Those who are concerned about Bear Stearns and the subprime mortgage fiasco should read Paul Tastain's article in today's Daily Reckoning. He explains in detail how junk lending has gone from risky investment, to default insurance and ultimately to a kind of gambling. Some of the worst of this product has been bought by institutional investors, such as pension funds who have been almost forced to buy it by legislative pressure to increase bond holdings. He guesstimates potential losses in the region of $72 billion, or 20 times what it cost to bail out LTCM
These are certainly large figures, but maybe we should look at them in context. Interpreting the Russell 3000 Index data on this site, total US equities were worth around $15 trillion in 2005, and obviously rather more now. The 2007 estimated Federal Budget outlay is $2.655 trillion. That would make the putative $72 billion junk mortgage loss only about 0.5% of US investments overall, or some 2.6% of US government expenditure.
But the article is a wonderfully clear example of how systemic risk is created and expanded.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Some highlights from the Levy Economics Institute
A few nuggets from the July 2007 Levy Economics Institute conference:
Dimitri Papadimitriou foresees an improving current account deficit over the next three years. Private sector debt should level off as a proportion of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office's forecast and targets for 2010 assume continuing home borrowing, but if this doesn't happen, the model suggests that budget deficit needs to increase to 4.6% of GDP. The alternative is a depreciation of the dollar, which is unlikely because (a) this would increase inflation and (b) China does not wish the renminbi to rise significantly against the dollar. A propos the last, Robert Barbera explained that a renminbi appreciation would raise the price of China's farm products and hit the living standard of its large rural population.
Robert Parenteau looked at US private borrowing: "the prospect of a hard landing should be taken seriously".
Wolfgang Muenchau of the Financial Times thinks that despite having stronger fundamentals than America, Europe is likely to be affected by a US downturn, because European stocks, property prices and interest rates tend to follow America's lead, and a strengthening of the Euro against the dollar would hit European exports and economic growth.
Torsten Slok considered longer-term inflationary pressures in the US: demands for pay raises, an increasing proportion of retirees overstraining the budget, and the possibility of an overheating Chinese economy that would up US import prices.
James Paulsen thought that the US could regain some of its consumer market share through "a long-term sustained contraction of its trade deficit to revive domestic manufacturing".
Frederic Mishkin of the Federal Reserve was relatively relaxed about subprime borrowing, saying that such loans represented less than 10% of all mortgages.
Dimitri Papadimitriou foresees an improving current account deficit over the next three years. Private sector debt should level off as a proportion of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office's forecast and targets for 2010 assume continuing home borrowing, but if this doesn't happen, the model suggests that budget deficit needs to increase to 4.6% of GDP. The alternative is a depreciation of the dollar, which is unlikely because (a) this would increase inflation and (b) China does not wish the renminbi to rise significantly against the dollar. A propos the last, Robert Barbera explained that a renminbi appreciation would raise the price of China's farm products and hit the living standard of its large rural population.
Robert Parenteau looked at US private borrowing: "the prospect of a hard landing should be taken seriously".
Wolfgang Muenchau of the Financial Times thinks that despite having stronger fundamentals than America, Europe is likely to be affected by a US downturn, because European stocks, property prices and interest rates tend to follow America's lead, and a strengthening of the Euro against the dollar would hit European exports and economic growth.
Torsten Slok considered longer-term inflationary pressures in the US: demands for pay raises, an increasing proportion of retirees overstraining the budget, and the possibility of an overheating Chinese economy that would up US import prices.
James Paulsen thought that the US could regain some of its consumer market share through "a long-term sustained contraction of its trade deficit to revive domestic manufacturing".
Frederic Mishkin of the Federal Reserve was relatively relaxed about subprime borrowing, saying that such loans represented less than 10% of all mortgages.
Buffett on trade imbalances
Warren Buffett's 28 February 2007 letter to shareholders is available online, and makes educational and entertaining reading. Here's a pithy extract:
As our U.S. trade problems worsen, the probability that the dollar will weaken over time continues to be high. I fervently believe in real trade – the more the better for both us and the world. We had about $1.44 trillion of this honest-to-God trade in 2006. But the U.S. also had $.76 trillion of pseudo-trade last year – imports for which we exchanged no goods or services. (Ponder, for a moment, how commentators would describe the situation if our imports were $.76 trillion – a full 6% of GDP – and we had no exports.) Making these purchases that weren’t reciprocated by sales, the U.S. necessarily transferred ownership of its assets or IOUs to the rest of the world. Like a very wealthy but self-indulgent family, we peeled off a bit of what we owned in order to consume more than we produced.
The U.S. can do a lot of this because we are an extraordinarily rich country that has behaved responsibly in the past. The world is therefore willing to accept our bonds, real estate, stocks and businesses. And we have a vast store of these to hand over.
These transfers will have consequences, however. Already the prediction I made last year about one fall-out from our spending binge has come true: The “investment income” account of our country – positive in every previous year since 1915 – turned negative in 2006. Foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card. And, like everyone who gets in hock, the U.S. will now experience “reverse compounding” as we pay ever-increasing amounts of interest on interest.
I want to emphasize that even though our course is unwise, Americans will live better ten or twenty years from now than they do today. Per-capita wealth will increase. But our citizens will also be forced every year to ship a significant portion of their current production abroad merely to service the cost of our huge debtor position. It won’t be pleasant to work part of each day to pay for the over-consumption of your ancestors. I believe that at some point in the future U.S. workers and voters will find this annual “tribute” so onerous that there will be a severe political backlash. How that will play out in markets is impossible to predict – but to expect a “soft landing” seems like wishful thinking.
It's reassuring that Buffett thinks per-capita wealth will increase; this is an antidote to the most extreme doomsters. But it begs the question of how equitably that wealth will be distributed. The transfer abroad of industrial jobs leaves most of their former holders in less well-paid employment, while boosting the profits of large multinational companies (such as Wal-Mart, in which Berkshire Hathaway has close to a billion-dollar stake). From James Kynge's China book, it seems that the gap between America's rich and poor is widening, and the middle class is shrinking. Save and invest while you can.
Buffett is also enlightening on the future of newspapers in the electronic age, and the occasional bargains to be had in insurance. His firm has made money out of carefully-considered reinsurance (including for Lloyds of London) and derivatives. Berkshire Hathaway has gradually moved from being a "growth" to a "value" business, delivering returns increasingly from income earned, and insurance business helps. BH has made a profit from "super-cat" insurance in the past year, but Buffett warns that Hurricane Katrina wasn't the last nor the worst possible.
Note also the warning in the extract about the dollar. Recent falls aren't the end of the necessary decline - see to the Levy report referred to in my previous post.
As our U.S. trade problems worsen, the probability that the dollar will weaken over time continues to be high. I fervently believe in real trade – the more the better for both us and the world. We had about $1.44 trillion of this honest-to-God trade in 2006. But the U.S. also had $.76 trillion of pseudo-trade last year – imports for which we exchanged no goods or services. (Ponder, for a moment, how commentators would describe the situation if our imports were $.76 trillion – a full 6% of GDP – and we had no exports.) Making these purchases that weren’t reciprocated by sales, the U.S. necessarily transferred ownership of its assets or IOUs to the rest of the world. Like a very wealthy but self-indulgent family, we peeled off a bit of what we owned in order to consume more than we produced.
The U.S. can do a lot of this because we are an extraordinarily rich country that has behaved responsibly in the past. The world is therefore willing to accept our bonds, real estate, stocks and businesses. And we have a vast store of these to hand over.
These transfers will have consequences, however. Already the prediction I made last year about one fall-out from our spending binge has come true: The “investment income” account of our country – positive in every previous year since 1915 – turned negative in 2006. Foreigners now earn more on their U.S. investments than we do on our investments abroad. In effect, we’ve used up our bank account and turned to our credit card. And, like everyone who gets in hock, the U.S. will now experience “reverse compounding” as we pay ever-increasing amounts of interest on interest.
I want to emphasize that even though our course is unwise, Americans will live better ten or twenty years from now than they do today. Per-capita wealth will increase. But our citizens will also be forced every year to ship a significant portion of their current production abroad merely to service the cost of our huge debtor position. It won’t be pleasant to work part of each day to pay for the over-consumption of your ancestors. I believe that at some point in the future U.S. workers and voters will find this annual “tribute” so onerous that there will be a severe political backlash. How that will play out in markets is impossible to predict – but to expect a “soft landing” seems like wishful thinking.
It's reassuring that Buffett thinks per-capita wealth will increase; this is an antidote to the most extreme doomsters. But it begs the question of how equitably that wealth will be distributed. The transfer abroad of industrial jobs leaves most of their former holders in less well-paid employment, while boosting the profits of large multinational companies (such as Wal-Mart, in which Berkshire Hathaway has close to a billion-dollar stake). From James Kynge's China book, it seems that the gap between America's rich and poor is widening, and the middle class is shrinking. Save and invest while you can.
Buffett is also enlightening on the future of newspapers in the electronic age, and the occasional bargains to be had in insurance. His firm has made money out of carefully-considered reinsurance (including for Lloyds of London) and derivatives. Berkshire Hathaway has gradually moved from being a "growth" to a "value" business, delivering returns increasingly from income earned, and insurance business helps. BH has made a profit from "super-cat" insurance in the past year, but Buffett warns that Hurricane Katrina wasn't the last nor the worst possible.
Note also the warning in the extract about the dollar. Recent falls aren't the end of the necessary decline - see to the Levy report referred to in my previous post.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Global imbalances: new report
Please click here for the July report from the Levy Economics Institute: "Global imbalances: prospects for the U.S. and world economies".
Railroads: further details
Chris Mayer writes about railroads in today's Daily Reckoning Australia. After describing Chinese technical feats, he looks at factors that make railways more attractive in today's America:
- Container transportation is booming as America imports more of its non-perishable goods. But fuel costs are rising. The energy-efficiency of rail is an advantage over trucking.
Looking at wider issues, maybe a highly concentrated population implies not only highly-capitalised amenities, but centralised power. How will America change as urbanisation continues? Will the internalised society (life governed by shared expectations of decent behaviour, liberty, egalitariansm) become a society of rule imposed from outside and above?
As it happens, I am reading Bill Bryson's childhood memoir of Des Moines, Iowa and the Fifties ("The life and times of the Thunderbolt Kid"), and he remembers when America had millions of small, family-owned farms and the Midwest was dotted with thriving little towns. When the farm went, what went with it?
And coming back to the resource-efficiency/sustainability arguments, I have an idea that although cities seem to be more efficient (because people are closer to each other), they are highly entropic - it takes a lot of work to stop them falling apart in all sorts of ways. Maybe the more distant future is back out on the prairies, with a return to localised production and self-government.
- Container transportation is booming as America imports more of its non-perishable goods. But fuel costs are rising. The energy-efficiency of rail is an advantage over trucking.
- The US population continues to move to the cities, where land is at a premium. Rail is more space-efficient, and less polluting than cars or planes.
So Buffett is doing his customary thing, of backing dull, dependable, comprehensible business that's going with the flow.Looking at wider issues, maybe a highly concentrated population implies not only highly-capitalised amenities, but centralised power. How will America change as urbanisation continues? Will the internalised society (life governed by shared expectations of decent behaviour, liberty, egalitariansm) become a society of rule imposed from outside and above?
As it happens, I am reading Bill Bryson's childhood memoir of Des Moines, Iowa and the Fifties ("The life and times of the Thunderbolt Kid"), and he remembers when America had millions of small, family-owned farms and the Midwest was dotted with thriving little towns. When the farm went, what went with it?
And coming back to the resource-efficiency/sustainability arguments, I have an idea that although cities seem to be more efficient (because people are closer to each other), they are highly entropic - it takes a lot of work to stop them falling apart in all sorts of ways. Maybe the more distant future is back out on the prairies, with a return to localised production and self-government.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
A note of caution about the Gold Standard, and the Euro
Until I looked it up (isn't the internet wonderful?) I had thought that the "Geddes Axe" (which slashed UK public expenditure) was a response to the Depression. Far from it: some would say it was a major cause. It turns out that after the First World War, our politicians wanted Britain to be great again, and thought that meant getting the pound back up to its former exchange rate against the dollar - just as I dream about getting into my old teen jeans.
They managed to do it for a while, but the result was a deflation that failed to take into account Britain's postwar economic weakness, and the 1925 restoration of the gold standard at this fatally high level prolonged the suffering. Then the zip bust.
More recently, some felt that lacing the pound into the Euro would stiffen our backs. Or perhaps this idea owed more to fuzzy notions of European brotherhood, modernity etc - we in Britain have had ten years of being led by a fuzzy thinker.
But not all agreed that the time was right - see the 2002 Cairncross lecture by Ed Balls. This lecture, by the new Prime Minister's former economic adviser (see Wikipedia bio), sets the historical context for the "five tests" that he formulated with Gordon Brown in a New York taxi in 1997. The tests were designed to determine the timing of the UK's entry into the Euro - for details, see this Scotsman article of 2003, which also reviews progress. Perhaps the timing will never be right.
Some hope that's the case -because it's not just about economics. Can Europe ever be a country? What will happen to our mode of government, civil liberties and economic prosperity in this herd-rush towards an "ever-closer union" commanded by a remote, opaque elite?
Is currency stability generally desirable? Sure; but another return to fixed exchange rates would certainly need extremely careful management, especially in fundamentally unstable conditions. I don't think Western trade deficits are purely due to monetary inflation; China's rapid rise from poverty seems just as challenging to our budgets as the Great War that drove us off the gold standard.
They managed to do it for a while, but the result was a deflation that failed to take into account Britain's postwar economic weakness, and the 1925 restoration of the gold standard at this fatally high level prolonged the suffering. Then the zip bust.
More recently, some felt that lacing the pound into the Euro would stiffen our backs. Or perhaps this idea owed more to fuzzy notions of European brotherhood, modernity etc - we in Britain have had ten years of being led by a fuzzy thinker.
But not all agreed that the time was right - see the 2002 Cairncross lecture by Ed Balls. This lecture, by the new Prime Minister's former economic adviser (see Wikipedia bio), sets the historical context for the "five tests" that he formulated with Gordon Brown in a New York taxi in 1997. The tests were designed to determine the timing of the UK's entry into the Euro - for details, see this Scotsman article of 2003, which also reviews progress. Perhaps the timing will never be right.
Some hope that's the case -because it's not just about economics. Can Europe ever be a country? What will happen to our mode of government, civil liberties and economic prosperity in this herd-rush towards an "ever-closer union" commanded by a remote, opaque elite?
Is currency stability generally desirable? Sure; but another return to fixed exchange rates would certainly need extremely careful management, especially in fundamentally unstable conditions. I don't think Western trade deficits are purely due to monetary inflation; China's rapid rise from poverty seems just as challenging to our budgets as the Great War that drove us off the gold standard.
The Mogambo Guru on the lost days of rising real wages
Richard Daughty's latest piece, posted on GoldSeek, does the usual and then harks back to a time when employers were trying to cut wages because the workers were getting richer, thanks to a solid currency and steady economic improvement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)