MSM admits keeping shtum

Edmund Conway breaks journalistic ranks to admit he should've said something sooner.

A safe haven?

Just a thought.

Disaster deferred (and increased), not averted

Karl Denninger goes back to basics, explaining how the reflation is merely paying you-now from you-future's account. Knit faster, we're running out of wool.

Murky business

Brad Setser does a very interesting bit of detective work and concludes that much of the UK's holdings of US Treasury securities, are on behalf of China. He gives us a graph demonstrating that when the UK's official holding declines sharply (usually in June), China's suddenly rises.

Setser estimates that China owns $1.425 trillion in Treasuries and Agencies, which is equivalent to about 10% of US GDP. ("Treasuries" are debts directly owed by the US Government, "agencies" are debts of the US Government's organisations, as explained in this Federal Reserve handbook from 2004.)

He ends by calling for more transparency in British accounts of these holding - that would be most welcome all round, generally. Half our problems (and, I assume, opportunities for fatcat swindlers) stem from our not knowing the real position of the world's finances.

Pop

Perhaps the fall will be faster.

In this piece, Charles Biderman explains that the value of a stock is set by marginal purchases, which do not reflect what you'd get if you sold all the company's shares at the same time. He estimates that from 2003-2007 the world's equities increased in notional value by $25 trillion, on nothing more than $1.5 trillion cash, a bit of borrowing and mostly, illusion: "Market cap and money aren't necessarily related."

When the illusion goes pop, so do all the gains. First out gets the most.

htp: zgirl

Elliot, Kondratieff, or normal service resumed?

On 26th June I looked at the progress of the FTSE since around 1984 and thought that the next low would be no worse than c. 4,500. Here's what actually happened:



The lows were certainly lower, and we have only recently learned just how close we came to a banking collapse. The question now is, are we where we "should" be - following a trend set by the last 25 years - or are there longer cycles due to make hay of the pattern of the last quarter-century? Elliot wavers and Kondratieff followers say yes.

My guess is that, after the steep stockmarket falls and the horrid crisis apparently averted, there will be a bounce in the next 1-2 years, then a decline in real (inflation-adjusted) terms for maybe another 5 years after that. Your guess?

By the way, I'd also be interested to know your views on why the bankers and brokers have been allowed to Get Away With It. To me, it seems like a big fat moral hazard and unless there is some real squealy punishment for all this bad behaviour, I'd advise any bright, conscienceless youngster to become a banker.

Currently, my preferred fantasy solution is to bust all the overextended banks, leave the shareholders with zilch, sack the senior bank managers and ban them from being company directors for at least 5 years, halve all mortgages, and give the book of business to more prudent operators including well-run building societies. In my view, this was never ever going to happen, because the FSA, the BoE and the government are also implicated. So, not so much "too big to fail", but too well-connected to fail.

But there's a price to pay, anyway: it's now clearly Us and Them. Perhaps, since they are immeasurably more powerful, we should give up trying to rectify the world and merely ape their cynicism and corruption. Moralists will demur; and so this is truly an age when we can say, "Affairs are now soul size".

Am I the idiot, or are they?

For years, at least since the Reagan era, we in the US have heard the Republican Party mantra that the answer to growing the economy is to cut taxes for the richest, since they will 'invest in business'.

It never made sense to me, especially as I saw such a transfer of wealth to those same rich people, who spent their money on luxury imported goods. Incomes for the middle and lower class barely kept pace with inflation, even as industry became ever more efficient.

Today, thanks to posts here and elsewhere, I finally realized what is wrong with the claim above: buying stocks does not 'invest in a company', unless you are buying stock directly from that same company. All it does is put money in the pockets of the stockbrokers, while you have a piece of paper that must rise in value by profit plus fees, and find another sucker to buy it. The real estate market is no different.

Nonetheless, all of the experts that I have talked with over the years insisted that I simply didn't understand, implying that I was an idiot. Am I?