The Big Picture selects several articles for us on US debt.
This one points out that to balance the US budget with borrowing, new bonds must be sold totalling 3 times the amount issued last year. Bearing in mind that there's less money around, and that people are getting nervous about America's credit rating, inflation and the value of the dollar on the international market, it seems very unlikely that this new debt auction would succeed; and if it did, it would have to be on the basis of higher interest rates, to factor-in the various increased risks.
Alternatively, it's time for the repo man - with a twist. Nassim Taleb and Mark Spitznagel suggest that banks could take part of homeowners' equity in exchange for lower interest rates. But if houses continue to decline in price? I bet the banks have thought of that, so if such a scheme were introduced, they'd want a bigger share than most homeowners would be willing to give them. My guess is that when houseowners realize that the market isn't going to turn soon, there'll be more voluntary bankruptcies and doorkeys in the post. That, plus rising and lengthening unemployment could set off the domino chain.
But returning to the Sprott analysis, note that late last year, 28% of US debt was foreign-owned. Look out for some form of debt-for-equity here - if not the sale of equities, then in the form of favours and concessions. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
It's just the way things are?
UPDATE: The Big Picture begs to differ with the no-blame angle, and names names...
I've asked several times before, whether any country could have played it differently and avoided getting involved in The Crash. Then I read this article (htp: Jesse) about ex-BIS economist William White, and near the end there's an indication that maybe it's not simply about baddies and goodies:
This is the sort of thing that worries him. "That's when you have to ask yourself: Who exactly is controlling the whole thing anymore?"
I've asked several times before, whether any country could have played it differently and avoided getting involved in The Crash. Then I read this article (htp: Jesse) about ex-BIS economist William White, and near the end there's an indication that maybe it's not simply about baddies and goodies:
White is more concerned about the things he doesn't understand. New Zealand is a case in point. Interest rates were raised early in the crisis there, and yet the central bank was unable to come to grips with the credit bubble. Investors were apparently borrowing cheap money from foreign lenders.
This is the sort of thing that worries him. "That's when you have to ask yourself: Who exactly is controlling the whole thing anymore?"
Perhaps his model has a flaw in that regard. Could it be possible that central bankers today have far less influence than he assumes?
The thought causes him to wrinkle his brow for a moment. Then he smiles, says his goodbyes and quickly disappears into a Paris Metro station.
...this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.
They
Lots of people now muttering darkly. But if we think we know what They are up to, and think we can't thwart Them, there should be some way to exploit the situation. For example, if They are manipulating the price of gold to keep it down for as long as possible, then surely it's a great time to buy it before They run out of possible.
Can't we do better than call vainly for somebody to restore justice to the world? Because that's the one thing that won't happen.
So, any ideas?
For example, what to do about the New World Order coinage unveiled by Medvedev the other day?
If you have a son or daughter, would you advise him/her to join GS and their ilk? Or McKinsey? Or emigrate?
Can't we do better than call vainly for somebody to restore justice to the world? Because that's the one thing that won't happen.
So, any ideas?
For example, what to do about the New World Order coinage unveiled by Medvedev the other day?
If you have a son or daughter, would you advise him/her to join GS and their ilk? Or McKinsey? Or emigrate?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
KBO
From Colwyn Bay to Kettering
They're sobbing themselves to sleep,
The shrieks and wails
In the Yorkshire dales
Have even depressed the sheep.
In rather vulgar lettering
A very disgruntled group
Have posted bills
On the Cotswold Hills
To prove that we're in the soup.
While begging Kipling's pardon
There's one thing we know for sure
If England is a garden
We ought to have more manure.
Hurray-hurray-hurray!
Suffering and dismay.
Noel Coward.
They're sobbing themselves to sleep,
The shrieks and wails
In the Yorkshire dales
Have even depressed the sheep.
In rather vulgar lettering
A very disgruntled group
Have posted bills
On the Cotswold Hills
To prove that we're in the soup.
While begging Kipling's pardon
There's one thing we know for sure
If England is a garden
We ought to have more manure.
Hurray-hurray-hurray!
Suffering and dismay.
Noel Coward.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
An astrologer writes
Russell Grant is trenchant in his criticism of feckless governments and financial advisers.
Next market peak due in... 2018 - if society's still around by then
See here. Back in November, I figured that inflation-adjusted Dow took 16 years to decline from 1966 to 1982, and my guess is that we're on a similar inflation-fuelled ride, so starting with the last peak in 2000, we might think about hitting bottom in real terms in 2016.
On the other hand, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. In 1966 China was... a disaster area. The world economy is much more interconnected now, and the tide is Eastwards, and big business is global. The company you invest in, if US or UK-based, may still be making good profits on its overseas earnings, even if domestic workers are all on the dole.
A recovery for the investors may happen sooner, and the market bottom may not be so deep in nominal terms (currency-adjusted is something else: look at what has happened to the dollar and pound; and what may yet happen). I think there's a big disconnect between the markets and Joe Average, since the extra wealth from 1980 on has mostly accrued to the top layer of society.
The concentration of money into fewer hands means that investment issues must inevitably give way to considerations of maintaining (repairing) the social and political fabric of our democracies.
On the other hand, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. In 1966 China was... a disaster area. The world economy is much more interconnected now, and the tide is Eastwards, and big business is global. The company you invest in, if US or UK-based, may still be making good profits on its overseas earnings, even if domestic workers are all on the dole.
A recovery for the investors may happen sooner, and the market bottom may not be so deep in nominal terms (currency-adjusted is something else: look at what has happened to the dollar and pound; and what may yet happen). I think there's a big disconnect between the markets and Joe Average, since the extra wealth from 1980 on has mostly accrued to the top layer of society.
The concentration of money into fewer hands means that investment issues must inevitably give way to considerations of maintaining (repairing) the social and political fabric of our democracies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)