JAN 09 Economic BLOODBATH

While some 'greedy Americans' were busy buying unaffordable homes and cars other 'greedy Americans' were busy with this.
[h2][/h2]
[h2]Commentary[/h2]7:28 AM, 19 Nov 2008

Alan Kohler
[h3]A tsunami of hope or terror?[/h3]

As the world slips into recession, it is also on the brink of a synthetic CDO cataclysm that could actually save the global banking system.

It is a truly great irony that the world's banks could end up being saved not by governments, but by the synthetic CDO time bomb that they set ticking with their own questionable practices during the credit boom.

Alternatively, the triggering of default on the trillions of dollars worth of synthetic CDOs that were sold before 2007 could be a disaster that tips the world from recession into depression. Nobody knows, but it won't be a small event.

A synthetic CDO is a collateralised debt obligation that is based on credit default swaps rather than physical debt securities.

CDOs were invented by Michael Milken's Drexel Burnham Lambert in the late 1980s as a way to bundle asset backed securities into tranches with the same rating, so that investors could focus simply on the rating rather than the issuer of the bond.

About a decade later, a team working within JP Morgan Chase invented credit default swaps, which are contractual bets between two parties about whether a third party will default on its debt. In 2000 these were made legal, and at the same time were prevented from being regulated, by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which specifies that products offered by banking institutions could not be regulated as futures contracts.

This bill, by the way, was 11,000 pages long, was never debated by Congress and was signed into law by President Clinton a week after it was passed. It lies at the root of America's failure to regulate the debt derivatives that are now threatening the global economy.

Anyway, moving right along - some time after that an unknown bright spark within one of the investment banks came up with the idea of putting CDOs and CDSs together to create the synthetic CDO.

Here's how it works: a bank will set up a shelf company in Cayman Islands or somewhere with $2 of capital and shareholders other than the bank itself. They are usually charities that could use a little cash, and when some nice banker in a suit shows up and offers them money to sign some documents, they do.

That allows the so-called special purpose vehicle (SPV) to have "deniability", as in "it's nothing to do with us" - an idea the banks would have picked up from the Godfather movies.

The bank then creates a CDS between itself and the SPV. Usually credit default swaps reference a single third party, but for the purpose of the synthetic CDOs, they reference at least 100 companies.

The CDS contracts between the SPV can be $US500 million to $US1 billion, or sometimes more. They have a variety of twists and turns, but it usually goes something like this: if seven of the 100 reference entities default, the SPV has to pay the bank a third of the money; if eight default, it's two-thirds; and if nine default, the whole amount is repayable.

For this, the bank agrees to pay the SPV 1 or 2 per cent per annum of the contracted sum.

Finally the SPV is taken along to Moody's, Standard and Poor's and Fitch's and the ratings agencies sprinkle AAA magic dust upon it, and transform it from a pumpkin into a splendid coach.

The bank's sales people then hit the road to sell this SPV to investors. It's presented as the bank's product, and the sales staff pretend that the bank is fully behind it, but of course it's actually a $2 Cayman Islands company with one or two unknowing charities as shareholders.

It offers a highly-rated, investment-grade, fixed-interest product paying a 1 or 2 per cent premium. Those investors who bother to read the fine print will see that they will lose some or all of their money if seven, eight or nine of a long list of apparently strong global corporations go broke. In 2004-2006 it seemed money for jam. The companies listed would never go broke - it was unthinkable.

Here are some of the companies that are on all of the synthetic CDO reference lists: the three Icelandic banks, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, American Insurance Group, Ambac, MBIA, Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home Loans, PMI, General Motors, Ford and a pretty full retinue of US home builders.

In other words, the bankers who created the synthetic CDOs knew exactly what they were doing. These were not simply investment products created out of thin air and designed to give their sales people something from which to earn fees - although they were that too.

They were specifically designed to protect the banks against default by the most leveraged companies in the world. And of course the banks knew better than anyone else who they were.

As one part of the bank was furiously selling loans to these companies, another part was furiously selling insurance contracts against them defaulting, to unsuspecting investors who were actually a bit like "Lloyds Names" - the 1500 or so individuals who back the London reinsurance giant.

Except in this case very few of the "names" knew what they were buying. And nobody has any idea how many were sold, or with what total face value.

It is known that some $2 billion was sold to charities and municipal councils in Australia, but that is just the tip of the iceberg in this country. And Australia, of course, is the tiniest tip of the global iceberg of synthetic CDOs. The total undoubtedly runs into trillions of dollars.

All the banks did it, not just Lehman Brothers which had the largest market share, and many of them seem to have invested in the things as well (a bit like a dog eating its own vomit).

It is now getting very interesting. The three Icelandic banks have defaulted, as has Countrywide, Lehman and Bear Stearns. AIG has been taken over by the US Government, which is counted as a part-default, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are in "conservatorship", which is also a part default - a 'part default' does not count as a 'full default' in calculating the nine that would trigger the CDS liabilities.

Ambac, MBIA, PMI, General Motors, Ford and a lot of US home builders are teetering.

If the list of defaults - full and partial - gets to nine, then a mass transfer of money will take place from unsuspecting investors around the world into the banking system. How much? Nobody knows, but it's many trillions.

It will be the most colossal rights issue in the history of the world, all at once and non-renounceable. Actually, make that mandatory.

The distress among those who lose their money will be immense. It will be a real loss, not a theoretical paper loss. Cash will be transferred from their own bank accounts into the issuing bank, via these Cayman Islands special purpose vehicles.

The repercussions on the losers and the economies in which they live, will be unpredictable but definitely huge. Councils will have to put up rates to continue operating. Charities will go to the wall and be unable to continue helping those in need. Individual investors will lose everything.

There will also be a tsunami of litigation, as dumbfounded investors try to get their money back, claiming to have been deceived by the sales people who sold them the products. In Australia, some councils are already suing the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, and litigation funder, IMF Australia, has been studying synthetic CDOs for nine months preparing for the storm.

But for the banks, it's happy days. Suddenly, when the ninth reference entity tips over, they will be flooded with capital. It's possible they will have so much new capital, they won't know what to do with it.

This is entirely uncharted territory so it's impossible to know what will happen, but it is possible that the credit crunch will come to sudden and complete end, like the passing of a tornado that has left devastation in its wake, along with an eerie silence.


Link

I wonder why the media doesn't talk much about this but we have story after story of 'greedy' Americans who wanted a house or a car. How awfulof them.


 
Originally Posted by JC08

Originally Posted by oXo yzarc oXo

^^^ bankers, you all know they are the reason for the "crash" were experiencing now.

the dollar is going to collapse soon, !!+# a job. i dont want a unified currency (US/Can/Mex) ... which is whats coming, and the ppl will want it, which is the sad part.

!!+# bankers, we shouldn't have a central bank charging interest to print money.

and you all should probably listen to him, cuz even without his information if you can follow the trend of job losses over the past year, its only accelerating, this is a manufactured beast, easily contained. but the ppl on the bottom cant see the whole picture, cuz that doesnt matter, what matters to them is their personal position. so the reaction is one out of a here and now.

those dollars you have in the bank are gonna be worthless in 18 months, the Euro is collapsing, UK has a debt that is greater than their GDP.

my suggestion which would save the dollar (if they wanted to ...) would be to start increasing the primary interest rate jack that %%$$ up to 7-8% over the next 18 months (itll hurt like getting +*@%%$ raw by a baseball bat covered in razorwire) but itll be a lot better for the long term (10-15+) years and beyond. what were doing now, is gonna slow growth to a halt, thats not what we want (as a nation!). what were getting is a fiscal collapse precipitating on the order of balancing the global books.

no one realizes that with houses as cheap as they are, soon enough ppl will start buying them, what needed to happen was a normative correction to where the prices were real, vs the imaginary prices that they had inflated to. now ppl cant afford them and lose them and their jobs, and boom now what, now theres no growth and no ppl can get jobs to replace their income.

everyone below a cutoff point of information is FUCT!!!

grab your gold/copper.

1) Lowering the interest rate is the right thing to do to stimulate growth. There is also really little or no correlation between increases in interest rates and increases in exchange rates in the short term, and America cannot wait another 3-5 years for the interest rate effect to kick in. Remember the correlation between interest rates and exchange rates is RELATIVE. Meaning if every other country in the world is lowering interest rates than lowering the interest rate will not have as big as an effect.

2)I agree house prices will drop further but the "bottom" may be a lot closer then we think in my opinion because the real estate market like the stock market is forward thinking albeit being a lot less liquid. This represents an interesting opportunity for real estate speculators who are looking to buy houses to rent to generate cash flow. There is a statistic that says that 8 million homes will be in foreclosure by the end of next year I believe, and those people that occupied those homes need somewhere to live no matter what. There are only two options: rent or buy.

3)My personal opinion. Seeing as how the government has stakes or interests in almost all banks, I think their next step is to require these banks to refinance their original loans to make them more manageable. Also, it costs banks roughly $40,000 to foreclose a home. I think they would rather take a writedown on their balance sheets rather than a direct hit to their income statement.

I am an optimist, but I would be ignorant beyond belief if said I don't think there is a very real possibility that USA and the world will be in major trouble for the next 3-5 years. The next thing to watch out for, is the next wave of Alt-A and Option ARM loans that are going to reset early next year with a large proportion of them resetting in mid-2009/2010. This won't be as big of a problem IF interest rates fall for bank loans to consumers. This market is valued at $1.6 trillion in comparison to the $1 trillion subprime mortgage market.

The best bet for people to protect themselves is to start investing in things of value like gold and silver or blue chip companies like JNJ, WMT, AGU, and CAT. Let's keep this discussion going NT.
I think that we should increase out interest rates for the long term, the short term is fuct right now, we need to write it down as a loss (itwont happen the ppl in charge are all about looking good now ... thats another story for another day) i think that it would help immensely, to increase it a.15%-.25% for every meeting from now on, the problem is the fact that the world is going to slowly then very quickly liquidate the dollar, whats happeningright now with the dollar is everyone is organizing their assets which is why your seeing the renensaince if you will of the dollar surge against othercurrency around the world (including the cut in the fed funds rate to 1%). so when everyone tries to cash in which will probably happen, its going to cause amassive influx of US currency, if we keep the interest high, you can hedge some of that and retain MORE of the value of the paper as opposed to not doing it,of course.
 
Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Yeah, but if you want to get technical....its not like mortgage backed securities were new in the new millennium. One can argue, they were were created by average joe's working for Salomon Brothers in the 80's. Prior to the huge boom of ivy leaugers. They were obviously exploited by the types of people you've mentioned (be it here, or previously).

What you just described though, is what I've been hinting at...its circular. Period. Fault can be split up in tranches much like the sub-prime "securities". I don't know if I haven't gotten this across well, mainly because I try and be quick since I'm at work, but all I'm saying is, one cannot point a finger at the next one and say they were exempt. It's great when everyone is getting rich right? But when they're the one left holding the bag, all of a sudden they were a "victim". Its to that I say, $%%#%.

Not every company needed a "lending" arm. H&R Block (Option 1), I see you!

Its funny, but throughout all of this, we still basically are on the same page....I definitely see what you're saying, and have been saying. I just don't like hearing that my next door neighbor isn't a putz because he thought somehow his condo would be worth $450k and he speculated (wrongly).
Your next door neighbor might be a putz but all he was looking for was a house to live in.
He wasn't looking to create schemes that made him billions.

What these banks were dealing with was synthetic CDO's. If they were only dealing with Mortgage bonds, championed by Solomon, than we wouldn't be inthis problem.

Who wielded the power? Some poor sob Joe making 30k/year or the banker who made 250k base + 10m bonus a year?
 
Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Yeah, but if you want to get technical....its not like mortgage backed securities were new in the new millennium. One can argue, they were were created by average joe's working for Salomon Brothers in the 80's. Prior to the huge boom of ivy leaugers. They were obviously exploited by the types of people you've mentioned (be it here, or previously).

What you just described though, is what I've been hinting at...its circular. Period. Fault can be split up in tranches much like the sub-prime "securities". I don't know if I haven't gotten this across well, mainly because I try and be quick since I'm at work, but all I'm saying is, one cannot point a finger at the next one and say they were exempt. It's great when everyone is getting rich right? But when they're the one left holding the bag, all of a sudden they were a "victim". Its to that I say, $%%#%.

Not every company needed a "lending" arm. H&R Block (Option 1), I see you!

Its funny, but throughout all of this, we still basically are on the same page....I definitely see what you're saying, and have been saying. I just don't like hearing that my next door neighbor isn't a putz because he thought somehow his condo would be worth $450k and he speculated (wrongly).

it is cyclical, but that cycle has to start somewhere, but living outside of your means is a trickle down effect, debt trickles down, wealth floats at the top.

reagan had it right, he just didnt understand greed, or maybe he did ...
wink.gif
 
This is just a question and please excuse my ignorance. What about the balance of powers? We primarily blame the federal reserve (bankers) Then it branches offto big coorporation. We have corrupted officials such as the cfo who alters the book to make the company look good (Enron). This in effect could cause a bigcoorporation to fail and cause a great shift in the economy. Due to our ignorance they simply tells us that they ran out of funds.
Second question? What about an plan carried out by the government?
 
Didn't have time to get to that entire article, but funny that it should mention the credit rating agencies. I think they're some of the biggest crooksof them all.

I said this back in July - September of 2007 when this really started to fly.
 
Originally Posted by oXo yzarc oXo

Originally Posted by JC08

Originally Posted by oXo yzarc oXo

^^^ bankers, you all know they are the reason for the "crash" were experiencing now.

the dollar is going to collapse soon, !!+# a job. i dont want a unified currency (US/Can/Mex) ... which is whats coming, and the ppl will want it, which is the sad part.

!!+# bankers, we shouldn't have a central bank charging interest to print money.

and you all should probably listen to him, cuz even without his information if you can follow the trend of job losses over the past year, its only accelerating, this is a manufactured beast, easily contained. but the ppl on the bottom cant see the whole picture, cuz that doesnt matter, what matters to them is their personal position. so the reaction is one out of a here and now.

those dollars you have in the bank are gonna be worthless in 18 months, the Euro is collapsing, UK has a debt that is greater than their GDP.

my suggestion which would save the dollar (if they wanted to ...) would be to start increasing the primary interest rate jack that %%$$ up to 7-8% over the next 18 months (itll hurt like getting +*@%%$ raw by a baseball bat covered in razorwire) but itll be a lot better for the long term (10-15+) years and beyond. what were doing now, is gonna slow growth to a halt, thats not what we want (as a nation!). what were getting is a fiscal collapse precipitating on the order of balancing the global books.

no one realizes that with houses as cheap as they are, soon enough ppl will start buying them, what needed to happen was a normative correction to where the prices were real, vs the imaginary prices that they had inflated to. now ppl cant afford them and lose them and their jobs, and boom now what, now theres no growth and no ppl can get jobs to replace their income.

everyone below a cutoff point of information is FUCT!!!

grab your gold/copper.

1) Lowering the interest rate is the right thing to do to stimulate growth. There is also really little or no correlation between increases in interest rates and increases in exchange rates in the short term, and America cannot wait another 3-5 years for the interest rate effect to kick in. Remember the correlation between interest rates and exchange rates is RELATIVE. Meaning if every other country in the world is lowering interest rates than lowering the interest rate will not have as big as an effect.

2)I agree house prices will drop further but the "bottom" may be a lot closer then we think in my opinion because the real estate market like the stock market is forward thinking albeit being a lot less liquid. This represents an interesting opportunity for real estate speculators who are looking to buy houses to rent to generate cash flow. There is a statistic that says that 8 million homes will be in foreclosure by the end of next year I believe, and those people that occupied those homes need somewhere to live no matter what. There are only two options: rent or buy.

3)My personal opinion. Seeing as how the government has stakes or interests in almost all banks, I think their next step is to require these banks to refinance their original loans to make them more manageable. Also, it costs banks roughly $40,000 to foreclose a home. I think they would rather take a writedown on their balance sheets rather than a direct hit to their income statement.

I am an optimist, but I would be ignorant beyond belief if said I don't think there is a very real possibility that USA and the world will be in major trouble for the next 3-5 years. The next thing to watch out for, is the next wave of Alt-A and Option ARM loans that are going to reset early next year with a large proportion of them resetting in mid-2009/2010. This won't be as big of a problem IF interest rates fall for bank loans to consumers. This market is valued at $1.6 trillion in comparison to the $1 trillion subprime mortgage market.

The best bet for people to protect themselves is to start investing in things of value like gold and silver or blue chip companies like JNJ, WMT, AGU, and CAT. Let's keep this discussion going NT.
I think that we should increase out interest rates for the long term, the short term is fuct right now, we need to write it down as a loss (it wont happen the ppl in charge are all about looking good now ... thats another story for another day) i think that it would help immensely, to increase it a .15%-.25% for every meeting from now on, the problem is the fact that the world is going to slowly then very quickly liquidate the dollar, whats happening right now with the dollar is everyone is organizing their assets which is why your seeing the renensaince if you will of the dollar surge against other currency around the world (including the cut in the fed funds rate to 1%). so when everyone tries to cash in which will probably happen, its going to cause a massive influx of US currency, if we keep the interest high, you can hedge some of that and retain MORE of the value of the paper as opposed to not doing it, of course.
I think this author makes some great points.

[h3]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/quantitative-easing-american-style-free.html[/h3]
[h3]Quantitative Easing American Style: Free Money[/h3]
The Treasury rally continued in spectacular fashion in conjunction with the ZIRP Arrival: Fed Targets Interest Rates 0 to 1/4 Percent.

From the FOMC Press Release.
The focus of the Committee's policy going forward will be to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that sustain the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level. As previously announced, over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. The Committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities.
Free Money

The Fed is looking at the "benefits" of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities. The benefit is to banks who are front running the trade. Banks can now borrow from the Fed at the discount rate of .5% and invest somewhere out on the yield curve at a higher rate.

And as long as the Fed is not going to contract credit, banks can hold to maturity and pocket "free money". The odds of Bernanke contracting credit any time soon are essentially zero.

Bernanke hopes ZIRP will spur lending. But why lend in the middle of a recession with credit spreads blowing sky high and consumers walking away from mortgages, when you can borrow from the Fed at .5% and have guaranteed free money?

There is infinite demand for free money. But note that only banks can get it. Citigroup is not going to get a margin call from the Fed no matter how many treasuries it buys. You or I would get one in a flash if the rates went against us.

Treasury Yields



click on chart for sharper image
Chart courtesy of Bloomberg.

Shorts stepping in front of banks rushing to get free money have been trampled once again. 10 year yields are now approaching a 1 handle. Remember the cries of "bond bubble" at 5%? Don't say you weren't warned.

Yes, this is artificial demand. And no, this is not going to help the economy. But standing in front of a freight train does not make a lot of sense. And although the treasury trade will at some point blow sky high, that point will probably not happen until shorts give up trying.

Remember that the Fed cannot change the direction of a trend, the Fed can only juice it. The trend is for lower yields as deflation sets in. The Fed has only reinforced that trend.

Quantitative Easing American Style

Quantitative easing American style has arrived as noted in Bernanke Charts New Fed Course With Zero Rate, Asset Purchases.
The Federal Reserve opened a new era in U.S. monetary history, cutting interest rates to as low as zero and pledging to buy unlimited quantities of securities, after conventional policies failed to arrest what may be the worst recession since World War II.

The new strategy is likely to involve unusually close cooperation with the Treasury of President-elect Barack Obama, which is still formulating its economic-rescue plans. The aim is to kick-start borrowing and spending to propel the economy toward a recovery by the middle of next year.

"It's going to take a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus to get the job done," said former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley, now senior economic adviser at Stanford Group Co. in Washington. The central bank has signaled it will "make sure that the fiscal stimulus package, which is going to be a big one, is fully supported" and "in effect financed by the Fed."

"We are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession," Obama said at a news conference yesterday. While the Fed is going to have "more tools available to it, it is critical that the other branches of government step up," he said.

"The only meaningful limitation right now is their capacity to be creative," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc., New York. "The Fed is telling us there is just about nothing off the table."

"The availability of Fed credit might deter private credit," said Vincent Reinhart, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed Board. "The lender of last resort becomes the lender of only resort."

"Quantitative easing American style is what they're giving us," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics Inc., New York. "The Japanese style was to buy government maturities. The U.S. style is directly buying agency securities, buying mortgage-backed securities and lending money right into the private sector."
The key ideas above are:
"The availability of Fed credit might deter private credit."
"The lender of last resort becomes the lender of only resort."

Change the word "might" to "will" in the first sentence and you have the essential idea. Bernanke wants to drive long term rates lower, but there is no incentive for banks to lend at lower rates.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

 
they're all crooks, no reason for them NOT to be honest, theyll make their money and a LOT of it, but why do they lie/steal/cheat, AND get protections fordoing so.

i think im with Dr. Paul on this one, i dont know about the intentions of the FED anymore ... i thought it was first and foremost to protect the US$, but withthe protectionism they've shown over the "financial" sector (aka "banks") i dont think i can trust them to do what it is they should.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Yeah, but if you want to get technical....its not like mortgage backed securities were new in the new millennium. One can argue, they were were created by average joe's working for Salomon Brothers in the 80's. Prior to the huge boom of ivy leaugers. They were obviously exploited by the types of people you've mentioned (be it here, or previously).

What you just described though, is what I've been hinting at...its circular. Period. Fault can be split up in tranches much like the sub-prime "securities". I don't know if I haven't gotten this across well, mainly because I try and be quick since I'm at work, but all I'm saying is, one cannot point a finger at the next one and say they were exempt. It's great when everyone is getting rich right? But when they're the one left holding the bag, all of a sudden they were a "victim". Its to that I say, $%%#%.

Not every company needed a "lending" arm. H&R Block (Option 1), I see you!

Its funny, but throughout all of this, we still basically are on the same page....I definitely see what you're saying, and have been saying. I just don't like hearing that my next door neighbor isn't a putz because he thought somehow his condo would be worth $450k and he speculated (wrongly).
Your next door neighbor might be a putz but all he was looking for was a house to live in.
He wasn't looking to create schemes that made him billions.

What these banks were dealing with was synthetic CDO's. If they were only dealing with Mortgage bonds, championed by Solomon, than we wouldn't be in this problem.

Who wielded the power? Some poor sob Joe making 30k/year or the banker who made 250k base + 10m bonus a year?
What if it was his 2nd and 3rd place "to live" - that's the issue in the area I live. If you bought a place to LIVE in, that'sone thing. If you bought a place to LIVE in and got taken advantage of, that's another. If you bought a place to LIVE in with the HOPE of appreciation,then by all means I wish them the best. However, more and more, I'm reading about the opposite of these.

We became a debt and credit society and we effectively burnt this bridge.
 
Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by oXo yzarc oXo

Originally Posted by JC08

Originally Posted by oXo yzarc oXo

^^^ bankers, you all know they are the reason for the "crash" were experiencing now.

the dollar is going to collapse soon, !!+# a job. i dont want a unified currency (US/Can/Mex) ... which is whats coming, and the ppl will want it, which is the sad part.

!!+# bankers, we shouldn't have a central bank charging interest to print money.

and you all should probably listen to him, cuz even without his information if you can follow the trend of job losses over the past year, its only accelerating, this is a manufactured beast, easily contained. but the ppl on the bottom cant see the whole picture, cuz that doesnt matter, what matters to them is their personal position. so the reaction is one out of a here and now.

those dollars you have in the bank are gonna be worthless in 18 months, the Euro is collapsing, UK has a debt that is greater than their GDP.

my suggestion which would save the dollar (if they wanted to ...) would be to start increasing the primary interest rate jack that %%$$ up to 7-8% over the next 18 months (itll hurt like getting +*@%%$ raw by a baseball bat covered in razorwire) but itll be a lot better for the long term (10-15+) years and beyond. what were doing now, is gonna slow growth to a halt, thats not what we want (as a nation!). what were getting is a fiscal collapse precipitating on the order of balancing the global books.

no one realizes that with houses as cheap as they are, soon enough ppl will start buying them, what needed to happen was a normative correction to where the prices were real, vs the imaginary prices that they had inflated to. now ppl cant afford them and lose them and their jobs, and boom now what, now theres no growth and no ppl can get jobs to replace their income.

everyone below a cutoff point of information is FUCT!!!

grab your gold/copper.

1) Lowering the interest rate is the right thing to do to stimulate growth. There is also really little or no correlation between increases in interest rates and increases in exchange rates in the short term, and America cannot wait another 3-5 years for the interest rate effect to kick in. Remember the correlation between interest rates and exchange rates is RELATIVE. Meaning if every other country in the world is lowering interest rates than lowering the interest rate will not have as big as an effect.

2)I agree house prices will drop further but the "bottom" may be a lot closer then we think in my opinion because the real estate market like the stock market is forward thinking albeit being a lot less liquid. This represents an interesting opportunity for real estate speculators who are looking to buy houses to rent to generate cash flow. There is a statistic that says that 8 million homes will be in foreclosure by the end of next year I believe, and those people that occupied those homes need somewhere to live no matter what. There are only two options: rent or buy.

3)My personal opinion. Seeing as how the government has stakes or interests in almost all banks, I think their next step is to require these banks to refinance their original loans to make them more manageable. Also, it costs banks roughly $40,000 to foreclose a home. I think they would rather take a writedown on their balance sheets rather than a direct hit to their income statement.

I am an optimist, but I would be ignorant beyond belief if said I don't think there is a very real possibility that USA and the world will be in major trouble for the next 3-5 years. The next thing to watch out for, is the next wave of Alt-A and Option ARM loans that are going to reset early next year with a large proportion of them resetting in mid-2009/2010. This won't be as big of a problem IF interest rates fall for bank loans to consumers. This market is valued at $1.6 trillion in comparison to the $1 trillion subprime mortgage market.

The best bet for people to protect themselves is to start investing in things of value like gold and silver or blue chip companies like JNJ, WMT, AGU, and CAT. Let's keep this discussion going NT.
I think that we should increase out interest rates for the long term, the short term is fuct right now, we need to write it down as a loss (it wont happen the ppl in charge are all about looking good now ... thats another story for another day) i think that it would help immensely, to increase it a .15%-.25% for every meeting from now on, the problem is the fact that the world is going to slowly then very quickly liquidate the dollar, whats happening right now with the dollar is everyone is organizing their assets which is why your seeing the renensaince if you will of the dollar surge against other currency around the world (including the cut in the fed funds rate to 1%). so when everyone tries to cash in which will probably happen, its going to cause a massive influx of US currency, if we keep the interest high, you can hedge some of that and retain MORE of the value of the paper as opposed to not doing it, of course.
I think this author makes some great points.

[h3]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/quantitative-easing-american-style-free.html[/h3]
[h3]Quantitative Easing American Style: Free Money[/h3]
The Treasury rally continued in spectacular fashion in conjunction with the ZIRP Arrival: Fed Targets Interest Rates 0 to 1/4 Percent.

From the FOMC Press Release.
The focus of the Committee's policy going forward will be to support the functioning of financial markets and stimulate the economy through open market operations and other measures that sustain the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet at a high level. As previously announced, over the next few quarters the Federal Reserve will purchase large quantities of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities to provide support to the mortgage and housing markets, and it stands ready to expand its purchases of agency debt and mortgage-backed securities as conditions warrant. The Committee is also evaluating the potential benefits of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities.
Free Money

The Fed is looking at the "benefits" of purchasing longer-term Treasury securities. The benefit is to banks who are front running the trade. Banks can now borrow from the Fed at the discount rate of .5% and invest somewhere out on the yield curve at a higher rate.

And as long as the Fed is not going to contract credit, banks can hold to maturity and pocket "free money". The odds of Bernanke contracting credit any time soon are essentially zero.

Bernanke hopes ZIRP will spur lending. But why lend in the middle of a recession with credit spreads blowing sky high and consumers walking away from mortgages, when you can borrow from the Fed at .5% and have guaranteed free money?

There is infinite demand for free money. But note that only banks can get it. Citigroup is not going to get a margin call from the Fed no matter how many treasuries it buys. You or I would get one in a flash if the rates went against us.

Treasury Yields



click on chart for sharper image
Chart courtesy of Bloomberg.

Shorts stepping in front of banks rushing to get free money have been trampled once again. 10 year yields are now approaching a 1 handle. Remember the cries of "bond bubble" at 5%? Don't say you weren't warned.

Yes, this is artificial demand. And no, this is not going to help the economy. But standing in front of a freight train does not make a lot of sense. And although the treasury trade will at some point blow sky high, that point will probably not happen until shorts give up trying.

Remember that the Fed cannot change the direction of a trend, the Fed can only juice it. The trend is for lower yields as deflation sets in. The Fed has only reinforced that trend.

Quantitative Easing American Style

Quantitative easing American style has arrived as noted in Bernanke Charts New Fed Course With Zero Rate, Asset Purchases.
The Federal Reserve opened a new era in U.S. monetary history, cutting interest rates to as low as zero and pledging to buy unlimited quantities of securities, after conventional policies failed to arrest what may be the worst recession since World War II.

The new strategy is likely to involve unusually close cooperation with the Treasury of President-elect Barack Obama, which is still formulating its economic-rescue plans. The aim is to kick-start borrowing and spending to propel the economy toward a recovery by the middle of next year.

"It's going to take a combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus to get the job done," said former Fed Governor Lyle Gramley, now senior economic adviser at Stanford Group Co. in Washington. The central bank has signaled it will "make sure that the fiscal stimulus package, which is going to be a big one, is fully supported" and "in effect financed by the Fed."

"We are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession," Obama said at a news conference yesterday. While the Fed is going to have "more tools available to it, it is critical that the other branches of government step up," he said.

"The only meaningful limitation right now is their capacity to be creative," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc., New York. "The Fed is telling us there is just about nothing off the table."

"The availability of Fed credit might deter private credit," said Vincent Reinhart, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed Board. "The lender of last resort becomes the lender of only resort."

"Quantitative easing American style is what they're giving us," said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at Decision Economics Inc., New York. "The Japanese style was to buy government maturities. The U.S. style is directly buying agency securities, buying mortgage-backed securities and lending money right into the private sector."
The key ideas above are:
"The availability of Fed credit might deter private credit."
"The lender of last resort becomes the lender of only resort."

Change the word "might" to "will" in the first sentence and you have the essential idea. Bernanke wants to drive long term rates lower, but there is no incentive for banks to lend at lower rates.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.comhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com




This makes so much sense, its boggling. They're getting away with it, RIGHT IN FRONT OF US ... instead of resetting, and allowing credit toclean itself up, as it would. were digging our hole deeper.

hands off approach, is far more appealing now.

tired.gif
indifferent.gif
eyes.gif
at me for thinking, "we cant let AIG fail, its too big $4.6t in assets is too much to evaporate for $80b" %%$#!
 
[h4]http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/692-The-Idiocy-of-Bernankes-Bubbles-and-CNBS.html[/h4]
[h4]The Idiocy of Bernanke's Bubbles and CNBS[/h4]
Expanding on yesterday afternoon's Ticker.....

First, let's look at the TNX, which is the 10 year Treasury yield; we'll do two charts, the first being the 20 year Weekly:

tnx20yweekly.png


Note that we've not been here before (within 20 years anyway); here's the daily for the last year:

tnx1y.png


Yesterday we closed at a historic low, and early indications today are even worse, at 21.20 The IRX, or yield on the 13 week T-Bill, is essentially zero.

One cannot argue one simple fact - Bernanke hasn't yet started buying the long end of the curve to any material degree. But he's been threatening, and today the FOMC statement made explicit what had been whispered before.

The mouth-breathers were all over CNBC and elsewhere yesterday and today claiming that this would "stabilize" the credit markets and make credit (and the economy) better, with the most outrageous displays of stupidity being put forth by Cramer and McCulley of PIM(p)CO.

Yeah, right.

Now let's take a more cynical, but realistic, view.

Remember last year. Oil went from $60 to $150 in the space of a few months. Why? Because it was no longer profitable to buy CDOs and RMBS, as they were imploding. The money has to go somewhere, and so traders bet in front of what they believed Bernanke would do - crank down interest rates at an insanely-accelerated rate, which would spike prices in commodities, as the economic slowdown had not yet occurred - and wouldn't for several months.

They were right. Bernanke did it, oil shot the moon and Goldman (and a few others) made a whole bunch of money.

Who paid?

You did, by paying $4/gallon for gasoline.

Now let's back up a bit. 2003, to be exact. What happened? Greenspan (and Bernanke) played the same sort of game and house prices went ballistic. A handful of people made fortunes securitizing various mortgage and other "assets" into complex (and opaque!) securities, foisting them off on the world.

Who paid?

You did, by overpaying by 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a house.

Ok, so the housing bubble collapsed, then the commodity bubble collapsed.

Now we've got people who for the last month who are once again front-running Bernanke's playbook, which he was convenient enough to publish in advance as his doctoral thesis. They are buying the long end of the Treasury curve not because they think that a 2.35% yield for ten years is a reasonable rate of return over inflation, but rather because they expect The Fed and Government to drive prices higher than when they bought the securities.

That is, they're after capital gains, not yield or "coupon", and are specifically gaming the government and Fed.

Who's going to get the bill this time?

You are!

How? Simple. Treasury seems to think they can issue essentially limitless debt to bail out banks and others, having committed nearly $7 trillion thus far. Most of that has been issued through various short-term paper which has a near-zero (or actually zero!) interest rate - that is, up until now that debt issue has been essentially free!

What happens when this bubble bursts?

You think it won't? Like hell it won't. And when it does - that is, when Mr. Market calls the bet and forces Bernanke to actually make good by starting to unload all these "accumulated" Treasuries into his gaping maw, we will see "shock and awe" of another sort.

See, if the selling starts rates go up. To stop that Ben has to take up the supply. This causes him to print more money (expand his balance sheet) which means that the full faith and credit he relies on is further damaged. That in turn causes more people to get the idea that they better sell now which in turn causes him to buy more which.....

Remember the waterfall in September and October in stocks?

The same thing can happen in the Treasury market, and if it does it will force a political decision to be taken - risk the destruction of the dollar and our government or remove - by immediate statutory change (and force if that is resisted) The Fed's authority.

The argument keeps being made that "we had to do this" to save the system. But what's not being talked about is what the real problem was, and who we're trying to save.

The political class keeps trying to tell us that "we have to do this for mainstreet" and "we have to help homeowners."

Oh really?

Let's look at a few facts, shall we?

First, total mortgage debt outstanding. Its about $14 trillion dollars.

With the $7 trillion dollars we have committed we could have literally given every homeowner with a mortgage a fifty percent reduction in the principal outstanding.

This would have instantaneously stopped all of the foreclosures by putting all (essentially) homes into positive equity - overnight!

So why wasn't this done?

Because the goal was never saving homeowners or Main Street.

In point of fact the problem that the government is "trying to solve" is instead the unregulated bets that were made in the OTC CDS space which were backed by exactly nothing; there was no capital behind any of these bets!

There is no fix for this problem; your leverage is effectively infinite if you have no capital behind your positions. You are limited only by your testosterone level and there's been far too much of that on Wall Street over the last decade.

This was not an accident; in fact Henry Paulson himself lobbied for the removal of the previous leverage limits as I have noted when he was Chairman of Goldman Sachs. Between that and the complete refusal to regulate anything or anyone by the SEC, OTS, OCC, The Fed or anyone else we have built what amounts to a pyramid scheme based on nothing other than debt.

What Bernanke and Paulson are in fact trying to do - and what they have been trying to do since this crisis began - is paper over the bad bets that companies like Citibank, Lehman, Bear Stearns and AIG made with zero (or nearly so) capital behind them.

That is why we have committed $7 trillion dollars, it is why Paulson keeps changing how the "TARP" is going to work and what it is going to do, it is why AIG has gotten bolus of money after bolus as its bets have deteriorated further and in fact it is why The Fed took the arguably-illegal step of buying the assets against which AIG wrote the bets (so it could null them out; you own both sides of a bet there is no bet at all - but the loss on the underlying is now yours!)

The problem with this strategy is that it hasn't changed a damn thing, because with the exception of Lehman (which was allowed to blow up) these contracts were never extinguished; a loss is a loss and when you own both sides you're guaranteed to be the sucker who eats the grenade. All we have done is change where the leverage lies; we have taken the 30 or 50:1 leverage from the investment and commercial banks and moved it onto the balance sheet of The Federal Reserve!

This explains why The Fed is "resisting" Bloomberg's FOIA and has forced Bloomberg to file a lawsuit; laying bare the "assets" being held would allow independent evaluation of their value. This is extraordinarily dangerous to The Fed because if "we the people" (or worse, foreigners who have loaned us those trillions of dollars) were to get a look inside these "assets" and found that they were in fact so-called "AAA" mortgage bundles that have forty percent default rates embedded in them (as was found in one particular WaMu securitization I and Mish Shedlock were writing about earlier in the year) fair-minded people might conclude that The Federal Reserve is in fact broke and lying about their own solvency!

What other possible explanation is there folks?

Why keep something secret unless disclosing it would be embarrassing - or worse?

The Fed is not an independent, private entity. They are literally charged with maintaining the currency that represents the future output of every American. That is, their "stock in trade" is actually your willingness to get up, go to work, earn money and thus pay the taxes that underpin our currency and monetary system.

No taxes, no Treasury, no Government and no dollar.

Now tell me again why you're willing to get up and go to work when the organization that is effectively taxing you through these policies won't tell you how much you're going to be paying and the truth about why?

Here's yet another problem on the "unintended consequences" side, beyond the fact that the market can (and will) call Bernanke's bluff to buy "everything and anything" - its that there is no longer any reason whatsoever for you, or anyone else, to keep money in a bank account or Treasuries when the rate of return is in fact negative.

That's right - as of today there are money market accounts that have negative yields, and yet those funds are critical to the commercial paper markets.

What's Ben going to do about that little problem?

He can't force people to keep their money in an "investment" that has a negative return! And yet that is precisely what Bernanke did today - he guaranteed that virtually every single money market account across America will be decimated with withdrawal requests in the coming days and weeks.

And why not? Why would you be so stupid as to keep your money in an account that is guaranteed to lose not just value but actual principal?

We all "tolerate" inflation's cost on our funds - mostly because the vast majority of Americans don't understand it.

But everyone understands seeing their brokerage statement with a so-called "money market" that is actually going down in value every month!

That's going to last all of about one day beyond when the first statements go out that contain these losses, and will cause an instantaneous run on money market accounts across the United States. Those firms that decide to "eat" management fees to avoid this still will find themselves with a zero return which leads one to start wondering why they're giving someone use of their money for nothing and how long those firms can operate cash-flow negative before they blow up.

And that leads us to the next question - how many more Madoff's are out there? The "bezzle", as it is called, is the underlying embezzlement that is always present in an economy.

Bluntly, someone is always stealing - its part of human nature.

In good times this theft is just thought of as "shrinkage" and people tend to ignore it, because while it does count the total amount of money lost is small compared to the total profits. It can be hidden and often is - nobody is the wiser (other than the thief, of course, who is doing quite well.)

But in bad times these losses compound upon economic losses, and suddenly "the bezzle" becomes evident to everyone. The thieves try to maintain the patina of normalcy but to do so they must steal a greater and greater percentage of the principal that remains until finally the books are laid bare and there is literally nothing left.

That's what happened with Madoff and yet the SEC and other regulators were told as far back as 1999 that it was going on.

They ignored it because, well, times were good and exposing this scam would have been "embarassing."

Is your broker a Madoff?

How do you know? Is your 401k safe? Your IRA Trustee? Your online brokerage account? Is there any reason to believe it is, and any way to know it is, when a $50 billion apparent swindle goes unchecked and unstopped for ten years despite multiple written warnings sent to regulators?

Confidence? What's that? How can I reasonably know that any investment house - no matter who they are - is clean?

I can't, and that's a problem that can't be accounted for with classical "bankers theories" or "a doctoral thesis." Confidence, once destroyed, is rarely ever fully recovered.

Ben thinks he has this economy and market problem all figured out.

Unfortunately his thesis failed to account for all the unintended consequences thus far, and will continue to do so, because Ben suffers from the same sort of bloated-head syndrome that is endemic among academics - they believe they can say something and make it so as a consequence of their "degree."

The real world laughs at such hubris and severely punishes the fools who persist in their beliefs despite being proved wrong - especially when it happens more than once.

We are now in the end game; Treasuries are the last bubble, and when it bursts, we will find ourselves in a Depression that will make the 1930s look like a Cakewalk.

Bernanke has gone "all in", and he holds 2-7 offsuit.

He needs 7-7-2 on the board or he's dead.

You run the odds, then figure out what you need to do.

I am no longer looking at a 1930s scenario as my base case; that has shifted to the panic of 1873, which was far worse than the 1930s and included widespread civil unrest. Go do some reading - and make sure you're sitting down. The parallels in the foundation of how that panic occurred - industrial shifts (US >> China) and insanely-loose mortgage credit (European in particular) are stunning - and troubling.

If Bernanke won't cut this crap out Congress needs to do so, and do it now. A replay of the 1873 Depression in today's society will be catastrophic, with unemployment reaching 30% or more and leaving essentially everyone - corporate or otherwise - carrying any form of debt wiped out. Deficit spending will become instantly impossible; go figure out what that does to the Federal Budget.

We are running out of time to stop that outcome and if effective action is not taken before the Treasury Bubble pops it will, quite simply, be too late. That Genie is not the friendly sort, and once he pops out there is no stuffing him back into the bottle.

There will be more on this in the Year In Review And Look Ahead Ticker, due out in a couple of weeks.

Here's hoping the bluff doesn't get called before then.
 
It's a problem when something as significant as gas goes from $5.00 to $1.60 in six months.
This is gas where talking about here. Everybody needs gas!!! Can you imagine selling anything for $5.00 then having to drop the price to $1.60.

If the oil industry is hurting like that then no one is safe... Our economy is screwed!!!

I'm about to buy an acre in Japan, smoke some buddha and grow my own vegetables to live, money will be irrelevant to me... REAL TALK!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom