USA $800 billion subsidy to Asian investors

Read Karl Denninger on how the Fed has been forced to prop up shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to please foreign equity holders such as China.

Further comment from Mish.

The taxpayer pays all - and presumably we're looking to do something similar here, to keep the banking show on the road.

This may be the time when those predictions about the Dow hitting 9,000 and gold breaking through $1,200 start to come true.

Big rewards for corporate failure

Wikipedia reports that chief executive Angelo Mozilo cashed in over $400 million (about a third of it in 2006/7) in Countrywide Financial stock before the failing lender's purchase by Bank of America this month. Karl Denninger's latest dramatic video presentation says, in effect, that bankers looted the system for personal gain and are now trying to get the taxpayer to foot the bill.

Investment wise owl Christopher Fildes has long advocated that, if they expect a bonus when things go well, directors should pay a "malus" when the company suffers. The French already use a bonus/malus system as a stick-and-carrot for car drivers.

Maybe then I'd be more reconciled to gross inequalities of wealth.

Whose country?

"Citizenship in this nation is is not a spectator sport," says Karl Denninger, as he tries to get more people to sign his petition to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being made vast burdens of the State.

I hope that is true for the USA, and I wish it were true here. Are we deluding ourselves when we talk of "our" Government?

Worrying signs

Knowing that debt creates extra money and so boosts inflation, The Mogambo Guru notes that the Chinese now have 1.58 billion credit cards! For some reason, TMG thinks we should look at gold and silver.

Karl Denninger points out that short-selling actually acts as a kind of price support in the market, since ultimately the short seller has to buy the shares he's sold to someone else; and so the new ban on short-selling selected financials has removed the floor beneath them. Jim in San Marcos found he couldn't do any short-selling in that sector for three hours yesterday, and doesn't know whether that means we're looking at free-fall or a sudden rally. Either way, it seems to prove the point that banning short-selling increases volatility, the sensible investor's enemy and the gambler's fatal siren.

If two views make a market, does silencing one leave the other free to become a whimsical dictator?

Bank deposits are investments, and can go wrong

Karl Denninger takes us back to basics about banks and "your money" (highlighting is mine):

I want to talk about IndyMac for a bit.

The news has covered a few really, truly sad stories. People with $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or more in there who have seen 50% of their balance over $100k disappear overnight.

Older people who literally have their life savings in these institutions. People who are relatively unsophisticated, but have been told through the years that the government will make it all ok, and who believed it.

It tugs at your heart to see a 70+ year old man pleading for them to let him have his money - money that he worked and saved a lifetime for.

If only it were that easy.

People don't think of a bank as being an investment, but it is.

You are lending your money to the bank so they can make money with it, and they pay your a coupon - interest, or the "safekeeping" in the case of a checking account that does not pay interest - in return!

US lending market: Apocalypse Now?

Some points from Denninger's latest (summary in my words):

It's getting hot. The collapse of IndyMac may take 10% - 20% of the FDIC's balance sheet, and that's assuming a savers' panic doesn't start.

If the government underwrites Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal public debt doubles (goes up by $5 trillion), the US' credit rating is compromised (it's starting to happen already) and all debts will cost more in interest - maybe 3% extra. KD's recommendation is that the two monster lenders be put into receivership and wound down over time; this means a steep drop in house prices so that they can be afforded on more sensible terms and conditions.

His advice to you: head for the high ground. Get out of debt, get your savings balance below the FDIC's $100k ceiling, think about buying Treasury bonds. "If the government goes down you will need steel, lead and brass, not money."

BUT...

See Jim from San Marcos on the same matter. And someone copied Denninger's piece whole into a comment at Jim's, to which the latter responded:

"There is a very peculiar situation here from a stock ownership position. These two stocks are being shorted en-mass. I kind of get the feeling that neither one is going to zero. I smell a bear trap here. You can be right but still be dead wrong."

Time for some bankers to pack their bags

Karl Denninger continues his holy-roller rant against banks, supervisory authorities etc and reiterates the need for all the financial horror to be made plain. This is what ought to happen, but I'd have thought it's obvious that the results are likely to be so painful that delaying tactics will continue for as long as possible.

One of the outcomes, he thinks, will be major lawsuits:

We haven't even gotten to litigation risk yet, but you can bet we will. I envision racketeering suits coming in the next year or so as its rather apparent to me that this was not some "rogue deal" but rather a systematic approach to intentional understatement of risk.

I wonder how many banking and rating agency executives are even now quietly liquidating their assets and checking which countries do not have extradition agreements with the USA.

Brunei, Kuwait, the Maldives, the Philippines, Qatar, Tunisia and the UAE could be bearable; some might even allow you to buy a drink. Samoa?

Vietnam's on the rise, even if the dong is under pressure at the moment. Dr Marc Faber has an interest there, and he is no fool.

Credit default insurance and murky dealings

You have to have car insurance, it's a legal requirement. So it occurred to me a long time ago that you could make some money selling very low-cost car insurance that (when you looked at the fine print) promised nothing, thus making a safe profit for the company, fooling the regulators and satisfying the cheapskate customer, all at the same time. Fine, till the regulators find out.

According to Karl Denninger today, this is exactly what's happened in the case of UBS insuring one of its mortgage debt packages against default losses. The insurer, it's alleged, has totally inadequate capital for the insurance it's undertaken, but the insurance suited UBS because it permitted the stinking package to be left off the balance sheet.

Oh, to be a lawyer now.

Could deflation reduce the price of gold?

Last year, Robert McHugh predicted that the Dow would drop to 9,000, at least in terms of the price of gold. By January 22 this year, that had happened.

But people like Karl Denninger have been saying for a long time that the outcome of the credit crunch will be deflationary, and Mr Denninger is more emphatic than ever about that now. And that's not just the view of a private investor who backs his judgment with his own hard-earned money: the Bank for International Settlements (htp: Michael Panzner) also thinks deflation a serious possibility.

I recently did a little primitive chartism and thought it possible that the Dow might revert to what looks like a longer-term trend line that includes the 9,000 mark.

Turning to the price of gold, it has certainly soared over the past few years, but there's been debate about manipulation. Frank Veneroso thinks central banks have been releasing stocks of gold to keep the price down, yet at the same time it is suspected that speculators have been boosting the price, possibly using leveraging (borrowing extra cash to increase the returns).

So another way for McHugh's prediction to come true (again), would be for both the Dow and the gold price to come down together. The ratio implicit in his prediction (13.51) could imply that the Dow hits 9,000 and gold drops to about $666 per ounce, or about 30% off where it is now.

Not impossible, if leveraged speculators have to disinvest to repay their borrowings in a hurry; and it would still only be a reversion to where gold was two years ago (and even then, nearly double what it had been three years before that).

Investment challenges in a bear market

If you don't believe me, believe a sophisticated investor like Karl Denninger:

One thing to remember folks - the test of your prowess as an investor does not come in a bull market. It's easy to make money in a bull market - you just buy the index.

No, the test is whether you keep your money in a Bear market. Note that I didn't say "make money". I said keep your money.

If you have the same amount of money now in your investment accounts as you did at SPX 1576 in October, you are doing better than 90% of all institutional money managers and 95% of all individual investors. This puts you in the top 5% - and that's just by going to cash in October and sitting on your hands.

If you've actually made money since then, you're in the top 1%.

Investment, inflation and market collapses

We have had no fewer than three major financial institutions (outside the US) call for an utter collapse of the equity markets in the last two weeks.

... says Karl Denninger. Seems like the pros are sitting around waiting for someone else to panic first. Then it'll be time to get in, right?

I recently looked at what happened to shares when a period of inflation begins. You might think that since inflation will also balloon the underlying tangible assets of companies, shares would do okay. But here's the results:

If you're an active investor, you may start thinking about opportunities. Look at the red zones. Draw a line from a deep points to a high one, and feel the greed; but draw lines from a temporary rally to another low, and feel the disappointment. You do need to get your timing right.

But inflation heavily penalises the passive investor, too. His boat settles onto the harbour mud; while the unlucky speculator dives headfirst off the retaining wall, deep into the goo. Inflation raises the risks for all.

Cashhhhhhh... don't tell anybody

"There is now the distinct possibility of a simultaneous sell-off in global bonds, equities and commodities," said Jonathan Wilmot from Credit Suisse.

... reports Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph (I must start to read the big-words papers). Anyhow, this is what Marc Faber said months ago. Short-term, I have a feeling DE is still on for the 'flation hors d'oeuvre, with IN as the entree.

By the way, are any managers of collective investment funds actually saying the type of thing Wilmot is saying, to their clients (not the big, favoured ones, the others, the Moms 'n' Pops)?

(htp: Karl Denninger)

A splendid rant

Karl Denninger lays all about him vigorously today. Where are the Brit bloggers to match him? Any nominations for UK financial Jeremiah of the Year?

Oil speculation?

Pace Nick Drew's comment on the previous post, Jim in San Marcos reckons there is indeed influential speculation in the oil market.

But Karl Denninger reckons it's just money looking for a home, like the boll weevil, and ultimately deflation caused by credit writedowns should reverse the trend.

Oops

For more detail and comment, see Karl Denninger.

The sky is dark, wings are flapping

Some, like Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek, call the doomsters Chicken Little. Well, many Chicken Littles make a Chicken Big, and she's coming home to roost. Or maybe the pessimists are all wrong, and everybody will live happily ever after. At least, everyone who matters.

Karl Denninger notes that in both the US and Japan, there are moves to force full disclosure of the banks' poor-grade assets; Jim in San Marcos reprises some observations of what happens when mutual funds (collective investments) are told by worried investors to "switch to cash" or simply pay out.

Look out for a hole in the henhouse roof, and a cloud of feathers.

Pay up, or default

Karl Denninger says it's time to settle accounts. Here's his estimate of the tab:

We have recognized $300 billion of losses but it has all been derivative loss. The $2.5-$3 trillion in credit loss from housing is still to come, plus all the credit card and other debt that cannot be paid down, likely a couple hundred billion more - at best.

= c. 20% of US GDP.

The system is now out of control

Recently I seem to be an annexe for Karl Denninger's blog, but that's the way it is. Here he figures that public and private debt in the US are so massive that with an average 8% interest rate, debt servicing is now equivalent to 22.4% of GDP. He thinks the system must soon explode and those holding cash will be safest.

The pocket calculator reveals the truth

A spendidly indignant Karl Denninger explains how the $600 "stimulus cheque" sent to American taxpayers will be more - much, much more - than paid for, by higher borrowing costs.

Where are the forthright Cassandras on this side of the Atlantic? Are they silent because nobody here believes in our country?

Cure, effect, cause

A paper from the Levy Economics Institute is arguing (at least theoretically) for an extra US fiscal stimulus of 4% of GDP. That's $600 billion.

The authors say that the effect would be better if this reflation came in the form of additional direct government spending, though they acknowledge that it still wouldn't immediately halt the economic decline:

It is somewhat discouraging to see that even a relatively large stimulus plan will fail to prevent a substantial loss of output. But over the medium term, as the devaluation of the dollar and reduced spending begin to exert a moderating effect on the current account deficit, foreign trade will boost output and employment, providing the impetus for renewed growth.

Karl Denninger begs to differ (though in his case, he's still talking about transfers of money, rather than direct government expenditure):

But now we have reached the point where we need $5 in debt to create $1 worth of GDP. As debt levels rise this ratio goes parabolic and ultimately becomes impossible to sustain. That we have reached a 5:1 ratio means that the game is basically up, and the rapidly rising rate of defaults across all areas of consumer debt mean that this "engine" to fuel "growth" simply can't find any more fuel, despite the desires of the bankers and merchants to "make it so."

The Levy paper has echoes of FDR's 30s rescue, but Denninger is more concerned to compare the present mortgage bubble with the one that led to the Crash of '29:

...we've done this before... We saw, in fact, nearly the exact same pattern of practice, fraud and theft that were featured in the housing bubble during the years just before The Depression, and those "standards" in fact were a primary causative factor OF The Depression!

So maybe both parties are correct.




It's also possible that the Uk has got it wrong even worse than Uncle Sam. $600 bn is about £300 bn sterling, but adjusted for relative population size that's only equivalent to £60 bn pumped into the UK economy. We're already talking about a possible £100 bn-worth of mortgage garbage being swapped by HMG for government bonds - and our current fussing over Gordon Brown's crumbling reputation suggests that Prudence wouldn't dare try to reflate with even more direct government spending.

Besides, we are starting with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio than the USA, a State that consumes a bigger proportion of the economy, and a populace that suffers a significantly lower level of personal income on a Purchasing Power Parity basis.

Maybe that's why the pound is matching the dollar in its downward trajectory, and may even overtake it.

I've been wondering recently whether the ordinary investor of the future will be more interested to play in the foreign exchange markets, rather than stocks whose value is lied about, manipulated by rumour and sovereign wealth funds, and nibbled half to death by fees, commissions, taxes and inflation.

UPDATE - Karl Denninger is emphatic that it can't work:

Sack, no.

You can't spend $600 billion in deficits without it coming back SOMEWHERE.

Government spending is not a net positive. You can't only get to a net positive via growth in GDP.

Debt-initiated spending only returns $1 for every $5 taken on in debt.