scale as consolidated fixed costs become allocated over a larger manufacturing volume base. Therefore, generic manufacturers have an incentive to get big and drive down relative operating costs. Additionally, moving from a fragmented industry toward an oligopoly generally raises barriers to entry and eases pricing pressure.

The largest generics industry players, Teva (TEVA), Sandoz (subsidiary of Novartis (NVS)), Mylan(MYL), and Watson (WPI) continue to drive industry consolidation. As Table 1 shows, there has been at least one large acquisition every year since 2004. Teva has demonstrated the largest appetite for acquisitions, quickly rising into its position as the world's top generics manufacturer with an acquisition every other year. Through acquisitions, we estimate these four generic manufacturers now possess nearly 50% of the generic drug market, and we anticipate unannounced deals could put combined market share near 60% by 2015.
 

With plenty of cash flow through 2013 from the patent cliff, we expect consolidation to continue. Table 2 includes our list of industry acquisitors, Teva, Sandoz, Mylan, Watson, and Hospira (HSP). We include Hospira, the world's leading generic injectables manufacturer, on our list. It is important to note, however, that smaller players, especially emerging market players in India, will likely participate in smaller acquisitions as well. With Teva and Hospira each digesting recent acquisitions and Mylan handicapped somewhat by higher financial leverage, we think Watson and Sandoz stand out as the two likeliest acquisitors, at least in the near term. We think Watson has the most to gain from an acquisition since it lacks a broad international presence and vertically integrated operations comparable to its larger competitors. A European acquisition could help boost Watson's scale, while an acquisition in India could enhance the company's vertical integration by gaining active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing facilities. Although Watson has some vertically integrated operations, owning API facilities enables generic manufacturers to further cut costs out of their operating structure. Watson also stands out as a potential takeover target for Sandoz or Teva, but we think Watson's current market capitalization makes this less likely. Teva would also likely face antitrust scrutiny if it pursued Watson.


Emerging Market Drug Markets Offer Compelling Opportunity
We expect emerging market drug manufacturers will be the focal point of future industry consolidation going forward. Until now, most of the generic industry's major consolidation has occurred in the large and developed drug markets of North America and Western Europe where similar market characteristics helped drive economies of scale. The different characteristics of emerging generic drug markets, including higher growth and unconsolidated customer bases, offer attractive new opportunities. Besides countries like India and China where GDP and disposable income growth could be substantial, emerging markets generally lack the streamlined drug distribution structure seen in the U.S. and much of Western Europe. While the majority of generic drug sales in the U.S. funnel through large pharmacies such as Wal-Mart (WMT) or Walgreens (WAG), or pharmacy benefit managers such as Express Scripts (ESRX) or Medco (MHS), generic manufacturers sell primarily to a fragmented market of independent pharmacies in emerging markets. Although a generic drug will not have patent protection in these markets, sales and marketing efforts utilize brand strategies to appeal to this fragmented customer base. Often called "branded generics," sales of generic drugs in emerging markets resemble slightly cheaper versions of their branded innovative counterparts. This branding strategy, which meshes well with innovative drug marketing efforts, has drawn the attention of big pharma firms such as Abbott (ABT), Pfizer (PFE), and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in addition to the large generic manufacturers. Lower barriers to entry in emerging markets, thanks to less stringent intellectual property and safety regulation, keep emerging markets relatively fragmented, but brand recognition makes it slow for new entrants to gain market share. Although the branding strategies in smaller emerging markets require relatively higher operating costs, these drugs usually see less aggressive pricing pressure and, therefore, produce overall higher profit margins.


India Takes Center Stage
We think India will be the focal point of industry consolidation, but valuation concerns may limit takeovers. India, in particular, possesses some of the largest generic manufacturers with access to many of the world's emerging markets. Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy (RDY), Cipla, Sun, Lupin, and Aurobindo comprise a significant portion of the global generics market with operations in emerging markets like Russia, Eastern Europe, and India, in addition to developed markets. As seen in Table 3a, we view India-based firms as appealing takeover candidates thanks to their emerging market exposure and low-cost vertically integrated operations. It should be noted that we include only the largest India manufacturers; numerous smaller companies exist. The Indian generic drug manufacturers, however, trade at high price/sales multiples when compared to historical deals, which could prevent potential acquisitions. Deals typically occur in the 2-3 times sales range, much lower than where many of the Indian pharma companies currently trade. Abbott, for example, paid about 7 times sales for its recent Piramal deal. But it is still uncertain whether pharmaceutical companies are willing to pay any premium over already lofty price multiples for these Indian manufacturers. As large players attempt to avoid rising acquisition multiples and Indian firms desire greater access to global generics markets, joint ventures, similar to Dr. Reddy's agreement with Glaxo or Aurobindo's agreement with Pfizer, may play an increasing role in this industry. We rate Orchid as a less likely takeover candidate since Hospira acquired the attractive injectables segment in 2010 and has signed long-term supply agreements for a large part of Orchid's API capabilities. We also rate Wockhardt as low interest since the company's majority shareholder, Khorakiwala, appears unwilling to liquidate assets despite the firm's financial duress.

Fewer Options Exist in North American and European Markets
Many of India's larger pharmaceutical companies, such as Dr. Reddy, Cipla, Sun, and Lupin, will also likely broaden their geographic exposure through acquisitions. A large portion of Indian drug manufacturer growth has come from entry into the much larger generic markets of the U.S. and Europe. Dr. Reddy acquired the German generic manufacturer Betapharm in 2006 and acquired GlaxoSmithKline's Tennessee based penicillin manufacturing operations in 2011. Sun owns a majority stake in Israel-based Taro and U.S.-based Caraco, while Ranbaxy has made acquisitions in Italy and Romania. Hikma (HIK) has an agreement to purchase Baxter's generic injectables drug business. Although the highest-quality U.S. and European generic manufacturers have already been acquired, one of India's large generic manufacturers, such as Ranbaxy, Dr. Reddy, Cipla, or Sun, hoping to gain greater exposure in the world's larger pharmaceutical markets, could vie for the smaller remaining North American or European companies. Table 3b lists some of these remaining manufacturers. With nearly $2 billion in revenue, Stada remains one of the last big generic manufacturers in Europe with some takeover rumors circling. It has also been rumored that potential acquisitors recently passed on Actavis due to valuation concerns. Amneal, Impax, Par, and Apotex remain as the few midtier North American-based generic drug manufacturers. We view Hi-Tech, Lannet, and KV as possible but unlikely acquisition candidates due to their low sales figures.


Mar 22, 2011

Rich vs Poor: 14 Funny Statistics And 14 Not So Funny Statistics About This “Economic Recovery”

Today there are two very different Americas.  In one America, the stock market is soaring, huge bonuses are taken for granted, the good times are rolling and people are spending money as if they will be able to "live the dream" for the rest of their lives.  In the other America, the one where most of the rest of us live, unemployment is rampant, a million families were kicked out of their homes last year and hordes of American families are drowning in debt.  The gap between the rich and the poor is bigger today than it ever has been before.  In fact, this article is not so much about "rich vs poor" as it is about "the rich vs the rest of us".  Barack Obama and Ben Bernanke keep touting an "economic recovery", but the truth is that the only ones that seem to be benefiting from this recovery are those at the very top of the economic food chain.

Below you will find 14 funny statistics about this economic recovery and 14 not so funny statistics about this economic recovery.  Actually, if you find yourself deeply struggling in this economy you will probably not find any of the statistics funny.  In fact, you will probably find most of them infuriating.  After all, there are very few people that actually enjoy hearing about how well the rich are doing when they are barely able to pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

In any event, the 28 statistics below show the stark contrast between the "two Americas" that share this nation today.  Many liberals will likely try to use these statistics as an example of why we should tax the rich.  But handing more money to the government is not going to magically create more jobs for the poor.  What the American people desperately need are good jobs, and many liberals don't seem to understand that.  Many conservatives will likely try to use these statistics as evidence that "capitalism" is working.  But the truth is that what we have in the United States today is not capitalism.  Rather, it is more aptly described as "corporatism", because money and power is increasingly becoming concentrated in the hands of gigantic corporations that individuals and small businesses simply cannot compete with.  

The truth is that when wealth is concentrated at the very top it does not "trickle down" to the rest of us.  In the old days the wealthy at least were forced to hire the rest of us to run their factories and their businesses, but with the advent of globalism that isn't even true anymore.  Now they can just move their factories and businesses overseas to places where they can legally pay slave labor wages to their employees.

Very large concentrations of money and power are almost always bad for the prosperity of average citizens.  Our founding fathers never intended for our central government to have so much power and they never intended for giant corporations to have so much power.  But we have abandoned the principles of our founding fathers.

When large concentrations of power (whether governmental or corporate) are allowed to flourish, it almost becomes inevitable that the gap between the rich and the poor will grow.  We are seeing this happen all over the world today.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that any of this is going to change any time soon.  In the United States, both the federal government and multinational corporations are constantly attempting to grab even more power.  It has gotten to the point where individual Americans really don't have much power left at all.

In any event, hopefully you will find the following statistics informative or at least entertaining.  The wealthy are most definitely enjoying an "economic recovery" while most of the rest of us are still really struggling....

Funny - Who said that the titans of Wall Street couldn't look hot?  According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, facelifts for men jumped 14 percent last year.
Not Funny - According to the U.S. Labor Department, unemployment actually increased in 351 of the 372 largest U.S. cities during the month of January.

Funny - The average bonus for a worker on Wall Street in 2010 was only $128,530.  It appears that more Wall Street bailouts may be needed.
Not Funny - During this most recent economic downturn, employee compensation in the United States has been the lowest that it has been relative to gross domestic product in over 50 years.

Funny - According to DataQuick Information Systems, the sale of million dollars homes rose an average of 18.6 percent in the top 20 major metro areas in the U.S. in 2010.  But is spending a million dollars on one house really worth it?  After all, over the past several years there have been times when you could buy a house in some bad areas of Detroit for just one dollar.
Not Funny - In 2010, for the first time ever more than a million U.S. families lost their homes to foreclosure, and that number is expected to go even higher in 2011.

Funny - According to Moody's Analytics, the wealthiest 5% of households in the United States now account for approximately 37% of all consumer spending.  Most of the rest of us don't have much discretionary income to spend these days, but at least we have Justin Bieber, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars to keep us entertained.
Not Funny - According to Gallup, the U.S. unemployment rate in mid-March was 10.2%, which was virtually unchanged from the 10.3% figure that it was sitting at exactly one year ago.

Funny - According to the Wall Street Journal, sales of private jumbo jets to the ultra-wealthy are absolutely soaring....
Sales of private jumbo jets are so strong that Airbus and Boeing now have special sales forces devoted to potentates and the hyper-rich.
Not Funny - There are now over 6.4 million Americans that have given up looking for work completely.  That number has increased by about 30 percent since the economic downturn began.

Funny - Porsche recently reported that sales increased by 29 percent during 2010.  Even Porsche jokes are coming back into style....
Question: Why did the blonde try and steal a police car?
Answer: She saw “911” on the back and thought it was a Porsche.
Not Funny - Approximately half of all American workers make $25,000 a year or less.

Funny - Cadillac recently reported that sales increased by 36 percent during 2010.
Not Funny - According to the U.S. Energy Department, the average U.S. household will spend approximately $700 more on gasoline in 2011 than it did during 2010.

Funny - Rolls-Royce recently reported that sales increased by 171 percent during 2010.
Not Funny - According to a new study by America's Research Group, approximately 75 percent of all Americans are doing less shopping because of rising gasoline prices.

Funny - According to the New York Post, Barack Obama enjoyed a total of 10 separate vacations that stretched over a total of 90 vacation days during the years of 2009 and 2010.  Apparently Barack Obama was not talking about himself when he told the American people the following....
"If you’re a family trying to cut back, you might skip going out to dinner, or you might put off a vacation."
Not Funny - When 2007 began, 26 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, an all-time record 44 million Americans are on food stamps.

Funny - Ralph Lauren reported a 24 percent increase in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2010.  It is good to know that preppies are thriving in this economy.
Not Funny - The Ivex Packaging Paper plant in Joliet, Illinois is shutting down for good after 97 years in business.  79 good jobs will be lost.  Meanwhile, China has become the number one producer of paper products in the entire world.

Funny - Luxury jewelry retailer Tiffany & Co. recently announced that their profits increased by 29 percent in the 4th quarter of 2010.  All of the men that did not buy their women jewelry during the holidays are trying to keep this particular news item from getting passed around.
Not Funny - Average household debt in the United States has now reached a level of 136% of average household income.

Funny - In 2009, only 18,288 vehicles with a price tag of $100,000 or more were sold in the United States.  In 2010, 32,144 such vehicles were sold.  It appears that "showing off for chicks" is now very much back in style.
Not Funny - The U.S. economy now has 10 percent fewer "middle class jobs" than it did just ten years ago.

Funny - Porsche has announced that they will soon be taking orders for their first hybrid sports car, the 918 Spyder.  The price tag on one of these puppies will only be $845,000.
Not Funny - The average CEO now makes approximately 185 times more money than the average American worker.

Funny - Barack Obama recently played only his 61st round of golf since moving into the White House.  Many are now concerned that Obama is simply not getting enough free time.
Not Funny - According to one recent study, 21 percent of all children in the United States were living below the poverty line during 2010.

Mar 8, 2011

Manufacturing in U.S. Makes More Sense Than In a Generation; China Not Such A Great Deal Any More


Posted by Carpe Diem

Here's an interesting article titled "Made in America: Small Businesses Buck the Offshoring Trend," about how some manufacturing is being brought back to the U.S. from China, especially for smaller American firms, because of: a) rising labor costs in China, b) inconsistent quality, c) shipping costs that have doubled in the last year (see chart above), and d) the lack of safeguards on intellectual property.  Here are some key paragraphs from an article that suggests that America's manufacturing sector can look forward to a bright, dynamic and thriving future:

"For U.S. firms, the decision to manufacture overseas has long seemed a no-brainer. Labor costs in China and other developing nations have been so cheap that as recently as two or three years ago, anyone who refused to offshore was viewed as a dinosaur, certain to go extinct as bolder companies built the future in Asia. But stamping out products in Guangdong Province is no longer the bargain it once was, and U.S. manufacturing is no longer as expensive. As the labor equation has balanced out, companies—particularly the small to medium-size businesses that make up the innovative guts of America’s technology industry—are taking a long, hard look at the downsides of extending their supply chains to the other side of the planet.

When accounting giant KPMG International recently asked 196 senior executives to list their top concerns for 2011 and 2012, labor costs ranked below product quality and fluctuations in shipping rates and currency values. And 19 percent of the companies that responded to an October survey by MFG.com, an online sourcing marketplace, said they had recently brought all or part of their manufacturing back to North America from overseas, up from 12 percent in the first quarter of 2010. This is one reason U.S. factories managed to add 136,000 jobs last year—the first increase in manufacturing employment since 1997 (see related CD post here).

The U.S. certainly isn’t on the verge of recapturing its past industrial glory, nor can every business benefit by fleeing China. But those that actually build tangible goods should no longer assume that “Made in the USA” is an unaffordable luxury. Unless a company is hell-bent on selling the cheapest goods possible, manufacturing at home makes more sense than it has in a generation.

China’s big manufacturing advantage has been cheap labor, but wages—while still low compared with those in the U.S.—have risen sharply in recent years (see chart below).

Manufacturing wages more than doubled in China between 2002 and 2008, and the value of the nation’s currency has risen steadily. It’s now under tremendous international pressure to let the yuan appreciate even more, and the country must cope with worrisome inflation at home (food prices rose by nearly 12 percent last year). And though Chinese workers still earn a fraction of what their American counterparts do, the rising costs of labor there are prompting companies to reevaluate their production strategies. Once they do, these businesses often realize something profound: China isn’t the great deal they expected."
 

Conclusion: "In dynamic systems such as supply chains, the tighter the connection between nodes, the lower the risk of something going haywire. That risk can be tolerated when the benefits of stretching the connections are too great to ignore. But when those benefits diminish, it’s time to consider building a system that is stable by design. And once America’s formidable innovation muscle is focused on keeping manufacturing nearby, new and inventive systems for reducing labor costs (see chart above)—without going overseas—will be developed quickly."