A future case for impeachment?

The threats:

htp: Karl Denninger

The result:

At least $125bn is to go to nine of America's largest banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, in exchange for capital under the rescue plan.

The power:

(9) TROUBLED ASSETS-

The term `troubled assets' means--

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress.

...not "prior approval", you'll note. For those that think they understand law, here is the full text of the genetically-modified bill as enacted on 3rd October 2008.

And here's an intriguing clause in Section 119:

(2) LIMITATIONS ON EQUITABLE RELIEF.—

(A) INJUNCTION.—No injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be issued against the Secretary for actions pursuant to section 101, 102, 106, and 109, other than to remedy a violation of the Constitution.

Excuse my ignorance, but is this a watered-down version of the infamous "non-reviewable" Paulosn proposal ("Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.")?

A lesson from 1721

The South Sea Bubble ended in the imprisonment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, John Aislabie:

The South Sea Company had been built on high expectations which it could never fulfil, and it collapsed in August 1720. An investigation by Parliament found that Aislabie had been given £20,000 of company stock in exchange for his promotion of the scheme. He resigned the Exchequer in January 1721, and in March was found guilty by the Commons of the "most notorious, dangerous and infamous corruption". He was expelled from the House, removed from the Privy Council, and imprisoned in the Tower of London.

Aislabie was replaced by Robert Walpole, who became in effect Britain's first modern-style Prime Minister - who earlier had spent six months in the Tower in 1712, as a result of unjust impeachment by his political enemies.

Now, who will be properly prosecuted and properly punished for a man-made disaster that has undermined the world's banking system?

More dire warnings

Karl Denninger is predicting a bond and currency crash in the US if banks aren't forced to disclose exactly what they do and don't have, so we can let the insolvent go down and release the liquidity into the right channels.

I hope the right path is taken, because my brother lives there.

By the way, in body language terms I read Hank Paulson as a hell of a bully. He looks like a totalitarian danger to me.

Rally? The smart money's been moving out for a long time

Read Michael Panzner here. Reminds me of when Jimmy Goldsmith sold all his holdings on the Paris Bourse in the Summer of 1987, and recently how Warren Buffett was reported to be holding massive amounts of cash.

Now Buffett has bought $5 billion of Goldman - but as preferred stock with a 10% dividend (and with warrants representing an instant capital gain from day one); and Philip Green is buying £2 billion of Baugur's debt. Note that these wise men are NOT buying stock market ordinary shares: they are betting on a sure thing, pretty much.

I think bear market rallies are when the pros sell to the amateurs. When the amateurs realise the pros have gone, and there are no more bigger fools, the panic proper starts. And then the pros are there, waiting for the bottom prices. I think this is what is behind legs 4 and 5 of the Elliott Wave.

A note on gold

Some commentators on the gold market predicted that the price would come down, or at least be restrained, because leveraged speculators would have to sell assets to raise money to clear some of their borrowing.

As the credit market continues to remain tight and the prospects of quick killings made on the back of increasingly-expensive borrowed money become less plausible, watch for the gold price to bottom-out (I read one claim yesterday that this has already happened). Then when continued liquidity injections from governments start to work their way into prices, my guess is that gold will make a steeper and steadier rise, as it becomes not a find-a-bigger-fool speculation but a flight to security, away from devaluing currency.

I may soon get back in myself, with some of my small savings.

And yes, I did indeed start drawing my "cash stash" yesterday, and plan to take more out today. Can anyone believe the blanket guarantees for deposits at banks, especially under the present economic and monetary conditions? You think disasters can't happen, but as a young woman my mother suddenly found herself fleeing the country alone, with two horses. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Cassandra couldn't run Troy

Thanks to Michael Panzner at Financial Armageddon, we can read for free an interview with 70-year-old money manager Jeremy Grantham. Grantham points out that business is run by managers, not by Old Testament prophets, and so he philosophises that crises will recur.

He also believes that this one isn't over yet:

The terrible thing -- after all this pain -- is that the U.S. equity market is not even cheap... it started from such a high level in 2000 that it still has not yet worked its way down to trend, although it is getting close. But the really bad news is that great bubbles in history always overcorrected. So although the fair value of the S&P today may be about 1025, typically bubbles overcorrect by quite a bit, possibly by 20%. That is very discouraging.

My 26 June guess at the trend for the Dow was c. 7,000 - 10,000:

If that means a midpoint of 8,500 and the overcorrection is 20%, then the momentary low point could be around 6,800, which at least suggests that the gap between my two red lines is approximately correct.

Friday's lowest point during the day was 7,773.71, still 10% away from the theorised minimum; and the Dow closed at 8,451.19. Yesterday it remained above the latter figure throughout, and rose to 9,387.61.

In short, Grantham must be reading this as a bear market rally, and it's not very silly to think that the Dow could come back to 7,000 at some point.

Good luck to the day traders, I haven't the nerve and speed to try to make a fortune on the bucking-bronco stage of the market.

All clear

Dow up 936, FTSE up 324: so it's all okay again. Isn't it?

Except here in the UK, the Prime Minister wants banks to carry on lending like they did last year. Is there a touch of madness in this?

Surreal. That's the feeling.

I see Mish has the same feeling.

Dow falls are only at interim stage

Jesse relays a couple of charts from Steve Williams at CyclePro, and adds one of his own. As I read it, the implication of the CyclePro charting is that the end-point for the Dow at the bottom of the bear market could be around half its present value, in a process that might take 8-10 years.

Jesse's chart relates the Dow to the price of gold, and the implication of his is a drop of some 60% - but that could be achieved by a rise in gold, as well as a fall in the Dow.

Perhaps it is time for us to be making quiet, regular withdrawals from the cashpoint and building up a stash of truly instant-access cash. I shall start today.

And when inflation hits?

Derivatives blowup may hit insurance and car makers

This blog looks at the implications of failed investment bank Lehman's call on their "insurance" in the form of derivatives contracts. If everyone can handle the the cash call when it comes, good; if not, maybe a domino effect - one failure unbalancing another in a chain reaction. In particular, will hedge funds , who tend to play with borrowed money, be able to honour their contracts, or will they be the weak link in the chain?

Next up, says "George Washington", are the insurance and auto companies. It seems Standard & Poor's fear these could be the last days for GM and Ford.

I'm given to understand that players in derivatives usually balance their position with bets both ways; but they tend to be big bets. It's like a seesaw with an elephant at each end: if one elephant steps off, or turns out to be a baby compared to the other... What's the chances of $55 trillion of derivatives being well-balanced at all points?

So there are good reasons to think that next week is going to be more exciting than most of us would wish. Friday's Dow volatility may be repeated.

Banking crisis part of a deep strategy?

On Financial Sense, F. William Engdahl speculates that asset-backed securities ("toxic waste" mortgage packages) were sold to European banks in order to poison their wells and leave the world banking system dependent on the USA - and an elite group of American bankers.

One startling fact cited in this conspiracy theory, is that the office responsible for overseeing Credit Default Swaps had its staffing reduced from 100 to... ONE person. Giving evidence to Congress, the Chief Accountant of the Securities & Exchange Commission said "... there has been a systematic gutting, or whatever you want to call it, of the agency and its capability through cutting back of staff."

Oh dear, I thought conspiracy theories were for nutcases. Maybe I'm wrong.

Every picture tells a story

This is a measure of monetary inflation. Increases here will eventually work their way into prices and wages. An explanation is offered here. Note that there has been nothing close to the highlighted "spike" in the last 25 years.

"An inflationary holocaust" - Jim Rogers

TBRRob posts a very useful YouTube interview with big investor Jim Rogers (the best analyses come from people who back their own judgments with their own money).

Despite the recent strengthening of the dollar, he is buying Japanese yen and Swiss francs; and commodities (especially agriculture), because they lead the way out of recession and their fundamentals are (he says) sound.

In the interview, he is challenged on his inflationary hypothesis: surely we are seeing "deleveraging" (reduction in borrowing) and don't we need more money in the system to deal with the liquidity crisis? Rogers cites past history and sticks to his guns

I think it was Marc Faber's comments that first helped me understand why all this public-money-throwing isn't going to help. It's NOT a liquidity crisis: liquidity is what has caused the problems (and anticipating the movement of the money tides is what has helped Faber grow his funds!).

It's a SOLVENCY crisis. If all your possessions are worth less than your total debts, borrowing more money will not help. So when the government creates massive extra funds for you to use, you will not wish to use them. And if your fellows are in the same position, you certainly won't wish to lend them any money you still have.

When you are insolvent, there are two ways out. One is to declare bankruptcy, in which case the money invested in you is lost and so excess liquidity goes down the drain. Good, though it's also painful (personal fortunes lost, people laid off).

The other way is to be unbelievably lucky, and have someone else pay-off your debts. When the government chooses to do the latter for the banks, it has to get the funds from somewhere, and ultimately that is the citizen/loyal subject. In this case, the liquidity is still in the system, and there is no drain to take it away. Sooner or later, it leaks out into the general economy and prices rise, because there is more cash to bid for the usual limited amount of goods and services.

(Or the government increases taxes, and uses the extra to pay-off debt. Nice idea, but increasing taxes slows the economy and creates more benefit dependants, which requires more taxes even as less revenue is coming in because business is suffering because people now have less spending money because taxes are higher, and...)

So there are two problems created: inflation, and moral hazard - the people who have been bought out in this undeserved way have no incentive to change their habits.

You may think that it's only a temporary problem and the government will recoup its investment when things get back to normal. The trouble is, "normal" means house prices dropping to about half what they were worth last year, because they doubled for no good reason in the five-year period before that. In the long term, I understand, houses are priced at 3 times income, not 6 times as during the recent period of monetary inflation.

So either the value of the excess credit is destroyed by bankuptcy, or by inflating away the money saved by more prudent people. Either the guilty (or foolish) suffer, or the innocent.

And here's another either/or: either we go this process again and again, or banks are prevented in future from increasing the money supply in the way they just did.

And the guilty must be punished.

A message to Peter Hitchens

Peter Hitchens seems to me one of the few independently-minded journalists in the mainstream media. One of the pieces in the MoS (and his blog) today reflects on the damage caused by BBC blabbermouth financial commentator Robert Peston and whether the credit crunch could have been anticipated. Hitchens says, in passing, that although he himself had bad feelings about our Roaring-Twenties-type economy, no-one really knew what would happen.

Rarely for me, I completely disagree with him, and think that if he turned his mind to this subject he might be influential enough to help some greatly-needed changes happen. So I comment:

Re your Peston piece and "The truth is, nobody really knew":

Sadly, this state of affairs was in fact VERY well-anticipated. As an independent financial adviser, I repeatedly relayed warnings via my newsletters to clients about the increasing debt in the USA, starting a decade ago. On 20 October 1999 I attended a breakfast meeting given by an investment company to drum up business, and a rep stated that the Dow was 50% overvalued. This confirmed me in the intuitive feeling I had long had, that a collapse was imminent. I feared the consequences so much that I put my business on the back burner and returned to teaching, which is something not lightly to be done, you will understand.

The stockmarket collapse began on the first trading day in 2000. Jerkily, the FTSE went down to less that half its 1999 peak by March 2003, at which point I thought lessons might have been learned and we could start to invest with confidence; but then (and you can see the BoE statistics online) the rate of increase of the money supply was allowed to soar by an extra 5% per annum. The investment bubble had turned into a banking bubble, which led to the horrendous property price instability that now threatens the financial system itself. The government is deeply implicated, since its regulators allowed banking reserves to be pared back (this is part of how you increase the money supply) so that when a crisis occurred, the lifeboats weren't there.

I repeat, very clear warnings have been sounded for a very long time by respected investment experts, mostly from the USA as the average Brit has very little understanding of money since we are rarely allowed to make or keep much of it. So I began a blog, in May last year, to learn more myself and to sound Cassandra-type warnings to any who would listen.

Bankers, politicians and economists knew very well, or ought to have known, the consequences, and the worst result of the present debacle is that it is likely that none of them will face Enron-style prosecution and punishment. They and/or their successors will therefore do it all over again, to their enormous gain and our near-ruin, as they have done periodically for centuries. Unless the perpetrators are punished in a way that will be remembered for generations, this moral hazard will continue to be a profound threat to our financial security and social stability.

You have written an excellent book on the mutilation of the British police, and I can promise you that the basics of finance are nothing like as complex as the professional fraudsters of the investment and banking community would like you to believe. I do really wish and hope that you will turn your investigative and communication skills to an analysis of what really went wrong with our Western economies.

NEWS: Gold CAN back all the world's money

... says Mike Hewitt in this article. Looking at gold in all its forms and relating it to the world's money that actually circulates (as opposed to all the money on the account books), he arrives at an estimated price of $738 per ounce.

That's not so far off the long-term median price of gold, adjusted for inflation - see below for some attempts to describe that relationship.

Maybe it could work.

Refuge, flight, battle rejoined, victory, retribution

Brad Setser looks at a flood of demand for US Treasuries and suspects that it's central banks shifting into the securest dollar asset they can find; and away from other dollar-denominated assets.

The first comment on the same post says that the next stage is a run on the dollar.

Continuing the Tolkien fantasy theme, one recalls the flight to Helm's Deep, and the eventual breach. Ultimately, though at a cost, the good side wins, of course (Denninger explains today how we can face the mess and clean it up).

Time to revisit Michael Panzner's "Financial Armageddon" - reviewed here in May of last year.

If he's right - and he's been right so far - it's first cash, then out of cash. But there's not enough gold to act as the world's currency (unless a horrific amount of wealth is permanently destroyed), and if we start up a new fiat currency, the moral criminals of the banking class will play the game all over again.

I note that Max Hastings in the Daily Mail calls for bankers to be "named and shamed"; this is milksop stuff. Yet they're still going to get billions in bonuses this year! Why does the Proceeds of Crime Bill not apply? Heavy, heavy fines, so that generations of bankers and traders will remember and hesitate. How about the last 5 years' bonuses, as a benchmark? Punitur quia peccatum est ("punishment is to be inflicted, because a crime has been committed").

But even that's not enough. What about the political class that opened the financial sluices to alleviate the discomfort of 2002-2003? And did it several times before, too? (See Jesse today on Greenspan's bubbles.) How do we mete out condign punishment to those greedy for power, as well as those for money?

I repeat, this is a crisis of democracy.

Guessing the low points

I looked at trends in the Dow earlier this year and guessed that the Dow's low might be 7,000. Now, Mish reports that Nouriel Roubini is saying the same.

The FTSE is currently hovering around 4,000, which is lower than the line I drew in June. But then, the line passed through, not under, the lowest negative spike in 2003. I seem to recall Wolfie predicting 4,000 in one of his comments here recently; well done, old chap.

It's not about money; it's about democracy

It's the interconnectedness that's pulling us all down: the centralisation of money and power has made us vulnerable. As I said in December:

I think the themes of diversity, dispersion and disconnection will grow in importance over the coming years, in politics and economics. As with some mutually dependent Amazonian flowers and insects, efficiency and specialisation will have to be balanced against flexibility and long-term survival.

Life on Earth has survived because it is not like a clock. Mechanistic systems must fail sometime, and the larger they are, the greater the damage they will cause.

After all this is over, we will need to refresh democracy and its controls on those who seek power, in whatever form. Bertrand Russell's book "Power" suggested that it comes in three forms - political, financial and religious, if I recall - and the American Constitution was devised to bell these cats; except, it seems, insufficient attention was given to the potential of money to destroy the community.

Still air in the balloon

The FTSE ended 2007 at 6,456.90. Back in August, I constructed a rough RPI-related graph from 1984 onwards, and to get back to the equivalent of 1984 in real terms, the index would have to drop to around 3,000: at the end of that year the FTSE closed at 1,181.10. We forget how far we've come.

More falls

Elliot Wave again

Like Robert McHugh, "Mish" also follows the Elliot Wave theory:

In Elliott Wave terms the index is in an impulsive wave 3 down. At some point there will be a corrective wave 4 up, with still more down to follow in wave 5. A lower low can be expected.