The financial world is centered in China this week of November 16 as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) leaders meet with Chinese and other global financial leaders.  The discussion is centered on how to improve the world’s financial stability by perhaps rebalancing the global currencies against each other.  It is time the Chinese Remnibi is strengthed versus the dollar and the practice of indexing the Chinese currencies against the US dollar to protect Chinese labor advantage is discontinued.  This will also mean increased domestic consumption by the Asian economies as the Western economies save to reduce debt.  CNBC reported the following late Sunday night, Central Standard Time: 
 

IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn said the countries at the heart of global imbalances needed to take various measures to ease them.

In the case of China, that means an increasing emphasis on domestic demand, especially private consumption, Strauss-Kahn said in remarks prepared for a financial conference in Beijing.

“A stronger currency is part of the package of necessary reforms,” he said. “Allowing the renminbi (yuan) and other Asian currencies to rise would help increase the purchasing power of households, raise the labour share of income, and provide the right incentives to reorient investment.”

His remarks come as U.S. President Barack Obama is in Shanghai on the first leg of a four-day visit that will grapple with economic imbalances and the future of the yuan.

Strauss-Kahn noted that Chinese authorities were already taking steps to boost household consumption, including health care reforms.

“But more can be done to secure a lasting, structural shift towards consumption, by expanding the scope of social policies, moving ahead on financial sector reform, and undertaking corporate governance reforms,” he said.

Conversely, countries with large current account deficits need to increase savings, and for many of them, including the United States, fiscal consolidation must take priority for them, he said.”
 

What does this shift imply for American based investors?  As the remnibi takes an increasingly important role in world trade and is gradually rebalanced to reflect the strength of the Chinese economy, it will cause investments in Asia to rise in value as the dollar declines against the Chinese currency with the resultant de-linking.  This trend will affect not only Chinese stocks, but also stocks trading in the markets of other major Chinese trading partners like Singapore, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea and of course, Hong Kong.  Those economies must rethink their own currency indexing strategies to maintain competitive trade parity and are very likely to emphasize indexing the remnibi as opposed to the US dollar.  Even Japan will probably see its currency strengthen versus the American currency as the Remnibi gains favor as an Asian trading currency.

Now is the time to acquire additional shares in Asian stocks, funds and ETFs.  Because of the recent runup in 2009, it will be better to average in a larger position over time rather than making a lump sum commitment.

As we begin to move towards economic recovery, it begs the question “what next?”  It is unlikely America will have a strong economy, as measured in 4+% GNP growth, for many years to come.  We have oceans of debt to pay off.  Even if the Feds are able to transfer the enormous debt hole from the private to the public sector to assist the economic recovery (and save the banking system), that debt still must be paid back in some form. 

There is a high liklihood that the public debt will be paid back through several different means: higher taxes, limited spending and most significantly dollar devaluation (aka inflation) over a long period of time.  Higher taxes and limited government spending will put a cap on American economic growth and will ensure a very slow economic recovery or even stagnation.  An extended period of 1-3% GNP  growth can be expected.  But with a weakening dollar, it is possible that rate of growth will not keep pace with inflation of 5-7%.  So, real GNP will be negative for several years undermining domestic investment returns.  All this is very remiscent of the late 1970s.

But there was a way to make decent, and maybe even excellent, real investment returns in the 1970s.  It was by investing away from America in hard or real assets like commodities and in the growth of non-dollar economies like Japan. 

In the 2000s, the new Japans are the BRIC nations: large, motivated and politically willing.  Today’s post is on investing in three of those four.  Brazil, India and especially China meet my requirements for foreign market investing.  But Russia, I do not trust.  Its political system has shown contempt for foreign investment.  It very much resembles the politics of the USSR, with a newly energized “politburo” that controls the economy and stifles free enterprise (though we here in America are catching up fast on this front).  So, I will focus my non-dollar investments in BIC, not BRIC. 

As of today, I am selling all of my long term international mutual fund investment in Fidelity Diversified International (FDIVX) and will gradually move those dollars in equal amounts to IFN (India Fund), EWZ (Brazil ETF) and FXI (China ETF).  I will dollar cost average in because all three markets / funds have just experienced a very strong surge from the bottom of the market crash and may correct. 

My goal will be to move my portfolio to 20% in non-dollar market investments.  Beyond the country ETFs, I also will buy strategic investments in Canada, Australia and non-China Asia.  I will have another 35% of my total portfolio invested in commodities and energy.  This position is already in place with most of the commodity portfolio in Canadian Royalty Trusts (Canroys).  I am also adding FXC and BHP to provide more industrial metals exposure along with additional precious metals exposure, adding to VGPMX and GGN by buying gold miners like AEM and AUY.   The balance of my portfolio will be in domestic stock and bond funds, especially high yield bonds which can keep up with the devaluing of inflation.  In this way, my portfolio will have less than 50% US dollar exposure to protect against inflation and a decade long weak economy.

Today’s Barrons runs a great story on this same subject. 

The [most important factor in the coming commodity boom is the] growth of the middle class in the rapidly developing economies; large-scale infrastructure investments in many developing nations; and the emergence in these regions of a huge new consumer cohort, which has developed out of the poverty of the past.  The size of this low-income cohort dwarfs anything the global marketplace has ever seen. Approximately one billion people, one- seventh of the world’s population, are moving out of poverty and entering the market as consumers. If these billion consumers were a nation, they would have the third-largest population in the world and the 10th-largest gross domestic product.

China lacks the raw materials it needs to manufacture steel. This has turned it into the world’s largest importer of iron ore. It has been accounting for 40% or more of the international iron-ore trade in recent years.  China’s need for steel will continue long into the future. Remember that the U.S. took 35 years to finish its Interstate highway system. It took 16 years for Japan to build its New Trunk Line railway. Even with China spending a reported 9% of its GDP on infrastructure, it will take decades to bring its roads, ports, airports, power-generation capacity and other infrastructure systems up to speed.

Read the entire story here:

Commodities’ Coming Rebound

Doug Kass has a terrific track record of predicting the tops and bottoms of recent markets.  He has been known as a short seller the past several years as he thought the market over-valued.  Now, however, he has picked March 5, 2009 as the bottom and has gone long.  He was nearly alone in his convictions on that date, but has recently been joined by more and more investors, including yours truly.  Why does Kass think we have reached the bottom of this Bear?  Read on for more:

http://www.seabreezepartners.net/newsArticle.asp?id=449

March 24, 2009

Why the Bears Are Wrong
By Doug Kass, The Edge

I continue to believe that the early March low represented a yearly and, quite possibly, a generational market bottom.

The mustard seeds for the economy and the U.S. stock market have begun to take root.  The rate of change in 10 of 12 factors in my watch list are improving.

On Feb. 17, I presented a watch list of conditions that, if in an improving trend, would likely indicate that a sustainable up move is possible for equities.

It is time to review this checklist (and add one more factor) to determine the market’s standing. Our new grades and those of two weeks ago are in parentheses and will be updated in the weeks and months ahead.

1. 1. Bank balance sheets must be recapitalized. Yesterday a comprehensive bank rescue package was introduced. It is obviously too early to consider its full impact, but the details of the program suggest to this observer that it will likely be effective in clearing toxic bank assets. (We grade the package a B+, up from a D+ only two weeks ago.)
   2. Bank lending must be restored. While bank lending standards remain tight, my view is that yesterday’s announcement of ring-fencing toxic bank assets will almost unquestionably succeed in unclogging the transmission of credit. (Grade B, up from a c previously.)
   3. Financial stocks’ performance must improve. Financial stocks have finally awakened from the dead, and the recent outsized move to the upside could foreshadow continued market strength. Historically strong relative performance in the shares of asset managers — such as Franklin Resources (BEN), T. Rowe Price (TROW) and AllianceBernstein (AB) — presage a better equity market, and Monday’s strong group action was conspicuous in its outperformance. (Grade B+, up from a D.)
   4. Commodity prices must rise as a confirmation of worldwide economic growth. Beginning two weeks ago, commodities’ prices began to strengthen, and the Fed’s message last week accelerated that trend. Gold, copper (at the highest level since November) and crude oil (over $54 a barrel) continued to rise yesterday, reflecting a combination of continuing inflationary and currency debasement fears coupled with the possibility that worldwide economic growth might stabilize sooner than later. Finally, the TIPS market is forecasting some higher inflation, and a little inflation is better than a lot of deflation. (Grade B, up from a C+.)
   5. Credit spreads and credit availability must improve. Spreads remain worrisome and the transmission of credit remains poor, but the economy should gain traction as public policy is implemented, money is made more available and lending terms are liberalized. (Grade D, flat from two weeks ago).
   6. We need evidence of a bottom in the economy, housing markets and housing prices. As I have written, the retail industry has exhibited evidence of sequential improvement in the January through March period. Other economic signs are somewhat more ambiguous but, nevertheless, are showing some life. Months of inventory of unsold homes are declining and so are mortgage rates, but home prices have yet to stabilize despite an improvement in the affordability indices and a better relationship between home ownership and rental costs. Nevertheless, yesterday’s strong existing homes sales release raises the specter of a better spring selling season than most anticipate. I contend that housing could surprise to the upside and might lead most other economic indicators higher. (Grade C+, up from a C-.)
   7. We need evidence of more favorable reactions to disappointing earnings and weak guidance. I am encouraged by the better price action in the face of poor earnings results and guidance in a wide range of companies, including Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold (FCX), FedEx (FDX), Airgas (ARG) and General Electric (GE). (Grade B+, up from a C+.)
   8. Emerging markets must improve. China’s economy (PMI and retail sales) and the performance of its year-to-date stock market have turned decidedly more constructive, but other emerging markets remain moribund. (Grade B up from a C.)
   9. Market volatility must decline. The world’s stock markets remain more volatile than a Mexican jumping bean. (Grade C+, flat with two weeks ago.)
   10. Hedge fund and mutual fund redemptions must ease. I am comfortable writing that the worst of the redemptions are behind the asset management industry. Nevertheless, the disintermediation and disarray in the hedge fund and fund of fund industries still have a ways to go. And while brokerage account liquidations appeared to have decelerated last week (coincident with rising share prices), my high net worth brokerage contacts (such as Baron Von Broker) continue to experience account closures and a panicked constituency. (Grade C, up from a D).
   11. Marginal buyers must emerge. Low invested positions at hedge funds and by individual investors no doubt fueled March’s market rise as the fear of being out has begun to replace the fear of being in. These two classes could continue to be the near-term marginal buyers fueling stocks. Corporate acquirers could also emerge as important marginal buyers, and the recent step up in merger and acquisition activity — for example, Genentech (DNA), Petro-Canada (PCZ), Schering-Plough (SGP) and Daimler (DAI) — is a concrete indicator that another important marginal buyer has surfaced. As the year progresses, a meaningful upside move awaits a broad asset allocation move of pension funds out of fixed income and into equities. (Grade B, up from a C.) To the above factors, I am adding a 12 factor in my watch list:
   12. The market’s internals must improve. I am comforted by a number of improving technical conditions that have emerged since the March low and that have continued in force over the past two weeks since the market has made program off that nadir. Indeed, the conditions of the recent low were different than others — in sentiment, volume, number of new lows and in intensity. The move from the October lows to the March lows indicated growing fear and gave way to rising cash positions and the loss of hope, but the market’s internals were improving. November’s DJIA low of 7,552 was nearly 11% below the October low of 8,451, and the March low of 6,547 was 22.5% under October’s low. While each new low was more frightening than the prior one, however, there were improving technical and sentiment signals. For example, NYSE volume at the October low expanded to 2.85 billion shares; at the November low, volume dropped to 2.23 billion shares; and at the March low, volume was only 1.56 billion shares. As well, new lows traced decreasing levels: At the October low, there were 2,900 new lows; at the November low, there were 1,515 lows; and at the March low, there were only 855 new lows on the NYSE. Moreover, the combination of last Tuesday’s 12:1 ratio of advancing stocks over declining stocks coupled with that day’s 27:1 up-to-down volume ratio has not occurred in almost 65 years. Remarkably, yesterday was the fifth 90% upside day in March, which is evidence of a broadening market.

In summary, 10 out of 12 factors (including our newest, market internals) on my watch list are in an improving mode. Though many variables are currently accorded relatively low grades and the outlook remains debatable, the delta (rate of change) in almost my entire watch list is improving and flashing a green light for the U.S. stock market.

A classical wall of worry is being reinforced by an overwhelming consensus that the recent advance was a bear market rally. Moreover, the negative “chatter,” as Jim “El Capitan” Cramer describes it, appears loosely constructed and fails to credibly argue against the salutary effect that $4 trillion of stimulus will have on the domestic economy.

Based on the 12 considerations comprising my watch list, I respectfully disagree with the prevailing negative consensus, most of whose members failed to properly analyze the cracks in the foundation of credit, in the economy and in equities two years ago. Indeed, it remains my view that the fear of further investment losses and possible investor redemptions are clouding many managers’ objectivity in assessing the markets.

In the fullness of time, public policy aimed at stimulating the economy (in general) and in housing (in particular) should bear fruit, as will the ring-fencing of toxic bank assets serve to unclog the transmission of credit.

While it is unrealistic to expect a straight up move, I am growing increasingly confident in my variant and optimistic view that the early March low was not only a yearly low but, quite possibly, a generational low.

Coming Monday, March 30:  Jeremy Grantham 1st Quarter Commentary

I have reprinted in total an interview between fund manager Ray Dalio and Barrons. This is the most detailed and well-thought-out description of what is a deflation and how it is repaired that I have seen. It echoes my thoughts and commentary almost verbatim, but with a lot more detail and credibility. Read on to understand what is happening and how we get out. I will put my commentary in brackets[]:

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123396545910358867.html?page=2&page;=sp

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2009 INTERVIEW

Recession? No, It’s a D-process, and It Will Be Long

Ray Dalio, Chief Investment Officer,
Bridgewater Associates

By SANDRA WARD

AN INTERVIEW WITH RAY DALIO: This pro sees a long and painful depression.

NOBODY WAS BETTER PREPARED FOR THE GLOBAL market crash than clients of Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater Associates and subscribers to its Daily Observations. Dalio, the chief investment officer and all-around guiding light of the global money-management company he founded more than 30 years ago, began sounding alarms in Barron’s in the spring of 2007 about the dangers of excessive financial leverage. He counts among his clients world governments and central banks, as well as pension funds and endowments.

“The regulators have to decide how banks will operate. That means they are going to have to nationalize some in some form.” No wonder. The Westport, Conn.-based firm, whose analyses of world markets focus on credit and currencies, has produced long-term annual returns, net of fees, averaging 15%.

In the turmoil of 2008, Bridgewater’s Pure Alpha 1 fund gained 8.7% net of fees and Pure Alpha 2 delivered 9.4%. Here’s what’s on his mind now.

Barron’s: I can’t think of anyone who was earlier in describing the deleveraging and deflationary process that has been happening around the world.

Dalio: Let’s call it a “D-process,” which is different than a recession, and the only reason that people really don’t understand this process is because it happens rarely. Everybody should, at this point, try to understand the depression process by reading about the Great Depression or the Latin American debt crisis or the Japanese experience so that it becomes part of their frame of reference. Most people didn’t live through any of those experiences, and what they have gotten used to is the recession dynamic, and so they are quick to presume the recession dynamic. It is very clear to me that we are in a D-process.

Why are you hesitant to emphasize either the words depression or deflation? Why call it a D-process?

Both of those words have connotations associated with them that can confuse the fact that it is a process that people should try to understand.

You can describe a recession as an economic retraction which occurs when the Federal Reserve tightens monetary policy normally to fight inflation. The cycle continues until the economy weakens enough to bring down the inflation rate, at which time the Federal Reserve eases monetary policy and produces an expansion. We can make it more complicated, but that is a basic simple description of what recessions are and what we have experienced through the post-World War II period. What you also need is a comparable understanding of what a D-process is and why it is different.

You have made the point that only by understanding the process can you combat the problem. Are you confident that we are doing what’s essential to combat deflation and a depression?

The D-process is a disease of sorts that is going to run its course. When I first started seeing the D-process and describing it, it was before it actually started to play out this way. But now you can ask yourself, OK, when was the last time bank stocks went down so much? When was the last time the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, or any central bank, exploded like it has? When was the last time interest rates went to zero, essentially, making monetary policy as we know it ineffective? When was the last time we had deflation?

The answers to those questions all point to times other than the U.S. post-World War II experience. This was the dynamic that occurred in Japan in the ’90s, that occurred in Latin America in the ’80s, and that occurred in the Great Depression in the ’30s. Basically what happens is that after a period of time, economies go through a long-term debt cycle — a dynamic that is self-reinforcing, in which people finance their spending by borrowing and debts rise relative to incomes and, more accurately, debt-service payments rise relative to incomes. At cycle peaks, assets are bought on leverage at high-enough prices that the cash flows they produce aren’t adequate to service the debt. The incomes aren’t adequate to service the debt.

Then begins the reversal process, and that becomes self-reinforcing, too. In the simplest sense, the country reaches the point when it needs a debt restructuring. General Motors is a metaphor for the United States.

As goes GM, so goes the nation?

The process of bankruptcy or restructuring is necessary to its viability. One way or another, General Motors has to be restructured so that it is a self-sustaining, economically viable entity that people want to lend to again.

This has happened in Latin America regularly. Emerging countries default, and then restructure. It is an essential process to get them economically healthy.

We will go through a giant debt-restructuring, because we either have to bring debt-service payments down so they are low relative to incomes — the cash flows that are being produced to service them — or we are going to have to raise incomes by printing a lot of money [Exactly, but keep reading, the story gets even better].

It isn’t complicated. It is the same as all bankruptcies, but when it happens pervasively to a country, and the country has a lot of foreign debt denominated in its own currency, it is preferable to print money and devalue.

Isn’t the process of restructuring under way in households
and at corporations?

They are cutting costs to service the debt. But they haven’t yet done much restructuring. Last year, 2008, was the year of price declines; 2009 and 2010 will be the years of bankruptcies and restructurings. Loans will be written down and assets will be sold. It will be a very difficult time. It is going to surprise a lot of people because many people figure it is bad but still expect, as in all past post-World War II periods, we will come out of it OK. A lot of difficult questions will be asked of policy makers. The government decision-making mechanism is going to be tested, because different people will have different points of view about what should be done.

What are you suggesting?

An example is the Federal Reserve, which has always been an autonomous institution with the freedom to act as it sees fit. Rep. Barney Frank [a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee] is talking about examining the authority of the Federal Reserve, and that raises the specter of the government and Congress trying to run the Federal Reserve. Everybody will be second-guessing everybody else.

So where do things stand in the process of restructuring?

What the Federal Reserve has done and what the Treasury has done, by and large, is to take an existing debt and say they will own it or lend against it. But they haven’t said they are going to write down the debt and cut debt payments each month. There has been little in the way of debt relief yet. Very, very few actual mortgages have been restructured. Very little corporate debt has been restructured.

The Federal Reserve, in particular, has done a number of successful things. The Federal Reserve went out and bought or lent against a lot of the debt. That has had the effect of reducing the risk of that debt defaulting, so that is good in a sense. And because the risk of default has gone down, it has forced the interest rate on the debt to go down, and that is good, too.

However, the reason it hasn’t actually produced increased credit activity is because the debtors are still too indebted and not able to properly service the debt. Only when those debts are actually written down will we get to the point where we will have credit growth.

There is a mortgage debt piece that will need to be restructured. There is a giant financial-sector piece — banks and investment banks and whatever is left of the financial sector — that will need to be restructured. There is a corporate piece that will need to be restructured, and then there is a commercial-real-estate piece that will need to be restructured.

Is a restructuring of the banks a starting point?

If you think that restructuring the banks is going to get lending going again and you don’t restructure the other pieces — the mortgage piece, the corporate piece, the real-estate piece — you are wrong, because they need financially sound entities to lend to, and that won’t happen until there are restructurings.

On the issue of the banks, ultimately we need banks because to produce credit we have to have banks. A lot of the banks aren’t going to have money, and yet we can’t just let them go to nothing; we have got to do something. But the future of banking is going to be very, very different. The regulators have to decide how banks will operate.

That means they will have to nationalize some in some form, but they are going to also have to decide who they protect: the bondholders or the depositors?

Nationalization is the most likely outcome?

There will be substantial nationalization of banks. It is going on now and it will continue. But the same question will be asked even after nationalization: What will happen to the pile of bad stuff?

Let’s say we are going to end up with the good-bank/bad-bank concept. The government is going to put a lot of money in — say $100 billion — and going to get all the garbage at a leverage of, let’s say, 10 to 1. They will have a trillion dollars, but a trillion dollars’ worth of garbage. They still aren’t marking it down.

Does this give you comfort?

Then we have the remaining banks, many of which will be broke. The government will have to recapitalize them. The government will try to seek private money to go in with them, but I don’t think they are going to come up with a lot of private money, not nearly the amount needed.

To the extent we are going to have nationalized banks [Citi, BAC for sure, as I have maintained; they are already Fed controlled, if not completely nationalized], we will still have the question of how those banks behave. Does Congress say what they should do? Does Congress demand they lend to bad borrowers? There is a reason they aren’t lending.

So whose money is it, and who is protecting that money?

The biggest issue is that if you look at the borrowers, you don’t want to lend to them. The basic problem is that the borrowers had too much debt when their incomes were higher and their asset values were higher. Now net worths have gone down.

Let me give you an example. Roughly speaking, most of commercial real estate and a good deal of private equity was bought on leverage of 3-to-1. Most of it is down by more than one-third, so therefore they have negative net worth. Most of them couldn’t service their debt when the cash flows were up, and now the cash flows are a lot lower.

If you shouldn’t have lent to them before, how can you possibly lend to them now?

I guess I’m thinking of the examples of people and businesses with solid credit records who can’t get banks to lend to them. Those examples exist, but they aren’t, by and large, the big picture. There are too many non-viable entities. Big pieces of the economy have to become somehow more viable. This isn’t primarily about a lack of liquidity. There are certainly elements of that, but this is basically a structural issue. The ’30s were very similar to this.

By the way, in the bear market from 1929 to the bottom, stocks declined 89%, [note: in 1929 the DJI stocks were very extended and had the same kind of PEs as 2000. When stocks tanked in 2008, the PEs were much lower because the air was already let out of the stock market, so we will not need to see a DJI of 1400 before this is over. We probably already has seen the DJI low] with six rallies of returns of more than 20% — and most of them produced renewed optimism. But what happened was that the economy continued to weaken with the debt problem. The Hoover administration had the equivalent of today’s TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] in the Reconstruction Finance Corp. The stimulus program and tax cuts created more spending, and the budget deficit increased.

At the same time, countries around the world encountered a similar kind of thing. England went through then exactly what it is going through now. Just as now, countries couldn’t get dollars because of the slowdown in exports, and there was a dollar shortage, as there is now. Efforts were directed at rekindling lending. But they did not rekindle lending. Eventually there were a lot of bankruptcies, which extinguished debt.

In the U.S., a Democratic administration replaced a Republican one and there was a major devaluation and reflation that marked the bottom of the Depression in March 1933. [The timing of the change in Presidents is remarkable in its similarity. The market decline and recession started in 1930 and two years later, there was an election. This time, the housing market peaked in 2006 and two years later, there was an election. I think we are in early 1933 if we use the Great Depression as our reference. That was a great time to get long the stock market]

Where is the U.S. and the rest of the world going to keep getting money to pay for these stimulus packages?

The Federal Reserve is going to have to print money [my blog friends who fear the printing press need to pay attention here. This point is why I discount
what I hear from Marc Faber, Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff. They don't know their history]. The deficits will be greater than the savings. So you will see the Federal Reserve buy long-term Treasury bonds, as it did in the Great Depression [this answers the question about who will lend us the money to back the printing press]. We are in a position where that will eventually create a problem for currencies and drive assets to gold [which, in this context, is okay. I am long gold, but I am also long our economy].

Are you a fan of gold?

Yes.

Have you always been?

No. Gold is horrible sometimes and great other times [because its only value is as an alternate currency or jewelry. Gold has NO inherent value. It is an unproductive asset]. But like any other asset class, everybody always should have a piece of it in their portfolio.

What about bonds? The conventional wisdom has it that bonds are the most overbought and most dangerous asset class right now.

Everything is timing. You print a lot of money, and then you have currency devaluation. The currency devaluation happens before bonds fall. Not much in the way of inflation is produced, because what you are doing actually is negating deflation. So, the first wave of currency depreciation will be very much like England in 1992, with its currency realignment, or the United States during the Great Depression, when they printed money and devalued the dollar a lot. Gold went up a whole lot and the bond market had a hiccup, and then long-term rates continued to decline because people still needed safety and liquidity [this is a point that changes my thinking a bit. I think in terms of either / or; but Dalio makes the case for an overlap of the appreciation of both asset classes].

While the dollar is bad, it doesn’t mean necessarily that the bond market is bad. I can easily imagine at some point I’m going to hate bonds and want to be short bonds, but, for now, a portfolio that is a mixture of Treasury bonds and gold is going to be a very good portfolio, because I imagine gold could go up a whole lot and Treasury bonds won’t go down a whole lot, at first.

Ideally, creditor countries that don’t have dollar-debt problems are the place you want to be, like Japan. The Japanese economy will do horribly, too, but they don’t have the problems that we have — and they have surpluses. They can pull in their assets from abroad, which will support their currency, because they will want to become defensive.

Other currencies will decline in relationship to the yen and in relationship to gold [hmmmm, I don't know if "less bad" is good enough for me. I think Japan is in this with the rest of us; though recent currency action supports Dalio's case here].

And China?

Now we have the delicate China question. That is a complicated, touchy question. The reasons for China to hold dollar-denominated assets no longer exist, for the most part. However, the desire to have a weaker currency is everybody’s desire in terms of stimulus.

China recognizes that the exchange-rate peg is not as important as it was before, because the idea was to make its goods competitive in the world. Ultimately, they are going to have to go to a domestic-based economy. But they own too much in the way of dollar-denominated assets to get out, and it isn’t clear exactly where they would go if they did get out. But they don’t have to buy more. They are not going to continue to want to double down.

From the U.S. point of view, we want a devaluation [YES!! this is the point I always make: we must create inflation to get out of this problem, thereby devaluing the dollar]. A devaluation gets your pricing in line. When there is a deflationary environment, you want your currency to go down. When you have a lot of foreign debt denominated in your currency, you want to create relief by having your currency go down. All major currency devaluations have triggered stock-market rallies throughout the world; one of the best ways to trigger a stock-market rally is to devalue your currency.

But there is a basic structural problem with China. Its per capita income is less than 10% of ours. We have to get our prices in line, and we are not going to do it by cutting our incomes to a level of Chinese incomes.

And they are not going to do it by having their per capita incomes coming in line with our per capita incomes. But they have to come closer together. The Chinese currency and assets are too cheap in dollar terms, so a devaluation of the dollar in relation to China’s currency is likely, and will be an important step to our reflation and will make investments in China attractive. [this is a major thesis of mine, and I own FXI, the China equity index fund and will buy more. This is a long term phenomena that will last my lifetime. China will be the major source of commodity demand for decades, so commodities are a great investment here]

You mentioned, too, that inflation is not as big a worry for you as it is for some. Could you elaborate?

A wave of currency devaluations and strong gold will serve to negate deflationary pressures [YES!! another of my points: inflation cancels deflation], bringing inflation to a low, positive number rather than producing unacceptably high inflation [this is the point where Faber, Rogers and Schiff are most wrong because they do not acknowledge the role of cancellation of deflation] — and that will last for as far as I can see out, roughly about two years.

Given this outlook, what is your view on stocks?

Buying equities and taking on those risks in late 2009, or more likely 2010, will be a great move because equities will be much cheaper than now. It is going to be a buying opportunity of the century.

Thanks, Ray

.