EFTA01149581

From: US GIO  
To: Undisclosed recipients:; 
Subject: JPM Eye on the Market: Centennials: on the US and Italy 
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:19:33 +0000 
Attachments: 08-06-11_ EOTM - Centennials.pdf 
Inline-Images: image013.png; image014.png; image015.png; image016.png; image017.png; image018.png 
Centennials. Almost 100 years ago, the United States received its first AAA rating, from Moody's. Yesterday, this 
highest rating was withdrawn, by S&P. Italy also faces a downgrade, as its public debt approaches the highest levels 
in almost 100 years, and with the exception of world wars, the highest since unification. Large-scale purchases of 
Italian debt by the European Central Bank look like the last line of defense by policymakers, absent an abrupt 
acceptance of Federalism. To prevent further escalation of sovereign debt, both Italy and the US face austerity 
conditions that will impede growth. 
Let's start by looking at why S&P acted. Compounding everyone's confusion is the startling assertion Friday night by 
the Administration that S&P made a "$2 trillion mistake". This is partially true; S&P miscalculated discretionary spending 
caps in the Budget Control Act (BCA). However, another factor affecting the "mistake" appears to result from S&P not 
incorporating the CBO and Congressional decision to assume that $1.6 trillion in war funding costs simply disappear from 
the budget outlook (e.g., the Revised July 2011 Baseline against which the BCA was scored). This reduction in war 
funding is neither legislated nor binding, and as such, renders the Administration's claim somewhat disingenuous. S&P has 
now incorporated the discretionary spending cap specifics, and the Congressional definition of the baseline case. 
Interestingly, S&P's revised estimate that the Budget Control Act results in a debt/GDP ratio of 85% in 2021 is exactly 
where we scored the bill last week [1]: 
US long-term debt scenarios 
Net debt to GDP, percent 
105 
100 
95 
90 
85 
80 
75 
• Italy 
• France 
UK 
All tax cuts extended; AMT indexed to inflation; no 
ase/
Medicare reimbursement cuts 
S&P miscalculates discretionary spending caps, and 
does not fully reflect $1.6 trillion In reduced war 
funding costs assumed by Congress and the CBO 
c
o 
Pit  “‘St‘si 
S&P revises discretionary spending caps and fully 
S& P "error' 
refelcts warfunding costs in revised CBO baseline
3Oe 2-
S&P, revised 44,...----.Where we scored the BCA Act of 2011 last week, 
JPM: BCA Act of 2011 
assuming mandatory cuts kick in (rather than 
CBO June 2011 Baseline 
recommendations from deficit reduction committee) 
••• tan ._ 
All tax rates return to 2001 levels; AMT no longer 
70• 
........... 
indexed to inflation; Medicare reimbursement cuts to 
.. 
65 
 
C BO Adjusted Baseline Jul
(
y 2011) 
 
Doctors proceed as planned; no troop reductions 
2010 
Source. CBO, IMF,
. MorganAsset Management 
2012 
2013 
2015 
2016 
2018 
2019 
2021 
CBO Baseline + $1.6 trillion over 10 years of troop 
reductions (already mostly reflected In Alt. Case) 
We were surprised by the speed of S&P's action, but they do not see a cresting of US federal debt ratio by 2015, or 
by 2021, unlike their projections for countries like Germany, France and the UK. S&P spent a lot of time in their 
press release on the fractious politics of the US, and the difficulties it presents in making tough choices on revenue 
increases and entitlement cuts, which they note are mostly absent from the Budget Control Act. We use these two charts to 
put numbers around a polarized legislature, reflecting a polarized electorate (btw, the Senate hasn't gotten less partisan 
since 2004). 
EFTA01149581

Party polarization at an all time high, 1879-2010 
Degree of panisanshipasmeasuredIhroughandysisol all Congressional rollcalls 
1.0 
0.9 
.:4; 0.8 
E 0.7 
2 0.6 
ig 0.5 
U 
▪ 0.4 
0.3  
1879 1989 1899 1909 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 
Soiree: Keith T. Poole, UniverSty 01Calikalia • San Diego, January 2011. 
Number of party non-conformists in the Senate 1953.2004 
45 
40 
35 
30 - 
25 -
20 
15 
10 • 
5 - 
0 
85 
I aOU 5 
Iaous 
Iglus
I atill s 
I ',US 
89 
93 
97 
101 
Congressionalsessionnumber 
105
Source: TheCreation of en Endangered Species: Party Nonconformists of 
the U.S. Senate, Richard FleisherandJon R. Bond, 2005. 
IMPLICATIONS: we are less concerned about credit and fixed income markets than we are, in the near term, for 
equities (see table below for details). Should the downgrade contribute to continued lackluster job growth [2] or 
consumer spending, that would obviously be a problem for growth at a time when there isn't much of it. By the way: as 
shown below, CBO assumes growth for the US of 3.0% - 3.6% in the next few years, tapering off to 2% by 2021. If GDP 
growth avenged 2% during the entire decade, the projected US debt to GDP ratio would rise over 90% (close to 
original "erroneous" assessment). Another consequence of the CBO spending projections, if they actually come to pass: 
questions about the role of the United States in the world, given what looks to us like the lowest military spending 
levels since the US became a global power pl. That's what prompted Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's objections to 
the deal last week. 
CBO's real GDP growth assumptions 
US military spending since 1940 
PercentYoY 
Percent of GDP 
3.8% 
14% 
- 
3.6% •..............
 _,„,..\ 
3.4% - 
3.2% - 
10% 
3.0% - 
12% 
2.8% • 
8%
2.6% - 
6% 
2.4% • 
2.2% • 
4% 
2.0% 
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20.19 2020 2021 2% 
1948 1955 1962 1969 1976 1983 1990 1997 2004 2011 2018 
Source: C80. 
Source: COO, OMB. J.P. Morgan Private San k. 
The details on fixed income markets of a downgrade, from our July 29 EoTM (Capitol Grill). 
** Most Treasury collateral agreements appear to have leeway to avoid immediate liquidation of the collateral in case of a 
downgrade. Furthermore, for now, Moody's and Fitch still rate the US as AAA. 
** Money market funds that are subject to 2a7 legislation even have the ability to hold defaulted collateral if selling would 
be disruptive and not in the fund's shareholder interest, so a downgrade should not force any specific action 
** There is nothing in ERISA language governing pension fluids that would trigger a sale in case of a downgrade; it would 
be up to individual account guidelines as to whether there was flexibility on collateral rules. 
** In a joint statement last night, several regulatory bodies (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) 
confirmed the riskless nature of Treasuries and government agencies for risk-based capital purposes. 
** We do not see an impact on Treasuries as eligible collateral in repo transactions. Haircuts applied to Treasury collateral 
in repo transactions are typically 2%; the downgrade could increase this by 1% or so, but there is no reason to think this 
will happen automatically. It will depend on the volatility of the Treasury markets in the interim 
** The downgrade may trigger a matching downgrade of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GNMA, municipal bonds backed 
by Treasury bonds, the Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Farm Credit Bank and other government-backed securities. 
** There may be downgrades of highly rated bank subsidiaries and holding companies due to "sovereign ceiling" issues, 
and insurance companies, due to their high concentration of Treasury holdings. Other potential downgrades: states with 
high levels of government dependency. As an example, Moody's had put South Carolina, Tennessee, Maryland, Virginia 
Impact of Budget 
Control Act and 
Congressional 
assumptions 
1\4 
EFTA01149582

and New Mexico on negative outlook due to exposure to Federal employment, procurement contracts and Medicaid 
transfers. 
** Finally, we do not expect material change in demand for Treasuries and quasi-sovereign paper by central banks 
reinvesting their current account or petrodollar surpluses. Well more than half of all AAA securities in the world are US 
Treasuries, Agencies and Agency-backed securities, leaving few and highly fragmented immediate options for central 
banks, insurance companies and other AAA buyers (soon to be AA buyers?). An end to central bank reserve accumulation 
(perhaps out of concern for inflation) appears a bigger risk for Treasuries than central bank reserve diversification. 
Something to be mindful of is that US equity markets are already pricing in a lot of bad news, and a rising 
likelihood of a recession. While earnings would be dragged down by weaker global growth, as things stand now, P/E 
multiples computed based on earnings estimates for 2012 are 10x - I2x based on Friday's closing levels. How low could 
multiples go? As shown in the chart below, current trailing P/E multiples of 13x are low in the context of the last 80 years, 
with two notable exceptions: the stagflationary period of the late 1970's, and the periods of peak debt levels following 
WWII and the Korean War. What makes the latter comparisons relevant is the current wartime level of US public debt. 
Markets may well open up weaker on Monday, when they have the first chance to digest the S&P downgrade news. 
However, selling equities at this point appears to assume the certainty of a US recession, and/or a near-term disintegration 
of the European Monetary Union. Our view is that the financial markets will be more sensitive to ongoing events in 
Europe, and specifically Italy, than S&P's downgrade of the US. On Italy, see below. 
PIE ratios on the S&P 500 
Forward PIE multiple 
16x 
14x 
12x 
10x 
8x 
6x 
Average from Current. based Current, based Stagflationery 
1985-2011 and 
on 2012 
on 2012 analyst RE of the late 
from1926- 
strategist 
estimates 
1970's 
2011(trailing) 
estimates 
Source: Standard & Poor's. UBIEJS, Empirical Research Partners. 
Super low PIE ratios: Wars and stagflation 
Trailing P/E mulitple on the S&P 500 
25x 
23x 
114 
21x 
19x 
17x 
15x 
13x 
11x 
9x 
lx 
KoreanVVer 
5x 
Stagflation 
1926 1934 1942 1950 1958 1966 1974 1982 1990 1958 2006 
Source: Empirical Research Partners. 
Italian  public debt: another unhappy Centennial and the latest Achilles heel of the European Monetary Union 
EU policymakers are being forced to defend the European Monetary Union, as investors reduce exposure to Italian 
sovereign bonds, credit and bank shares. Last week, Italian regulators reportedly seized documents at Moody's regarding 
declines in Italian bank stocks and concerns that Moody's research reports were somehow involved. As mentioned a week 
ago, this is an indication of the pressure the system is under, and the possible search for scapegoats. 
Italy has around the same amount of public debt outstanding as Germany, but is a country whose GDP is 2/3 the size. As 
shown in the chart, Italy's debt levels are stubbornly high, despite having adhered to substantial fiscal discipline for the last 
20 years. Since 1992, Italy has run a budget surplus (ex-interest) in almost every year. But with high debt levels, low 
growth and low productivity, Italy has not been able to make much progress in bringing down its debt. Italy faces its 
highest debt levels in almost 100 years, and practically the highest since Italian unification (1870). 
EFTA01149583

Italy's debt/GDP: highest since unification other than 
wartime, Total gross general governmentdebt GDP. Percent 
160% 
140% -
120% -
100% - 
80% - 
60% • 
40% - 
20% 
1861 
1886 
1911 
1936 
1961 
1986 
2011 
Source. Rein han, Camen M and KennemS. Roan& -From Financial 
Crash to Debt Crisis; NBER Working Paper 15795,March 2010. 
vnv 
The politics of this are getting messier. EU Commission President Barroso berated policymakers last week for 
"undisciplined communication and the complexity and incompleteness of the 21st July package". Could the EFSF be 
expanded from 440 billion Euros to 1.5 to 2.0 trillion Euros, which is what would be required to fund Spain and Italy if 
they can't access debt markets? Probably not in the near term; it could take weeks or months for national parliaments 
simply to approve what they agreed to on July 21. As a result, we expect intense pressure on the ECB to buy Italian 
government bonds. Whether small purchases can convince markets of anything is unclear (small purchases in other 
countries hasn't prevented yields from sky-rocketing). We have had concerns about the sustainability of the European 
Monetary Union since November 2009. Our recommended approach has been to hold substantial underweight positions in 
Europe (ex-Germany) until a path to growth and debt sustainability is clear. 
Limited capacity at the European Liquidity Hospital 
Cost to German taxpayers of major events 
Official sector lendi ng capacity vs sovereign funding needs (inducing 
Percent of GDP, annual 
deficlts)through 2013 - Billions. EUR 
1.800 
4.5% -
1.600 
4.0% -
Liar:nth 
1,400 
S5% -
1.200 
aly 
3.0% 
1,000 
Greece package 
2.5% 
800 
2.0% 
EFSM 
600 
IMF 
Spain 
Spain 
1.5% 
400 
1.0% 
200 
0 
EFSF 
0.5% 
Total lending 
Greece. 
Plus Spain 
Plus Italy and 
0.0% 
capacity 
Portugal, Ireland 
Belgium 
Peak Versailles 
Unification (since 
Potential cost of EMU 
1
reparations(1929) 
1991) 
transfer union 
I 
Possible sovereign borrowing needs from officialsources 
Source: AllianoaBernstein, Public Flings. 
Source: Carl-Ludwig Floltfrerich, Hall e Insfitlifor Economic Research, 
Zentnim fur Euro paische Politic (Freiburg), 
. Mo rgan Private Bank. 
Watching European and US governments grapple with their respective sovereign debt problems is like watching 
that 1940's video of the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. A small gust of wind sets in motion a series of events 
that builds in intensity until a moment of reckoning. The difference here is that, particularly in the US, the tools to stop the 
gyrations do exist; they just require substantial collective sacrifice to do it. Sacrifices include enormous downward wage 
adjustments in peripheral Europe to restore competitiveness (given the absence of an exchange rate adjustment); and 
restructuring of public sector finances that in the US, threaten to rob future generations of the benefits enjoyed by current 
entitlement recipients. The US Federal Reserve and European authorities won't go down without a fight, and we expect 
additional measures to try and mitigate the effect of these adjustments. However, there's not much they can do to prevent 
them from happening, and I'm not sure adjustments needed in southern Europe (like Italy's zero-deficit plan) are feasible 
without perpetual transfers from Germany, perhaps via jointly and severally guaranteed Eurobonds [4]. We have 
documented these adjustments extensively over the last couple of years; understanding the need for them has 
moderated our risk-taking at a time of almost unparalleled strength in corporate profits. With each passing day, the 
price for those profits get cheaper. 
Michael Cembalest 
Chief Investment Officer 
CBO = Congressional Budget Office; EFSF = European Financial Stability Facility 
Notes 
EFTA01149584

[I] We made the right adjustments for the discretionary spending caps, and accepted (reluctantly) the Congressional 
definition assumption on reduced war costs. Cap is the wrong word: discretionary spending is projected to decrease and 
then grow at a slower rate than previously assumed (around 1.8% per year over the next decade). 
[2] Last Friday, private sector payroll growth exceeded expectations, but the labor participation rate, the employment to 
population ratio and the average length of unemployment worsened yet again, some to low points for the cycle. 
[3] Our estimate of future military spending as a percentage of GDP assumes the $1.2 trillion of mandatory cuts (rather 
than the $1.5 trillion from the Deficit Reduction Committee); the split between defense and non-defense spending is 
specified in the Budget Control Act. 
[4] According to a Der Speigel article today, some German officials are quoted saying that: the German government isn't 
even sure tripling the EFSF fund would help; that the EFSF should be used primarily for smaller countries; that trying to 
save Italy could jeopardize German finances; and that Italy needs to rely on its own structural reforms to sustain access to 
public debt markets. 
The material contained herein is intended as a general market commentary. Opinions expressed herein are those of Michael Cembalest and may differ from those of 
other J.P. Morgan employees and affiliates. This information in no way constitutes J.P. Morgan research and. hould not be treated as such. Further, the views expressed 
herein may differ from that contained in J.P. Morgan research reports. The above summary/prices/quotes/statistics have been obtained from sources deemed to be 
reliable, but we do not guarantee their accuracy or completeness, any yield referenced is indicative and subject to change. Past performance is not a guarantee of future 
results. References to the performance or character of our portfolios generally refer to our Balanced Model Portfolios constructed by J.P Morgan. h is a proxy for 
client performance and may not represent actual transactions or investments in client accounts. The model portfolio can be implemented across brokerage or managed 
accounts depending on the unique objectives of each client and is. erviced through distinct legal entities licensed for. pecific activities. Bank. trust and investment 
management services are provided by JP. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and its affiliates. Securities are offered through J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (JPAIS), Member 
NYSE, FINRA and SIPC. Securities products purchased or sold through JPMS are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"; are not deposits 
or other obligations of its bank or thrift affiliates and are not guaranteed by its bank or thrill affiliates: and are. ubject to investment risks, including passible loss of the 
principal invested. Not all investment ideas referenced are. uitable for all investors. Speak with your J.P Morgan Representative concerning your personal situation. 
This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of anyfinancial instrument. Private Investments may engage in leveraging and other 
speculative practices that may increase the risk of investment loss, can be highly illiquid, are not required to provide periodic pricing or valuations to investors and may 
involve complex tax structures and delays in distributing important tax information. 73pically such investment ideas can only be offered to suitable investors through a 
confidential offering memorandum which fully describes all terms, conditions, and risks. 
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates do not provide tax advice. Accordingly any discussion of U.S. tax matters contained herein 
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used. and cannot be used, in connection with the promotion. marketing or recommendation by anyone 
unaffiliated with JPMorgan Chase & Co. of any of the matters addressed herein or for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tar-related penalties. Note that J.P. Morgan is not a 
licensed insurance 
This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and conditions including on offers for the 
purchase or sale of securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses, confidentiality, legal privilege, 
and legal entity disclaimers, available at http://wwwjpmorgan.corn/pages/disclosures/email. 
EFTA01149585