David A.

Rosenberg August 20, 2010

Chief Economist & Strategist Economic Commentary
drosenberg@gluskinsheff.com
+ 1 416 681 8919

MARKET MUSINGS & DATA DECIPHERING

Breakfast with Dave

WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING
IN THIS ISSUE
It literally is a sea of red this morning as far as global equity market performance
is concerned. Dell’s impressive results have been blunted by the dismal • While you were sleeping: a
sea of red this morning as
incoming U.S. economic news (though the company did cite weakening demand
far as global equity market
for PC’s — not what you want to hear heading into back-to-school season performance is concerned;
because you already know that apparel sales are completely dormant with a lot government bond markets
of inventory sitting on the shelves). In Europe, all 19 sub-sectors are down so retain a solid bid; U.S.
far today and there are five decliners for every advancer on the Stoxx 600 index. dollar is firming
Emerging markets closed 0.5% lower in the first decline in six days — the • 500k and counting: U.S.
Shanghai index reversing 1.7%. initial jobless claims
continue to rise and are
Government bond markets retain a solid bid — 30-year yields in Germany are now at 500k
down 5bps to a record-low of 2.91%. So, you are not going convince us that with • Don’t bet on this Philly: The
comparable core inflation rates and a much higher unemployment rate in the Philly Fed index swung from
U.S.A. (9.5% versus 7.0%) that the long Treasury is not going to follow suit — that 5.1 in July to -7.7 in August,
is where the greatest total return potential lies across the curve. The Treasury and the components were
market, in the meantime, is enjoying its most intense rally in six months — up in horrible too
price now for four weeks running. • U.S. leading indicators
rolling over
Long bond yields are down to 1.57% in Japan, 2.87% in Denmark, 3.01% in the
• U.S. recession never
Netherlands, and 3.22% in France. And, in a sign that market participants are ended; GDP to contact in
lowering their inflation expectations, the spread between 30-year and 10-year Q3
yields has compressed this week, to just over 200bps (tightest in 18 months but
• The bear market in U.S.
still double the historical norm). The 2-year note yield, hit a new all-time low at a
housing starts is still far
Japanese-like level of 0.46%. Why so many pro-growth bullish commentators from over
don’t choose to find religion and accept the good work the bond market is doing
for the economy — like taking mortgage rates down to new record lows of 4.42% • Canada cooling off:
Canada’s index of leading
for the 30-year fixed-rate — remains a mystery.
economic indicators came
in weaker than expected
In the foreign exchange market, the DXY is firming as it tests both the 50- and and wholesale sales
200-day moving averages to the upside and the yen has strengthened to a outright contracted
seven-week high against the euro in another classic case of heightened risk
aversion (and taking the stock prices of many Japanese large-cap exporters
down sharply today. The Nikkei index closed down 2%, to 9,179, where it was
back on August 22, 1983). Gold, another safe haven, is sitting pretty as it
consolidates around seven-week highs as well.

Please see important disclosures at the end of this document.

Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. is one of Canada’s pre-eminent wealth management firms. Founded in 1984 and focused primarily on high net
worth private clients, we are dedicated to meeting the needs of our clients by delivering strong, risk-adjusted returns together with the highest
level of personalized client service. For more information or to subscribe to Gluskin Sheff economic reports, visit www.gluskinsheff.com
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

Meanwhile, the commodity-based currencies are taking it on the chin and the In today’s action,
CAD endured a faltering session yesterday on the back of some dismal commodity-based currencies
wholesale trade realities — renewed recession pressures stateside are finding are taking it on the chin
their way north of the border at a time when the domestic housing market is
clearly rolling over. Why Mark Carney would continue to raise rates in this
environment is anyone’s guess but the consensus seems to think there’s at
least one more interest rate bullet in his chamber — even with today’s inflation
news that the year-over-year trend in core CPI dipped to 1.6% in July from 1.7%.

Corporate bond risks have staged a reversal and are now rising, as per the
modest deterioration in the CDX market. The resource complex is trading
completely on the defensive right now, with particular weakness in the base
metals group (nickel off 1.5%). And crude oil has traded down to six-week lows
on mounting global growth concerns. The front page news in today’s NYT on the
success the White House is having in convincing Israel to forgo, or at least delay,
the pre-emptive actions strike as it relates to Iran could trim some of the
geopolitical premium off the resource complex, oil in particular (see Israel
Assuaged on Iran Threat, U.S. Officials Say).

Yesterday’s action was impressive if you were short the market. The S&P was
clocked for a 1.7% loss and volume rose along with the selling pressure. St. Louis Yesterday’s action in the
Fed President Bullard reiterated his support for expanded QE if the economy U.S. was impressive if you
faltered, though he was quick to say that “continued expansion is the most likely were short the market
course going forward.” Someone forgot to tell him that real GDP, both real and
nominal, have contracted now for two months in a row (see more below).

If the backup in jobless claims to 500k wasn’t bad enough, the negative reading
on the Philly Fed for the first time in a year shook the markets badly (only two of
58 forecasters believed the manufacturing index would deteriorate). And, just
how strong can the economy possibly be when California is back paying out
IOU’s (see page 3 of the FT). The S&P 500 is now back to its lowest level in a
month and off 12% from the nearby April highs. In Europe, one has to really
wonder, bravado from the EU notwithstanding, how the periphery really is doing
when four-year bond yields in Greece are still in the stratosphere, at 11.9%, and
Portugal-German 10-year spreads back above 280 basis points.

As for politics, you know things are getting desperate when we see on In politics, you know things
Bloomberg News stories that the Democrats are blaming the Bush are getting desperate when
administration for today’s economic woes (hey, it worked for FDR — he blamed we start seeing stories that
Hoover over and over … and it worked), and when you see headlines like this in
the DEM are blaming the
Bush administration for
the New York Times (Once Banished from Campaign Trail, Clinton is Now a Top
today’s economic woes
Salesman — page 16). Who recalls back in the primaries in early 2008 when
Mr. Obama said “This has become a habit and one of the things that we’re going
to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he’s making statements
that are not factually accurate.” Question — does this also apply when the
former President starts to voice his support? One must read today, by the way,
is Why Pundit Predicts a GOP Romp in November on page A2 of the WSJ.

Page 2 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

In yesterday’s “Two Jeremies” diatribe, I could have included other ‘deflationistas’

to the bridge club, notably Harry S. Dent and our friend Stephanie Pomboy at There is little doubt that the
MacroMavens. We may get three tables going yet. And of course, Paul Krugman trend in claims is firmly up
too, and whether you agree with him or not, he is generally a great read and so it is and that overall labour
the case today with his Appeasing the Bond Gods on page A19 of the NYT. The market conditions are
best shot was this one: deteriorating

“The latest fashion is to declare that there’s a bubble in the bond market:
investors aren’t really concerned about economic weakness; they’re just getting
carried away. It’s hard to convey the sheer audacity of this argument.” Paul, we
tried our best yesterday. Mr. Krugman is spot on that in contrast to some
bubble euphoria in the Treasury market, bond investors are actually “worried
about stagnation and deflation.”

FIVE HUNDRED AND COUNTING

Initial jobless claims did it again — rising above consensus views and again off
upwardly revised figures. There is little doubt that the trend in claims is firmly up
and that overall labour market conditions are deteriorating. Keep in mind that
the August 14th week represented the nonfarm payroll survey week, and an
outright decline in private payrolls cannot be ruled out (we shall await ADP which
comes out on September 1).

So what happened with the data? Well, claims rose to 500k from 488k (was
484k) and are up now for three weeks in a row and in four of the past five
weeks. The last time they were this high was during the week of November 14,
2009. The four-week moving average has also trended higher — 482,500 from
474,500 the prior week and 454,750 a month ago. They were last at this level
on December 5th of last year.

CHART 1: “DOUBLE DIP” OR “SINGLE-SCOOP”

United States: Initial Jobless Claims
(thousands)
675

600

525

450

375

300

225
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Shaded region represent periods of U.S. recession

Source: Haver Analytics, Gluskin Sheff

Page 3 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

Continuing claims did manage to drop 13k in the week of August 7, to 4.478 The Philly Fed index was the
million, but this is misleading given the throngs who have moved onto the array final nail in the coffin on the
of federal “emergency” extended benefits; the aggregate backlog of claims tally ‘double dip’
soared 192k to 9.925 million. This is an unmitigated disaster.

Let’s just say that in the past, there were eight times when claims were on a rising
trajectory and broke above the 500k mark. On six of those occasions, the
economy was already in recession (though the consensus rarely sees this even as
it is unfolding) or heading into one. The two periods that the economy emerged
unscathed were in 1977 and 1992 and both times, it was seasonal adjustment
quirks that were the culprit, along with strike action in Atlanta in the former
episode. Both times were one-off weekly spasms (some will undoubtedly say that
federal government worker claims have skewed this latest move to 500k but let’s
be honest — all the bulls were saying that these Census workers were going to get
redeployed in the private jobs market very quickly. This clearly is not the case).

Claims are on a clear rising trend but we respect the view that you should never
rely too heavily on one data-point — even a nice round number like 500k. Let’s
just say that if we see the four-week moving average hit this level, a “double dip”
— assuming we aren’t still in a “single-scoop” that began in December 2007 —
will be baked in the ice cream cake. Fait accompli.

DON’T BET ON THIS PHILLY

The Philly Fed index was the final nail in the coffin on the ‘double dip’. It may
not even be a ‘double dip’ because it is not a stretch to believe that the
recession that began in December 2007 was only briefly interrupted by a
truncated inventory cycle and the impact — now largely gone — of
unprecedented monetary, fiscal and bailout stimulus. What we are now seeing
unfold is the primary trendline in the U.S. (and Canada, by the way) economy
when left to its own devices — though no doubt the Fed will soon react by yet
again dramatically expanding its already pregnant balance sheet.

CHART 2: DON’T BET ON THIS PHILLY

United States: Philadelphia Fed Business Outlook Survey
(diffusion index)
60

40

20

-20

-40

-60
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Shaded region represent periods of U.S. recession

Source: Haver Analytics, Gluskin Sheff

Page 4 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

The Philly Fed came in at -7.7 for August — the consensus was looking for +7.0; The combination of Philly
the July reading was +5.1, the June reading was +8.0; and the May reading was Fed and New York Empire
+21.4. That is what would otherwise be called a freefall. points to a 53.0 reading on
ISM from 55.5 in July
This is the first negative reading since July 2009. A 29 point slide in three
months is rare and every recession was followed by such a steep descent,
though in fairness, there have been ‘head fakes’ along the way. But half the
time in the past, such a steep slide over a three-month span presaged recession
just about half the time. So at best, this is a flip of a coin and yet most Wall
Street economists are still somewhere locked between zero and 35% odds of
the economy turning down again (it looks to be contracting this quarter!).

The components were simply horrible too — orders down to -7.1 from -4.3, the
first back-to-back negative prints in 13 months; backlogs at -7.1 too. In a clear
sign that inventories are no longer being accumulated, this component came in
at -11.6, the first minus sign since March and most negative number in nine
months. The employment components were scary they were so bad — the
workweek index swung from +1.7 in July to -17.1 in August (worst since June
2009) and the jobs index went from +4.0 to -2.7, a 10-month low.

The bond bulls should have feasted on the inflation components: prices-received
(charged) was negative for the third month running, at -12.5 in August. This is
the weakest since August 2009 — in the past five decades, the Philly Fed prices-
received index been this negative less than 5% of the time.

Prices-paid also slipped but only to +11.8 from +13.1 and the fact that this proxy
for input prices is still positive at a time when prices charged for the output is so Yes, the LEI magically came
deeply negative, strongly suggests that profit margins are rolling off their peak. in at 0.1% MoM in July, but it
is being boosted by yield
The combination of Philly Fed and New York Empire points to a 53.0 reading on curve; outside of that, the
ISM (data out on September 1st) from 55.5 in July. That would be the lowest in LEI actually fell 0.2%
11 months and ratify the view that the peak was turned in at 60.4 in April.

LEADING INDICATORS ROLLING OVER

The Conference Board’s index of leading economic indicators magically came in
at +0.1% MoM, as expected, in July but the diffusion index was low at 55% and
has not been better than this since March when it was 70%. The treatment of
the shape of the yield curve seems to skew the number by 0.3 to 0.4 of a
percent point each and every month, so outside of that the LEI actually fell 0.2%
and is down now in two of the past three months. In fact, the LEI is barely up
from the Mach 2009 low without the contributions from the yield curve and the
stock market, which together accounted for about two-thirds of the rebound.

Page 5 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

Moreover, the coincident-to-lagging ratio, which our friend Dennis Gartman has
often cited as a fairly reliable leading indicator of the leading indicator itself (!)
slipped to 94.0 from 94.1 in June and 94.3 in May. It really says something
about the lack of impetus in the economic landscape that this ratio would have
peaked at a level that it almost bottomed out at in the recession of the early
1990s. At no time in the past 40 years has the peak been as low as 94.3, and
think of all the hard lifting monetary and fiscal policy had to do just to get there.

CHART 3: COINCIDENT-TO-LAGGING RATIO SLIPPING

United States: Ratio of Coincident Composite Index to Lagging
(2004 = 100)
104

100

96

92

88

84

80
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Shaded region represent periods of U.S. recession

Source :The Conference Board, Gluskin Sheff

Below is the chart of the YoY trend in the leading indicator. This puts the data
into current context — it peaked at 11.6% in March and the growth has since
been pared to 7.1%.

CHART 4: GROWTH RATE IN THE LEI SLOWING DOWN … QUICKLY

United States: Index of Leading Economic Indicators
(year-over-year percent change)
12

-4

-8
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Shaded region represent periods of U.S. recession

Source The Conference Board, Gluskin Sheff

Page 6 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

The chart below plots the YoY trend in the LEI with a six-month lead against
industrial production. It has a decent 81% correlation and is pointing to a
discernible slowing ahead.

CHART 5: DISCERNIBLE SLOWING IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AHEAD

United States
(year-over-year percent change)
Index of Leading Economic Indicators
(six-month lead, thick line, left hand side scale)
Industrial Production
(thin line, right hand side scale)

22.5 15
r = 0.81

10
15.0

5
7.5

0
0.0
-5

-7.5
-10

-15.0 -15
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Shaded region represent periods of U.S. recession

Source: Federal Reserve Board, The Conference Board, Gluskin Sheff

U.S. RECESSION NEVER ENDED; GDP TO CONTRACT IN Q3

Our suspicions have been confirmed — the recession never ended.
Macroeconomic Advisers produces a monthly U.S. real GDP series and it shows
that the peak was in April, as we expected, with both May and June down 0.4%
in the worst back-to-back performance since the economy was crying Uncle!
back in the depths of despair in September-October 2008. The quarterly data
show that Q2 stands at a +1.1% annual rate (so look for a steep downward
revision for last quarter) and the “build in” for Q3 is -1.5% at an annual rate.
Depending on the data flow through the July-September period, it looks like we
could see a -0.5% to -1% annualized pace for the current quarter. Most
economists have cut their forecasts but are still in a +2.5% to +3.5% range.
What is truly amazing is that despite all the fiscal, monetary, and bailout
stimulus, the level of real economy activity, as per the M.A. monthly data, is still
2.5% below the prior peak. To put this fact into context, the entire peak to
trough contraction in the 2001 recession was 1.3%! That is incredible.

Interestingly, and dovetailing nicely with our deflation theme, nominal GDP fell
0.3% in May and by 0.4% in June. This is a key reason why Treasury yields are
melting.

Page 7 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

CHART 6: NO WONDER THE NBER NEVER SOUNDED THE ALL-CLEAR

United States: Macroeconomic Advisers’ Monthly Real GDP Index
(seasonally adjusted at an annual rate, 2005 $billion)

13400

13200

13000

12800

12600

12400

12200
05 06 07 08 09 10

Source: Macroeconomic Advisers, Gluskin Sheff

THE BEAR MARKET IN HOUSING STARTS IS STILL FAR FROM OVER

We got the housing numbers for the U.S. earlier this week and we saw single-
family starts crater for the third month in a row — by 4.2% in August to a
432,000 unit annual rate. Only six other times in the past 50 years have starts
been this low.

CHART 7: BEAR MARKET IN HOUSING STILL FAR FROM OVER

United States: Housing Starts: Single Family Units
(thousand units, seasonally adjusted at an annual rate)

2000

1600

1200

800

400

0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Source: Census Bureau, Gluskin Sheff

For the real GDP count, this is obviously awful news for the current quarter, and
it seems like this, alongside a variety of other influences (weaker growth in
consumer spending, state and local government cutbacks, a more moderate
profile to the double-digit trend in capital spending, the end of the mini-inventory
cycle), will lead to a modest economic contraction this quarter, which will still
come as a surprise to a consensus still expecting near-2% growth.

Page 8 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

But the cutback in production by the builders is necessary to ultimately restore

balance to the housing market. It is clear that there is no pent-up demand with
mortgage rates diving to new lows and no response coming in terms of new
applications for home purchase (down 38% over the past year), customer traffic
in the showrooms (tied now for the third lowest level in history) or homebuying
intentions surveys (second lowest level in the past three decades, as per the
most recent Conference Board survey).

CHART 8: NEW APPLICATIONS FOR HOME PURCHASE DOWN 38% YoY

United States: Mortgage Loan Applications for Purchase
(March 16, 1990 = 100)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
95 00 05 10

Source: Mortgage Bankers Association, Gluskin Sheff

CHART 9: BUYER TRAFFIC VERY WEAK

United States: Traffic of Prospective Buyers of New Homes
(All Good = 100)
80

60

40

20

0
85 90 95 00 05 10

Source: National Association of Home Builders, Gluskin Sheff

Page 9 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

CHART 10: VERY FEW ARE EXPECTING TO BUY A HOME

United States: Conference Board Consumer Confidence Survey:
Plans to Buy a Home Within Six Months
(percent)

6.00

5.25

4.50

3.75

3.00

2.25

1.50
80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Source: The Conference Board, Gluskin Sheff

With the homeownership rate still at 67%, versus the pre-bubble norm of 64%,
and with lending requirements more stringent, which means the ‘new normal’
includes a downpayment (how novel is that?), you can forget there being a
revival in demand coming any time soon. The demand will be coming for my old
room at ma and pa’s, the basement guest room at the in-laws or space in the
rental sector (think of the math — mean-reverting this series will imply a shift of
four million people to the apartment sector in coming years — these are the
REITs you probably want to be involved with because we can actually see
demand for apartments doing well in this environment).

CHART 11: HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE STILL ABOVE THE PRE-BUBBLE NORM

United States: Homeownership Rate
(percent)
70

68

66

64

62
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Source: Census Bureau, Gluskin Sheff

Page 10 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

But lingering supply concerns and the resultant dampening impact on home
prices will keep buyers at bay, and turnover will be limited by the fact that 25% In the U.S., lingering supply
of the mortgage population are upside down and as such are immobile (unless concerns in housing and the
they can cut the lender a big check and move away). This statistic does not get resultant dampening impact
much play, but the Zillow national home price composite fell 0.2% in June and is on home prices will keep
down now for 49 consecutive months. buyers at bay

The critical question is: have the builders done enough cutting? In other words,
have we seen the lows in housing starts and can we begin the process of
building a base for future production?

Hell no.

First, as we mentioned, there is no pent-up demand. At the margin, housing is

simply no longer viewed as a viable investment. Second, the demographics are
awful. Household formation is barely running at over a 600,000 annual rate,
which translates into 430,000 for ‘natural’ demand for single-family homes and
condos. At the bubble peak, net household formation for new homes was running
well in excess of a million unit annual rate — what a shame that the builders had to
cannibalize their own business and right through 2004, 2005, and 2006 were
building at a pace that was more than 50% above the prevailing rate of household
creation. We continue to pay for that irrational exuberance to this day.

It would be nice to have immigration solve our demographic problems but new Visa applications to the U.S.
visa applications to the U.S. are actually declining on a year-over-year basis. are actually declining on a
Who wants to come to a country where there is already a five million pool of YoY basis; who wants to
unemployed people competing for every meager job opening? Even Germany come to a country where
has a 7% unemployment rate, 2½% percentage points below America’s. there is already a 5mln pool
of unemployed people
Third, we have this other dilemma, which is supply. The homeowner vacancy anyway?
rate is off its all-time highs but only by a fraction and sits at 2.5%, the pre-bubble
norm was closer to 1.5%, so this means that there is well in excess of a million
units that are in excess inventory. So, with natural demand at an estimated
430,000 units, single-family starts would have to decline further, to around a
330,000 unit annual rate and stay there for a good year, (or correct to 380,000
for two years) for the excess stockpile to disappear and thereby establish a floor
under residential real estate prices. In other words, there is still the chance that
we would have to see single-family starts undergo another 12-24% cutback
before the pain begins to yield a longer-term gain. In the interim, avoid the
homebuilders and any investment correlated with them.

Page 11 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

CHART 12: VACANCY RATE STILL VERY HIGH

United States: Homeowner Vacancy Rate
(percent)

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10

Source: Census Bureau, Gluskin Sheff

Keep in mind one other thing. These are very conservative estimates. Look at the
last chart of vacant homeownership units that are being held off the market for
unspecified reasons — a proxy for the oft-cited “shadow” banking inventory (a
measure of the foreclosure pipeline). At 3.7 million units, this backlog is around
1.3 million higher than the pre-bubble normal levels. So make no mistake, barring
a dramatic reversal in household formation and/or the homeownership rate, the
bottom in starts could well end up being closer to 200,000 units, which would be
another 50% downside from here, which would be a replica of what we saw unfold
in the year to 2009 Q1. Over that period, the S&P 500 homebuilding group
tumbled 40% and the home furnishings sub-sector was off 20% (just a reminder).

CHART 13: “SHADOW” HOUSING INVENTORY AT 3.7 MILLION UNITS

United States: Vacant Year-Round Housing Units
Held Off the Market For Other Reasons
(thousands)

4000

3600

3200

2800

2400

2000
95 00 05 10

Source: The Conference Board, Gluskin Sheff

Page 12 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

CANADA: COOLING OFF

We received two more pieces of Canadian data that were on the soft side. The
July leading indicators came in at 0.4% MoM missing the +0.7% expected by
economists and June wholesale sales contracted.

The LEI number is smoothed over five months and we prefer to focus on the
unsmoothed index as it’s more of a real-time indicator. On this basis, the LEI
rose just 0.2%, although this was the first increase after two months of sharp
declines. Even still, the YoY rate continues to roll over, slowing to 10.5% from
10.6% in June and nearly 5ppt below the April high of 15%. Clearly strong
growth is behind us.

We got another piece of the GDP puzzle, with June wholesale sales, which came
in at a disappointing -0.3% and fell 0.1% once adjusted for price effects (the
second decline in a row). The June GDP picture is a mixed one – we had strong
manufacturing data and auto sales were robust as well. All in, we expect June
GDP to rise at 0.2% MoM, leaving the quarter at 2.5% QoQ, about 50 bps shy of
the Bank’s forecast.

Page 13 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE

Gluskin Sheff at a Glance

Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. is one of Canada’s pre-eminent wealth management firms.
Founded in 1984 and focused primarily on high net worth private clients, we are dedicated to the
prudent stewardship of our clients’ wealth through the delivery of strong, risk-adjusted
investment returns together with the highest level of personalized client service.

OVERVIEW INVESTMENT STRATEGY & TEAM

As of June 30, 2010, the Firm managed
assets of $5.5 billion.
1
Gluskin Sheff became a publicly traded
corporation on the Toronto Stock
Exchange (symbol: GS) in May 2006 and
remains 54% owned by its senior
management and employees. We have
public company accountability and
governance with a private company
commitment to innovation and service.
Our investment interests are directly
aligned with those of our clients, as
Gluskin Sheff’s management and
employees are collectively the largest
client of the Firm’s investment portfolios. shareholder-minded management and a
We offer a diverse platform of investment
strategies (Canadian and U.S. equities,
Alternative and Fixed Income) and
investment styles (Value, Growth and
2 31, 2010 versus $5.7
Income).
The minimum investment required to
establish a client relationship with the
Firm is $3 million for Canadian investors
and $5 million for U.S. & International
investors.
PERFORMANCE
$1 million invested in our Canadian Value which we have the highest conviction.
Portfolio in 1991 (its inception date)
would have grown to $11.7 million on
2
We have strong and stable portfolio
management, research and client service
teams. Aside from recent additions, our Our investment
Portfolio Managers have been with the interests are directly
Firm for a minimum of ten years and we
aligned with those of
have attracted “best in class” talent at all
our clients, as Gluskin
levels. Our performance results are those
Sheff’s management and
of the team in place.
employees are
We have a strong history of insightful collectively the largest
bottom-up security selection based on client of the Firm’s
fundamental analysis.
investment portfolios.
For long equities, we look for companies
with a history of long-term growth and
stability, a proven track record,
$1 million invested in our
Canadian Value Portfolio
share price below our estimate of intrinsic
in 1991 (its inception
value. We look for the opposite in
date) would have grown to
equities that we sell short.
$11.7 million2 on March
For corporate bonds, we look for issuers
with a margin of safety for the payment
million for the S&P/TSX
of interest and principal, and yields which
Total Return Index over
are attractive relative to the assessed
the same period.
credit risks involved.
We assemble concentrated portfolios —
our top ten holdings typically represent
between 25% to 45% of a portfolio. In this
way, clients benefit from the ideas in
Our success has often been linked to our

long history of investing in under-followed

March 31, 2010 versus $5.7 million for the
and under-appreciated small and mid cap
S&P/TSX Total Return Index over the
companies both in Canada and the U.S.
same period.
$1 million usd invested in our U.S. PORTFOLIO CONSTRUCTION
Equity Portfolio in 1986 (its inception In terms of asset mix and portfolio For further information,
date) would have grown to $8.7 million construction, we offer a unique marriage please contact
usd on March 31, 2010 versus $6.9
3
between our bottom-up security-specific questions@gluskinsheff.com
million usd for the S&P 500 Total fundamental analysis and our top-down
Return Index over the same period.
macroeconomic view.
Notes:
Unless otherwise noted, all values are in Canadian dollars.
1. Preliminary unaudited estimate.
2. Not all investment strategies are available to non-Canadian investors. Please contact Gluskin Sheff for information specific to your situation.
3. Returns are based on the composite of segregated Value and U.S. Equity portfolios, as applicable, and are presented net of fees and expenses.
Page 14 of 15
August 20, 2010 – BREAKFAST WITH DAVE
IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES
Copyright 2010 Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. (“Gluskin Sheff”). All rights
reserved. This report is prepared for the use of Gluskin Sheff clients and
subscribers to this report and may not be redistributed, retransmitted or
disclosed, in whole or in part, or in any form or manner, without the express
written consent of Gluskin Sheff. Gluskin Sheff reports are distributed
simultaneously to internal and client websites and other portals by Gluskin
Sheff and are not publicly available materials. Any unauthorized use or
disclosure is prohibited.
Gluskin Sheff may own, buy, or sell, on behalf of its clients, securities of
issuers that may be discussed in or impacted by this report. As a result,
readers should be aware that Gluskin Sheff may have a conflict of interest
that could affect the objectivity of this report. This report should not be
regarded by recipients as a substitute for the exercise of their own judgment
and readers are encouraged to seek independent, third-party research on
any companies covered in or impacted by this report.
Individuals identified as economists do not function as research analysts
under U.S. law and reports prepared by them are not research reports under
applicable U.S. rules and regulations. Macroeconomic analysis is
considered investment research for purposes of distribution in the U.K.
under the rules of the Financial Services Authority.
Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes an offer or an
invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other financial
instrument or any derivative related to such securities or instruments (e.g.,
options, futures, warrants, and contracts for differences). This report is not
intended to provide personal investment advice and it does not take into
account the specific investment objectives, financial situation and the
particular needs of any specific person. Investors should seek financial
advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in financial instruments
and implementing investment strategies discussed or recommended in this
report and should understand that statements regarding future prospects
may not be realized. Any decision to purchase or subscribe for securities in
any offering must be based solely on existing public information on such
security or the information in the prospectus or other offering document
issued in connection with such offering, and not on this report.
Securities and other financial instruments discussed in this report, or
recommended by Gluskin Sheff, are not insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and are not deposits or other obligations of any
insured depository institution. Investments in general and, derivatives, in
particular, involve numerous risks, including, among others, market risk,
counterparty default risk and liquidity risk. No security, financial instrument
or derivative is suitable for all investors. In some cases, securities and
other financial instruments may be difficult to value or sell and reliable
information about the value or risks related to the security or financial
instrument may be difficult to obtain. Investors should note that income
from such securities and other financial instruments, if any, may fluctuate
and that price or value of such securities and instruments may rise or fall
and, in some cases, investors may lose their entire principal investment.
Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance. Levels
and basis for taxation may change.
Foreign currency rates of exchange may adversely affect the value, price or
income of any security or financial instrument mentioned in this report.
Investors in such securities and instruments effectively assume currency
risk.
Materials prepared by Gluskin Sheff research personnel are based on public
information. Facts and views presented in this material have not been
reviewed by, and may not reflect information known to, professionals in
other business areas of Gluskin Sheff. To the extent this report discusses
any legal proceeding or issues, it has not been prepared as nor is it
intended to express any legal conclusion, opinion or advice. Investors
should consult their own legal advisers as to issues of law relating to the
subject matter of this report. Gluskin Sheff research personnel’s knowledge
of legal proceedings in which any Gluskin Sheff entity and/or its directors,
officers and employees may be plaintiffs, defendants, co-defendants or co-
plaintiffs with or involving companies mentioned in this report is based on
public information. Facts and views presented in this material that relate to
any such proceedings have not been reviewed by, discussed with, and may
not reflect information known to, professionals in other business areas of
Gluskin Sheff in connection with the legal proceedings or matters relevant
to such proceedings.
Any information relating to the tax status of financial instruments discussed
herein is not intended to provide tax advice or to be used by anyone to
provide tax advice. Investors are urged to seek tax advice based on their
particular circumstances from an independent tax professional.
The information herein (other than disclosure information relating to Gluskin
Sheff and its affiliates) was obtained from various sources and Gluskin
Sheff does not guarantee its accuracy. This report may contain links to
third-party websites. Gluskin Sheff is not responsible for the content of any
third-party website or any linked content contained in a third-party website.
Content contained on such third-party websites is not part of this report and
is not incorporated by reference into this report. The inclusion of a link in
this report does not imply any endorsement by or any affiliation with Gluskin
Sheff.
All opinions, projections and estimates constitute the judgment of the
author as of the date of the report and are subject to change without notice.
Prices also are subject to change without notice. Gluskin Sheff is under no
obligation to update this report and readers should therefore assume that
Gluskin Sheff will not update any fact, circumstance or opinion contained in
this report.
Neither Gluskin Sheff nor any director, officer or employee of Gluskin Sheff
accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential
damages or losses arising from any use of this report or its contents.
Page 15 of 15