Friday, October 31, 2008

Americans Cut Back On Spending

Americans are drastically cutting back on consumption, which is both good and bad. James Picerno from The Capital Spectator looks closer at this trend in his blog post below.

Today's update on personal income and spending corroborates yesterday's GDP report, which told us clearly that the consumer is wary and is cutting back sharply on consumption.

The smoking gun today is that while disposable personal income rose 0.2% in September, personal consumption spending dropped 0.3%. It's not the first time that income rose and spending slipped in the same month, although it's rare. Indeed, news of a spending decline generally is rare. Until now.

In the current climate, everyone will recognize that lower spending has legs, and that the trend will take a toll on an economy that relies so heavily on it for growth. Meanwhile, let's not assume that income will keep rising in the coming months and quarters, which is far from certain. Yes, a new fiscal stimulus is reportedly coming, but the inclination will be strong to bank another round of checks from the government. No wonder that some policymakers are talking of FDR-type infrastructure projects to bypass consumers in a bid to boost demand in the economy. As for Joe Sixpack's sentiment, much depends on how the labor market fares going forward, and for the moment that outlook isn't encouraging.

On the spending side, last month's drop is the biggest monthly decline in four years. What makes this news so discouraging is that it doesn't yet reflect the deteriorating consumer sentiment for October or the ongoing economic and financial pain that we think is coming for the remainder of this year into 2009. It's hard to imagine that spending reports in the coming months will somehow avoid further deterioration, and that news will weigh heavily on everything from the stock market to employment reports. More immediately, to state what now's surely obvious: the holiday retail season looks set to disappoint.

As we said yesterday, the age of consumption is over, at least as we've known it in recent years and for the foreseeable future. Spending is out, saving is in, and the revival has only just begun. Yes, Virginia, cycles are still alive and kicking.

This article has been reposted from The Capital Spectator. The full post can also be viewed on The Capital Spectator.

BailoutSleuth.com: Mark Cuban Sets Eyes On The Bailout

Mark Cuban, the fiery owner of the Dallas Mavericks, is working on a new project, a website called BailoutSleuth.com. The purpose of the site is to monitor the bailout and bring to light any signs of fraud or other foul play stemming from the bailout. The site in its current form is very basic, but provides some great information. The site’s editor is Chris Carey, who also edits sharesleuth.com, a site dedicated to uncovering securities fraud.

Cuban had some words about the recently launched website on his blog, Blog Maverick, as well:

“Transparency is key to the success of the Bailout and related loans and investments the government makes with our tax dollars. Without complete transparency, we will get from our government what we always get when it comes to finances, confusion.”

“If you take a trip over to Bailoutsleuth you can see that its (sic) already time to call BS. In the first contract handed out, in this case to Bank of NY Mellon Corp, the compensation section is blacked out.”

Personally, I’m glad that someone took the initiative to put something like this together. We have a lot of tax dollars at stake in this bailout, and the regulation for it is a joke. At least now we can expose these fraudulent and questionable acts for what they are worth. Here’s hoping that people actually pay attention to this site and start keeping the government accountable for what they are doing with our tax dollars.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Federal Reserve Invoking Serious Monetary Inflation

The U.S. Federal Reserve is trying everything right now to fix the financial crisis. The latest plan, as outlined below by Toni Straka at The Prudent Investor, involves sending billions of dollars to foreign countries around the world. The end result of all this is going to be severe monetary inflation, read on...

Only 75 minutes after the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) slashed Fed Funds half a point to the lowest recorded level of 1%, chairman Ben Bernanke started his money dropping helicopter fleet in order to shower the world with another $120 billion. This time it is the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Singapore and South Korea that will receive up to $30 billion each in newly established swaplines.

A Fed press release states that each country will enter into $30 billion swaplines with the Fed,
in order to help improve liquidity conditions in global financial markets and to mitigate the spread of difficulties in obtaining U.S. dollar funding in fundamentally sound and well managed economies.

In response to the heightened stress associated with the global financial turmoil, which has broadened to emerging market economies, the Federal Reserve has authorized the establishment of temporary liquidity swap facilities with the central banks of these four large and systemically important economies. These new facilities will support the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity in amounts of up to $30 billion each by the Banco Central do Brasil, the Banco de Mexico, the Bank of Korea, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
The Fed has now established swaplines with 14 central banks responsible for 28 countries in order to market its only product: Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) that are backed by nothing than the belief that today's FRN will buy you the same amount of goods and services in the future.

The other central banks helping to fly the FRN helicopters are the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Bank of Canada, Danmarks Nationalbank, the Bank of England, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the Norges Bank, the Sveriges Riksbank, and the Swiss National Bank.

IMF Will Dish Out Still More FRNs
In its efforts to flood the whole world with FRNs the Fed
welcomes the announcement today by the International Monetary Fund of the establishment of the Short-Term Liquidity Facility, which is designed to help member countries that are facing temporary liquidity problems in the global capital markets. The Federal Reserve is supportive of the IMF's role in helping countries address and resolve their ongoing economic and financial difficulties.
Jumping to the IMF website one finds more details how the IMF will dish out more FRN loans all over the world with the newly established Short-Term Liquidity Facility (SLF). This comes one day after the IMF warned that Latin America would not escape the global turmoil.
According to the release members can borrow up to 500 percent of their quota.

Quoting IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn the new facility is a better design than usual standby agreements. He said the IMF would use its full financial force to stem the crisis.
Here are the details of the SLF:
  • Purpose. Provide large, upfront, quick-disbursing, short-term financing to help countries with strong policies and a good track record address temporary liquidity problems in capital markets.
  • Eligibility. Countries with a good track record of sound policies, access to capital markets and sustainable debt burdens may qualify (the IMF's standard debt sustainability analysis should indicate a high probability that both public and private debt will remain sustainable). Policies should have been assessed very positively by the IMF's most recent country assessment.
  • Conditions. Financing is made available without the standard phasing and loan conditions of more traditional IMF arrangements. However, borrowers are expected to certify that they are committed to maintaining strong macroeconomic policies.
  • Size of loan. Disbursement of IMF resources can be up to 500 percent of quota, with a three month maturity. Eligible countries are allowed to draw up to three times during a 12-month period.
Altogether it appears as the global banking machine requires more and more grease with every week but the engine is sputtering worse than at the beginning of the credit crisis.

We have entered the stage where even hundreds of billion of freshly created money will not be enough to deflate the biggest credit bubble in an orderly way.

Stocks reacted to the news of the rate cut in a classical "buy the rumour, sell the news" fashion. Early gains fizzled away as soon as the widely expected rate cut was announced as was the case after a second late bounce.

The near 10% advance in crude oil signals that commodities are again bought as as an inflation hedge.

Make no mistake: Only because recent inflation figures looked better than in summer does not mean that all this poisonous "liquidity" will not result in monetary inflation. What we see here is monetary inflation by the textbook and it will be felt dearly within the next 12 months. Central banks have gone wild since they found themselves behind the curve, rather following the wishes of Wall Street than insulating the inflation virus and absorbing all the liqudity that allowed the leverage excesses of this millennium.

Oh, and by the way; IMHO gold as the oldest inflation hedge has seen its low of the year with a very high probability based on the fundamentally bad outlook.


This article has been reposted from The Prudent Investor. The full post can also be viewed on The Prudent Investor.

The Recession Is Coming, The Recession is Coming

Paul RevereIn honor of Paul Revere, a famous patriot from the U.S. revolution, I thought I’d shout out the words that we all knew would come sooner or later: The recession is coming. The last couple quarters have been weird in that we knew the economy was struggling, but it still grew nonetheless. In fact, Q2 recorded an annualized GDP growth of 2.8 percent, which is a good growth rate for an economy the size of the U.S. What was hidden in that growth was the fact that much of it was artificially created by the government stimulus measures. This time around, in Q3, we saw a 0.3 percent decline in the GDP, the biggest decline since the last recession, in 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. The traditional measure of a recession is two consecutive quarters of decline in the GDP, and somehow I don’t see Q4 turning out much different than Q3, so shout it from the streets: The recession is coming.

Hopefully you got this message a long time ago and planned accordingly, but if not, you'd better get in gear. Recessions are times of financial hardship, especially the resulting layoffs. I wrote yesterday about how the increasing unemployment will take its toll on the housing market. But even more important than the toll it will take on the housing market is the toll it will take on people. As I’m writing this, I just received an alert from the Wall Street Journal announcing that American Express is laying off 10 percent of its workforce, or 7,000 people. Along with the layoff, American Express is halting management pay increases and issuing a hiring freeze. Every day I’m seeing more of these announcements, and they are only going to increase in frequency and severity. Even if you think your job security is rock solid, it would be a huge mistake not to think about Plan B at this point.

If you get laid off, how are you going to support your family? This is a question that requires some serious thought and action. Now might be a good time to update your resume, get that specialized training certificate you’ve always been meaning to get and make an effort to stay in touch with key contacts. Above all, though, you need to make sure you have a few months' worth of expenses saved up. Even for great candidates, finding a job in a recession is not easy and it is likely to take some time. It is important to make sure that your family's well-being is accounted for first and foremost, in case the job search takes a while. It is better to plan for the worst and not need it than to be unprepared.

As for your investment portfolio, things probably aren’t looking all that great right now. The good news about recessions is that they offer great buying opportunities for investors who have extra cash hanging around. This holds true for almost all types of investments. You can find cash-strapped investors who need to dump their assets for quick cash, investors who are scared out of their minds and just want out or any other number of scenarios. Deals abound right now, but investors must also make sure that they buy smart. There is a lot of risk in the various markets right now, and to ignore that could cost you a lot of money. Just because something appears to be a discount and therefore a great deal doesn’t mean it is. Use your brain and take extra time to evaluate the numbers.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Fed Cuts Interest Rates By 0.5 Percent

The Federal Reserve followed through today on expectations once again, cutting interest rates by 0.5 percent. Tim Iacono from The Mess That Greenspan Made looks closer at the latest interest rate cut, and compares it to past cuts.

With today's half-point cut to short-term interest rates, the Federal Reserve is once again back out "in front of the curve"... well, at least in front of the curve from a few years ago.
IMAGEThis morning's announcement that the Fed has once again lowered short-term interest rates to the freakishly low level of 1.0 percent was widely expected, particularly since the effective Fed funds rate has been below that level for weeks now, averaging just 0.82 percent since October 10th.

here were some major changes to the policy statement as shown below. In fact, Compare It!, the software program used to detect subtle changes to the wording was stymied, finding many, many more differences (in red) than similarities (in blue).
IMAGE
It's good to know that certain passages have remained unchanged - that "the Committee expects inflation to moderate" and they "will monitor economic and financial developments carefully and will act as needed to promote sustainable economic growth and price stability".

As for what has changed, there is a rather sobering assessment of the current state of the rapidly deteriorating economy with special emphasis given to the slowdown in consumer spending and business spending.

They really do "monitor economic and financial developments" and "act as needed".


This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Unemployment Will Be The Next Blow To Real Estate

unemployment signEvery day we are hearing about a new round of layoffs from some business, and that trend is unlikely to change anytime soon. Unemployment rose from 4.5 percent in 2006 to 6.1 percent last month, according to Inman News, and it continues to trend up. The financial crisis is forcing businesses to cut expenses and in some cases even merge with competitors in order to survive. Either way, the end result is layoffs and the prospects for new job hunters are grim. Once the money from their severance packages run out, which should be happening soon, these people are going to be in a world of hurt. During a recession the most painful thing is the high unemployment that typically accompanies it. Since this recession is geared up to be a big one, we should expect nothing less than a high level of unemployment to come with it. What does this mean for the real estate market? It means that things could get even worse.

People who are unemployed cannot buy homes, and people who are scared that they could join the unemployed ranks are unlikely to make big purchases--especially a new home. As unemployment continues to rise, we can also expect foreclosures to mount, which brings about a bad combo: more houses added to the market and fewer people able to buy them.

Some industries are being hit harder than others, but for the most part, businesses are going to struggle in the near future. Consumers lack confidence right now, as evidenced by the lowest-ever consumer confidence rating of 38 percent collected in a poll by The Conference Board this month. Consumers aren’t buying, which is going to hurt businesses that sell directly to consumers (B2C), and businesses that sell to businesses (B2B) are going to feel the pain next as the B2C businesses cut back their orders from the B2B businesses. This recession is going to hurt all over, and you can bet that we haven’t seen the worst of it yet.

The moral of the story is to be cautious if you are in the market to buy a new home. Realistically, your best bet is probably to wait it out a little longer, but if you absolutely need a new home now, just understand what could be looming. Only buy what you can comfortably afford. That should go without saying, but you would be surprised at what people can still get in terms of new loans, and what they are willing to sign on for. Also, pay close attention to what rents are going for in relation to what you would have to pay for a mortgage. If buying a home is considerably more expensive than renting in your area, then hopefully big red flags are going up in your head. Investors need to pay close attention to that comparison because there could be opportunity in those few areas which actually offer affordable homeownership. In that case, pay really close attention to the employment prospects in the area, because no matter how affordable homes look, you still are going to need a tenant base to rent to, and tenants with jobs are always preferable.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Fed Funds Rate Cut Expectations

Tomorrow the Fed will announce whether or not it decided to lower interest rates, and if so, by how much. Pretty much everyone is expecting a cut to the Fed Funds rate, but they are split on how much it will be. Currency expert Kathy Lien looks more closely at tomorrow's big announcement and adds some well found advice for investors in her post from KathyLien.com.

The biggest event risk this week is undoubtedly the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decision on Wednesday. Now more than ever, the Fed’s decision could turnaround the currency and equity markets. Since the last interest rate cut by the central bank on October 8th, the dollar has rallied more than 8 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen by more than 10 percent. The Fed’s half point rate cut at the time was a part of a coordinated effort with central banks from around the world including the ECB, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank. With US interest rates now at 1.50 percent, the Fed will need to start rationing rate cuts going forward unless they want to take interest rates to zero.

Going into the FOMC meeting, economists can’t seem to agree on how much the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates. Of the 64 economists surveyed by Bloomberg:

53 percent expect a 50bp rate cut
26.5 percent expect a 25bp cut
19 percent expect interest rates to remain unchanged
1 lone economist or 1.5 percent of the people polled expect a 75bp rate cut.

Fed Funds traders appear to be more optimistic as they have already priced in 50bp of easing for Wednesday with a 32 percent chance of a 75bp rate cut.

The recent strength of the US dollar will add pressure on the Federal Reserve to make a larger interest rate cut but everyone needs to realize that the rate cut by the Fed this week will not be their last. Even though the national average of gasoline prices has fallen 35 percent, layoffs continue to rise. If GM and Chrysler are forced to cut back or worse, pushed into bankruptcy, unemployment will continue to grow. The US economy is expected to get worse before it gets better and the Federal Reserve will not want to back themselves into a corner quite yet; a larger rate cut on Wednesday would give them less room to cut interest rates in December.

Here are the 3 most likely outcomes for Wednesday’s monetary policy decision:

Coordinated Rate Cut by the Fed, ECB and BoE (Dollar Bearish)

The best and most effective option for the Federal Reserve would be to coordinate a rate cut with the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. All 3 central banks would get the most bang for their buck by working together. Given Monday’s comments by ECB President Trichet about cutting interest rates again in November, he may not be opposed to making the rate cut one week earlier. The Times of London has also indicated that the BoE is under pressure to cut rates as well. This measure of solidarity would send a strong message to investors and at the same time not require the Federal Reserve to take interest rates below 1.00 percent, leaving them little room to cut interest rates later. A coordinated rate cut to should be bullish for the global equity markets and bearish for the US dollar.

Independent 50bp Rate Cut from the Fed (Dollar Neutral)

Although a coordinated rate cut is the most effective option for the currency market, it may not be the most likely option because for whatever reasons, the ECB and the BoE may be opposed to coordinated intervention. Since an independent rate cut by the Federal Reserve is exactly what the market expects, the impact on the US dollar should be limited. The key will be the tone of the FOMC statement.

25bp Rate Cut (Dollar Bullish)

A 25bp rate cut will be a big disappointment to both the currency and equity markets. Given the degree of risk aversion and fear, we do not believe that Bernanke will risk the consequences of a disappointment since it could trigger another round of selling for stocks and high yielding currencies. In this type of market environment where investors are becoming immune to new measures taken by the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, it pays to over deliver.

75bp Not a Viable Option - Too Close to ZIRP


Even though Fed Funds traders are pricing in a respectable chance of a 75bp rate cut, we do not believe that this will happen because it is too close to zero. Zero interest rates come with a host of problems. If the economy worsens substantially despite zero interest rates, we will be experiencing a world of problems in rejuvenating growth. This situation can best be exhibited by the Japanese recession that ensued during much of the nineties. With interest rates at nearly zero levels, the BoJ found itself unable to stimulate growth with no policy tools available at its disposal. During this time the BoJ was forced to implement newly devised policy measures that had little if any effect on promoting growth. At the same time, a zero interest rate is also inflationary.

Although we believe that a coordinated rate cut would be the best option for the Federal Reserve if they want a good chance at stabilizing the markets, the fact that Trichet talked about cutting interest rates on November 6th specifically suggests that it may not be an option that he is seriously considering. If the central banks can work together, Wednesday’s rate decision could turn around the currency markets, but if they choose to respond with fractured rate cuts, risk aversion could remain a problem.

This article has been reposted from Kathy Lien. The full post can also be viewed on KathyLien.com.

Hope For Homeowners Program Is A Complete Failure

foreclosure sad womanMany people were excited about the Hope for Homeowners program that was recently rolled out to help curb the growing number of foreclosures, and keep people in their homes. Unfortunately, as Anthony Freed points out in his blog post on Your Mortgage or Your Life, things did not quite turn out as planned.

As banks continue to line up for the taxpayer funded handouts designed to ease their withdrawals from years of dependence on high yields derived from ridiculously reckless lending practices, homeowners continue to seek avenues to prevent the looming possibility of foreclosure - typically cited as the root cause of the economic ‘crisis’ that currently grips world financial markets.

It’s reassuring to know that our dedicated civil servants are willing to put in the long hours required, on nights and weekends, to make sure their banking buddies and colleagues don’t have to suffer the same fate as many banking executives of late, having to retire with hundreds of millions of dollars that were fraudulently paid out as options and bonuses as reward for investing long and naked, and exposing their companies to tremendous risks.

By the way - none of those profits from the ‘boom’ are being appropriated in order to reimburse those now failing companies, and none of that money is going to be recovered in order to soften the blow to taxpayers.

That money is considered to be lawful compensation for a job poorly done. What is on the table is just exactly how much more bonuses they should get before their companies are declared illiquid then subsequently sold off to the lone bidder for pennies on the dollar, and how much of the bailout money they will use to buy up competitors instead of lending it out as promised.

And for the lowly taxpayer on whose backs both the illicit corporate profits as well as the cost of the bailout are borne? What has this unprecedented dash to action by the bureaucrats, political appointees, and elected representatives of the people wrought in the way of sanctuary from the economic tempest that has engulfed their citizenry?

How about the dandy “Hope for Homeowners” program, designed to help more than 400,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure by making as much as $300 billion dollars available for the effort. What a fantastic idea, it would seem at first glance. Of course, the Devil really is in the details.

As of today, October 27, 2008 - nearly four weeks since the program was unveiled - a remarkable 79 people have applied for the program (Fox News 8-27-08).

Yes, 79 homeowners have been accepted (Fox News 8-27-08).

There are at least 77 banks participating in the program. I am not going to try to do that math in my head, but my best guess is that each of those banks has only helped about one homeowner avoid foreclosure on average in that 27 day period.

With all of the poorly underwritten loans Countrywide booked - and the tens of billions of dollars in profits they made in the process - one would think they might be on the list of participating lenders. Not surprisingly, they are not. Although a unit of Bank of America now, there has been no indication they will assume the responsibility for modification of existing Countrywide loans.

My first impression was that this had to be due to a simple lack of awareness by the public that such a program was available to them. Not the case at all I have found. The program has generated a great deal of interest from distressed homeowners since it was unveiled.

Lenders have been deluged with inquiries from interested borrowers, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this program could help as many as 400,000 homeowners through September 2011, when the program ends.

“Our phones have been going crazy,” said Anthony Logan, president of Group Capital Mortgage in Cerritos, Calif, a participating lender.

What’s the hold up? Why, it’s the program itself, which was designed almost certainly to fail. First of all, the program is completely voluntary for both the lenders and the participating banks. It also requires the lenders to forgive a portion of the original loan balance in an effort to bring the mortgage in line with the market and affordability for the borrower to enter a long term fixed mortgage.

It allows certain borrowers at risk of foreclosure to refinance into a 30- year fixed-rate loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) if the current lender agrees to write down the existing loan to 90% of the home’s market value today. In plummeting areas such as California, if a lender holds a $500,000 mortgage and the home’s current appraisal comes in at $400,000, the lender would forgive $140,000 in all. Even before the program launched, lenders expressed concerns about the potentially enormous write downs they would face.

Incredibly, in the face of receiving the largest publicly funded bailout of private industry in history, supposedly caused by nonperforming securities backed by rapidly foreclosing mortgages, the banks themselves are refusing to use a portion of that bailout money to help alleviate the very circumstances that had predicated the public bailout in the first place.

Refinancing into the new government-backed program requires your current lender’s approval. If the home’s value is less than the mortgage — which real estate data provider Zillow.com estimates applies to nearly one-third of American borrowers who bought in the last five years — the note’s owner must also agree to reduce the amount owed on the house to 90 percent of its current appraised value. If you owe $190,000 on a house that’s only worth that much, the bank would have to agree to reduce the loan to $171,000, giving up $19,000 in principal, plus interest.”

Meanwhile, two million families are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure in the next two years.

There is a serious leadership vacuum in this country, especially at the upper echelons of both government and business. Their priorities and policies are bankrupting our nation, and the close relationship between these private industries and our government regulatory agencies should be rigorously examined.

Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, was one of the major architects and proponents of the “self-regulating” banking model developed in the 1990’s.

Heavy deregulation and the elimination of the safety barriers that had existed between the retail banks and investment banks, as well as the experimental distribution of risk to world-wide markets through untested financial vehicles, led to the erosion of the credit markets.

This system, partially conceived and enthusiastically advocated by Paulson, directly led to the current financial crisis that threatens the first worldwide depression since the 1930’s.

Now, for better or worse, we have handed the job of fixing this mess to the very people most instrumental in it’s cause, namely Paulson.

Is it any wonder that the phones are ringing off the hooks as desperate homeowners look for help and scramble to avert financial ruin by refinancing out of predatory loans, and yet only 79 loans being made to save them nationwide?

If it is not for lack of a program, and if it is not for a lack of interest on the borrowers part, that only leaves the failure of the program to the usual culprits - the banks.

“We know the interest from the public is there, and the next question that can’t be answered yet is are the lenders going to do this?” says Bill Glavin, special assistant to the FHA commissioner, who notes that it generally takes at least 45 to 60 days to complete the process for a regular FHA loan.”

Well Bill, here is your answer from them banks: “No.”

This article has been reposted from Your Mortgage or Your Life. The full post can also be viewed on Your Mortgage or Your Life.

Case-Shiller Home Price Index Shows Another Record Decline, But…

Every month now, the Case-Shiller home price index is setting a new record for the largest price drop, but some are seeing a silver lining in that cloud. There are a couple cities tracked by the index that appear to be heading in a positive direction. Cleveland and Boston both showed a price increase over the previous month. Cleveland lead the way with a 1.1 percent month-over-month price increase, while Boston barely held positive ground, with a 0.1 percent month-over-month increase. This came on the heels of some other positive news regarding the housing market, which is leading some to say the market rebound is coming.

The other positive news regarding the housing market was that new home sales rose by 2.7 percent in September, beating expectations. In addition, it looks like the Fed is preparing to lower interest rates, and the $700 billion bailout money is starting to get circulated, which many hope will soon jump start lending. Will this all be enough to fix the mess that is the housing market right now? I doubt it.

The real determinate in all of this is whether or not you feel that the U.S. economy is on the right track. If you think that all these fancy bailout measures are going to fix the problems we are facing, then you can probably figure that the housing market is going to rebound as well. On the other hand, if you don’t think that the economy is heading in the right direction, then calling a real estate market rebound is very premature. There is a lot of hope that the measures already in place--along with the fact that the election is next week--will bring stability to the markets. While I certainly think it might, at least for a brief period of time, I just don’t see how it will last. The fundamentals that brought the economy to its knees are still in place, and in some cases are even worse than before. So how can we say that a new president is going to magically make everything better? The answer is that he won’t, but he might make people forget about all the underlying problem--at least for a little bit.

The latest consumer confidence poll from The Conference Board fell to an all-time low of 38 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal; this is down from more 64 percent in last month’s poll. People are extremely fearful and cautious right now, and any glimpse of stability is likely to help somewhat. The election will certainly bring that, but again, the new leader is going to come into an exceptionally difficult situation. Layoffs keep coming and the credit markets still haven’t been opened. The government has written a lot of checks, but so far the only thing they have accomplished is adding to the already astronomical national debt tally. I certainly do not envy the position the new president is going to be put in, and no matter how good they are, I just don’t see how they are going to be able to fix all these problems. It is going to take a lot of time and heartache to get this ship righted. I certainly wish the new president the best, and I hope he does an amazing job, but I’m not holding my breath that he is going to be a miracle worker. It is likely that we will see the markets rally after the election, but investors beware.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Barack Obama And John McCain’s Effect On Your Pocket Book

Obama and McCainWith the election coming up next week, voters on the fence really need to start looking long and hard at the candidates' positions on key topics. And what topics could be more important than those affecting voters' pocket books? The Wall Street Journal just published a great article that breaks down the views of Barack Obama and John McCain on various issues that affect voters' pocket books, so let’s take a closer look at them:

Short-Term Relief:

Obama wants to stimulate the economy through a tax rebate of $1,000 for families and $500 for individuals. In addition, he is proposing that we allow for penalty free withdrawals from 401(k)s and IRAs, up to 15 percent of the account value or $10,000, whichever is lower.

McCain wants to stimulate the economy by cutting the capital gains tax for stock held more than one year to 7.5 percent. He also wants to increase the amount of stock losses deducible against ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000. In addition, McCain would tax withdrawals from seniors' retirement accounts no more than 10 percent.

Analysis: If you are wealthy and have a lot of money in stocks McCain is your man. If you don’t, then Obama will likely provide your family with more short-term relief.

Income Taxes:

Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. Families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 will likely see tax increases. The top two marginal tax rates will be increased to 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. Obama also plans for some tax cuts for lower and middle class families.

McCain wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts, and also plans to gradually extend tax credits for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 over time.

Analysis: Again, if you are wealthy, McCain’s plan will benefit you much more as you will actually see tax cuts as opposed to tax increases. If you have a lot of kids, McCain’s plan might also make sense for you, but that probably depends on your income bracket. For most people not in the wealthy category, Obama’s plan will offer them more benefit. This, of course, is not taking into account the potential for job losses that could stem from these measures as McCain proclaims would happen.

Investments:

Obama wants to raise capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent for the wealthy. At the same time, though, he wants to eliminate capital gains tax on start-up and small businesses.

McCain wants to keep capital gains taxes right where they are, at 15 percent.

Analysis: We don’t get much insight as to the full extent of Obama’s plan for small businesses, so it is difficult to opine on that piece, but the basic trend is the wealthy are going to be taxed more by Obama while McCain wants to stimulate the economy through tax breaks to this class.

The full Wall Street Journal article covers other areas as well, so if you are really on the fence as a voter, make sure to read the full article; I just pulled out the sections most applicable to investors. The theme you will see in pretty much all of these issues is that, in terms of your pocket book, if you are lower to middle class you will probably do better with Obama in office. If you are upper class, McCain definitely favors you. The problem is that nothing is quite as straightforward as that. You also need to take into account the potential impact that these policies could have on the overall economy. It certainly appears that Obama’s policies would add a great deal more to the balance sheet of the U.S. government, but a lot of things could potentially change that. McCain stresses that Obama’s plans would be deadly to small businesses; obviously Obama doesn’t agree with that, and he does offer several measures to aid small business.

The bottom line is a lot of this stuff that the candidates are saying could go either way. We just don’t know how the economy is going to react to the policy changes, or what limits the economy will place upon their plans and their ability to act, and we will never get to see how the losing candidate’s policies would have turned out. At the end of the day, voters are going to have to use their own judgment and decide whether Obama or McCain is the best man for their family and their country. These are difficult times right now, and this is certainly a difficult decision that we all are faced with. Who is the best person to deliver our country out of this mess? You have a week and a day to figure it out…good luck, and remember to vote next Tuesday.

King Of Foreclosures Says Be Ready To Buy In 2010

The King of Foreclosures is advising everyone to wait until 2010 to buy, and unless you don't have a choice avoid selling right now. With the real estate market in perpetual tailspin, you just might want to listen to this King who has a proven track record of correctly timing the real estate market. Read on as Tim Iacono, over at The Mess That Greenspan Made, recounts the story for us.

The LA Times has a nice story about Leo Nordine, a 45-year old Hermosa Beach real estate broker who specializes in foreclosure sales and must be about the only realtor in the world who doesn't own a cell phone. Really!

He drives an eight-year old car too! Amazing.

It's as if frugal is cool now. Our two six year old cars and a shared cell phone (it's a Pay As You Go and rarely gets turned on) look downright wimpy by comparison.

Can we really make the transformation back to a society of modest savers?

It looks like we're about to find out...

Sorry, this was supposed to be about Mr. Nordine, but I can't help but stop and gawk at this wave of thriftiness that is sweeping the country.

Anyway, back to the Foreclosure King...

As might be expected, business is booming these days and he has some important advice for renters who are now chomping at the bit, anxious to become homeowners.

From the Los Angeles Times:
Nordine, a 45-year-old native son and surfer didn't just catch the current foreclosure tidal wave, he has sold 3,500 bank-owned homes during the last two decades. He credits his uncanny ability to time the real estate market's cycles and position himself to reap its rewards as the key to his extraordinary success. And he does it all from the comfort of his home overlooking the Strand in Hermosa Beach.
...
Nordine has made his own fortune not only by selling homes but also by investing shrewdly. In the 1980s, he bought about 20 properties, most of them single-family homes in Torrance. He sold them off in 1990 and '91 when he anticipated a bust was coming. He dived back into the market in the mid-1990s -- this time apartments in Santa Monica -- and sold off most of them in 2005.

Today, he and his second wife own a 22-unit complex and a 12-unit complex in Santa Monica; a single-family home and a four-plex in El Segundo; nine bungalows and a four-plex in Torrance; a five-plex in Redondo Beach; and the house-office in Hermosa Beach.

But being a dad and husband is what it's all about for Nordine. His is the first face his son Nate sees every morning when he wakes and the last one he sees at bedtime.

So what advice does Nordine offer those concerned about the real estate market?

Don't sell unless you absolutely have to. Don't buy until 2010, when prices should be at 2000 levels. And apply every spare nickel to paying off your debt, including mortgages.
Take heart aspiring homeowners (like us) 2010 isn't much more than a year away...

This article has been reposted from The Mess That Greenspan Made. The full post can also be viewed on The Mess That Greenspan Made.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Small Business Activity Shows Indicators Of Slowdown

Many of those who are watching the economy closely keep their eyes open for new reports, data and analysis from major sources. But another place to look for clues about the economy is in anecdotal and statistical evidence from small business owners--the ones who are seeing the effects of immediate the numbers in their day-to-day lives.

Nelson Villanova, for example, owns Eddie's Shoe Repair, a 15-year-old business that sells shoe and luggage shines at $4 a pop. Since August--when the economy started its rapid shift from bad to worse--he has seen a sharp drop-off in business of 25 to 30 percent.

Other declines showing that businesses are clamping down on their wallets are widespread. Office supply sales have declined every month since December 2007, FedEx shipped 10 percent fewer overnight envelopes this summer than last and business jet take-offs and landings were down by 18 percent in August.

Damon Bae, general manager of Manhattan-based Fancy Cleaners, has seen an uptick in customer preference for bulk dry cleaners rather than boutique dry cleaners as consumers try to stretch their dollars to the max.

Sales at Andrew's Ties, a Madison Avenue shop which sells handmade Italian silk ties at $49 to $99 each, have been declining since March, according to general manager Yannis Tselepidis. The start of the sales drop-off coincides with the collapse of Bear Stearns.

Michael Ingbar, owner of New York-based MFI Art Company, has seen corporate buyers cutting back in the past 12 to 18 months. Companies laying people off, he said, are not in a position to buy art.

And in San Francisco, Jack Mardack, marketing director of Eventbrite--a company that handles online registrations for events and conferences--has seen less interest in large, formal, industry-wide events and increased interest in smaller, local events. Networking events priced at $100 or less are particularly popular.

Source: BusinessWeek

Fed Interest Rates Due To Fall Again

In what is likely to be another feeble attempt to stimulate the economy the Fed is expected to lower the Fed funds rate again at the conclusion of their next meeting on October 29. The Fed last lowered the funds rate in an emergency session on October 8, but as we can see, it accomplished very little. Right now the Fed funds rate sits at 1.5 percent, and the lowest it has ever been is 1 percent. It was last at that level in 2003 and 2004, and many believed that is what fueled the housing bubble. Investors everywhere are calling for the Fed to cut rates in dramatic fashion. In fact, the Fed funds futures are pricing in a 26 percent chance of the interest rate being cut by 0.75 percent, down to a record low of 0.75 percent according in CNNMoney. Will even a record cut really make a difference, though? Not likely.

The problem is not that rates are too high, the problem is that banks are unwilling to lend money. If banks feel that they have to hoard money in order to avoid disaster, than lowering interest rates will be nothing more than a practice in futility. "It's window dressing, only a psychological weapon," said Sung Won Sohn, economics professor at Cal State University Channel Islands, in a CNNMoney article. "Right now, the problem isn't the cost of the Fed's money, it's that the existing money supply is not circulating. The pipelines are clogged." The Bank of Japan tried this back in the '90s and it didn’t work for them, either. They lowered interest rates all the way down to 0 percent, and to this day their rates are still near that level.

Typically, when the Fed lowers interest rates, people worry about inflation, but with all the pressure on the economy right now inflation is the least of everyone’s worries. The real risk in this action is that when it doesn’t work, people will see that the government has few, if any, options left to fix the crisis. This could potentially send a shockwave through the financial system. "There's a hesitation to do it because it looks like desperation. But they're getting desperate," said, David Wyss chief economist with Standard & Poor's, in a CNNMoney article in response to the proposed Fed funds rate cut.

At this point I think it is a safe bet that we will see some sort of cut to the Fed funds rate by the end of the month--the question is how large it will be. If I had to guess, I would say 0.5 percent. I would be surprised if they went to 0.75 percent, but stranger things have happened. As Wyss, said they are getting desperate.

A Look Back At Economics 101

The financial crisis has caused many people to lose faith in traditional economic philosophy. It can be argued, however, that according to Economics 101 principals this crisis should have been expected. James Picerno gives us a history lesson that hopefully we will learn from this time around, in his post from The Capital Spectator.

Seeing the world as chaos, devoid of rules or logic when the capital and commodity markets go into a tailspin and the economic outlook is grim is a potent temptation. But it's a mistake to think that order has run off the rails.

The problem has been hubris—an excess of hubris. The comeuppance is now upon us, and the process of a return to modesty, humility and a healthy respect for risk in money management is in full swing. This comes as a great shock to many investors. But to say this is something new is to ignore history.

Financial calamity is always lurking. As Kindleberger put it, financial crisis is a "hardy perennial." Sometimes it's kept at bay for years, even decades, but eventually the beast returns. Painful as this recurring truth is for those who must live through it and watch hard-earned savings wither, there can be no other path.

Don't misunderstand. The pursuit of progress in economics and portfolio management must continue, and will continue. We're not doomed to sit on our hands and let the financial gods do what they will with us. We can and will advance the cause of intelligence on these fronts. Indeed, we've learned much over the past 100 years. Yet greed and fear are immune to knowledge and wisdom, much as the common cold is resistant to the miracle that is medical science.

But the system—the economy, the markets—impose their own discipline when self-restraint has given way, as it invariably does at some point. Imagine an alternative universe where companies and economies grow to the sky, risk is always rewarded. At some point in this fairy tale world everyone would be a day trader, working out of 80,000-square-foot homes replete and driving SUVs plush with surround sound audio and widescreen TVs.


Such a world, as enticing as it may seem on a personal level, would collapse of its excess. Someone has to run the farms, build the bridges and figure out how to build small, more efficient computer chips. Having plumbers and bus drivers, in short, comes in handy on a regular basis.

The discipline that takes leave at times is returned to by force in the form of economic and financial turmoil. Stability is inherently unstable, as Hyman Minsky famously warned. The inevitable instability isn't pretty, nor is it desirable per se, but ultimately it's necessary to keep us from turning into the financial equivalents of overweight blimps a la the animated movie WALL-E.

One might imagine that the pummeling of investors in the 2000-2002 collapse of the tech bubble would have reacquainted Wall Street and the world generally with the principles of humility and an appreciation of risk. For a time, the lesson was learned (relearned actually), but it was fleeting. This time, however, the lesson will be learned.

We're all guilty in some degree of ignoring the excess that preceded the correction that now bites us all. We're all guilty in some degree of looking back at "history," as defined by 5 or 10 or even 30 years and concluding that risk never looks uglier than this, or that. We're all guilty in some degree of failing to look back over much longer periods of history, at the experiences of different countries, and considering how bad it can really get and what that implies for risk management. We're all guilty in some degree of assuming that a correction would be fairly brief and that it would create a buying opportunity next Thursday, an event that would reap juicy rewards within weeks, or months or certainly within a year. We're all guilty of assuming that the massive rise of debt, the non-stop spending by consumers, and the general embrace of the more-is-better paragon would be a costless affair.

Yes, some of us were warning of the dangers for some time. What's more, some have studied the past deeply in an effort to understand the full range of possibilities in the money game. GMO's Jeremy Grantham is one example. But such warnings generally fell on deaf ears. That's no great mystery. Optimism comes easily to the human mind. Meanwhile, preparing for the apocalypse--even modestly or just thinking about it--is always easy to postpone.

We've all been disabused of these and other short-sighted and historically shallow notions. No, few of us have ever seen anything like what we're experiencing now. But that fact, along with the reality that almost no one was expecting the risk blowback that now afflicts the planet was a warning sign—a warning sign that a reintroduction on a mass scale to the nature of risk was near.

The future is rushing toward us, and it's a future with a lot less finance in the economy. For some time now there has been too much finance in the world. It was naïve to think that the industry, and all its excess, could keep growing indefinitely. But that has stopped, and the process will continue reversing in a big way for a long time. The future will deliver few mutual funds, fewer ETFs, fewer over-sized egos in money management, to name but a few examples.

It's all very painful, of course, partly because the biggest bull market of all was the explosion skyward in expectations. The hardest task is coming to terms with a future that looks radically different from the past. But rest assured, the pain too will be fleeting. When the last man has sold; when it looks like nothing could go possibly right again; when darkness appears infinite; that's when the rebound will commence in earnest. It'll be quietly, mysteriously, and almost no one will see it. But it will come. Meantime, we're all booked for a lengthy session in the Economics Re-education 101.

This article has been reposted from The Capital Spectator. The full post can also be viewed on The Capital Spectator.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Mortgage Broker And Realtor Conventions Interesting, To Say The Least

skee-ballRealtors and mortgage brokers are being hit hard in their pocket books thanks to this financial crisis, but when they each met at their respective conventions they were in store for things they had never seen before. In the case of the mortgage brokers' convention, they were forced to deal with unwanted distractions, while on the other end, Realtors were surrounded with fun distractions.

The mortgage brokers' convention was met by herds of protestors and at one point a vigilante ran up on stage and attempted to arrest Karl Rove, a former advisor of President Bush, according to the New York Times. That was in addition to the constant heckling from protestors during the convention. Typically, after the convention, attendees will go to a local bar and network, but according to one attendee interviewed by the New York Times, “…there wasn’t anybody there last night.” This had the attendee longing for the old days when the most distracting thing might be streakers running across the stage.

At the Realtor convention there were definite signs of distress among the participants, but the atmosphere was much more upbeat. Venders at the convention attempted to distract the attendees from the downbeat market by keeping things lively and fun. According to the Los Angeles Times, vendors did things from handing out life vests to setting up skee-ball and other games for attendees to play.

While these two professions have both been devastated by the crisis, it is apparent that one in particular is bearing the brunt of the blame for creating it. I think a case could be made that Realtors had just as much--if not more--to do with creating the crisis than mortgage brokers, though. But the truth is that, while they both had a part, neither should bear the blame. The government and homeowners played critical parts as well, so in my mind, no one is exempt from blame. Heckling mortgage brokers and blaming them for the crisis we face today is ludicrous. Instead, why don’t some of these homeowners look in the mirror and start asking themselves some tough questions.

Iceland’s Collapse: Magical Elves Lose Toyshop; Will Enchant For Food

Global credit crisis or not, I’m sick of reading (and typing) the words “crumbling” and “tumbling”, “freefall” and “meltdown”, and “bottomless pit of despair and agony”. So I’ll start this post by saying that I will use “Reykjavik” as a noun and verb to describe all of these concepts (and a few others), all in honor of Iceland: the first major casualty of this totally Reykjaviked financial situation on our hands.

Iceland has always been an insular place. The lush, little ball of lava was first colonized by Vikings and magical elves who didn’t much care for the stodgy mainlanders. Their tradition of aloofness and fondness for haddock has remained to this day. This aloofness survived even during the past few years as the island became a tourist spot known for its unique art scene, stunning natural beauty and lively nightlife. Meanwhile, the inflated economy and high interest rates drew millions in foreign capital from investors hoping for a better return on their deposits. This created two illusions for Icelanders: 1) the illusion of wealth and 2) the illusion that the rest of the world gave a Reykjavik about them.

Were Icelanders wealthy? Everyone seemed to think so because of the expansive assets that the three major Icelandic banks acquired throughout Europe over the last decade—Hanley Toys being one, because you know elves and toys are inseparable—all totaling 100 billion Euros. In a country whose GDP is less than 10 billion, that presents a slight problem when liquidity freezes: Like a shiny, spinning top, the tiny base that the government offered was only enough to support the floating island of wealth if enough hands kept it in motion. Those hands drew back very quickly when two of there three major banks, Glitnir and Landsbanki , were seized one after the other. Alas, no amount of geothermal hot springs and/or elf magic was enough to thaw the hearts of authorities in London and the Netherlands, who froze the assets of Iceland’s last major bank standing, Kaupthing, when it became clear that depositors from the two countries had no guarantee on their assets should the bank collapse. The move ironically sealed the fate of the institution, and perhaps of the country at large.

Icelandic PM Geir Haarde was less than pleased by this pre-emptive move, and it’s only by the good (and ever-sinister) graces of Vladimir Putin that Iceland has any continental support at all. The country received a four-billion Euro loan from Moscow, but with the value of the Krona now less than half of what it was at the beginning of the year, one must wonder how they ever intend to repay Russia. It may not be with cash...

Russia and Iceland do have one thing in common: a sense of isolation from the rest of Europe, though the Icelandic dislike of authority doesn’t quite mesh with war-mongering (and perhaps secret-assassination happy) Putin. Iceland’s isolation is a little more innocent. For example, their decision to remain outside the E.U. was largely motivated by the restrictions that inclusion would have placed on their fishing and whaling industry, which is one of their only major exports aside from twee, nonsensical music. Now some are suggesting that they be given a fast-track to E.U. citizenship to stabilize the country—Strike one against Iceland’s culture. Iceland’s decision to expand its assets into new territories allowed its young entrepreneurs—and louts, alike—to adopt the mantle of hip jetsetters and hypertrophic consumers without making cultural concessions at home. Now, in major debt to Mother Russia—and perhaps soon to the IMF as well, though Iceland has not yet officially requested aid from the Washington-based institution—the question is: What will be left of Iceland after the bill-collectors have taken their due?

Iceland has many natural resources, and Russia may find the prospect of tapping them increasingly attractive as Putin’s regime pawns off much of their own to China. However, sacrificing the island’s ecological integrity is in complete conflict with Iceland’s national pride as well as with their other major draw: eco-tourism. The pristine and dramatic landscape is home to the breeding grounds of many European birds, and spoiling the land would draw conservationist ire from around the globe. Despite clinging to their small and—I grudgingly admit—relatively responsible whaling industry, Iceland has until now been a beacon for environmental progressiveness. Sadly, sacrificing the land to save the economy may be unavoidable at this point, depending on how scrupulous the country’s saviors choose to be with their stake in the economy. An IMF loan would be the first offered by the agency to prop up the economy of a developed nation. As of Thursday morning (October 23) the rumored figure was in the area of 6 billion dollars, much of which would go towards loans held by banks in Japan. At least Japan—with their mutual penchant for whale meat, isolationism and living around active volcanoes—is a far better bedfellow for Iceland than Russia.

In short, Iceland’s tale is that of the classic, rakish decadent, who in a short time squandered his wealth, his reputation and perhaps his future for a few cheap thrills. And the worst is not over; the spending spree in the good times and the high interest rates at local banks encouraged the citizens to seek loans abroad, which they must now repay with a deeply devalued currency. Even the cheap labor force—Poles and Lithuanians—have packed up and left as they no longer profit by sending their meager paychecks home. There is no telling how Iceland will dig itself out of this fumarole, but one can be certain that the country will change dramatically as they dig and dig and dig—all on their own, for now. At least they’ll always have the Aurora Borealis—or perhaps it too will be blotted out by the smoke of industry that may yet be coming. That would be a Reykjaviking shame.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Any Homeowner Bailout Will Come Loaded With Problems

mortgage bailoutThe calls for a homeowner bailout are becoming louder and louder. After all, why should we bailout Wall Street, but not but Joe Homeowner, who was the victim in all this? Then, of course, there are the financial ramifications to consider. Foreclosures are bringing down the real estate market right now, and isn’t it our duty to save it? If we save the real estate market, then we can go back to the way things were before and everyone will be happy, right? Obviously it isn’t as easy as that, but let’s look at some of the proposals and some the problems that could arise.

We will begin with John McCain’s proposal. McCain would like to see us use $300 billion, taken from the $700 billion bailout package already passed, to buy up mortgages of troubled homeowners. We would then renegotiate the terms of these mortgages to make them affordable for the homeowners. These mortgages would be purchased in reflection of the current diminished value of the properties, according to the New York Times. “Is it expensive?” McCain said of the proposal, as quoted in the New York Times, “Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy.”

Sounds pretty fantastic, huh? Couple questions, though: How are we going to make sure that only people who truly need the help get it? It sounds like to me this plan would encourage people to stop paying their mortgage so that they could get some principal reduced and a lower monthly payment. Furthermore, why should responsible homeowners--and renters for that matter--who have been diligent with their finances subsidize the bad mortgages that these homeowners entered into? What kind of message are we sending when we start rewarding people for not paying their bills? There are many other potential issues with this plan, but for the sake of time, let’s move on to Barack Obama’s plan.

Obama is proposing that we issue a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, according to the New York Times. So we would halt foreclosure proceedings for 90 days in order to accomplish what, exactly? I’m trying to figure it out, but all I can get from this is that we are giving these homeowners 90 more days to live in their homes rent-free at the bank's expense. Is this a new version of economic stimulus we are trying to get banks to pay for? The problem is, because the government now controls Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, taxpayers are going to be on the hook for a good portion either way. So, really, what’s the point? I assume that they are trying to encourage lenders to work out a deal with the homeowners, but how successful do we really think this is going to be?

The biggest positive I think I see in this plan is that it will force banks to work with short sale buyers. Right now all I’m hearing (I personally don’t do short sales anymore for this exact reason) are horror stories about how all these people are trying to buy short sale properties, but the banks just aren’t cooperating. If they are going to have to sit on these properties for another 90 days, that might be enough to motivate them to make a deal. What does this really accomplish for the economy, though? We would have fewer people with foreclosures on their credit reports, but really, this isn’t preventing a property from hitting the market, it is just selling the property earlier on. For the most part, I see this 90-day moratorium as simply delaying the inevitable, and something that people are just going to unscrupulously try to take advantage of. For the clincher, though, let’s look at Obama’s own statement against this plan from back in February, as published by the Los Angeles Times:

“A ‘blanket freeze,’ Obama added, might ‘drive rates through the roof for those trying to buy or refinance. Experts say the value of homes will fall even more, and even more families could face foreclosure.’” It’s got to be hard to argue with yourself, but I think the February Obama is right on this one.

There are lots of other ideas being thrown around as well, but every one of them has flaws. Frankly, I don’t see how it would even be possible to create a plan that works for everyone. Somewhere along the way, someone is going to get screwed; unfortunately I don’t see how it isn’t going to be renters and responsible homeowners. Any bailout plan is certain to reward the people who simply don’t deserve it. Maybe we should send out tax rebates to everyone who is current on their mortgage or rental payment instead--at least that would encourage the right set of principles. The problem, of course, would be that these responsible people are the same ones who would put that rebate check right into savings instead of spending it on useless stuff. Again, no plan is going to be perfect.

The European Central Bank's Balance Sheet Continues To Grow

The European Central Bank continues to pump money into the financial system in order to combat the financial crisis in Europe and the rest of the world. These measures are not without ramification, though. You can read the full blog post below, or you can visit The Prudent Investor blog for more information on the topic.

Politicians in the Eurozone are relieved these days as they see commodities and especially crude oil prices retracting to levels last seen a year earlier. But the improving outlook on the price front comes at the heavy price of monetary inflation.

The hope for a slowdown in price inflation is overshadowed by the terrifying numbers on the ECB's balance sheet that almost touched the €2 TRILLION level with a balance sum of 1,973 billion as of October 17. This is 57% more money YOY while the European economy started slipping into a recession.

Lending to banks immediately took off to never before seen levels since the ECB changed its rules and now takes more or less any crap paper as collateral.

Monetary inflation is now clearly written on the wall as the expansion of the ECBs weekly financial statement has become ballistic.

Within only one week the ECB's lending increased 4.8% overall, according to latest figures. The unlimited swaplines of the Fed begin to show up here without a doubt.

Banks Doubled Borrowing Within a Year
In a YOY comparison Eurozone bank lending more than doubled from €471 billion to currently €1.057 trillion. This comes hand in hand with a continuous flow of downgraded expectations for the Eurozone economy that may record a contraction in the last quarter of 2008.

The ECB's loose hand may have prevented a systemic disruption so far, but if the speed of money creation does not get reduced Europe could find itself saddled with runaway monetary inflation as there is an explosive lot of money sloshing around a steady pool of products and services.

IMF Warns of Sharp Slowdown
The IMF warns of a sharp slowdown as the financial crisis takes its toll on Europe. According to its latest outlook released on Tuesday,

Europe is facing its worst financial crisis in decades. Credit growth is slowing and domestic demand is weakening across the continent. At the same time, past commodity price increases have boosted headline inflation, depressing consumption.
In advanced Europe, a mild recession is expected in the near term. Real GDP growth is projected to drop to 1.3 percent in 2008 and 0.2 percent in 2009 (down from 2.8 percent in 2007). Growth is weakening in the emerging economies as well.
The IMF predicts a mild recession for Italy, Spain and the UK in 2009.

IMF economic forecast table

Latest forecasts for Europe from the IMF

In order to avoid a sharper downturn the IMF pledges for coordinated action of European governments. This call went so far unheard. European politicians may be setting up common meetings, but so far each country has taken its own way in order to end the credit crisis.

This article has been reposted from The Prudent Investor. The full post can also be viewed on The Prudent Investor.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Bernanke Pushing For Another Stimulus Package

In an effort to stem the financial crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is encouraging Congress to pass another stimulus package when they meet next month. To date, President Bush has said he feels as if passing another stimulus bill would be premature, considering we haven’t given the current stimulus measures time to be fully integrated into the economy, but Democrats hope that Bernanke’s blessing will be enough to change his mind. There are several proposals for a new stimulus package on the table right now, but Democrats would like to see this one include funds to address infrastructure and aid states, according to the Associated Press.

If a new stimulus package is passed, it will probably end up being as much as--or even more--than the previous $168 billion stimulus package passed back in February. In addition to the infrastructure and state aid, there could be another tax rebate included, according to the AP. It makes total sense, too, because if we are going to take bad debts off the books for these financial institutions, then why shouldn’t the government give taxpayers money to pay off their debts? Our nation’s infrastructure is badly deteriorating in many areas, so there is a definite need for something to be done; the infrastructure proposal is a good one, assuming that the projects selected are carefully reviewed. In addition to completing badly needed repairs or upgrades, infrastructure work would also create jobs.

But at what point are we going to say enough is enough? How many bailouts or stimulus packages do we have to pass before the economy is going to turn around? Will the economy even react to any of this? These are all tough questions, ones for which the government doesn’t have answers. At this point, they are determined to do whatever it takes to fix the economy and are content to use a trial and error methodology. I don’t know about you, but I would prefer that the government be a little more conservative with my tax dollars than they have been.

We have already committed around a trillion dollars in financial stimulus aid and so far nothing has worked; at some point we need to cut our losses. I think part of the problem is that since, it is an election year, everyone is trying hard not to lose their jobs--instead of thinking, "What is best over the long term?" they are thinking, "What is going to get results over the next two months?" This is obviously not the mindset we want our leaders to have. I sure hope Bush stands up to this push for another stimulus package and instead lets the next administration evaluate its merits. Hopefully by then our leaders will be thinking straight and have our true interests at heart.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Has The American Dream Changed?

American dream house with white picket fenceCBS News did a piece this weekend titled, “Is Renting The New American Dream?” In the piece, they talked about the surge in the number of people looking to rent, and how the number of people buying homes is plummeting. The people they interviewed for the story talked about how they prefer to rent, especially in an economic climate like today's. So, has the American dream changed?

Personally I tend to agree with a comment on the story left by OneWorldUSA: “More people are renting because they have no downpayment (sic) and credit has been cut off to them. Renting is not the New American Dream, CBS, its (sic) the New American Reality for many.”

I couldn’t say it better myself. I think this story is missing the point that many Americans can’t buy even if they want to anymore. During the housing bubble, we saw record numbers of people buying homes, but that was in part because of the loose lending standards. It seemed like anyone with a pulse could buy a house, and of course we have seen that lending model fail. We are now looking at much stricter requirements for borrowers to get loans, and there just are not that many people who can qualify. To say that these people don’t want to own their own homes, though, might be a bit of a stretch.

The other piece to consider, of course, is that many people would like to own a home, but are choosing to wait on the sidelines, renting, until the market hits bottom. Buying a home is a huge deal, and a lot of people right now are nervous about making a bad investment. That being said, I think the American dream still involves people owning their own home. So while the American dream hasn’t necessarily changed, it most certainly is harder to achieve. Many people are choosing to postpone the dream for a while, just to be safe. Simply put, there is a new reality, not a new dream.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Dubai: The Anti-Cancun

For everyone else who is sick of hearing the phrase, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” here’s a new one: “Whatever happens in Dubai, might make you stay in Dubai...for a long, long time...against your will.”

Dubai has certainly arrived as the next big thing in the minds of some, but even they might agree that it’s only the next big thing for now. Billions have been spent in an attempt to make the city a cosmopolitan metropolis with every amenity and frivolity imaginable. But even genuine marvels like the Palm Jumeirah have already become a bit gimmicky, and the Babel-like towers seem to be only the issue of an international “You show me mine, I’ll show you yours” game that will rouse not awe but giggles from future generations. Then there is Lyon-Dubai City: a scaled down replica of Lyon, France...in the middle of the desert. I think we’ve officially lost the substance by grasping at the shadow, to take a line from Aesop.

Ultimately, the spectacle remains a veneer for a traditional culture that has not much changed...and that’s just dandy. No one has the right to insist that Dubai abolish its repressive, extravagant, theocratic oligarchy—heaven, forfend!—but the leaders need to realize that there are consequences to being culturally obdurate when at the same time pushing to be an international hub. It’s lovely that they feel so compelled to maintain the decency and dignity of their own citizens—simply lovely!—but it’s a shame that the same can’t be said for the decency and dignity of the thousands of immigrant workers who have died in inhuman conditions during construction of the city’s architectural wonders.

I should add that the scandalous reputation of Western tourists (particularly those of countries who have colonized other countries) is frequently valid, and I applaud when one nation resists becoming the outhouse/brothel of another. We do not need another Vegas or Bangkok or Cancun or Amsterdam or Macau where anything and everything goes. But then, neither do we need an indoor ski slope, underwater hotel, nor islands shaped like the continents , especially if the phrase “anything goes” in Dubai is best applied in a sentence that also contains “justice” and “out the window.” So what does Dubai have to offer to keep investors interested and what are they doing to keep people coming back?

If some of the recent press that the city has received is any indication, the powers that be are either not committed to keeping people interested, or they think we’ll all just convert to their method of doing things. That would be a tad hubristic on their part (but these guys aren’t exactly known for their humility), and in order for Dubai’s reputation as a cosmopolitan and commercial Mecca to last, they need to keep negative PR to a minimum. So it boggles the mind that the city is actually trying to bill itself as a place for romantic resorts when one reads stories like this one from the BBC about a pair of Britons given a “light sentence” of three months jail time for getting a little too snuggly on the beach. Here is what the article says about their case:



“The pair were arrested on Jumeirah Beach hours after meeting at a champagne
brunch at Dubai's five-star Le Meridien hotel.

A police officer told the court he had warned the pair about their inappropriate behaviour, but returned later to find them having sex on a sun lounger.

Palmer, who was sacked from her job in Dubai as a publishing executive after her arrest, said in a statement she and Acors had been "just kissing and hugging".

Mr Matter said witness statements, including one from the police officer, were "wrong" and medical examinations had proved Palmer had not had sex on the beach.”

Let’s see here...salacious, witch-hunt style witness reports or hard medical evidence. Pardon me for seeming biased, but I think I’ll side with the Britons on this matter, even though I agree that such gauche public displays of affection are deserving of some sort of punishment.

Of course, this is hardly the worst case we’ve seen from Dubai; last July we saw the case of 15-year old French-Swiss citizen Alexandre Robert, who was kidnapped and raped at knifepoint in Dubai by three Emirati men (one of whom is HIV positive). When he didn’t smother the story, as perhaps some authorities had wished, he was threatened with a jail term of his own for engaging in homosexual activity—that is, the rape itself. After a major legal battle, Alexandre was not charged and his attackers were convicted, but not before French president Nicolas Sarkozy himself became involved. For the ghastly details, read this archived Time article.

Dare I draw a comparison between Dubai and the Neverland Ranch? Isn’t Dubai where Jacko is holing up currently?* Dubai may not be positioning itself as the next resort town or even the world’s next commercial capital. Nay, it almost seems to be a new utopia for people with wealth enough to live above the law while others are crushed beneath it, which is not the image one wants in this capricious world where entire cities can fade from relevance almost overnight, no matter how many water slides they have. And with increasing reports of corruption in the Dubai real estate market coming to the forefront, investors may not even feel that their money is safe there, let alone their physical person.

*(Update: Jacko has recently been spotted in Vegas...in a mansion...across from an elementary school. So we can all relax, now...)

So in the end, what shall Dubai become? A megalopolis-sized Neverland Ranch? A more innocuous Anti-Cancun? Or the global pinnacle of commerce and technology, as its leaders have hoped? No one can say, but I will venture a guess that if the Rat Pack were around today, they would not be crooning immortalizing tunes in Dubai’s honor. However, I’ll send you off with what they might have written, were they still around, sung to the tune of Arriverderci, Roma:

Arriverderci, Dubai
Goodbye, goodbye Dubai
City of a million condo towers,
City of a million wilted flowers,
Where I was detained by the ruling powers
Far from home.

Arriverderci, Dubai—
my regards to the Sheikh:
the one who bludgeoned me for my rejection
of his amorous advances without protection.
Please let there be some form of extradition
on the books.

(Arriverderci, Dubai.

It’s time I made a break... Stuff the wedding bells; I shan’t be returning.
Keep your handcuffed arms outstretched and yearning.
Please be sure the flame of love keeps burning
at the stake.

Real Estate Industry Calling For Another Bailout

Fresh off our $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) are calling for another stimulus package, this time aimed at the housing industry, according to Inman News. One of NAR's suggestions is for the government to eliminate the need for homeowners to pay back the $7,500 first-time homebuyer loan that was part of one of the previous bailout packages; in addition, they would like to see the $7,500 offered to everyone, rather than just people who haven’t owned a home in the last three years.

"Housing has always lifted the economy out of downturns, and it is imperative to get the housing market moving forward as quickly as possible," NAR President Richard F. Gaylord said in a press statement, according to Inman News. Translation: We need to inflate the price of real estate so people start buying property again and our members don’t go broke. What do you expect the president of NAR to say? Of course he is going to do whatever it takes to ensure the livelihood of his members; after all, without them, he is out of a job. Take what anyone at NAR, or NAHB for that matter, says with a grain of salt. Just for fun, though, let’s talk about his proposal.

The first questions that come to my mind here are, what are the benefits, and how much is it going to cost? I suppose the ultimate benefit here is that somehow lighting a fire under the real estate market jumpstarts the economy and everything is back to roses and sunshine. Reality, though, is that even if this measure were to invigorate the market, we will simply be repeating the same mistakes that got us into this whole mess in the first place. This time, instead of keeping rates too low and allowing the market to take off, we will be one-upping ourselves by actually paying people to buy houses. So what would stop this from blowing up in our faces again in the future? I think you can see the point I’m trying to make here, so let’s move on to the cost.

NAR, of course, didn’t give any mention of how much this wonderful plan might cost, but let’s hypothesize here. Say 8 million homes are purchased across the country next year; with each buyer getting $7,500, that would end up costing taxpayers $60 billion. Sure, that seems like chump change compared to the $700 billion bailout plan, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that $60 billion is a lot of money. And considering that we would have to borrow this money to pay it out, the real cost is only going to increase from there. No matter how you spin it, I feel that we would be absolutely crazy to pass something like this, but I’ve felt that way before as well and the government didn’t listen.