Where's safe for your money? It's like a minefield: we seem to be zig-zag running between financial explosions. Housing? Overpriced, full of bad debt. The stockmarket? Due to drop when earnings revert to the mean. The commodity market? Distorted by speculation and manipulation.
How about bonds? Clive Maund thinks US Treasuries are due for a pasting as yields rise to factor-in inflation; but Karl Denning is still firmly of the DE-flation persuasion and thinks a stockmarket fall may be our saviour:
The Bond Market no likey what's going on. The 10 is threatening to break out of a bullish (for rates) flag, which presages a potential 4.20% 10 year rate. This will instantaneously translate into higher mortgage and other "long money" rates, destroying what's left of the housing industry.
There is only one way to prevent this, and that's for the stock market to blow up so that people run like hell into bonds, pushing yields down!
He also gives his own theory as to why the Fed stopped reporting M3 money supply rates:
The moonbats claim that The Fed discontinued M3 because they're trying to hide something. In fact they discontinued M3 because it didn't tell you the truth; it was simply NOT capturing any of the "shadow" credit creation caused by all the fraud (and undercapitalized "insurance" which, in fact, is worth zero), but it sure is capturing the forcible repatriation into bank balance sheets when there is no other when it comes to access to capital for companies and governments.
So, two elephants are riding the bond seesaw: fear of inflation, and fear of losing one's capital. I hope the plank doesn't snap. Antal Fekete reckons the bond market can take all the money you can throw at it - but what goes up will come down.
Cash still doesn't seem like such a bad thing, to me.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A secular bear market in housing?
It's now generally accepted that houses are overpriced. I think valuations will not only go down, but (notwithstanding bear market rallies) stay down for at least a generation.
Here's some reasons, some having a longer-term effect than others:
A market goes up when more people want to buy, than those that want to sell. Well, all of these first time home buyers have no spare cash for the Stock Market. The Baby Boomers, sometime in the future are going to want to sell. The question arises, "Sell to Whom?"
Returning to houses, there are still those who think valuations will continue to be supported by the tacit encouragement of economic migration to the UK.
Now, although this helps keep down wage rates at the lower end (where is the Socialist compassion in that?), the government is pledging the future for a benefit which is merely temporary, if it exists at all. Once an incoming worker has a spouse and several children, how much does he/she need to earn to pay for the social benefits consumed now and to come later? State education alone runs at around £6,000 ($12,000) per annum per child.
And then there's the cost of all the benefits for the indiginous worker on low pay, or simply unemployed and becoming steadily less employable as time passes. And his/her children, learning their world-view in a family where there is no apparent connection between money and work. The government makes get-tough noises, but in a recessionary economy, I don't think victimising such people for the benefit of newspaper headlines will be any use. I seem to recall (unless it was an Alan Coren spoof) that in the 70s, Idi Amin made unemployment illegal in Uganda; not a model to follow.
So to me, allowing open-door economic migration to benefit the GDP and hold up house prices doesn't work in theory, let alone in practice.
Besides, I maintain that in the UK, we don't have a housing shortage: we have a housing misallocation. There must be very many elderly rattling around alone in houses too large and expensive for them to maintain properly. This book says that as long ago as 1981, some 600,000 single elderly in owner-occupied UK property had five or more rooms; the ONS says that in 2004, some 7 million people were living alone in Great Britain. Then there's what must be the much larger number of people who live in twos and threes in houses intended for fours and fives. Before we build another million houses on flood-plains, let's re-visit the concept of need.
Maybe we'll see the return of Roger the lodger - if he's had a CRB check, of course.
Would I buy a second home now? No. Would I sell the one I live in? I'd certainly think about it - in fact, have been considering that for some years.
Here's some reasons, some having a longer-term effect than others:
- house prices are now a very high multiple of earnings, choking the first-time buyer market.
- presently, there is increasing economic pessimism, which will further inhibit buyers.
- the mortgage burden now lies in the amount of capital to be repaid, rather than the interest rate; that's much harder to get out of, and will prolong the coming economic depression, either through the enduring impact on disposable income, or through the destruction of money by mortgage defaults on negative-equity property - and as valuations fall, there will be more and more of the latter.
- fairly low current interest rates allow little room to drop rates further to support affordability - and at worst, rate drops could sucker even more people into taking on monster mortgage debt. But interest rate reductions are unlikely to benefit borrowers anyway. The banks have survived for centuries on the fact that while valuations are variable, debt is fixed. They got silly with sub-prime, but by George they will remain determined to get all they can of their capital back, and preserve its value. The people who create money literally out of nothing - a mere account-ledger entry - are now tightening lending criteria and will continue to press for high interest rates; for now, they will content themselves with not fully passing on central bank rate cuts, so improving the differential for themselves, as compensation for their risk.
- food and fuel costs are rising, and given declining resources (including less quality arable land annually), a growing world population and the relative enrichment of developing countries, demand will continue to soar, cutting into what's left of disposable income.
- our economy is losing manufacturing capacity and steadily turning towards the service sector, where wages are generally lower.
- the demographics of an ageing population mean that there will be proportionately fewer in employment, and taxation in its broadest sense will increase, even if benefits are marginally reduced.
- the growing financial burden on workers will further depress the birth rate, which in turn will exacerbate the demographic problem.
A market goes up when more people want to buy, than those that want to sell. Well, all of these first time home buyers have no spare cash for the Stock Market. The Baby Boomers, sometime in the future are going to want to sell. The question arises, "Sell to Whom?"
Returning to houses, there are still those who think valuations will continue to be supported by the tacit encouragement of economic migration to the UK.
Now, although this helps keep down wage rates at the lower end (where is the Socialist compassion in that?), the government is pledging the future for a benefit which is merely temporary, if it exists at all. Once an incoming worker has a spouse and several children, how much does he/she need to earn to pay for the social benefits consumed now and to come later? State education alone runs at around £6,000 ($12,000) per annum per child.
And then there's the cost of all the benefits for the indiginous worker on low pay, or simply unemployed and becoming steadily less employable as time passes. And his/her children, learning their world-view in a family where there is no apparent connection between money and work. The government makes get-tough noises, but in a recessionary economy, I don't think victimising such people for the benefit of newspaper headlines will be any use. I seem to recall (unless it was an Alan Coren spoof) that in the 70s, Idi Amin made unemployment illegal in Uganda; not a model to follow.
So to me, allowing open-door economic migration to benefit the GDP and hold up house prices doesn't work in theory, let alone in practice.
Besides, I maintain that in the UK, we don't have a housing shortage: we have a housing misallocation. There must be very many elderly rattling around alone in houses too large and expensive for them to maintain properly. This book says that as long ago as 1981, some 600,000 single elderly in owner-occupied UK property had five or more rooms; the ONS says that in 2004, some 7 million people were living alone in Great Britain. Then there's what must be the much larger number of people who live in twos and threes in houses intended for fours and fives. Before we build another million houses on flood-plains, let's re-visit the concept of need.
Maybe we'll see the return of Roger the lodger - if he's had a CRB check, of course.
Would I buy a second home now? No. Would I sell the one I live in? I'd certainly think about it - in fact, have been considering that for some years.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Reversion to mean
Echoing recent comments by Vitaliy Katsenelson (also on Barron's), Jeremy Grantham thinks profit margins will decline towards normal and the Standard & Poor's 500 will head from its current c. 1334 to 1100 in the year 2010 - a drop of about 18%.
Grantham is emphatic that borrowed money is not a stimulant to the economy:
I have an exhibit that shows the 30 years prior to 1982 when the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio was completely flat at 1.2 times. Total debt is defined as government debt, personal debt, corporate debt and financial debt. Then in the 25 years after 1982, the flat line goes up at a 45 degrees angle from 1.2 times to 3.1 times GDP. Massive. In the first 30 years, when debt is flat, annual GDP growth is its usual battleship, growing at 3.5% and hardly twitching. After the massive increase in debt, GDP, far from accelerating, grew at 3%. So debt in the aggregate does not drive the economy. The economy is driven by education, man-hours worked, capital investment and technology.
That last sentence is really pregnant. I'm not sure about the man-hours (the closer we approach peasanthood, the harder we'll work), but I think that on both sides of the Atlantic, we've been falling down on the other three.
In Britain, our government has failed to distinguish between investing in education, and managing it - and where it has tried to do the latter, has pursued a Romantic-heritage political agenda. Capital investment? Going abroad. Technology? Ditto - and eagerly taken up (if not positively filched) by our Eastern trading partners.
I live in what used to be Car City; now, the vast Longbridge site is being redeveloped for housing and shops - in other words, open prison for the new ex-industrial underclass.
But Rome, too, kept control of its plebs with bread and circuses for a couple more centuries, before it fell.
Grantham is emphatic that borrowed money is not a stimulant to the economy:
I have an exhibit that shows the 30 years prior to 1982 when the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio was completely flat at 1.2 times. Total debt is defined as government debt, personal debt, corporate debt and financial debt. Then in the 25 years after 1982, the flat line goes up at a 45 degrees angle from 1.2 times to 3.1 times GDP. Massive. In the first 30 years, when debt is flat, annual GDP growth is its usual battleship, growing at 3.5% and hardly twitching. After the massive increase in debt, GDP, far from accelerating, grew at 3%. So debt in the aggregate does not drive the economy. The economy is driven by education, man-hours worked, capital investment and technology.
That last sentence is really pregnant. I'm not sure about the man-hours (the closer we approach peasanthood, the harder we'll work), but I think that on both sides of the Atlantic, we've been falling down on the other three.
In Britain, our government has failed to distinguish between investing in education, and managing it - and where it has tried to do the latter, has pursued a Romantic-heritage political agenda. Capital investment? Going abroad. Technology? Ditto - and eagerly taken up (if not positively filched) by our Eastern trading partners.
I live in what used to be Car City; now, the vast Longbridge site is being redeveloped for housing and shops - in other words, open prison for the new ex-industrial underclass.
But Rome, too, kept control of its plebs with bread and circuses for a couple more centuries, before it fell.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Will monetary inflation be absorbed by the bond market?
In the previous post, I looked at the expectation that interest rates will rise. But it seems that freaky things can happen if the government tries to stimulate the economy by progressively cutting interest rates and pumping more money into the system.
Professor Antal E Fekete thinks that in a deflationary environment, governmental attempts to reflate by introducing more money will be thwarted by the ability of the bond market to soak up the excess liquidity. Higher bond yields result in lower bond valuations, so reducing interest rates inflates the price of bonds. Fekete says that halving the rate doubles the bond price, and since mathematically you can halve a number indefinitely, the bond market can absorb all the fiat money you can create. Therefore, you can have hyperinflation and economic depression at the same time.
This trap is possible because the abandonment of the gold-and-silver standard means that the dollar has no limit to its expansion. And bond speculators have their risk covered by the need of the government to return to the market for renewed borrowing. If the Professor is right, it would be a nasty trap indeed.
But maybe our conclusion should be that this explains why interest rates must rise.
A quibble on style: especially in England, money is regarded as dull. So financial commentators try hard to add flavour, and in the Professor's case, too hard - it has been difficult for me to detect the meat of the argument under its many-spiced similes. Byron's Don Juan comes to mind:
And Coleridge, too, has lately taken wing,
But like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,
Explaining Metaphysics to the nation--
I wish he would explain his Explanation.
Professor Antal E Fekete thinks that in a deflationary environment, governmental attempts to reflate by introducing more money will be thwarted by the ability of the bond market to soak up the excess liquidity. Higher bond yields result in lower bond valuations, so reducing interest rates inflates the price of bonds. Fekete says that halving the rate doubles the bond price, and since mathematically you can halve a number indefinitely, the bond market can absorb all the fiat money you can create. Therefore, you can have hyperinflation and economic depression at the same time.
This trap is possible because the abandonment of the gold-and-silver standard means that the dollar has no limit to its expansion. And bond speculators have their risk covered by the need of the government to return to the market for renewed borrowing. If the Professor is right, it would be a nasty trap indeed.
But maybe our conclusion should be that this explains why interest rates must rise.
A quibble on style: especially in England, money is regarded as dull. So financial commentators try hard to add flavour, and in the Professor's case, too hard - it has been difficult for me to detect the meat of the argument under its many-spiced similes. Byron's Don Juan comes to mind:
And Coleridge, too, has lately taken wing,
But like a hawk encumber'd with his hood,
Explaining Metaphysics to the nation--
I wish he would explain his Explanation.
Warren Buffett's misleading optimism
Jonathan Chevreau reports Warren Buffett's bullishness on the US economy, long-term; but the real gem in this piece is the extensive, but cogent and crunchy comment by Andrew Teasdale of The TAMRIS Consultancy, who analyses Buffett's real approach to equity valuations.
Teasdale points out that although interest rates hit 21% in 1982, there was less debt, higher disposable income and lower valuations: relative to disposable income, debt is a bigger burden today than it was 25 years ago. He summarises his position pithily:
It is also worthwhile remembering that not everyone holds a Buffet portfolio and not everyone has the luxury of a 220 year investment horizon. If I was a long term investor with no financial liabilities arising over the next 15 years equities would be my preferred asset class relative to cash and bonds, but I would be mindful of valuations in determining where I put my money.
Not all the bad debt has yet surfaced, and as Karl Denninger comments, even at this stage Citibank has recently been forced to borrow foreign money at 14%, and other banks at over 7%, in preference to the 3% Federal Funds rate, presumably to keep the scale of their insolvency in the dark.
Inflation is increasing, therefore money-lenders are going to want more income to compensate for risk and the erosion of the real value of their capital. For the yield to rise, the capital value of bonds has to fall.
So I read Teasdale's summary as implying that for now, it's cash rather than either bonds or equities.
Teasdale points out that although interest rates hit 21% in 1982, there was less debt, higher disposable income and lower valuations: relative to disposable income, debt is a bigger burden today than it was 25 years ago. He summarises his position pithily:
It is also worthwhile remembering that not everyone holds a Buffet portfolio and not everyone has the luxury of a 220 year investment horizon. If I was a long term investor with no financial liabilities arising over the next 15 years equities would be my preferred asset class relative to cash and bonds, but I would be mindful of valuations in determining where I put my money.
Not all the bad debt has yet surfaced, and as Karl Denninger comments, even at this stage Citibank has recently been forced to borrow foreign money at 14%, and other banks at over 7%, in preference to the 3% Federal Funds rate, presumably to keep the scale of their insolvency in the dark.
Inflation is increasing, therefore money-lenders are going to want more income to compensate for risk and the erosion of the real value of their capital. For the yield to rise, the capital value of bonds has to fall.
So I read Teasdale's summary as implying that for now, it's cash rather than either bonds or equities.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The Golden Compass doesn't work
FTSE closed today down at 5,724.10, a point first reached (travelling the other way) in December 1998. The longer-term chart above suggests to me a glass ceiling. Or flogging a dead horse (I can't tell you how some ten-year-olds I know misheard that last saying recently, or how their conversation continued. That generation appears to be developing backwards from middle age.)Adjusted for inflation, the line would look worse, of course. I think my gut feeling was right ten years ago: essentially, we've been going down since the late nineties.
But what inflation measure to use? Gold seems to go down together with equity sell-offs, rather than seesawing against them. And unlike with the Dow, there doesn't seem to be an easily accessible index of the FTSE priced in gold terms; but GATA last week went very public with their theory that gold is being held down by surreptitious selling - and has been quietly disappearing from central bank vaults. This is something I've touched on a number of times before, and MoneyWeek gives its take on it here. Meanwhile, here's the ad:
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The New World Order: a philosophical objection
A deep essay by Christopher Quigley here, but one I intend to re-read. Marxist philosophy always made my eyes water, practically instantly, as I have little tolerance for prolonged abstract multisyllabic holy-rolling, but I'll steel myself because we have to have some understanding of the madness that seems to have seized our modern conspiratorial ruling class. "Affairs are now soul-size".
Gold chart confusion
Here's a chart of gold against inflation as measured by CPI, from Captain Hook, and it suggests that high as it is now, the price of gold is still below its 1973 - 1997 average:
... and here's another from Ty Andros's TedBits, comparing gold to gobal financial liquidity:
Which line of reasoning would you support at this time?
... and here's another reproduced on the Contrarian Investor's Journal (possibly from TedBits, which I'll come to in a moment), which seems to show the opposite:
... and here's another from Ty Andros's TedBits, comparing gold to gobal financial liquidity:Which line of reasoning would you support at this time?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Why equities should go down
I'm breaking radio silence because of a brilliantly lucid article (from the subscription-only Barron's site) found for us by Michael Panzner.
Vitaliy Katsenelson explains that the current average price-earnings ratio may seem cheap, but that's because recent profit margins have been well above the 8.5% trend. Even allowing for a shift since 1980 away from industry towards the higher-margin service sector, the present 11.9% profit margin should be seen against a longer-term background figure of around 8.9 - 9.2%, which if current p/e ratios continue would imply a downward stock price correction of 22 -25%.
This chimes with Robert McHugh's "Dow 9,000" prediction from last July. And in many fields it's usual for overshoot to occur in the process of regression to a mean, so if it holds true in this case we could see even deeper temporary lows.
Day traders, be warned: this piste is a Black Run.
Vitaliy Katsenelson explains that the current average price-earnings ratio may seem cheap, but that's because recent profit margins have been well above the 8.5% trend. Even allowing for a shift since 1980 away from industry towards the higher-margin service sector, the present 11.9% profit margin should be seen against a longer-term background figure of around 8.9 - 9.2%, which if current p/e ratios continue would imply a downward stock price correction of 22 -25%.
This chimes with Robert McHugh's "Dow 9,000" prediction from last July. And in many fields it's usual for overshoot to occur in the process of regression to a mean, so if it holds true in this case we could see even deeper temporary lows.
Day traders, be warned: this piste is a Black Run.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Au revoir
It looks as though the bear market has begun, though of course, events are liable to make fools of all of us. A recent peak was in October last year and if we take a recession as lasting typically 30 months, we should be grounding by around April 2010.
I've done my best to add my voice to the growing chorus of somethingmustbedonners, and tried to warn investors as I did in the late Nineties - not that I'm wise, but I seek out the wise. This won't put off the day traders, who rush in where angels fear to tread and will try to make fortunes on the rattlesnake-fast turns of bear market rallies; some will get it right, and fair play to you, as they say.
For the rest of us, I don't think I can better the common sense, brevity and clarity of this in the comments section from Jim in San Marcos, answering an investor's query as to what to do:
The basic premise is to pay off your debts and have some spare cash in the bank. There will be layoffs.
Buying a big item right now could tie you to a commitment that could be more than you anticipated. I know of one person already that was surprised by a layoff. They didn't see it coming.
If it gets worse, a lot of people will be selling big ticket items to raise cash. There should be some pretty good deals out there.
Money isn't everything, and there are bigger issues facing us: the growing military as well as economic power of Russia and China; our failure to nurture and educate our young, which points up the selfishness of our adults; the threat to democracy that is big government combined with big business, and the growing divide between an increasingly internationalist managerial class and a resentful, paralysed underclass whose numbers grow while our economies shrink and twist. And perhaps it is not entirely paranoid to suggest that there are many (often well-meaning, by their lights) proto-revolutionaries hacking away at the cultural and social ties that bind us, still dreaming that Bakunin was right when he said that the urge to destroy is also the urge to create.
I now have to take some time out to set my own affairs in order - too many commitments, personal and professional. Good luck to you all, and thanks for reading and commenting.
I've done my best to add my voice to the growing chorus of somethingmustbedonners, and tried to warn investors as I did in the late Nineties - not that I'm wise, but I seek out the wise. This won't put off the day traders, who rush in where angels fear to tread and will try to make fortunes on the rattlesnake-fast turns of bear market rallies; some will get it right, and fair play to you, as they say.
For the rest of us, I don't think I can better the common sense, brevity and clarity of this in the comments section from Jim in San Marcos, answering an investor's query as to what to do:
The basic premise is to pay off your debts and have some spare cash in the bank. There will be layoffs.
Buying a big item right now could tie you to a commitment that could be more than you anticipated. I know of one person already that was surprised by a layoff. They didn't see it coming.
If it gets worse, a lot of people will be selling big ticket items to raise cash. There should be some pretty good deals out there.
Money isn't everything, and there are bigger issues facing us: the growing military as well as economic power of Russia and China; our failure to nurture and educate our young, which points up the selfishness of our adults; the threat to democracy that is big government combined with big business, and the growing divide between an increasingly internationalist managerial class and a resentful, paralysed underclass whose numbers grow while our economies shrink and twist. And perhaps it is not entirely paranoid to suggest that there are many (often well-meaning, by their lights) proto-revolutionaries hacking away at the cultural and social ties that bind us, still dreaming that Bakunin was right when he said that the urge to destroy is also the urge to create.
I now have to take some time out to set my own affairs in order - too many commitments, personal and professional. Good luck to you all, and thanks for reading and commenting.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
We have tracked the beast to his lair
Many an honourable man is underrated. Richard Daughty (aka The Mogambo Guru) takes this opportunity to show that the banks created the problems that some of them are now called upon to solve. It's like that film (Blowback) where the arsonist villain turns out to be a firefighter. Doubtless no-one will suffer condign punishment for using inflation to steal from gullible savers.
Meow boing splat
Both Karl Denninger and Michael Panzner interpret yesterday's rise on the Dow as a bear market rally. There are already references to "dead cat bounce", but we haven't anywhere nearly touched the bottom, I think.
People speak of the crash of 1929, but it took much longer for the crisis to work through and there were lots of opportunities for investors to step off with smaller losses. There were also plenty of traps for those who thought it was time to buy back in.
Here's a chart (source) of the process:
People speak of the crash of 1929, but it took much longer for the crisis to work through and there were lots of opportunities for investors to step off with smaller losses. There were also plenty of traps for those who thought it was time to buy back in.
Here's a chart (source) of the process:
As they say, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. Today's central banks are acutely aware of this past history and do not wish to be remembered for making the same mistake, i.e. worsening the situation by deliberately contracting the money supply.
However, Denninger and others think we can't stop this contraction anyway, once the credit bubble has been pricked, and attempts to reflate will merely devalue the currency while failing to stimulate the real economy.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Dow 9,000 prediction fulfilled
As at the time of writing, the Dow is 11,820.24 and gold $875.90/oz. The Dow/gold ratio is therefore below 13.51 and has (perhaps fleetingly) fulfilled Robert McHugh's prediction.
Whether the Dow falls below 9,000 nominal in the course of a severe recession is something we shall have to see.
Whether the Dow falls below 9,000 nominal in the course of a severe recession is something we shall have to see.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Funny line
Traders described the losses on the FTSE 100 Index as "incredible", with the Footsie at one stage plummeting by as much as 330.7 points.
(Press Association release today.)
Less than 6%. Maybe they should raise the minimum age to be a trader.
Oh, and the PA uses the hack line "More than £x billion was wiped off the value of ... shares". Enough experience for cliche, not enough to remember history.
"See what I mean? Kids!"
(Press Association release today.)
Less than 6%. Maybe they should raise the minimum age to be a trader.
Oh, and the PA uses the hack line "More than £x billion was wiped off the value of ... shares". Enough experience for cliche, not enough to remember history.
"See what I mean? Kids!"
It can't happen here
The US bemoans its fate, but we in the UK have also had something of a crash in the last three months, too. FTSE on 12 October: 6,730.70; now: 5,578.20 - 17% down.
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times, hmmmmmmmm
(The Mothers of Invention)
There was a period of hip journalism in the 60s and 70s that thought it clever to quote pop trash as if it were Holy Writ, and I'm afraid I couldn't resist the cheek. Retro, but maybe appropriate for a rerun of the econogrind of those years.
It can't happen here
It can't happen here
I'm telling you, my dear
That it can't happen here
Because I been checkin' it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times, hmmmmmmmm
(The Mothers of Invention)
There was a period of hip journalism in the 60s and 70s that thought it clever to quote pop trash as if it were Holy Writ, and I'm afraid I couldn't resist the cheek. Retro, but maybe appropriate for a rerun of the econogrind of those years.
Trad wins out over Progressive
Jazz is in vogue, and so, it seems, are old-fashioned financial virtues (though not, of course, here in the Western world). Ty Andros points out what I have long suspected: we've been failing for a long time, and only inflation has hidden the truth from the masses. He goes back further than I would, and suggests the real-wealth stagnation in G7 countries began in 1990-1991.
Ben Bernanke half-joked about dropping money from helicopters if necessary; now the first $500 tax rebate parcels are on their way. Andros says we're into a Ludwig von Mises"crack-up boom" which means that nominally, assets won't fall in price, but in reality they will be eaten hollow by inflation:
“Volatility is opportunity” and it is about to SOAR! (As you will see in the next installment of the 2008 Outlook) They will “Print the money” as the unfolding “Crack up Boom” powers generational moves in grains, commodities, currencies, and stocks are on the table.
Ben Bernanke half-joked about dropping money from helicopters if necessary; now the first $500 tax rebate parcels are on their way. Andros says we're into a Ludwig von Mises"crack-up boom" which means that nominally, assets won't fall in price, but in reality they will be eaten hollow by inflation:
“Volatility is opportunity” and it is about to SOAR! (As you will see in the next installment of the 2008 Outlook) They will “Print the money” as the unfolding “Crack up Boom” powers generational moves in grains, commodities, currencies, and stocks are on the table.
Danger of systemic breakdown
Doug Noland looks at the world of financial speculation, which has used loads of borrowed money to boost returns, and worries that as liquidity dries up, the market will become inefficient. This is, I think, one of the things about which Richard Bookstaber has warned. Perhaps the gunslinger day traders should assure themselves of the robustness of their counterparties when playing with futures and options.
We've just had a crash
... and Robert McHugh figures that the US stock market (as measured by the Wilshire 5000 Index) has already lost $2.6 trillion in the last three months.
He's begging for inflation now, rather than a useless stimulant later when the mule has died.
He's begging for inflation now, rather than a useless stimulant later when the mule has died.
The $1 trillion loss figure reappears
Thomas Tan thinks the addition of plausible losses in the credit default swap market to write-offs in other areas of banking, could bring the total hit on the US financial system to the $1 trillion mark.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Economics in the dark
In 1971, the economist Stafford Beer brought the cybernetic revolution to Chile. His key perception was that economic decisions needed not only accurate, but timely information. So he set up a computer network and data analysis systems to empower the government's ministries without overloading them with irrelevant data.
In advanced economies, it's important for companies, banks and individuals to receive such information, too.
But nearly 40 years later, the USA needs to re-learn the lesson. The Federal Reserve ceased reporting M3 money supply data in 2006; accurate assessment of inflation is complicated by "hedonic adjustment" and periodic (and tendentious?) alteration of the types of item included in price surveys; the Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusts unemployment figures so that an increase can sometimes appear to be a decrease; nobody (not even the lenders) yet knows the full figures on bad loans and "Tier 3 assets"; it is not even clear how we should assess a nation's wealth (GDP per capita seems a misleading measure).
How can you navigate without up-to-date information? Even in the nineteenth century, Mississippi river pilots had to keep track of the river's changes, or risk getting stranded on new sandbars. And as John Mauldin reports, party political manoeuvering is stymying two appointments to the Federal Reserve's Board, at a time when the Fed most needs to concentrate on resolving the unfolding complex financial crisis.
Even given the right data, decision-making has become tougher. Increasing global interconnection and wealth transfer between nations means that normal cycles may be broken by epochal linear developments, so the past is now a very unsafe guide to the future.
We need clarity, direction and vision.
In advanced economies, it's important for companies, banks and individuals to receive such information, too.
But nearly 40 years later, the USA needs to re-learn the lesson. The Federal Reserve ceased reporting M3 money supply data in 2006; accurate assessment of inflation is complicated by "hedonic adjustment" and periodic (and tendentious?) alteration of the types of item included in price surveys; the Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusts unemployment figures so that an increase can sometimes appear to be a decrease; nobody (not even the lenders) yet knows the full figures on bad loans and "Tier 3 assets"; it is not even clear how we should assess a nation's wealth (GDP per capita seems a misleading measure).
How can you navigate without up-to-date information? Even in the nineteenth century, Mississippi river pilots had to keep track of the river's changes, or risk getting stranded on new sandbars. And as John Mauldin reports, party political manoeuvering is stymying two appointments to the Federal Reserve's Board, at a time when the Fed most needs to concentrate on resolving the unfolding complex financial crisis.
Even given the right data, decision-making has become tougher. Increasing global interconnection and wealth transfer between nations means that normal cycles may be broken by epochal linear developments, so the past is now a very unsafe guide to the future.
We need clarity, direction and vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)