Comment on the Economy - "America's Economic Crossroads"

It is a little past the middle of 2010 and we are in what has been called, "The Great Recession," since the end of 2007. Thus far, we have rebounded from the extreme panic which began in 2008 and bottomed in March of 2009, but recently some indicators suggest that we might be on the cusp of a "double dip" recession which could turn from recovery to some severe nastiness. Indicators are the weakness of some European economies, signalling hardship for Europe which could threaten demand for US exports and other assets like US securities, etc. And, there is concern for US government debt levels which could threaten the US currency and the US's ability to issue debt to finance further economic recovery. Plus, US unemployment remains  a concern, with the economy not creating enough jobs, especially by private employers.

So, I say, we are at an economic "Crossroads." I think the most important indicators to watch to see where the US goes from here are 1) The US stock market - I use the Dow since it has been around longer than the S&P and does track the S&P pretty accurately anyway, and 2) The US bond market - I like to most watch the 10-year Treasury Bond interest rate.

As for the Dow, after rebounding to about 115000, it recently declined to around 10,000, an acceptable profit taking from the recovery rally, but further deterioration from there could cause real worry.

As for the Bond market, 10-year Treasuries have an interest rate of about 2.70, which is cautionary of upcoming weak economics, though there is strong demand for the bonds, hence a somewhat healthy sign still for the US economy. So, both stocks and bonds each indicate some good things, but also some worry - in effect the "crossroads" I mention.

It looks like this crossroads will likely be resolved in one direction or the other with the upcoming Congressional elections in November. The way I see it, with the economy still deleveraging (the removal of private debt - foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc), there is no immediate risk for the government to take on more debt as long as the money is well spent. By well-spent, I mean things which are investments, which eventually return more than they cost. Things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, and energy efficiency. So, for sure we should not lose jobs which work in that direction, hence the federal government should help state governments so as not force them to layoff such workers or cut such programs.

Since the indicators I mention are still positive from the depths of the Recession, it does seems Obama and Democratic leadership in Congress can be judged as successful, albeit modestly. Plus, it seems other than a few Republicans, most have been working against the President and Democrats actually hoping they fail, that is America fail. And, what almost all Republicans propose is exactly the opposite which the economy needs now, like I mention above.

Yes, the deficit and national debt are problems, but not right now. And, like I say with the stock and bond markets up from the end of 2007, that should mean improved government tax revenues in 2011 as long as they remain healthy for the rest of the year. So, as for our government debt, all that is necessay now, is to come up with a plan to lower it, and there is a bi-partisan committee chartered with that, in place now.

So, we are at a crossroads and much is to be determined with the November elections and anticipation of what the results might be. Plus, the stock market does usually experience stress in September and October.

My Review of "The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition"

The reason I wanted to read The Communist Manifesto now is that I don't remember reading it in school and this current financial mess, called the Great Recession, seems at its core the result of greed gone wild, underpinned with our system of capitalism which seems to have in it the very incentives to bring on this excessive greed. So, I was hoping this book would give me some meaningful thoughts with which to further have clues to the way things might play out during this financial mess including the political ramifications. And, from what I do know about Marx, I suspect what happened here is something he had thought out, in a general way, many years before. The Manifesto and the book's foreword cover things like......

 

1. 1847, Marx and Engels joined the League of the Just (renamed the Communist Party) with its object to overthrow the bourgeoisie with rule by the proletariat and a new society without classes or private property.

 

2. 1871, Civil war in France - Marx defended it and it then gave him notoriety as a dangerous leader of international subversion and feared by governments.

 

3. Over the next 40 years the Manifesto conquered the world and carried forward a rise of new (socialist) labor parties. None were called Communist until the Russian Bolsheviks. Mostly in central Europe to Russia. Small in SW Europe.

 

4. When a major state (Russia) represented Marxist ideology, the Manifesto became a  text in political science and still remains so.

 

5. It was written for a particular time in history

 

6. Marx and Engel's Communist Party was not an organization - more of a historical document.

 

7. Two things which gave the Manifesto its force - a) the vision that capitalism was not permanent/stable, b) The revolutionary potential of a capitalist economy.

 

8. We live in a world where this transformation has largely taken place.

 

9. Capitalism can't provide a livelihood for most of the working class.

 

10. There will always be the oppressors (capitalists - bourgeoisie) versus the workers

 

11 The Bourgeoisie has stripped all occupations down to paid workers.

 

12. The need for constantly expanding market for its products means ultimately global.- effecting even a world literature, cheap prices - will make all nations bourgeoisie.Eventually overproduction leading to barbarism because of too much civilization. The proletariat/workers  become mere appendages and lose all character. Brings more collisions between societies and trade unions will flourish. The worker groups get bigger and more powerful through education provided by the bourgeoisie. Other classes except the proletariat will decay.

 

13. Wage labor rests on the competition between laborers. Communists flourish independently of national borders.

 

14.Communism abolishes bourgeoisie property, no big deal since 90% of private property belongs to the bourgeoisie. Small peasant property is destroyed daily by industry. Average wage of laborers is the minimum wage, just for subsistence. Education is rescued from the influence of the ruling class. Since family is a bourgeoisie thing affirmed by property, family is destroyed - children are transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. Working men will have no country. Communism's desire is to abolish countries and nationality. National differences and antagonisms will vanish. External truths like freedom and justice will be common to all states. But, communism will abolish eternal truths like religion and morality - a new basis. Communism will raise the working class to the ruling class.

 

15. Specifically, communism will:

    a) Abolish property in land and application of all rents to public purposes.

    b) Abolish inheritance.

    c) Confiscate property of emigrants and rebels.

    d) Have a national bank.

    e) Centralization of communication and transportation by the state.

    f) Factories and instruments of production to be owned by the state.

    g) Combine agriculture and manufacturing so there will be no distinction between town and country.

    h) Free education.

 

So, I would say the Communist Manifesto, though really just applied to a time in history and times have surely changed quite a bit since then, but I would also say what it was concerned about also shouldn't be ignored when trying to understand the current economic stress we are in. Our capitalism, though obviously very successful especially in many respects, does show strain in the following areas, as Marx could have likely anticipated like a) the gap between the well-off and the poor and even middle-class has dangerously widened such that our political divisions reflect that and has turned more heated and split, making compromise among our politicians very difficult - hard to govern the country efficiently. b) He warned that the bourgeoisie (today's well-off) has been unable to effect the tools to elevate everyone enough, judging by our failing infrastructure, healthcare costs the highest in the world, etc. c) He anticipated the global impact, ever searching for the least cost workers, such that our manufacturing workers are left without jobs. We can even see this global force in our illegal immigration problems - workers from Mexico, etc coming here, somehow even breaking down our borders - something Marx  apparently could see. I did leave off some other things in how the Manifesto was relevant now, in this short paragraph, but from the points, above, it can be seen there are others.

 

In conclusion, I give the book 5 out of 5 stars. It is a short enough book and just its impact has been monumental in history, it is worthwhile to keep in mind as one tries to figure out what might come next from this Great Recession.

My Review of "The Big Short."

The book, by Michael Lewis, is very good at detailing the situations and characters involved in the financial mess caused by the recent housing bubble and how a few people anticipated it and bet big on it happening.

The book starts with a quote by Tolstoy about the importance of being open-minded in order to understand complex things and being close-minded keeps someone from understanding even simple things. The author was amazed how in the mid 1980's, Salomon Bros. would pay him good money, a 24 y.o. with no clue. Yet, he figured out then that the big money was made in the bond market not stocks, leading up to the junk bond collapse in the 80s. He then wrote about it, and here it was essentially happening all over again with the bond people. CEO's knew nothing of the risks their bond traders were taking. He hoped bright college students would avoid Wall Street, rebel against it and just pursue what they loved. But, no, the financial system would again be discredited. He then goes into these key things in this mess like:

1. Meredith Whitney, then an obscure analyst at Oppenheimer & Co, with just a BA from Brown who studied English, said Citicorp was so mismanaged it would cut its dividend or go bust. The so-called experts were still not acknowledging the risk in the sub-prime mortgage market - not that they were corrupt, just stupid. She was trained by Steve Eisman who also gave her a world view - how to see the big picture when analyzing stuff. She read about John Paulson, a hedge fund manager, who made big bets against the bonds and there were a few others. Eisman, U. Penn and Harvard, but also yeshiva trained and loved the Talmud because of its contradictions - he had the mind set to look for investment contradictions. He saw Wall Street going where it never went before - into the debts of ordinary Americans - cash flow from pools of mortgages - the only risk back then was of borrowers paying off soon, but never not at all. So, this new market, never really tapped into to such an extent, homes, and let less credit-worthy people to buy homes, but the real risk was in letting them cash out and refinance to get more money, basically a fast buck business with the issuers of the mortgages just selling them off and not caring what happened long term. Society had changed, with incomes more skewed, more wealthy and more struggling - so this was a way to let those left behind in the economy to prosper, even feel wealthy - letting them borrow easily. Oppenheimer was getting into this new market. Eisman needed Vincent Daniel, from Queens and SUNY Binghamton whose father was murdered - so different roots, to parse data. Found that delinquency rates were hidden, only profits from prepayments were visible.

2. 1997 Russia defaulted, 2002 Eisman saw HFC was a fraud - tricking customers on interest rates, Eisman was aware of ACORN -was a Republican until he saw an entire industry, consumer finance, existed just to rip people off.

3. By 2005, 75% subprime loans were floating rate, fixed for just 2 years. Long Beach Savings was the first to get into this, soon followed by big WS banks - run by the bond departments.

4. In 2004, Michael Burry got into them, seeing decline in lending standards, but hard to short, then he discovered Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). Charlie Munger gave lecture about the "psychology of human misjudgment."

5. 2ndQ 2005, credit card delinquencies at all-time high, but home prices continued going up. Hallmark of a bubble/mania/fraud.

6. AIG on the other side of the bet, issuing the CDSs. Goldman created the CDO and synthetic CDOs which had in them CDSs. Home prices didn't need to fall, just not go up as fast. Tom Fewings, the first in AIG to spot trouble - when seeing WSJ article on New Century. Joe Cassano, head of AIG FP didn't think home prices would fall, at least not nationally, all at once - eventually did change his mind, but still exposed. Mid 2006 home prices began to fall.

7. FICO scores had blind spots - didn't acct. for people's income, could be rigged by getting a new credit card and paying off right away, no differerence between "thin file" and "thick file" borrowers, teaser rates hid risks, averages were used for pools of mortgages which hid the amount of low FICO scores of those who should never have been given mortgages, "silent seconds" allowing borrowers to have no equity in their home.

8. Few used CDSs as outright bets against housing, most were used as hedges while still hoping for the bonds to work out. Exceptions were those who listened to Greg Lippman's pitch, like John Paulson. Paulson/Eisman/Burry understood the risk. Ledley/Hockett/Mai just bet on the least likely possibility - their strategy. Rule of thumb - buy homes when price equal or less than 10X rent and sell when 20X.

9. Names and acronyms hid risks - CDOs not called subprime backed CDOs, but structured finance CDOs, RMBS, HEL, HELOC, ALT-As were just no-doc crappy loans, Rockridge community not called Oakland so homes would sell for more. Actually, 80% of a CDO was overrated, so even better to bet against the higher tranches, since the CDS would be cheaper but the same likelihood of default.

10. Wing Chao, called a CDO manager, which were essentially front men for WS firms, could collect bigger salaries and imply they actually studied the CDOs.

11. Rating agency people were underpaid- should have been paid more to attract talented people - they just made their money by collecting fees for each rating, so just pushed them through quickly. Like a Ponzi scheme - more morons than crooks, but the crooks were higher up. WS just propped up CDO prices while it could - fraud was rampant - neither the WSJ nor SEC was interested.

12. Now Bear Stearns at risk. Merrill had advised Orange county before their bankruptcy, was in the middle of the Internet bust, 80's bond market bust, so naturally they would be in the middle of this.

13. Jim Grant couldn't figure out CDOs then realized that was the story to be told.

14. When Goldman got into the bet against CDOs, then CDOs began to tank. 4/2007 New Century went bankrupt. BS leverage 40:1,Lehman & ML 32:1, Morgan Stanley & Citicorp 33:1, GS 25:1. Only a slight decline could bankrupt them all. 9/2008 Lehman went bankrupt, ML $55B loss - sold to BA. WS firms were the dumb money, CEOs stupid. Bear Stearns Chioffi and Tannin arrested.

!5. It was greed, sure, but more the incentives which channeled the greed. Then, the people who didn't see it happening were the ones to clean it up - H. Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke,etc. Then H. Paulson engineered the $700B bailout of the worst culprits.

An important book, the only criticism I have is that it could have been shorter, but I guess the author did want it to read like a story and illuminate some specific personalities, which will probably make the book easier to make into a movie.

4 out of 5 stars.

My review of "Nudge"

"Nudge", a behavioral economics book, is very good at giving a reader perhaps a peak into President Obama's mind as he attempts to tackle some pretty big issues like healthcare, the environment, education and the financial urgencies of Medicare and Social Security. In his first few months in office, he does seem to be trying to win the support of political moderates just as this book presents such a case with its concept of "libertarian paternalism". The concept presents a case for giving people many choices while at the same time trying to have them lean toward directions which would likely be in their best interests. Some points from the book which caught my attention are:

1. Small details can have major impacts on people's behavior.

2. A "nudge" is an aspect of choice architecture which alters human behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or changing their economic incentives.

3. Never underestimate the power of inertia. The power can be harnessed by default options, for example. 'Econs' are people who respond to economic incentives. 'Humans' are people who respond to incentives AND nudges. Therefore, incentives and nudges help everyone.

4. It is false to assume almost everyone all the time makes choices in their best interest.

5. There are two kinds of thinking: intuitive/automatic (the oldest, like with voters and teenage drivers) and reflective/rational.

6. The book goes into rules of thumb like 'anchoring', 'availabilty' and 'representativeness' which affect how people make decisions.

7. Optimism/overconfidence and loss aversion affect decisions.

8. Temptation/dynamic-inconsistency can be handled.

9. 'Following the herd' must be managed.

10. 'The spotlight effect' - people unnecessarily tend to think others are watching them. So, investment clubs with conformists tend to do poorly, for instance.

11. The golden rule of 'nudges' is when they are most likely to help and least likely to cause harm.

12. Expect errors - humans are prone to making errors.

13. If Social Security is changed to allow investment choices, well thought-out defaults would be good. Medicare Part D is too cumbersome the way it is now, with about 2/3 making the wrong choices.

14. Asymmetric paternalism - help the least sophisicated while imposing the least on the most sophisticated.

The book also goes into over thirty nudges on various issues. Overall, the book is timely in giving a reader a clue into how some major issues facing the government might be handled, in order to have the best chance of progressing and working. 4 out of 5 stars.

Comment on The Economy - "The Window", update

It now looks like the "Window" which had opened where it was OK for the US to issue more Treasury debt (see previous comments), is beginning to close, pursuant to the recent S&P cutting UK's debt rating outlook to negative. This has created a worry in the markets for a weakness on US currency and US Treasury debt. This is a signal that although the markets are still OK for US currency and debt as Moody's just reaffirmed its AAA rating for US debt, they could turn on a dime if market psychology turns from currently 'nervous' to 'panic'.

So, although it is still technically OK for the US to issue more debt or print dollars, since unemployment still appears to be worsening, especially with California voters rejecting 5 of the 6 budget propositions, and asset values (stock market, housing, etc) still depressed, it has to be careful since the dollar and debt markets have become decidedly nervous.

Probably the reason that the recent nervousness hasn't turned immediately into panic mode is because the recent stimulus measures by the Fed and Administration/Congress have actually been successful in stabilizing the banking system, stock market and also other depreciating markets like housing and commodities. Though, it is important to watch oil, as it has nearly doubled to the low 60s and gold is near its high.

Comment on the Economy - "Teabaggers"

What "Teabaggers", those people who wanted to create a spectacle on Income Tax Day, April 15th, because they were outraged at taxpayer money going to the banking system and banks turning the money into profits, don't understand that with such profits, banks pay income taxes back to the American people by way of their elected government.

"Teabaggers" don't understand that with such profits, banks are able to create jobs for the American people, who in turn spend, invest, etc which result in even more jobs which result in more taxes back to the American people by way of their elected government.

Etc, etc...

Plus, such "Teabaggers" will never understand the importance of the concept of fractional reserve banking, in that it is the most effective way to stimulate an economy, because of the multiplier effect. That is, for every dollar which is inserted into the banking system, it results in about ten dollars or so inserted into the economy.

Plus, what such "Teabaggers" also don't understand is that any recent failings of such system can be addressed with improved regulation. Greed and panic are always at odds with capitalism, and regulation will always be in need of adjustment.

Plus, even with the recent failing, it still created the greatest economic boom in the history of the planet - record low unemployment and reduction of poverty from about 12% to 9% in the 90's in the US while also fostering a lifting of about 300,000,000 Chinese out of poverty, fostering a massive global boom even helped by the dot.com/communications bubble collapse which allowed India to buy up a communications/broadband infrastructure and make them a big player in the world economy - creating even more jobs, etc.

It's called investment!

Comment on the Economy - "Competitive Devaluation"

What is happening is a competitive currency devaluation, industrial countries trying to get an advantage over other industrial countries, by having weaker currencies so as to make their exports sell better and create/keep jobs. These countries are in effect trying desperately to export their own deflation to other countries. The greatest risk globally is an all-out massive deflationary economic collapse.

Luckily, at least for now, for the US, is that the world needs us to lead the global economy out of this mess, since we are the largest and most massive creator of demand for other countries exports. The rest of the world needs us, even developing/emerging countries which have commodity-based economies. Sure, a big risk is eventual high inflation for the US. However, fighting deflation is of utmost importance now - if we can't stop that - worse things will happen.

On the bright side - we have had modest success so far, and there is a real chance that we can head off the bad inflation as long as we do start generating jobs while at the same time restructuring our economy regarding energy, health care, science. and education, and set a plan for reducing deficit/debt. But, for now, trillions of US money/debt has been destroyed -asset prices - sure asset values aren't included in M1. M2, etc - but it is still money, albeit potential money, but nevertheless it takes away any near term risk of severe inflation. It is deflation which is the biggest risk.

There is nothing wrong with a fiat currency as long as a country has valid assets, albeit indirect ones, backing it - like a healthy and educated workforce, great universities, a solid physical infrastructure, and other assets which make it a desirable country to live, visit, invest, etc.

It's a big challenge, but so far indicators show some good signs. And, anyone who understands behavioral economics, understands that public support is critical in calming financial markets and generating investment. And, right now, it is clear there is general public support, the people, in the US and around the world. The only real exceptions are the extremists, both on the Left and the Right, but so far moderates are in charge and they represent the real solid majority.

By the way, the stock market is officially in a new bull market - having risen over 20% from its lows. Sure, there is no guarantee how long it will last - it could end next week, and surely is due for a correction, but it is an important leading indicator. Financial markets key off of such things.

Comment on the Economy - "The Fortune Tellers"

Financial bubbles are very similar to other manias like those involving witches, the Crusades, etc, well-documented in the 1852 classic, 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds' . We, humans, are prone to all kinds of manias, plus, I think America has been especially prone to manias like with celebrities, the dot.com bubble, Harry Potter Books, Ipods, holiday shopping sales where crowds run over other shoppers, excessive debt, etc, etc. I found it particularly interesting that the book went into a mania involving fortune tellers.

So, Sharon Begley's recent article in Newsweek made me think that guys like Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, etc - were nothing more than a current form of 'fortune tellers' and how a mania-predisposed society, like ours, especially during times of extreme uncertainty, just comes up with another mania - looking to people who are certain about what lies ahead - a current incarnation of fortune tellers - just because they might have made one great prediction is certainly no indication that they might make another - but it is their 'certainty' about the future which is the really dangerous thing about them and which mania-predisposed people are most likely to exhalt.

Bertrand Russell once wrote something like 'the problem with the world is that fools are certain and the intelligent are full of doubt'.

So, I think it wise to be extra wary of financial pundits who are so certain about what will happen with this financial mess. It would be safer to place a heavier weight on analysts who have more nuanced expectations, maybe even ones who suggest percentages about various things which might happen - like 15% chance of Depression, 50% chance of severe recession, and ranges like unemployment peaking between 15%-20% lasting 2-3 years, for example. Plus, a good analyst would be likely to also mention the positive things happening, especially since some positive things are indeed happening now, which would caution against relying too much on pundits with only worst-case scenarios.

Comment on the Economy - "The Fed's Bold Move"

Yesterday, the Fed made a pretty big move. It announced an additional $1.15 trillion of stimulus, saying it would buy up to $300 billion of longer-dated Treasury securities, and $850 billion more of mortgage agency debt and mortgage-backed securities than previously planned.

The way I sum it up is:

1. The Fed was basically doing an "end-around" to the obstructionists in Congress who caused the government's stimulus package to be watered down so as to not have enough spending to reduce unemployment fast enough, specifically in the area which was the worst hit - housing. The Fed wants to speed up bank lending - both by buying mortgage-backed assets and hoping to lower interest rates.

The Fed wants to take a deflationary depression off the table.

2. However, in the process, the Fed significantly risks inflation, a weakening dollar, rising commodity costs and long-term interest rates rising significantly.

3. Let's take a worst case scenario resulting from this move, with #2 spiking significantly. In that case, the Fed could back off from the program and return to having the government issuing debt rather than the Fed monetizing debt, and raising interest rates slightly to choke off any building inflation. This would mark the Fed's move a failure and while some damage would have been caused, but likely the damage could still be mitigated.

4. Now, for the potential good. As long as #2's risks were just moderate for a reasonable length of time, that could really help things. a) Some inflation is actually good b) a moderately weakened dollar is also good - both to spur exports and help other economies around the world b) rising commodity costs will certainly help many of the emerging and developing nations' economies where many are resource-based. This mess is global and we need other nations to also recover, in order to help us.

5. Since this is such a bold move, we need to wait awhile before being too quick to judge the move, at least a week - maybe up to a month, to see how the financial markets react. So, I'll wait awhile.

6. A few comments - a) The Fed is basically creating disincentives to saving - with a lot of incentives for people to spend and borrow. b) As for stocks, it has been said "not to fight the Fed", and the Fed is basically saying buy stocks. So, buying some stocks is reasonable, especially ones which pay dividends higher than CD or Treasury rates, while also keeping some money in reserve in case the market goes lower. Also, having some gold and inflation-protected Treasuries (TIPs) is reasonable.

7. Again, a bold move, and really too soon to judge it.

Comment on the Economy - "The Follow-Through"

First, the "Window" opened up (commodity prices collapsing and mass asset destruction which essentially removed tons of potential money which meant inflation was not an immediate threat and there was a worldwide demand for US Treasury debt) - evident 1/19.

Second, "Some Interesting Things" happened (bottoms forming in the first economic areas to turn down - US housing - most importantly in San Diego where the boom/bust first started, the US stock market, and commodities) - evident 3/4.

Third, now we have the "Follow-Through", with the stock market further confirming some sort of bottom actually happening in concert with some solid economic indicators. Some of the indicators are 1) Citicorp actually showing some reason for hope in the financial sector even if Citicorp isn't safe yet as they still will have large writeoffs in about a month. But, it does show that Fed actions and TARP have had some positive effects - a favorable yield curve plus LIBOR rates now reasonable - so well-run banks will surely be doing pretty well. Plus, recent buyouts of Wyeth by Pfizer, Schering-Plough by Merck and a pending completion of the Roche takeover of Genentech - indicate several things -money is available, investment banking has awakened, plus as our healthcare system begins to change, healthcare companies are beginning their adjustment by eliminating costly duplications, building synergies, etc.

Sure, this mess will still get worse as unemployment is still rising, commercial RE has much further to fall, same with credit card debt, likely some Eastern European nation will collapse and some Latin American country - maybe Mexico, plus some major geopolitcal event(s) will likely happen. But, the important thing is there are some positive indicators where this mess first hit. Sure, likely this is just a bounce in the stock market and further lows could be hit, but some stabilizing is happening for some fundamental reasons.

Comment on the Economy - "Some Interesting Things"

Though this mess has further to go on the down side, some very interesting positive things are happening.

In any economic downturn it is wise to look at the areas which were first to collapse, and watch for indicators of bottoming there. Plus, with all of the government stimulus, flooding markets with capital, there is bound to eventually be some general upturn, its duration all dependent on how long this "window" remains open where there is a global need for US government debt and how solid such a recovery turns out to be - actually putting people back to work, spending and returning tax revenues to the government, etc - a combination of short term and long term measures reinforcing each other - and inflation doesn't get too bad - some is OK, even healthy.

Since the US was the first nation to begin this collapse, since housing was the first section of the US economy to collapse, and since San Diego was perhaps the first US housing market to top out and begin the collapse, it is wise to look at these areas closely, bottom up.

So, I notice San Diego median housing seems to be bouncing around, up a little one week, down a little another, looking for a bottom.Plus, when I look at other US housing markets (I watch HousingTracker.net) and I see many cities up during the last month or so. Probably foreclosures are tempting a lot of buyers, so some kind of bottom is opening. Plus, anecdotally, I see around the LA area, many Chinese investors are coming in to buy homes because they are so reasonable for them. Plus, I see in San Francisco, median home prices are up about 7% in the last month. I see San Francisco being a beneficiary of the administration's goals in restructuring the economy, rewarding science, new technology, education (many good to excellent colleges and universities which will benefit, there, etc).

Plus, commodities have been bottoming. Stocks are at a critical point, but it is too soon to say they aren't looking for a bottom rather than making a further sharp spike down - which is still possible.

I don't want to say the coast is clear, plus some major unforseen event(s) could happen, geopolitically or whatever. Heck, we just had a close call from some asteroid plowing almost head on to the planet.

Plus, the world is looking to the US for leadership and this new administration does have a solid popularity during its first two months, along with a vision, all taken together seems to be supported by most Americans and most world leaders and populations. Sentiment is important at turning points in financial markets. Simply, that is the way they work, on human emotion - at critical points.

Comment on the Economy - "2004"

If you want one year, more critical than most, where deregulation went amuck, it was 2004, when Henry Paulson, then CEO of Goldman was the main pusher, with the SEC approving, regulations were eased allowing non-bank financial institutions to use leverage above 15:1 to as much as 30:1 or so. So, then these megabanks moved much of their lending to the investment divisions of their banks to issue less capitalized loans.

There are more details which made these banks undercapitalized even more, like being allowed to use their cash (or even borrow) to buy back stock, reducing their capitalization, etc. Mark to market is another factor, though that part I think is necessary, but in this perfect storm it may need to be adjusted.

And, letting Paulson dole out TARP funds, when he was a key guy behind this whole mess, was just asking for trouble.

Nationalization may be the only option, because TARP money has been used to get preferred stock of the banks in exchange. All that effected was to essentially increase the banks' debt load. We probably should have been getting equity in exchange for the TARP funds, not preferred stock. So, nationalization, temporarily, at least gives taxpayers equity which sometime will be worth more, when the banks are turned private, likely smaller and with a better regulatory environment.

Comment on The Economy - "The Window", update

1) When did the window open, the window being a time when assets (hence a form of money supply) depreciated to the point where the government actually should increase the money supply and/or debt to stimulate the economy, without risking serious currency weakness or serious inflation?

2) How long will the window be open?

Housing began to depreciate the beginning of 2006, unemployment began increasing in the beginning of 2007, the Dow started its decline in the middle/toward the end of 2007, and finally oil/commodities in the middle of 2008.

So, I calculate the approximate time when the window opened being the middle of 2008.

I would look for the first sign of the window closing being when unemployment starts decreasing. At that point housing prices probably would have stopped going down and begun increasing.

Obviously, there could be some unexpected event or series of events, particularly of a geo-political nature, which closes the window, but there is a window and it has been open for about half a year.

The bottom line is the window opened around the middle of 2008 and shows no immediate risk of closing, at least for a few more months, but likely longer.

Also, I would add that if it is a choice between the government increasing the money supply (by buying Treasury bonds, notes, etc - monetizing our debt or just printing money) versus issuing more Treasuries, there is such a global demand for Treasuries which has driven yields down so much that the US should be issuing debt rather than buying back debt. So, with this "window", right now, the global markets want US debt to flow through it.

Comment on the Economy - "The Window"

As this economic downturn continues, I think it is worth a comment about the recent, unexpected by most, dramatic drop in oil prices to as low as about $32/barrel, with other commodities also dropping significantly.

Plus, with the dramatic drop in RE prices and stock prices, much money, and debt, has been removed from circulation or debt burden or possible circulation or debt burden, in the near term. So, as the government is essentially printing money by the trllions of dollars in trying to stabilize the financial system, stimulate the economy, etc, we have been granted a "window" to allow the "printing of money and issuing debt" as long as it is wisely used - like for investment in our infrastructure, energy, education, healthcare, etc - things which will eventually return more than they cost plus create jobs as unemployment has been increasing significantly.

The stock market has already had about $7T vanish, and RE probably more if commercial RE is included. So, for now, the expansion of money and debt to the amount of even a few trillion dollars, I just don't see as inflationary or of imminent danger to our currency. Yes, we must also come up with a plan to begin paying down our budget deficits and the large national debt, but for now, we have a "window". Sure, some want to argue that asset values, like stock prices, home prices, etc aren't money because they aren't included in pure monetary statistics like M1, M2, etc, but that simply is not true.

Comment on Housing

There does seem to be a slowdown underway in the current housing boom. I suspect the slowdown is a precursor for worse things ahead for housing, and since housing is such a big part of our economy, would have a direct impact on our economy.

Generally speaking, such a scenario is not good for the stock market, but I stick with my approach of buying stocks in companies which are resistant to economic cycles, pay good dividends and have a history of raising them annually, the only caveat being to make sure one maintains a good reserve of cash to be able to add to such positions if bargains present themselves. Further, all my recommended stocks are financially strong, SLE being the least so, so I would monitor that one most closely.