Tags: Wall Street

A Not-So-Subtle Difference

Over the past few weeks and this week in particular, the rhetoric on assisting banks has changed dramatically. While the semantics are subtle, the implications are anything but. In the months after the blowup of Bear Stearns and other marquee Wall Street firms, loans were used to provide funds to investment and commercial banks. These loans were made by the US taxpayers to these institutions at interest and needed to be paid back.

Recently, there has been more than idle talk about converting most of these loans to equity stakes, which do NOT need to be paid back. Furthermore, future disbursements would like be made by buying equity stakes in the firms rather than making loans. Sound the same? Not quite. Here are some reasons why:

1) In the event of bankruptcy, creditors are paid off before shareholders from any proceeds of liquidation. Given the vaporization of BSC and LEH, this is definitely worth mentioning. Historically, shareholders are left holding the bag in a true bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation.

2) Even if the firms remain solvent, there is significantly more risk in holding equity than debt. The taxpayer’s investment would be subject to all the risks generally associated with holding stocks. Taking a look at the performance of banking stocks during 2008 gives a pretty good idea of what I am talking about here.

3) Current shareholders are negatively impacted by dilution if more shares are created out of thin air for the government to purchase. And even if the shares are bought in the open market, the mere size of the stake could have a rather deleterious affect on existing shareholders should that stake need to be sold en masse.

4) By taking an equity interest, the government is consummating an incestuous relationship with the banking industry. Nationalization is the term typical used in this type of situation, but the term has become taboo in the mainstream media in recent weeks.

5) Also, bear in mind that the banks don’t really need this money at all. They have been printing their own currency for years now via unregulated, non-transparent OTC derivatives. Now that some of their bets have gone bad, the taxpayers have been forced to ‘legitimize’ this activity by the infusion of trillions of less-funny-money (dollars).

Sea changes can be either dramatic or subtle. The recent direction in terms of supporting the financial system sounds subtle enough, but with dramatic results.

State of the Consumer

This week’s surprise Consumer Confidence report gives us yet another reason to take a step back and survey the landscape. Much of the recent focus has deservedly been on unemployment while little focus has been given to other aspects of the consumer and more importantly, the overall state of the consumer’s mind. Clearly there are several enigmas manifesting themselves in both confidence and spending patterns. This week we’ll take a closer look at some of these issues, and probably generate quite a bit of debate as well.

Consumer Confidence

Desensitization

Increases in consumer confidence during the past two months are indicative of desensitization. Consumers are becoming acclimated to weak economic conditions, poor stock market returns, and the continued accumulation of job losses. This desensitization has been emphasized by the mainstream media; particularly in the past few months. The take-home message of articles and news reports has shifted to ‘be happy things aren’t getting worse’ and people are doing just that. Bargain hunters have been lured into many areas including housing, stocks, and even retail products. Meanwhile, important fundamentals like GDP, unemployment, foreclosures, and household net worth go largely unmentioned and underanalyzed.

Where are Consumers Spending Their Money?

What is telling, however, are the reports coming out of some individual sectors in the consumer landscape. Traditional economics breaks goods and services down into two major categories: staples and discretionary. This division follows the old-school definition of needs vs. wants. However, today, the lines have been blurred quite a bit and goods that would have easily been considered discretionary even 10 years ago are now regarded as staples.

The following NAICS category charts were selected because they represent areas that are extreme examples in the staple—discretionary continuum. And for comparative purposes, the total US Retail Sales chart is included at the end of the series.

Grocery Store Sales

The situation with grocery stores is a primary example of how aggregate consumption numbers are reported, which will be explained in greater detail later in the article. Just reading the chart, Americans spent less at grocery stores from the middle of 2008 through the beginning of 2009, which is when we called the bottom in terms of consumer prices. Did people eat less or just spend less on what they purchased? In all likelihood it is the latter, given that grocery store shopping is one of the most basic of spending types. For the sake of thoroughness, included below is the same chart for big-box/warehouse type stores just in case everyone abandoned their local grocery store for lower prices at BJ’s and Sam’s Club.

Warehouse Club Sales

You’ll notice quickly that the rate of growth in warehouse club spending has been declining steadily since the beginning of the decade. Spending has also flattened considerably in the past 6 months. Clearly Americans didn’t take their unspent grocery store dollars and run to the warehouse clubs, so our initial conclusion is intact.

Gasoline Station Sales

Gasoline station spending fell off a cliff from July through December, indicative of falling gas prices and people cutting back on the purchases of accoutrements such as drinks and sandwiches. In a similar fashion to grocery store sales, there has been a recent increase in spending at gas stations reflected by the price of gas jumping from near $1.50/gallon to around $2.00/gallon nationally.

Jewelry Sales

Obviously, jewelry is far at the other end of the staple-discretion continuum, and is a good indicator of purely discretionary spending. It is pretty apparent, at least from this graphic, that this type of discretionary spending (in total dollars) is contracting rapidly, now at a year over year rate of around -22%. Massive discounting by many national and regional jewelers have certainly contributed to fewer total dollars spent as well.

Total US Retail Sales

Above, we notice the same tail in total retail sales starting at the beginning of 2009. This change in total retail sales correlates well with our data on consumer level inflation and brings the mainstream’s assertion of the re-emergence of the consumer into question.

Inflation Returns to Consumer Prices

In early January, a number of our in-house statistical indicators turned positive in terms of the spillover of monetary inflation into consumer prices and we discussed this issue in detail in 2/20/2009’s article “The Turning of the Tide?”:

“If we have indeed witnessed the inflection point where the trillions of dollars parked in investment and commercial banks are finally being let out to play, then our wealth and purchasing power are about to come under serious attack. Obviously the risk in putting such an assertion to paper is that if we return to the previous trend of falling prices even for a brief time, the entire construct will be discredited rather than the possibility that the timing was a bit off being acknowledged. There are some factors that would help us to confirm or deny that such an inflection point has taken place……”

Since those indicators went positive, we have received affirmation of our observations from PPI/CPI, the GDP Price Index or GDP Deflator, nominal retail sales, and import prices. It is the retail sales portion that applies here, and the key lies in how that report is interpreted. It absolutely must be remembered that almost all of these aggregate spending metrics report in total Dollars, NOT units. Nor are these numbers adjusted for ‘inflation’. They are adjusted for seasonal factors that are at the discretion of the reporting agency, but that is it. What this means is that increases in consumer prices (especially in staple goods since people are less likely to cut back) will be interpreted as economic growth when retail sales are reported because people are spending more money. Conversely, when prices fall like they did from July through December of 2008, the interpretation will be economic contraction.

So the question needs to be asked: Did people actually buy fewer goods and services (an actual retrenchment) over the past 6 months or did they just pay less for some of the things they purchased thereby causing retail sales to drop?

The answer is more difficult to find than one might imagine.

We know from the Advance GDP report on Wednesday of this week that personal income in the US dropped by an estimated $59 billion (2.0% annualized) as job losses put more and more Americans on the unemployment rolls. The rate of decay in personal income grew from $42.9 Billion or 1.4% annualized in Q4 2008.

The report also gleaned that personal outlays increased .7% in Q1 2009 after falling 9.5% in Q4 2008. Looking for example at the CPI for that period, we find that using the old CPI methodology that consumer prices increased 1.18% for Q1 2009. By extension then, if consumers would have purchased the exact same quantity of goods as they did previously, they would have spent 1.18% more yet they only spent .7% indicating that less goods/services were purchased. A terribly small cutback for sure, but certainly not the growth trumpeted by the mainstream media.

For comparative purposes let’s apply the same analysis to Q4 2008. Using the same CPI methodology as the previous paragraph, consumer prices dropped 2.93% in Q4 2008. So if consumers had bought the same quantity of goods/services, they would have spent 2.93% less. Yet consumers spent 9.5% less indicating a significant cutback.

One conclusion we can draw from this cursory analysis is that while consumers spent more in Q1 2008, they didn’t really buy more. Still, in the face of rising unemployment, falling housing prices, and general economic malaise, consumers are still trying hard to hold onto yesteryear after a very brief period of belt-tightening.

In our ‘Spin Cycle’ podcast, we are currently doing a 7-part series in which we depict the factors affecting the US economy as sides of a Rubik’s Cube – independent, yet interrelated. Episodes include Interest Rates, Economic Growth, Debt/Monetary Growth, Energy, Demographics, Geopolitics, and the State of the Consumer. To listen, visit www.my2centsonline.com/radioshow.php

Spin Cycle 4/29/2009 Charts

Here are the accompanying charts for our 4/29/2009 ‘Spin Cycle’ podcast entitled ‘State of the Consumer’. The episode may be found at http://www.contraryinvestorscafe.com/sc_04292009.mp3

Elephants and Tea Parties

It is really no wonder that thousands of people across the nation showed up Wednesday to protest everything from the $787 stimulus package to big bank bailouts done under the cover of darkness. A failing economy, a government determined to insert itself fully in the specter of control, state sovereignty movements, and a good old fashioned tax day frown all combined to whip up enough ire to get folks to take to the streets. Still, many in the media don’t understand why this wave of protest is occurring.

Main Street Under Pressure

Since last summer there have been fairly regular stories even in the mainstream press about banks cutting limits on credit cards. It would seem as though the bankers had decided that the age of consumerism had gone too far. Ironically, these actions happened concurrently with the largest giveaways in the history of mankind. In the past 9 months the United States, #1 on the world financial stage, has committed an entire year of economic output to stem the ongoing crisis. How do banks respond? By cutting credit card limits. It is like giving a small child sweets until the kid is in a frothing sugar-frenzy, then locking up the candy dish. The analogies are nearly limitless, but the point is obvious. While the banks screamed for the elixir of easy Fed credit, they slammed the door on Main Street. For their part, consumers at some levels have cut back on their spending, which is a good thing. The unfortunate reality is this: Even the most prudent and responsible consumer will have a bad month. There will be a string of unexpected expenses, and that individual might need to carry a balance for a while to get things straightened out. Job losses will cause exactly this type of situation and now in many cases the credit is not there.

Another unintended consequence is that when credit lines are cut, utilization goes up and suddenly the most frugal appear to be on a spending bender. Take the person who has $25,000 in total credit from a number of different sources. Say on average the individual uses $5000/month for regular expenses, but never carries a balance. Now let’s assume that their lines are cut in half. Their utilization just doubled from 20% to 40%. Their new application for a small business loan might now be rejected because they’re judged to be a bad credit risk due to the 40% utilization. More unintended consequences.

Another amazing development has been the continuation and acceleration of foreclosure activity despite all the political rhetoric over the past 15 months from both sides of the aisle in terms of ‘helping’ homeowners. According to RealtyTRAC, foreclosure activity, which includes default notices, repossessions, and auction sale notices, increased 6% from January 2009. This same measure increased nearly 30% from February 2008. So despite trillions of dollars pledged to Fannie, Freddie, Bobby, Lulu, and anyone else with a leaky balance sheet to supposedly assist homeowners, not only is foreclosure activity not abating, it is increasing.

Runaway government spending

As most are acutely aware this tax day, their contribution to the team effort of bailing out the economy will not be near enough. Not only will their continued (and increasing) participation be needed, but that of their children, and grandchildren will be required as well. While I could sit here and tally up the various tabs, totals, and sums, it would be pointless. The public is mind-numb from hearing these staggering figures. It is very difficult to even fathom a billion let alone a trillion. However, this reality has dawned on an increasing number of people over the past few months and they are understandably perturbed. We have hopefully learned a valuable lesson, and that is that liberty is akin to a seedling. It is planted, but then must be watered, fed, and protected from the harsh environment in which it lives. While Americans were out collectively living it up over the past umpteen years, that harsh environment has wreaked havoc on our seedling. The bad news is that we’ve got a lot of work to do. Hopefully the sheer magnitude of our task doesn’t discourage us from doing it.

Big Bank Profits = Bubble Watch

After 6 quarters of dire forecasts, failures, predictions of failure, and uncounted bailouts, big banks are suddenly earning money again. Interestingly enough, most of these newfound profits are coming from the investment banking sides of their businesses. Translated, that means they’re back to their old tricks again and it is back to business as usual. Secure in the knowledge that their backs are securely covered by ‘We the People’ and without fear of extinction, the winners of the 2008 financial crisis have been refreshed, revived, and are back at it. Since our economy and monetary system are still compromised by the same structural imbalances that existed before the crisis, it is again time to go on “Bubble Watch”. The ingredients are there: very cheap money from the Fed and existing dislocations in many markets. The only thing missing is you. And this little fact could cause quite a problem. Americans, quickly growing weary of the accelerating boom-bust cycles, and still punch drunk from the last beating are not likely to be as willing to participate in the next bubble.

One of last fall’s pieces focused on the causes of the Great Depression and tried to dispel the myth that the market crash of 1929 was somehow solely responsible for the mess that followed. We pointed to a nagging reality from 1929 and that was the proportion of Americans living in poverty. More than half were living below a minimum subsistence level, which at the time was $750/year. Essentially one half of the population was unable to support further economic growth. That was one of the underlying structural imbalances. The crash and subsequent misguided government responses were the triggers that caused the Depression.

How much different are we really today? Sure, the poverty line has been adjusted upwards in nominal terms, but fundamentally, how many Americans are below it now? Perhaps the most important variable that has changed in the past 70 years is the reliance we have on credit as a society. How many of us would be living below the poverty line, unable to participate in the economy were it not for VISA, Mastercard, and equity lines of credit? The recent spikes in unemployment will only exacerbate the situation, causing further reliance on credit for subsistence; credit which is shrinking by many measures.

In conclusion, it is particularly disheartening that nearly all of the political focus spanning the last two administrations has been about getting credit flowing again, with only token talk of job creation and fostering legitimate economic growth. The actions have been no better. The vast majority of bailout and stimulus dollars have gone to the financial system to encourage lending and borrowing rather than to the real economy. Our fiat monetary system’s reliance on debt for its growth is the elephant standing in the room each time a press conference or media event is held. It is the elephant nobody in charge wants to talk about. It is the question nobody in media wants to ask. And, at the end of the day, I would imagine that is why so many people came out on Wednesday and will continue to do so. They aren’t interested in parties. They just want to talk about elephants.

Engineering a Rally

Every bear market has one.. Every Great Depression has one. While I admit that there is limited evidence on the latter, there is certainly plenty to support the former. Every bear market has its own rallies, and countless times investors will be suckered into thinking these rallies are the start of a new bull – and nobody wants to be the one that missed out.

I have talked on my weekly radio shows for some time now about two potential rallies in this bear market. I am not looking at technical indicators to make that statement, but rather two potential occurrences that could trigger rallies within this mega-bear market. It has been my opinion that policymakers would use these occurrences to either touch off or maintain the current bear market rally. As it turned out, the markets provided their own bottom of sorts in terms of selling exhaustion and a wave of euphoria about economic prospects from Washington. Now we get to our possibilities – and the rhetoric and symbolic changes are already taking place.

1) The Uptick Rule – The uptick rule, put in place to prevent predatory short-selling was for some still unknown reason removed in the summer of 2007 – just a few months before the peak in the DOW and S&P500. The SEC claimed that the uptick rule in the age of instant (and in their opinion, perfect) information was irrelevant. This incredibly foolish move paved the way for institutions and hedge funds to cannibalize each other from November 2007 through the present. The net result of this cannibalization was an unprecedented and historic consolidation in the financial sector.

It seems the SEC has finally found its common sense and there have been hearings about re-instituting the uptick rule. This serves to send the signal to opportunistic banks and hedge funds that the coast is clear to start buying assets at fire sale prices, which will lead to further consolidation. Even mere talk of bringing back the uptick rule will impact investing decisions. Keep in mind that this arena is not one occupied by Ma and Pa Podunk, but rather multi-billion dollar hedge funds and banks.

2) Revisions of the Mark to Market Rule – This is the equivalent of allowing financial institutions to play ‘Alice in Wonderland’ with regard to the value of otherwise worthless derivative securities and non-performing mortgage tranches. While the arguments for mark to model are plentiful, and in some cases legitimate, the bottom line is that an asset is only worth what someone is willing to pay you. Following the current logic, homeowners should be able to pretend that their homes are worth 40% more than the market price and behave accordingly. See another bubble possibility here?

We will present a much more in-depth analysis of the ramifications of the uptick rule and the changes recently made to ‘mark to market’ accounting in this month’s edition of The Centsible Investor. For more information, please click here.

Points to Ponder

On April Fool’s Day, it seems apropos to consider a few things and ask yourself if you ever thought you’d see the following headlines in America:

- ADP Report shows worst ever job losses in March 2009; stocks surge on the news.

- US President fires CEO of a private-sector corporation after the government shuffled tens of billions into the zombie firm.

- US Congress considering measure to set pay levels for ALL employees of any firm in which the US Govt. has taken a ‘capital position’.

- The Federal Reserve and US Treasury have now spent a year’s worth of Gross Domestic Product on rescuing financial firms.

No folks, we’re not making this up.

Three Bears and a missing Goldilocks

2006 and 2007 were framed by financial pundits as a time when we could truly have the Goldilocks economy. Growth wouldn’t be too fast or too slow, but just right. The Fed had both hands on the wheel and was goosing things just enough to keep the ship headed in the right direction. Of course all the while the same pundits chose to ignore raging inflation at the consumer level as energy and food prices headed for the stratosphere. The fall of energy prices has been spectacular, however, the drop in food prices has been virtually nonexistent. As in the story of Goldilocks, there were some bears who weren’t too happy about Goldilocks and her plans for their porridge.

2008 was the year of the bear in many regards, but as we take a deeper look at the situation, it becomes very clear that there are several other angry bears out there that have yet to completely show themselves. The credit crisis, as many in financial circles affectionately call it, has been improperly blamed for the current economic malaise. In order to understand this concept, it is imperative that one be able to separate the financial economy from the real economy. The real (or producing) economy is the part that actually creates goods and services which are allocated by the markets, often with the use of credit from financial intermediaries. Those intermediaries make responsible loans based on a number of factors and intend to collect payments for the duration of the loan. Despite what we’ve been led to believe about securitization, a good deal of non-securitized lending was going on as well. This is the real economy. The financial economy is behemoth firms on Wall Street, which by and large produce almost nothing (except headaches recently).

This was not always the case. An economy does need financial intermediaries. Essentially what these intermediaries are supposed to accomplish is to bring savers and borrowers together in an efficient manner and take advantage of scale economies. For example, it is easier for a company to go to a bank for a million dollar loan rather than put ads in newspapers and solicit the loan a thousand dollars at a time. Likewise is it easier for someone who wants to save $1000 to head to their local bank than it is for them to seek out a borrower directly. In this both these cases, the financial agent or intermediary provides a valuable service by adding efficiency to the process. For this service, the agent is paid a fee. That fee comes from the difference between the interest paid and the interest collected (the spread). Unfortunately, what has happened is the financial intermediaries have been engaging in other activities such as underwriting, trading for their own accounts (Wiki Glass-Steagall) as in the case of broker dealers, and providing investment advisory services, often times recommending stocks which they themselves own or have provided underwriting services for. Lastly, and perhaps most dangerously, the use of leverage and super leverage became commonplace. The largest financial intermediaries dabbled too much in the conflict of interest and risk business rather than tending to their role in the system.

The Baby Bear has been the understanding that all of this would go well until the sea changed and the market moved against these intermediaries. This sea change, triggered by a strikingly small number of defaults on subprime mortgages and the avalanche of credit derivatives that followed has left a swath of destruction that has rendered our most venerable firms insolvent. What was Wall Street is now a giant zombie, requiring constant, ever-increasing, and ever-accelerating mountains of money just to keep it functioning. This is borne out in the news headlines as AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America in particular have required steady infusions of cash. Not to mention the GSE’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The above scenario is a pure example of the downside of leverage. If someone takes $100 and borrows $900 to make a $1000 investment and that investment loses 11%, the capital is gone. What is left is an underwater investment and no way to make good AND remain solvent. In many cases we witnessed leverage rates of 20, 40, and even 100 to 1. In these cases, miniscule market moves led to instant insolvency hence the ability of a small number of bad loans to trigger the crisis. (See chart below for an idea of how credit in the financial system has been growing over the past half century.)

Total Credit Owed - Financial Sector

(Total Credit marked debt owed by the financial sector – an indirect indicator of leverage)

However, were the defaults on those subprime mortgages caused by the credit crisis? Absolutely not. They were caused by the Mother Bear: overleveraged consumers. The ridiculous notion put forth by the media and financial pundits that real estate prices could accelerate forever was prima facie evidence of a bubble. What these pundits failed to recognize is that in any debt structure, there is an absolute point where it is simply not possible to take on more debt because expectations for even the servicing of that debt are simply unreasonable. To put it simply, what were the prospects for the now famous California strawberry picker to make continually increasing payments on a $750,000 condo? Silm and none and Slim’s bags were packed before the ink was dry on the loan.

Unfortunately, it was not just housing; it was everything. A recession was avoided in 2001 by dropping interest rates to nothing, printing money, and blowing bubbles. We bought too many cars, too many computers, too much consumer electronics, too many swimming pools, too many granite countertops, and in general, too much of everything. Not until it was too late did we realize that we were saving nothing, spending well in excess of our means, and now the bill is coming due. Buying less was an obvious move on the part of consumers, and is in full swing. This pullback in spending is now rippling through both the manufacturing and service economies of the US and other OECD countries. This morning, the UK officially entered a recession although I’d venture to guess that, like us, they’ve been there for quite some time. China’s output is falling as we (and others) consume fewer of their goods.

The Father Bear is time. Consider for a moment the trillions of dollars that have been thrown at just the banking system. These trillions have not fostered one iota of growth. They have barely unlocked the credit markets with regard to banks. The LIBOR Rate chart has more gaps on it than someone in dire need of an orthodontist, and the banking system requires unknown further trillions just to maintain a semblance of financial order.

1 Month LIBOR

(1-Month London Interbank Offer Rate (LIBOR) on a weekly basis)

All of this, and nothing has been done about the economy. And I’ve got news for the pundits – this will not go away by printing more money. This will not go away by lowering rates, which are already at zero in the US. This will not go away by handing out gift cards to consumers to force them to buy stuff (Suggested in 1/8’s MTC article as a possible ‘solution’ and mainstreamed by MarketWatch on 1/22). Creating more government jobs is not the answer. What has been lost in the analysis of the Great Depression is that despite FDR’s New Deal programs, the US remained in a depression for another 7 years at a minimum. The country was pulled out of that depression by the onset and eventual entrance of America into World War II, NOT by government spending programs alone. This does not bode well geopolitically.

The take home message is don’t expect this to end quickly. It will not. The Depression of 2008 and beyond is here, no matter what we choose to call it. Every week over one half million freshly unemployed individuals are filing for unemployment insurance. Sure that insurance helps them to stay in houses and buy necessities. That’s about it though. I would not count on these people running up credit card debt to over-consume. So every week, one half million discretionary spenders are heading to the sidelines. This is a crisis of consumption, brought on by decades of overconsumption, facilitated first by sending a second wage earner to the workforce, and later by the introduction and rampant growth of consumer credit. These excesses were not created overnight, nor will they be purged overnight.

01/22/2009 Initial Claims

(New Unemployment Claims – weekly in gray, 4-week mean in brown)

Total Consumer Credit Outstanding

(Total Consumer Credit in 2000 Dollars with y/y %change in red)

What is also going to become very obvious in the next 9-12 months is that inflation is a monetary, not an economic event. We have been riddled with talk from the financial press that prices cannot rise while the economy is weak so we should forget about inflation. They will be proven wrong. A growing economy actually causes prices to fall by creating efficiencies through scale and scope economies. Prices are much more a function of money supply than economic velocity or activity. Watch what happens to prices if the government starts handing out money or gift cards. Do you think flatscreen TV’s will sell for 50% off if those TV’s are flying off the shelves because you’ve got 300 million Americans armed with a Victory Card? I think not. Prices are a function of the supply of money and credit. The bad news here is that you can have inflation during a depression. Care for a recent example? Just go back to the 70’s stagflation. What we’ve got now is just a more extreme version of an already established event.

What do to? Believe it or not, there are sectors, industries and firms that will do exceedingly well in this type of an environment. They’re out there and we’ve been pointing them out to our subscribers and clients. Perhaps most importantly though, at a micro level, each person can clean up their own finances and temper their expectations of the future to whatever extent is possible. And if you happen to see Goldilocks, tell her to drop Ben a line; he’s been looking for her for quite some time and is rather worried.

DISCLOSURES: Long MERKX, DOG

Digging in the Couch

Amazingly, despite the fact that nearly every one of Wall Street’s big firms is crying poverty and pining for your tax dollars, they have somehow found billions for year end bonuses. When I read this story, I had the unmistakable image in my mind of Wall Street executives dispatching their legions of idle associates to scour the couches looking for spare change. Let’s keep score a second. In 2008,

  • 5 major financial firms have gone broke or required a bailout
  • At least 3 others narrowly averted bankruptcy (thanks JP Morgan – oh WHERE do you get all that money?)
  • More than a dozen banks have failed with more on the way
  • Thousands of jobs have been lost just in the financial sector
  • Shareholders didn’t just lose their shirts; they lost their pants and socks too
  • US taxpayers will bear the cost for at least 10 generations – Yes I did say 10.

And after all that there is still plenty of money for bonuses? Are you kidding me? Bonuses are supposed to reward a job well done. Instead, these folks have been allowed to bankrupt a nation and will get to hit the cookie jar one more time.

Paulson's Plan Irrelevant?

Published on: 09/29/2008
Comments: 3 Comments

This morning the local financial press was carrying the staggering news that the Federal Reserve was pumping an additional $630 Billion into the financial system through the use of currency swaps and their already in place TAF.  This announcement is only the latest in a seemingly never-ending parade of liquidity injections. As of the end of July, the TAF had totaled $735 Billion, and the TSLF an additional $647 Billion. August and September’s numbers notwithstanding, the total injection to date is a whopping $2.012 Trillion. 

As this blog entry is being written, the US House of Representatives is debating and preparing to vote on a $700 Billion bailout package for the US banking system crafted and backed by the US Treasury Secretary. There is much hype and disagreement amongst politicians regarding this package, but in truth, the Fed has been doing much of what the bailout bill proposes for the past year or so. Why then must we rush to judgement on this bill? The Fed has asserted all along that it is in complete control of the financial turmoil so why the big hurry?

It seems to be rather likely that once again the devil is in the details. Whatever poor excuse for legislation finally makes it through Congress must be analyzed carefully as it will most almost assuredly either legalize something that the Fed has been doing all along or will seek to accomplish something well beyond the scope of the Fed’s activities.

« page 2 of 2

Welcome , today is Sunday, 02/05/2012