Punch Drunk on Tax Funded Bailouts
Posted: March 23, 2009 Filed under: Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, Main Stream Media, president teleprompter jesus, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, Uncategorized | Tags: bailout, Change When?, Obama, SouthPark, TARP, Timothy Geithner 4 CommentsWhile the Right Wing is off having tea parties and screaming class war, there appears to be some legitimate soul searching going on in left Blogistan about our “punch drunk” POTUS and his continual campaign like appearances. A lot of the discussion is focused on his dogged support of Turbo Tax Timmy and his bailout of the Suckers who created this bad economy for the rest of us. We’ve been overwhelmed with “heckuva-job-Timmy moments and distasteful ‘gallows humor’. When is enough enough?
Meanwhile, those of us that can’t avoid our jobs by taking a permanent vacation in TVLand are watching the economy unwind in spasms of agony and ecstasy. The market, starved for specific plans and information, provided a big thumbs
up on a bail out program that at best reheats Dubya’s. If any one was punch drunk, it was the equity markets today. The leaders were the financials, of course, who will continue to provide profits to the market while writing their costs off to the taxpayer. If you were looking for the fresh cold breath of reality, it wasn’t on Wall Street or on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Lucidity, however, is on the rise in other places. I’m finding it in interesting places like the second episode of South Park where the lampoon on the Dark Knight included this little back ground gem; a satire of the famous Obama picutre with a deer-in-the-headlights appearing Obama and the change mantra tagged by a bright red WHEN?
My answer to the when question is probably never.
Most left wing angst appears to be directed at Tim Geithner since the Light Bringer is still too new to the job to blame. We continue to learn how involved both he and his staff at the NY Fed were in the AIG Bonuses. In fact, the Obama administration is trying to scuttle the Excise tax on the bonuses while verbally denouncing executive greed on TV. We’ve also found out that Citibank has managed to insert similar language to protect its executive bonuses. Let’s see how much change we get on that one too.
Not only are right wing shrills like Fox’s Sean Hannity calling for the head of Timmy Geithner but Progressive Diva Arianna Huffington front paged the call on HuffPo today. When Hannity and Huffington carry the same headline, it’s time for more than a few campaign appearances on Leno and 60 minutes. I’m not sure where all this shock and angst is coming from because it’s been rather obvious to some of us for some time that Obama represented rather narrow interests (not ours). How can every Obama supporter be calling the AIG Bailout a travesty while knowing that the architects and enablers of AIG are continuing the task with the Light Bringer’s blessings and attaboys? Well, Obama just mustn’t realize that it’s all Timmy’s fault and we need his head on a limited edition Obama inaugural platter. But, wait, isn’t Obama the one with that great judgement ? C’mon folks reconcile all this in your mental ledger. It really isn’t that hard.
The Endangered American Lifestyle
Posted: March 20, 2009 Filed under: Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, U.S. Economy | Tags: less consumerism, live smaller, lower consumer demand, recession and job less lower lifestyle in US, the new american lifestyle 9 Comments
This economy has clearly shown that the lifestyle of most middle and working class Americans is precarious. Many Americans now admit they could cover their bills for at best two months if the pink slip arrived in their paycheck. More and more people are dipping into their savings and credit to pay for food, gas, and day-to-day expenses if they are fortunate to have either.
A series of recent surveys checking the health of American households have found many of our neighbors are depressed and frightened about their financial status as the recession deepens and unemployment numbers worsen. It appears Americans are downsizing their lives, their expectations, and their idea of what it means to live the American Dream.
Market Watch reported today on a number of findings about the financial health of Americans and their preparedness in light of the poor job market. As things get worse, more and more Americans will find themselves falling behind in their bills and house payments. Households are adjusting their buying habits and trying to find ways to save money “just in case”.
This is flashing so bright red,” said Paul Ballew, senior vice president of Nationwide Insurance Co. “Roughly 60% of the population was ill-prepared (financially) before the meltdown.”
A MetLife study released last week found that 50% of Americans said they have only a one-month cushion — roughly two paychecks — or less before they would be unable to fully meet their financial obligations if they were to lose their jobs. More disturbing is that 28% said they could not make ends meet for longer than two weeks without their jobs.
And it’s not just low-income earners who would find themselves financially challenged. Twenty-nine percent of those making $100,000 or more a year said they would have trouble paying the bills after more than a month of unemployment.
Meanwhile, more than four in 10 respondents told pollsters in a recent Pew Research Center study that job-related issues were the nation’s most important economic problem.
Lower-income Americans have already started belt-tightening to feed their rainy day funds. One study has shown these income levels are now planning for vacations at home and have put off any major purchases. The same study
(by Pew) finds that upper middle income Americans are desperately re-arranging their retirement funds in hopes of preserving what capital remains after nearly six months of persistent market declines. Lower-income Americans have switched to plain label and generic brands while upper middle income Americans have quit dining out. American families continue to belt tighten where ever possible. What is new about this typical recession behavior is that this new found thrift appears to be a long run arrangement.
America’s Research Group found that nearly 57% of the consumers it polled said they would spend less this year while virtually no one plans to spend more.
But this is not just a one-year thing, according to consumers surveyed by BIGresearch. Nearly 91% said they see this crisis bearing down on their spending decisions — in effect, their lifestyles — over the next five years.
Fifty-five percent said they will think carefully before they make a purchase and 51% said they expect to be more price-conscious when buying clothing and food.
“American consumers are hunkered down, bracing for a depression,” said Britt Beemer, chief executive of America’s Research Group. “The dramatic drops in shopping levels have no match in our database in the last 30 years.”
The Big Ease
Posted: March 19, 2009 Filed under: Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, U.S. Economy | Tags: Fed Policy, FOMC, Helicopter Ben, monetary policy, quantitative easing 2 Comments
I’ve had a couple of request to talk about how the Fed creates money and what happens if it over expands the money supply so that’s the topic of this post. Yesterday, the monetary policy authority of the Fed, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announced an injection of $1 Trillion. It is doing so by buying back some long term bonds in a move that is called Open Market Operations. Basically, Open Market Operations work like this. If the Fed wants money out in the economy (to increase spending by businesses and consumers), it makes selling bonds back to it very appealing. Investors won’t want to hold bonds because they’re not providing a good return. They’ll look for other places to put their money like in vehicles that might be based more on lending like commercial bonds or mortgage-backed securities. Low interest rates should make it more like that people will want to borrow. Banks won’t invest in bonds because they are low yield compared to what they can get from borrowers. This is the gist expansive monetary policy. This is one of the classical tools of monetary policy and the most used in the Fed Tool box. It generally works through lowered interest rates which is something that can’t really happen now. The interesting thing about this move is that it is huge and announced. This isn’t the usual SOP.
Usually open market operations are done in a hush-hush, behind closed doors, James Bond kind of atmosphere so as not to give information to the market to offset the action. As I said earlier, deliberate policy announcement is one of the market-shaping policies that Chair Bernanke has opted for as a tool of policy since most interest rates are close to zero. They are pulling in long term bonds as a form of quantitative easing (changing the structure of the Fed balance sheet to impact the term structure of interest rates.) They want the long term mortgage rate to come down to encourage house buying from the public. They also want to encourage lenders to renegotiate outstanding home loans. The other portion of the announcement meant to shape investor behavior was the outlook statement which tends to give the markets a forward looking policy hint. Not only is the Fed doing this, they are actively asking the Treasury to print money to help them beef up the size of their balance sheet so it can be used for a variety of purposes.
Printing new money is just a straight forward increase in the Money Supply. The purpose is this. You give people more money and they will have more money to spend. The issue comes down to this, however. How much stuff is out there for us to buy? A lot of stuff? Not so much stuff? Since interest rates are low, we may not save, we may buy lots of stuff. However, if we’re scared, we may not spend anyway, we may just tuck the money away. How this works depends on the response of both businesses and households.
This is from the previously linked NY Times article.
In its announcement, the central bank said that the United States remained in a severe recession and listed its continuing woes, from job losses and lost housing wealth to falling exports as a result of the worldwide economic slowdown.
“In these circumstances, the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery and to preserve price stability,” the central bank said.
As expected, policy makers decided to keep the Fed’s benchmark interest rate on overnight loans in a range between zero and 0.25 percent.
But to the surprise of investors and analysts, the committee said it had decided to purchase an additional $750 billion worth of government-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities on top of the $500 billion that the Fed is already in the process of buying.
In addition, the Fed said it would buy up to $300 billion worth of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. That would tend to push down longer-term interest rates on all types of loans.
All these measures would come in addition to what has already been an unprecedented expansion of lending by the Fed. The central bank also said it would probably expand the scope of a new program to finance consumer and business lending, which gets under way this week.
In effect, the central bank has been lending money to a wider and wider array of borrowers, and it has financed that lending by using its authority to create new money at will.
Some Economist blogs are openly criticizing the FED’s move. This is because what we know about the causes of deep-rooted, nasty inflation. It is generally caused by too much money chasing too few goods. In other words, if the economy is not producing enough goods and services because of the recession and suddenly there is more money, the money will be used to buy goods and services. If the production does not catch up with the money, it will drive the average price of goods and services up and we will experience systemic inflation.
There are two situations right now that make inflation creation unlikely. The first is that since we are in a deep recession, we are seriously under capacity . This means we have many businesses that are basically ‘idle’. They do not carry enough stock, they are not fully employing labor, and they are operating with a lot of excess overhead. They could start up, un-idle the excess capacity, and increase their use of what they have now without creating much inflation. The only place that inflation might occur would be in the raw materials sector which would have to gear up to supply any increased demand by manufacturing, but right now people, equipment, and facilities are underused.
The other situation that makes it highly unlikely we experience inflation in the short run is the fact that we don’t have

Is the Fed forever blowing bubbles?
much in the way of inflation now. We also have deflation in many major sectors like housing.
However, the question of the day is this. Is Bernanke solving a recession created by one bubble (housing) that was created by trying to cope with another bubble (dot.coms)? This is where we separate the Keynesians from the Monetarists. You can get a feel for what the discussion is if you hit some of the major econ-related blogs. You can tell the monetarists. They’re calling the Chairman Helicopter Ben.
It’s a very weird, somewhat circular transaction, and it was last done in a big way during World War II. At the time the Fed wasn’t so much making monetary policy as doing its patriotic bit to finance the war (it was a de facto division of the Treasury Department at the time), but it worked on both counts: The deflationary tendencies of the 1930s were finally fully expunged from the economy, and we beat the bad guys. Later on, Milton Friedman described this kind of transaction as the functional equivalent of a “helicopter drop” of money, and after Ben Bernanke mentioned this in a speech in 2002 he became known as Helicopter Ben. Now he’s finally living up to the name.*
Will it work? In the sense of fending off deflation, yeah, this should have an impact. But the financial world and America’s position in it are more complicated than in the 1940s. We now owe lots of money to creditors outside the U.S., and when they see the Fed buying long-dated Treasuries they’re bound to start worrying about what that means for the dollar. If they get too worried, they could drive up interest rates here and counter the impact of the Fed’s purchases. So there are limits to the Fed’s magical powers, and they already began showing up in currency markets this afternoon, with the dollar falling sharply against the euro and other foreign currencies. The adventure continues.
Yes, it’s an AIG Thread. Discuss.
Posted: March 18, 2009 Filed under: Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, president teleprompter jesus, Team Obama, U.S. Economy | Tags: AIG bonuses, Geithner, Summers, timeline 3 CommentsThe peasantry appears ready to pick up the pitchforks and storm the castle over the AIG bonuses. So what sayeth the King’s men? What’s the word from our Regent’s best? Well, here’s the real bottom line according to the NY Times.
New York’s efforts against A.I.G. have overshadowed those of the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, the official who is responsible for the financial bailout, along with the Federal Reserve. The White House and Treasury have been besieged by questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the bonus payments due this month, and whether he could have done more to stop them, prompting White House officials to assert President Obama’s continued confidence in Mr. Geithner.
“He more than has the president’s complete confidence,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. As angry as the president is at the news about A.I.G., which he learned Thursday, Mr. Emanuel said, “his main priority is getting the financial system stabilized, and he believes this is a big distraction in that effort.”
It appears the henchman let slip something important. It’s all a ‘big distraction’. POTUS is so angry he can tell a joke. Meanwhile, more and more comes out concerning ‘what the President knew and when he knew it.” I have to say one thing, we got the time line for this immediately after the request came at yesterday’s press conference. Gibb’s may not be the most eloquent of Press Secretaries but when he promises missing information, he does deliver.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Ali Velshi are reporting that they reported on the bonuses back in January 28 so why the kerfuffle today? Also, who is going to be the Judas Goat for this one? FDL’s Jane Hamshear calls Dodd the ‘sin eater’ here and thinks the President is trying to protect Geithner. Jane puts together a time line that more aptly reflects the idea that the President had to hear about the bonuses way back when but didn’t really LISTEN until they became a problem.
Here’s Jane’s take on Dodd’s original provision (removed by Geithner and Summers) on executive pay.
Dodd’s version prohibited TARP recipients from paying out bonuses, retention awards or incentive compensation to the 25 most highly compensated employees. It also prohibited any employee of a company receiving TARP funds from making more than the President. Both provisions would have been in effect so long as a company was receiving TARP funds. Since AIG just paid out $1 million in bonuses to 73 employees, Dodd’s version limiting all employees to what the President made (roughly $500,000) would have substantially nipped that in the bud.
So, at this point we have to ask a question. Do we have a renegade Secretary of the Treasury in cahoots with the President’s personal Economics adviser or a President who probably knew what was going on and didn’t really care until the peasants made an issue of it? Now we have an issue with which congress critters of both parties can make hay. Geithner is going to testify before the House next week on March 24 and 26 according to the WSJ about the AIG bonuses. Meanwhile, AIG’s current CEO testified and plans to ask employees to return the bonuses. ( Pretty, Pretty please, give back at LEAST HALF).
AIG Chairman and Chief Executive Edward Liddy, appearing before a U.S. House subcommittee, said the company has asked employees at its financial-products division who received more than $100,000 to “step up” and return at least half the payments.
“We’ve heard the American people loudly and clearly these past few days,” Mr. Liddy said, claiming that some employees have already volunteered to give up their entire bonus.
He warned, however, that the request could backfire if the employees who received the retention bonuses decide to resign from the firm. “They will return it, but they will return it with their resignations,” Mr. Liddy said.
So after a good yammering, I mean hammering from congress, Liddy once again explains the role of the bonuses.
Mr. Liddy said that the “cold realities of competition” for customers and employees played a role in the firm’s decision to make the payments, which have spurred a public backlash given the roughly $170 billion the government has used to prop up the troubled insurer.
“Because of this, and because of certain legal obligations, AIG has recently made a set of compensation payments, some of which I find distasteful,” Mr. Liddy said.
Describing the financial-products division, Mr. Liddy called it an “internal hedge fund” that exposed the company to extreme market risk. The result, he said, was that “mistakes were made at AIG on a scale few could have ever imagined possible.”
“Those missteps have exacted a very high price, not only for AIG but for America’s taxpayers, the federal government’s finances and the economy as a whole,” said Mr. Liddy, who took over AIG as part of the government’s rescue of the firm in September.
It seems every one finds them distasteful. Even the president “coughed” and joked with “anger” after being properly motivated by his teleprompter. So once again, congress critters will draft legislation to control executive compensation at companies receiving TARP money. Barney (the congressman, not the dinosaur) wants the President as ‘de facto CEO’ of AIG to institute a lawsuit to get the funds back. But wait, they did do that during drafting of the stimulus package. Dodd edited it. Summers and Geithner removed it. What next?
Meanwhile, over at the FED they continue to try break up AIG into pieces. They also appear to be more the source of Wall Street attention that both the hearings and today’s Presidential work-avoidance trip to California. The market rallied on news of the latest from the FOMC. They’re letting loose the printing presses to ease credit. So evidently, while the peasantry revolt, the congressmen act revolting, and the President flies to give another speech and appear on Leno, the bankers are at play.
Let’s just grab some popcorn and discuss.
Toxic US Treasuries?
Posted: March 13, 2009 Filed under: Equity Markets, Global Financial Crisis, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, Uncategorized | Tags: China Debt, Current Account deficit, U.S. Treasuries 15 Comments
You know things are changing in the world when a country expresses “concern about the outlook for the U.S. and the safety of its Treasury bonds”. This would especially be true when that country is China and they are your biggest creditor. This is not the sort of thing one hears about industrialized nations, let alone the world’s largest single country economy. But there it is. The US is now considered a credit risk.
Analysts who watch the interest rates that the US must pay on its debt should have felt a little shiver yesterday. The Chinese government, the largest holder of Treasuries, expressed some doubt about the turnaround of the American economy and came a bit too close to stating that US paper might be becoming less attractive as the government borrowing to stimulate the economy and save financial institutions makes American debt a more risky investment.
According to the FT, the Chinese premier said, “We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little bit worried. I request the US to maintain its good credit, to honour its promises and to guarantee the safety of China’s assets.”
I posted at the end of January about the touch and go trade relationship between the US and China. We stimulate their economy by buying Chinese stuff. They enable us to do so by buying our debt. We don’t yell at them for restricting their capital flows, pegging their currency, or violating human rights and we get to spend a lot of money without raising taxes. Well, that was so last month. Today, China’s decided to publicly assert its ‘interests’. We have yet to respond. Is China expressing similar concerns already voiced by economists and the markets over the current handling of the US Economy by the Obama team? Quite possibly. This, from the previously cited WSJ article.
Mr. Wen said that China is also closely watching to see the effects of the policies taken by U.S. President Barack Obama aimed at returning the world’s largest economy to health. Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi was also in Washington this week to discuss how the two countries can cooperate on economic policy, among other issues.
A test of that cooperation is quickly approaching. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this week called on the Group of 20 – a gathering of the world’s largest developed and developing economies – to increase funding for the International Monetary Fund by up to $500 billion to help combat the financial crisis. Achieving that sum likely will depend on getting agreement from countries that hold large foreign exchange reserves, such as China and Saudi Arabia.
Ahead of a preparatory meeting of G-20 financial officials this weekend near London, Mr. Wen said pointedly that “increased funding for the IMF is not a question for just one country” but for all member nations. He also repeated China’s desire to see reforms to the IMF that give more clout to developing nations.
They’re ‘inkling’ that China deserves more international status and bargaining power. They also would like the international community–especially the US– to lay off any notion of a more free and open Tibet. I still find it intolerable that we’ve basically decided cheap Chinese manufactured goods are worth more than the religious and political freedom of native Tibetans. That is, however, the bargain that is on the table.
Mr. Wen used harsh language against the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, who accused the Chinese government this week of turning the Himalayan region into a “hell on earth.” He said talks between
Beijing and the Dalai Lama, which took place last year without making any progress, could only resume if the Dalai Lama is “sincere.”
Indeed, China does have a big stake in the U.S. economy and is the nation’s biggest creditor. It is always disconcerting when that creditor calls you at work and reminds you about the bill. Here’s the size of the problem reported by the NYT.
China should seek to “fend off risks” as it diversifies its $1.95 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves and will safeguard its own interests, Mr. Wen said. He said that the Chinese had invested $696 billion in United States Treasury bonds as of Dec. 31, an increase of 46 percent from a year ago.
The United States Treasury Master index from Merrill Lynch shows that the securities declined 0.5 percent last month, after falling 3.1 percent in January, the worst since April 2004, as President Barack Obama sells record amounts of debt to finance his $787 billion bailout. The dollar has dropped 17 percent against the yuan since China ended a fixed exchange rate in July 2005.
This definitely presents a challenge to the Obama administration. In order to forward the aggressive spending packages and tax cuts required for their agenda, the Chinese must continue buying US Treasuries. It was rumored that one of the messages brought to China by newly appointed SOS Hillary Clinton was the hope that China would continue its huge investment in Treasuries. The Chinese have now publicly stated that there will be a cost to those funds above and beyond the current interest rate.
Every time my students ask my what would happen if the Chinese suddenly dumped their supply of US Treasuries on the market, I say absolute chaos. Chaos here in the US and chaos throughout the world markets. I’ve also thought that an infinitesimally likely event. I’m not so sure about that now that we’ve had such a public announcement of our bad risk status. I’m also not sure if we’re being threatened with kneecapping, higher fees, or a mortgage on our soul.

Beijing and the Dalai Lama, which took place last year without making any progress, could only resume if the Dalai Lama is “sincere.”



Recent Comments