An Overview of 2013 - Setting the Scene

There were several driving forces affecting market conditions in year 2012. The year opened on a very strong start. In fact much of the overall market gain in 2012 occurred in the first six weeks of 2012. The rest of the year could best be characterized as one finger nail biting financial crisis followed by another, with a measure of election year political uncertainty thrown in for good measure.

The first crisis was the deteriorating economic conditions in Europe and the inability of governmental policy-makers to develop a constructive program to address it. While never really resolved over the course of the year, it was pushed off center stage by our own home grown financial crisis in the United States that came to be known as the fiscal cliff, and similar to their European counterparts, the inability of our own government political leaders to develop a constructive resolution. In each of these crises some sort of gerrymandering solution was developed; but the underlying problems remain not addressed with sustainable policies. The uncertainty of these circumstances created of great deal of volatility in the investment markets. In each case heightened tension increased the fear level of the markets and caused consequent drops in the markets. In each case, as well, the fears gave way to relief rallies in the markets as some policy was cobbled together to at least temporarily address the issues.

While the markets have started the year strongly, it is inevitable that will see these crises reemerge in 2013. In fact, it is highly likely that we will see a return to the same sort of volatility we experienced in 2012. The United States government has already reached the debt limit allowed by law, and while an agreement was reached with respect to taxes, the only agreement with respect to the mandatory budget cuts, known as sequestration, was to defer them for two months. This means that by March we will see the political and economic tensions again escalate, and market fears and uncertainty increase.

The issues at hand are very significant and marginalizing them into just another economic crisis would be poor judgment. The potential consequences mean there is there is not really no one safe harbor. Cash or bonds, the traditional conservative investments have to also be considered as at risk. Considering cash, in US dollar form, to be conservative would be to not recognize the link between the guarantor of the US dollar, the U.S. government, and the intractable financial problems that have brought it to the financial cliff, or are pushing it to have to continually increase its allowable debt ceiling. Bonds are also at risk as interest rates begin to rise from an unsustainable low interest rate environment, bond values, especially those long-term in nature, will decline in value. Indeed, as the markets have started 2013 strongly, many bonds have declined in value because of interest rate pressures.

One thing that seems to be fairly certain is that crises do resolve themselves, one way, or another. At this point we can only speculate on how that will occur. The worst case scenario would be a total global financial collapse and an ongoing subsequent global depression. While this cannot be dismissed as an impossible event, I see the probability of this as being extremely small. There is a great deal of potential economic vigor and potential growth. At present the main problem is the huge overhang of legacy debt. This is putting a damper on economic expansion and its consequent investment potential. Over-indebtedness is always dealt with by some sort of restructuring. That is what I would expect as a resolution in this case as well. What that restructuring will look like remains to be seen. However, as this process unfolds, we will see the economic vigor and investment potential be released. My take is that 2013 will be a pivotal year in beginning that resolution process. While I expect to see heightened volatility, I also expect to see the investment markets becoming more and more attractive as the year unfolds. As the year unfolds, I will be trying to steer a balanced course between the volatility and the potential longer term opportunities through maintaining well diversified portfolios. 

If Only One Investment Could Be Made

The following is a piece I contributed to the investment website Seeking Alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/213381-just-one-etf-safe-haven-concerns-favor-gold-producers-inflation-or-not?source=email

One of the basic functions of money is as a store of value. If the viability of this function becomes impaired, it is important to consider where economic value will be best preserved, or even increased. When making investment decisions, the objective is, at a minimum, to preserve value, and if we choose wisely, to increase the real value of our net worth. Implicit in the idea of value is what preserves and increases our purchasing power Because of the privileged position the US dollar has held as the reserve currency of the world, the mystique of power and safety has become an assumed fact in the perception of most financial players. In my opinion, it would be an error of judgment to assume that the United States has been divinely exempted from the laws of economics, or that the US dollar has any value other than a faith based presumption of economic entitlement.

There is a growing awareness that a fundamental structural shift has occurred, or is in the process of occurring in the power arrangement of the global economy. Events of recent years should have served as a wakeup call that placing blind faith in institutions such as investment banks, banks, insurance companies and governments is likely to be hazardous to an investor’s financial health. One thing that should be abundantly clear is that financial imprudence at all levels of our society, and throughout the world, has became institutionalized into an acceptable form of conduct. Imprudent lending, and imprudent borrowing, has created a vicious destructive cycle of over-consumption and over-indebtedness. As with many extreme indulgences, when the party is over, we are left with a big hangover and a big cleanup job. Right now the United States in particular, and the world economy, in general, has one gigantic hangover, and a daunting clean up job.

With a trillion dollar plus budget deficit, the United States will need likely need to borrow over $70 billion per month from foreign sources in order to continue funding its operations. The question that must be asked now is: How willing and how able will these foreign funding sources be to continue loaning money to the United States to fund its budget deficit? Many of these countries are having a more difficult financial time themselves in the present financial turbulence. Many of these countries were, prior to this financial turbulence, considering reducing the amount of money being loaned to the United States. In addition, because of this financial crisis the credit worthiness of the United States has deteriorated, and there are alternative places where these countries can deploy their financial resources which may be more directly beneficial to themselves. The conclusion is inescapable that a potential funding crisis will be one of the major consequences of the current attempt to contain this financial crisis.

Governments of the world have made massive commitments toward maintaining financial and economic stability. On a global scale, trillion of dollars have been committed to financial and economic stabilization. Each time a government responds to a financial crisis in an industry, business, another sovereign county, or municipality, the financial hole gets deeper. Looking forward to what pending financial crises of global significance crises are likely to emerge, there is no shortage of candidates. On the front burner is the unfolding European financial meltdown. A prudent view would be to assume that as bad as it looks, it is likely to be much worse when one factors in the amplification effect of derivative positions likely held by systemically important institutions. On the back burners, waiting for their chance to emerge are the rapidly deteriorating conditions of the pension systems, the FDIC, as well as state and local municipalities.

The biggest player is the US Government itself. The trillion dollar plus budget deficit projected indefinitely into the future does not even take into consideration expensive contingencies, which seem to inevitably arise, such as natural and man-made disasters, wars, and other Black Swan events which will necessitate additional funding requirements. How will all the unfunded liabilities and current operating expenses be paid for? One might argue that incurring these expenses is necessary, but there are also consequences.

That there will be increasing insolvency, massive economic displacement, and economic restructuring is appearing to be more and more a given. We are at a global economic watershed point. A recent book, This Time Is Different, by two eminent economists, professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, is based upon a compilation and analysis of data looking at government’s financial behavior over the past 800 years. Among their conclusions is a pattern which emerges as a constant. Governments overspend, over borrow, and then default. The two basic methods of default are an outright refusal to pay their debts, or an implicit default. In an implicit default the intent is to debase the currency with the objective of repaying existing indebtedness with a lower value currency, in effect, an attempt to inflate away the real value of a currency.

Given the current operating deficits, as well as future liabilities, the United States is on a trajectory that is financial unsustainable. Considering the position of the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world, the question of default must be addressed by an investor who considers that somehow events occurring in the world matter to the investing results achieved. In my view, an outright default by the United States of its debt is a probability so small as to be insignificant. On the other hand, an implicit default, where the United States attempts to inflate its way out of its financial hole is extremely likely, especially when there is no limit as to how much money the government can create.

If we assume, for purposes of discussion, that this is the direction in which economic history will move, it becomes useful to consider some of the implications of this scenario for asset deployment purposes. While there is a great deal of discussion regarding the demise of the US dollar, it is often followed by consideration of other currencies as a safe harbor refuge. This may be a false sense of security. One of the reasons for the US dollar's problem is the lack of monetary discipline because of the fiat nature of the currency, the same problem exists with other currencies. There appears to be an inherent instability with a fiat monetary system. Consequently, in my opinion, it is a mistake to believe that other currencies might be anything other than a temporary refuge.

It is the consequences that follow which will provide both the hazards, as well as the long term opportunities from an investment and financial planning perspective. It is exactly here that both the risks and the opportunities reside. In my estimation, the outcome of these circumstances will result in escalating interest rates, which is another version of credit availability reduction, and a damper on economic growth. This would be an unacceptable outcome for our government whose interests are critically tied to economic growth. The policy response will be an attempt to create vast amounts of money in order to effectively devalue debt, and consequently the dollar. Current economic policy discussion focuses on a debate as to whether we are looking at a deflationary or inflationary future. In my opinion, while I harbor the view that we will experience a severe hyperinflationary and stagnant economic future, I consider this to be somewhat of a secondary consideration. A more primary consideration, which is, and will continue to shape investor behavior, will be the economic uncertainty and dislocation which arises, whether it is inflationary or deflationary. This economic instability is already creating a greater shift in the view of what is perceived as a more desirable asset class to act a as reserve of reservoir of economic value.

Considering assets which might best retain or increase in value, it is clear that current market behavior suggests there is growing recognition that investors have starting voting with their feet. One investment areas which has highlighted these opportunities is precious metals, in particular gold. The evidence derived from reports of shortages of gold coins to the increase in bullion reserves by central banks such as China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, make a compelling case that we are not witnessing merely a speculative thrust at a trading position, but rather a sustainable shift in perception of an asset that will withstand the rigors of the economic storms we are facing.

Aside from owning gold directly, there are now opportunities with exchange traded funds such as GLD, to take positions that very much mimic the economic characteristics expected of a currency. In my analysis, this provides a compelling reason to expect the demand for gold to continue to increase. It follows that if one expects the demand for gold to increase, the value of those entities which hold reserves of gold, as well as the productive capacity to bring it to market, can be expected to be beneficiaries of these circumstances. It is from that perspective that if I had to choose only one investment, I would select GDX, an ETF of gold miners as my investment of choice.

What Could Go Wrong

One thing I have learned from over twenty years of investment decision making, and corroborated during the experiences of my younger years working in research laboratories, is that no matter how well thought out and rational a position is, it does not necessarily mean that is what is. As a consequence, it is important to examine and identify where the potential risks lie in our expectations. The year 2008 gives provides us with a great opportunity to examine what happened to gold during that time of extreme financial duress.

Deleveraging caused massive indiscriminate selling pressure. Institutions were forced to raise capital to meet their regulatory requirements. At the same time the credit markets froze up, making capital very difficult to acquire. This made the situation even worse. Hedge funds are investments for institutions and very wealthy individuals. They operate by borrowing huge amounts of money using their invested positions of stocks, bonds, and the more esoteric derivative investments as collateral. Some of these funds borrow 30-40 times the amount of actual dollars directly invested in them by their investors. The lenders who provide this money to the hedge funds have lending requirements which require the hedge funds to come up with more money if the value of their investments drops too much. During the financial turmoil, the decline of the investments in these hedge funds forced the hedge fund managers to start selling their investments whether they considered them good investments or not. This amplified the overall selling pressure and made a bad situation even worse. It did not matter whether an investment had merit or not, it was going down, and gold did likewise. It is certainly possible for this to occur again. It should also be noted that GDX seems to trade more like a stock than GLD, hence one might expect higher volatility. One of the only assets which did well in 2008 in comparison was US Treasury debt, due to the perception of safety.

If we fast forward to the emerging European crisis of 2010 and examine market conditions, we can see growing investor perception recognizing gold as a safe harbor. Additionally, the gut reaction of flocking to the US dollar as a safe harbor seems to be becoming somewhat more muted. In my view, I see this as a growing trend that will greatly benefit GDX over time. By the same token, does this suggest to me that it would be appropriate to bet the family farm on this position? Absolutely not! Even if an investor sees merit in my analysis, each individual investor needs to evaluate his own risk tolerance and circumstances to arrive at an appropriate allocation to GDX even if it is the only investment position they are taking.

Where Are We Now?

While many of us began this new year with hopes for an economic and financial recovery, unfolding events suggest that we have a ways to go before we are on the other side of this global crisis. The economy has continued to deteriorate with huge job losses, real estate prices continue to plunge, and our major financial institutions and industries continue their financial hemorrhaging. I have been studying and monitoring events with sharply focused attention. Below, I share some thoughts regarding what is currently going on. Hopefully, you will find these thoughts helpful in better understanding this environment.

Current View
Towards the end of 2008 the United States Congress agreed to provide $700 billion to keep the financial system from imminent collapse. The Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Henry Paulsen, and the nation’s top banker, Ben Bernanke, had testified that the United States was within days of financial collapse. Congress provided for two installments of these bailout funds.

Several months later, we have had an opportunity to get some idea of the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of these funds.

The fallout from the failure of several large financial institutions had caused the global credit markets to freeze, consequently bringing global commerce to an abrupt slowdown. The public presentation of this strategy said the bailout funds were supposed to prop up the remaining mega financial institutions of the United States and stimulate the continuing flow of money, via increased lending, necessary for commerce to continue. How unsurprising that reports now emerging present a somewhat different picture of what was really going on. A recent news article reported that the CEO of a large US bank, as well a recent PBS Frontline presentation, said the bailout funds, TARP money, was essentially forced upon some banks. The apparent reason, which was supposed to be kept quiet, was to provide money for some banks to buy out smaller, weaker banks. Shortly after the TARP funds were distributed, there actually were reports of these types of bank acquisitions occurring. To the extent that this would “privatize” dealing with failing banks, this might make some sense.

One of the ways in which these TARP funds were distributed to the banks was to buy some of their “Troubled” (read toxic) assets. If the government paid a fair price for these assets, injecting money into them would be a fairly clean process. Unfortunately, however, this would not have accomplished the objective of stabilizing the financial system any better than they actually did, as I will explain.

If the government bailout funds purchased these assets for what their actual market value was, the financial system would experience an additional shock beyond what was already occurring. In order to try to make banks appear healthier than they actually were, the government needed to pay more for these assets than they were really worth. Indeed, a recent report by a congressional oversight committee headed by chairwoman Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard, came to the conclusion that of the $350 billion spent on this program, the government overpaid for what it purchased by $78 billion. An additional research report by Goldman Sachs said that the real losses in the financial system will be around $4 trillion by the time this crisis is worked through. This is in the same range as estimates by economist Nouriel Roubini, who has estimated around $3.6 trillion of losses. The last estimate I read as to the already acknowledged losses in the financial system was around $1.1 trillion.

To draw the picture more anecdotally, a commenter to an economic blog, www.nakedcapitalism.com, on February 23, 2009, put it this way:
I have a personal anecdote about Citi and the difficulty of spotting how bad their loans actually are. I'm involved with a $300 million condo-hotel development in the Caribbean. Citi has the whole loan (i.e., they didn't securitize or otherwise sell participations in the loan). Even now, we expect the hotel needs at least another $100 million to finish construction and open (we are no longer under any delusions that more than a handful of buyers will close on the condo portion of the condo-hotel). So, in other words, Citi is $275M into this project, and it's not certain that the completed hotel will even be worth the extra $100M required to complete and open. Hence, one might plausibly value this $275M loan at zero (i.e., a complete write off). I cannot imagine any stress test would uncover what a huge loss is on the way in the next 12 months. In fact, this loan has not even been pawned off to the nonperforming/distressed debt/workout section of Citi because the interest reserves make it "seem" like the loan is still performing, not to mention that completely out of date pro formas make it "seem" like (i) equity will come in to finish the project and (ii) condo sales will pay down a huge part of the principal once construction is complete. This scenario must be present in a large number of Citi loans, especially in their somewhat active foreign development divisions. Citi must be so far from solvent that it's not even funny. Only hyperinflation in the dollar could ever make it possible for the borrowers to pay back some of these loans. I'd bet that the sooner we face reality on some of these loans and just halt future fundings, the less money the taxpayers are going to lose. As it is, it's almost too late. Too bad for the US taxpayer.

This suggests that we may have quite a ways to go before we are on the other side of this crisis. Other emerging areas of troubled assets are the commercial real estate sector, as well as car and credit card debt. In an economy which is continuing to deteriorate it would seem as though these problems will get worse. The new Obama administration’s continuing efforts at intervention has not inspired much of a vote of confidence by the markets as to its probability of success.

Looking Forward
There are several take-aways from all this. There is quite a bit a rot left at the core institutions of our financial system. These banks, insurance companies, and other related institutions, provide the backbone for commerce and economic growth. Sustainable and healthy investment markets require the foundation of a healthy economy. Most fundamentally, however, the ongoing financial crisis highlights the importance of rethinking assumptions about risk.

The belief that major financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies provided the “safest” investments arose from the time when these types of institutions conducted themselves in financially prudent ways. The ongoing massive financial institutional failures we have witnessed over the last year are evidence which refutes this belief in a massive way. Moreover, because of the necessity of the United States government having to bailout these institutions in order to try to save the entire global financial system from collapse, it may call the solvency of the United States government into question.
As a consequence of these ongoing events, the challenge of trying to identify potential financial safe harbors in this environment becomes all the more important. It needs to be recognized that “safety” is relative because there are many types of risks, and consequently no absolutely “safe” investment. However, in my analysis and conclusion, trying to balance out these risks points me to reconfirm my conclusion that investments which have a “real use” value such as energy, food, and utilities, will maintain a baseline of economic value in recessionary times, as well as provided the most accelerating growth opportunities when economic conditions improve. This is not to say that these types of investments will not also experience price volatility. Maintaining sizable positions in a safe money market, both for added stability to portfolio values, as well as to take advantage of future opportunities is an additional defensive measure. Having a modest position in precious metals is intended to provide an additional measure of safety. The challenge of this investment environment is to try to have some exposure to the upside of a possible rapid economic turn-around, as well as to provide downside protection from continuing economic deterioration.

From the personal financial planning strategy perspective, a prudent response to these conditions is to seriously re-examine personal spending and expenses with an eye towards belt-tightening. Because many of us have become accustomed to a living standard which includes discretionary expenses which enhance our lives, this is never a pleasant topic. The other side of the coin, however, is that we may find that may of the things we believe we need as discretionary expenditures do not necessarily add to the quality of our lives, or our health. These are times in which we need to have an adaptive response, where we refocus on the things which are really important and take proactive steps to maintain health and manage stress. The bottom line is, I believe, that we will, at some point, emerge from this crisis wiser, stronger, and with some incredible opportunities looking forward.

Addendum
Banks must be in compliance with certain regulatory requirements. These requirements are intended to ensure a minimal degree of financial strength to protect depositors. A peculiar characteristic of banking system accounting requires that assets be carried in the bank’s accounting records at what is called historic cost. This is what the banks actually paid for these assets. When an asset, such as an investment is sold, the bank accounting record is then adjusted to reflect the actual price at which the asset was sold. This means that if a bank paid $50 million for an investment in some type of sub-prime real estate investment, and it was now worthless, as long as the bank did not sell this investment, it would appear on the banks records as being worth $50 million. Consequently, a very financially sick bank could appear healthy as long as it did not sell, or adjust (called mark to market), its troubled assets.

Reflection and Analysis

A Look Back

Shock, confusion, and fear are probably some words which describe many people’s overall experience of 2008. As difficult and challenging as the year was, it is important to try to make some sense out of what happened, what is happening, and provide some analysis towards a sense of where things are likely to go. To this end, I am offering my thoughts on this subject with the recognition that the complexity and magnitude of world economic events can cloud even the best crystal balls. Having said this, those of you who have read my book, The Emperor’s Clothes, know that I discussed many of the issues of this global financial crisis prior to their occurrences.

The news of the past year has been filled with details of the institutional pillars of American finance, such as Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and many others, collapsing or being taken over because of pending collapse. This has been followed by the frenzied attempts of the world’s Central Banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, coming up with one scheme after another to try to prevent a complete breakdown of the global financial system. Indeed, while trying to get support from Congress for a $700 billion bailout package to save the U.S. banking and financial system, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke, and the U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson, testified before Congress that the U.S. financial system was within days of collapsing.

Massive indiscriminate selling pressure was created as a result of this financial turmoil. These institutions were forced to raise capital to meet their regulatory requirements. At the same time the credit markets froze up, capital very difficult to acquire. This made the situation even worse. Hedge funds are investments for institutions and very wealthy individuals. They operate by borrowing huge amounts of money using their invested positions of stocks, bonds, and more the esoteric derivative investments, as collateral. Some of these funds borrow 30-40 times the amount of actual dollars directly invested in them by their investors. The lenders who provide this money to the hedge funds have lending requirements which require the hedge funds to come up with more money if the value of their investments drops too much. During the financial turmoil, the decline of the investments in these hedge funds forced the hedge fund managers to start selling their investments whether they considered them good investments or not. This amplified the overall selling pressure and made a bad situation even worse.

Today, there appears to be some degree of stabilization from the worst of the turmoil. It will be many years, keeping many scholars employed, trying to sort out the details of what actually happened. The one thing that is abundantly clear is that financial imprudence at all levels of our society, and throughout the world, became institutionalized into an acceptable form of conduct. Imprudent lending, and imprudent borrowing, created a vicious destructive cycle of over-consumption and over-indebtedness. As with many extreme indulgences, when the party is over, we are left with a big hangover and a big cleanup job. Right now the United States in particular, and the world economy, in general, has one gigantic hangover, and a daunting clean up job.

Looking Forward

Currently the governments of the world have made massive commitments toward maintaining financial and economic stability. On a global scale, I have read estimates of up to $7 trillion dollars already committed to various bailout type endeavors. The bailout line also seems to be getting longer each time the government responds to an industry or business in financial crisis. The auto industry is the latest example. Following this bailout, I have read accounts of state and local municipalities, and the commercial real estate industry lining up to be next. When the government starts handing out money, there is no shortage of willing, ready, and potentially deserving takers.

Even if one considers these policies to be necessary to prevent an even more disastrous financial collapse, a number of issues arise which impact what the outcomes are that we can expect. One of these issues is the implementation of these policies. For example, the early reports on the banking system bailouts leave much to be desired as to the accountability of the use of the funds. The reports indicate that many of the recipients of the bailout funds are unable or unwilling to account for their use. Other reports suggest a business as usual attitude for many of these troubled institutions. They seem to feel at liberty to pay huge bonuses and compensation packages, and provide extravagant perks to the very management personnel who contributed to bringing about this disastrous situation. It was only when the spotlight of public opinion focused on some of these issues that public relations considerations brought about a more contrite demeanor in these institutions. This suggests to me that the only thing that has really changed is the public relations campaign.

Another issue, which I refer to as the elephant in the living room is: How are all these bailouts going to be paid for? In addition, the other component of trying to climb out of what is being referred to as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is the massive economic stimulus package being put together by the incoming Obama administration. It may, perhaps, be necessary, but there are also consequences. It is the consequences that, in my opinion, will provide both the hazards, as well as the long term opportunities from an investment and financial planning perspective.

Current discussions of the economic stimulus package lead me to believe that by the time it becomes policy it will have a cost ranging from $1-$2 trillion over a two year period. The funding for this will be added to the operating budget deficit of the United States. Prior to all these bailouts and economic stimulus packages, the United States had already needed to borrow $60-$70 billion per month in foreign money in order to continue funding its operations. Luckily, China, the petrodollar countries, and the other countries accumulating U.S. dollar reserves were doing well and were quite willing to continue lending money to the United States. The question that must be asked now is: How willing and how able are these countries going to be to continue loaning money to the United States to fund its budget deficit?

Many of these countries are having a more difficult financial time themselves in the present financial crisis. Many of these countries were, prior to this financial crisis, considering reducing the amount of money being loaned to the United States. In addition, because of this financial crisis the credit worthiness of the United States has deteriorated, and there are alternative places where these countries can deploy their financial resources which may be more directly beneficial to themselves. The funding requirements of the United States its meet the Budget Deficit needs may rise above $150 billion per month; the conclusion is inescapable of a potential funding crisis as being one of the major consequential fallout of the current attempts to contain this financial crisis.

It is exactly here that both the risks and the opportunities reside. In my estimation, the results of these circumstances will result in escalating interest rates, which is another version of credit availability reduction, and a damper on economic growth. This would be an unacceptable outcome for our government whose interests are critically tied to economic growth. The policy response will be an attempt to create vast amounts of money in order to effectively devalue debt, and consequently the dollar. Current economic policy discussion focuses on the immediate deflationary impact of the global financial crisis. However, I believe we will be seeing a very real potential of rapidly escalating inflation by the later part of 2009.

If we remember that the basic function of money is as a store of value and the viability of this function becomes impaired, it is important to consider where economic value will be best preserved, or even increased. Some of investment areas which I will be scanning for appropriate opportunities will be in areas such as precious metals, as well as real use assets such as energy, food, and materials. The added benefit to these areas, apart from providing a potential defense against some of the forces I discussed, is that when the global economy begins to get through this financial catastrophe, these will be among the things which will be crucial to growth and in consequently high demand, with limited supply.