Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Economics

  • Credit Crisis Continues

    US banks Citigroup and Merrill Lynch reveal fresh $15bn loss

    In another sign of the intense pressure on leading banks, Deutsche Bank is attempting to offload some of its €35 billion (£28 billion) of toxic debt to a consortium of private-equity firms. Huge exposure to American mortgages is expected to result in Citi taking a $10 billion hit to its accounts, dragging the bank to a first-quarter loss of almost $3 billion. Some analysts believe Citi’s write-downs could stretch to as much as $12 billion.

    Merrill will suffer $5 billion of write-downs, analysts say, which would push the bank $2.7 billion into the red. t is expected to knock a further 20% from the value of its sub-prime holdings, in spite of the fact that it announced $18 billion of write-downs only three months ago. The new rash of Wall Street losses and write-downs come in addition to the billions that have already been recorded.

    The world’s biggest banks have suffered losses and write-downs totalling almost $250 billion since the beginning of 2007, according to analysts. Last week the IMF shocked markets by saying that global losses from the credit crisis could rise to $945 billion.

    The language becomes even more extreme as the losses balloon.

    Related: Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare – Credit Crisis (Aug 2007) – Central Bank Intervention Unprecedented in scale and Scope – Soros Says Credit Crisis Will Worsen Before Improving – Volcker: Spendthrift Americans Bred Credit Crisis

  • Creating a World Without Poverty

    Creating a World Without Poverty by Muhammah Yunus (founder of the Grameen Bank and 2006 Nobel Peace Prize recipient). Giving people the opportunity to advance economically is something I see as very important. It is hard to imagine in the USA when those that are seen as poor have air conditioning, indoor plumbing, cars, TVs, electricity… but billions of people would love to approach such material wealth.

    When you really have to struggle to put food on your plate or get clean water economic concerns are critically important. Economic progress may well decide whether your children live or not. Muhammah Yunus’ new book is a good read to hopefully encourage more people to realize there really are much more important things than your fourth pair or shoes (to say nothing of you 20th pair) or expensive wine or a newer car or…

    Microfinance is a great system where those that have been lucky to receive material wealth can help provide opportunity to others. Loans of $200-$500 can make a huge difference in an entrepreneurs life. Just giving them the chance to use their intellect and hard work to create a life where they can get raise themselves slightly can change their lives, their children’s lives and together with others perhaps their community.

    Trickle Up, Kiva and Grameen Bank are three great ways to help give entrepreneurs a chance to improve their lives. As I have mentioned before if you are a Kiva lender add a comment with your Kiva page and I will add a link to: Curious Cat Kiva Supporters. I will say I am happy with the success of this blog in general, the thing that disappoints me is how few links we have on that page.

    Related: Microfinancing Entrepreneurs – Interview with Mohammad Yunus – Trying to Keep up with the Jones – Providing a Helping Hand via Kiva – Curious Cat Science and Engineering blog posts on appropriate technology

  • What Should You Do With Your Government “Stimulus” Check?

    What Should You Do With a Check Out of the Blue?

    The USA government is sending out checks to taxpayers in an effort to encourage spending which in turn will provide stimulus to the economy in the very short term. First, this is bad policy in my opinion. Second, if you support this policy the precondition is you run surpluses in order to pay for it when you want to carry out such a policy. They have not, instead they have run huge deficits. What they have chosen to do is spend huge amounts and have the taxes paid by the children and grandchildren of those the politicians are spending the money on today. I would support Keynesian government spending in a serious recession or depression – just not for a country already with enormous debts and in a very mild recession.

    But ok, so the government chooses to spend your children’s taxes foolishly, what should you do now? This is very easy. Whatever is the wisest move for your personal financial situation for any windfall you receive, regardless of the source of that windfall. If all your savings needs are met there is nothing wrong with buying some toy. But most people need to pay off debt, build an emergency fund, save for retirement or something similar not get another toy. Of course would be nothing wrong with donating it Kiva, Trickle Up, the Concord Coalition or your favorite charity.

    The politicians are acting like a 5 year old that wants a new toy. I can too get the new toy now :-O, Mommy you can use your credit card. So what if you already bought me so many toys you couldn’t afford by using your other credit cards and they won’t lend you any more money. Just get another one. Similar to how congress recently yet again increased the allowable federal debt limit to over $9,000,000,000,000.

    The stimulus effect of spending is that if you actually purchase a new toy (say a TV), then the store needs to replace that TV so the factory makes another TV… The store, shipper, factory, supplier to the factory all pay staff to carry this out, those staff can buy new books, dishwasher… and the business may buy a new forklift or computer to keep up…
    (more…)

  • $2,540,000,000,000 in USA Consumer Debt

    U.S. Consumer Borrowing Rose $5.2 Billion in February

    Consumer credit increased $5.2 billion for the month to $2.54 trillion, the Fed said today in Washington. In January, credit gained $10.3 billion, more than a previously reported increase of $6.9 billion. The Fed’s report doesn’t cover borrowing secured by real estate, such as home-equity loans.

    $2.54 Trillion seems like a great deal to me. Based on a population of 300 million people that would mean $8,467 for every person in just personal debt. USA GDP = $13 trillion. USA federal debt = $9.4 trillion (based on the USA government accounting – so way understating the true debt). USA federal budget $3 trillion.

    Related: Americans are Drowning in Debt – Too Much Personal Debt (UK, £1.3 trillion in 2006 – even more than the USA) – Incredibly Bad Customer Service from Discover Card

  • Stimulus Options Should be Tested

    I think a country that is more than $500,000 in debt per household should not send out checks to taxpayers to try pretend they are doing something to help the economy. Just as I wouldn’t think some family with $20,000 in credit card debt should fix the problem by taking the family on a new credit card financed vacation. But if you are going to do so, then take Dan Ariely’s advice: Stimulus options should be tested first. His blog post on the topic, Do we know enough to give stimulus packages?

    In the domain of the stimulus packages, these results suggest that the method of delivering them (individual tax relief in the form of tax rebates, money toward retirement saving, gift certificates, pre-paid debit cards, etc.) could have large consequences on its effectiveness.

    The next question, of course, is which delivery method to select. Here behavioral economics has been instructive as well. In particular, years of research have demonstrated over and over that our intuitions about the relative effectiveness of different approaches are often wrong. Given that the method of delivery could make a large difference, and given that our intuitions about their relative effectiveness could be wrong, what should we do?

    One answer is to conduct an experiment, as this is the only method we have for testing what really works and what is likely to fail. In the same way that we force drug companies to test the efficacy of their drugs before rolling them onto the market, shouldn’t we ask the government to first test their ideas before they invest billions of dollars of our tax money on some stimulus packages?

    Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – Charge It to My Kids – Google: Experiment Quickly and Often

  • Not Understanding Capitalism

    The day the dream of global free- market capitalism died

    The implications of this decision are evident: there will have to be far greater regulation of such institutions. The Fed has provided a valuable form of insurance to the investment banks. Indeed, that is already evident from what has happened in the stock market since the rescue: the other big investment banks have enjoyed sizeable jumps in their share prices (see chart below). This is moral hazard made visible. The Fed decided that a money market “strike” against investment banks is the equivalent of a run on deposits in a commercial bank. It concluded that it must, for this reason, open the monetary spigots in favour of such institutions. Greater regulation must be on the way.

    The lobbies of Wall Street will, it is true, resist onerous regulation of capital requirements or liquidity, after this crisis is over. They may succeed. But, intellectually, their position is now untenable.

    The intellectually depravity of such claims were obvious well before. Two problems make that truth less important. First, few actually believe in intellectual rigor any longer. Second, huge payments to politicians from those wishing to receive special favors from the government work (not very surprisingly). So given the lack of intellect and the alternative of just rewarding those that pay you huge sums of money it is no surprise politicians turned against capitalism and instead gave favors to a few that paid them well.

    Maybe the latest huge bailout will change how things are done. I doubt it. New rules will be put in place. Plenty of people will pay politicians plenty of money to assure their methods of subverting the intent of those rules are allowed to continue. To change things you would need to vastly improve the intellectual rigor of decision making. That is unlikely, but if it happens it will be plenty obvious from how debate is carried out.
    (more…)

  • Homeowners Won’t Cut the Price

    It has long been the case that home owners refuse to accept falling prices and choose to demand higher prices than the market demands in a falling market. Therefore when prices should fall (to find buyers) instead the sales decrease as buyers don’t decrease prices to a level buyers are willing to pay. Be It Ever So Illogical: Homeowners Who Won’t Cut the Price

    So the couple, who both have finance jobs in the technology industry, told their real estate agent that they wanted to offer $1.575 million. He told them that the owner wouldn’t even listen to such a low bid. The owner’s attitude was “we’ll just stay here until we sell it for 1.875,” the agent said, “even if it takes years.”

    Three years ago, when the real estate bubble was still inflating, this sort of standoff was the exception. It’s the norm today. Overall home sales have fallen a remarkable 33 percent since the summer of 2005. Home prices, on the other hand, continued to rise until 2006 and are now only 5 to 10 percent below where they were in mid-2005, according to various measures.

  • Bond Yields: 2005-2008

    graph of 10 year bond rates

    From January 2005 to July 2007 the Federal Funds Rate was steadily increased. The rate was held for a year. Since then the rate has been decreasing (dramatically, recently). As you can see from the chart, 10 year bond yields have been much less variable. The chart also shows 10 year corporate bond yields increasing in February when the federal funds rate fell 100 basis points.

    Is the worst over, or just beginning?

    The yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury currently stands at about 3.33%, down from nearly 4% about a month ago.
    …
    If rates continue to fall, they could hit not only a new low for the year – the 10-year briefly touched 3.28% in January – but could come close to falling below the 3.07% level they hit in June 2003, which was a 45-year low at the time.

    Treasury bond yields are down but a huge part of the reason is a “flight to quality,” where investors are reluctant to hold other bonds (so they buy treasuries when they sell those bonds). Therefore other bond yields (and mortgage rates) are not decreasing (the data in the chart is a bit old – the yields may well decrease some for both 10 year bonds once the March data is posted, though I would expect the spread between treasuries be larger than it was in January).

    Data from the federal reserve – corporate Aaa – corporate Baa – ten year treasury – fed funds

    Related: 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates versus the Fed Funds Rate – After Tax Return on Municipal Bonds

  • How Much Worse Can the Mortgage Crisis Get?

    How bad is the mortgage crisis going to get?

    My preferred metric is the ratio of home prices to rental rates. By that measure, average home prices nationally got way too high. We’ll probably basically retrace all that. So that’s about a 25% decline in overall home prices. Only a fraction of that’s happened so far. Of course, it varies a lot. In places like Houston or Atlanta, where home prices have not risen much compared with underlying rents, the decline will be relatively small. In places like Miami or Los Angeles, you could be looking at 40% or 50% declines.

    This interview of Paul Krugman is worth reading. And it does seem to me the magnitude of the mortgage crisis is very large and likely will result in national declines in home prices of over 15% from the peak. Which is a very large decline. And in local markets declines of 35% seem likely.

    Related: Home Price Declines Exceeding 10% Seen for 20% of Housing Markets (Sep 2007) – Home Values and Rental Rates – Real Estate Median Prices Down 1.5% in the Last Year (Aug 2007) – Real Estate articles

  • Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare

    Ok the title is a bit of an misstatement but I am getting so tired of massive government transfers to the rich. Basically here is what has happened. People with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars didn’t want to be subject to pesky regulations just because capitalism requires it. So they paid their politicians to not regulate their investment activities. They paid their lawyers to evade the legal requirements that they couldn’t get their political friends to remove.

    Largely what they did was take huge amounts for taking positions that risk the economy for personal gain. The investments have huge leverage and massive negative externalities to the economy. Any capitalist would know this is exactly what the government is suppose to protect the economy from. Unfortunately our politicians think capitalism is that whoever has the gold, therefore should make the rules. A sad state but not a surprise.

    So then, the negative externalities begin taking effect and the government now seems to think that massive government intervention is a great thing. What a sad state of affairs.

    What should happen now. That is hard to say.

    But certainly with the amount of huge financial bailout the government has engaged in recently certainly they need to plan for this far in advance (it is obvious their preferred method of letting their friends take huge risks with the economy and pay themselves well while the risks work out requires huge bailouts very frequently).

    You could, I suppose, decide everyone should pay to support a few thousand people being allowed take positions that have huge negative externalities (in risks to the economy) and pay themselves millions before those externalities become obvious and then bail them out when it doesn’t but that doesn’t seem like the best strategy to me. Though it is obviously the one we have chosen. This is one very non-partisan issue. They pretty much all support letting those that pay the politicians well, do whatever they want. And then support bailing them out if there are problems.

    What should the government do in economic matters. Not at all hard to say. Politicians shouldn’t auction off the health of the economy to those that pay them the most money. Politicians should not allow companies to subvert the legal and tax system and be rewarded (just because those companies pay the politicians well and fly them to nice vacations…). The government should regulate negative externalities as capitalism requires to function properly.

    But most of all the voters need to vote for those actions. As long as voters elect those that believe in corporate welfare this is the natural result.

    Related: Why Pay Taxes or be Honest – Politicians Give Lobbyists Tax Breaks for Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals (not the politicians are given the deal makers cash loans) – Estate Tax Repeal (payoff to the rich) – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children
    (more…)